Will the Right Find Libertarianism?

"Freedom" has long been a right-wing rallying cry for self-identified patriots ranging from John Birchers to tea party protesters to increasingly extreme members of the Republican establishment. They're particularly passionate about the freedom to own and openly carry guns and freedom from federal taxation (but not necessarily federal benefits). Otherwise, their most consistent attachments to freedom tend to be rhetorical, unless freedom means restricting reproductive choice, same-sex relationships, medical marijuana, or sexually explicit speech and permitting discrimination against people who do not acknowledge Jesus as their savior. For some prominent conservatives -- like John McCain, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and Dick Cheney -- freedom also entails the establishment of a national security state empowered to arrest and imprison summarily people suspected of terrorism and to spy on people suspected of nothing in particular, thanks to a ubiquitous but largely invisible surveillance system.

There are, of course, exceptions to this statism. The CATO Institute, generally associated with the right because of its commitment to free markets, is equally, if less notoriously, committed to civil liberty. CATO is unusual in its consistent libertarianism, which means, however, that (like Reason magazine), it is a creature of neither the right nor the left. A recent CATO report estimates that some 14 percent of Americans also qualify as libertarian, meaning that they're fiscally conservative and socially liberal (although it's unclear if fiscal conservatives who believe "the less government the better" are willing to surrender their own government benefits, from Pell grants to Medicare).

I am just practical, and think the best solution to the drug abuse is a regulation model more like booze.

Having worked with and known personally literally hundreds of alcoholics & drug addicts, I can assure you that while the two types of addictions (while often rooted in the same causes) are very different. Speed of progression would be one such difference. Depth of "bottom" would be another. Not that this is society's problem, but it is also a heck of a lot easier to OD on the "dry goods." Now, in many ways pot would seem a lot closer to alcohol than the other narcotics. For one thing, it's "safer." This is misleading. The main reason we accept the bad with the good of alchohol in our society is its social tradition. Pot doesn't have that, and never will. Generally speaking, people who become habitual users of pot use it as a form of social withdrawl. Some people use alcohol for the same reason, but the percentages of users are far far fewer. Additionally, the percentage of people who tried pot then went on to hard drugs is much much higher than with alcohol. I not a doctor, but those are the facts and the rationale behind the status of drugs versus alcohol in this country.

Libertarianism is the laziest of political philosophies, because it consistently fails to follow its own beliefs through to their natural conclusions. Libertarians on this website are fond of quoting that Reason Magazine article, because they read part of one sentence in a seven page interview, and assume that it sums up everything Ronald Reagan had to say about their cause. Every time I see someone misinterpret that quote, I do my best to stop them from making imbecilles out of themselves. It never works, because they want it to mean what they want it to mean.

I can remind people like you that the quote was intended for the very specific audience of a small magazine with a tiny readership, but then I'm apparently calling Reagan a liar. I could also remind you (again) that conservatives mostly revere Ronald Reagan the President. Not the Democrat. Not the governor who signed a California abortion bill into law seven years before this interview. President Reagan fired the air traffic controllers, sicced his AG on prostitution and pornography, invented the war on drugs, fought undeclared wars all over the globe, and increased the size of government whenever he damn well pleased. In other words, every time he was faced with a choice of libertarianism versus conservatism, he chose conservatism. Sometimes the ideals of conservatism and libertarianism overlapped. That's when you guys liked him. But rejection of libertarianism was an enormous part of his presidency.

Which gets us back to this interview. It's clear that none of you have read it, because each of you missed the hext paragraph:

I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.

Incidently, when he's referring to "anarchy" there, he's not talking about the post-apocalyptic world you three idiots are thinking of. "Road Warrior" hadn't come out yet. He's talking about places like Amsterdam today, and we know that based on how he governed as president. If you read the article correcly (as opposed to looking for what you want it to say), you see that he's constantly reiterating that he incorporates the parts of libertarianism that are consistent with conservatism. That's what all good conservatives do. We also incorporate the Christian beliefs that benefit society. Hopefully that won't mean you'll ever see a conservative president rejecting military action because it violated his ideals. That being said, Ronald Reagan would have easily said that "the heart and sould of conservatisim is Christianity/Judiasm," and it would have made just as much more sense. Politically speaking, Chirstianity and libertarianism are two means to an end.

Now, to get back to that interview (which oviously none of you had bothered to read), the next time Reagan opens his mouth it is to say this: Well, the first and most important thing is that government exists to protect us from each other.

That's the beginning of his very next answer, and there is not a libertarian alive today who could agree with it.

In this very same interview, Reagan goes one to defend several things which no libertarian on the planet could agree with. They include laws against prostitution, a 24% increase in spending in his first year as governor of California, "socialized fire departments," and laws against gambling. Among others. That's why I know none of you have ever bothered to read it, and why I laugh every time one of you idiots brings it up.

Which gets us back to this interview. It's clear that none of you have read it, because each of you missed the hext paragraph:

If you weren't so daft and self righteous, and actually bothered to process information, you'd realize that I posted that paragraph in post 30, and even BOLDED the portions I thought relevant:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2474831/posts?page=30#30

Well, the first and most important thing is that government exists to protect us from each other. That's the beginning of his very next answer, and there is not a libertarian alive today who could agree with it.

Another pantload of fecal matter. This is exactly what libertarians believe. The very core of libertarian philosophy is that an individual should be able to do whatever he desires in pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness - so long as it does not impact another individuals liberty to pursue the same. The *ONLY* laws which libertarians would even argue are constitutional are laws that codify this sole limit to human liberty.

You know, you really have no authority to define what libertarians believe, because you've already proven yourself on this thread to be completely dishonest ,and ignorant. But that doesn't seem to stop you from fortifying the little mental construct you seem to thrive from within.

It's obvious you have not answers for the twenty or thirty comprehensive and profound points I made in my post, ranging from the nature and character of Ronald Reagan, to the substance of his presidency, to the content of the interview, to the nature of conservatism. You addressed none of these. There is no valid answer to many of them, other than "you're right." That's why you went with the personal attacks, and the isistence that libertarians believe a government exists to protect us from each other. That may be part of it for some libertarians. It is most definitely not for others.

Meanwhile, virtually everything else I posted to you would seem to discedit virually everthing you claim to believe about Ronald Reagan, and you chose to ignore it. I find that curious. Is it because it just makes you uncomfortable, or because you have no rebuttal? I know its the latter, but it's fun to so how much of a hole an opprobrious character like yours is willing to dig for itself.

Confronted with 20 better possibilities, you still chose to salvage some pride by offering your own incorrect interpretation of a 35 year year-old quote. If you accept the rest of it without rebuttal, that makes you completely wrong. At that point, you're arguing because it hurts to much to admit you're wrong.

You may be interested to learn that the first entry in David Boaz' Libertarian Reader is I Samuel 8, wherein the elders of Israel petition Samuel to appoint a king so that they could be like all the other nations.

Samuel, of course, prayed about it, and the Lord replied that in seeking a king the people had rejected Him, that He should not reign over them.

So, the Lord had Samuel list a couple of dozen reasons to the Israelites why a king is a really, really bad idea. I suppose the list could be pretty well excerpted: "he will take ... your asses, and put them to his work" without losing too much of the meaning, but it's really worth reading v. 10ff in full for context.

"Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay, but we will have a king over us."

So then, Samuel picks the most eligible man in Israel, Saul, to be king ("there was not among the children of Israel a goodlier person then he").

Even so, it worked out just as God said it would, though the prophecy did not mention that that king would also commit suicide after defeat on the battlefield and the disgrace of consulting a psychic.

Now, if the best man among God's own chosen people can't make a government good, what chance is there that anyone can? Regardless of their religion, all libertarians really do believe this part of the Bible.

Ronald Reagan quote:

"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."

Then again, he appointed Elibeth Dole as Secretary of Transportation, who resisted repeal of the nationwide 55 MPH speed limit, mandated seatbelts and that stupid 3rd brakelight. She also empowered MADD, so you may actually be right for the wrong reasons.

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.