Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

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

Posted on 05/28/2002 7:39:35 AM PDT by TroutStalker

Edited on 04/22/2004 11:46:33 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

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.


(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: libertarianism; libertarians
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-182 next last
To: x
Clearly communism and classical socialism are down for the count. More and more people care about and want liberty.

Unfortunately, the people who do not care about liberty are the ones running the govt. The Dems that are members of socialist orgs. may phrase their ideas in terms deemed more acceptable by Americans, but they are still applying those ideas with full force. And the Repubs in Congress are going along with it. Thus, I do not agree that socialism (of any sort) is down for the count. Instead, it has more of a foothold here than anywhere else.

51 posted on 05/28/2002 11:11:17 AM PDT by serinde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Exactly. If you do drugs, you run the risk of doing irreparable damage to your body. If conservatives in this country would join with us in opposition to socialized medicalcare drug use would be much more dangerous than it is now. The safety nets encourage bad behavior. Drug use would drop sharply if heroin/cocaine/crack addicts were left to die on the street next to a hospital because the hospital refused to give a drug user free health care.
52 posted on 05/28/2002 11:22:54 AM PDT by dheretic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TroutStalker
I love the Cato Institute. I check out their site at least 3 times a week. My favorite study by them is "The Rise of Worker Capitalism." This is top-shelf.

So I can admit that I am convinced and supportive of a lot of libertarian principles. Not all, but quite a lot.

That said, I don't have a problem with libertarianism. But I do have a problem with libertarians (small or capital 'L' doesn't matter). They are the absolute worse ambassadors for their cause. You'd figure that since they don't have the numbers, they would be more accommodating and inviting. You wouldn't expect a new car salesman to be successful by insulting potential customers, would you?

Of course not.

But this lesson is lost on the average libertarian that you come across on these boards.
Pay attention. I'm not attacking libertarian principles at all, yet it will be perceived as an attack by some. Watch...

53 posted on 05/28/2002 11:36:17 AM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: borntodiefree
Most libertarians are not for "abortion rights" though a few are.

First of all, pro-life libertarians have left the LP and joined the Liberty Caucus, which is a side-wing of the Republican Party. To simply consider abortion, a states rights issue, is to overlook the serious nature of this crucial issue, that directly relates to life itself. Abortion is the killing of innocent unborn humans. The primary responsibility of the federal government, is to serve, protect and defend all Americans and that includes, Americans developeing in their mothers womb too! A right to life amendment, is part of the Republican Platform and is overwhelmingly supported by conservatives. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is meant for all American's, born or unborn!

As far as legalisation of drugs (of any kind) under what section of the constitution does it say that they can limit what substance I put in my body.</i.

Not everything is specifically spelled out in the Constitution, you should know that. But the Constitution gives Congress the power to legislate and the USSC, judicial power that extends to all cases, in law and equity, arising under our Constitution. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 and the 1991, Supreme Court ruling, Touby v. US, are the legislative and legal decisions that made our national drug control policy the law of the land. If that law bothers you, or upsets you,(it seems to do both in your case), get it changed through the legisaltive process.

Libertarians, generally, are not for unlimited immigration...

That's incorrect. Read the LP platform.
We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.

The notion of dismantling the criminal justice system is also absurd.

The LP platform states:
We advocate the repeal of laws prohibiting the production, sale, or use of drugs; the repeal of laws restricting the use of alcohol; the repeal of laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution, and the cessation of state harassment of homosexuals; the repeal of laws prohibiting the distribution of sexually explicit material; the repeal of laws regulating gambling; the repeal of anti-racketeering statutes, the repeal of laws interfering with the right to commit suicide.
Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party Jul 2, 2000

Absurd? NOT AT ALL!!! I'd call that a good start, on the road to dismantling America's criminal justice system. Most rational people call such policy, chaos and anarchy!

You forgot to address the Libertarian platform stance on the US military. The Libertarian platform is clearly, anti-military. Here's what a certain libertarian said back in 2000.

If the US were to pursue a policy of defending its own borders while avoiding foreign intervention, we could realistically reduce our defense budget to as little as $125 billion over the next five years.
Source: Libertarian Solutions; Michael Tanner on LP Web site Nov 7, 2000

This will not work in todays complicated world. The US has many real and pressing interests around the globe and American interests must be placed before we follow a policy of, non-involvement and military isolationism.

54 posted on 05/28/2002 12:04:56 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
America and specifically, Wash-DC, has been in a basic state of political gridlock, for the last 20 years. Outside of 1982 and 1995, when government growth was actually cut, Republicans and Democrats have been playing a game of political chess. Up until, the Republicans slim takeover of Congress, we had 40 years of Democratic Party control of the legislature and 70 years of creeping social-liberalism. Political gridlock isn't helping matters. Elect more conservatives to office and things will change. The problem is, conservatives dont' represent a majority of the voting electorate. So its obvious, why there aren't enough conservatives in Congress, to hold a majority rule. That's why conservative-republicans must appeal to independents and dissatisfied Democrats, in order to form a winning coalition. You give the Republican Party, a veto proof Congress and you will see sweeping change take place.
55 posted on 05/28/2002 12:19:45 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
Republicans were opposed to Social Security from the get go. Republican opposition is well known and goes all the way back, to when FDR first proposed the retirement fund. Local control of education, has always been at the forefront of the Republican Party. Local control of education has always been a traditional American value. Traditional American values, are at the heart of conservatism.

I know many libertarians don't like to associate themselves with the Libertarian Party platform. But that's like saying, we can talk about philosophy, but lets not put it in the context of politics. Why? Reality must come into play, when we talk politics. I happen to relate political philosophy with party politics. Without party politics and without winning elections, you're political agenda, has no chance of ever being realized.

Is anyone under the illusion, why Libertarians/libertarians never get elected to public office?

56 posted on 05/28/2002 12:33:27 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Kerberos
Where are you coming up with such ludicrous ideas?

Oh, give me a break with your Mark Twain quotes. Try them out on someone who cares. I get these ludicrous facts right from libertarians themselves. There is no talking to them. They hate Israel and think Arabs and the terroists are poor mistreated souls at the hands of us dirty Americans.

57 posted on 05/28/2002 12:35:44 PM PDT by Boxsford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Boxsford
terroists = terrorists
58 posted on 05/28/2002 12:39:19 PM PDT by Boxsford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
``You'd figure that since they don't have the numbers, they would be more accommodating and inviting. You wouldn't expect a new car salesman to be successful by insulting potential customers, would you?''

I am reminded of this every time I am called a government-loving statist by some libertarian. I certianly have some strong leanings in that direction, but there's the sense that if you're not "pure" (whatever that means) you're not one. This is totally contradictory and self-defeating coming from the supposed party of principle and consistancy. So, I'd have to say I'm in strong agreement with your post. That having been said, I am not very forgiving of the Republican Party for moving in the squishy direction, either.

59 posted on 05/28/2002 12:42:53 PM PDT by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Boxsford
They hate Israel and think Arabs and the terroists are poor mistreated souls at the hands of us dirty Americans.

Some of them think that.

I personally couldn't care less about Israel or the Arabs and their thousand year old fight. I just don't want us involved in it one way or another. It's none of our business and we aren't their mommies. And it makes me angry that our government gives OUR money to any of these countries, while we're running a huge deficit. If we've got extra money to give them, then its time for a tax cut.

It is delusional pure conceit to think we can keep them from killing each other. Let 'em at it, and let's tend to our own problems, which we've got no shortage of, starting with ridding this country of socialism.

60 posted on 05/28/2002 12:46:50 PM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
That having been said, I am not very forgiving of the Republican Party for moving in the squishy direction, either.

Roger that.

Of course, don't make the assumption that I'm a Pub. I'm not. Just call my position "The Vigilant Assassin of all That is Marxist": I keep constant crosshairs on the RATS/socialists/fascists/communists. More than a few Pubs cross into this realm, but not nearly as many as RATS.

61 posted on 05/28/2002 12:49:44 PM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: TroutStalker
the equal right of all to pursue happiness, free from arbitrary interference, and government dedicated to securing that right. Respect for government's limits is hardly hostility to government in all its manifestations.

Unfortunately the government today does not see things this way. They are not concerned about our rights, they are concerned about money and power, pure and simple.

We needed neither activism nor restraint, but courts responsible to the Constitution

When you think about it, the courts are the frontlines in our fight to retain our rights.

Surveys repeatedly show that when lower taxes and fewer government services are pitted against their opposites, smaller government wins.

Actually when you have smaller government, the lower taxes could follow it.

62 posted on 05/28/2002 1:36:49 PM PDT by texlok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
The only legitimate vehicle for Libertarian ideas is the Republican Party.

Nonsense.

The only viable electoral vehicle for libertarian ideas is the Republican Party. But electoral politics aren't the only thing, and within electoral politics the LP is a waste of time, but it's not illegitimate.

63 posted on 05/28/2002 2:00:11 PM PDT by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
First of all, pro-life libertarians have left the LP and joined the Liberty Caucus, which is a side-wing of the Republican Party. To simply consider abortion, a states rights issue, is to overlook the serious nature of this crucial issue, that directly relates to life itself. Abortion is the killing of innocent unborn humans. The primary responsibility of the federal government, is to serve, protect and defend all Americans and that includes, Americans developeing in their mothers womb too! A right to life amendment, is part of the Republican Platform and is overwhelmingly supported by conservatives. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is meant for all American's, born or unborn!

You need to reread your constitution. All of the so called federal laws are legitamite, but only apply to DC and its other possessions such as ports, forts, magazines, etc... All Federal laws regulating the individual are a fraud. Like it or not, any other view means that someone can not clearly read the plain text of the constitution of the US. Yes, the SCOTUS was wrong...suprise, suprise. The states did not give the US the right to legislate its Citizens on such matters. I am anti-abortion, and I do will not go back to the pro-comprimise to get what you want Republican party

Not everything is specifically spelled out in the Constitution, you should know that. But the Constitution gives Congress the power to legislate and the USSC, judicial power that extends to all cases, in law and equity, arising under our Constitution. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 and the 1991, Supreme Court ruling, Touby v. US, are the legislative and legal decisions that made our national drug control policy the law of the land. If that law bothers you, or upsets you,(it seems to do both in your case), get it changed through the legisaltive process.

Again the case you stated and the SCOTUS decision was generally wrong. They may be morally correct, but it was not a power granted to them. It is either an individual or at most a State issue. You and yours have no right to tell me what I can or can not do to my body. That is between me and God. Yes, I think it is dumb, so what.

That's incorrect. Read the LP platform. We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.

A platform means it was voted in, not the view of all or even most of the group. The greatest point of Libertarians is not anarchy, but free thinking. We don't all agree, and this piece of the platform is wrong and I don't support it nor do most other libertarians.

The LP platform states:
We advocate the repeal of laws prohibiting the production, sale, or use of drugs; the repeal of laws restricting the use of alcohol
Dumb, but none of our business

the repeal of laws regarding consensual sexual relations, including prostitution, and the cessation of state harassment of homosexuals; the repeal of laws prohibiting the distribution of sexually explicit material
Immoral/sinful, but does not violate your rights and therefore should not be a crime, but I sure do and would encourage others to preach against it. However, to sale or distribution to minors can be a crime becuase children are under the dominion of their parents and pushed/sold porn to children is engaging in business where one knows the child does not have the right to purchase directly

the repeal of laws regulating gambling; the repeal of anti-racketeering statutes
uhmm gambling is none of our business. If someone wants to go down and play 100 dollars on the craps table and win something or 100 dollars in the arcade and just waste time, what business is it of yours or mine?NONE. I won't go down the path of anti-racketeering becuase it is the biggest racket ever develpoed. If they beet up someone or influence someone with force, then they are guilty of a crime but there is to much "junk" in the anti-racketeering laws

the repeal of laws interfering with the right to commit suicide

This is again sinful and immoral, but someone is not going to not commit suicide becuase it is a crime..That is idiotic. they need help, not prison (if they fail). Now assisting someone by doing an act is murder.
64 posted on 05/28/2002 3:16:11 PM PDT by borntodiefree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Boxsford
I get these ludicrous facts right from libertarians themselves. There is no talking to them. They hate Israel and think Arabs and the terroists are poor mistreated souls at the hands of us dirty Americans.

Beg pardon? I'm a libertarian who strongly backs Israel. It's not exactly the most libertarian nation in the world, but libertarianism is less practical when one's nation is endangered.

65 posted on 05/28/2002 3:17:10 PM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
Two possibilities:

1. This isn't the conservative/Rupublican agenda.

2. It really is the conservative/Republican agenda, and they have failed miserably at achieving it.

Worth repeating. Again and again.

I can admit that there is a disconnect between the L/libertarians I know and the LP platform. What they refuse to admit is that there is a HUGE disconnect between what they claim to want and what they do when they get the chance.

66 posted on 05/28/2002 3:27:27 PM PDT by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: borntodiefree
Notice that RM didn't want to compare party platforms in regards to 2A and RKBA?
67 posted on 05/28/2002 3:31:10 PM PDT by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: freeeee
I personally couldn't care less about Israel

Some of us do~ a great deal. I've heard your arguement before and when pressed, their hatred for Israel and America came out. Those libertarians hid behind their arguement of money and foreign policy but what eventually was revealed was pure hatred.

68 posted on 05/28/2002 4:19:47 PM PDT by Boxsford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Celtjew Libertarian
I agree with you.
69 posted on 05/28/2002 4:22:39 PM PDT by Boxsford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: palo verde
I can't understand why he forgot to mention the Satanic Druids aren't they the core constituency of Libertarians

ho ho ho, good one!

70 posted on 05/28/2002 4:25:39 PM PDT by Boxsford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: palo verde
Oh yeah, right, it was just precious~ it brought tears to my eyes.
71 posted on 05/28/2002 4:31:39 PM PDT by Boxsford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
You give the Republican Party, a veto proof Congress and you will see sweeping change take place.

That is such delusional thinking! No way! There are too many RINO's in the party that aren't about to leave any time soon.

72 posted on 05/28/2002 4:35:25 PM PDT by Boxsford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
In other words, "The list could go on, but then I'd be discussing our REAL agenda, i.e., the legalization of drugs, sodomy, and gay marriage--and genuine conservatives would tune me out."

On the subject of drugs and sodomy, many libertarians' [small 'l'] objection to laws against such things is not that they themselves favor such behaviors, but rather that there is no way to write and enforce such laws without infringing severely on the rights of everyone--even those who would not engage in such behaviors.

The laws libertarians support (laws against things like robbery, rape, murder, etc.) can generally be enforced without the state having to 'look' for crimes. Generally, someone who is robbed or raped will call the police; murder victims, of course, can't call the police personally, but usually some other person will either find a body or notice that the victim has gone missing and, in either case, let the police know about it.

Even lesser laws, such as those against intoxicated disorderly conduct generally pose no problem because--as with the major crimes--people who are bothered by violators will let the police know. Someone who is stoned and wandering down the middle of the street will likely be a public nuisance, and will reported as such. Most libertarians have no problem enforcing such laws when violations result in genuine complaints.

What libertarians object to is the state's attempts to enforce laws against "crimes" which involve only consenting parties. Such laws cannot be enforced effectively except by having the state actively snoop in people's affairs and sometimes arbitrarily search their property.

BTW, the "gay marriage" thing is a red herring. Libertarians support "gay marriage" to the extent--and only to the extent--that people have the right to call themselves whatever they want, but they do not have the right to force others to recognize their appelations. If a man wants to claim anyone or anything to be his wife, that should be his right, but no legal or other significance should attach to such claim except as defined in a contract between or among all affected individuals.

73 posted on 05/28/2002 4:43:29 PM PDT by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TroutStalker
BTTT
74 posted on 05/28/2002 4:52:59 PM PDT by Frances_Marion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TroutStalker
Great Article- Libertarianism is becoming the norm in the conservative legal circles. Roger Pilon, Richard Eptein, Randy Barnett and Posner have replaced Bork as the new voice for the Federalist Society and other groups- with Clarence Thomas as the favorite on the Supreme Court- since Congress and the President refuse to cut a dime- we can only hope the courts will continue the trend set by Lopez of returning to the constitutional government before the New Deal. Looking at Bush's judicial nominations so far, the future looks promising.
75 posted on 05/28/2002 4:58:11 PM PDT by Fast 1975
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dheretic
Exactly. If you do drugs, you run the risk of doing irreparable damage to your body. If conservatives in this country would join with us in opposition to socialized medicalcare drug use would be much more dangerous than it is now. The safety nets encourage bad behavior. Drug use would drop sharply if heroin/cocaine/crack addicts were left to die on the street next to a hospital because the hospital refused to give a drug user free health care.

If a parent tells a child not to touch the hot stove, and scolds the child every time he attempts to do so, such action may protect the child from immediate harm, but will often fail to quell the child's desire to touch the hot stove. The child, of course, will learn not to try to touch the stove when the parent is around, but will likely try to do so when the parent is absent. Such desire will persist until, and only until, the child actually does touch the hot stove; once will likely be enough.

People tend to learn best to avoid mistakes by experiencing the natural consequences of their mistakes. A child who is slapped for trying to touch a hot stove will likely recognize that the slap is a parentally-imposed consequence of trying to touch the stove. The child will learn that trying to touch the stove when a parent is around is foolish, but will not learn why touching the stove is foolish even when the parent is absent. If the child understands the principle that unknown objects should be touched lightly before they are grabbed, he is unlikely to suffer any major injury from unwisely touching hot objects, but touching a hot object even once will suffice to impart a life-long lesson.

Unfortunately, the government's efforts to protect people from the consequences of their actions also prevent people from learning from them or teaching others be example. Attempting to remedy this by having government-imposed consequences for self-harmful behavior is almost always futile, for it creates the perception that such activities are only harmful if one gets caught. By contrast, letting people experience for themselves the self-destructive effects of their own behavior is apt to be a much more educational experience.

76 posted on 05/28/2002 4:58:43 PM PDT by supercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: borntodiefree
>>>You need to reread your constitution.

You need to get a new act. Preferably, one that offers some political education.

>>>All of the so called federal laws are legitamite, but only apply to DC and its other possessions such as ports, forts, magazines, etc...

Say what? Exactly where in the Constitution does it say that?

The Constitution says, We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect union... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Untied States of America. That union was originally 13 states, today, it's 50 states.

>>>All Federal laws regulating the individual are a fraud.

That simply isn't true and has no basis in reality.

>>>... I do will not go back to the pro-comprimise to get what you want Republican party.

Then you and your libertarian philosophy can wither on the vine. Compromise is at the heart of the American political system. The Founding Fathers clearly understood that. Your libertarian absolutism, has no place in the functioning political system of our constitutional republic.

>>>Again the case you stated and the SCOTUS decision was generally wrong.

Only in your opinion. It happens to be the law of the land.

>>>You and yours have no right to tell me what I can or can not do to my body. That is between me and God. Yes, I think it is dumb, so what.

That's not entirely true. The will of the people, through their elected representatives, have every right to dictate the terms of an orderly and law abiding society. Someone's personal relationship with their God, should be of no concern to anyone else, but that relationship exists in the context of society and doesn't give you absolute rights, of any kind. In the last sentence, you seem to contradict yourself. You're a very confused individual.

>>>The greatest point of Libertarians is not anarchy, but free thinking.

Libertarians are people who uphold the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty and that's a sure fire formula, for chaos and anarchy. The laws of the land protect law abiding folks from criminals, misfits and malcontents.

If you have anything more to say, keep away from the convoluted rhetoric.

77 posted on 05/28/2002 5:24:48 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Boxsford
That is such delusional thinking! No way! There are too many RINO's in the party that aren't about to leave any time soon.

It's not delusional thinking! Did you even read what I wrote? The whole premise of my remarks, involved electing more conservatives into office. Then with a veto proof majority, the Republican Party could effect real change in the current system. And the best way to eliminate RINO's, is to elect more conservatives. This is pretty simple stuff, Boxsford.

78 posted on 05/28/2002 5:35:38 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Republicans were opposed to Social Security from the get go. Republican opposition is well known and goes all the way back

OMG!! You're one of those "Republicans are great and right no matter what" people, aren't you? I've heard that there are some like that.

Whatever. I don't think we'll be engaged in a long discussion here, but your statement, in context, is ludicrous as far as a response to the idea that the privatization of social security is really a 'small l' libertarian idea.

Wasn't there a commission several years back to deal with social security? Didn't they basically raise the rates of taxation? Didn't the Republicans go along with it? What did your hero (whom I greatly admire) R Reagan do?

I applaude GWB (and Steve Forbes before him) as Republicans who have moved the idea forward, but it really originated in the minds of libertarian thinkers, by and large.

I happen to relate political philosophy with party politics. Without party politics and without winning elections, you're political agenda, has no chance of ever being realized.

Uh. oh....it's silly time for Reagan Man. There are the thinkers, the idea people and then there are the politicians. As you must know, a lot of the socialist programs of the early part of the20th century made it into practice without them winning elections...including, remarkably enough, social security.

Ideas can be powerful things, indeed, even bad ideas.

79 posted on 05/28/2002 5:50:09 PM PDT by RJCogburn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Libertarians are people who uphold the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty and that's a sure fire formula, for chaos and anarchy. The laws of the land protect law abiding folks from criminals, misfits and malcontents.

I hope you can reconsider that statement. Most libertarians, and Dr. Pilon and Mr. Crane in particular simply want a return to the common and natural law the country was founded on- which has been ignored for the last 60 years. The role of government is to protect the individual from criminals and malcontents- the real issue is whether that role extends to a forced social security scheme, redistribution of wealth, regulating business transactions, schools, and private behavior. Republicans and Democrats apparently believe it does.

80 posted on 05/28/2002 6:39:49 PM PDT by Fast 1975
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Below is the powers of congress. Maybe you could also refere to the 10th item in the Bill of Rights.

I pray that you don't change the meaning of the Holy Scriptures to fit the times, like you seem to change the meaning of the Constitution as times change.

US Constitution Article I

Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
81 posted on 05/28/2002 6:48:54 PM PDT by borntodiefree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: RJCogburn
>>>OMG!! You're one of those "Republicans are great and right no matter what" people, aren't you? I've heard that there are some like that.

I'm just stating the facts. Republicans were opposed to Social Security from the get go. That's a fact. I don't believe Republicans can do no wrong. Far from it. While I am a life long Republican, I consider myself a political conservative, above all else. I wouldn't be so assuming in your remarks, RJCogburn. You'd be wrong, more often then right.

>>>... your statement, in context, is ludicrous as far as a response to the idea that the privatization of social security is really a 'small l' libertarian idea. ...but it really originated in the minds of libertarian thinkers, by and large.

In the 1950`s, a young conservative, named Bill Buckley, spoke of eliminating social security. In the 1960`s, another conservtive of his time, Barry Goldwater, spoke of ending social security. Another conservative, Ronald Reagan, talked of doing away with social security, throughout his political career. As you said, George W.Bush is the first President to seriouly, raise the issue of privatization. I don't doubt that CATO libertarians, promoted this issue of SS privatization. I believe they even have a "Policy Analysis", on the issue. I just don't believe their advocacy was the main thrust, behind the issue coming to the political forefront. Its good that libertarians agree with conservatives, on the need for fiscal responsibility. Tax cuts/tax reform and smaller governemnt, is something all conservatives can agree on.

>>>Uh. oh....it's silly time for Reagan Man. There are the thinkers, the idea people and then there are the politicians. As you must know, a lot of the socialist programs of the early part of the20th century made it into practice without them winning elections...including, remarkably enough, social security.

The idea that libertarians, or Libertarian Party members are the only so-called, "thinkers" around today, is whats really ludicrous. Now whose being silly, Rooster? The socialist programs of FDR`s New Deal, were advocated and promoted by the socialist, FDR himself, with the help of other socialists in the Democratic Party. And political philosophy, can never be advanced, without a political party, a political agenda and without winning elections. Again, this is basic politics 101. Pretty simple stuff, Rooster. If you waited on political philosophy alone, it would be a very long time, before anything substantial ever happened.

82 posted on 05/28/2002 7:08:20 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: borntodiefree
I've got news for you, the US Constitution isn't holy scripture and wasn't written in stone either.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square)...

I've never heard of this paragraph of the Constitution, being utilized to circumvent and limit the Constitutional power of the federal government. Quite unique, but of course, quite wrong. If that was case, we wouldn't need a Congress.

The last paragraph says it all.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The Constitution was designed to limit the power and authority of government from despotic fiat and not from a free citizenry. Not from a free people, capable of governing themselves, through specific legislative procedures, which are laid out and mandated, with brilliant checks and balances, that serve to moderate majority passions of the day.

83 posted on 05/28/2002 7:41:07 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
And can you please list the section of the constitution that allows the Federal government to

1) Legislate morality of the Citizenry
2) Decide which weapons that the Citizenry in the sovereign states may or may not have.
3) Force the Citizenry into an involuntary retirement savings plan.
4) Not allow secession of a state that voluntarily joined the union


None of this exists, most of it gets rolled up to a misinterpretation of the commerce clause. This was the some of the major issues between the Federalists (which said, nah that'll never happen) and the anti-Fideralists(which new it was inevitable).
84 posted on 05/28/2002 8:16:58 PM PDT by borntodiefree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Kerberos; christine11; billofrights
Hi Kerberos
Thanks for your post
My hunch is if Libertarian Party can get its act really together by next election
we have 50/50 chance of winning
I never voted Libertarian before, I will in future
What has brought me to this place may not be same as others
but my hunch is no two citizens take identical route to arrive at this choice
it offers something new and refreshing, at same time is sensible and is filled with vision of freedom
Love, Palo
85 posted on 05/28/2002 8:23:59 PM PDT by palo verde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: palo verde
"My hunch is if Libertarian Party can get its act really together by next election."

Well I wouldn't hold my breath for them to win a presidential election in the near future, but they have slowly but surly been making gains in local elections throughout the country.

A lot of people on this site bash Libertarians as being a party that is going nowhere, and I will admit that they could use a good revamping of their PR strategy, but the fact remains that they have been around for 20 years now, and I am not aware of any other third party that has been around that long.

Over that twenty years there have been several third parties that come and go and for a while make a big splash and then are never heard from again. I have always found it interesting that the major press outlets will give any of these parties quite a bit of coverage, but will very rarely give Libertarians any coverage at all. Could it be that the press understands that if the general public were to finally start grasping what the principles of the Libertarians are that the press would not be the power base that they are now and so have developed a policy to not truthfully cover Libertarian positions?

But at any rate if we are ever able to get back to the idea of a small limited, non intrusive into peoples private affairs, type of government, it will indeed be a long struggle. But for me that struggle starts with my vote and my refusal to give it to a party that’s basic principles are the advancement of socialism. Which today can be used to describe both the Democrats or Republican parties

K

86 posted on 05/28/2002 8:48:43 PM PDT by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
My apologies if I was offensive in my characterization of you...it was done half tongue in cheek but perhaps my tongue got a little twisted.

Back to the issues, about which we do not particularly disagree, but...

Another conservative, Ronald Reagan, talked of doing away with social security, throughout his political career.

I admire Reagan, as I said, but it was his "Greenspan Commission" on his watch, the results of which he accepted, that 'fixed' social security by raising the taxes and increasing the 'retirement' age. Reagan certainly had a wonderful opportunity then to at least get a really good debate about privatization going...

I like loyalty as much as the next guy, and more than the guy after that, but you are in a big streeeeetch there.

The idea that libertarians, or Libertarian Party members are the only so-called, "thinkers" around today, is whats really ludicrous. Now whose being silly, Rooster? The socialist programs of FDR`s New Deal, were advocated and promoted by the socialist, FDR himself, with the help of other socialists in the Democratic Party. And political philosophy, can never be advanced, without a political party, a political agenda and without winning elections. Again, this is basic politics 101. Pretty simple stuff, Rooster. If you waited on political philosophy alone, it would be a very long time, before anything substantial ever happened.

No, the libertarians are not the only thinkers around. But the socialist programs of Norman Thomas which came into being under the administration of FDR and others show the power of an idea, even a bad one. Call FDR a socialist...I won't argue...but then, because GWB is in favor of a privatized (partially) social security does that make him a libertarian?

My point is that the people who come up with the ideas are not necessarily the ones who enact them or put them into action. The underlying philosophy of government leads to the ideas which are the practical implementation of those ideas, put into place by the people who get elected...often different people than the 'theorists'.

I guess we might look at our own country...it was based on ideas...rather revolutionary ideas of individual rights. The men who helped develop and promote these ideas often did not hold office or military position, but the power of the idea prompted others to work for its implementation.

So, we need both the people with the ideas, some of whom are libertarian 'thinkers' and the people who implement them, many of whom we hope will be Republicans. I hold little hope for Libertarian electoral success, but much hope for eventual implementation of libertarian ideas.

87 posted on 05/29/2002 3:17:22 AM PDT by RJCogburn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Kerberos; billofrights; christine11
Hi Kerberos
Both Dem and Pub Parties were stunned when Jesse Ventura won governship in Minnesota
they had both been telling citizens not to throw their vote away
I think what Jesse offered was a fresh attitude

It's hard to predict 2004
The Dem Party has been taken over by gangsters
when this dawns on their voters, lots of their votes will be up for grabs
some will go Green, some will go GOP, and some may go libertarian
The mass of voters are now Independent
(in the past few elections whoever won the independents won the election)
which is why both GOP and Dem Party will go after them this time again
The Dems will be lucky if they get their own base on board
I figure half the independents will vote GOP
Most voters aren't ideological, but libertarian ideas are sensible, and reflect what is in many many people's hearts

What Jesse had going for him is he believed he'd actually win
The Libertarian Party would have to believe they're gonna take this thing
for groundswell to come out
The time is ripe
Love, Palo
88 posted on 05/29/2002 10:07:28 AM PDT by palo verde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Reagan Man, I did read your comments. The problem is, and I'm certain you have noticed, conservatives are not being elected. And, whenever RINO's are running, freepers get all excited and jump up and down for joy and flame anyone who dares to voice an opposition opinion to a RINO candidate. But, I digress from the general topic of this thread.
89 posted on 05/29/2002 3:08:10 PM PDT by Boxsford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Boxsford
The problem is, and I'm certain you have noticed, conservatives are not being elected.

Like I said, for conservatives to get elected, they must appeal to independents and dissatisfied voters of all stripes. You and I may not like that, but that's political reality, in this age of political gridlock. Conservatives make up 20%-25% of the voting electorate, may be. They must work harder and smarter, in order to win victory. Ronald Reagan showed how to get elected, as a conservative-Republican. I suggest conservatives read up on the finer points, of Reagan's overall political strategy.

... whenever RINO's are running, freepers get all excited and jump up and down for joy and flame anyone who dares to voice an opposition opinion to a RINO candidate.</i.

I agree. That seems to happen far too often and needs to stop. I don't want any RINO, to be given preference, over a true conservative.

90 posted on 05/29/2002 5:41:05 PM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

It might be helpful if the Libertarians took a lesson from the 'progressives' of the early 1900's. At the time, rugged individualism was the order of the day, and socialist ideas were anathema to the average American. So what did they do? They infiltrated the Democrat's ranks. Their ideas, a 'safety net', wage issues, unionization, etc. are now the bedrock of the Democrat platform. They pervade society; it is difficult to find an average, uninformed person who thinks a Federal 'social security' system is a bad thing in and of itself. Over time, the concept of the individual as king of his own domain has been replaced by an increasingly collectivist attitude. Maybe its time the Libertarians started to make use of the apparatus built by the GOP.
91 posted on 05/29/2002 11:43:56 PM PDT by chinook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
I suggest conservatives read up on the finer points, of Reagan's overall political strategy.

You are much more optimistic than I. Something libertarianism offers is a philosophy. Conservatism doesn't. Conservatism stands for: status quo. Where does that get us? We continue to fall, granted slower than to the liking of liberals, down that slippery slope. Though I do not embrace all of the libertarian philosophy, they at least have a well known agenda to reduce government and taxes. They actually see the problem where Republicans often are the problem. And, you can no longer equate republicans=conservatives.

I used to think that conservatism meant less government, less taxes, etc. but really all it's been of late is stopping liberalism (and not doing so well at it either), which has it's own philosophy too~ however evil.

When you say conservatives should read up on Reagan's finer points of political strategy, I would agree but they need something larger than this. Conservatives need a philosophy.

92 posted on 05/30/2002 5:08:06 AM PDT by Boxsford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
I believe you take a very shallow view of libertarianism. Wanting the legalization of drugs is not the same as condoning drug abuse. As we are all aware, the drug war is a joke that will never yield the desired results (unless those results are the incarceration of more of our population). On the drug issue, people should be free to make stupid mistakes. The government shouldn't be the "big brother" who decides your conduct. As for sodomy, it shouldn't be illegal for the same reasons. In a free society, you should be able to try and convince people of the immorality of sodomy, drug abuse, etc., but you shouldn't be able to incarcerate them for it. One of the points that "conservatives" seem to ignore is the basic principles behind their agenda. If you think it is okay to legislate morality, the next question is who's morality. As you are well aware, democracy is simply majority rules. So if we don't shut down the borders, make drugs, sodomy, Islam, Judeaism, Black Nationalism, etc., illegal, once they are in the majority your brand of legal morality is out the window. The key is to protect freedom is to try and convince people of the error of their ways. Once you start legislating you may find yourself out of the majority and your cherished way of life in jeapordy. The only way to make sure that you will have the freedom to hold the beliefs you do (drug's, sodomy, etc. are immoral), you have to defend the freedom to do those things. If you wish to have a "Christian" state where the bible is the law of the land, and you stone people for transgressions, you have just become the taliban, (just a different set of rules). I know the difference is that you are "right", but the muslims are as sure they are right as you are. The only viable option is freedom from coercion. The state shouldn't dictate personal conduct when it doesn't interfere with others freedom. Once you open the door (as we already have), all hell breaks loose.
93 posted on 05/30/2002 5:24:48 AM PDT by armedandtotallysafe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Boxsford
The contemporary libertarian philosophy is unrealistic. The Libertarian Party platform is unattainable. Libertarianism is a fringe political movement, that is both radical and extremist. Outside of a desire for fiscal responsibility, libertarianism offers nothing positive to the people of America. It would lead to chaos and anarchy. I have done extensive research on the pro`s and con`s of libertarianism and the Libertarian agenda. This political philosophy has NO respect for the orderly nature of a free will society and is opposed to the rules and regulations, which have been created, to govern abhorrent, disgraceful and unlawful behavior.

>>>Conservatives need a philosophy.

While its true, there is no national conservative party, there is a conservative philosophy that has created and established, a strong conservative movement in America, which has been growing and gaining support since the 1950`s. The political home of the conservtaive movement, is the Republican Party. In American politics, conservatism is a political philosophy that is based on traditional America values and beliefs, of social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change. Conservative-Republicans, like myself, want tax cuts/tax reform that would stop feeding the bloated federal bureaucracy in Wash-DC. This would lead to a smaller and less intrusive federal government.

Without a viable political base and party, a political philosophy will go nowhere. That's why libertarianism is basically dead.

If you stripped away the radical and extreme elements of the libertarian philosophy and most of what is contained in the LP platform, what you'd be left with, is what most folks would recognize as a form of political conservatism.

94 posted on 05/30/2002 9:38:01 AM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: murdoog
Why don't you critique the article based on what he *does* say instead of what you read into it?

Because Kevin's our resident deconstructionist. I've heard he has pictures of Paul DeMan in NAZI garb pasted to his monitor.

You see, as Kevin knows, it's all about the subtext...except when it comes to Kevin, of course.

95 posted on 05/30/2002 9:45:46 AM PDT by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Modern day 'conservatism' is a massive fraud perpretated by loud mouthed liberals calling themselves 'conservatives' on AM radio.

More Federal money for Education? Hey no problem. Conservatives love it.

Higher Federal Tarrifs on imported steel at the cost of billions to taxpayers and consumers? Hey, conservatives love it.

Warrantless searches of mail and computers? Hey, conservatives love it.

More money for the two agencies who were responsible for the most massive inteligence failure in the history of mankind? Hey, conservatives love it.

Billions of dollars to Agri-business so farmers won't actually have to grow crops? Hey, conservatives love it.

I have a question for you RM; just what the hell is it you people are trying to 'conserve' anyway? It looks to me to be New Deal Liberalism. It sure isn't anything even remotely resembling a Republican form of government.

L

96 posted on 05/30/2002 9:50:49 AM PDT by Lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
While I agree with much you have stated, I have lost hope with Republicans holding to conservativism. And, I've lost interest and regard lately for libertarianism. It's not a pleasant place to be right now.

It appears you've taken further steps than I have in researching libertarian philosophy. I'm taking a break from them because I couldn't stomach the anti-Israel/anti-American remarks. I'm not fully convinced to walk completely away because they do strongly desire less government less taxes,and, I believe they actually would hold to those beliefs. I figure hell would have to freeze over before the real radical stuff even got talked about seriously.

97 posted on 05/30/2002 9:56:09 AM PDT by Boxsford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
Well, I see we have another pessimist in our midst, who would rather look at the world with blinders on, then face the realities of life.

Being a conservative doesn't mean you throw away all your principles or all your politics either. The reality of politics in 21st century America, means you strive to get most of your agenda enacted and hold back, the agenda of your liberal-Democratic opponent. Come to think of it, that sounds like politics during the time of our Founding Fathers and for good reason.

I've already explained the serious gridlock that exists in Wash-DC. Political conservatives are in the minority and Republicans, barely hold a majority in the House, while liberals and Democrats comtrol the Senate. Bush isn't a dictator, he is a democratically elected leader and has to work within the limits and parameters of the political process.

Bottom line, the President has had numerous accomplishments in his short time in office and his handling of the war effort has been quite remarkable and highly successful.

Your dreaming if you expect perfection from our elected leaders. Thats never been the case throughout civilized history and isn't about to change any time soon. The world is an imperfect place to live and human beings are imperfect creatures. The sooner you realize that, the better off you'll be.

98 posted on 05/30/2002 11:49:53 AM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Boxsford
``I'm taking a break from them because I couldn't stomach the anti-Israel/anti-American remarks.''

You ain't the only one.

99 posted on 05/30/2002 11:52:37 AM PDT by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Bottom line, the President has had numerous accomplishments in his short time in office "

Name two instances of President Bush doing something to actually shrink the size and scope of the Federal Government or reducing Federal Spending and I'll buy you a steak dinner.

You must mean an 'accomplishment' like the Education or the Farm Bills.....

You know, Bush does have veto power. All he has to do is say "NO".

Sadly, he hasn't. Not one single time.

I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. When I see just one single Department, Bureau, or Agency shut down I may change my tune. Until then, the Republican Party I see is the home of frauds, charlatans, fools, and outright criminals.

L

100 posted on 05/30/2002 3:16:00 PM PDT by Lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-182 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson