Libertarians: Anarchists Who Hate Poor People

Libertarians are an interesting bunch of people. They are so far as I'm concerned Anarcho-Capitalists. People who value freedom of in all aspects including commerce. Now there's nothing wrong in and of itself of embracing freedom if commerce. It is the embracing of capitalism as the means of commerce that leads me to ponder there motivations.

Capitalism has two major opponents. Anarchism and Communism (For this article socialists and other such are included under communism as they are in fact simply lesser forms.). The traditional communist opposition to capitalism is that it is the means to oppression. Also commonly referred to as wage slavery, it seeks to keep the power in the hands of an elite few while the majority works long hours with low pay to support that power. Therefore communists see the down fall of capitalism as the means to liberation of the working class. Note that communists however do not want to do away with a monetary system or private property. They say that once the majority controls the commerce then they will be liberated.

The anarchist argument that I most hear differs signifigantly. There argument says that capatilsm commodifies life and humanity. For instance in our present system if you steal a car worth $25,000 and go to jail for 5 years the state has valued your life at $5,000 a year. Other instances of commodifcation include having to pay for food, shelter, and health care. Your life has a clear value to those who control the means of producing necessaties of life. Sexuality is commidified through strip clubs, pornography, and in a less explicit way, the gender dating norms that suggest payment for love and sex through dinners, gifts and trips to the movies. So many anarchists say that once capatilism is torn down it will liberate the people by seperating commerce from the value of a human life (or in some cases animal lives depending on the personal beliefs of any given anarchist).

So this brings us to libertarians. According to a handful of interviews I read regarding there beliefs taken from this week's TIME(r) magazine, they would like to see zero goverment interferece in there lives EXCEPT for protecting private proprty. Here is where the complication comes into play. Many of the them are anti-union, anti-socialized healthcare, etc. While this makes sense to a point it ignores some prime features of an ideal society. Unions are not goverment control. They are bodies made up of workers who seek to bettert here working conditiond and salaries. Even in a society without money unions would be needed to ensure that workers were working in a safe and fair envoirment. Opposing socialized healthcare is borderline. While this indeed does not fit in to the anarchist perspective of freedom in the long run many feel that we should be taking care of each other within the system in the meantime. Finnaly we come to protecting private property. This is the beating heart of capatilism. If I'm starving and you have more food then you need why should I not take some? In theory you should be willing to share, especially since I probably have a skill that you could use in return for the food. Libertarians, however, are not intrested in sharing. They seem to think that a system where everyone fends for themselves is ideal. Yet they must see that even in small collective societies where they feed and cloth and shelter each other they are in fact practicing a form of communism.

I feel a lot of these problems of varying opinions (which often leads to fierce emotions) are due to a lack of undertstandingi n each other. I wonder how many people would oppose the ideals of communism and anarchism if they were only given different names? If they were phrased a little differently, and therefore untainted by the propoganda that has opposed them for over a century. Propoganda that proetcts the ruling class. If I told you that you could have all the food you need, a free place to live that was comfertable, free healthcare until the day you died, and even a variety if luxieries to keep you occupied and all you had to do was work in a job that you were good at, I doubt that you would say no. If instead I said "How would like to be an anarcho-communist?" You would probably say no. It's the words that are poison these days, not the ideals behind them.

I reach my hand out to libertarians in hopes that they will see that we work towards a common goal in the end. People don't need a leader to guide them. We are smart enough, capable enough to guide ourselves. The day will come when the masses see that a capatilist government cares more about money and power then they do about them. Otherwise there would be no prisons. There would be less crime after all if no one needed to steal. There would be less violence if the culture didn't insist upon it. And anyone who was having issues that may lead to violence would be helped rather then ignored until the straw broke and then thrown to the wolves. This is not takign away individual responsibilty. On the contrary, this is forcing it. If you can help someone and in doing so prevent them or someone else from getting hurt then why shouldn't you? Becauset hey can't pay your fees? Because they can't buy your overpriced medication?

We the people have the power to form a society that loves rather then hates. That helps rather then hurts. The pieces are all there. We all have one piece and the puzzle can not be put together until everyone sees the picture.

Disclaimer: This is not a call for revolution or any kind of violent uprising, act, etc. The author abhors violence in all forms and seeks change through education not terrorism or other such ill-conceived notions of guerralism that only hurts rather then helps in the long run. "You can't blow up a social relationship" We can not oppose violence by the goverment and commit it ourselves. So please don't think that violence will solve any problems here. It just won't. Thank you.