One thousand very confused Greenlanders
In order to register a political party in Greenland, one need the signatures of 1,000 voters. Quite a hurdle, given that the entire population of the island is 60,000 (My home borough musters a little less than six times that). Note that UKIP was fourth in 2005, with 600,000 votes, and would have had problems getting registered on a Greenlandic 1/60th of the population basis, as would the various nationalists and the parties of the extreme left.
Anyway, Nikoline Ziemer has succeeded in that endeavour and has set up the Sorlaat Partiiat in order to contest local elections next month. She says her party is 'libertarian-socialist'....
Yeah. Right.
Anyway, Nikoline Ziemer has succeeded in that endeavour and has set up the Sorlaat Partiiat in order to contest local elections next month. She says her party is 'libertarian-socialist'....
Yeah. Right.
Labels: Art of not 'getting' it, Greenland
This entry was posted
on Monday, March 17, 2008 at 4:31 pm.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
Given socialists arguably have prior claim to the term libertarianism I don't see why its so odd.
Also, within modern libertarianism there is plenty of scope for socialists.
Would you deny that Kevin Carson is a libertarian?
Socialism does not mean Marxism or state socialism, just as libertarian does not mean just the Libertarian Party or the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Libertarian socialism sounds like a euphemism for anarchism.
Tristan, there is scope for all sorts of finessing, but collectivists of all stripes have serious problems with certain economic acts between consenting adults. That rather limits their ability to be libertarian.
Considering mutualism is considered both socialist and libertarian and is individualist I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.
As a term, there are also two meanings of libertarian socialism. One is the use of the term predating modern libertarianism. I would agree that to most in the UK or US this would not be libertarian.
The other is the left wing, anti-capitalist individualist philosophies which are based upon voluntary action. Those I would argue are libertarian. They may have faulty reasoning or make assumptions that you or I might disagree with, but they are definitely libertarian.
I suppose this is a game of definitions so is ultimately pointless, but just because someone describes themselves as socialist I don't see that as reason to doubt their libertarianism. The proof will be in policies and philosophy...
» Post a Comment