What are your ism's?

Since you are reading this, statistics suggest you probably subscribe to some degree to liberalism, environmentalism, activism, socialism, and maybe even atheism. That's the traditional readership of papers such as this: relatively young, relatively urban, relatively progressive. These audiences also read mainstream publications, but finds a chasm there that can only be filled by the local flavor, salty language and militant viewpoints of an alternative weekly.

A growing number of libertarians and Ron Paul "revolutionaries" are looking for a similar outlet, but what are their ism's?

How about capitalism? It's a weirdly defined term. It means an economic system in which the means of production are owned by private persons and operated for profit. The odd phrasing seems to have been written by a Communist purely to have a straw man to compare Marxism to.

Those who believe in freedom and liberty don't believe in capitalism per se. It's not that they aim to establish a particular economic system, or that they are concerned with who owns the means of production, or whether assets are used for profit or for fun. Personally, I'm not even sure what the means of production are! Is Stephen Hawking's brain a means of production? What about Angelina Jolie's body?

Ism's break down when it comes to freedom. Even libertarianism, defined as a political philosophy that seeks to maximize individual liberty and minimize the power of the state, doesn't quite fit. This group of people isn't really trying to maximize or minimize anything. They just love liberty and they see that the best things that have ever happened on this planet have been a result of the efforts of free people.

Philosopher and economist Friedrich Hayek, in the 1960 essay "Why I am Not a Conservative," complained that the new term "libertarian" sounded manufactured. "What I should want," he wrote, "is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution. But I have racked my brain unsuccessfully to find a descriptive term which commends itself."

Perhaps lovers of liberty have no single ism, and that's why they are so hard to organize. A common quip is that organizing libertarians is like herding cats. Free marketeers not only fail to be classified in a single, useful ism, but in a sense they reject most ism's out of hand. Conventions of Ron Paul supporters are so diverse that any arbitrary pair of people likely has little more in common than an uneasiness with our unfree world.

Are you one of the growing number of readers who reject being labeled and categorized into an ism for easy use by media and politicians? Do you refuse to treat people merely as members of various classes? Do you insist each person be treated with the respect due a sovereign?

Then, if you are not a capitalist or a libertarian or a free marketeer, who are you? How do you recognize your fellow man?

Our Connecticut forefathers may be able to help. In the 17th century, they shed all their puritanical isms and oppressive, moralistic government and became Yankees, the rugged individuals that helped usher in the Revolutionary Era and found our new nation. There is no such thing as Yankee-ism. There never has been, and there never will be. Why?

An ism is a distinctive system of beliefs. There can never be such a word for "the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution." There is no single distinctive system of beliefs for people who believe in liberty. All that they share in common is a desire to live free.

How ironic. The very belief that defines this group keeps it from organizing into a formidable political force. It even thwarts such people from recognizing each other. One of the reasons for the historic success of the Ron Paul campaign has been the ability for many such people to at least unite behind a candidate. But with a Paul presidency now out of the question, we are faced once again with the age-old question of how to recognize a fellow freedom lover.

"Hello, Yankee."