What Am I?

Townhall.com ^ | April 07, 2010 | John Stossel

[Onelifetogive]

I used to be a Kennedy-style "liberal." Then I wised up. Now I'm a libertarian.

But what does that mean?

When I asked people on the street, half had no clue.

We know that conservatives want government to conserve traditional values. They say they're for limited government, but they're pro-drug war, pro-immigration restriction and anti-abortion, and they often support "nation-building."

And so-called liberals? They tend to be anti-gun and pro-choice on abortion. They favor big, powerful government -- they say -- to make life kinder for people.

By contrast, libertarians want government to leave people alone -- in both the economic and personal spheres. Leave us free to pursue our hopes and dreams, as long as we don't hurt anybody else.

Ironically, that used to be called "liberal," which has the same root as "liberty." Several hundred years ago, liberalism was a reaction against the stifling rules imposed by aristocracy and established religion.

I wish I could call myself "liberal" now. But the word has been turned on its head. It now means health police, high taxes, speech codes and so forth.

So I can't call myself a "liberal." I'm stuck with "libertarian." If you have a better word, please let me know.

When I first explained libertarianism to my wife, she said: "That's cruel! What about the poor and the weak? Let them starve?"

For my FBN show tomorrow, I ask some prominent libertarians that question, including Jeffrey Miron, who teaches economics at Harvard.

"It might in some cases be a little cruel," Miron said. "But it means you're not taking from people who've worked hard to earn their income (in order) to give it to people who have not worked hard."

But isn't it wrong for people to suffer in a rich country?

"The number of people who will suffer is likely to be very small. Private charity ... will provide support for the vast majority who would be poor in the absence of some kind of support. When government does it, it creates an air of entitlement that leads to more demand for redistribution, till everyone becomes a ward of the state."

Besides, says Wendy McElroy, the founder of ifeminists.com, "government aid doesn't enrich the poor. Government makes them dependent. And the biggest hindrance to the poor ... right now is the government. Government should get out of the way. It should allow people to open cottage industries without making them jump through hoops and licenses and taxing them to death. It should open up public lands and do a 20th-century equivalent of 40 acres and a mule. It should get out of the way of people and let them achieve and rise."

David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, took the discussion to a deeper level.

"Instead of asking, 'What should we do about people who are poor in a rich country?' The first question is, 'Why is this a rich country?' ...

"Five hundred years ago, there weren't rich countries in the world. There are rich countries now because part of the world is following basically libertarian rules: private property, free markets, individualism."

Boaz makes an important distinction between equality and absolute living standards.

"The most important way that people get out of poverty is economic growth that free markets allow. The second-most important way -- maybe it's the first -- is family. There are lots of income transfers within families. Third would be self-help and mutual-aid organizations. This was very big before the rise of the welfare state."

This is an important but unappreciated point: Before the New Deal, people of modest means banded together to help themselves. These organizations were crowded out when government co-opted their insurance functions, which included inexpensive medical care.

Boaz indicts the welfare state for the untold harm it's done in the name of the poor.

"What we find is a system that traps people into dependency. ... You should be asking advocates of that system, 'Why don't you care about the poor?'"

I agree. It appears that when government sets out to solve a problem, not only does it violate our freedom, it also accomplishes the opposite of what it set out to do.

[listenhillary]

I often resort to Google search for the article headline and include +FreeRepublic at the end of the search.

Seems to work very well and Google comes up with links to posts that were just posted minutes earlier.

[Repeat Offender]

you sure can talk buddy.

Everyone, please meet MRS. RO....... giving me a good ribbing while I'm away.

Please no one explain to her "guilty" or "not guilty" ;)

[ctdonath2]

I don’t use the term “liberal” any more because of the mutation away from its roots.
They’re “Leftists” - an otherwise baseless term identifying “that crowd” who, based on their narcissistic stupidity, have no sane connection to any classic sociopolitical identifier.

[downtownconservative]

We know that conservatives want government to conserve traditional values. They say they're for limited government, but they're pro-drug war, pro-immigration restriction and anti-abortion, and they often support "nation-building."

"...conserve traditional values"?? We want the government out of our everyday lives. We want finacial freedom from excess taxes that support entitlements to freeloaders. We want the Constitution to be held sacrosanct by the ALL branches of government. Want all life to be considered precious. We want parents to make the decisions in the upbringing of their children. We view freedom as a God-given right, completely separate from the government. I could go on...as I said, he over-simplifies what it means to be a conservative. Liberal=bigger government less freedom. They're simple to encapsulate. Conservative=smaller goverernment and a whole lot more.

[Notary Sojac]

Tolerate scumbags in your neighborhoods and property values can go to hell.

(1) I don't think "being a scumbag" is a criminal offense. What exactly did you have in mind.

(2) Americans have the right to own property, but not a right to have its "value" guaranteed. It's a mistaken concept to think that "property values" are some sort of entitlement which the government is required to protect.

[acw011]

ping

[rockhardo]

-lack of support for the War in Iraq Agree w/ Paul, Iraq was a huge mistake
-doesn't recognize marriage as one man + one woman You mean he doesn't support laws giving the government the right to define what marriage is? I don't want the government to have that power either.
-opposes death penalty at state and fed level. As a practical matter, the death penalty only enriches lawyers. (except in Texas)
-supports alternatives to prison. In some cases, I might agree, esp. drug related
-Doesn't support US mission in SKorea Agree w/ Paul. 50+ years is enough. Let Japan take over.
-Anti-Israel. May be a misrepresentation of Paul's position.
-Thinks gun manufacturers can be sued because someone else misused a gunWell, he's right, they can be sued. You can sue anybody for anything. Does he think they should be sued, or that they should pay?
-voted against a law banning the transport of minors accross state lines for abortions I think Paul recognizes that you are not going to stop abortions with un-enforceable laws. This law would give the federal government power to restrict interstate travel. Not a good idea, although the cause is noble.
-And he thinks we brought terrorism on ourselves. May be a misrepresentation of Paul's position. He believes in non-intervention. I think the drone campaign is where we should have been all along.
..and he's a truther Whatever that means.

Bottom line, I don't see anything radical here. Denying the governnment more power doesn't equate to supporting the opposite position on an issue. Opposing gun control laws doesn't mean you are in favor of murder. That's a trick the liberals play all the time.

[rockhardo]

Stossel: "We know that conservatives want government to conserve traditional values. They say they're for limited government, but they're pro-drug war, pro-immigration restriction and anti-abortion, and they often support "nation-building."

downtown:
"...conserve traditional values"?? We want the government out of our everyday lives. . . . he over-simplifies what it means to be a conservative. "

Maybe so, but that's beside the point. You didn't address Stossel's statement. Conservatives do NOT want the government out of our daily lives. In fact, conservatives want the government in the daily lives of a lot of other people too, for example Iraq, Germany, Japan, S. Korea . . . Conservatives want the government to tell me who to sleep/not sleep with, what substances not to put in my body, and a lot of other things. That's not an oversimplification, it's a fact, and it's the reason so many people who otherwise support ideas like fiscal responsibility and limited government power find conservatism distasteful.

Think of libertarians as conservatives who don't want the government dictating stuff that's none of their business.

[Little Ray]

Being a scumbag isn’t directly a criminal offense; however there are things called “zoning laws” that really peeve Libertarians. I used to agree with them, until they moved Section 8 renters into my neighborhood. Color me “NIMBY.”

[Repeat Offender]

Agree w/ Paul, Iraq was a huge mistake

This is one of the reasons why I will never support RP.... ever. It sure is fun being over there and having your Kongress backstab you and rant about pulling out the entire time. It's awesome when they continuously give hope to the enemy. And don't give me the support the troops but not the war nonsense.

I will never support RP.... or someone that is so wishy washy he comes out at n5atly 50% on every issue.

As a practical matter, the death penalty only enriches lawyers. (except in Texas)

Cool, than maybe my state shouldn't have executed the DC sniper.... maybe he could've lived with you as an alternative..... his life wasn't worth my tax dollars.

Anti-Israel. May be a misrepresentation of Paul's position

Check his voting record.

And he thinks we brought terrorism on ourselvesMay be a misrepresentation of Paul's position

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

From Ron Paul's mouth.......

9/11 resulted from blasphemy of our bases in Saudi Arabia.

Suicide terrorism stops when we stop intervening abroad

We have a de-facto draft; we can achieve more in peace *news to me.... I thought I volunteered*

Jihadists attack because we have bases in their countries

Conscription is forced servitude--no draft for illegal wars

So 3000 Americans died on 9/11 because we have bases in Saudi... bases that are there at the welcome of the Saudi gov..... Good to know.

[swatbuznik]

It use to be the churches (*gasp* religion) that helped the poor and downtrodden, and with government nanny-ness, is slowly taking away that ability.