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 ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ho ho ho, good one!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.