Replies

Well we simply have a disagreement as to matters of fact. You think that a certain faction of libertarians are libertarian because of the drug issue alone and because they themselves want to use drugs, like drugs and are doing whatever they can to legalize drugs. And that they simply latch on to the LP because it advocates drug legalization.

Those who argue as you do generally castigate the "drug loving" libertarians as morally evil, as people who simply wish to indulge their lower base appetites.

Well I have no data to support or oppose this proposition but I disagree based on the libertarians I have known. The one I have known base their endorsement of drug legalization on fury against the government for depriving them of their rights. And that is also the basis of my support for drug legalization

Again it is an ad hominem argument to counter the libertarian argument for drug legalization with the accusation that libertarians simply want legalization in order to indulge themselves in drug use. The only valid method of argument is to rebut the libertarian argument on its merits or lack thereof.

Similarly the anti-Christian faction of libertarians is I believe a fallacy. You persist is trying to question the motives of libertarians rather than just debating the issue. It seems to me that the anti-Christians in our society are mainly on the Left and I deplore this as much as you seem to.

As to abortion. Did you know that Harry Browne, the 2000 LP candidate for Pres, is pro-life? And that there are many libertarians (including me) that are pro-life?

But of course you are right about the fact that there are many factions in libertarianism. And just like other parties, I am sure that you can find libertarians who advocate all kinds of things. So what? I think that the 'libertine" faction and the "anti-Christian" factions of libertarians are pretty small. Granted the pro-choice (God how I hate that word) faction is pretty large. So you disagree as do I with some factions of libertarianism.

What I was getting at was a disagreement with the vast majority of libertarians. That to the extent that libertarians have a foreign policy at all, it is a disgusting and totally unrealistic one.

Libertarians include Christians and non-Christians. They can unite politically under under the non-initiation of force principle.

Libertarians also include both pro-choice and anti-abortion advocates. They agree on the libertarian principle but disagree as to what point the individual develops enough to deserve its protection.

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