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 ...
Where exactly in the US Constitution is the enumerated power for Congress to regulate sexual activity?
“If morality were a matter of opinion, you might have a point.”
Ok, honest disagreement. It sounds like you think matters of general morality should be enforced by public law. IE,,do you also believe adultery, or default on a debt should be a criminal offense?
“Objective morality actually keeps the individual and society safe.”
Ahhh i see what you are pursuing.
Allow a small irony here,, i recall, the title of this thread is, “Libertarians: Still in search of their perfect world”,,,yes?
It appears libertarians are not alone in the “perfect world” quest.
The title of the article says it best:
“Practically Irrelevant”
There are many ways to measure relevance. Intellectual relevance is, in my mind, the most important measure. And by that measure, again, to my way of thinking, libertarians have rendered themselves (they did it to themselves) completely irrelevant.
Another measure is electorally. By that measure they are “practically irrelevant”. The goal of all criticism of libertarians (and any other 3rd party poseurs, in my mind) is to ridicule them into a state of electoral effectiveness as asymptotically close to 0% as possible.
Actually, I don’t think those are a matter of criminal law,
but of mostly natural consequences mixed with a bit of societal/community pressure.
In other words, it should be SHAMEFUL, not criminal, to be an immoral person. The left has made it comfortable to be immoral by forcing the rest of us to alleviate the consequences, and criminalizing the shaming of the immoral.
“hmmm.. I DID say ‘societal’ controls, not specifically government”
Yes, you did. But you were talking about the workability of “libertarianism” (scare quotes in the original), which (as I pointed out in my response) is a political, not a social, ideology. There is a school out there that scorns all “societal” control, but it is not libertarianism. Though, as I indicated, some political libertarians—J.S. Mill, Max Stirner—succumbed to it. Such people are most commonly called “libertines.”
“Indeed, a community can ‘impose’ its standards of behavior on individuals without any form of government (force) involved.
Shunning was/is an effective practice.”
I agree.
“Where exactly in the US Constitution is the enumerated power for Congress to regulate sexual activity?”
Since when did conservatives support federal sex laws? So far as I’ve noticed, the issue’s always been the states’ prerogative to regulate sexuality. Which has nothing to do with the Constitution, except insofar as liberals misread it.
“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”
So,,, they can stamp *their* feet and stay home, and thats cool. But, a libertarian should abandon *their* principles, and support the social conservatives candidate and shut up? That about it??
In most countries, libertarians would be one of 6 or 7 minor parties. The bigger party would be forced to accept some of their positions in order to form a workable majority. We have two parties, so those deals must be made within the party. Some republicans want a party solely dedicated to wall street, others want it centered around Christianity, and others want classial libertarian freedom. All three must accomodate each other. If they do, we can end this budding dictatorship. If social conservatives can do it without wall street or libertarians, great,,,,, but we all know thats not the case.
The Reagan revolution also happened during dark economic times. Libertarians did well, as did Christians, as did wall street,,,, everyone got something.
Thats just a hard cold fact.
“The goal of all criticism of libertarians (and any other 3rd party poseurs, in my mind) is to ridicule them into a state of electoral effectiveness as asymptotically close to 0% as possible.”
In that case, the difference between 0% effectiveness and whatever their effectiveness is at present (o.o1%?) counts as their relevance. If they were truly “practically irrelevant,” people wouldn’t conspire to reduce their effectiveness.
“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.”
Lord im 100% with you there. The dope use epidemic IS centered in the non-working class, students, welfare, gangs, etc.
It’s kind of funny,, working people never seem to have several empty hours to be stoned. Funny how that works out!
I guess you are iggnoring the part of my post that specified ‘how these issues are dealt with in “PUBLIC”?
But aside from that the Constitution is government for the People and the 10th Amendment gives all power to the people which would include the power to regulate sexual acitivity such as we already do on a massive scale already (laws against pedophelia, incest, outdated laws against sodomy, bestiality, corrupting the morals of a child, etc......)
“mixed with a bit of societal/community pressure.”
You know,, that’s a strong point. There was a time when a businessman had the FREEDOM to refuse to hire a crossdressing man for his sales floor. There was a time such buffoonery would cause a person to be unable to find employment in a town,,, and with no welfare or 4 year unemployment to turn to,,, well, you know the point already.
I'll find the poster whose tagline reads "as a matter of fact what you do in your bedroom is my business". You can ask him yourself.
Well I did and still would support a federal amendment to the Constitution to define marriage as being between a man and woman in order to clarify this issue for the activists on the Courts. Preferably though I would like to see all of these issues remain states issues but it is becoming clear that the Courts will not allow it to be that way without being forced somehow.
You might want to go back and re-read the Tenth. It says no such thing.
State capitalism is essentially what 'Communist' China has.
Well, speaking of those who must work instead of smoke dope,, i guess it would behoove me to get busy myself. Have a good one, and i think in truth, we aren’t so far apart.
It’s not “conspiring to reduce”... it’s just part of keeping up with all the issues in a tumultuous election year.
The number of votes wasted on L candidates will be low... I’m just hoping that it stays that way and I’m thinking that articles like this one hit that nail on the head.
But look, you have a right to vote the way you want. I’m not arguing against your right to pull that L lever. I’m just taking this opportunity here, in this thread, to agree with the writer of the posted article, that’s all.
But seriously, I’m not disputing anyone’s right to vote any which way they want.
I just like this article.
I can appreciate the sentiments in the story. While many of us (Libertarians), have genuine concerns and beliefs, the Party has become more and more removed from any serious standing in America today. The issues are serious, not sure the same thing can be said about our party. A party that never seems to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. I wonder sometimes could the LP sell ice water in Hell.
There are many changes going on in politics today and a true third party may materialize soon. It will have many of the beliefs of libertarians but, it will not be the Libertarian party.
I am paraphrasing but it absolutely does say what I said...
“The powers .... are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
So yes the people do have the right to representation on issues of regulating sexual behavior.
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.