Essay talk:Libertarianism as a Word and the Corruption of Language

Perhaps some would call it a pet peeve, but I find the social mis-appropriation and mis-use of words themselves, cultural signs as Baudrillard would call them, to be a certain form of social decay. I would emphasize that this peeve is itself quite subjective, but I hope in this essay to convey an important point to fellow rationalist, secularists, and free-thinkers: that language itself is worth fighting over, to the point it's the reason it is the First Amendment's point to protect the right to bear a pen, and names weapons only in a secondary point.

As a key point of this issue, perhaps let us contemplate the term Libertarian and the absolute mis-appropriation of a traditionally Leftist term by the Right Wing. In the novel 1984, Winston is party to a lackey in the staff of the NewSpeak dictionary at the worker cafeteria. The point is to re-codify basic terms so that the party nomenclature can prevent the language of dissent from creeping in. In my own personal financial and economic circumstances, as well as thousands of others from a college or university class from Spring 2009, just after the economic crash, the Obama Change has yet to come to me, but I do have some Hope about my new ObamaCare privileges that are forthcoming. However, the Tea Party encouraged my own participation in Occupy as an on-hand First Aid person to give both moral and minor First Responder-level care, including band-aids. As such, my own views were in part one of disillusionment but also hope for real change. When Bank of America lowered it's fees due to a massive account closure drive spurred by Occupy Wall Street, Bernie Sanders took the floor of the Senate and said 'Good job, Americans, you have gotten their attention'.

But I also encountered what was the most obvious manifestation of cognitive dissonance yet experienced by this writer: two absolutely politically polar opposite parties fighting to control the 'message' of Occupy, with some Marxists thrown in for moral conscience. There were the Anarchist Libertarians, who follow the Chomsky/Malatesta/Makhno model of self-government, and there were the Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarians. One group framed images of Emma Goldman, Voline, and Alexander Berkman, and the other made ikons of Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and Ludwig von Mises. Both claimed to be the 'true' Libertarians. On the one hand, the local Anarchists had built in Occupy a lending library of pamphlets, old books, and magazines about building autonomous communities that are green and self-sufficient. On the other side, Ron Paul campaigners peddled woo economics and anti-Federal Reserve snuff pornography that reeked of last century's anti-Semitism, truly mean Russian pogrom-type slurs about the Jews masked in a cartoonish action-adventure story about the gold standard.

In the end, the Libertarians and the Anarchists were at odds with each other ideologically, and their political debates only revealed extremities in both groups. I wish to dissect this instance according to anthropological standards, as proscribed by David Graeber, so to explicate a serious issue of linguistic and ideological intrigue which will bear results in our own government processes regarding social welfare and infrastructure programs, including abortion rights and low-income housing, schools and the things that are taught, even the right of a minimum wage and unionization. To use such language almost makes this essay seem rooted in the Old Left of the 1930's, a by-gone era when Stalin was not regarded by the public as a monster but rather potentially as an ally against the Japanese. If it seems that I am advocating for a specific line of ideology because of verbiage or quotation, my hope is the Reader will be rather shocked as to it's implication, rather than the identity of the quoted speaker.

Libertarian Program
First, I will try to honestly discern the Libertarian Program, despite the fact that Objectivists have dissented with 'pure' Libertarians and on and on and on like any other partisan political movement. Perhaps the obvious point is to realize is that, because the history of this program roughly coincides with the history of Bolshevik Russia, it is reactionary in nature to State Leninist policies. Ayn Rand's father had his pharmacy collectivized, and this perhaps is the source of all her bitterness, as well as the basic original coordinate of the germ that is the modern Libertarian Program. Absolutist in nature, Rand's original circle of adulation only produced one notable financial powerhouse, who, in the words of Matt Taibbi, absolutely destroyed the world economy on purpose because he was an Objectivist and therefore opposed financial regulations, even if they were regulations against traders using the market to score quick cash for hookers and cocaine. The key to the evolution of the Libertarian Platform was hard capital, donated by a combination of think tanks like Cato Institute, oligarchs like the Koch family, foot soldiers from various militia and nationalist groups going back to the John Birch Society, and, as with all evolution, time. With the election of Rand Paul and the serious contention Ron Paul put forward in the 2009 GOP primaries, it would seem that a moment of clarity has arrived. The GOP platform from the 2012 Convention proved it: it was littered with odd-ball ideas copped out of the Libertarian Party, including a call to Congressionally investigate the feasibility of returning to the gold standard. Now that Mitt Romney has proven the Evangelical vote is simply unreliable (many voted for a third party because of the Mormon issue, perhaps solidifying in the eyes of the GOP how absolutely insane this voting bloc is), the Republicans are divided into a camp of extremely-old Reagan Revolutionaries and the new kids on the block, Tea Partiers. Congresswoman Michelle Bachman has proven, along with Congressman Ted Cruz, that it is unlikely anyone is actually cognizant of reality in the Grand Old Party, leaving an advantageous wedge for Rand Paul to jump into. And because he plays such swell ballad of woo for his supporters, it pretty evident he aims to position himself as a sort of evil twin of Ted Kennedy, utilizing a false populism to prolong is presence in Washington, as his father did, while waiting as the wings as, of all people, George W. Bush seems like the calm rational voice of reason, evincing the coming death knell of the Reagan Revolution era of the GOP.

The GOP adoption of the Libertarian position, therefore, is still a plastic evolution in progress, but the recent GOP platform and nomination of Rage Against the Machine's biggest fan further evinces this trend. What is so alarming is the haunting implications this could have on public policy, should the GOP figure out a decent campaign strategy. Absolutist logic in opposition to publicly-held trust and infrastructure, refusal to acknowledge the social and economic plight of the modern labor force, combined with an anti-Semitic economic view which only works in an extremely xenophobic reality.

The following are modified definitions, but perhaps they fit Libertarianism more than would be expected.
 * Anti-capitalist, but with capitalist features;
 * Economic demand management...
 * ...through budget deficits
 * Direct economic planning, reconciled with partial economic autonomy through corporatism;
 * Militarism and imperialism;
 * Suspension of rule of law.
 * Suspension of rule of law.

=
The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence...ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. =====

The first quote is from a 1944 book by John T. Flynn, an anti-New Deal journalist. The second is from FDR himself. What is intriguing is that these definitions perfectly align with the utopia of Libertarian Capitalism. Because of the obvious anti-Semitic connotations, there is obviously some sort of disclaimer warranted in accusing Ayn Rand, who was a Russian Jew, of being anti-Semitic. But this is merely a word game to divert from that anti-Semitism was just the logical outcome of German fascism; by contrast, the racism of Mussolini was directed towards Africa, and Italian Fascist Jews were prominent authors at the time of the March on Rome. Fascism itself is merely un-bridled capitalism, not held to laws of basic morality, which actualizes the surplus-value that the Fascist Party extorts and uses to supplicate itself. It is actualized in practice by slave labor and the murder of workers who are not worth keeping alive. The Nation-State is the Glorified Actualization of Fascism, with a pure race obedient to a religious order centered on the Nation-State.

Libertarianism itself is nationalistic, in blatant cases where the militia movement actualizes itself at migrant worker passage points on the US border. The so-called Minute Men and Oath Keepers exemplify this instance, as does their cross-pollination with John Birchers and neo-Nazi groups. Furthermore, the existence of farm subsidies for companies like Monsanto prove the inherent lack of true credibility to grant anyone who claims to be a libertarian capitalist: a Libertarian politician has yet to seriously try to break the stranglehold by these super-monopolies and trusts, as Teddy Roosevelt did a century ago.

If we logically confront this trend, the obvious question begins to form: what is the paradigm on which we should work now?

Re-Assertion of Libertarian Identity as Anti-Capitalist
The obvious step is to begin with a thorough-going exhibition of Anarchist Libertarianism. The ethos of any philosophy are diverse and unique, but the general outlines are much more productive than the false narration presented by Libertarian Capitalists. Websistes like the Anarchist Library provide such a