Posted on 05/16/2004 12:41:16 PM PDT by Willie Green
A good libertarian columnist quickly learns that if he's doing his job right, he'll be bombarded with hate e-mail from both liberal and conservative sides - often simultaneously.
He should be able, without breaking an ideological sweat or employing a killer quote from Madison, Jefferson or Hayek, to enrage tax-happy Nanny State liberal Democrats in one paragraph and puritanical Police State conservative Republicans in the next.
In the last two months, I've sniped away at the enemies of personal freedom, limited government and liberty that surround and annoy me
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
Well, it's true...
If the third shoe fits the third foot, what is the third shoe?
A right shoe, or a left shoe?
If I was a member, I'd rip up my card.
Luckily, I'm a free-lance freedomite!
I generally get along pretty well with libertarians. Both libertarians and conservatives (by which I mean classical liberals) believe strongly in personal liberty, and as far as that is concerned we pretty much tend to agree on things. The difference is that conservatives recognize that liberty by itself cannot stand--it must be coupled with virtue. The minimalist government true libertarians and conservatives strive for is an implausible reality unless it is to rule over a virtuous people. So while conservatives believe in maximizing freedom, they acknowledge that we must at the same time foster virtue, or it is all in vain.
...Yea, I'm instigating, look at my profile...
If I have to vote for my tax money going to some lazy slob or the military, I will choose the military. I vote for Bush. But I don't see my total taxes payments (tax rate x income) going down.
So you're not a libertarian because you believe in liberty, but because you hate everybody else.
I lost interest at this point.
Nope no questions here, however "mob rule" is a short term scenario, for could you just imagine the costs involved fitting the feet of a score of centipedes?
...I agree. Seems I read that somewhere, umm, oh yea, Art.1 Sec.8 Para.12, 13. Something else about limited government...
This is an interesting article.
Personally, I've always been confused by the myriad of extremes that fly under the same banner as libertarians (Bill Maher-socialist types as well as strict constructionists).
Lemme ask any real libertarians on this site:
What makes a true libertarian different than a Republican?
What is the difference between the so-called big "L" and small "l" Libertarians?
I've been a member of the GOP as long as I can remember. My heroes, from Hannity and Rush to Ronald W. Reagan were Republicans. Lower taxes, agressive prosecution of the war on Terror and in Iraq, and outlawing the mass slaughter of abortion are my key beliefs. I am generally satisfied with the Republican party, however a few of my views have never aligned with the Republican party platform.
These include:
1.) General disdain for the court system of the United States and the legal/law "practice" in general. Healthy Suspicion of police or anyone else who wields obscene power over fellow citizens.
2.) Opposition to the impossible, wasteful "war on drugs". An insane waste of resources and an incroachment on personal liberty. NOTE: NO, I don't personally do any illegal narcotics, not even marijuana. But if you want to smoke it, then light up. It's nobody's business.
3.) Although I personally believe that homosexuality is a sinful, ugly choice, I do not believe in the U.S. treating gays any differently than straights. Homosexuality is NOT an institutional problem, but a personal one. I don't believe in a Federal Amendment to ban homosexual marriage. Leave that up to the states (by the 10th Amendment).
4.) Censorship. There are few people I dislike, no, HATE, more than the uptight wankers at the Moral Majority who try to tell me what I may or may not view as an adult, or what I may show my family. Screw the FCC. That's not your decision.
What do you libertarians think of these positions?
Thanks for your input and have a nice day.
The average American already has seen his total tax burden decreasing...
I don't think the full faith and credit clause is going to allow room for that. Also, the Constitution is the device for laying down nationwide rules when clarification is needed: Defining marriage and the National Language are two good candidates for this...
... Yea, I can. The centipedes in congress got alot of shoes they need we the people to buy...
That's what I like about our "negative" constitution compared to the "positive" constitution of the USSR. Ours states what the government will not do. Theirs states what the government will do. Ours exists. Theirs is history.
...I agree. Key word is RP Platform. This recovering libertarian agrees. Look at the individual issues, not the party line...
But that's just the point. I don't really think that "defining marriage" is a duty of ANY level of the government (whether state or federal), because I see marriage as a religious, rather than secular issue. Unfortunately, we in America have so secularized marriage that it can be performed outside of ANY church or religion (by government officials) and valuable and important sections of our tax code are based around the concept of marriage.
I don't think that marriage was EVER meant to be anything but the union of a man and a woman under God, but if we've already bastardized the act by intermingling it with national law and the like, we might as well leave this "issue" to the states (by referendum), rather than the out-of-touch Washington crowd. What I presented in my previous post is the compromise of my actual beliefs, having realized that by the courts (left) or the legislature (right), America will overstep it's boundaries and order the churches of America either to marry/refuse to marry homos.
Did that clear anything up?
So your impression is that we are governed by a mob?
But I (and my corporation) just wrote out 7 tax checks in 7 stamped envelops to the government this April 15th, and woooiee! I didn't see a decrease. Nevertheless, national debt has to be paid back sooner or later, whether by inflation, currency exchange dropping, or by taxes, regardless of the future administration's political affiliation. A drop in tax burden now in exchange for a future increase is not reassuring.
I think its called a rubber?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.