Libertarianism Lives

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Tuesday, May 28, 2002 | EDWARD H. CRANE and ROGER PILON

[TroutStalker]

Political fashions come and go, but political principles endure. President Clinton noted some six years ago that the era of big government was over. Yet today, conservatives who should know better see a new fashion. George Will, high on his Hamiltonian horse in the Washington Post last month, seemed delighted that minimal-government conservatism was dead. And on these pages recently, Francis Fukuyama declared1 the libertarianism that followed the Thatcher-Reagan revolution to be in retreat. We're all Keynesians now, apparently.

[pghliberty]

This is slanderous garbage and you know it. Libertarians are indifferent to Israel as they are all other foreign nations / nationalities, Palestinians included. Simply put, none of them deserve to yank a dollar out of any U.S. taxpayer’s pocket without their consent.

One should put his own money where his mouth is, rather than picking the pocket of his neighbors.

[Reagan Man]

>>>You can't recognise the truth.

So, let me get this right. You're saying, the CATO Institute doesn't support the principles of libertarianism, nor does it have any political connections with the Libertarian Party. Right?

Since when? That's so far from the truth. When did you aquire this need to distort reality?

And you're telling me, I can't recognize the truth.

[Reagan Man]

CORRECTION: aquire, make that acquire

[Protagoras]

So, let me get this right.

Too late for that.

You're saying, the CATO Institute doesn't support the principles of libertarianism, nor does it have any political connections with the Libertarian Party.

Putting words in people's mouths is SOP when trying to obsure the truth.

Right?

Wrong. If you want to know the truth about the Cato Institute, go to the web page. WWW.cato.org

But then again, you don't really want to know the truth, you want to obfuscate.

[rebelsoldier]

They were only successful under the umbrella of the Democrat Party, not on their own. Fringe political movements invade major parties and become part of them changing their direction and altering them as was done with the Democrat Party, Republican Party, and yes even the Libertarian Party.

[Protagoras]

They were only successful

Period. That was my point. It matters not how you attain your goals.

I would be happy to be free again, the manner of attaining it is unimportant to me as long as it's peaceful.

[rebelsoldier]

You can't "opt out" even if you wanted to. Oh if we could. The Confederacy tried such a political experiment, assuming that civilized nations could go their separate ways in peacefully. There was no hope from the start because nations and governments do not simply relinquish or lose great power voluntarily. Such as it is with political power. This is why I said that what many Libertarians and others want can only be achieved by non-political means, especially if such changes are to occur in one's lifetime. About Libertarians by demanding government do certain things it now doesn't do: for example, if you want to drastically alter legal, religious, cultural, and traditional practices to legalize homosexual marriages, which is not now legal or generally supported, you must empower government with the ability to ignore all these concerns and impose a new order and definition for what constitutes marriage.

That's government's heavy hand in service to a specific political agenda, not validating the overwhelming will of the populace. The same could be said with lealizing hard drug and narcotic use legalizing prostitution. These involve more than just run-of-the-mill arbitrary policy choices, but part of the fabric of the culture as it exists in relation to religious beliefs, traditions, cumulative history, and even human biology. You can't just delineate all collective human experience into an arbitrary political arrangement and an undifferentiated mass of humanity in a vacuum. That is the chief problem with hypothetically "perfect" political systems as well as others such as language wherein the "perfect" international languages dsigned by lingusitic "experts" ie: Esperanto, Monoglottica,, and Interlingua, to mention a few fail. They lack an active base of popular support and fail to address the human culture to which they were to be applied. This is why communism, although once widespread through force, failed to gain loyalty and longevity.

[Reagan Man]

You're a very confused individual TJ.

I recognize this truth, libertarianism + Libertarian Party + CATO = FReeper "ThomasJefferson".

[Protagoras]

Mickey Mouse + Star Trek + Bizzaro world = Reagan Man. LOL

[Reagan Man]

WOW!

Never did like Mickey Mouse. I was a Bugs Bunny guy. But I am a big Star Trek fan.

Never did like Superman's Bizzaro world though. Too strange for me. Sort of like, talking to a libertarian called "ThomasJefferson". Very strange.

[Protagoras]

I was a Bugs Bunny guy.

Still are. But I was wrong about Mickey, you are GOOFY all the way. lol

[Boxsford]

No, it is most certainly not slanderous. I used to visit and tried to learn more about libertarianism at another web site. I thought my political philosophy lined up more with libertarians than conservatism. I left when all the talk was anti-Israel and pro palestinian terrorists. It was disheartening. Confusing. I continue to have respect for the owners of the site but not an ounce for the posters.
I do not lie when I post pghliberty. I determined I had nothing to learn from the hate that they spewed. Hate not only towards Israel but to any Christian that believed in supporting Israel. However I made it clear that our support did not mean blind support or even financial support, I was still chewed up and spit out and was disregarded because I held Christian beliefs. In fact, your post doesn't bear much weight on the side of kindness either. I don't post 'slanderous garbage'!
I will say this. I don't believe that all libertarians feel the same as those at that web site. But, it was a good number of them. Enough to alarm me and to part company not only from them but from libertarian philosophy.

[pghliberty]

re opting out, that was my point.

Re government still being involved after being removed, I don't understand your point. What you are stating is a contradiction. e.g. libertarians want to remove government from these items and are therefore forcing government into the mix. This makes no sense.

By removing government from the drug war, for example, are you suggesting that government then promotes drugs?? That’s not the case. Private individuals and institutions would carry on the fight much more effectively and much less collateral damage. As for marriage, where does the government need to be involved other than enforcing contracts between individuals who freely agree to associate? Marriage is between individuals and their god, and its nobody else’s business.

AS for the overwhelming will of the populace, we are not a democracy that relies on the will of the mob, but rather we are (supposed to be) a republic that protects the rights and freedoms of individuals. You seem to think the will of the masses makes right. But that’s the same problem you complain about. This is where so many go wrong – they think “if only my party in all its nobility had the power”… whereas libertarians promote eliminating said collectivized power and handing it back to individuals.

[pghliberty]

Your post *was* a sweeping generalization, and the hundreds of libertarians I know don't "hate" israel.

Perhaps you assume because someone is not pro your policy that they hate the beneficiaries?? That's not the case.

While I can list a host of reasons why Israel currently is in the state it is, and have serious misgivings about their policies and future based on their very premise of existence, I don't hate Israel. Nor do I love it. Simply, it has no more right to pick my pocket than do you or any other foreign policy initiative spouted by our politicians. Yet U.S. policies allow for such. I don’t like it, I don’t care if its Israel, India, Japan or our farmers. Most libertarians would agree except for a fringe minority that makes up republicans and democrats just the same.

To suggest otherwise about the libertarians is easily viewed is slanderous, suggestive of anti Semitism, and deflective of the genuine problems Libertarians have with U.S. foreign policy in general.

[Zon]

Incompetence.

[Zon]

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Now that is rich even for someone of your...

[Boxsford]

I stand by my words. And,I do believe it represented a large population of libertarianism; very much so. You, can dish out all the insults you care to it's typical of libertarians too. Our conversation is over!

[rebelsoldier]

If we as a colony had waited upon the expectation that King George would have allowed us our demands for liberty through non-violent means, we'd be the British States of America. Given enough time we could have eventually attained independence without bloodshed, but only because the parent government and society was more civilized than most others. Yet many innocent colonial lives might have been lost through enduring such a long period of bondage. As the descendant of soldiers of the American Revolution, thus my name "rebelsoldier", I'd prefer not being anyone's chattel slave and bootjack simply to avoid the conflict and violence that freedom usually requires.

[Protagoras]

This was my statement

I would be happy to be free again, the manner of attaining it is unimportant to me as long as it's peaceful.

Perhaps I could have stated my thoughts a little more clearly. My writting skills are suspect. I will restate

I would be happy to be free again, the manner of peacefully attaining it is unimportant to me.

I hope you can see the difference.

You seem to be making the case for an armed struggle. If so, when should it start? How would it proceed? Who precisely should be attacked?

[pghliberty]

"I stand by my words. And, I do believe it represented a large population of libertarianism; very much so."

As I do mine. So we disagree.

"You, can dish out all the insults you care to it's typical of libertarians too."

Insults? Wohh! You're the one painting with the wide brush, here! Besides, this is a discussion site where people constantly debate, for all to see. I questioned your position's validity regarding a sweeping generalization about libertarians that hints at anti-semitism – and this is an apparent "insult"?!?

I’m sorry you take such as such, but then why even bother to post in the first place? I didn’t think this was a site where folks make bold statements as fact, only to have them left unchallenged in the vacuum of the net.

"Our conversation is over!"

Sort of like, "I'm taking my ball and going home". You know where to find me. I welcome your thoughts.