Re: [ox-en] Capitalism, GNU Oekonux
- From: Russell McOrmond <russell flora.ca>
- Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 22:36:32 -0500 (EST)
On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Graham Seaman wrote:
Is this a difference between Canadian and US libertarians? or are those
people really anarchists? or just idiots? ;-)
I can only speculate based on the use of language that I've observed.
It sounds like what you were describing is more like what Anarchists speak
of.
I have yet to meet anyone who self-identifies with the title
'libertarian' that doesn't have a strong sense of 'law and order' toward
some specific set of laws. We all support having police forces and
prosecution of crimes, but the left-vs-right libertarians strongly
disagree on what laws should be strongly enforced, and what laws repealed
(or minimized/clarified/etc).
There appears to be a big difference between Canadian and US concept of
libertarianism, which may be because the USA has a "Libertarian" party
which tries to lay claim to the terminology while Canada does not. From my
reading, the USA Libertarian party is a right-libertarian party. The
closest thing to a left-libertarian party in the USA is the US Green
Party.
Nader was the US Green Party presidential candidate, and his views on
Open Source software, and competition policy (Anti-Trust in the USA) are
quite well known. He started the "Appraising Microsoft" events.
I was previously a member of the Canadian Green Party until I realized
that not all Green Parties in all countries have the same political basis.
Anyway, I'm kind of curious why a libertarian like yourself bothers to
hang out in a mailing-list dominated by people with marxist or similar
backgrounds (don't get me wrong - I'm glad you do, I'd much rather have
some variety than end up in a traditional far-left
monopoly-of-the-truth-proclaiming sect!)
While I often see conflicts in language, I don't see as many conflicts
in actual policy development with most of the people here. I may
self-identify as a free market capitalist, left-libertarian, or a whole
bunch of other terms -- but I also don't ignore what others say because
they self-identify with other labels.
I have always found the ideas expressed here quite interesting, and only
wish I had more time to read things with more depth.
I am also facinated by how language often divides people when we
normally think of it as a way to more easily express ideas. I first
started questioning language during my involvement against international
investment policy (IE: the Multilateral Agreement on Investment --- I am
host and one-time active participant in a forum that still exists at
http://mai.flora.org ).
Like the discussions around 'anti-capitalism', the discussions in this
forum often centered around such as 'anti-globalization'.
While shared a disagreement with what I came to call "neo-Classical
Economic Globalization", I am a supporter of other forms of globalization.
I believe it is quite legitimate to oppose the "washington consensus", the
Bretton Woods institutions, and most of the policy administered under the
WTO -- and still be a capitalist supporting specific forms of
globalization.
I believe that some things should (or must) happen at a global level to
work (environmental policy, multinational security/justice, basic human
rights protection), and other things should (or must) happen at a local
level (economic/cultural policies, etc).
I wrote about this recently in a submission to the Canadian Department
of Justice and their so-called "Lawful Access" consultation. My comments
on the ICC and ICJ may be of interest to this forum as well.
http://www.flora.ca/lawful-access2002.phtml
---
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Any 'hardware assist' for communications, whether it be eye-glasses,
VCR's, or personal computers, must be under the control of the citizen
and not a third party. -- http://www.flora.ca/russell/
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/