Posted on 11/17/2002 2:15:27 PM PST by hscott
Well I'll believe it when I see him do something about the Bill about to be pushed through. He doesn't even mention it.
Its true. Many libertarians favor returning America to the days of 1790, when the vast majority of folks were uneducated, poor and didn't live past 40 years old. I don't support that type of life. While life may not be perfect in the 21st century, its far better then at any time in American history.
I do not care what libertarians favor. I do know most Americans despise freedom, and think it means "freedom from responsibility."
It is not good to measure the results of any political condition, however, at its beginning. Since the conditions, politically, of the late 1790s remained to a large degree into the middle 1800s, look at what had been accomplished in this country under these free times. By 1840 Literacey in all states ranged between 93% and 100%. The first tax funded school opened ten years later. With government now in charge of education, about 40% of blacks and 17% of whites cannot read at all. As for life expectancy, it has been increasing by 1/2 year every 10 years worldwide. Certainly this can be attributed to better diet, medicine, and living conditions, but not to govenment.
When I was a boy we children used to spend hours playing in the woods, or downtown in a major NE city. We were never in any danger. No one in our neighborhood locked their doors. My neighbor worked nights and walked home most summer evening through city streets and dark neighborhoods (no street lights) after midnight. She was never in any danger.
When I was in the fifth grade all the boys were required to have a jacknife for one of our classes. (No boy would have dreamed of going anyplace without his jacknife.) No one ever threatened anyone with a knife (and none of the girls got pregnant.)
You may be too young to know how free we really were, just 40 years ago, and how much more orderly life was.
Hank
How many people do you think really want to take drugs now that do not take them because they are illegal. Is it only because they are illegal that you do not take drugs? Are you better than everyone else?
If you think anyone who wants to take drugs isn't, you are completely ignorant about today's society.
Hank
I don't know, I usually consider myself something of a libertarian, yet I don't believe in "absolute and unrestricted liberty." It seems pretty clear that if one person has absolute and unrestricted liberty, he cannot avoid being able to encroach on someone else's absolute and unrestricted liberty.
F.A. Hayek, who is one of my inspirations, rejected, after consideration, the label of "libertarian." I'll have to look up why, later.
Isn't that an oxymoron?
Yes, but it's the author's oxymoron. Maybe he's using "state" to mean condition or situation, though.
It "seems pretty clear," is the problem. If liberty is defined as being free to do whatever one chooses without interfering with anyone else's liberty, what you suggest is impossible. In fact, thus defined, every other relationship between individual means that someone is usurping authority over another individual's life. The correct name for that is tyranny.
Those are your choices, liberty or tyranny. Most people are petrified of liberty, because it also means they must be responsible for their own lives. Most people prefer tyranny.
Hank
That comes pretty close to my definition of libertarianism. I believe it is also not too far from "classical liberalism." I believe it is also not far off from what our founding fathers had in mind.
"Absolute and unrestricted liberty" is not what I think of as libertarianism, but was suggested by another poster. However alot of folks who call themselves "Libertarians," such as the ones at Lewrockwell.com, seem like damn fools.
Within the general group of "libertarians," one must distinguish between members of the Libertarian Party and those who call themselves "libertarians" but are members of some other party or have no political affiliation. Within either of these groups, there are factions just as there are in any other political group. I think there's a strong pro-Second Amendment faction that really has a more conservative Republican outlook on life but is frustrated with the Republican Party. I think there's a strong pro-drug faction that just wants drugs to be legal and likes the intellectual cover that libertarianism provides. I've met Libertarians whose real agenda is that they hate God and hate anyone who is an active, practicing Christian but at the same time want low taxes. They can't be Democrats without supporting taxes and think that supporting the Republicans is to support Christian morality. I think another faction is made of business people who are frustrated with the Republican Party's failures but whose beliefs could just as easily fit within the party.
The point of this long introduction is that generalization about the "libertarians" is always going to have some inaccuracies just as generalization about any political movement.
I differ with libertarianism on its advocacy of open borders. If we throw our borders open to anyone and ask no questions, a foreign enemy can send entire divisions into our country with all of their equipment to seize anything they want whenever they want it. This may sound silly, but listen to the rhetoric of a hard-core libertarian and ask yourself where their position would allow us to act for our own defense. If 10,000 men came sailing over from Cuba with rifles, does any policy that the libertarians advocate allow us to ask them what they are doing? Do any of their policies allow us to stop them before they form into ranks and start shooting?
Another national security issue where I disagree with libertarianism is free trade. I don't believe that tariff policies should allow the unions to put the entire American economy in a stranglehold, but I believe that our policies should try to encourage domestic manufacture of many products. One cause of the War Between the States was the tariff. The South wanted free trade because there was little manufacturing in the South and most powerful Southerners preferred to receive goods from England or France without paying tariffs. The North wanted a tariff to protect Northern manufacturers. When the war was being planned, the South knew that it would need manufactured goods from Europe. The South assumed that the draw of free trade with the South would cause British and French ships to run the Union blockade in order to maintain trade with the South. What the South learned was that when the lead starts to fly, free trade is revealed as nice idea to debate particularly when one is a consumer of goods that might come in trade but not a principle for which people brave the battlefield. One reason that the South lost was that it simply couldn't manufacture needed goods. A lesson for us should be that the nation that can't make what it needs will eventually fall to the nation that can. If a modest tariff helps keep manufacturing at home, it is a good thing.
The final point is that too many libertarians assume that everyone will behave as they do. They assume that because they are motivated largely by economic concerns, others will be as well. They think that if someone has what they need, that person will trade with them so that they can obtain what they need. They don't understand that many people realize that there is more profit in refusing to sell and then conquering those who do not have when they become weak. On a national security level, this blindness is dangerous.
WFTR
Bill
My grandmother always said there are more horse's arses than there are horses.
Hank
Best regards,
This statement is fully the equal of one from the leftist gun grabbers stating that legalized concealed carry would lead to shootouts everywhere and blood running in the streets: Vivid, persuasive, emotionally wrenching - and completely 100% wrong based on actual evidence.
I disagree about the "drug lovers" of the libertarians. It is true that most libertarians believe in drug legalization. I believe in this too. Why? Is it because I love getting high? Not at all! I could easily get high without any political leanings whatsoever. Do you think drugs are hard to get?
The reason that libertarians (and me) are for drug legalization is quite simple - drug use is a victimless crime. And in my book victimless crimes are not true crimes.
Drug use is a victimless crime because if I use drugs I may harm myself but no one else. Libertarians believe in self-ownership - meaning that whatever I do with my own body is solely my business as long as i don't violate the rights of others.
Now some say that a druggie does violate the rights of others. For example a father who spends the family income on drugs and lets his kids go hungry is violating the rights of his kids. Fine, I'd agree. Prosecute him for child abuse. But not for drug abuse.
The other argument against the WOD is consequentialist - it is a bloody failure. Around half the prisoners in the USA are there for drug offenses. Their incarceration deprives society of their productivity while costing taxpayers to keep them in prison.
The WOD is a mirror of Prohibition. It is a key driver I crime just as Prohibition was. Legalize drugs and you will see a big drop in the crime rate. /rant
Also about the anti-Christian libertarians. I think that this is another fantasy. Yes surely a fair percentage of libs are atheists but many are Christians also.
I started this thread as an attack on the libertarians. I still want to attack them. But let's attack them squarely on their beliefs. Rebut these beliefs. Don't use ad-hominem strawman attacks.
I have to agree with you on open borders and I have always felt this way. Open borders might make sense in some idael libertarian world but in our real world we should put troops on the borders. it is a scandal that we don't. And BTW the Republicans are scared to advocate this because they pander to the Hispanic vote.
My take as well.
As to open borders or restricted borders, a libertarian could advocate the latter as an extended defense against initiation of force from foreign armies or terrorists.
What in the world are you talking about? Nevada authorities have a huge problem with STDs spread by illegal prostitution. What in the world leads you to believe that the legalization of prostitution eliminates illegal prostitution? Do you really think most prostitutes and their pimps are rational and that they will obey the law (i.e., get health checkups, shots, register with the state etc) if they are given the opportunity to do so?
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.