LOL!
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."
The man isn't stupid. Disingenuous maybe, but not stupid.
Thanks for posting.
Yes, libertarian principles are here to stay. Principles like, support for abortion rights, legalization of drugs and prostitution, open borders and unlimited immigration, and a strong desire to dismantle both America's criminal justice system and military armed forces. The problem is, these principles aren't supported by a majority of conservatives. Conservatives view these major issues that Libertarians support, as fringe political extremism. Even most American's don't want anything to do with such an agenda.
Libertarian politics doesn't have a major following in America and never will. In the last general election for president, the LP candidate, Harry Browne, received less then 400K votes, out of over 100-million total votes cast. That's less the .04%. Even Pat Buchanan received more votes then Browne. That doesn't say much for the future of libertarian politics in America.
If that were only true! These listed principles are hardly arguable. Many conservatives embrace these as well.
As far as I'm concerned Libertarians took several steps back when they showed their anti-American colors in support of Arabs and terrorists. They have it in their warped minds that it's okay to bomb anything American because whatever reasons they have for doing so is justified because America deserves it. They don't see or call the so called 'retailiation' a violent act. Peace is so precious to them but as long as an act of violence is directed at Americans/America then their philosophy quickly changes. It's hypocrisy!
Kevin, talk about disingenious you are always bringing up the same old same old nonsense about drugs, etc with libertarians. The arguement is not that limited.
Obviously, wasting time and resources on trivia will degrade the ability to perform the primary task.
After 9-11, many libertarian commentators were sounding rather "fringe", and utopian, with their alternate histories. Although the author tries to make a distinction between non-intervention and isolationism, the two are quite intertwined. Unfortunately we live in a world where even if you don't want trouble, trouble will come looking for you.
Yes, libertarianism will live on, but for our own sakes, hopefully it will only have influence in domestic policy, in the never ending battle of government power versus individual rights.
The Revolution wasn't against government, but rather against what were viewed as illegitimate usurpations by the British government. After the war, the Framers were shocked by the chaos of government under the Articles of Confederation and resolved to create a stronger federal government. You can find quotations by Washington, Adams, Hamilton and Madison expressing fear of anarchy as well as of tyranny or demagogery. Anti-federalists may be more to the liking of today's libertarians. But even among the Anti-federalists, someone like Sam Adams with his affection for a tight little "Christian Sparta" of pious, virtuous and self-governing New Englanders wouldn't fit in well at 21st century libertarian gatherings.
Among people today you will find many who hate Hitler and Stalin and the world portrayed in Orwell's 1984. They defend freedom in areas that matter to them and oppose excessive government or taxation or intrusive bureaucracy. But they would not call themselves libertarians and would oppose planks of the libertarian platform. Many of these people are Republicans, others Independents or supporters of third parties. Some may even be Democrats. Counting them as Libertarians or libertarians would be a mistake. I suspect the same is true of the Founders or Framers.
What the founders were looking for was balance and a middle way between the world's dangers. One could make a case that that is what classical liberalism was or at least intended to be. It would be much harder to make that same point about many of today's libertarians.
Imagine reading Hayek in 1950 or 1970 and being taken by his sensible arguments against new socialist proposals. Or reading Madison, or Montesquiou on limited government or Mill or Acton on liberty in previous centuries. Then imagine that you read today's "Reason" or "lewrockwell.com" or "antistate.com" What possible reason would you have for hanging around that crowd? If the important battles against tyranny are won, why bother with the movement to crush the state? Having defeated dangerous utopians, why throw in with another utopian movement?
Is this a new libertarian age? Clearly communism and classical socialism are down for the count. More and more people care about and want liberty. But I suspect that people will still want some checks on the power of the global market and the homogenization it brings.
The globalist future means ever greater power for those who can master money and the techniques of increasing it, technology and media. Maybe such people do show the great competence essential for making the modern world work. And yet, those who lack such skills also have interests that should be represented.
The weakness of libertarianism isn't that it's so wildly, daringly and dangerously different from other theories of government. It's the similarities that are the problem. In time libertarianism comes to be seen as similar to other political ideologies, a way for one group to use the law to promote its own interests and block threats to those interests. Other groups behave similarly and make their own cases heard. If things are managed well and people keep their heads there's no tragedy in that.
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...
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.
Just like Elvis.