Posted on 09/08/2004 8:53:21 PM PDT by quidnunc
This Saturday is Sept. 11, the third anniversary of, well, Sept. 11. A political organization holding a meeting that day urges its members to show up "wearing some clothing article colored black to mourn the deaths of the thousands of people who have died as a result of U.S. government policies."
That's right, this outfit thinks the anniversary of an attack on America is an appropriate day for a Blame America First-fest. Ah well, we've come to expect such things from moonbat Muslims and commie peaceniks. There's no point in getting upset.
Only this group of ideological extremists consists neither of Islamists nor commies. It's the Libertarian Party and its "presidential candidate," Michael Badnarik. They are, of course, perfectly entitled to exercise their right to freedom of speech. But really, what a bunch of sickos.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
No, it doesn't change my mind at all.
Of course any (theoretical) private army could never impose a martial law as effectively as the current US military. That's not the point, the point is which is more likely to do so for an arbitrary reason.
Then so be it! I'd rather have a Republican with a strong Libertarian economic and moral platform than either a Libertarian with a pacifist military plank or a Republican with a fundie social platform and a socialist economic platform.
Thanks for the ping and the question. I agree that "thousands of people ... have died as a result of U.S. government policies", but I don't think that statement should be connected with 9-11. The War in Afghanistan was the first war I have supported in my lifetime, and the War against Saddam Hussein was the second.
I knew immediately on 9-11 that the events of that day would cripple the libertarian movement -- regardless of the position(s) libertarians took on what kind of response to 9-11 was a justifiable act of self-defense. Sadly, the Libertarian Party has become too much of a Pacifist Constitutionist Party, ignoring that document's many flaws -- including its legitimization of taxation to provide for "the common [read socialistic] defense."
There is no reason that the U.S. military could not be privatized, and that is in fact the only position that a responsible libertarian (like myself) could take. What is called "The War on Terror" could easily be privately financed and conducted. (Imagine the revenues that could have been raised from a pay per view telecast of the march to Baghdad.) Were we to have a choice, few Americans would pay much for the phony War on Drugs or any other war that was not being waged morally or efficiently.
I've voted for every Libertarian candidate for President since I started voting in 1980, but this year I think I'll vote for Neal Bortz.
The 14th weakens states and moves the government further from the people, although this isn't expressly written into the 14th it has become case law.
The 16th (which you mentioned) is obvious theft of an individuals right to keep the fruits of his/her labor.
The 17th on its face seems to give more power to the individual but actually makes it so that Senators have little need for small government or state governments.
The 18th, fortunately, was repealed.
The 21st seems okay since it repeals the 17th, but what about section 2?
The 22nd removes the power from the people to elect a President to a 3rd term... apparently the people are too stupid to have figured out in 8 years whether or not the President is any good.
I'll admit that some of the others actually strengthen individual rights.
"Taking the concept to the extreme is ridiculous. But the general concept of "that government is best that governs least" is a reasonable one. You just can't be a kook about it."
CJ:
Agreed. Self-governance does not work well with corrupt people, and when libertarians try to claim that personal corruption is some sort of human right all they do is advocate for a bigger government.
Well said xjar, -- and as we can see it is useless to try to reason with jihadic kooks.
-- Claiming that anyone sees 'corruption as a right' is bizarro fantasy rhetoric..
I used to be a member of the Libertarian party till I met them in large bunches. I realized I forgot my tin foil hat.
They will piously observe the Initiation Of Force Principle.
Yeah, right...
The 14th weakens states and moves the government further from the people, although this isn't expressly written into the 14th it has become case law.
Do you approve of States like CA having the power to ignore the 2nd?
The 16th (which you mentioned) is obvious theft of an individuals right to keep the fruits of his/her labor.
The 17th on its face seems to give more power to the individual but actually makes it so that Senators have little need for small government or state governments.
The 18th, fortunately, was repealed. The 21st seems okay since it repeals the 17th, but what about section 2?
Section 2 of the 21st [when used by states for a prohibition on individual behavior] is an infringement of our rights to property, liberty & due process under the 14th.
The 22nd removes the power from the people to elect a President to a 3rd term... apparently the people are too stupid to have figured out in 8 years whether or not the President is any good.
I'd vote for a 4 year term limit for prez, on the grounds that power corrupts.
I'll admit that some of the others actually strengthen individual rights.
Protecting individual rights is the main purpose of our Constitution. All else follows.
No one has mentioned Ron Paul by way of endorsement because they don't want to ruin his good work with applause from the likes of us.
Mr. Vinson, you are not going to believe this but with only two minor exceptions I agree with you completely. LOL! Strange how that works out, isn't it? Thank you for your quick and candid response, sir.
lol - yes, I see your point!
Objectivists, at least as represented by Leonard Piekoff's organization and websites, are also pathologically anti-Christian. Unlike libertarians, who include many Christians in their ranks (such as at LewRockwell.com), the rest being largely open-minded even if non-Christian.
Piekoff is also disassociated from reality, in that he projects his philosophy onto reality.
* His Capitalism Magazine has run articles claiming that America is the most secular/anti-religious nation on Earth (sic! -- more secular than Europe?), imagining that the American people are mostly rational atheists.
* He's praised Israel for the same reason -- ignoring that the Israeli state heavily subsidizes religion (such as allowing religious Jews to live on welfare so they may study Torah full time).
* He's celebrated the secularization of Christmas, and advocated getting rid of all its religious symbolism, and making it a making it a celebration of materialism, consumerism, and capitalism.
* He's also spewed much venom on Gibson's Passion and Christianity (a religion that Rand called "monstrously evil" for celebrating the ultimate act of altruism in the form of human sacrifice).
Piekoff's hatred of Christianity is perhaps only equaled by his hatred of Islam.
Libertarians (of which I am one) are certainly more tolerant of religious people (of which I am one) than Piekoff's Objectivists.
You make a good point.
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.