Granted, you're correct. But starting with the "you don't know" is not exactly a good foundation for exchange of ideas, and I'm frankly fucking tired of it. Why would you think -- from any of my other remarks -- that I have any attachment to rich entitled Libertarians, or rich entitled Republicans, or rich Zionist Democrats posing as social warriors. All equivalent fecal matter to me. I'm a biologist with 45 yrs of immunology expertise. So ---if I tell you that in my informed opinion based on fundamental cellular biology that RFK Jr. was largely correct about mRNA COVID vaccines, does that mean I support his Zionist horseshit? Of course not. Likewise, if my close Libertarian friend back east and I agree that the Bill of Rights is sacrosanct, I also disagree strongly with her opinion on the US military and several other issues; and I tell her so. I see far too much desire in this forum and elsewhere to put people into singular labeled categories from which they're not allowed to cross-opine with other philosophical/political thought streams. Sorry, just not where I am. And in the face of a declining empire that's pressuring all of us bigtime, I think finding avenues of commonality of resistance is probably necessary. Because resistance to any standard pabulum emerging from a lying corrupt moribund institution is, at this juncture, a critical necessity. Again, if that makes me seem inconsistent, I apologize. But that really is a value judgment on the part of an observer if one really thinks about it.
I never really did, but perhaps you're prescient because I do sometimes think of myself as a "left libertarian." Meaning roughly, I'm, a free-speech and bodily autonomy absolutist --sacrosanct Bill of Rights; and an anti-war anti-imperialism absolutist, but an anti-Capitalist on domestic issues, favoring Richard Wolff's model of employee ownership of businesses. And because of big money corruption and this illusory label "public-private partnership" (Mussolini's Fascism re-labeled for palatability), I'm unsure how much "nanny government is really desirable (in the classic democratic socialist sense). But since I also agree with Yanis Varoufakis that Capitalism is giving way to what he's labeled TechnoFeudalism (worthwhile book), my views in that arena are evolving (never too old to modify our synapses). Sorry for the long answer.
I have considered myself an anarchist for about 40 years. As far as I am concerned, anarchy involves tight organization from the bottom up. It is a dream right now. I don't think there is a strict template for anarchy. The main ideas are justice and freedom for all. There are various ideas about how it could work. It is not that people who consider themselves anarchists don't want anyone telling them how to live, it is that people need to be included in making decisions and not in the way that we do now with voting that gives us no say at all. One idea I have heard is that there should be limits on how long any one group can be in a primary decision making position. If you are interested in anarchy, you would do better to read about it rather than just accepting heresay.
you don't know what anarchy is. Anarchy actually means government but from the bottom up. The rich, entitled libertarians would have to go.
Granted, you're correct. But starting with the "you don't know" is not exactly a good foundation for exchange of ideas, and I'm frankly fucking tired of it. Why would you think -- from any of my other remarks -- that I have any attachment to rich entitled Libertarians, or rich entitled Republicans, or rich Zionist Democrats posing as social warriors. All equivalent fecal matter to me. I'm a biologist with 45 yrs of immunology expertise. So ---if I tell you that in my informed opinion based on fundamental cellular biology that RFK Jr. was largely correct about mRNA COVID vaccines, does that mean I support his Zionist horseshit? Of course not. Likewise, if my close Libertarian friend back east and I agree that the Bill of Rights is sacrosanct, I also disagree strongly with her opinion on the US military and several other issues; and I tell her so. I see far too much desire in this forum and elsewhere to put people into singular labeled categories from which they're not allowed to cross-opine with other philosophical/political thought streams. Sorry, just not where I am. And in the face of a declining empire that's pressuring all of us bigtime, I think finding avenues of commonality of resistance is probably necessary. Because resistance to any standard pabulum emerging from a lying corrupt moribund institution is, at this juncture, a critical necessity. Again, if that makes me seem inconsistent, I apologize. But that really is a value judgment on the part of an observer if one really thinks about it.
what is it that inspired you to call yourself a libertarian?
I never really did, but perhaps you're prescient because I do sometimes think of myself as a "left libertarian." Meaning roughly, I'm, a free-speech and bodily autonomy absolutist --sacrosanct Bill of Rights; and an anti-war anti-imperialism absolutist, but an anti-Capitalist on domestic issues, favoring Richard Wolff's model of employee ownership of businesses. And because of big money corruption and this illusory label "public-private partnership" (Mussolini's Fascism re-labeled for palatability), I'm unsure how much "nanny government is really desirable (in the classic democratic socialist sense). But since I also agree with Yanis Varoufakis that Capitalism is giving way to what he's labeled TechnoFeudalism (worthwhile book), my views in that arena are evolving (never too old to modify our synapses). Sorry for the long answer.
I have considered myself an anarchist for about 40 years. As far as I am concerned, anarchy involves tight organization from the bottom up. It is a dream right now. I don't think there is a strict template for anarchy. The main ideas are justice and freedom for all. There are various ideas about how it could work. It is not that people who consider themselves anarchists don't want anyone telling them how to live, it is that people need to be included in making decisions and not in the way that we do now with voting that gives us no say at all. One idea I have heard is that there should be limits on how long any one group can be in a primary decision making position. If you are interested in anarchy, you would do better to read about it rather than just accepting heresay.