It's been 3 and 1/2 years since I posted I Am a Progressive Libertarian, which received some 60+ comments, most in 2009 and 2010, most by people who argued that I wasn't really a libertarian, which I maintained I really was. The gist of my position is we need (a) less or no government in regulation of communication, technology, etc., and strict enforcement of Constitutional provisions of government's capacity to wage war, collect data on citizens, etc., (b) more government involvement in providing health care (I see protection from microbial parasites or disease as akin to protection from human invaders), and (c) payment for necessary government by taxing the super-rich (as a goal, no taxes from any person or business earning less than $1,000,000 per year, greatly increased taxes for all people and corporations earning more than that per year).
How does that position play in our Occupy Wall Street age?
1. The resurgence of direct democracy that is the mainspring of Occupy Wall Street is a straight-up staple of any libertarian philosophy. Direct democracy intrinsically reduces government by replacing representatives of the people (in Congress, in state houses, and in city halls) with the people themselves as decision-makers. See Occupy Wall Street, Direct Democracy, Social Media for more. The failure of Congress to reach an agreement on budgetary issues this year is further evidence of the decline of representative democracy. Referenda to recall or remove elected government officials, calls for a Constitutional Convention, and General Assemblies at Occupy sites are expressions of this new direct democracy. Note that The Tea Party, which often presents itself as a conservative libertarian movement, is explicitly focused on electing representatives, meaning that, unlike Occupy Wall Street, The Tea Party is not pursuing direct democracy (though both movements arise from a common refusal to accept business-as-usual from current officials and representatives in government).
2. Police brutality against protesters in Occupy Wall Street sites across America is precisely the kind of government trampling of communication - and abrogation of First Amendment rights to peaceably assembly - that the progressive libertarian seeks to prevent, restrain, punish, and stop. Similarly, the obstruction of the press from covering the Occupy Wall Street eviction in New York by Mayor Michael "I Have an Army" Bloomberg is an outright violation of the freedom of press provision of the First Amendment. The failure of President Obama to condemn all of these violations in the U.S., and of Governor Jerry Brown to do the same in California, is yet another example of the exhaustion of representative democracy in our digital/street age.
3. The 99% vs. 1% focus of Occupy Wall Street is exactly what I have in mind with the goal of no taxes for any person or business earning under a million dollars per year, and sharp increases in taxes for all earnings above one million dollars per year. Bank of America's decision to rescind its plan to charge $5 a month for use of debit cards is a small but first explicit victory of the 99% over the 1%.
In sum, the progressive libertarian approach is not a call for yet another political party. It is, rather, a philosophy, a perspective, which I see as consonant with Occupy Wall Street and hope will ring a bell with those seeking less government in our political lives and more government responsiveness to our human needs, financed by the super-wealthy. As a citizen, I intend to continue to shine an uncompromising light on the government's escalating violation of our First Amendment rights.
See also I Am a Progressive Libertarian and The Occupy Wall Street Chronicles, Part 1
-Paul Levinson, PhD
Professor of Communication and Media Studies
Fordham University
How does that position play in our Occupy Wall Street age?
1. The resurgence of direct democracy that is the mainspring of Occupy Wall Street is a straight-up staple of any libertarian philosophy. Direct democracy intrinsically reduces government by replacing representatives of the people (in Congress, in state houses, and in city halls) with the people themselves as decision-makers. See Occupy Wall Street, Direct Democracy, Social Media for more. The failure of Congress to reach an agreement on budgetary issues this year is further evidence of the decline of representative democracy. Referenda to recall or remove elected government officials, calls for a Constitutional Convention, and General Assemblies at Occupy sites are expressions of this new direct democracy. Note that The Tea Party, which often presents itself as a conservative libertarian movement, is explicitly focused on electing representatives, meaning that, unlike Occupy Wall Street, The Tea Party is not pursuing direct democracy (though both movements arise from a common refusal to accept business-as-usual from current officials and representatives in government).
2. Police brutality against protesters in Occupy Wall Street sites across America is precisely the kind of government trampling of communication - and abrogation of First Amendment rights to peaceably assembly - that the progressive libertarian seeks to prevent, restrain, punish, and stop. Similarly, the obstruction of the press from covering the Occupy Wall Street eviction in New York by Mayor Michael "I Have an Army" Bloomberg is an outright violation of the freedom of press provision of the First Amendment. The failure of President Obama to condemn all of these violations in the U.S., and of Governor Jerry Brown to do the same in California, is yet another example of the exhaustion of representative democracy in our digital/street age.
3. The 99% vs. 1% focus of Occupy Wall Street is exactly what I have in mind with the goal of no taxes for any person or business earning under a million dollars per year, and sharp increases in taxes for all earnings above one million dollars per year. Bank of America's decision to rescind its plan to charge $5 a month for use of debit cards is a small but first explicit victory of the 99% over the 1%.
In sum, the progressive libertarian approach is not a call for yet another political party. It is, rather, a philosophy, a perspective, which I see as consonant with Occupy Wall Street and hope will ring a bell with those seeking less government in our political lives and more government responsiveness to our human needs, financed by the super-wealthy. As a citizen, I intend to continue to shine an uncompromising light on the government's escalating violation of our First Amendment rights.
See also I Am a Progressive Libertarian and The Occupy Wall Street Chronicles, Part 1
-Paul Levinson, PhD
Professor of Communication and Media Studies
Fordham University
4 comments:
clap clap clap clap
Hooray for you Paul. It is time to reassert government "of the people, by the people and for the people!"
Too long has money and industry ran this world.
What you think about,you bring about.What WE think about,
WE can bring about!!
Let's put our MINDS together
Hi there.
Like you, I have been endeavoring to present my own political ideologies and political philosophies through blogging. Again, like you, I identify as a libertarian, and I am intrigued by this concept of Progressive Libertarianism. I believe that at the core of libertarian ideology is individualism, and I respect your right to identify as a libertarian if your moral code and political ideologies align with this core tenant.
However, in my own estimation, your conception of taxing the super wealthy and only the super wealthy is a contradiction of the core principles of Libertarianism.
At the same time, I can imagine and conceptualize how you have arrived at your logical position, being under the assumption that you believe that the super wealthy have not earned their wealth through fair means, but through exploitive politics which are not in the spirit of capitalistic enterprise. And should I endeavor to deny that laws which have led to unfair advantages for a select few is unfounded, I would be speaking against my own reason.
However, I do not find this to be a sufficient reason on which to form a system of taxation that targets one class of people, regardless of how much wealth they possess in abundance. I think, instead, we ought to examine the laws and regulations that could be potentially exploited and seek to create a more equitable playing field (a free market capitalism) on which every independent actor operates with the same advantages as the next.
I would find it amusing and stimulating to discuss these ideas further and to discover the differences and similarities in our ideological thinking.
If you wish to take a look at my own works so far in the field of political philosophy, I would invite you to check out my own blog The Existential Libertarian, and would likewise invite you to provide any criticism on any points I make that you take issue of so that all can hear the myriad of rational ideas offered up for their own independent judgment.
https://existential-libertarian.blogspot.com/?m=1
Thanks for the very thoughtful comment. I very much welcome discussion with you, and in the weeks ahead I'll respond to your comment here, and read your Existential Libertarian blog. (I'm somewhat deluged at the moment, finishing up an online Summer Session course "Digital Media and Public Responsibility" and about to start another this evening.)
Hi again Astuertz -- I still haven't had a chance to read through your blog, but let me address the central point you make in your comment here.
You say it's unfair to treat one group of people -- in this case, the very rich -- differently from the rest of the people, in this case, by taxing only the super-rich. But, how then, would you propose that the government get money for essential services (assuming you believe that there are services that are appropriately provided by the government). Taxing everyone at the same rate would result in the poor paying a very small amount of money (which would be of little help to funding essential governmental services) but would nonetheless result in a loss of disposable income to the poor that they can ill afford.
Post a Comment