Heroes of Freedom
Reason Magazine has a list of the 35 greatest heroes of freedom. Here it is, abbreviated: John Ashcroft, Jeff Bezos, Norman Borlaug, Stewart Brand, William Burroughs, Curt Flood, Larry Flynt, Milton Friedman, Barry Goldwater, F.A. Hayek, Brian Lamb, Vaclav Havel, Robert Heinlein, Jane Jacobs, Alfred Kahn, Rose Wilder Lane, Madonna, Nelson Mandela, Martina Navratilova, Willie Nelson, Richard Nixon, Les Paul, Ron Paul, Ayn Rand, Dennis Rodman, Louis Rossetto, Julian Simon, Thomas Szasz, Margaret Thatcher, Clarence Thomas, the Tiananmen Square martyr, Ted Turner, Evan Williams, the Yuppie, Phil Zimmerman.
Talking about Norman Borlaug, I recently found this great biography of the man. He is a true hero of freedom.
8 comments:
You don't really take seriously magazines that think Ashcroft is a hero of freedom do you?
Since Reason Magazine said it, and it's the #1 libertarian magazine in the world, yes.
Um, Delta. Just read the fucking link. Seriously. There just might be a reason the creator of The Patriot Act is on the list. Maybe you might even find out.
Oh okay, sorry, just checked it out. I would have clicked on the link earlier but some of the positions that are frequently taken on this blog seem to be very anti-libertarian, so it didn't seem out of place enough for me to check.
Anti-libertarian? What are you talking about buddy? What position have I ever taken that was anti-libertarian?!
Well, despite the fact that I believe libertarianism is incompatible with capitalism (which I addressed in another post which hasn't been approved yet), I think there are other cases where you take a point of view that severely limits freedom.
One of these would be your opposition to Net Neutrality ('Net Socialism' as you call it). The State's existence is surely bad, but I don't think the best path for progress is to simply refuse all state interaction altogether, because some state action is beneficial (at least if other segments of society are imposed on by the State). Net neutrality is a free speech issue, and free speech is a very fundamental and important right, especially for those who want a stateless future.
I know you believe in the whole "free market" works type of thing, so you say you're not worried about the nonexistence of net neutrality. But you've also admitted before that states interfere with the market, and thus support artificial monopolies. My point is is that if you reject government intervention then the outcome is worse unless you reject it all (of course, I don't believe that most monopolies are maintained by the government, but I'm trying to address this to your POV).
"Well, despite the fact that I believe libertarianism is incompatible with capitalism"
If you mean State Capitalism or Corporatism, I agree absolutely. If you mean Capitalism as voluntary trade, you are dead wrong, and 99% of libertarian materials will gladly disprove your claim.
"One of these would be your opposition to Net Neutrality ('Net Socialism' as you call it). The State's existence is surely bad, but I don't think the best path for progress is to simply refuse all state interaction altogether, because some state action is beneficial"
Interference with voluntary choice cannot be beneficial.
"Net neutrality is a free speech issue"
No it's not. It's a corporate struggle for power - Internet companies vs telecom companies. There is no free speech issue involved on either side.
"of course, I don't believe that most monopolies are maintained by the government"
What a ridiculous claim. Can you back this up at all, or are you just spouting crap at this point?
I am starting to get tired of you, to be honest. This is a Market Anarchist blog. I'm not going to argue basic economy or basic morality with you.
I am starting to get tired of you, to be honest
Fine, I'm never really completely satisfied with my arguments until you say this anyway =)
This is a Market Anarchist blog
And it's important to moderate dissenting opinions. It's not like you haven't changed your mind on an issue before.
Post a Comment