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

Skip to comments.

Why Is Libertarianism Wrong?
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/libertarian.html ^

Posted on 02/01/2002 10:21:47 AM PST by Exnihilo

Why is libertarianism wrong?

Why is libertarianism wrong?

The origins, background, values, effects, and defects of libertarianism. Some sections are abstract, but at the end some irreducible value conflicts are clearly stated.


origins

Libertarianism is part of the Anglo-American liberal tradition in political philosophy. It is a development of classic liberalism, and not a separate category from it. It is specifically linked to the United States. Many libertarian texts are written by people, who know only North American political culture and society. They claim universal application for libertarianism, but it remains culture-bound. For instance, some libertarians argue by quoting the US Constitution, without apparently realising, that it is not in force outside the USA. Most online material on libertarianism contrasts it to liberalism, but this contrast is also specific the USA - where the word 'liberal' is used to mean 'left-of-centre'. Here, the word 'liberal' is used in the European sense: libertarians are a sub-category of liberals. As political philosophy, liberalism includes John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Karl Popper, Friedrich Hayek, Isaiah Berlin, and John Rawls. As a political movement, it is represented by the continental-European liberal parties in the Liberal International.

At this point, you might expect a definition of libertarianism. However, most definitions of libertarianism are written by libertarians themselves, and they are extremely propagandistic. "Libertarianism is freedom!' is a slogan, not a definition. Most other definitions of libertarianism borrow from those self-definitions, so I have avoided them. Instead, the values, claims, and effects listed below describe the reality of libertarianism.

values

The values of libertarianism can not be rationally grounded. It is a system of belief, a 'worldview'. If you are a libertarian, then there is no point in reading any further. There is no attempt here to convert you: your belief is simply rejected. The rejection is comprehensive, meaning that all the starting points of libertarian argument (premises) are also rejected. There is no shared ground from which to conduct an argument.

The libertarian belief system includes the values listed in this section, which are affirmed by most libertarians. Certainly, no libertarian rejects them all...

the claims and self-image of libertarianism

Libertarians tend to speak in slogans - "we want freedom", "we are against bureaucracy" - and not in political programmes. Even when they give a direct definition of libertarianism, it is not necessarily true.

The differences between libertarian image and libertarian reality are summarised in this table.

libertarian image libertarian reality
Image: non-coercion, no initiation of force Reality: libertarians legitimise economic injustice, by refusing to define it as coercion or initiated force
Image: moral autonomy of the individual Reality: libertarians demand that the individual accept the outcome of market forces
Image: political freedom Reality: some form of libertarian government, imposing libertarian policies on non-libertarians
Image: libertarians condemn existing states as oppressive Reality: libertarians use the political process in existing states to implement their policies
Image: benefits of libertarianism Reality: libertarians claim the right to decide for others, what constitutes a 'benefit'


political structures in a libertarian society

Values do not enforce their own existence in the social world. The values of libertarianism would have to be enforced, like those of any other political ideology. These political structures would be found in most libertarian societies.

effects

The effects of a libertarian world flow from the values it enforces.

what is libertarianism?

With the values and effects listed above, the general characteristics of libertarianism can be summarised.

Firstly, libertarianism is a legitimation of the existing order, at least in the United States. All political regimes have a legitimising ideology, which gives an ethical justification for the exercise of political power. The European absolute monarchies, for instance, appealed to the doctrine of legitimate descent. The King was the son of a previous King, and therefore (so the story went), entitled to be king. In turn, a comprehensive opposition to a regime will have a comprehensive justification for abolishing it. Libertarianism is not a 'revolutionary ideology' in that sense, seeking to overthrow fundamental values of the society around it. In fact, most US libertarians have a traditionalist attitude to American core values. Libertarianism legitimises primarily the free-market, and the resulting social inequalities.

Specifically libertarianism is a legitimation for the rich - the second defining characteristic. If Bill Gates wants to defend his great personal wealth (while others are starving) then libertarianism is a comprehensive option. His critics will accuse him of greed. They will say he does not need the money and that others desperately need it. They will say his wealth is an injustice, and insist that the government redistribute it. Liberalism (classic liberal philosophy) offers a defence for all these criticisms, but libertarianism is sharper in its rejection. That is not to say that Bill Gates 'pays all the libertarians'. (He would pay the Republican Party instead, which is much better organised, and capable of winning elections). Libertarianism is not necessarily invented or financed, by those who benefit from the ideology. In the USA and certainly in Europe, self-declared libertarians are a minority within market-liberal and neoliberal politics - also legitimising ideologies. To put it crudely, Bill Gates and his companies do not need the libertarians - although they are among his few consistent defenders. (Libertarians formed a 'Committee for the Moral Defense of Microsoft' during the legal actions against the firm).

Thirdly, libertarians are conservatives. Many are openly conservative, but others are evasive about the issue. But in the case of openly conservative libertarians, the intense commitment to conservatism forms the apparent core of their beliefs. I suggest this applies to most libertarians: they are not really interested in the free market or the non-coercion principle or limited government, but in their effects. Perhaps what libertarians really want is to prevent innovation, to reverse social change, or in some way to return to the past. Certainly conservative ideals are easy to find among libertarians. Charles Murray, for instance, writes in What it means to be a Libertarian (p. 138):

The triumph of an earlier America was that it has set all the right trends in motion, at a time when the world was first coming out of millennia of poverty into an era of plenty. The tragedy of contemporary America is that it abandonned that course. Libertarians want to return to it.

Now, Murray is an easy target: he is not only an open conservative, but also a racist. (As co-author of The Bell Curve he is probably the most influential western academic theorist of racial inferiority). But most US libertarians share his nostalgia for the early years of the United States, although it was a slave-owning society. Libertarianism, however, is also structurally conservative in its rejection of revolutionary force (or any innovative force). Without destruction there can be no long-term social change: a world entirely without coercion and force would be a static world.

the real value conflicts with libertarians

The descriptions of libertarianism above are abstract, and criticise its internal inconsistency. Many libertarian texts are insubstantial - just simple propaganda tricks, and misleading appeals to emotion. But there are irreducible differences in fundamental values, between libertarians and their opponents. Because they are irreducible, no common ground of shared values exists: discussion is fruitless. The non-libertarian alternative values include these...

the alternative: what should the state do?

The fundamental task of the state, in a world of liberal market-democratic nation states, is to innovate. To innovate in contravention of national tradition, to innovate when necessary in defiance of the 'will of the people', and to innovate in defiance of market forces and market logic. Libertarians reject any such draconian role for the state - but then libertarians are not the carriers of absolute truth.

These proposed 'tasks of the state' are a replacement for the standard version, used in theoretical works on public administration:

  1. to restrict tradition and heritage, to limit transgenerational culture and transgenerational community - especially if they inhibit innovation
  2. to restrict 'national values', that is the imposition of an ethnic or nation-specific morality
  3. to permit the individual to secede from the nation state, the primary transgenerational community
  4. to limit market forces, and their effects
  5. to permit the individual to secede from the free market
  6. to restrict an emergent civil society, that is, control of society by a network of elite 'actors' (businesses and NGO's)
  7. to prevent a 'knowledge society' - a society where a single worldview (with an absolute claim to truth) is uncontested .
To avoid confusion, note that they are not all directed against libertarianism: but if libertarians shaped the world, the state would do none of these things.


relevant links

Index page: liberalism

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Liberalism - the mainstream definitions of liberalism.

Liberal Manifesto of Oxford (1947), European political liberalism. Some elements, such as "Loyal adherence to a world organisation of all nations..." would now be rejected by the same parties.

Libertäre Ideologie - a series of articles on the libertarian ideology at the online magazine Telepolis. Even if you can not read German, it is useful as a source of links, to libertarian and related sites.

European Libertarians. The Statue of Liberty on their homepage also symbolises Atlanticism: there is no recent libertarian tradition in Europe, outside the UK. More typical of European ultra-liberal politics is the New Right economic liberalism which was at the start of the Thatcher government in Britain. See for example the Institute for Economic Studies Europe, or in central Europe the Czech Liberální Institut.

Libertarian NL, a Dutch libertarian homepage (Aschwin de Wolf). But look at the political issues, the political thinkers, and the links: the libertarian world consists primarily of the United States. In December 2000 the featured theme was an open letter to Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the US central bank (Federal Reserve Board). Yet this is a Dutch website, made by people who live in Europe. Their currency policy is made by European central bank chairman Wim Duisenberg, the former Netherlands central bank president. But they chose to ignore the society around them, and live as wannabe US citizens. Again, a recurrent pattern among European libertarians.

Libertarisme: De renaissance van het klassiek liberalisme by Aschwin de Wolf. This introduction to libertarianism, written for the members of the Netherlands liberal party VVD, illustrates the missionary attitude of libertarians in Europe. European liberalism has become corrupted, they claim, and must reform itself on the model of US libertarianism.

Libertarisme FAQ: explicit about the conservative effects of libertarianism: "Je zou echter wel kunnen stellen dat het libertarisme conservatief is in die zin dat zij mensen in hun waarde laat en geen progressieve experimenten door de overheid toelaat. Het libertarisme is dus heel goed verenigbaar met het koesteren van tradities of andere overgeleverde manieren van leven."

democratic expansionism: liberal market democracy itself depends on coercion, a US military invasion for example

The advantage of capitalist trucks, David Friedman

The Cathedral and the Bazaar: libertarian ideologists are switching their attention from the Internet to Open Source. This text restates a theme from classic liberal philosophy: the contrast between emergent and ideal order (market and Church).

The non-statist FAQ seems to have gone offline (December 2000).

Critiques Of Libertarianism, the best-known anti-libertarian site, but almost exclusively US-American in content.

Elfnet: O/S for a Global Brain?: a good example of the combination of New Age, computer science, and globalism in global-brain connectionism. Opens, as you might expect, with a quote from Kevin Kelly.

Multi-Agent Systems / Hypereconomy: organicist free-market ideas from Alexander Chislenko, "...a contract economy looks much like a forest ecology..."
Networking in the Mind Age: Chislenko on a network global-brain. "The infomorph society will be built on new organizational principles and will represent a blend of a superliquid economy, cyberspace anarchy and advanced consciousness". I hope it works better than his website, which crashed my browser.

Gigantism in Soviet Space: the Soviet Union's state-organised mega-projects are a horror for all liberals. They contravene almost every libertarian precept.

The Right to Discriminate, from the libertarian "Constitution of Oceania". Few libertarians are so explicit about this, but logically it fits. The Right to Own a Business also provides that "Mandatory disability benefits for transvestites, pedophiles, pyromaniacs, kleptomaniacs, drug addicts, and compulsive gamblers are obviously forbidden."

Virtual Canton Constitution, from the libertarian think-tank Free Nation Foundation. Although they claim to be anti-statists, libertarians write many and detailed Constitutions. This one re-appears in the generally libertarian Amsterdam 2.0 urban design project.

Serbia and Bosnia: A Foreign Policy Formulation : libertarianism solves the Bosnia problem. "I am a newcomer to foreign policy and cannot claim to understand all that matters". From the Free Nation site, which advocates a (logically inconsistent) libertarian state.

Libertarian immigration: Entirely free, but, but...."Fortunately, a truly free society would be protected by the fact that all property would be private. Only an immigrant who had permission to occupy the property of another could even enter the country. Even roads and sidewalks would be privately owned and would probably require some type of fee for entry."

Libertarian Foreign Policy, Libertarian Party of Canada. An example of the isolationism which at present characterises North American libertarianism, despite its inherent universalist character.

The Unlikeliest Cult in History



TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aynrand; libertarianism; libertarians; medicalmarijuana
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 441-445 next last
To: OWK
talk about the debating skills of a 9 year old! if he posts this crap, it's his job to back it up, not our job to prove him wrong.

Damn, and this is coming from a 21 year old; this joker is probably about 5 years my senior...

161 posted on 02/01/2002 11:35:49 AM PST by Benson_Carter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
#157's directed at you, Exnihilo.
162 posted on 02/01/2002 11:36:00 AM PST by NittanyLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
I'm a DU disruptor? LOL! Please, check my thread history knucklehead. hahahahah.. you made my day.. what a good laugh.
163 posted on 02/01/2002 11:36:20 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: palo verde
In practice, I can agree with a lot of what libertarians believe. But their principles are wrong.

One central belief of libertarianism seems to be that consenting adults have a "right" to do whatever they want to do. Clearly, God doesn't give anyone a right to do something that is evil.

Whether or not specific immoral acts should be illegal is a matter or prudential judgement. Aquinas' principle in outlawing vice was pretty simple. Is the amount of vice reduced by criminalization greater than the amount of vice caused by criminalization (corruption)?

164 posted on 02/01/2002 11:36:24 AM PST by Aquinasfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
I can't believe that he actually thinks these are good arguments!
165 posted on 02/01/2002 11:36:57 AM PST by The Green Goblin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: The Green Goblin
I agree with you on that point.
166 posted on 02/01/2002 11:37:00 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
Well gee golly whillickers, if'n ya jest jine up wit' dis-here Mensa club, why ya getsta show the world how sooperior ya are. Step right this way...

Seriously, most of the members I have met, whether in person or during the course of my centuries of internet dwelling, have been poor ambassadors for their organisation. I didn't say you were silly, pretentious and risible ... I said that of the organisation. I'd much rather hang out with the rednecks at the rifle range. (AB pulls his collar aside and checks: Yup! It's still red.) I've found that IQ (however defined) is a poor predictor of whether I will enjoy a person's company.

AB

167 posted on 02/01/2002 11:37:29 AM PST by ArrogantBustard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
How can you possibly argue that the author does not incorporate Socialsim into his conclusions about Libertarians?

The author CHOOSES to use collectivist values, definitions and worldview in his misguided attempt to debunk Libertarian thought (both large and small 'L'). His whole arguement begins with the presumption that a ruling elite has the authority to direct the resources of society. In the end he concludes that libertarian ideals don't really get perfectly inplemented, and therefore ta-ta-rahhhh we need to have a government that micromanages everyone's lives.

He dismisses the issues discussed in voluminous writings by Classical Liberal authors such as Hayek, Friedman and Von Mises with a wave of his hand, calmly setting up straw-man arguments and briskly knocking them down without addressing the actual issues that have ben widely debated for hundreds of years.

I am hesitant to spend much effort to cite rank and file examples simply because I believe it would do no good. If you truly cared for such you'd read the Road to Serfdom, Capitalism and Freedom, or Human Action yourself and critique them accordingly.

Many here are frustrated with this article because they see the individual as owning themselves and as a consequence of that, owning the fruits of their labor. This is axiomatic to them. A large part of the frustration that we have with you is you are strolling in with an argument that a ruling elite can kill and destroy in order to buy themselves power and create a social picture that they find more pleasing. And that somehow to say otherwise is self contradictory because voluntary co-operation will result in a picture that someone else finds pleasing.

168 posted on 02/01/2002 11:37:52 AM PST by El Sordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo, Doctor Doom
*yawn* Is this the best you people can come up with? "You're a commie!" Get real. I found his points about Libertarians illuminating.

Don't flatter yourself. You "found his points" illumninating only because he attacked libertarianism, not because He had anything worthwhile to say.

You are perfectly happy to throw in with a Commmunist, because you are more concerned with being "anti-libertarian" than with the criminal ideological mental sickness of anyone who would excuse the crimes of the Christian-killing Communists... which now includes you.

You and your friends have yet to refute ANY of his points about Libertarians. You point to his political ideology and then mention other things he says unrelated to Libertarianism. What are you afraid of??

Nothing.

At this point, you might expect a definition of libertarianism. However, most definitions of libertarianism are written by libertarians themselves, and they are extremely propagandistic. "Libertarianism is freedom!' is a slogan, not a definition. Most other definitions of libertarianism borrow from those self-definitions, so I have avoided them. Instead, the values, claims, and effects listed below describe the reality of libertarianism.

By not defining Libertarianism by its self-professed creeds, the author herein arrogates to himself the privilege of defining Libertarianism however he sees fit.

But while he has a First Amendment Right to engage in this kind of deceitful sophistry, no CHRISTIAN can endorse this slanderous tactic. "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor".

This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.

values ~~ The values of libertarianism can not be rationally grounded. It is a system of belief, a 'worldview'. If you are a libertarian, then there is no point in reading any further. There is no attempt here to convert you: your belief is simply rejected. The rejection is comprehensive, meaning that all the starting points of libertarian argument (premises) are also rejected. There is no shared ground from which to conduct an argument.

Smear tactic. The fact of the matter is, I would submit that the author simply rejects libertarianism out-of-hand because he is afraid of having his logic savaged... I personally suspect that he has debated libertarians before, and knows he can't win.

So, if you can't win an argument... smear. But while he has a First Amendment Right to engage in this kind of deceitful sophistry, no CHRISTIAN can endorse this slanderous tactic. "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor".

This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.

The libertarian belief system includes the values listed in this section, which are affirmed by most libertarians. Certainly, no libertarian rejects them all...

HILARIOUSLY stupid statement of deceptive illogic (though I'm not surprised that you "found it illuminating"). Why, by including "Conservatives practice Sodomy" and "Conservatives breathe Air" in the same group of points, the author could likewise say, the sodomizing Conservative belief system includes the values listed in this section, which are affirmed by most Conservatives. "Certainly, no Conservative rejects them all..."

But while he has a First Amendment Right to engage in this kind of deceitful sophistry, no CHRISTIAN can endorse this slanderous tactic. "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor".

This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.

"process legitimises outcome" -- ALL TRUE CHRISTIANS must likewise believe that "Process legitimizes Outcome"; Christian Ethics are as rigidly deontological (that is, anti-Consequentialist) as any Libertarian's.

Non-Consequentialist Deontological Ethics (the above Communistic attack on which you find so illuminating) are fundamental to the Christian Faith. This Communist opposes Deontological Ethics.

This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.

revealing of order / perfection -- Also fundamental to Christian Ethics. Believing as we do that perfection is literally contained in Scripture, we believe that Presbyters and Magistrates who adhere to God's Law will thereby reveal the perfect purity of God's Law unto an imperfect world. "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it".

This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.

world of emergence -- The value attached to the outcome of process, is so central to libertarianism, that it defines the ideal libertarian world.... Inherently, it must then defend this world's existence. And if the absolute free-market had totally unexpected effects (such as a Bolshevik world government), then most libertarians would interfere with its workings, to reinstate their intended ideal world.

False. Libertarians would have no objection to the emergence of a Communal society, provided that it was a purely-voluntary Community... No Force, No Fruad.

Again, this mirrors Christian Ethics. In those areas where Christians have seen fit to establish certain holdings and economic activities in common, it has been a voluntary communalism: No Force, No Fraud.

Ergo, the Communist author of the above is just spitting lies.

This does not occur to Exnihilo, for he is far more Anti-Libertarian, then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.

I could go on... and on... and on...

This entire piece is a pig-swill of vomitous illogic, which is ""illuminating" only to fools.

But when I am done, if you are STILL going to just stand there and drool, "but libertarianism is bad", and defend the Christianity-killing Lies of the blasphemous Social Gospel... why should I bother?

169 posted on 02/01/2002 11:37:53 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
Really? I'm shocked. Well, then, every point must be from divine inspiration.

The point was that someone wrote an article whose basis is that one cannot both comprehend the article's definitions and libertarianism. Now, I'm supposed to read an article written by someone who thinks I'm Satan incarnate, with an open mind, and logically refute his "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong" rantings.

(Truthfully, I do intend to read the article, but I am starting with as closed a mind as the author's. If I chose to refute any of his rant, you'll be the first to know.)

170 posted on 02/01/2002 11:37:53 AM PST by dagny taggert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Benson_Carter
Why is it my job to back it up? I agree with parts of it, so in my opinion, it's only up to me to back up parts I agree with. I would not, for instance, back up his claims about deregulation.
171 posted on 02/01/2002 11:37:54 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Aquinasfan
On the contrary, God from the beginning gave humans the choice -- and the consequence. This is clear from the Biblical account, from the apple story onwards.
172 posted on 02/01/2002 11:38:40 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Dane
I can't make other people do anything. As for myself, I curse the ACLU at least twice a day. Good enough?
173 posted on 02/01/2002 11:39:56 AM PST by Dakmar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
which now includes you

I really don't understand your reasoning. If person A agrees with somethings that person B says, and person B supports policy X which person A totally disagrees with, then person A implicitly supports and agrees with policy X, and presumably everything person B says? And they say my debating skills are poor.. lol!!
174 posted on 02/01/2002 11:40:14 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
BUMP
175 posted on 02/01/2002 11:41:07 AM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
then he is Christian in any possible sense of the term.

When did I claim to be Christian?? LOL!!!
176 posted on 02/01/2002 11:41:11 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally, The Green Goblin, Exnihilo
Yep! I was wondering myself if this was one of those randomly generated essays. It makes no sense. I can't believe that we are actually wasting our time telling this guy its nonsense. 152 posted on 2/1/02 12:33 PM Pacific by FreeTally

Sigh... see my #169. I decided to take the time to point that out.

Now, let's see whether or not "Exnihilo" is able to realize, for one fleeting second, "Oh, dear me, I've accidentally gone and posted a complete pile of Communist crap, which I mistakenly thought was 'illuminating'. Silly me.".

177 posted on 02/01/2002 11:41:42 AM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
The choice given me by the two major parties are marxism or fascism. I consider myself a strict constructionist so I will take the libertarian side almost every time. They are the only party that acknowledges goverment is limited by the Constitution.

Why these rants against the libertarians today, somebody lose your welfare check?

178 posted on 02/01/2002 11:41:57 AM PST by steve50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
I don't have to check thread histories to know an enemy when I see one.

Your hostility to American principles of governance is obvious.

Either that, or you are too dim to understand the consequences of your inchoate views.

I will hunt you down, and smoke you out, disruptor.

179 posted on 02/01/2002 11:42:01 AM PST by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
as I said, you have the debate and logic skills of a 9 year old.

take my advice, don't provoke OWK, he'll take you to school and back.

180 posted on 02/01/2002 11:42:01 AM PST by Benson_Carter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 441-445 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