Libertarian Folly: Why Everybody is a Social-issues Voter

American Thinker ^ | 08/07/2014 | Selwyn Duke

[SeekAndFind]

There is this notion, one we hear more and more, that the Republican Party has to shed the social issues to seize the future. “Social issues are not the business of government!” says thoroughly modern millennial. It’s a seductive cry, one repeated this past Tuesday in an article about how some young libertarians dubbed the “Liberty Kids” are taking over the moribund Los Angeles GOP. Oh, wouldn’t the political landscape be simple if we could just boil things down to fiscal responsibility? But life is seldom simple.

If you would claim to be purely fiscal, or assert that “social issues” should never be government’s domain, I’d ask a simple question: would you have no problem with a movement to legalize pedophilia?

Some responses here won’t go beyond eye-rolling and scoffing. Others will verbalize their incredulity and say that such a movement would never be taken seriously. This is not an answer but a dodge. First, the way to determine if one’s principles are sound is by seeing if they can be consistently applied. For instance, if someone claims he never judges others, it’s legitimate to ask whether he remains uncritical even of Nazis and KKK members; that puts the lie to his self-image. And any thinking person lives an examined life and tries to hone his principles.

[LevinFan]

“Any power you give the state to enforce morals will be retained even when those not of your morals are in charge. This is the part that most SoCons seem to ‘gloss over’ when being overly self-righteous with the power of law. “

You’re right. I’m convinced. We should have no laws at all. Murder laws, toss them. Rape? toss them. Child predator laws? What for? Those laws are not about money, just arbitrary moral values that mean nothing.

Consider this. We have such laws defined, murder, rape, child predator, and even DUI, codified so that society has a clearly defined right and wrong for the purposes of correcting those issues.
It would be unfair to punish a person for a wrong act that wasn’t clearly defined. That is why DUI usually has a BAC. It is not left strictly to some judge’s personal opinion, but a scientifically determined point of impairment.
As I said, we are not going to wait for the DUI guy to hurt someone. If you are DUI, you are already a threat to me. I have no obligation to wait for actual harm, when reason says you are easily a threat.
Don’t like it? Tough. You will never win that argument with society.

Codified law is the only fair means of having ANY law. Otherwise it is nothing but arbitrary Wild West style justice. And without law, what is the means of restraining the worst among us? Just arbitrarily kill them when they cross an undefined line?

As for
“Any power you give the state to enforce morals will be retained even when those not of your morals are in charge.”

That boils down to Regan’s “Freedom is only one generation from extinction.” speech.
Simply put, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Both against the government, and those who would use the word freedom to make themselves a threat to others.

[BlackElk]

Ron Paul yaks a good game about being anti-abortion BUT does not favor government action to put a stop to it. I really don’t care about his opportunistic invocation of CLAIMS to being pro-life when he won’t DO anything about it. He also CLAIMS to favor national defense but by three guys wearing propeller beanies riding a rowboat and carrying a blunderbuss each with five minutes’ supply of ammo. Are we forgetting that Ron Paul was the Libertarian POTUS candidate years ago? No worry that the LP is pro-life. Not hatred just reality.

[bamahead]

Simply put, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Both against the government, and those who would use the word freedom to make themselves a threat to others.

Cliche. How is giving the state almost unlimited power to enforce 'the greater good' working out now that those who don't have either of our morals are in charge? Liberty is being raped by both parties and they have no intention of giving it back despite how much 'eternal vigilance' folks like you think we can throw at it.

You keep burning up those strawmen like 'libertarians are all for murder and rape and pedophilia'. Smearing libertarians who do share some of your small gov't goals with that stupidity is not exactly what I call 'eternal vigilance'...it seems more like a circular firing squad. Meanwhile, the left abuses and piles onto many of the powers that these so-called social 'conservatives' were happy to hand over to the state when it suited enforcement of their 'moral' beliefs.

Prime example: DUI checkpoints (revenue enhancers) have recently morphed into this:

The TSA Is Coming To A Highway Near You

As TSOs continue to expand their presence beyond our nation’s airports and onto our highways, every American citizen has the right to know that they are not dealing with actual federal law enforcement officers. Had one Virginia woman known this days before Thanksgiving she may have been able to escape being forcibly raped by a TSO who approached her in a parking lot in full uniform while flashing his badge.

Will the STRIP Act solve every problem facing the TSA? Absolutely not. The STRIP Act seeks to expand upon the work of my colleagues by chipping away at an unnoticed yet powerful overreach of our federal government. If Congress cannot swiftly overturn something as simple as this administrative decision there will be little hope that we can take steps to truly rein in the TSA on larger issues of concern.

Furthermore, if Congress fails to act do not be surprised if the TSA gives TSOs another administrative makeover in the future. Only this time it won’t be a new uniform. It will be the power to make arrests as some TSOs are already publicly calling for.

But if you aren't doing anything wrong, I guess you have nothing to worry about....right?

[bamahead]

Another morphing of one of your 'morality' laws into full blown police state:

Off-duty cops collect DNA samples at Alabama roadblocks

Don't worry though, I'm sure it was only a 'test run' to see how orderly we'd line up for the real thing.

[Durus]

It's precisely what what I said you just choose to "misunderstand" what I said to further your argument.

The constitution is the contract between citizens and government. It enumerates the legitimate powers of the government, and limites those powers to only those enumerated.

"The idea that there are “inalienable rights” is an explicit moral statement".

Is it? Based on what moral principle?

[LevinFan]

You’re barking up the wrong tree here. No one is arguing government isn’t out of control.

But there is a huge difference between DUI laws and the TSA. But keep reaching for extreme examples to justify a lawless state.

[bamahead]

No one is arguing government isn’t out of control.

I'm glad we agree on that.

But keep reaching for extreme examples to justify a lawless state.

But there's a bit of a difference between my examples of government overreach vs. your strawman of libertarian 'lawlessness'.

My examples are real.

[itsahoot]

it is the Dems who are constantly talking social issues while Repubs are talking jobs and economy.

The Dems are talking Social Justice, entirely different thing.

[rfreedom4u]

“Social issues are not the business of government!”

Every elected official should carry this sentence with them everywhere they go. They should be required to read it aloud before every speech before Congress and at press conferences. Let private charities take care of the poor.

[Beagle8U]

“You mean like the richest men on earth such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and Paul Allen and Phil Knight,...”

I mean what I said. None of those you mentioned started at the bottom rung of society and worked their way out of poverty.

[itsahoot]

I think they are just stingy liberals, other than not wanting to share their Cheetos, they agree with liberals on every issue.

One paragraph says what 230 posts couldn't.

Bump!

[falcon99]

Pseudo social justice

[Beagle8U]

You might like post #128 also.

[redgolum]

The principle that all men have rights.

That was meant at the time of the writing of the Constitution to mean “All land owning men of good standing”. That alone was rather radical, and was preached against in Europe.

Saying you have “rights” is a moral statement. It says that even though one party has the power, they are not allowed to use that power against someone else. It is a moral statement just like “do not murder” is.

Read philosophy and history sir. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights was very radical for it’s time, and was attacked for intruding to far into the moral sphere of the landed gentry.

[itsahoot]

I did like 128# In my opinion Libertarianism rejects God and invites a Tyrant to replace Him.

1Sa 8:5 And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

1Sa 8:6 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.

1Sa 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

[Beagle8U]

They also reject common sense and human nature. Only in fantasy land would their Libtardian world function.

Their plan never gets much past smoking lots of dope and...?

[Paladins Prayer]

I flirted with it too. I will add that far too many libertarians are douchebags who will cheat you six ways to Sunday if they can get away with it. Their rationalization often seems to be that they’re not their brother’s keeper and, if you’re enough of a sucker to fall for what their selling, it’s your fault for not exercising your freedom properly.

[Durus]

I know what it means and I know the philosophical principles behind it. Please explain what moral principle was behind the radical concept of "inalienable rights". How did the morality of the colonies change so much that they rebelled against their lawful rulers?

"Saying you have “rights” is a moral statement."

I asked what the moral principle was that made it a moral statement. Simply repeating that it is a moral statement isn't proof of your opinion. I could, for example say that it is a philosophical statement and not a moral statement.

Morality is about what is right and wrong. People can have very different codes of morality. In the age of reason, we the people created and adopted a Constitution that codified a Government based on said reason, and the observation of Nature as a reflection Natures God. However, it was recognized that Government could not take the place of God nor be a moral arbiter in all cases. We the people limited the powers of Government to only those powers enumerated because we knew a Government of unlimited powers is destructive to liberty.

In other words, just because you think something is immoral doesn't make it something the government has the legitimate power to regulate. Otherwise our Government becomes one of unlimited power that destroys liberty based on some tyrants demagoguery of "morality".

[LevinFan]

” They also reject common sense and
human nature. Only in fantasy land would
their Libtardian world function.

Their plan never gets much past smoking
lots of dope and...?”

In reality, they just reject the truth that others have rights to be protected too. Like my exchange over DUI. A libertarian would wait until actual harm happens.
Bull. I have a right to travel without Otis putting me at risk. And I wont put up with it.

[x]

My theory is that, during the 80s-90s there was a coup in the big “L” Libertarian Party, where the objectivist Rand followers and the anarchist wing took over and began setting the agenda for the party. Since they are the most vocal people that the average person hears calling themselves “libertarian”, their positions are all that less informed people now associate with the word.

Interesting theory. I'm not sure what the change you're talking about was, but I don't really buy the idea that there was some king of coup. The basic elements of the LP have been there from the beginning.

There have been hard-edge economic libertarians and fuzzy social libertarians all the way along (the earliest platforms opposed laws against drug use and other victimless crimes).

And LP presidential candidates have tended to be more hard-edged than fuzzy, at least until Gary Johnson tried to make a major play for hipsters.

People in the party have always run along a continuum from radically anti-government views to more moderate and gradualist ones.

Ayn Rand's been an indirect influence for a long-time, but I don't see Objectivists taking up party positions. Also, she's hardline hard-edge.

I suspect the bigger changes since the 1970s have been among Republicans and conservatives, rather than among libertarians (big L or small l).