Posted on 06/14/2013 6:21:32 AM PDT by National Review
The libertarian idea is the only truly new political idea in the last couple thousand years.
By Jonah Goldberg
‘Why are there no libertarian countries?”
In a much-discussed essay for Salon, Michael Lind asks: “If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?”
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Why do all socialist countries fail?
Why doesn’t communism work?
Why hasn’t the Republic of the United States flourished? Which started out libertarian.. because we have socialist and communist trying to destroy it.
Libertarianism depends upon personal responsibility, and in today’s society, that is a commodity that is in short supply.
And for that reason you will never find a society that will function over the long haul.
No man can humbly and graciously wield power. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely... that's just the way it is. We were made to live in another kingdom, the kingdom of God. One day, not too far out now, Jesus will be back and will rule the world for a thousand years, and after that a whole new reality. That's where I'm headed. In this world you're either scrambling and grappling to get above someone else, or your patiently waiting and working, for King Jesus...
America was basically a libertarian country until the government was given the ability to tax income. Since then it has simply engaged in global wars and vast growth of government.
The supreme court ruled three times taxing income was Un-constitutional, the last being 1899. Then they added the amendment allowing it.
Mr. Goldberg clearly does not understand the Torah.
How old is the Torah?
The "libertarian" system invented since emphasizes the individual at the expense of family. That fractures families, thus building individuals incapable of settling their own issues. Dispute is the mother's milk of government.
QED
That phrase, “the wave of the future,” became famous thanks to a 1940 essay by Anne Morrow Lindbergh. She argued that the time of liberal democratic capitalism was drawing to a close and the smart money was on statism of one flavor or another — fascism, Communism, socialism, etc. What was lost on her, and millions of others, was that this wasn’t progress toward the new, but regression to the past. These “waves of the future” were simply gussied-up tribalisms, anachronisms made gaudy with the trappings of modernity, like a gibbon in a spacesuit.
Barbarity is the wave of the past. It always looks new and exciting to those who've never troubled themselves actually to look at the past.
Probably the best compromise - unpalatable to all statists, of course - is for government to maintain a guiding principle of respecting and uplifting creators and disrespecting and cracking down on (by denying the vote to) destroyers.
One can imagine a society where cities are run by Rudy Giulianis and Lee Kwan Yews - somewhat authoritarian systems with zero tolerance for destructive behavior but which protect and respect those who live and create and build within their limits. Rural areas, which by definition require more self-reliance to live in successfully, would be governed in a more libertarian manner.
Libertarian-minded citizens would understand that they have to give up certain privileges to live in a densely populated city, but in turn they would be assured that they would not be preyed upon by a greedy government and that private citizens who attempted to destroy them would be dealt with harshly. Much is made by libertarian critics of limitations on on free speech in Giuliani's New York and Lee's Singapore - but those measures were aimed at Communists and criminals, and the economic results speak for themselves.
This world is probably not too dissimilar to the USA of fifty years ago, notwithstanding many local injustices and corruptions which somehow became the reason for liberty-destroying Federal statutes.
Wrong. the libertarian emphasizes the individual freedom over government control. and your use of the word “system” shows your bigotry and ignorance.
The libertarian ends up precipitating government control at the expense of freedom because of the emphasis upon the individual at the expense of family.
and your use of the word “system” shows your bigotry and ignorance.
Unfortunately for your thesis, I know where it goes. I've done more for libertarian economics than you ever will.
Laughable.
I have not yet read the National Review article, but I have been talking to Libertarians on the WSJ comment boards and have some insights into the new, young Libertarian thinking. ( The Libertarians have their own blog site on the WSJ comment board)
These young, mostly college age Libertarians consider themselves to be philosophically closer to the Liberals than to the Conservatives, mostly because they are atheists, with an antipathy toward Christians and Christian beliefs. Their ideas are closer to the OWS than to the TeaParty. These new Libertarians claim a desire for individual freedom, but only for those who agree with them. It’s freedom for me, but not for thee. They claim a need for higher taxes, support Gay marriage, oppose corporate profits, which they see as excessive. They support amnesty, and some of them have even argued that crony capitalism can be a good thing. Mostly, these new Libertarians just hate Christians, but they have argued many times for higher taxes and lower interest on school loans.
You’re just wrong. Libertarianism emphasizes individual freedom over government coercion, and ultimately government violence. You seem to favor the use of government violence against innocent individuals, if you oppose individual freedom, as you seem to imply.
“The libertarian ends up precipitating government control at the expense of freedom because of the emphasis upon the individual at the expense of family.”
Huh? where has that happened?
A typically clueless libertarian reply. I take it you think I'm talking about a nuclear family alone. You are mistaken. By "family" I meant what is effectively a tribe.
Before you go assuming you know what I'm talking about, best you understand what is in the Torah and how the system it posed works. VERY few people do, if any, yet the origins of its precepts are observable worldwide in the enduring attributes of tribal cultures.
Name one agro-urban civilization that has survived half as long as the Masai, the Bushmen, the Lapps, the Magyars, the Innuit, the Bedouin, the Aborigines... The principles underlying the Torah were meant to transfer the properties that enabled those tribes to endure onto a nation comprising combined agro-urban AND nomadic components, cross fertilizing the former with the ideas of the latter. It never happened. Post-exilic Judaism made a valiant attempt to interpret those ideas, yet because of that urban lens ended up making a mess of it. We have been stuck with an urban intellectual's interpretation of how that tribal system was supposed to function ever since. It was an internally structured poly-archy, with the Law as its organizing element. The only thing that resembled a government were to be the judges' rulings as to how it applied.
The claim that Libertarians know best how to organize society is laughable, because it is an oxymoron, Libertarians supposedly oppose government organization.
That and regulatory capture. We have corporatism now.
There's a revolving door between corporate management and government that is modeled after the Big-4 accounting firms HR policy of "up or out" - either become a partner or join industry and become an advocate for the firm you left.
I didn't imply that. You made a twisted inference because I dared to criticize libertarian ideas as effectively half-baked, simply because individuals doing whatever they desire will necessarily find conflict regarding the use of property. I've been listening to them talk as if they will eventually figure out how to manage externalities and markets in risk for twenty years, with the same excuse, "We've got really smart people working on that." Well, they still are. Wake me up when the Von Mises Institute thinks they've got it right. Meanwhile, they use the excuse to hustle money.
Huh? where has that happened?
Nowhere, because libertarianism hasn't happened.
Ok, so I read Goldberg’s article and have a couple of observations.
The new version of Libertarians are the same as the old, only in that they emphasize individual freedom, but only for fellow travelers. The new Libertarians see Christians as the Great Oppressors, not the Government.
The new Libertarians demand a freedom from religion, from Christianity, that is, not other religions. They feel that if they could free the country of Christianity, the country’s disparate groups could all join hands and sing Kumbayah. No war on drugs, no defense of marriage, abortion any time, and probably free. They see Christians as the main opposition group and think that if they could get rid of Christians, and their judgmental philosophy, the world would be a better place.
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.