peterr@utcsrgv.UUCP (Peter Rowley) (09/14/84)
First, a clarification: I did indeed mean to refer to "libertarians" in
my subject line, not just members of the various parties that call themselves
Libertarian. It *is* interesting, tho, if members of such parties do tend
to be, well, erratic, as Brad Templeton implied.
On "libertarians out in space": Space doesn't, I'm afraid, hold a lot of
fascination for an unemployed worker seeking a job. Perhaps in the past
one could have "gone west" to homestead a farm, starting with minimal
resources, but to compare this with "going up" is pretty ridiculous. The
environment is *so* hostile, and will remain so, that a lot of resources
are needed simply to survive. Certainly, I think we should explore space;
we may even meet some life forms that will show us how to get along better.
Because even when we are "out in space" :-), we will have to get along with
each other.
On setting goals: perhaps we set so many common goals that they are like
air-- we forget we are breathing it all the time. *Every* job I've had
has been based in an extensive system of cooperative arrangements. Often,
currency is an important part of the system of cooperation, but that doesn't
make it any less cooperative. And, of course, political goals are set at
the municipal, provincial, and federal levels all the time. As for recent
federal governments not having goals, perhaps you remember the Canada Health
Act, which sought to provide accessible health care to all Canadians? Or
the Canada Act, which sought to enshrine basic rights for all Canadians
(arrived at by a lengthy period of debate and compromise)? Goals *are* set
by compromise *all the time*. There simply are so many tasks that require
the efforts of more than one person that setting common goals is necessary.
On psychosis: "fundamental mental derangement (as paranoia) characterized
by defective or lost contact with reality"; I fundamentally believe that the
refusal to acknowledge limits to our resources and the consequent strong
network of dependences and institutions for compromise is a defective
contact with reality (this is the sense in which I used the word, not the
more colloquial "wielding an axe and causing havoc at random"!).
But the main point of the article was that the role of libertarianism with
which I'm sympathetic, that of countering authoritarian tendencies, is
better handled by philosophical anarchism (thus, libertarianism is left
without much reason for existence). There have been a few perjorative
mentions of "anarchy" on the net which are quite unfair. Anarchism is the
victim of a superb propaganda war waged early in this century which associated
it with nihilism: annihilate all government ror government-like structures and
don't put anything in their place. There is violent thought within anarchism
("propaganda by deed"), but it is a *very* small part of anarchist literature.
A better representation is given by the following quote:
"... anarchism is not a fixed, self-enclosed social system but rather a
definite trend in the historic development of mankind, which, in contrast
with the intellectual guardianship of all clerical and governmental
institutions, strives for the free unhindered unfolding of all the
individual and social forces in life. Even freedom is only a relative,
not an absolute concept, since it tends constantly to become broader and
to affect wider circles in more manifold ways. For the anarchist, freedom
is not an abstract philosophical concept, but the vital concrete possibility
for every human being to bring to full development all the powers,
capacities, and talents with which nature has endowed him, and turn them to
social account. The less this natural development of man is influenced by
ecclesiastical or political guardianship, the more efficient and
harmonious will human personality become, the more will it become the
measure of the intellectual culture of the society in which it has grown"
(Rudolf Rocker, quoted in "Anarchism" by Daniel Guerin, Monthly Review
Press, New York, 1970 (transl. from French by Mary Klopper), pg. vii)
(It is interesting to note that this quote shows a system of thought on
which feminism can be based; indeed Emma Goldman, a famous anarchist, was
a very early feminist.)
Note that no-one claims that anarchism holds *the* answer, but it does
contribute a very valuable point of view. In this way, it is more mature
than libertarianism, which, judging by postings, claims to have all the
answers.
p. rowley, U. Toronto