Libertarianism III: It's All About Me and My Needs

Sand in the Gears ^ | 11/15/02 | Tony Woodlief

[Reagan Man]

>>>What is it with the personal attacks on people? Do you want to debate the issues or trade insults?

I made no personal attacks against you. I see from your profile page, you claim to be a new-FReeper. If that's the case, I suggest you grow some thicker skin, if you expect to survive around here.

Btw, if you have evidence to counter my claims about prostitution and STD's, lets see them. Otherwise, you're rhetoric is empty!

[ganesha]

With regards to foreign policy, it might make sense for them to argue that when a genuine threat arises, we should confront it, but that we should avoid meddling in things that are none of our business. For example the world is a more tolerable place to live in because the United States defeated Hitler, but the conditions which led to the rise of Hitler might not have arisen if Britain and France had not been handed a victory they were not really entitled to in World War I as a result of U.S intervention.

Also, if you assume that the people who believe that 9-11, the 1993 WTC bombing, the bombing of the al Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia, the attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and maybe even Oklahoma City were acts of Iraqi state sponsored terrorism, are correct then it would be absolutely justified today to go to war to kill Saddam in self defense but it would also be true that 9-11 might not have happened if we had not made an enemy of Saddam in the first place. The combination of going to war with Saddam and then leaving him in power to plot revenge against us set the stage for 9-11. Of course you could counter this by saying that desert storm was justified but we should have finished the job and that therefore libertarians would still not be correct. However a libertarian could argue that the true costs of a government action in war or peacetime should be taken into account and that the true cost of desert storm would have been to invade Iraq, remove Saddam from power and occupy the country, (which we now will have to do anyway). By liberating only Kuwait, President Bush created an illusion that the war was cheaper than it actually was. Honesty about the costs of war would still leave room for some wars to be justified but it might make intervention less common.

With regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the true cost of U.S support for Israel is significantly worse relations with almost all muslim and arab countries than would otherwise exist. If the purpose is protecting the survival of the Jewish people maybe this is worth it, but if the purpose is just to fufill a likud party agenda of fully colonising the West Bank and Gaza then it might not be worth it. Being honest about what we want to see happen and what price we are willing to pay for it would not be a bad thing.

Having a third party is essential in any situation where both the Democrats and the Republicans take the same side of an important issue in which the minority position deserves to be heard. In an election where the democrat takes a hard line pro-Israel position in order to get the Jewish vote, and the republican takes a hard line pro-Israel position in order to get the fundamentalist Christian vote, someone who sympathises with the arabs would have to vote for a third party or not vote at all. Likewise, if both the Republican and the Democrat are staunch supporters of the war on drugs then a libertarian candidate is necessary. A Libertarian vote is wasteful however when there is a major party candidate who is clearly preferable even if he is not perfect. In that case an ideologically purist position would be self defeating.

[Sam Cree]

Usually, I find discussions on the meanings of all these terms, like "conservative" fascinating, since they all seem to mean so many different things.

I'd consider myself conservative, in that I wish to conserve our constitution and the American tradition of individual liberty which it defines. However, I wonder if my love of individual liberty doesn't make me a small l libertarian.

[secretagent]

But Bill Maher is a socialist. He gives all libertarians a bad name.

Probably a socialist, but he does take some libertarian positions.

Also some "non-socialist" positions hard to peg solely as libertarian or conservative. From a review of "When You Ride With Bin Laden You Ride Alone" at Amazon.com:

One of my major beefs is that Maher seems to believe that we are at war with Islam -- all of Islam. Such views are not helpful. They only make matters worse by putting everyone in the same category. If we judged Christians as being all like Jerry Falwell no one who believed in Christ would look good either.

Maher's support of profiling Arabs also doesn't make sense. There are tons of scenerios in which an old lady, a child, or a love struck 20 something could accidentally bring a bomb on board a plane. It's not about knowledge or intent, it's about manipulation. I want the old ladies frisked, including my mother! Why? Because some people are too trusting and just might make a mistake.

There are other views expressed or, unfortunately, outright ignored. In one poster he highlights the stoning of Muslim women while at the same time ignoring the rape and brutualities towards women here in the US. In another essay he demands more funding for the Pentagon, the agency that gets more than 50 percent of the discretionary budget and was judged by the GAO as being the most mismanaged federal agency in the entire US government. Please! In another poster & essay he supports the reporting of suspicious activities to the government. On its face, that might make sense. But then remember how many idiots there are out there and how many people have an axe to grind with someone else.

The good posters and essays, on the other hand, hit dead center. The "why they hate" us posters are great as is Maher's support for better pay and respect for firefighters, soldiers and police officers. The pages focusing on our over consumption of oil are perhaps the best, most notably the one on the front cover.

[ThinkDifferent]

I suggest you grow some thicker skin, if you expect to survive around here.

This is true, some people frequently resort to personal attacks, often when they're losing an argument. Ignore them.

Btw, if you have evidence to counter my claims about prostitution and STD's, lets see them.

From the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

But despite the brothels, strip clubs and more than 100 pages of advertisements for adult entertainers in the phone book, the state remains below the national rate for some of the most common sexually transmitted diseases.

[WFTR]

Actually, I'm not trying to argue against libertarianism because I think some libertarians are only interested in using drugs or attacking religion. I'm sorry if I created that impression. One of my arguments against libertarianism is the same as yours. I agree that it doesn't present a realistic basis for foreign policy. Another of my arguments is that the no initiation of force principle isn't the only principle that we should consider in formulating public policy. The point of mentioning that I believe some libertarians are in the movement only because of their love of drugs or their hatred of religion (or even their love of the Second Amendment) is to point out that when considering how "libertarianism" approaches foreign policy, one must realize that libertarianism is no more homogeneous than any other political philosophy in spite of its nominal adherence to one key principle.

WFTR
Bill

[WFTR]

No bright lines wherever we like, darnitall.

LOL Life's like that.

[Reagan Man]

If the prostitution business in Nevada was so pure and without fault, there would be no sexually transmitted disease throughout the entire state. That's not the case and the full article makes that very clear. As the article says, Las Vegas has 35-40 million visitors a year. Many men who have sex, as provided through the prostitution industry, catch these STD's and take them back to their home town. There is no way to completely control the spread of STD's and legalizing prostitution throughout the US, would make a bad situation even worse. And that doesn't even get at the moral objection most American's have to the issue of wholesale prostitution.

[WFTR]

I like how you disagree with Libertarians without being disagreeable.

Thanks for the kind words.

[ThinkDifferent]

If the prostitution business in Nevada was so pure and without fault, there would be no sexually transmitted disease throughout the entire state.

Thank you for the textbook example of a strawman argument.

Many men who have sex, as provided through the prostitution industry, catch these STD's and take them back to their home town.

Source?

[Reagan Man]

>>>Thank you for the textbook example of a strawman argument.

There is nothing weak or imaginary about prostitution and STD's. The use of this "strawman argument" phrase is a cop-out for the problems that really exist in the seedy world of legal prostitution.

I find your argument, that the prostitution industry in Nevada is pure and without fault, highly laughable. And I don't think there's a source of data that exists, in which men admit to catching STD's while cheating on their wife, or girlfriend. After a certain amount of time, the odds don't improve. Sort of like parachuting. Eventually, skydiving will catch up with you. LOL

The fact is, sexually transmitted diseases are at an all time high. I wonder why?

[Skywalk]

The fact is, my brotha, the STD rate for Nevada prostitutes(outside of Reno and Nevada) is infinitesimal compared with the high rates(even of HIV) in prostitutes in Las Vegas and Reno, where prostitution is illegal. There you have a single state, with side-by-side experimentation, revealing the facts to you, and you ignore it.

How typical.

[Copernicus]

Oh, wait. I guess I jumped the gun here. But, was this from Marx or Hitler? It looks like it could have gone either way; not that there is much diference really.

If it pleases you to explain, I would be very interested to learn how you acquired your knowledge of Marx and Hitler as well as your understanding of classical reasoning.

Best regards,

[Sam Cree]

Hi, Bill.

That foreign policy thing with Libertarians drives me crazy, too, especially since I have been considering myself a small l libertarian.

It seems like a pretty basic paradox. How can one expect to retain his precious liberty if one is not willing to protect oneself?

[steve-b]

This is what I know Hank, when prohibition was reversed, alcohol consumption went through the roof.

That turns out not to be the case, according to the people living at the time. The notion was produced by Bellislesque research in the 1980s when the parellels between the failures of Prohibition I and Prohibition II became too embarassingly visible.

[steve-b]

The 2nd amendment gives every American the right to keep and bear arms.

OK, class, what foolish and dangerous notion is (thinly) hidden in this statement?

[steve-b]

And that doesn't even get at the moral objection most American's have to the issue of wholesale prostitution.

If so, the trade will die out on its own.

[jjm2111]

I'm pretty much a reformed "Big L" too. 9/11 made the difference for me as well.

I really believe the LP can make a difference with RINO heavy states if it would just drop some of it's silliness. But the LP does have some good ideas. Both Dems and the GOP spend money like drunken sailors. We're taxed to death and Bush's tax cut was laughable. It didn't nearly go far enough.

[coloradan]

Horses**t! The 2nd amendment gives every American the right to keep and bear arms. There is nothing in the Constitution that says you have a right to spread STD's across the fruited plains. Grow up you knucklehead!

I didn't say anything about the Constitution at all, let alone that there was such a right; that's a red herring logical fallacy.

What I said was, your statement that legalized prostitution will lead to the spread of STDs is the equal of statements from the gun grabbers that legalized conceal carry will lead to shootouts and blood in the streets: vivid, emotionally powerful, and empirically wrong based on the observed facts. My comparison has to do with the asserted negative consequences of a policy, not with rights and certainly nothing to do with Constitutional rights. You attempt to whip up fear, which by the way isn't factually founded or justified, in trying to keep prostitution illegal, the same way they would whip up false fears about concealed carry. You, like they, are lying in order to prevent a something from becoming legal.

You might consider using logical fallacies less if you wish to bash libertarians as non-logical debaters. Or, libertarians aside, if you wish to have rational support for your political positions.

[The Green Goblin]

Libertarians like to pretend, for example, that the U.S. could have avoided World War II without consequence for liberty. At best they argue from historical accident rather than principal -- the claim that Hitler would have lost by virtue of his failure in Russia, for example, or that Britain could have survived without the American Lend-Lease program.

Wrong. Libertarians assert that WWII would have been completely avoided if the United States had not entered into WWI.