Skip to comments.What Libertarianism Isn't
Posted on 12/22/2001 8:53:08 AM PST by rob777
click here to read article
It's easy to spot them, by their statements. The LINOs you are most likely to see here are of the Bill Maher variety, who claim to be libertarians, yet express support for big gubmint policies such as gun control, forced association in the name of "anti-discrimination", federal jurisdiction over "education", and "equality" through wealth redistribution.
If they don't support the non-initiation principle, they ain't libertarians.
"Most people who claim to be libertarians do so out of it being a fad, not out of true concern for this nation." -PatrioticAmerican
Do you agree with PatrioticAmerican that more than 50% ("most") of the self-avowed libertarians are fadsters without a concern for this nation?
On this forum? Not even close. In the general population, perhaps. In the entertainment industry, probably higher than that.
You also should consider that there are libertarians who don't consider themselves to be such, because they're only familiar with LINOs and think that's what a libertarian is.
A valid point, IHMO. I have Libertarian friends who don;t even know they are, until I explain the diff between what they think is Libertarian and what really is.
This is the kind of lunatic thinking I have come to expect from libertarians such as yourself. Open borders? Quotaless immigration? What do you think the enemies of America would do if this were so? In the real world of course (which is outside of realm of most libertarians), China could successfully wage war with America on the cheap by sending boatloads of their people to our shores with the expressed purpose of colonizing us or outright conquering large territories by their sheer numbers. Other countries in the Middle East, Mexico and elsewhere would no doubt seize on this opportunity and do the same. America would be reduced to a third world nation almost overnight with large ethnic blocks squatting on hunks of U.S. territories that would become de-facto possessions of the nations invading us. And as for your laughable "simultaneous rollback of government welfare" just tell that to the hordes of new immigrants when their population outnumbers American citizens either locally or nationally. I would think that the massive influx of illegal immigration from Mexico and all the problems this is creating especially in the Southwest would give you some insight into what would happen if America had no immigration laws or borders.
Limitless naivete continues to rule the day with you libertarians even in the post 9/11 world where just yesterday a Middle Eastern terrorist tried to blow up a plane headed for Miami. What to destroy America? Just open up our borders to everyone in the world. Perhaps this is your agenda.
From what you are saying a "traditionalist" is someone who will outlaw anything that harms the "public morality"?
the conservative "response" to these problems is to just outlaw them. That does nothing to solve a problem...it only pacifies your resolve to do anything constructive about them. It creates this attitude that since something is illegal it does not happen.
An active approach to pornography and abortion is needed. Children must be taught it is WRONG! They must be seen as threats to the individual not to the "public morality". Viewing things in terms of a group tends to make people less responsive (If I don't deal with it someone else will.)
Passing laws might make you feel good...but they do little. Individual minds must be changed.
As a libertarian I see there is no "one" response to abortion and pornography. Each individual situation must be dealt with.
Im talking about a much more granular system, one where the federal 'constitution' includes a specification of what is the proper scope of 'group rights' right down to the county and city level as well as a meta-law that describes parameters for the incremental implementation of prohibitions, so no one is suddenly shut out and the law isn't forcing people to 'move if you dont like it' as suddenly.
Do you believe in the draft?
If Abe Lincoln had felt this way, slavery would still be legal today.
I was trying to get a fair response from rb666...his post reeked of saying conservatives had better answers than libertarians to deal with abortion and pornography...specifically, how does the market "prohibit" these things.
The market does not. Individuals must choose to hold themselves to high standards of morality...and those that do not must be portrayed as people with a lack of self control, because that is the root issue.
A good example is any trial on court tv. The entire defense witness roster is filled with shrinks and doctors attempting to explain away a murderers simple lack of self control. In schools ridalin is served like candy to children that lack discipline. These are also the root problems with abortion and pornography, a simple lack of self control. There is always a choice to be made, imho. Sometimes we are left paying for those choices for a long time...
I hope all that makes sense. :) Just got of work and my eyes don't want to stay open!
Conflicting rights...plesae disprove one as promised.
And for God's sake, pick the right one to disprove.
This is pure mythology. Men who are willing to rape women are very rare, and the availability of drugs to assist them hardly has any impact at all. Your accusation that thousands of men are "potential rapists" just waiting for the opportunity is callous and ridiculous.
>>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.<<
This is a complete fabrication. It is a myth that people can become "involuntarily addicted". Did you read this on the back of a bubble gum wrapper?
>>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.<<
Sorry, wrong again. Studies in Switzerland in just the last few years have proven once again for the umpteenth time that when addicts can get heroin for reasonable prices, they hold down jobs and become responsible family members.
>>As long as the users are inherently desperate for the drugs, the normal supply and demand effect on pricing is inoperative.<<
Sorry, wrong again. The law of supply and demand is a natural law and no-one has ever found a way around it. All the laws do is raise the price and fund the worst kind of thugs with millions of dollars.
>>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.<<
Ridiculous statement on its face. These dealers are drawn into the market because of the high profit potential, but they would be just as easily driven from it if the laws were changed.
>>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.<<
Wrong again. Marijuana is worth more than pure gold, yet it grows like a weed anywhere in the country. Explain that. It is largely a myth that drugs are associated with high crime rates. It is a self fulfilling prophecy. You makes drugs illegal and all of a sudden you have high drug related crime rates. Before drugs were made illegal, crimes related to drugs were so rare, every one made headlines. Marijuana dominates the arrests for drugs in this country.
>>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 problem with this argument is that multiple government sponsored studies have shown that alcohol is by far the most dangerous of all the drugs. So your plutonium idea should be applied to alcohol far before any other drug.
>>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.<<
This is once again based on the myth that drug users will automatically become a drag on society. Studies have shown that drug users are often the most productive of all employees. In studies of college students, they found that drug users had on average better grades than non-drug users. In studies of drug screening programs, it has been found that the employees screened out are among the best employees.