This post is inspired by the response to a my speech on one of the blogs I frequent usually, caused in turn by the now famous event febbraio.Due of 13 points were raised. One thing is libertarianism, the other its link with the '68. Regarding the first point, I just citations my old post on the subject, while the second point I will, although this will take me to shoot in the first issue.
The '68 was a lot of things. There was even "Serve the People" (Maoist organization for those who do not know, because they are too young), even where the organization will dictate whom to marry (see we is not joking ...), but the wing out "winner "was the libertarian, represented primarily by Lotta Continua, and the inspiration of feminism, but I would say the major events of Clerks of the seventies. My opinion is that soon the political-economic aspect was defeated, certainly since the eighties, while the social aspect and costume survived, and to some extent still is today.
The coincidence of private and political slogan was certainly a very strong in '68, but it was a slogan ultimately ambiguous. As long as the policy was in short hegemonic behavior militants had also involve our most intimate attitudes, and was therefore the need to dictate our policy in private. As the Topic Marxist and running off for reasons too complex to address here, remained the idea of \u200b\u200bdoing politics with our private, that was a reversal in the relationship between political and private sectors.
E 'at this point that, from another slogan of '68, the one that said "we are right", that subjectivity took over: if we are correct, then any individual should speak spontaneous attitude . In short, we fully climate of the Enlightenment, the belief that man is a rational animal and free, and you have to do is to free it from strings and snares that inhibit the full expression. The result is therefore not to include the private sector must be between the public interest, but instead build an audience as free deployment of individuality.
The question that arises then is what these individuals. And 'here comes the question of the anthropological field, with the liberalism that is based on a model to which freedom is an innate human endowment, and it is threatened by the society in which they live. From this arises the theory of the minimal state, then the need to inhibit the invasiveness of established power. Libertarianism is basically part of this theory, which she shares these assumptions, even if it gets further in economic field.
This theory is deeply rooted in our minds, is a real ideology, so as not to be denied even by the daily evidence that shows an opposite situation, namely, that each of us is dialectically inserted in the culture in which we live and necessarily share. So, how individuals express a point of view is not really independent, but re-echo with a certain amount of autonomy that intrude from the outside. To give an obvious example, nobody would spend astonishing figures for advertising, if it was not certain of obtaining a benefit in terms of conditioning behavior, in this case in the field of consumption, the recipients of such advertising.
This also applies in the field of ethics. Denying the existence of a collective dimension of morality, means closing their eyes to reality, thinking that the only influence on individual behavior should focus on the crimes, that is what the law condemns, is meaningless. In a previous post, I said jokingly "free fart in a free state" to mean just as what is considered socially reprehensible is much larger than what is prosecuted.
For this, I believe that libertarianism is wrong, because I believe that indiscriminate exaltation of individuality end up coinciding with the conformism more sinister, because the message is not automatically blocked by dominant individuals, but rather most likely to be echoed and confirmed by them, because individuals in a society strictly not even exist anymore, because inevitably the dominant ideology of sharers.
In other words, freedom can not be taken as a point of departure, something innate in us that society must protect, but rather should be an end, men are not born free, freedom must conquistarsela, and this achievement is not something that we take for granted. It follows that freedom can not be a normative principle, and the purpose of politics is not, therefore, to recite, but rather to create conditions so individuals can more easily win.
0 comments:
Post a Comment