Free Republic

Fees would finance a minarchist libertarian government. It's a voluntary form of protection money, whereas an income tax, which your Republicans support, is a socialistic, confiscatory redistribution of wealth. It's extortion on a most fundamental level. Even a sales tax would be much better because at least you wouldn't be taxed unless you spent your money. The Republicans also support zoning laws, eminent domain, welfare, and many other socialistic programs, so I don't see where you get off claiming that the Republicans aren't socialistic. By the way, they often favor competition-destroying business regulations. If that doesn't sound socialistic to you, then my suggestion is that you go back to school and get an education. When you begin your learning experience, do yourself a favor by taking classes in history, logic and English (your writing really blows).

i neither said nor implied about republicans. I asked a question. Thanks for answering it.

Stop asking stupid questions like "how do you define property?" If I buy something, it's my property, a-hole. There's your definition. With respect to the protection of lives, I'm referring to protection from bona-fide threats caused by others that violate my free will. For example, if somebody sells me a drug, it's not the government's business. If I end up killing myself with the drug, it's not the government's business. However, if I drive under the influence I constitute a bona-fide threat to someone else's life. The government has a right to restrain and/or punish me in the latter case, but not in the former ones. Hey, the logic is simple enough even for you, dill-hole.

Thanks for the clarification.

ok

It is in the context of some wildly proclaimed and contextually vacant "tyranny of the individual."

lol, got it. i'm coming from the perspective that government (society might be better) has the right and possible obligation to act as sovereign -- basically, individual rights ain't absolute, and there are times when rights conflict and individual rights have the possibility of losing (say, two folks consumating on a church lawn as people are walking out: do the people on the church lawn have the right to do that w/abandon? or, does the church -- or the people of the church -- have the right to forbid such actions? although i'm thinking that private property rights come into play here some how...)

This threat exists. Government exists to prosecute coercion. It also exists to protect it's citizens from outside threats. You can't get rid of it, it's necessary, but it's only really useful when it's limited to prosecuting coercion, which includes defending it from outside threats.

that i think i can agree with, although i think government (or maybe again this is "society") has a bit more leeway than you allow (just a bit. not too much).

Once government disregards, eliminates, or "reinterprets" those limitations out of existance...it IS MORE TROUBLE THAN IT'S WORTH.

definately.

In the US, that realization comes to people as incrementally as it occurs.

yep

The dichotomy is true, the one suggested was false, it set economic authoritarianism on one side and overall abstract freedom on the other. Lawler's conservatism seeks to choose an arbitrary point along the road and say, "This is Utopia." Doesn't work...government, once given a little power beyond simply protecting people from outside threat and prosecuting coercion between it's people will always...always...(Yes I said an absolute) ALWAYS leverages that power into MORE power. Conservatism as I understand you describing it sets the big ball of power on a downhill run into government's court and tries to stop it after it's built up momentum.

which one is the dichotomy suggested? i've forgot. As for this freedom vs. authoritarianism dichtomoy: i think it's more complex than a simple one absolute or the other; on this i figure we can agree to disagree. As for conservatism: you've got a point there. I suppose it takes a bit more momentum and distance before we're in all out authoritarianism, though. Your assessment of libertarianism i like.

If government has the power to use socialism to enhance it's own power further, yes, socialism's going to happen. The only way to prevent it is to struggle to limit government from using that power...it'll require criminal and civil penalties against politicians doing so to work IMO.

civil and criminal penalties? very interesting...

Depends. There needs to be something to which people can appeal for redress. For government expansion, we can see that a Constitution of Enumerated power simply isn't enough as the judiciary can be corrupted to reinterpret "enumerated powers" to unlimited powers except where the Bill of Rights is concerned...with incremental infringements against all of those.

no disagreement here (although no doubt if we were to get into particulars there'd be something to disagree about, lol)

When the government has the power to overrule the citizen in most aspects of life, arbitrarily, it is an authoritarian government.

Again, i think that's open to broad interpretation. At the basic level, imo, laws -- gov itself -- "has the power to overrule the citizen in most aspects of life" and does (although in simple ways: traffic laws and such; certain other laws which might take me awhile to think up when not on the fly).

I don't think there are degrees of authoritarianism per se, but only phases toward authoritarianism away from individual liberty.

interesting interpretation

I happen to think that Stalin's Russia or Hitler's Germany is in America's future unless limitations on government power are quickly enforced. I'm absolutely positive that if the current situtation is allowed to continue that Stalin or Hitler or Mao will be remembered as pussy cats in comparison to what happens in the United States.

It's a matter of time...how much, I can't even guess, but I currently believe it'll be in my lifetime.

let's hope you're wrong.

take your pick. i've asked plenty.

I'm afraid you are off-base there. Most libertarians do indeed believe in self-organizing systems. That's why they are so comfortable with lots of liberty. They reject the idea that order must be imposed by an external force, and embrace the idea that systems can order themselves without external coercion or force being applied.

thanks for the clarification and correction.

i have to catch myself from a while back: your original posting of hayek's "refuation" of van den haag i realize i misinterpreted (although this correct doesn't change my argument too much): (a big *duh* is coming up) i see now how you meant the quote to refute van den haag's assertion that libertarianism rejects the founding. However, this argument rests on the assumption that the "whiggism" hayek was talking about is equivocal to the libertarianism of today, and in that case i'm not familiar enough with the whigs to say either or (although i'm inclined to believe no). If we accept hayek's quote as truth, as well as van den haag's initial quote regarding conservatism, i still don't see how hayek directly refutes van den haag; as for his assertion about libertarianism: it's dawned on me that we've got to figure out on what levels were discussing here: i think van den haag was referring to the rothbardian libertarianism whereas hayek's quote offers some historical stuff about whig theory, but isn't necessarily along the lines van den haag is attacking. what do you think? I still believe that the hayek quote isn't a direct refutation of van den haag (assuming van den haag and hayek would agree on the historical ideas underpinning american gov), but i realize my gaffe. Better late than never i suppose.

American whigs supported parliment?

if i'm not mistaken, the definition referred to english whigs. American whigs probably didn't support parliament. I'll ask you also; -- why do you object so to Hayek being viewed as 'libertarian'?

- Heres your chance. - Be rational, or be roscoe.

i disagree with libertarianism, i'll admit. The reason I object to hayek being termed that, is because some of hayek's thought (his idea of spontaneous order, for example) seems different than libertarianism (i really don't know what it would be). If my understanding of either hayek or libertarianism is wrong, then i'll correct myself. That's why i'm unsure of hayek being called a libetarian. Now it's your turn: will you answer some of the questions i've posed to you?

Yes, it does. And Hayek says so just above -- " It may be the answer, but --". Read much, kid?

if modern libertarianism is the same as hayek's whiggism, then by all means hayek is a liberterian; but if modern libertarianism is different than hayeks whiggism, then i don't think hayek would be a libertarian. That's what i'm wondering. And yes, i try to read a little.

"Seems"? What's the conflict?

"seems" because i'm unsure if it does or doesn't. i'm still deciding. As for the conflict: are whigs, those who supported the parliament, those who supported the american rev., the latter day equivalents of today's libertarians?

Already did. There is no basis in fact for haggs stupid & silly generalization about libertarians. - Nor can you two provide any coherent argument on that point. Thus - case closed.

where have you refuted the arguments? show how there is no basis in fact for van den haag's arguments; show how the arguments made are not "coherent".

that makes sense. it seems directed toward rothbard's way.

That's because you don't know the actual doctrines of the three groups mentioned, especially the first two.

i'll admit that i'm not familiar with the history of each doctrine -- if you wouldn't mind pointing out the similarities between whiggism and libertarianism so that i know why the doctrines are so similar. thanks.

Show me a libertarian that "repudiates this insight". Can you?

I asked you how van den haag's conclusion is false: you haven't. you made the claim that van den haag is wrong, you prove that he is. I don't have to. As for a libertarian who "repudiates the founding" -- that would be too time consuming for me to look at every possible libertarian, as well as unfair, since you are the one who accused van den haag of being false.

Nice [disjointed & lengthy] rant, but it doesn't prove that libertarians repudiate any insights. You're trying to bury me in bull. -- No sale.

i'll admit that it was disjointed and lengthy (lol, i do that sometimes). Of course there's "no sale." My intent wasn't to claim that libertarians "repudiate any insights." it merely tries to show how van den haag and hayek are similar, or at least how hayek's particular quote doesn't refute van den haag.

As for "trying to bury [you]in bull" with my "rant": that doesn't answer my arguments.

Van der hagg is a liar about libertarians. -- So are you & roscoe. Case closed

prove it.

that article's... fascinating

This is what Hayek says:

In the United States, where it has become almost impossible to use "liberal" in the sense in which I have used it, the term "libertarian" has been used instead. It may be the answer; but for my part I find it singularly unattractive. For my taste it carries too much the flavor of a manufactured term and of a substitute. What I should want is a word which describes the party of life, the party that favors free growth and spontaneous evolution.

Does "libertarianism" favor this "free growth and spontaneous evolution" of Hayek's?

-- "Whiggism is historically the correct name for the ideas in which I believe."

The "whiggism" of Hayek doesn't seem to be "libertarianism" of today. Even then, the definition of whiggism posted earlier seems to conflict with libertarianism.

Thus, - Hayek was a libertarian, but disliked the term.

not necessarily. And, even if he was, that doesn't mean that liberatarianism = whiggism. just wondering, is the libertarianism of today different than that of Hayek's time?

Right there with you Joe, this article is full of lies about Libertarians. It sounds as if it is written by a republican who is worried that the Libertarians are pulling too many votes away from the GOP.

specifically, what are these lies that the article spreads?

It isn't as simple as socialism and freedom, it's as simple as authoritarianism and freedom. Socialism is merely one aspect of authoritarianism and generally is inflicted upon the economic sector.

that seems far to broad an assessment to place it between "authoritarianism and freedom." This dichotomy of authoritarianism and freedom is false. ok, socialism is an aspect of authoritarianism: lawler's conservatism (or conservatism in general) falls into this how?

The road between the two is not long, however, so long as freedom loving people struggle endlessly it will force those seeking more authoritarianism to move in smaller increments making it seem to be a long road.

so let me get this straight: even if we keep struggling, socialism's gonna happen? why struggle at all if it's gonna be here anyway? that seems kinda worthless. And where do freedom-hating people fall in this mix?

Whether long or short, that road is unstable, and as government seeks to grow it's own power and influence, that road is always heavily weighted toward authoritarianism.

If the government doesn't seek to grow in its power and influence, does the road become more stable? can people stop the government from growing? And, how long will it take to get to authoritarianism? in fact, what do you define as "authoritarianism"? I think different degrees exist, and there are differences between being a government such as we have and an "authoritarian" government (say stalin's russia) which we don't have.

Is there really a long road between freedom and socialism? In the scheme of things, I think that road is rather short: look at what's happened to this nation in seventy short years! Truth be told, maybe you're the one making broad generalizations.

maybe i should clarify: when i said the "road is long" i wasn't referring to "time" but rather the distance between the two extremes (more like length). As for my making "broad generalizations": how so?

My "dilemma" is not false: "compassionate conservativism" is a tepid form of socialism, a cowardly abdication to the nanny state that will continue leading us down a highway of increasing collectivist control of our lives and fortunes, whereas libertarianism, and especially its minarchist form to which I adhere, is much more in line with the principles of privacy and property rights. Once a nation is on the road to socialism, it's very difficult to make a u-turn, at least not without the loss of many lives. The Republicans are leading us down that road.

If i accept your definition of "compassionate conservatism" as a "tepid form of socialism" (which i think is a bit unfitting) you're probably right in that there's no false dilemma. If i don't (which i am a bit incredulous of), then i think your dilemma is still false and your broad generalization is still just taht. Even then, i don't think this causal chain will follow as you say: first of all, you offer no time period of how long this road will take to travel, so there's no way to effectively gauge the accuracy of your prediction: in other words, you can always blame it on the "compassionate conservatives" or whomever, and be right, even if the evidence points otherwise. i also don't think the snowball effect is gonna come that easily. The ball isn't gonna get that big that fast. There's a difference between socialism and conservatism, including the "compassionate" kind. The road to socialism is far -- far from compassionate conservatism (even if i believe that it's a form of "tepid socialism")And the republicans are leading us down the road to socialism? how are they doing that?

There are peaceable methods for dealing with such conflicts if they do occur without resorting to a government to inflict a ONE SIZE FITS ALL deal.

ok. what are these"peaceable methods"? And, where does the "ONE SIZE FITS ALL deal" come from? Is it implied somewhere? The "one size fits all" of gov isn't necessarily bad. There are some instances where government is needed; some conflicts that cannot be solve by "peaceable" or other "methods," and are better solved by the gov (take when dealing with criminals, for example).

However, such individual conflicting rights are negligible problems and quite silly when compared to the overwhelming power of a government breaking the limits that restrain it.

If this threat exists, then why have gov't? why not just get rid of it so this problem of government breaking limits is gone? When put like your above quote, it would seem that government costs more than it's worth.

The job of government is not to protect the human soul. Since nobody can define or measure the human soul, what rational basis can governments use to justify the right to control something so nebulous? This article is bullshit.

Ok fine, the job of the government isn't to protect the human soul.

The only foundation for legitimate government is the protection of the physical lives and property of citizens.

says who? Also, this seems fairly broad: what is your definition of property to fall under this scheme? And how about lives: to what extreme can the government go to protect "physical lives"? Throwing folks in jail because of threats made on peoples' lives?

Anything else is thievery, banditry and slavery. In other words, a con job.

How will the government finance the protection of property and physical lives? Also, even at it's most basic level, a government would still be guilty of all three, wouldn't it?

from this definition, i don't see how libertarianism and whiggism are one in the same...