Bikerdad. Hmm. I'm going to pull a page from your own book.
Your lack of understanding and knowledge in this area is Staggering!!!
RP's wistful solicitation of the Greens is, ultimately, incredibly irrational. The Greens operate from a fundamentally different philosophical base, one that is diametrically opposed to that which underpins libertarianism. The Greens are for all practical purposes a party of nature worshippers. Their platforms are not based on any form of rationalism, but rather on faith, emotion and faux rationalism. Their conception of nature is semi-holistic, systemically deterministic, and has very little room in it for individuals.
I'm so glad Daddy's told us the truth! To think, I've been so stupid and wrong all this time!
I consider myself a libertarian socialist. I find them to be compatible. Sorry if you don't, but oh well.
Your mean-spirited attack on the Greens is equally irrational.
The Greens are for all practical purposes a party of nature worshippers.
Their platforms are not based on any form of rationalism, but rather on faith, emotion and faux rationalism.
Their conception of nature is semi-holistic, systemically deterministic, and has very little room in it for individuals.
If private property is the ultimate trump in rights, what happens to the person who owns no property? Is liberty only predicated on the owning of property? When the framers of the Declaration of Independence were writing, they were indeed referring to the rights of only the land-owing elite. Thankfully, most of us have evolved some sense of human rights which transcends the elitism of such thought.
The right to own land is not inalienable; it is only available to the wealthy. There can be no natural right of property ownership, when the earth existed before us, and will continue when we are gone. The "right" to live in a certain place was always created through coercive violence. Yet some Libertarians choose to ignore this, and decide that it is private property which will triumph over coercion. Land where Native Americans lived, who gave king George the right to own it? To cede it to the various landed gentry who came to "own" it? Violence, my friend, violence and coercion.
I'm not suggesting we do away with private property; that's a bit unrealistic. But I admit it gets my goat to hear people defend the "right" of private property, when they are arguing (supposedly) AGAINST the idea of coercion - without acknowledging the gentrified and elitist debt they owe to all the more ruthless landowners of past ages, who secured said property at the blade of a sword, or at the barrel of a gun.
You need to ask yourself some deeper questions. But gosh, your command of all the big vocabulary words sure makes you sound good!
I'm not with the thrust of this thread, however; not entirely. I would see it from almost the opposite side - it is the libertarians who need to wake up and be brought into the Greens camp. In spite of bikerdad's hyperbole, as well-spoken as it is, in all the time I've been out in streets (sometimes figuratively
) working for change, getting active about human rights, I've met a whole lot of Greens who were dedicated to the true proposition that all are created equally, and deserve an equal opportunity in this world; I've seen precious few Libertarians fighting for the ideals of liberty (at least for anyone other than themselves).