1. The left-libertarian, unlike the Marxist, believes it to be the responsibility of the individual to take ownership for that which he himself creates. Likewise, it is the domain of the individual to produce that which he sells. Therefore, the left-libertarian ought to co-opt the growing desktop manufacturing movement and endorse and promote it (through such projects as Fab@home and RepRap), in order to liberate the individual man from consignment to the current, rotting industrial-capitalist order. This movement is the seed that will one day germinate into the New Post-Industrial Economy, as opposed to the ideological swill we have been force-fed every day for the last thirty years. Only a genuinely de-centralized economy can pull us through this crisis. And by relocating the means of production in the individual home, the stress inflicted upon the environment by industrial production will be massively reduced, conserving the existing oil supplies for the transition.
I don't think a post-industrial economy is really viable until we get things like nano-Technology fully off the drawing board. Granted we could easily cut down on a lot of the useless meetings and bureaucracy we have now by encouraging telecommuting, home business, etc. to a much greater extent than we do now. But in the long term we're pretty much forced to have some kind of hierarchy.
I agree to a large extent. I think right now, inc. The focus of government infrastructure spending should really be building high speed public transportation (bullet trains) and improving a lot of our pipes and water treatment centers. In general we need to move past the car centered society we have now. As I've said before, there are many, many things in our society that are fundamentally unsustainable and this is one of them.
I don't see how this offers more accountability even if we could implement it. Certainly Blackwater and the private prisons scandals we've had in this country should show the possibilities for abuse.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Disagree. Besides the reality that there are essentially no family farms, this would just needlessly increase risk for farmers. I could see eliminating or cutting existing subsidies (though food price increases concern me) but not this.
I don't see any point to this.
It depends on what you mean by this. If you're referring to maintaining present levels of legal immigration, I am a bit uneasy given how much of that is unskilled. If you mean opening the flood gates, absolutely not.
I'm unsure as to the validity of Roe, but I think it would be disastrous for society if we repealed it. As it stands abortion is de-facto illegal in many areas thanks to zoning ordinances.
I think this would be preferable to the current system, but really I don't care much either way as long as 'gay' couples are treated the same as 'straight' couples in similar circumstances.
