Posted on 10/18/2010 9:10:24 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
I have come to believe that Libertarians are worthless. Before them, a crop of wonderful, small government candidates sit and will likely win–scores of points of optimism in a political sky that has been bleak and black. To coin a word from the opposition, there’s Hope.
Now, most of us watching this election realize that the exhausting work over the last two years has hardly begun. Once this new crop become part of the system, they’ll have to be watched and held accountable.
The most optimistic change, then, hasn’t really been these candidates. It’s been the heart of the American people. Citizens have decided that they’ve sat on their duffs long enough. It’s time to get involved. It’s time to stay involved.
The candidates aren’t perfect. No politicians are perfect. Hells bells. They’re human and mere vessels for the expression of the voters’ will.
So, I read Doug Mataconis’ piece about why Libertarians are still disenchanted even with the best electoral hope in a generation presents itself. I feel absolute disgust.
Kvetching about the social issues of a Christine O’Donnell while ignoring the economic liberties that Mike Castle would have assuredly stripped had he had his way makes no sense. How on earth can a true Libertarian even worry about such irrelevance?
(Excerpt) Read more at libertypundits.net ...
You make the common error of mistaking libertarians for anarchists.
I rather doubt that the Libertarians will ever take over via the ballot box.
I was talking to a group of gun nuts the other day -
it was brought up that the definition of a libertarian
is a conservative that smokes dope.
“The thing about “libertarianism” is that it would be completely workable if the individual had INTERNAL behavioral controls, which would preclude the need for “societal” controls on behavior.”
in other words, if they will voluntarily live as you think they should, we wouldn’t have to FORCE them to comply?
Yawn, the usual claptrap from people who don’t understand small ‘l’ libertarianism at all.
Libertarians also might be defined as people who want contacts with the Government to be extremely rare.
For example, they might be a fan of the light bulb, a toilet that flushes right, and might think the depts of education and energy should be abolished.
It’s much much more that just advocacy for a silly ditch weed.
Yeah, I've noticed the same thing. There seems to be about 1 "Libertarians are basically Democrats, and even if they aren't, they can't win" thread every day or so.
Flak, target. 'Nuff said.
Yes, but you still haven’t explained how irrelevant people can be a danger to the political process. After all, they are irrelevant.
If morality were a matter of opinion, you might have a point.
Objective morality actually keeps the individual and society safe.
You should read the SECOND line of that post you replied to as well.
You could just as easily commented that if people lived a moral life, they wouldn’t be as likely to need to impose their needs on others (through the government).
Well, we certainly need smaller government. I think we can all agree on that. Not just a pause in spending, but take down the Department of Education and a half dozen others to start with. Defund public radio. And so forth.
But libertarians are the ones who are constantly pulling back and refusing to cooperate—not social conservatives.
Two points. First, in order to WIN we need a coalition of conservatives, including small government and social conservatives. No hope of winning without the social conservatives, who are the larger group and who will refuse to vote if the basic principles are not kept up by the party.
Second, while it would be nice to think that freedom means doing whatever you want, without government or other interference, that just ain’t POSSIBLE. You cannot have a free country unless people are willing to discipline themselves and work for the benefit of others—family, neighbors—as well as themselves individually.
You can afford a few loose cannons living sinful and disordered lives around the edges of society, but you cannot afford a society where everyone wants to be a loose cannon. It won’t work. And if people refuse to discipline themselves, then the police and the KGB will step in and do it for them.
America has been a free country because, while people have done what they choose to do, they also have stayed within certain boundaries, taken care of their families, raised their children, and the rest. For that, most people—not all, but most—need a decent religion and a decent moral education in school. Most people are no longer getting that.
That’s a large part of the problem.
As things stand, it’s sometimes very difficult to tell a conservative libertarian from a hippie libertarian, because both of them may be chiefly concerned to do whatever the hell they want. That won’t work, not if everyone wants to do it. Not if a critical mass of people want to do it.
LOL! Couldn’t have said it better myself.
“The thing about ‘libertarianism’ is that it would be completely workable if the individual had INTERNAL behavioral controls, which would preclude the need for ‘societal’ controls on behavior.”
Libertarianism is a political ideology which, while it may engender concomitant social attitudes, does not speak to all the external behavioral controls that might reform recalcitrant individuals. Libertarians can just as easily be a J.S. Mill or a Max Stirner politically and a Fitzjames Stephens socially.
What a comment on the ubiquity of the state, that apparently the only institution you can imagine capable of inhibiting those lacking internal controls is government. As if the family, friends, neighbors, the church, clubs, fraternal organizations, work, heck, even internet forums, don’t exist. All sorts of institutions between the state and the individual—all of them subtler and potentially more effective—are available.
"The arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and assistance to foreign hands should be curtailed, lest Rome fall." Cicero, 55BC
I think most of those who would deem themselves as hardcore conservatives would agree with you on all the points that you mentioned, and I don’t really care about the marijuana issue, either.
Our country did just fine without any drug laws for a LONG time. It was only after the gov’t decided that it would start paying people for not working that it became an option to LIVE perpetually high.
“Because they are a small but steady drain on votes”
Which baldly contradicts your assertion that they’re irrelevant.
hmmm.. I DID say “societal” controls, not specifically government.
Indeed, a community can “impose” its standards of behavior on individuals without any form of government (force) involved.
Shunning was/is an effective practice.
Well said.
Republicans took over with only a simple majority in 1994.
1.Now you subtract social security, medicare ,Medicaid, HUD, welfare etc. , the thousands of agencies that democrats had already created up to 1994.
2. So now we have no government in 1994.
3. Then you add ONLY the government agencies and programs that the Republican Congress added from 1994 on . And then you will see that there is virtually no government after the Republican Congress ended its term in 2006.
Republicans never had a super majority that is needed to repeal the democrat laws like social security ,medicare etc. which alone are exploding by hundreds of billions per year of government spending. Yet the liberal media and many brainwashed by the liberal media blame Bush and Republicans for this growing government.
Taking inflation into account ( which the media doesn't do when slandering Republicans as big spenders), Look at real graph of discretionary spending as a percentage of GDP and you will see a decrease in government spending during the 12 years of the Republican Congress.
Also the Republican congress stopped Amnesty for illegals and government healthcare ,for 12 years they did this.
and that Libertarians must INFILTRATE the GOP and run as GOP members in order to win
That is the ONLY way Ron Paul could get elected!
How many socialists have ever been elected to high public office in the United States? And how many of their beliefs have been publicly instituted?
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.