Posted on 05/20/2009 2:10:08 PM PDT by FreeKeys
I don’t speak for all Libertarians any more than Sean Penn speaks for all Democrats. I’m not even sure my LP membership card is up to date. I’ve voted Libertarian as long as I can remember but I don’t really remember much before the Clintons and the Bushes. Those clans made a lot of us bugnutty. When I go on Glenn’s show he calls me a Libertarian, I think that’s my only real credential.
There are historical reasons and pragmatic reasons to be a Libertarian, but there are historic and pragmatic reasons to be a Democrat, a Republican or a Socialist. I don’t know if everyone would be better off under a Libertarian government. I don’t know what would be best for anyone. I don’t even know what’s best for me. What makes me Libertarian is I don’t think anyone else really knows what’s best for anyone. My argument for Libertarianism is simple - personal morality.
I start with the Declaration of Independence: “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” So, essentially our government does what they do with my consent.
I know barely enough about Max Weber to type his name into Google, but it seems he’s credited with asserting the idea that the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force. I put those two ideas together (my consent and use of physical force) and figure we all give our government the right to use force. So, the way I figure, it’s not okay for our government to use force in any situation where I personally wouldn’t use force.
For example, if I’m not willing to kill a cute cow, I shouldn’t eat steak. I don’t have to kill Bessy right now with my bare hands, but I have to be willing to snuff her if I want to chow down on a T-bone. If it’s not okay for me, it’s not okay for a slaughterhouse. Asking someone else to do something immoral is immoral. If it’s not okay for me to break David Blaine’s hands so my magic show has less competition, it’s not okay for me to ask someone else to beat him up. Someone else doing your dirty work is still your dirty work.
If I had a gun, and I knew a murder was happening, (we’re speaking hypothetically here, I’m not asking you to believe that I could accurately tell a murder from aggressive CPR), I would use that gun to stop that murder. I might be too much of a coward to use a gun myself to stop a murder or rape or robbery, but I think the use of a gun is justified. I’m even okay with using force to enforce voluntary contracts. If I were a hero, I would use a gun to protect the people who choose to live under this free system and to stop another country from attacking America. But I wouldn’t use a gun to force someone to love something like say…a library.
Look, I love libraries. I spent a lot of time in the Greenfield Public Library when I was a child. I would give money to build a library. I would ask you to give money to build a library. But, if for some reason you were crazy enough to think you had a better idea for your money than building my library, I wouldn’t pull a gun on you. I wouldn’t use a gun to build an art museum, look at the wonders of the universe through a big telescope, or even find a cure for cancer.
The fact that the majority wants something good does not give them the right to use force on the minority that don’t want to pay for it. If you have to use a gun, it’s not really a very good idea. Democracy without respect for individual rights sucks. It’s just ganging up on the weird kid, and I’m always the weird kid.
People try to argue that government isn’t really force. You believe that? Try not paying your taxes. (This is only a thought experiment though -- suggesting someone not pay their taxes is probably a federal offense, and while I may be a nut, I’m not crazy.) When they come to get you for not paying your taxes, try not going to court. Guns will be drawn. Government is force.
It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people yourself is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered. If we’re compassionate, we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint.
I’m a Libertarian nut because I don’t want my government to do anything in my name that I wouldn’t do myself.
Penn Jillette is a celebrated magician, comedian, actor, author and producer. He is best known as the larger, louder half of Penn & Teller, a role he has held since 1975. With his partner Teller, Jillette has been awarded an Obie and an Emmy Award. Their critically acclaimed stage show spent several years both on and off-Broadway, and now has a permanent home at the Rio All-Suite Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas.
Jillette can be seen weekly co-hosting the 11 time Emmy-nominated Showtime series. He also posts daily rants on his "Penn Says" VLog at Sony's www.Crackle.com site.
Law of Unintended Consequences is inviolable. Government is not the solution to our problem...
Well, at least FReepers are able to rationally understand what his true message was. I’m not so confident that others will.
We need a Conservative Party—with Libertarian Ideals but without the egghead notions expressed by them. Ron Paul is my idea of a good thinker. Still, I would welcome Penn and Teller into a new Conservative Party but don’t see their show unless you can handle the F-word being used a lot.
“Government is not the solution to our problem”
sure absolutely. no one here thinks that it is.
We really could nitpick this thing to death.
Bottom line: I like it when a Hollywood-type is an in-your-face NON-lefty. Conservative would be better than Libertarian, but it still feels like a small victory.
“Ron Paul is my idea of a good thinker”
He’s my idea of someone who’s heart is in the right place.
Social conservatism does not have to mean executing abortionists or locking up people suspected of homosexual behavior. Certainly it would be a big achievement if the govt simply stopped *promoting* such behavior ($ for planned parenthood, special gay rights such as marriage) but there is a lot the govt can do without being coercive or expansionist. If the govt can put out an ad campaign to encourage people to join the Army or discourage drugs, it should also encourage better, perhaps private education or discourage abortion. It all falls under the ‘power’ of the bully pulpit; the govt should be able to use the modern media.
“Fudge” and “sodomy” in the same sentence is a somewhat less than ideal way of expressing a serious point. But hey, we all have our days.
I agree that “libertarian” is less well defined than many political labels. FYI, I consider myself a libertarian conservative. Or was it conservative libertarian? It’s so easy to get mixed up on these things.
Not shutting down the Border Patrol and opening the border, not totally unrestricted abortion, not fully opening the military and adoption to homosexuals?
The Wickard Commerce Clause is used by fedgov for hate crime laws¹, gun control, Obamacare, the WOD, and a host of others.
Do you think Wickard is in keeping with the original meaning of the Commerce Clause?
_____________________________________
¹H.R. 1913
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The incidence of violence motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim poses a serious national problem.
-snip-
(6) Such violence substantially affects interstate commerce in many ways, including the following:
-snip-
I’ve had a great day! I suppose I could have used the thesaurus. But I thought it was such a lowbrow innuendo that it would pass right under everyone here.... http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/fudge
I think a conservative IS a libertarian, by definition. A libertarian, on the other hand, I want to know on a case by case basis just WHY they wish to be differentiated that way. Some it’s drugs. Some it’s sodomy (but then why aren’t they against teaching it in schools? why aren’t they against the anti-libertarian laws that are pro-homo?). It’s usually particular things.
of course not. the federal government should be out of all of those kinds of things. of course it’s a travesty. I’ve said so many times.
I think the bible is mostly BS, but that doesn't make me anti-Christian. Show me where Mr. Gilette has called for Christians to be discriminated against.
I think that you have left out the Ayn Rand-type libertarians. Leaving aside her many flaws and psychiatric conditions, her libertarianism was all about the power and dignity of the individual versus the evil of the state.
I've been saying the same thing for years. But your analogy is better than mine. I think I'll steal it...
This is great stuff. Thanks for the post and the ping.
“Just who is against those principles?”
Anyone who believes in using the power of the State to control, in any way, the non-coercive, voluntary behavior of other people. You, for example.
So you DON’T have to use physical force to kill that cow for your steak? Like the ones I’m fixing for dinner tonight? How do YOU kill your cows? THINK them dead? Get real.
What he’s saying is that if you want someone to do something in your name and on your behalf, you need to be legitimately able and willing to do it yourself, as well. And he is correct.
We went to see Penn and Teller in LV expecting it to be their Bullshit act that we have seen on TV, or something like it. It was a magic show! A boring magic show, I couldn’t wait for it to be over.
Yes you can take your kids, not a curse word in their boring magic show.
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.