Part of the tragedy of the "libertarian" hijacking lies in the (often self-attributed) oversimplified sense of opposition to a horizontal tool (e.g. redistributionist approach). The libertarians I hung out with when I still was able to call myself that were never for or against any tool. The tool was supposed to be chosen based on whether it was the right one for the task. One of the benefits of hanging out with 6σ outliers was that, in order to corral a large enough group to get anything done, you had to _work_ to find and facilitate commonalities (build collections of commonses(?)). That practical problem helped one decide which tool was right for which task. The fundamental problem with the new Libertarians is that they don't think differently enough to have any idea when redistribution might be the right tool and when it might be the wrong tool. They just ham-handedly object to the tool, itself.
Of course, this is nothing more than an anti-essentialist (or anti-idealist) argument. The answer to every question is always "It depends." On 11/04/2016 01:51 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
I found the article from the Dalai Lama in the NYT today fairly plausible explanation of why we have the current problem. But, I would say, no, there will be no brotherhood with the Bundy's. The redistributionist approach (that Brooks -- libertarian -- objects to elsewhere) arises in order to give the possibility of free enterprise, not to preserve it for those that haven't realized they've simply failed to be sufficiently enterprising.
-- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
