Libertarians and the Iraq War

I’m not a libertarian but I really liked this post over at the Cato at Liberty blog.  Gene Healy raises an interesting question.

Is libertarianism really a political philosophy that tells you what to think about mandatory recycling and restrictions on the interstate shipment of wine, but has virtually nothing of interest to say about when it might be morally permissible to use daisy cutters and thermobaric bombs?

I’m not really sure what the answer is, to be honest.  I have a slightly more than passing familiarity with libertarianism and I sympathize with the notion that individuals should have as much autonomy as possible, but only if it is socially responsible. 

I don’t see government as an extension of our families and therefore I think it should stay out of family business. 

But I do think that the collective will of persons should be reflected to a large extent in their government, especially when it comes to protecting an individual’s autonomy. 

What does this have to do with Iraq?  I suppose that depends on what we’re doing there.  Is it to protect our people?  I think that claim hardly has any credibility anymore.  Is it to open markets for our corporate/oil interests?  I don’t consider corporations to be persons, legal fictions be damned, so it is inappropriate for our government to be serving those interests. 

I’ve thought a little bit about this and I really cannot come up with the libertarian rationale for the war. 

Anyway, check out the link.  Definitely good stuff there. 

Feminism and Libertarianism – Elyzabethe strikes back!!

All in all, an excellent post about the issues surrounding the public perceptions of feminism and libertarianism.  I agree that there is a heavy cross-section of libertarianism and feminist interests. 

But having said that, even though what Elyzabethe says makes sense rationally, I have noticed that men who are libertarians haven’t always made the best feminists.  Since my experience is anecdotal and not based on research, take it for what it’s worth, which is admittedly not a lot. 

My issue with libertarianism, intellectually, is I feel it is inconsistent with a strong commitment to the commons.  But I agree with every point Elyzabethe raises, about keeping laws off our bodies, out of our bedrooms, and religion out of government. 

So, to a certain extent, I’m a libertarian when it comes to the government’s reach into our personal lives or when it affects our ability to make personal choices. 

But I’m not a corporate libertarian.  I believe in regulation by a balance of market AND government forces.  My understanding of corporations, which is not extensive, is that unchecked they grow and by their sheer size, economic power, and need to compete eventually limit individual choices. 

Many of the people I meet who self-identify as libertarians talk about taxes and government expenses and the gouging of wealth and the evils of regulation.  As if being forced to pay taxes is the moral equivalence of being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.  These self-identified libertarians are not as interested in the social consequences of unfettered economic freedom. 

I like Elyzabethe’s view of libertarianism and feminism.  I like how they complement each other. 

As far as the negative stereotypes of feminists… it seems weird to blame someone for how their opponents have defined them.  Why should Rush Limbaugh’s definition for feminists be the starting point?