Showing posts with label Libertäres. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libertäres. Show all posts

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Und gleich noch eine Kulturrevolution in Amerika

die der wie immer staatstragenden Süddeutschen Zeitung so gar nicht geheuer ist, wenn der Kongreßabgeordnete Ron Paul dem staatlichen Geldfälschertum des Zentralbankunwesens zu Leibe rücken will.




"Mit seiner Forderung nach einer Konkurrenz für den Dollar orientiert sich
Paul an dem liberalen österreichischen Ökonomen und Nobelpreisträger Friedrich A. v. Hayek (1899-1992). Hayek hatte die Denationalisierung des Geldes als Teil einer freien Marktordnung vorgeschlagen. Die österreichische Schule der Nationalökonomie, und zwar in ihrer extremen Ausprägung, spielt eine große Rolle unter den Aktivisten der konservativen Tea-Party-Bewegung."





Warum Ron Paul mit seiner Forderung nach Abschaffung der zentralen Planwirtschaft in der Geldproduktion und nach einer Wiedereinführung eines Goldstandards - also von echtem Geld statt papierenem Schein-Geld! - vollkommen richtig liegt, kann man hier und hier nachlesen! Schluß mit dem staatlich legalisierten Kaufkraftdiebstahl!

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Mein Körper gehört mir!

Liberalismus-Lektion: "self ownership", erklärt von Adrian auf GayWest:


"Niemand hat ein Recht, mir vorzuschreiben, was ich mit meinem Körper zu tun oder zu lassen habe. Ob ich mit einem Mann oder einer Frau ins Bett gehe; ob ich mir meinen Hintern mit Dildos, Schwänzen oder Fäusten wienern lasse; ob ich mich für Sex bezahlen lasse oder nicht; ob ich Drogen nehme, saufe, rauche, oder an Klebstoff schnüffele; ob ich kiloweise Fleisch verschlinge oder mich rein vegan ernähre – all das ist meine Sache und nur meine Sache.

Ihr braucht nicht gut zu finden, was ich tue; ihr müsst dem nicht zustimmen; ihr dürft mir raten, das was ich tue, nicht zu tun; ihr dürft mich überzeugen, das es besser wäre, dies und das nicht zu tun; ihr dürft sagen, dass ich mich falsch oder unmoralisch verhalte; ihr dürft mich meiden; ihr dürft mich Spinner, Freak, “pervers” oder “krank” nennen… – aber ihr habt ganz gewiss nicht das Recht, mir den Gebrauch meines Körpers zu verbieten, oder mich zu zwingen, ihn anders zu gebrauchen.

Denn ich gehöre euch ebenso wenig, wie ihr mir gehört."

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

Gesellschaftspolitisch amputierter Libertarismus ist zum Scheitern verurteilt

Der Herausgeber der notorisch homosexuellenfeindlichen Rechtspostille "eigentümlich frei", André F. Lichtschlag, gibt uns mal wieder eine Kostprobe seines klein-klein-kleinstbürgerlichen Weltbildes:

"Als wenn es in Zeiten, in denen die letzten Produktiven aus dem sterbenden Mittelstand mental wie wirtschaftlich zu Staatssklaven degenerieren, keine wichtigeren Fragen gäbe als Drogenlegalisierung oder Homoehe."

Einer seiner Leser gibt ihm darauf die richtige Antwort:

"Warum sollte man die Teile der produktiven Mittelschicht, die gelegentlich zu illegalen Drogen greifen und/oder homosexuell sind, ohne Not verprellen? Und seit wann ist es libertär, für andere zu entscheiden, was für sie am wichtigsten ist?
Ein politischer Libertarismus, der über die Köpfe der Menschen hinweg Prioritäten setzt und Teile seiner eigenen Lehre verleugnet, nur weil er meint, sich den freiheitsfeindlichen Vorbehalten bestimmter Kreise anbiedern zu müssen, ist von vorneherein zum Scheitern verurteilt. Und das ist auch gut so."

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

The Difference between a Morality of Joy and a Morality of Misery

Via Live, Love and Liberty (linkslibertäres Blog):


The Morality of Misery: Death to Anti-Gay Bigotry


You can tell the difference between two different senses of life by looking at what imagery evokes moral horror in people who hold one of the two. This point was violently driven home to me by the backlash to the California Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage.


Who was celebrating? Not the social conservatives. In fact, the specter of gay couples with government issued marriage licenses, and the benefits that come with them motivated social conservatives to put the question to the vote. These miscreants rushed to acquire the signatures necessary to put the proposal that the California constitution be amended to stipulate that marriage is only between a man and a woman on the November ballot.


And this tells me a lot about their sense of life. It tells me that they prefer misery to joy when their god demands it. It tells me that they cannot truly understand the joy of liberty, because their entire perspective on the world is motivated by fear and obedience to a conservative god.


How can a person who believes the good is achieved via obedience understand the beauty of romantic love outside of narrowly circumscribed limits?


They just can’t do it very easily.


Every time you hear somebody preach about the “evil” of government recognized same sex marriage, you should watch this video.


And be reminded that what you’re watching is what they say is immoral.


Contrast this spirit with that of the couples enjoying their romance and marriage in the video.


It’s the difference between a morality of joy and a morality of misery.



Liberales Fazit: "If you don’t believe in same-sex marriage, then don’t marry somebody of the same sex." (Wanda Sykes).

Konservative Kriege


Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Was heißt eigentlich "Faschismus"?

Eine Begriffsbestimmung aus entschieden liberaler Sicht findet sich in der Ökonomischen Enzyklopädie der "Library of Economics and Liberty":



Fascism

by Sheldon Richman

The best example of a fascist economy is the regime of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Holding that liberalism (by which he meant freedom and free markets) had "reached the end of its historical function," Mussolini wrote: "To Fascism the world is not this material world, as it appears on the surface, where Man is an individual separated from all others and left to himself.... Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual."

This collectivism is captured in the word fascism, which comes from the Latin fasces, meaning a bundle of rods with an axe in it. In economics, fascism was seen as a third way between laissez-faire capitalism and communism. Fascist thought acknowledged the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity—provided that they did not conflict with the interests of the state.

Fascism in Italy grew out of two other movements: syndicalism and nationalism. The syndicalists believed that economic life should be governed by groups representing the workers in various industries and crafts. The nationalists, angered by Italy's treatment after World War I, combined the idea of class struggle with that of national struggle. Italy was a proletarian nation, they said, and to win a greater share of the world's wealth, all of Italy's classes must unite. Mussolini was a syndicalist who turned nationalist during World War I.

From 1922 to 1925, Mussolini's regime pursued a laissez-faire economic policy under the liberal finance minister Alberto De Stefani. De Stefani reduced taxes, regulations, and trade restrictions and allowed businesses to compete with one another. But his opposition to protectionism and business subsidies alienated some industrial leaders, and De Stefani was eventually forced to resign. After Mussolini consolidated his dictatorship in 1925, Italy entered a new phase. Mussolini, like many leaders at this time, believed that economies did not operate constructively without supervision by the government. Foreshadowing events in Nazi Germany, and to some extent in New Deal America, Mussolini began a program of massive deficit spending, public works, and eventually, militarism.

Mussolini's fascism took another step at this time with the advent of the Corporative State, a supposedly pragmatic arrangement under which economic decisions were made by councils composed of workers and employers who represented trades and industries. By this device the presumed economic rivalry between employers and employees was to be resolved, preventing the class struggle from undermining the national struggle. In the Corporative State, for example, strikes would be illegal and labor disputes would be mediated by a state agency.

Theoretically, the fascist economy was to be guided by a complex network of employer, worker, and jointly run organizations representing crafts and industries at the local, provincial, and national levels. At the summit of this network was the National Council of Corporations. But although syndicalism and corporativism had a place in fascist ideology and were critical to building a consensus in support of the regime, the council did little to steer the economy. The real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (Istituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, or IRI), mediating among interest groups.

Beginning in 1929, in preparation for achieving the "glories" of war, the Italian government used protectionist measures to turn the economy toward autarchy, or economic self-sufficiency. The autarchic policies were intensified in the following years because of both the depression and the economic sanctions that other countries imposed on Italy after it invaded Ethiopia. Mussolini decreed that government bureaus must buy only Italian products, and he increased tariffs on all imports in 1931. The sanctions following the invasion of Ethiopia spurred Italy in 1935 to increase tariffs again, stiffen import quotas, and toughen its embargo on industrial goods.

Mussolini also eliminated the ability of business to make independent decisions: the government controlled all prices and wages, and firms in any industry could be forced into a cartel when the majority voted for it. The well-connected heads of big business had a hand in making policy, but most smaller businessmen were effectively turned into state employees contending with corrupt bureaucracies. They acquiesced, hoping that the restrictions would be temporary. Land being fundamental to the nation, the fascist state regimented agriculture even more fully, dictating crops, breaking up farms, and threatening expropriation to enforce its commands.

Banking also came under extraordinary control. As Italy's industrial and banking system sank under the weight of depression and regulation, and as unemployment rose, the government set up public works programs and took control over decisions about building and expanding factories. The government created the Istituto Mobiliare in 1931 to control credit, and the IRI later acquired all shares held by banks in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises.

The image of a strong leader taking direct charge of an economy during hard times fascinated observers abroad. Italy was one of the places that Franklin Roosevelt looked to for ideas in 1933. Roosevelt's National Recovery Act (NRA) attempted to cartelize the American economy just as Mussolini had cartelized Italy's. Under the NRA Roosevelt established industry-wide boards with the power to set and enforce prices, wages, and other terms of employment, production, and distribution for all companies in an industry. Through the Agricultural Adjustment Act the government exercised similar control over farmers. Interestingly, Mussolini viewed Roosevelt's New Deal as "boldly... interventionist in the field of economics." Hitler's nazism also shared many features with Italian fascism, including the syndicalist front. Nazism, too, featured complete government control of industry, agriculture, finance, and investment.

As World War II approached, the signs of fascism's failure in Italy were palpable: per capita private consumption had dropped to below 1929 levels, and Italian industrial production between 1929 and 1939 had increased by only 15 percent, lower than the rates for other Western European countries. Labor productivity was low and production costs were uncompetitive. The fault lay in the shift of economic decision-making from entrepreneurs to government bureaucrats, and in the allocation of resources by decree rather than by free markets. Mussolini designed his system to cater to the needs of the state, not of consumers. In the end, it served neither.

About the Author
Sheldon Richman is the editor of Ideas on Liberty and is a senior fellow with the Future of Freedom Foundation. He is a lecturer and author of articles on the New Deal era, American foreign policy, and international trade.

Further Reading

Basch, Ernst. The Fascist: His State and His Mind. 1937.

Flynn, John T. As We Go Marching. 1944. Reprint. 1973.

Laqueur, Walter, ed. Fascism: A Reader's Guide. 1978.

Mussolini, Benito. Fascism: Doctrine and Institutions. 1935. Reprint. 1968.

Pitigliani, Fauto. The Italian Corporative State. 1934.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Neues libertäres Projekt

Die Nachfrage nach einem kompromißlos liberalen Printmedium, aber ohne regelmäßige Nazometer-Ausschläge ist offenbar in den letzten Wochen starkt angestiegen. Nun haben sich einige ehemalige ef-Autoren und -Leser zusammengefunden, um etwas Neues aus der Taufe zu heben. Der-Markt.com, wie der Arbeitstitel zunächst heißen soll, verspricht die Lücke zu schließen, die seit der Zeit klafft, da man andernorts "Hoppe-Hoppe-Reiter" spielt.

Sollten die Erfinder mit ihrer Idee Erfolg haben, gäbe es auch im deutschsprachigen Raum wieder etwas jenseits von steriler Parteipresse und angebräuntem lunatic fringe. Zeit wird's!

Der-Markt.com ist übrigens kein "closed shop" - neue Autoren mit frischen Ideen, klugen Gedanken und einer lockeren Schreibe sind immer willkommen!

Friday, July 20, 2007

Gay Rights - aus authentisch libertärer Perspektive

Da in jüngster Zeit gewisse eigentümlich homophobe Entgleisungen, die unter falscher Flagge segelnde Rechtskonservative zu verantworten hatten, erhebliche Irritationen hervorgerufen haben, ist es aus schwulliberaler Sicht außerordentlich begrüßenswert, dass eine Broschüre aus den 70er Jahren, die der libertäre Historiker Ralph Raico für die Libertarian Party verfasst hat, nun wieder neu aufgelegt wurde: Gay Rights - A Libertarian Approach.

Viel Freude beim Vermehren der gewonnenen Einsichten!