Skip to comments.The Fall of the Libertarians
Posted on 05/01/2002 9:09:03 PM PDT by Pokey78Edited on 04/23/2004 12:04:26 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Sept. 11 might have also brought down a political movement.
The great free-market revolution that began with the coming to power of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan at the close of the 1970s has finally reached its Thermidor, or point of reversal. Like the French Revolution, it derived its energy from a simple idea of liberty, to wit, that the modern welfare state had grown too large, and that individuals were excessively regulated. The truth of this idea was vindicated by the sudden and unexpected collapse of Communism in 1989, as well as by the performance of the American and British economies in the 1990s.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
All to clear for those of us who champion morality.
1. There exist private fire fighting agencies that sometimes lose employees in tragedies. Government firefighters have no lock on job mortality.
2. Individuals fight terrorists just like governments do, except that in the case of 9-11 the facts indicate the superiority of citizens. Note that the sole 9-11 hijacked plane that didn't make it to its target was taken down by private individual citizens, like Todd Beamer of "Let's roll!" fame, and not any government intervention.
3. The screening of passengers at airports not only didn't prevent 9-11 from happening, it may have facilitated it by disarming the passengers such that just 4 or 5 men with boxcutters could overpower the crew and seize control. Had the government not disarmed the passengers, there is some chance the terrorists would have been shot and the plane landed safely. But, thanks to the government-imposed airline-traveller defenselessness act, no such luck.
The author of this hit piece should do better than making three lies in one sentence to make his case.
So true. If we have the ability to help our children live better lives, we will use it. All his other arguments mean little in the face of this.
Why? Is there some sort of legal case in which he is the judge, and has to disqualify himself because he has an opinion on the subject.
Makes sense to me!. . . . . . not.
Bill Mahr doesn't even know what a Libertarian is, how would he know if he was one? He isn't by the way;-)
Wow. With this one sentence, the author proves that he has no idea of Libertarian principles as well as his abysmal ignorance of a Republican form of government.
September 11 proved exactly the opposite IMO.
I'll say it slowly, for the Constitutionally impaired. There is no such thing as 'collective interest'. There never has been, and there never will be.
There is only your interest, my interest, and the interests of that person over there.
My interests are not, and only occasionally will be the same as yours.
I never cease to be amused at the half witted attempts by those who do not and never will understand Libertarian principles pathetic attempts to critique them.
It's a lot like watching a chimpanzee attempt to understand the workings of a Swiss watch. They may be able to strap one on their wrist. They may even be able to use it for its intended purpose, but they will never, ever be able to understand how it actually functions.
The first without the second is a body without a soul--good for little but self-indulgent decay and corruption.
For many on the right, Mr. Reagan's classical liberalism began to evolve into libertarianism...
Politicians often say one thing and do another. Even Clinton sounded conservative during the 1992 campaign when he promised tax cuts for the middle-class.
While the author criticizes Libertarians and the Cato Institute for their support of a non-interventionist foreign policy, and sites 9/11 as justification for meddling in the affairs of foreign nations, any mention of the hundreds of billions of dollars in money, weapons, and military hardware the US has given to communists, dictators, and terrorists over the past 50 years is interestingly absent.
Sept. 11...was a reminder to Americans of why government exists, and why it has to tax citizens and spend money to promote collective interests...
And despite the fact that the federal government has spent tens of trillions over the past few decades it couldn't protect Americans from terrorists. The author is wrong. If anything, 9/11 was a reminder of why we should not play global dictator and meddle in the affairs of other countries.
The author criticizes Libertarians who support cloning and genetic engineering. He should not have painted Libertarians with such a wide brush. Furthermore, the author deceptively lumps state enforced abortions into the mix to confuse the issue. State enforced abortions are a completely seperate matter. I'm sure it would not have been hard to find Republicans and Democrats who also support cloning and genetic engineering. But, the objective of the author was simply to smear Libertarians.
I cannot honestly say how Libertarians stand on the issue. I haven't come to a decision myself although I'm inclined to oppose it based on the evidence presented thus far. The scientific evidence is just too inconclusive to make an informed decision one way or another at this time.
Bill Maher also proclaimed himself a comedian. Neither is true.
I'll extend my comment regarding the need to rise before one can fall. Doesn't there need to be start before something can be "all over"? The chairmanship of the Denver dogcatching authority don't count IMHO.
Hummm, let me think. Milton Friedman or Jim Jeffords.....wait a minute, give me some time here....
The Republican Party is dead. It's just the body hasn't quite stopped twitching yet.
Trent Lott couldn't buy a clue if you gave him a thousand dollars, a map, and a bus ticket. The really sad part of it is that Denny Hastert is even more clueless.
Talk about dumb and dumber...
Face it Chapman, libertarianism is a shallow form of politics, filled with hollow headed followers, void of both moral and ethical codes of conduct. Libertarianism is a political dead end!How is Libertarianism 'void of both moral and ethical codes of conduct'? Does anyone who rails against Libertarianism actually know what it stands for? Libertarianism is near the end of the political spectrum, but I'll take it over the other end of the spectrum with it's attendant totalitarianism.
It is the Republicans and Democrats who play politics, pandering to everyone and compromising on everything in exchange for campaign contributions and power. There is so little difference in the way the two parties vote in Congress that one politician is indistinguishable from another.
...filled with hollow headed followers, void of both moral and ethical codes of conduct.
I know of no Libertarian who does not adhere to a strict moral code of ethics. It is the very foundation which Libertarianism was built upon. It recognizes the sovereignty of individuals, the equality of men, and the sanctity of private property. A Libertarian government would reflect these values.
Contrast that with the Republican party, full of raving lunatics, demanding the use of threats and violence against those who oppose the collective. Religious fanatics who demand taxpayer financed education, prayer, Bible study clubs, and religious accoutrements on government buildings. A party of sellouts who pander to special interest groups in exchange for campaign contributions and power. The ethics of a neanderthal.
I'm very familiar with the Libertarian Party Platform. Are you? Read it here!
Heck, it seems Libertarians don't even know what a Libertarian is. They each have their own self-centered definition, naturally.
What they don't understand is the relationship between classical liberalism and Christianity, that they are vital to each other.
The first without the second is a body without a soul--good for little but self-indulgent decay and corruption.
22 posted on 5/1/02 7:45 PM Hawaii-Aleutian by Kevin Curry
There are plenty of Christian libertarians.
My own personal experience is the opposite of yours. I would estimate that 3 out of 4 Libertarians that I have have met at various places are former Republicans, myself included. You can read about the history of my political activism on my profile page.
The "not a dime's worth of difference" argument is often advocated by people like me who sincerely believe that the difference between the two parties is so negligible as to be totally insignificant.
Does anyone who rails against Libertarianism actually know what it stands for? I'm very familiar with the Libertarian Party Platform. Are you? Read it here!Then please address the first question and clear up my confusion: How is Libertarianism 'void of both moral and ethical codes of conduct'?
Actually my parents are Republican, always have been. They did teach me to think for myself however, for which I am very greatful. They also gave me "Atlas Shrugged" to read when I was a kid.
I don't despise the Republican Party. In fact, like alot of Libertarians I know, I not only voted for Bush, I contributed to his campaign. (and got on every conservative mailing list in existance..hehe) If we are disappointed with most Republicans who get elected, well, we still prefer them over the Democrats.
I wonder why you seem to despise Libertarians so much? Could it be you don't really understand what one is?
No, it derives that order from reality.
I was wondering if you could give me an ETA on the success of the policies enacted by members of the Republican party? Ya know, like the increase in federal spending on education, the increase in federal spending on crop subsidies, free drugs for seniors, stuff like that.
How about an ETA on when the Republican party is going to start reducing government? Estimates I've read say that they plan on increasing the federal budget to $2.3 trillion by the next election. Hey, pandering to special interest and giving handouts to friends and campaign contributors can get expensive. Phil Graham said that under the Republican plan Social Security will be phased out in 65 years.
I submit to you that the Republican party is dead and has been for at least 50 years. Probably longer.
Libertarian's are anti-government, anti-military, anti-religion, anti-community and anti-society. Don't you libertarian pinheads get it, yet?! How do you expect mankind to exist in a world fill with so many anti-human values and beliefs. What makes human beings so unique and special among all of Gods creatures, is not just our abilities to think and create, but also our ability to adapt to change. It's what has defined mankind through the millennia. Most libertarian's believe that individualism, is all mankind needs to grow and propser. What utter foolish nonsense. In my book, that makes you libertarians nothing but selfish, godless heathens. Man is a social creature. Libertarians want everyone to live in a social bubble. As long as you libertarians can smoke your pot, have your pornography and prostitutes, you're all fat, dumb and happy.
Well, most people disagree with your politics and denounce your anti-human proclivities.
LOL, ok good point, but take it from me, every Libertarian I know thinks that Bill Mahr is a joke. (and not a funny one at that) The guy is so not Libertarian.
I get several Libertarian news letters and when Mahr said he was Libertarian, you should have seen the confusion. Basicly the concensus was a collective "Huh,why pick on us? ",
The Libertarian Party platform is void of morals and ethics. If you took the time to read it, objectively, you would understand that. It's quite obvious, even to the casual political observer.
LOL, well you are consistent. Consistently wrong on all counts. Batting .000.
Oh well, you have your ax to grind, I will let you grind in peace. Just don't expect to be taken seriously:)