Posted on 11/17/2002 2:15:27 PM PST by hscott
Example - a weak-willed individual who will, if drugs are legal, become addicted. That is he needs the force of law to keep things in line. That doesn't impress me much. If you are determined to self-destruct no amount of laws will save you. And regarding drugs, there are many treatment programs available. All our addict would have to do is to check in to one of them.
Bottom line is that people very often depend on govt to do what they should do themselves or could do with assistance from civil society.
One step further, if you will: many of those people to whom you refer also want to place everyone else under increasingly tighter government control. They can't handle their freedoms and don't believe that others can either.
You state that the author fails to consider the positive side of libertarianism. Well, of course, he was criticizing foreign policy mainly. He probably agrees (I don't really know) with many libertarian positions. For myself, the foreign policy is the issue. I still do agree with most domestic positions of the LP.
Although they make several mistakes IMHO.
They are way too idealistic. If you say its my way or the highway you will probably end up on the highway. In politics, compromise is essential. Libs seems to think it is a mortal sin. Contrast to Bush. He has taken several positions with which I disagee (steel tariffs, education bill) but he is a master of working the system. So you don't get all you want right away. "The perfect is the enemy of the good" and libs are in denial of this.
As far as your discussion of Lincoln I agree 110%. (Of course I AM a Southerner) Lincoln is surely not my hero.
Finally you praise the Libs for standing by original intent and trash the Pubbies for all these horrible violations of our civil liberties.
To me it is a thorny question. What if our security depends on abriging our liberties to some extent. Which side do you choose? I think that you have to err on the side of security. So acts like the Patriot Act have to be justified on the grounds that it will really help security (I'm not sure it is justified). But its not helpful to take the purist attitude that no infringment of liberty however small can be tolerated. Would you rather be dead than even slightly unfree?
This fellow is about as honest as a New York minute is long.
The Constitution was never intended for "white Americans" and the limits it places on American adventurism abroad are designed to protect all Americans from wars provoked by faulty behavior by their representatives.
Dred Scott was bad law.
WWI and the resulting Treaty of Versailles and acts of naked aggression by the French were arguably what caused Hitler's rise.
The war against Japan was demonstrably provoked by acts of war committed by the US against Japan.
These hit pieces are proof that the establishment is worried about the affects of the LP on politics as we know it. Contrary to those who claim that the LP only receives 1% of the vote, in many cases this past election Libertarians received unprecedented numbers (even up to 25% in some congressional races).
It's working and as a libertarian, I haven't got alot of complaints about our progress. We have over 300 elected libertarians in public office both partisan and non-partisan positions.
We've fielded the most candidates nation-wide of any third-party in existence.
If there is a complaint I have it is that the behavior of libertarians in office is not widely disseminated. The important data for anyone deciding on which candidate to vote for is: "What have these people accomplished once elected?"
With the republicans and democrats, we already have our answer. Both have yielded enormous growth in the governments they control.
When Reagan was elected, the federal budget was 600 billion. When he left office it was approaching 2 trillion.
Libertarians did not attack the US after 9/11.
Whoa! Don't start talking crazy now . . .
What libertarians have you been talking to? The govenrment's sole responsibility is to protect the rights of its citizens. Thus the government would hav ea large role to play in protecting property rights (along with the citizens themselves who have the most interest in such property.)
Perhaps, rather than make sweeping generalizations, you could be more specific.
Nonsense.
LOL. When President Bush signs the CARA bill you will claim it is a good idea.
I think that there's a difference between "hating America" and hating the fact that our country has forsaken Constitution government to the degree that it has.
"WWI and the resulting Treaty of Versailles and acts of naked aggression by the French were arguably what caused Hitler's rise." OK granted - I actually think also that Versailles was flawed. So a big mistake was made. Still Hitler did arise and we did have to defeat him. Or do you argue that we should not have entered WWII?
I think you are mistaken about the LP's success. The 1% referred to the Pres election (actually I think it was 1/2%) No one says that in certain more local elections the LP got a bigger percentage. For example in my state, Virginia, incumbent Senator Warner was unopposed by a Dem. So any anti-Warner votes went to the Lib candidate.
Finally about Reagan's swelling the budget. A lot of that increase was for defense. A lot more was Democrat spending that he could not prevent. OTOH his defense spending was a big factor in the fall of the Soviet Union. Money well spent, I'd say.
How can anyone argue with you when you use blatant falsehoods to make your point? The literacy rate in 1790 in the America surpasses the literacy rates today in America.
Most highschool kids today, could barely read "Common Sense" by Thomas Paine much less comprehend it. At that time, it was the most widely read book and was in virtually every household in America. Grade schoolers were reading and understanding Common Sense.
Furthermore, the life expectancy claim you make is preposterous. Ben Franklin lived to be very old. Most of the founding fathers (those not killed during the war) lived to be old and wise. They were not far different than their countrymen.
Why? Why was it the US's responsibility to protect Europe?
As far as Japan goes, we imposed a blockade well before 12/07/41 That was an act of war. To pretend that they were attacking us unprovoked is either a lie or an opinion based on extreme ignorance.
Finally about Reagan's swelling the budget. A lot of that increase was for defense. A lot more was Democrat spending that he could not prevent.
Nonsense. The President can veto bills. Reagan didn't veto much and to get what he wanted he allowed the democrat congress to increase education and welfare spending by unprecedented amounts. No, the defense budget did not take up the bulk of the increases.
Bush has spent more in the last two years than Clinton did during his full two terms. Don't think this won't go un-noticed down the road. I predict that Bush will lose his re-election bid unless things change soon.
The mandate sent by voters? "Less taxes and less spending."
The republicans can refuse to see this mandate at their own peril in 2004.
It is when you start sinking ships.
First self-interest. The German and Japanese goal was to conquer everybody. If they had conquered Europe and the Far East would they have stopped. It is true that in 1941 the oceans posed a greater barrier than they do today. But I still think the US would have been at risk.
Second there is the factor of solidarity with other civilzed countries like England. Would you really have us stand by while England went down (as it nearly did)? I would not. I subscribe to the notion of avoiding foreign adventures but enough is enough. Hitler posed a great danger to free peoples around the world and to me that was perhaps America's finest hour.
As to Japan I'll have to confess ignorance and let you fight it out with others. I just don't know much about this.
About Reagan. His failure to exercise the veto was kind of a quid pro quo. That is Democrats I'll let you ram through your domestic spending if you'll give me a free hand with defense. A good bargain IMHO. I mean what is the monetary value of defeating the USSR? Almost incalculable I think.
I agree that I wish Bush would spend less. But you gotta do what you gotta do. The priority is to win the war wiith Islam not the budget.
In Europe we had allies - actually the USSR carried the heaviest weight. If Hitler had conquered all these allies, we'd have had to face him alone.
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.