Posted on 05/01/2002 9:09:03 PM PDT by Pokey78
Edited 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 ...
Do you think that our interventionalist policies may have something to do with the desire to kill us?
Those people do not hate us for our prosperiety, they hate us because we try to force our version of prosperiety on them, at least IMO. The lifestyle/religious hatred they spew is just propoganda to rally the troops toward the real goal of getting us out of their affairs.
EBUCK
Yea like homosexual pedophile priests!
Libertarians argue that the freedom to design one's own children genetically -- not just to clone them, but to give them more intelligence or better looks -- should be seen as no more than a technological extension of the personal autonomy we already enjoy.
This is hardly a position specific to libertarians. Most people, except those who have chosen to reject modern technology generally, believe that it is right and proper to use available dietary, medical, etc. techniques to give their children the best available situation.
By this view, the problem with the eugenics practiced by Nazi Germany was not its effort to select genetic qualities per se, but rather the fact that it was done by the state and enforced coercively.
The phrase "by this view" implies that opposition to coercion and totalitarianism is just another point of view having no more validity than that of the coercers and totalitarians. If Fukuyama advocates this sort of extreme moral relativism, he should say so up front -- but of course a moral relativist feels no particular need to be honest when there is an advantage in being deceitful.
To begin with, the community of interest that is presumed to exist between parents and children cannot be taken for granted, which is after all why we have laws against child abuse, incest etc.
The existing guidelines (parental autonomy in general, with specific exceptions for clear and present evidence of child abuse) are no more and no less applicable to the use of genetic engineering than they are to the use of any other tool.
Libertarian advocates of genetic choice want the freedom to improve their children. But do we really know what it means to improve a child?
Well, yes, we do, and we don't need the government to figure out that strength is better than weakness, that resistance to disease is better than chronic sickliness, and -- to take an example that is particularly applicable to Fukuyama's typing excersize -- that intelligence is better than stupidity.
Parents, of course, try to improve their children in all sorts of ways today, through education, resources and upbringing. But the genetic stamp is indelible, and would be handed down not just to one's children but to all of one's subsequent descendants.
Here, Fukuyama makes an obviously nonsensical non-distinction. The plain fact is that all of the factors cited here are passed down to subsequent descendants. An educated, prosperous, and civilized child will raise educated, prosperous, and civilized grandchildren in turn, and so on down the line. Ditto for ignorant, poor, and barbaric children.
If you've any proof to back up your outrageous claim, let us have it. Otherwise, stick a sock in it.
If he has to enforce his version of morality at gunpoint against himself, that would explain a few things....
Sadly, that is true. However, they have not discontinued their Internet activism. They are simply participating elsewhere.
Of course. I believe hatred of the US could be reduced with less interventionist policies, but not eliminated. Peaceful coexistence is just not acceptable for some, again see the Middle East.
Why would we want to do that? You make yourself appear more foolish with every post, so by all means continue.
Nice reply - I'm impressed
ROTFLMAO! Great.
EBUCK
anti-military,
Sorry, wrong again. Libertarians support the military for the use described in the constitution. To defend the country against aggression. Not for "peace keeping or nation building." Not as a "jobs program," and not for political pork.
anti-religion,
Oops! Wrong again. They're not "anti-religion." They are, however, of the belief that the government has no business being involved in religion. Libertarian doesn't mean atheist.
anti-community and anti-society.
Not at all! Libertarians just believe that the government should live within the rules defined by constitutions. Again, they are strict constructionists, by definition. What you're describing are Anarchists who disagree with all governments.
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.
What if one doesn't believe in G-d? Does the belief in G-d automatically make one "good?" What about all those muslim Imams who believe in "their" G-d most devoutly, and spout hatred for the west, as well as Jews? I realize that we can both agree that "they" are wrong, but if one of us (who disagree on G-d) right in our views, the other must be wrong... BTW, if your belief in the "ability to adapt and change" is what makes us so unique, given the short period of time that humans have been on the earth, you must really admire sharks, crocidillians, and cockroaches.
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.
Hey, where do I sign up for the pot, porn, and prostitutes?! I sure am glad that your "book" isn't the one that counts!
But seriously, when taken out of context, the Libertarian Platform can look like this, as Rush loves to point out. However, most libertarians are rational human beings, who realize that we do live in a society, and there are certain social cost that must be born by those living in it. Wherever possible though, those costs should be born by those using the services. If one doesn't need those services, and it's possible to opt out of them, the chance should be made available. For instance, if a home owner wanted to save $$ on taxes, he should be able to opt out of fire department service. However, if he had a mortgage, there might be a requirement by the bank to pay for that service. For public schools, well, if you have no children using the public schools, there are good arguments for not having to pay the taxes on them. This would force the creation of neighborhood schools by those with children, as well as religious schools. On the other hand, taxes paying for the roads could be paid by tolls, but in many ways, this would be difficult to collect. So a tax on gasoline is probably the best way to go. Again, people will act out of their own self interest in these areas. As far as trafic laws, of course we need some. Speed limits can be a good thing, especially in residential neighborhoods. Traffic signals and signs are important. It seems that libertarians are split on laws requiring insurance: Some believe that the state has no business requiring the purchase of insurance, while others realize that this is a legitimate cost of the privilage of driving, given the financial damage that can be caused by a car. On the other hand, most libertarians (and many others) are against mandatory helmet laws for motorcyclists and seat belt laws for cars. Another split decision is on child safety seats...
Well, most people disagree with your politics and denounce your anti-human proclivities.
It seems that most people's ideas of libertarians come from what they've heard others say about libertarians, or from people like Bill Mahr, who claims to be libertarian. Well, try not to forget that anyone can claim to be something without actually being that something... After all, David Duke and Trent Lott claim to be Republicans, and Paul Wellstone claims to be a Democrat.
Mark
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.
Bwahahahaaaa!!!! Just saying it don't make it so, though.
Perhaps you desire to tell us all about how traffic and driving laws serve no community interest?
Or perhaps you would like to quibble about the long and happy history of charitable giving and large-scale philanthropy in this country -- acts of generosity often undertaken with the community-interested view of "making this a better place to live," and with beneficial results stretching decades after the act?
And, of course, you'd have to argue against the whole idea of Duty -- to country, state, family -- upon which our nation and our freedom were founded, and continue to depend. A more "community-interested" thing than a sense of duty would be difficult to find.
And, by golly, if you're going to deny the concept of community interest, you'd even have to argue against the fact that libertarianism has a strong "community interest" at its very core. To wit, not only are libertarians expected to protect their own rights, but for a libertarian society to work, they are also required to respectthe rights of others -- both individually, and in aggregate, which is certainly an example of "community interest".
In trying to ignore the idea of "community interest" libertarians pretty much have to give up everything but the profit motive, and even that's a dodgy proposition.
Libertarians are willfully blind on the idea of community service because, as often as not, they are trying to live according to Ayn Rand's objectivist creed, which denies the existence of "community interest." (Of course, the basis for this "objective" idea is utterly subjective -- but then, Rand's ideas are rife with such contradictions.)
There evidence going back to the 1950's which documents foreign-aid to the USSR when Eisenhower was president. Even further back, actually. The federal government has spent hundred of billions in foreign-aid over the last half-century. We have given money, weapons, and military hardware to communists, dictators, and terrorists for decades. We give weapons and mimitary hardware to a country to defend itself from aggressors and then it turns around and uses it to invade other countries (ie. Iraq). In some cases our own soldiers end up shot and killed by weapons we gave away (ie. Vietnam).
If you don't want to read it I'll sum it up for you. JESUS DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU!!!!! FOOL.
EBUCK
I know exactly what you said, and backpeddling won't help. You said something very specific, so stand behind your slanderous words or retract them.
They by their support of immoral activities are denigrating to the church. Libertarians are whores for vice. They will do anything to have their immoral way.
Your fundamental misunderstanding of libertarians is typical. L(l)ibertarians don't advocate vice, we simply see it as not the business of the state. Most libertarians consider indulgent people to be fools, and we would have them face the full consequences of their actions.
And if whatever church you speak of wants to criminalize vice, let me remind you that even Jesus himself did not appeal to Caesar to enforce God's law. That is God's role on Judgment Day. You people would pretend to be God by enforcing His law.
I'd like to see you try to shut me up about this but I don't think you have what it takes.
By all means, please rant on and continue to make a spectacle of yourself.
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.