Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Libertarianism Isn't
Lew Rockwell.com ^ | December 22nd 2001 | Edward Feser

Posted on 12/22/2001 8:53:08 AM PST by rob777

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-263 next last
The author seems to be well versed in the historical background of the libertarian movement. I am another who leans towards Frank Meyer's fusionism. (A traditionalist cultural/moral vision coupled with a libertarian political expression)
1 posted on 12/22/2001 8:53:08 AM PST by rob777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Hugh Akston
Here's one for you toots...waiting for you to opine!!!!
2 posted on 12/22/2001 8:55:32 AM PST by Neets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rob777
If I had to sum up the common moral vision of libertarians and conservatives, I would say it is a commitment to the idea of the the dignity of man.

And this is precisely where the difference lies, a conservative who comes from a Judeo/Christian worldview believes that mankind is born spiritually dead in sin and that the laws of civilized societies are necessary to contain that sinful nature. That is diametrically opposed to the libertarian view of the "dignity" of man which is much closer to liberalism that sees man as being perfectable.

3 posted on 12/22/2001 9:07:49 AM PST by Mahone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rob777
Great article. Surprisingly good for lewrockwell.com, and kinder to Jonah than he deserves.

The problem is that you can't patent or copyright an idea. In an age of liberal dominance, the radical suburban kids of the Sixties took the left to places that Wilsonians, Wobblies and Stalinists didn't go, and may not have dreamed of. Today, in a more conservative or free market era, a later generation of suburban kids will take the prevailing ideologies and use them to get what they want or express their rebellion.

Where you come from in intellectual history may be as important as where you are trying to go. Libertarian ideas arising in an era of "character-building" scarcity are bound to develop differently from those which take root in an age of affluence, self-expression and "autonomy." That relationship between circumstances and ideas is one reason why lewrockwell's interpretations of history so often fall flat: the same concept or value will not have the same consequences in every age.

But withal, a good and necessary blast against Postrel and the odious Gillespie. Thanks for this.

4 posted on 12/22/2001 9:16:03 AM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rob777; Free the USA; GovernmentShrinker; *Libertarian; *Paleo_list
Very good article

Libertarianize the GOP

5 posted on 12/22/2001 9:18:00 AM PST by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rob777
Great post.
6 posted on 12/22/2001 9:19:21 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rob777
Good one. Thanks.
7 posted on 12/22/2001 9:20:03 AM PST by MadameAxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rob777
As a Libertarian, I want to over-throw the two party system that has constrained America about our Constitution.
8 posted on 12/22/2001 9:22:53 AM PST by Buckeroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rob777
Libertarianism = (conservatism - bs) + (liberalism - bs) + lunacy.

Einstein said, "Make things as simple as possible but no simpler." Libertarians (at least the few self-appointed elite loudmouths like Virginia Postrel) make a vice out of the virtue of liberty. They oversimplify liberty in the same grossly dumb way some Republicans oversimplify free markets and some Democrats oversimplify social justice.

Proof: Consider the size of the Libertarian Party. QED.

9 posted on 12/22/2001 9:42:56 AM PST by gulliver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mahone
"And this is precisely where the difference lies, a conservative who comes from a Judeo/Christian worldview believes that mankind is born spiritually dead in sin and that the laws of civilized societies are necessary to contain that sinful nature. That is diametrically opposed to the libertarian view of the "dignity" of man which is much closer to liberalism that sees man as being perfectable."



The Judeo/Christian worldview is much more profound than you give it credit for. It simultaneously recognizes that man is both created in the image of God and thus, has a divine dignity, and posesses a sinful nature. Liberalism has an image of upholding the dignity of man, but this is only superficially so. They view man in a general, collective sense with no consideration of the actual "individual" human. Their worldview is deterministic and sees the individual as a cog in a social machine. It is society that they see as perfectiable, NOT the individual. The Christian worldview sees the individual soul, with it personal relationship to God, as far more important than some social construct. As for human perfection, "with man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible".

One final point: The libertarian worldview DOES recognize the sinfull part of human nature. That is why it is under no illusions that centralized political power in a society would be used to "contain that sinful nature". History has proven that centralized political power is more likely to be a vehicle for the expression of that sinful nature, rather than its restraint. There is only ONE full proof way to restrain sinful nature and that is a personal, one on one relationship with God. The state, at most, can only play the role of preventing that sinful nature from expressing itself in the form of engaging in force or fraud against our fellow citizens. To expect the state to play a role any further than this is to engage in the kind of idolotrous hubris that is the halmark of modern liberalism and its cult of state worship.
10 posted on 12/22/2001 9:55:13 AM PST by rob777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rob777
2. ---- The natural rights argument, which emphasizes the idea that individuals have inviolable rights to life, liberty, and property that it is morally wrong for anyone, including the state, to violate even for allegedly good reasons (such as taxation for the sake of helping the needy). This approach has been favored by libertarian philosophers from John Locke to Robert Nozick and Murray Rothbard, and also has an intuitive appeal to the "libertarian in the street" who resents the suggestion that the government has any business telling him what to do in his personal life, or with his money or personal property .

The natural rights argument (argument 2,):

If I have an absolute right to my property and to my own body, it follows that the government cannot stop me, say, from fornicating or using drugs – thus says the libertarian, and thus the appearance of tension between libertarianism and conservatism. But as (almost) all libertarians know, the tension is only apparent, and only to those not used to making rather obvious distinctions (journalists, political hacks, television personalities who've just discovered the word "libertarian," etc.). Libertarianism entails that the state must not impose traditional scruples through force of law; it does not entail that that such scruples are not valid.

What is not legally binding on us may nevertheless be morally binding on us.

Some libertarians may, of course, dislike and disagree with traditional moral rules; but others might believe strongly in them, even though they would not advocate imposing them on others through the power of the state, and they do not cease being libertarians for that.

-------------------------------------------

The author lost me somewhere in his, imo, overly complex defense of argument 3, - particularily when he had already made a perfectly logical defence of 2, as I underlined.

11 posted on 12/22/2001 10:11:00 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gulliver
And, in the same vein, consider how much God loves the Red Chinese, having made so many of them.
12 posted on 12/22/2001 10:11:51 AM PST by Erasmus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Libertarianize the GOP;rob777;tpaine;OWK;FreeTally
Libertarianism = Objectivism = Psuedointellectualized Liberalism
13 posted on 12/22/2001 10:17:25 AM PST by Christian_Egalitarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rob777
This article is definite bookmark material.

I do want to comment on the following minor point, because to me it doesn't make sense as written and may lead to confusion or difficulty in getting the author's later points:

This, at least, is the inference one naturally draws from their tendency to bifurcate between (on the one hand) those who want to impose, through force of law, their moral views on others, and (on the other hand) those, like themselves, who refuse to offer the faintest criticism of anything and everything done between “consenting adults” – as if there were no third position, viz. that of those who reject the use of state power to enforce traditional morality, but are nevertheless critical of those who flaunt it.
I think the author intended the word "flout" instead of "flaunt."
14 posted on 12/22/2001 10:17:27 AM PST by Erasmus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mahone
And this is precisely where the difference lies, a conservative who comes from a Judeo/Christian worldview believes that mankind is born spiritually dead in sin and that the laws of civilized societies are necessary to contain that sinful nature. That is diametrically opposed to the libertarian view of the "dignity" of man which is much closer to liberalism that sees man as being perfectible.

While it's true that many libertarians do not have a Judeo-Christian worldview, the libertarian political philosophy does not believe that man is self-perfectible, which is what I think you really mean by "perfectible." But neither is man perfectible by means of the state, and most informed libertarians would, in stark contrast to your claim, remind you that it is the very "sinful nature" of man which makes a concentration of power so dangerous. A typical libertarian would hold that the amount of force necessary to protect individuals from direct threats to their persons and possessions should be held and exercised by the state, whereas conservatives generally go a step further and attempt to impose their social norms on a culture.
15 posted on 12/22/2001 10:23:42 AM PST by Hemlock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gulliver
Einstein said, "Make things as simple as possible but no simpler."

Good quote.

16 posted on 12/22/2001 10:24:04 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Egalitarian
Libertarianism = Objectivism = Psuedointellectualized Liberalism

Just because you make it statement does not make it true.
Please prove your equation or it shall rightly be ignored.

17 posted on 12/22/2001 10:25:47 AM PST by Libertarianize the GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

.
18 posted on 12/22/2001 10:26:28 AM PST by VinnyTex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Egalitarian
"Libertarianism = Objectivism = Psuedointellectualized Liberalism"



Libertarianism predated Objectivism, in fact, it is a label that Ayn Rand rejected. When she first came to America, a large number of libertarians were Christian.
19 posted on 12/22/2001 10:29:31 AM PST by rob777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Egalitarian
Psuedointellectual = Christian_Egalitarian
20 posted on 12/22/2001 10:36:47 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rob777
Libertarianism predated Objectivism

True. See http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/libcom.html

21 posted on 12/22/2001 10:37:00 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Psuedointellectual = Roscoe
22 posted on 12/22/2001 10:39:24 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: x
There is, in particular, nothing in libertarianism that entails that one ought to be in the least bit hostile to or even suspicious of traditional morality or traditional moralists. There is thus no reason whatsoever why libertarians and onservatives ought to be divided over the question of traditional morality

Sorry, but there's a big conflict between libertarian principles and people who want to enforce religiously-based "morality" on who people who don't share their religious beliefs, and to use the power of the state to do this via legal discrimination against the non-"traditionalists". And how do you suppose those "traditions" came to be traditional? Via the imposition of force by government authorities and by ecclesiastical authorities who had obtained government-like authority in theocratic societies. Nope, can't support that. If the social practices they advocate don't remain predominant without government coercion, then they weren't "traditional" in the first place, just vestiges of tyranny.

preoccupation with drugs and pornography

Pornography, to the extent that its production does not involve coercion of real people, should be protected by the First Amendment, though subject to the same sort of "time, place, and manner" test as other types of speech (I don't think libertarians are advocating highway billboard displays of hard-core porn). Of course, most of the situations in which conservatives get upset about pornography would go away if half the country wasn't being run by the government. Blocking access to Internet porn in public schools and public libraries? Sure it's wrong when those institutions are run with taxpayer funds, but why are they being run with taxpayer funds?

As for drugs, I part company with the extremist libertarians on this subject. Obviously, many aspects of the "War on Drugs" have been ill-advised and infringed on basic liberties, but I don't think this is a reason to make all drugs legal -- just rein in the War where it steps over the line.

Now I have no problem with making marijuana legal (simply makes no sense to have alcohol legal and marijuana not, and Prohibition was already tried and is just inneffective when it lacks widespread support and the substance in question is easily produced in any home or dorm room).

However, most "hard" drugs have an extraordinary capacity to do harm, not just to the user, but also to innocent bystanders. Just imagine if it were perfectly legal to walk around with a pocket full of OxyContin or Rohypnol. Rapes of unconscious women would be epidemic, and no one would be safe from having these substances surreptitiously dropped in their food or drink in any public place. For the highly addictive substances, dealers would have plenty of incentive to involuntarily addict people by means of repeated surreptitious placement of the drug in food or drink, and would then profit handsomely when the new addicts exercised their "freedom" to purchase and use these drugs. I disagree with the premise that the high cost of drugs, and crime induced by addicts trying to get money for drugs, are products of illegality. They are products of addiction, which is very severe for many street drugs. As long as the users are inherently desperate for the drugs, the normal supply and demand effect on pricing is inoperative. Dealers have huge incentive to undertake violent, illegal measures to prevent the market from being flooded with inexpensive drugs, because the users will buy them no matter how high the cost. This is not the case with non-drug commodities or with non-addictive or very mildly addictive drugs like marijuana -- note how still-illegal marijuana is not expensive and is not associated with high crime rates.

Bottom line: hard drugs fall into the same category as plutonium. Principles need to have exceptions made to them, where there would otherwise be tremendous harm to innocent people. Libertarians don't support people's right to buy/sell/use personal supplies of plutonium, and there's nothing wrong with treating hard drugs the same way.

The other big argument against legalizing hard drugs at the present time is that, under our current legal/political system, which is far from libertarian or conservative, it is utterly impossible to let nature take its course, and leave the addicts to die of starvation or freezing or being shot by the intended victims of their robberies, etc. The growing numbers of them would all be entitled to taxpayer-funded treatment and living expenses. Nor are employers free to randomly screen employees for hard drug use, and even when an employer manages to confirm that an employee has become a heroin or crack addict, it would be virtually impossible to fire the employee, who will claim the "disability" of addiction, and be entitled to treatment, accommodation, etc. At least now, the employer can usually make sure that the offender gets in legal trouble, and then fire them for that.

23 posted on 12/22/2001 10:41:02 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Your study of 'Libertaran Communism' has rotted your brain.
24 posted on 12/22/2001 10:48:53 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: rob777
. . . that of those who reject the use of state power to enforce traditional morality, but are nevertheless critical of those who flaunt it.

I'm shocked I tell ya! Shocked! This describes me almost to the letter! Yet somehow, speaking highly of traditionalist values (authoritatively, even) raises the ire of some of the most vocal libertarians here at FR. It is as if they believe my disapproval, say, of the homosexual lifestyle is somehow an endorsement of the state outlawing these activities.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

If a man desires to have sex with another consenting adult man, they have the right to engage in their desire. However, I will voice my belief in the immorality of that desire and practice.

The same goes for drug use. I've witnessed the absolute destruction that hard drug use brings within both a family and a community as a whole. But this is another subject.

From reading this column about what libertarianism "isn't," the most glaring theme within the libertarian sector appears to be a failure to properly pin down just what libertarianism truly means. It apparently means different things to different people. And if this is the case, the lack of a truly unifying theme hurts the libertarian movement severely.

25 posted on 12/22/2001 10:52:12 AM PST by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gulliver
"Proof: Consider the size of the Libertarian Party. QED." -- gulliver

Yup ... we are pretty damned small as a contemporary political party. But keep in mind, way back in America's beginning, whicj created the Revolution: there were few patriots, as well.

26 posted on 12/22/2001 10:58:24 AM PST by Buckeroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
As a libertarian- a enjoy taking criticism from modern liberals and conservatives. One of the popular ad hominem attacks they will make is that the philosophy is "simplistic". This is especially the case when legislators are proposing public policy.

As I will discuss in my upcoming health care commentary- libertarianism is a philosophical foundation. For example, when both sides of Congress have differing education bills- the libertarian will say "Government should not be involved in education". Simplistic, yes, when compared to the hundreds of pages in each competing proposal.

It is important to point out the invalid comparison. Because the legislation is simply a product of a Marx, collective, and utilitarian philosophy- which is itself "simplistic". THe proper comparison on would be the neverending pages of education law from the Dem-Reps and the regulations, standards, and operating procedures from a body of private schools.

27 posted on 12/22/2001 11:04:49 AM PST by Fast 1975
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
"Sorry, but there's a big conflict between libertarian principles and people who want to enforce religiously-based "morality" on who people who don't share their religious beliefs, and to use the power of the state to do this via legal discrimination against the non-"traditionalists"."



The author makes it quite clear that he is referring to moralists who do not seek to enforce their views on the public via state coercion. In fact, both Christian libertarians and early 20th Century "Old Right" conservatives, recognized that religiously based morality presupposes Free Will and can not be imposed. The very idea of "imposing" morality is itself an oxymoron. This is an argument that a large number of social conservatives understand and the notion that all social conservatives want to "enforce religiously-based "morality" on people who don't share their religious beliefs" is as falacious as the one which assumes that all libertarians are completely unconcerned with moral issues.

A case in point, the non initiation of force principle is a moral principle that originally had its roots in a religious understanding of human nature and dignity. This is a principle that those libertarians, who accept the legitimacy of the state, wish to see imposed on the public. If we are to absolutely insist that no moral principles can be inforced by the state, we arrive at an anarchist position of denying the legitimacy of the state entirely. Why should the state enforce laws against force of fraud? They are, afterall, moral principles that have a religious origin. Why not accept the ancient Sophist and Pagan notion that "Justice is the benefit of the stronger"? The truth of the matter is that minarchist libertarians DO expect the state to impose morality on the public. The differnence is that it is in a VERY limited framework, that of protecting the rights of individuals against force or fraud.
28 posted on 12/22/2001 11:07:51 AM PST by rob777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Buckeroo
How come the libertarians don't have a symbol...the unicorn would be nice---something out of disney---the lion king?
29 posted on 12/22/2001 11:08:48 AM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
The LP has a penguin.
30 posted on 12/22/2001 11:13:51 AM PST by MadameAxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
, under our current legal/political system, which is far from libertarian or conservative, it is utterly impossible to let nature take its course, and leave the addicts to die of starvation or freezing or being shot by the intended victims of their robberies, etc.

Yes I think that's the problem. Taxpayers are forced to pay the costs of hospitalizations and feeding their families. Once that happens, then they feel they should be able to control their drug use too. If the government would get completely out of it all, it would be better. The government shouldn't make laws against homosexuals but it shouldn't pay for their AIDS medicines either or force businesses to hire them.

31 posted on 12/22/2001 11:16:50 AM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
How come the libertarians don't have a symbol

They do. It's the stars and bars. 50 white stars on a field of blue in the upper left corner with 13 red and white bars running horizontally.

32 posted on 12/22/2001 11:17:02 AM PST by Jolly Rodgers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
You agree that prohibitions are useless, yet you go on to say:

Bottom line: hard drugs fall into the same category as plutonium. Principles need to have exceptions made to them, where there would otherwise be tremendous harm to innocent people. Libertarians don't support people's right to buy/sell/use personal supplies of plutonium, and there's nothing wrong with treating hard drugs the same way.

The world is full of inherently dangerous substances & objects. We have decided, in the constitution, to give states the power to regulate [with due process] public use/possession of such property - and - to criminalize their misuse.

We cannot allow the state to have the absolute power to prohibit, as it is absolutely corrupting.

33 posted on 12/22/2001 11:18:41 AM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MadameAxe
The penguin is a noble--amazing creature...a giraffe would be better---more distinctive up there in the treetops!
34 posted on 12/22/2001 11:20:10 AM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: rob777
Libertarianism predated Objectivism, in fact, it is a label that Ayn Rand rejected. When she first came to America, a large number of libertarians were Christian.

The problem conservatives fail to see in the Moral Questions left unresolved by libertarians- is how big government has made these political issues.

School prayer is the biggest example, since tax dollars forced to pay for education, everyone wants their agenda in the curriculum. In privitization, Christians can support their schools, without the support of non-christians. And those few who are offended by religion in education- can support their own school- or school themselves at home.

35 posted on 12/22/2001 11:24:10 AM PST by Fast 1975
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jolly Rodgers
for you---OWK...YETI!!
36 posted on 12/22/2001 11:24:14 AM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: rob777
Sounds like me to a tee.

I'm a Christian, but I don't want the government enforcing my version of my lifestyle on everyone else. I respect their right to decide what is right for them, so long as it doesn't interfere with my right (or the right of anyone else) to do the same.

It's not the place of the government to engineer society. That's up to us, through our personal power of persuasion and the truths of our messages.

37 posted on 12/22/2001 11:27:07 AM PST by John R. (Bob) Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
"From reading this column about what libertarianism "isn't," the most glaring theme within the libertarian sector appears to be a failure to properly pin down just what libertarianism truly means. It apparently means different things to different people. And if this is the case, the lack of a truly unifying theme hurts the libertarian movement severely."



This problem came about in the late 1960's and the 1970's when a large number of people came to march under the libertarian banner who had no ties to the tradtional western heritage from which libertarianism arose. The result was to cause the movement to drift philosophically. There is also the celebrity factor that the author mentions. Libertarianism has its origins in Classical Liberalism, which was originally rooted in the Natural Law philosophical tradition. At it core was the recognition of natural rights that stem from the reality of human Free Will.
38 posted on 12/22/2001 11:27:23 AM PST by rob777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
for you---OWK...YETI!!

I'm sure you find yourself quite hillarious.

39 posted on 12/22/2001 11:29:01 AM PST by Jolly Rodgers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Jolly Rodgers
Bleached to remove the borders?
40 posted on 12/22/2001 11:29:24 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: rob777
If we are to absolutely insist that no moral principles can be inforced by the state, we arrive at an anarchist position of denying the legitimacy of the state entirely. Why should the state enforce laws against force of fraud? They are, afterall, moral principles that have a religious origin.

Definitely not the same thing. No one wants to be the victim of robbery, fraud, assault, murder, etc. Thus if it is taken as a given that the state must treat all citizens equally, there is unanimous support for legal prohibition of, and punishment for these offenses. While the prohibitions are incorporated into virtually all religion's teachings, that is because they really are universal principles. They arise spontaneously in isolated communities, even absent any religious or governmental influence -- do away with the formal prohibitions and they pop up again almost immediately due to near-universal demand. Sure there are people who want to COMMIT these offenses, but even they don't want to be victims of them. Current conservative efforts to legislate their brand of morality, for example by campaigning for "defense of marriage" legislation and/or against same-sex marriage legislation, while preserving special legal privileges for people who organize their personal lives according to the religious precepts, are totally different. There, they ARE trying to impose religiously based moral precepts on unwilling people. They frequently make claims like "the institution of marriage would be threatened" if other people were allowed to marry differently, and then demand that government use its power to support this religiously based institution by decreeing that "you will marry this way or not at all, and the government will confer certain privileges on those who marry". The obvious corollary to this is that the institution does not have the overwhelming support of the people, and can only be maintained by government intervention (which I don't happen to believe -- only a handful of the flimsiest opposite-sex marriages would actually be weakened or ended by the advent of legal same-sex marriage).

41 posted on 12/22/2001 11:34:29 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: gulliver
"Proof: Consider the size of the Libertarian Party. "

That is the most illogical statement I have read since reading liberal trash. Size is a matter of being right? Maybe might is right?

42 posted on 12/22/2001 11:34:59 AM PST by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Bleached to remove the borders?

Nope. Stitched to prevent them from fraying.

Truth be told, I'm not quite sure if my position on "open borders" is entirely consistent with the Libertarian Party's position. I would like to see quotaless immigration, but not without specific criteria. Most of all, I want a simultaneous rollback of government welfare so that those who come to America do so with the understanding that they will be responsible for making their own life according to their own effort and abilities.

43 posted on 12/22/2001 11:35:06 AM PST by Jolly Rodgers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Fast 1975
"The problem conservatives fail to see in the Moral Questions left unresolved by libertarians- is how big government has made these political issues."



You are right and most "Old Right" conservatives, as well as libertarians, understood this. The merging of former liberals, dubbed Neo-conservatives, into the conservative movement somewhat confused this understanding. Fortunately, some still understand this point. We need to continueously point this out, so that those numbers will grow.
44 posted on 12/22/2001 11:36:00 AM PST by rob777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Egalitarian
Egalitarianism = dehumanizing slavery
45 posted on 12/22/2001 11:36:58 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: rob777
What a bunch of gobbly-gook. It seems Republicans are all for controlling personal behavior and Democraps are for controlling evything else. Perhaps Republicans are simply afraid to admit to their desire to dominate in ther own way, while Libertarians desire less control by everyone. Now, go ahead and show your fear and ignorance and claim that Libertarians are just anarchists.
46 posted on 12/22/2001 11:37:27 AM PST by PatrioticAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrioticAmerican
The product has failed in the marketplace of ideas.
47 posted on 12/22/2001 11:37:44 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Jolly Rodgers
Most of all, I want a simultaneous rollback of government welfare so that those who come to America do so with the understanding that they will be responsible for making their own life according to their own effort and abilities.

Sure wish we could convince republicans and democrats of this. They give away OUR money like it was candy. And they think they're doing something noble.

48 posted on 12/22/2001 11:39:58 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
The product has failed in the marketplace of ideas.

So by your standard then, communism and socialism have passed the test of the "marketplace of ideas"?

49 posted on 12/22/2001 11:42:07 AM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
The product has failed in the marketplace of ideas.

Currently out of fashion in the mass market perhaps, but far from failed. Liberty and personal sovereignty is one of those timeless values that always manages to burst forth with a flourish when times seem the darkest.

50 posted on 12/22/2001 11:43:25 AM PST by Jolly Rodgers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-263 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson