Reply to Hittman
Someone said: yes i am one too, but also a socialist since i think it is only reasonable that we should redistribute wealth for fairness for all. how a freethinker sec hum person couldnt agree is beyong me.
Hittman said: Because you are advocating the use of force at the point of a gun to take away someone’s property. How a freethinking person could think that was fair, right, or just is beyond me.
Barry: I do not know what “Someone” meant, but socialism is not “the use of force at the point of a gun.” That may have been Soviet or Maoist Communism ... It certainly was totalitarianism ... But it was not socialism.
Socialism can include the New Deal and social democracy as in Scandinavia and other parts of Europe, etc. Socialism IS big government, but it could be a big kindly and benign government like in Norway and not the corrupt sort of Socialism we saw in Russia or China.
Still, I think socialism will not work because the inherent problem with big government is that it CAN become so corrupted. I advocate for Libertarian-Socialism.
Someone said: I have been amazed that Libertarians, for example, can consider themselves Humanist, but some do.
Hittman: Libertarians are all about the worth of the individual, rational thought, and freedom. What could be more humanistic than that?
Barry: I agree with Hittman’s definition of Libertarianism ... but it seems Hittman is a Right-Libertarian (unregulated capitalism), or at best, a Free-Market, non-capitalist Libertarian.
Instead, the sort of Libertarianism that matches Hittman’s above definition with humanism is Left-Libertarianism… Sometimes called Libertarian-Socialism or Anarchism.
Hittman: The (American) experiment is failing because we’ve moved so far from capitalism. When Humongous Inc. is writing policies and laws that favor their industry (and sometimes their specific company) that’s the opposite of capitalism. Real capitalism embraces real competition and distains government involvement. Our current government weasels are wholly owned subsidiaries of various industries and special interest groups. That’s not a representative republic, nor is it capitalism.
Barry: Hittman is right that the capitalism we have now is more akin to fascism than capitalism’s origins, and this is terrible. But I think corporate capitalism is bound to come from capitalism when you have a state. Still, I think Hittman is mixing up capitalism with the “Free Market,” and this is not right. You can have a free market system without capitalism (corporate or otherwise), such is a Free Market system without profit as in Anarcho-Capitalism or Free Market Anarchism.
Someone Said: In fact, things such as free-market capitalism (especially post-Industrial Revolution), religious/moral absolutism and imperialism are doctrines that the majority of our founding fathers would have abhorred.
Hittman said: You’re right about absolutism and imperialism, but where do you get the idea that they’d have abhorred capitalism? Most of them were entrepreneurs. Please back up this claim.
Barry: I think Stephen Bronner (author of Reclaiming the Enlightenment) said it best on my radio program when he said - and I am paraphrasing here - that capitalism was born after the times of the American Founders, and that the trajectory of the Enlightenment would lead us to Social Democracy (the 1970s version of Sweden) today and not Libertarian, Corporate or Crony Capitalism.
Hittman: The political compass marked me as
Economic Left/Right: +2.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.97.
Barry: Hittman hit right where I thought he would…. a Libertarian with Right-wing economic tendencies… A mix of Randism, Freedmanism with perhaps a little classical liberalism tossed in to keep him away from the far right. Hardly where I would plug in humanism. I’d say Hittman was an atheist, but not a humanist.
I retook the test (I do every so often to see if I am changing as I learn more about politics, etc), and my results were:
Economic Left/Right: -8.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.97