Distinguishing Libertarianism And Objectivism

I'm glad I came across this paper discussing libertarianism vs. objectivism. I don't feel so inadequate anymore. Trying to make sense of an ideology entails so much confusion. Unless you sit down with a check list highlighting each, it can easily spiral out of control. Many ideologies overlap, diverge and overlap again. And then there's the historical lineage of each.

For example, between classic conservatives of the early 20th century, classical liberalism and libertarians, there's not a whole lot distinguishing each - or at least on the principle of limited government, fiscal responsibility and non-aggression. Liberals for their part have become socialists without knowing it - or at least are in denial.

Quick word on political parties. Parties pay lip service to ideology. Their art is to make it sound as though they represent a particular ideology when in fact they just say what they have to say to get votes. They're really skillful, political atheists. Career politicians are part of the problem. Perhaps I wonder if we're better off with a citizen driven political culture.

Anyway. When I think of libertarians and the notion of "what doesn't bother me won't kill me" approach to individual liberty it reminds me, of all people, of Neopolitans. My friend's parents hail from Naples and he once told the story of his aunt who never looked at anyone on the street in Naples. When someone asked her about the neigbour, she quipped, "I keep to my side of the street, she keeps to her. She's the perfect neighbour." Naples as a bastion for libertarianism?

Of course. Tongue in cheek. But it does illustrate how "wide" in scope libertarian thought can go.