Sunday, April 12, 2009

So That's Why!

It has always amused and bemused me that, as an anarcho-capitalist who is quite content to let other people decide which consenting adult(s) they will marry, what drugs or herbs they will ingest and what contracts they will enter into, I am frequently accused by Left-leaning bloggers and commenters of being a "wingnut," a Republican (often prefaced by "Bible-thumping," making me one of the very few agnostics who does, were it true).

Now I know why: Rasmussen poll finds 30% of self-identified Democrats prefer socialism. Meanwhile, the Republicans overwhelmingly favor capitalism. (In fairness, a whopping 39% of Democrats think Adam Smith had it right, too). So now I know: to a certain subset of yammerheads, anyone who has determined that capitalism the the fairest and best economic system (and hey, it's the only one that doesn't have to be imposed from the top down) simply must be a Republican and one of the very purest quill.

...Rasmussen didn't include a glossary with their survey. In December 2008, a different poll found that, "70% of U.S. voters say a free market is better than one managed by the government." As Mahatma Ghandi said of Western Civilization, "I think it would be a very good idea." Maybe we otta try it.

...As for my politics and the various and sundry attempts of Our Masters In Washington to Make It All Better, Ghandi has a thought about that as well:
Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.
Freedom includes the freedom to try things that might not work out; freedom includes the freedom to pursue happiness -- but does not promise you will ever catch it.


Ed Rasimus said...

Regarding the Rasmussen poll, my question when I read the news item was whether the folks questioned had the vaguest clue what the terms "socialism" and "capitalism" meant. I sadly conclude from my daily encounters that they don't.

og said...

Ghandi wasn't all that bright all the time either; imagine an American trying to convince other americans to lay down their arms or he would stop eating.

The freedom to try something and fail is fine, so long as your failure doesn't endanger others. Pacifists tend to fall under the knife first, and the road to hell is paved with their bodies. Once upon a time, people were ashamed of themselves when they steamrolled their pacifist opponents. The world doesn't have that kind of empathy now.

I've been accused-politically- of a bunch of things. All of them have been wrong. I don't care.

Your heart is in the right place. Anyone don't like it, tell 'em to piss up a rope.

Borepatch said...

It's class warfare. Socialism appeals to the educated class, because they think that they'll be running things.

Given how things have almost always been set up under actual socialist regimes, this faith is touching.

You're right about why they call you a wingnut - you're in their way.

stranger said...

Most of the anarcho-capitalists I know are much less concerned about who marries what than they are about the state forcing someone to perform a rite they consider blasphemous.

That's the same problem many of us have with forcing doctors who have moral objections to perform abortions.

The most likely result will be a sudden shortage of preachers and doctors.

Og, an Indian (Hindi)friend and I have had some quite long discussions of Ghandi. He was very much on the pro side, albeit not to the extent we are.

As the saying goes, "If you think you can trust government, ask an Indian." And it does not matter whether it is an Indian whose people have been oppressed by the Raj - or by Custer.


og said...

Mohandis K was also an (occasionally) strident socialist. And again, his methods would never work today, certainly not among Americans.

Roberta X said...

Socialist or not, I've long had a certain admiration for a guy who got things done either by goin' and doing them -- or by shaming folks into doing them. Also he had a fairly astringent wit.

Politically, even a blind sow finds an occasional acorn. As an aphorist, the man was gifted.

og said...

No question. But he was also certifiable. Doesn't make him less admirable. A lot of fine folks out there who are certifiable. On the whole he did a lot of good. Had he lived much longer he might have upset that balance. Hell,I give most people credit where credit is due.

I have worked very hard my whole life NOT to have any beliefs. I base the way I live on the way things are. SOmetimes I don't see the way things are as clearly as others, but I try very hard not to be so blinded by a "belief" system as to be capable of ignoring a new truth that comes my way. So when someone says to me 'I'm a strident (socialist, anarchist, communist, republican, chicken sexer, riddler) whatever, my immediate thought is "Idiot". I'm not often wrong.