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 ...
I worked at the time at an international corporation that was ground to a halt due to so many people being stranded due to the grounding of air travel, and remember spending that entire day on FR, angry as a cobra at the "libertarian" idiots who didn't learn the history about 1) how quasi-demigod Hirohito wanted to make the Pacific Ocean his own domain (including Australia!) and 2) how Switzerland remained "neutral" by being the center of laundered Nazi loot and was non-affiliated by agreement with the Axis powers.
If you think about it, you may change your position.
There is little anyone in the private sector could do to impose martial law, even if the military were privatized (an admitted stretch of reality). The government, however, already controls all the ancillaries that would make it possible: the government can already control where people go and when (witness hurricane evacuations, etc.), what arms (if any) they can posess, with whom they can associate (Anti-Terrorism Act, Patriot Act, RICO), and what they can broadcast. The government also controls the schools, just to make it stick; and, if that weren't enough, the government also has a heavy hand of control on local police. No one in the private sector could control all this.
Add to that: those in the private sector are disincentivized from using such a power, even if it could get it. Martial law destroys capitalism. Those in the ruling class, however, have made their careers controlling others. They live for the power, and martial law would be their greatest fantasy come true.
Think it through, and let me know if you change your mind.
Exactly....My hopes for the Libertarian party are that they cease wasting time and effort in fielding national candidates, instead fund local races. I'd like to see them behave like the "conservative" party in some states, where they simply endorse someone from the major parties for president.
Is this something you support?
I think a lot of us are uncapitalized libertarians. The party is kooky. The general philosophy is not.
Peter Schwartz wrote an essay called "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty." In this essay he explains that Objectivism is anti-Statist while Libertarianism is anti-State.
The practical difference being that Objectivists reject initiation of force by the State while Libertarians reject any force by the State, even retaliatory.
Of course without allowing retaliatory force, the Libertarians' State would soon fall to any group powerful enough to take it. Today, that would undoubtedly be the militant Islamists.
Objectivists would not negate our right to defend ourselves in the wake of 9-11. I suspect that many people who call themselves libertarians but find fault with those who control the LP are more likely Objectivists.
As Boortz put it, when the wind is blowing your way and your neighbors house is on fire? Put said fire out first and worry about making restitution for wrongful actions later.
Libertarians (of which I fancied myself once) are "ruled" by whack jobs more interested in the ready availability of heroin and syringes than in basic issues of security and decency.
It's the same battlecry: "Asia for the Asiatics!" and "Let's leave the Middle East alone to destroy themselves and others!"
Do you consider Jim Robinson to be a moral-liberal since he claims to see eye to eye with libertarians on most issues?
Nice smear post...
If you go to the source of your source of your source link (Here) , all that is really going on is that people are invited to gather to mourn the people who died on 9/11. The only "controversial" statement includes something we already know: "Gordon states that primary consequences of 9/11 are the War in Iraq and the Patriot Act, policies which Bush and Kerry support but Badnarik adamantly opposes." And you could make an intellectual argument that Islamic Nazism, coupled with our foreign policy of interventionism around the world, did in fact create the environment for 9/11 to happen. Let call a spade a spade. These people are not celebrating the death and destruction that resulted from 9/11.
The rational libertarian supports our Constitution, which is an anti-statist, pro-individual liberty document, -- one that establishes a government to provide for the common defense.
The practical difference being that Objectivists reject initiation of force by the State while Libertarians reject any force by the State, even retaliatory.
Label them as you like, but the members of the Libertarian Party who reject self defense are not following libertarian principle.
Of course without allowing retaliatory force, the Libertarians' State would soon fall to any group powerful enough to take it. Today, that would undoubtedly be the militant Islamists.
Objectivists would not negate our right to defend ourselves in the wake of 9-11. I suspect that many people who call themselves libertarians but find fault with those who control the LP are more likely Objectivists.
Do your 'Objectivists' support the principles of our Constitution, flada?
And CJ, -- do you cultural jihadics support the principles of our Constitution?
My Libertarian friends are voting for Bush.
Also it helps to remember that a group of four Libertarians when queried about a single subject will generate at least 16 opinions.
For the most part, I believe they do. With possible exceptions of post offices and such. As well as most of the Amendments that follow the BOR, which seem primarily to weaken the BOR.
Personally, I'm not exactly an "Objectivist" and usually prefer to call myself libertarian. The post to which you responded was not intended as my position, but as a probably valid "third" viewpoint explaining some of the problems with the LP.
I think it can easily be argued that those currently in control of the LP and its platform give credence to this argument.
For the most part, I believe they do. With possible exceptions of post offices and such. As well as most of the Amendments that follow the BOR, which seem primarily to weaken the BOR.
Which Amendments [except for income tax] weaken the BOR's?
The main problem with being a libertarian is the myopic DOLTS and IDIOTS running the Libertarian Party.
I say, libertarianize America; libertarianize the GOP!
Yeah, some of our past foreign policy has sucked, and if we followed Geo Washington's advice from his farewell address, we probably wouldn't have funded and armed our enemy's enemies.
But no matter how you slice it, one of the only problems with the War On Terror is that we don't have a Constitutional, Congressional Declaration of War, or Letter of Marquee and Reprisal to kick ass on these scumbags. They are nothing more than pirates. You cannot allow pirates to terrorize us. You must declare war on the countries that directly support terrorists, and you must use special forces to execute warrants on terrorist leaders.
Personally, my only beef with the WOT is that it's not Constitutionally "legal", and that we haven't bombed Syria and Saudia Arabia into the 3rd Century!
As I said in an earlier post, my only problem with the WOT is that we don't have the necessary Constitutional details such as Declarations of War and Letters of Marquee, and that we haven't bombed Syria and Saudia Arabia into the 3rd Century.
Saudi Arabia if I was in charge: 
How's that for retalatory force?
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.
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.