But, before I go into those issues, I want to address a couple of the author's statements, both pro and con (something that the author failed to do).
Pro: Indeed, most Libertarians of note have no concept of how to deal with hostile foreign governments. Their foreign policy ideas are actually ideals, based on laboratory philosophy that works only in the vacuum of intellectual thought. Were the world filled only with educated, thoughtful philosophers, maybe their foreign policy ideas would have a chance of success. On the other hand, many Libertarians of lesser note have a much more realistic grasp of the world as it is. They understand the need for a strong and proactive military. Unfortunately, such realistic Libertarians are in the minority or at least, not in a position to make their views known.
Con: The author loses a large degree of credibility when he suggests, not only, that the Civil War was not a great infringement on liberty, but that the Civil War was about slavery. In fact, more than any other single person of any era, the Father of the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln, was responsible for the first major subversion of the Constitution and the introduction of Federalism, that our Founding Fathers had worked so hard to deny the government and now threatens the very fabric of our society. Furthermore, only a graduate of a public school would ever think that the Civil War was about slavery. Even most liberals, when you pin them down, will admit that the Civil War was about economics and greed - greed that led to a willingness to ignore the Constitution and grant the Federal government far more powers than the Constitution allowed, just so the North could have justification for imposing their will on the South and punish them for their wealth.
Pro: The Libertarians (at least the ones who seem to be in control of the party) seem to have no idea how they would actually go about governing, should they ever come to power. Granted, since there is very little chance of that happening, they have the philosopher's luxury of not having to deal with that possibility for a long time. Many of them may indeed have solid and well thought out plans. But, we have yet to hear any of them, so we must expect the worst.
Con: The author would have us think that Libertarians would try to indoctrinate people to their way of thinking, as a way to scare the reader into worrying about his freedom to raise his children according to his own values and the subversion of community norms. Nothing could be further from the truth. Granted, Libertarians would see to it that information concerning Libertarian thought was no longer suppressed, as it is today, by mutual agreement of both major parties. In fact, most Libertarians that I am familiar with would tell you that, community norms are only surpassed in importance by individual freedom. They want the most control at the lowest levels - personal first, community second, state third and national last. As a reformed Republican, Independent, I know many Republicans and more than a few Libertarians and it has been my observation that, while only a few Republicans send their kids to private schools, almost all of the Libertarians that I know send their kids to private schools (some even go to, dare I say, "religious" schools). Libertarians are, in general, more concerned with a "complete" education, than with a Libertarian education and much more so than Democrats or Republicans. They believe that, given ALL the facts, most people will side with them. In this instance, the author is just blowing hot air to achieve scare value. It's hogwash.
Now, on to the things that the author left out -
The Good Side of Libertarianism:
Like it or not, the ONLY political party that stands steadfastly behind the "original intent" of the Constitution, is the Libertarian Party. There is no doubt that the Democrats would just as soon forget all about the Constitution, but in that regard, the Republicans are not that far behind. Despite all of their shortcomings, the Libertarians are much more dedicated to Constitutional law than either of the major parties.
Most of the author's supportable facts had to do with only two points; the failure of the Libertarian leadership to understand real world foreign policy requirements or their failure to present their plan to govern. But he failed to address the nine points that stand Libertarians in very elite company. The nine points are the nine of the ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights that have been subverted by our elected representatives of both major parties (not including the third amendment, which has not yet been subverted). Then add to that most of the other 17 amendments that have been subverted by the major parties and the author's points, though still valid, shrink significantly in relation. All this brings up the second point that the author left out.
In many cases, the alternatives are even worse:
Most people tend to vote for candidates from one of the two major parties. So let's look at what those two parties have given us. In fact, since many of the people on this forum seem to think that the Republicans can do no wrong, let's particularly look at what the Republicans have given us.
USA Patriot Act - Only one Republican in the House voted against this abomination, described by Constitutional scholars of both political persuasions, as the greatest single attack on the Fourth Amendment in history and it weakened 15 other privacy laws. Over one-third of the 367 pages that make up the USA Patriot Act have nothing to do with anything but information gathering in US banks and other US financial institutions, most of which are in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment. Both parties overwhelmingly voted for this bill, but it points out that the Republicans are very little different than the Democrats, when it comes to taking away our rights. Thank you so much Republicans.
The Homeland Security Act - The Republican controlled House just passed this disgraceful legislation that will, among other things, create a mammoth Orwellian database, overseen by the Defense Department's Information Awareness Office, headed by the convicted mastermind of Iran-Contra, John Poindexter. According to this legislation, this database will contain massive amounts of private data about every citizen, including every credit card purchase you make, every magazine subscription you buy, every medical prescription you fill, every web site you visit, every e-mail address that you send to or receive from, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book, every event you attend, judicial and divorce records, traffic tickets and even complaints from nosy neighbors. If you have one of those toll road tags on your car windshield, then it will also record the date and time of every toll plaza you go through. If you have OnStar in your car, then it will record your car's location at specific intervals. So, if you spend too much time at a gun store, you may be classified as a subversive. If you spend too much time at church, then you will be classified as a right wing wacko. And frequenting the FreeRepublic web site,... well, even if you don't post, it will certainly put you near the top of the list of suspicious people to watch. Thank you so much Republicans.
The Our Lady of Peace Act - The Republican controlled House just passed this outrage, as well. It requires states to forward to the FBI, all kinds of private information about every citizen, for use in instant background checks. This goes far beyond the criminal history information and judicial restrictions that may be in place for a person. For example, you could be denied the right to purchase a gun because the computer turns up the fact that 30 years ago, when you were in junior high school, you underwent psychological evaluation for depression after you broke up with your first girlfriend, even though no problem was found. Even arrests that were dismissed for lack of evidence, including wrongful arrest, would be submitted and could prevent you from purchasing a gun. Thank you so much Republicans.
Campaign Finance Reform - Once again, Republicans voted en masse to pass this diabolical Incumbent Protection bill, weakly disguised as campaign finance reform. Among other things, it is clearly a violation of the First Amendment. Thank you so much Republicans.
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) - In 1996, Republicans inserted an amendment into HIPAA, that claimed the right of the IRS to tax the earnings of US expatriates for ten years after they renounced their US citizenship and had become taxpaying citizens of another country. This is saying, not only to those American expats, but to everyone who remains here, that your money isn't yours. It belongs to the government and if you leave, we are taking it back. Thank you so much Republicans.
The list is far too long to present here. But, it should be clear that BOTH parties have not only failed to protect our rights on numerous occasions, but have actively subverted our rights repeatedly. Certainly there are some Libertarians that I would never vote for. But, on the other hand, there are more than a few Republicans that I would never vote for, too (Senators Specter, McCain and Grassley come to mind). That's why I am a reformed Republican, Independent. Today, I look closely at every candidate's record and his stand on the issues and unfortunately, I most often end up voting for the lesser evil. Most of the time, that means voting Republican, but some of the time, it means voting Libertarian, Reform, Constitution or even Independent.
By following this "the party can do no wrong" philosophy, we are digging ourselves and our country into a hole that we may never climb out of.
It's time that we put away labels and start voting for the MAN, rather than the Party.
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?
I can't disagree more with this. The restrictions on liberty at the time of the Civil War were temporary war measures, that ended with the close of hostilities. Violations of civil liberties were at least as severe in the rebel South as in the North. Mark Neely's book, "Southern Rights" documents these violations of individual liberty.
And while it's become common today for many to downplay the role of slavery in causing the war, a look at original documents will confirm the important role of slavery in triggering the conflict. Of course, at the outset of the war, unionists did not want to free the slaves, but rebels feared that Lincoln's election would ultimately mean the end of slavery and this sparked the rebellion.
What gets left out of contemporary defenses of the Confederacy was the great idealistic committment to union, to the flag and the constitution. Many will disagree today, but union meant something more than "economics and greed" to those who fought for it.
Such defenses of the Confederacy are based on today's South. People project back today's values, beliefs and orthodoxies on the Confederate leadership. What they ignore is that mentalities were very different in an age when slavery was legal, common and regarded as the basis of society. Southern elites gambled on secession and war to preserve their slave-based society and economy from what they regarded as Republican hostility.
To be sure, many or most Confederate soldiers did not believe that they were fighting first and foremost to preserve and defend slavery. Like all soldiers, they were fighting for home and family, for friends and native lands. But at a less personal and subjective level, it's clear that things would not have reached a war footing had slavery not embittered relations between sections of the country.
It's not clear that the Civil War greatly increased the powers of the federal government at the expense of the states or of individuals. That change happened in the 20th Century. The federal government wasn't much more powerful in 1880 than it was in 1840.
And the original meaning of the Constitution was in question from the beginning. Washington, Adams, Hamilton and others didn't share the radical Jeffersonian view of the Constitution. Nor did Marshall, the mature James Madison, Monroe or Jackson accept the Confederate interpretation of that document. Lincoln was far closer to the Washingtonian tradition than the Confederate rebels were.
You have studied this matter quite extensively.
If I may, I would point out off the top of my head Harry Browne had a number of very specific acts and ideas he would enact immediately upon taking office.
I seem to recall for instance he would immediately pardon all non violent offenders in prisons around the country especially those caught in the crossfire of the Drug War.
I believe he also expressed intent to immediately review all Executive Orders and rescind many if not most of them.
I believe he had a number of suggestions about the abomination known as the Department of Education, as well as Health and Human Services, Interior, Equal Employment Commission, etc. etc.
In regard to Terrorism he (and others) attempted to redirect national discourse to the Constitutional concept of Marque and Reprisal, an instrument used successfully by President Jefferson.
I am sure his website is filled with any number of specific ideas and suggestions on Constitutional Governance.
Most Libertarians I know are not opposed to National Defense or Necessary Government Regulation,they merely apply the test of Constitutionality against a backdrop of the concept "the government governs best that governs least".
We the people have collectively lost complete track of the fundamental concept of Sovereign Citizenship in a Representative Constitutional Republic.
Best regards,