Free Republic

A similar article was written and posted here at FR on May 13, 2001 by Annalex:

Pursuit of Liberty: Intellectual Property Rights In a Free Society

I am one of those radical libertarians who is completely opposed to the concept of "intellectual property."

I noticed that you did not reply to a single post on this thread, not even to your own post. I am curious where you stand on this issue.

...how is loyal to the troops to keep them stuck in this hopeless Middle Eastern snake's nest of intrigue?

How loyal is to our Republic to abandon it for an empire? Those on this thread who want to see the First Amendment shut down with charges of giving aid and comfort to the enemy are the ones guilty of treasonous acts. Using support for our troops as a ploy to destroy the Republic from with in, does not support the troops. What it does do is encourage the enemies of freedom here at home as well as by terrorists abroad to continue their attack on our freedom. Three cheers for Congressman Ron Paul.

Wow! What a reply. I'm an argumentative SOB who rarely finds anything written by anyone that I can completely agree with. I always find some kind of disagreement. But you have done it. Seven paragraphs, on which I completely agree.

Your apparent agreement with me that you prefaced with the words "in theory," takes nothing from the position that "libertarians do believe that no one has all the answers." Equally, your most accurate assertion that "...in practice it's not always the case," also takes nothing from my initial disagreement with you.

I was however curious how you might think that accurately criticizing the style of a few libertarian writers out of several hundred says anything about libertarians. Additionally, it may be worth considering that style can also be a matter of tactics and strategy. In that regard, your criticisms on which I am in full agreement with, are only situationally and circumstantially accurate. Of course you did set out in your original reply (#10) that "the audience that matters is the undecided audience." But what you may be over looking is that in targeting that audience, it breaks down into a rather large number of distinct potential groups, each with their own characteristics and standards of attraction.

I did however find one small area that I do not agree with you. The only thing is, is that I actually do not disagree either.

Rand wasn't one of the great novelists herself, and plenty of the writers she admired probably wouldn't be impressed by her work, an indication that she may not have had all the answers in aesthetics either.

From the best I can tell, Rand as a novelist was pretty much praised by her critics, including by those who hated her ideas. Not being a fiction reader myself, with the Fountainhead being the longest fiction I've ever read, I'm not one to judge your criticism here. I do know however that she has received much praise over the years from many who are qualified in this regard.

Not just "more freedom," but also "generous; giving freely; bounteous; open-handed; broad-mindedness; favoring progress and change." This latter one being best descriptive of the effects of free enterprise economics.

How strange it is that conservatives take a political stand against such ideals right off the bat at the introductory get go.

Libertarians who claim to have all the answers push the same button in people.

I agree with you here. But I have a little problem understanding what you mean. One of the main attractions to libertarianism is the understanding that no one has all the answers. If I'm correct here, then their are no such libertarians as you claim. Maybe you imagined them.

...too much reference to one's opponents as diseased, depraved, or mentally deficient doesn't win converts.

On this I agree. There are many former democrats who today stand against the Democratic Party. Many of them had been converted. Being wrong does not make one "diseased, depraved, or mentally deficient."

That is a perfect description of SOCIALISTS... don't let them get away with being called liberal (which is rooted in the Latin word for "free"), there is nothing free about their ideology.

A few accurate characteristics of many socialists does not add up to "a perfect descritpion of socialists." I agree however that they should not get away with being called "liberal" when so little about them qualifies as being liberal. The author makes an interesting observation that:

Liberals who focus all of their attention on the need to help others don't have this disease. They are only concerned with the potential good that can be done for those in need.

But will not the focussing of all of ones attention on one thing tend to open ones self up to "disease" as characterized by the article? It seems to me that an unbalanced lifestyle will lead to a weakened state and thereby leads to the narrow outlook described as the "liberal disease." The author then qualifies that:

Liberals who don't claim great knowledge or expertise in the understanding of public policy don't qualify since they don't have the ego symptom of this disease.

So then we may assume that liberals such as the bleeding heart types who always vote democratic but claim no special understanding of public policy have another sort of mind disease. Hmmm... At any rate, the described disease might be better called the authoritarian view point. It can be found among conservatives as well as the many different kinds of liberals. If left unchecked, it often leads to a condition that is completely anti-conservative as well as anti-liberal.

I wonder what disease would cause conservatives to not conserve the meaning of words. The word "liberal" has a definition which is quite attractive and persuasive, especially for young minds. What kind of suicidal political sickness would want to drive off young minds?

A statement of agreement with a particular belief is not a "pledge/oath/vow" by any of their definitions. Use your dictionary.

What the Pennsylvania LP chooses to call the statement does not define for me the meaning of the word "oath." Quite possibly they want people to take the statement seriously and not just sign off on it. By calling it an oath, it may cause people to take a second and closer look at it. But it obviously didn't work with you, as your imagination has ran wild replacing all kinds of words in it so as to remake it into something that is closer to a pacifist oath. Those words not in it that you said were are "aggressive", "engage", and "will". With this latter word making it clearly a pledge by any definitive standard, and thereby bringing it closer to being an oath in fact. (read your own posted definition of the word "promise" and then look up "oath" in your dictionary). But as I said your dreamed up words just are not in it.

Now with thirty years affiliation with so many local LPs, one must wonder how you couldn't even get the source right as to the origin of the agreement on beliefs. I had to correct you in reply #86. But after I corrected you on it, you ramble on about a second part to the quote that does not exist. It seems to me that with 30 years you would know what you signed, what it means, as well as the original source for it. I guess not.

As for the rest of your reply, my silence does not imply agreement, as you so dishonestly implied earlier in the thread. I just do not feel it necessary.

...some acts of civil disobedience are going to be more palatable to the public than others, and libertarians should choose those with the "biggest bang for the buck"

Acts of civil disobedience are never palatable to the public. Palatability only exists in targeted populations. If it is "bang for the buck" that is sought out, then the public likes and dislikes should be completely disregarded.

My feeling is that a much larger portion of the public opposes underage drinking than supports cosmetology licensing requirements.

No doubt about it. The fact that the public opposes it, gives it a single check mark on the positive side with regard to reaching out to targeted potential activist populations. Targeting the general public usually turns off such populations and thereby works against bringing activists into unpopular movements. The general public will not give an unpopular movement even a second thought until it has developed enough to appear popular. The only people that can build that kind of appearance of popularity are those who do not live in fear of being unpopular to the general publicly.

Taking a public stand against the authorities by serving under age soldiers alcohol is a "big bang" activity in favor of lowering the drinking age which has almost unlimited outreach potential for reaching a new generation of Americans with the ideals of the free enterprise economics and the philosophy of libertarianism. For this reason it is a highly pragmatic activity.

...instead of extending American protection to Americans overseas...

I for the most part agree with you here. But I'm just not sure I've thought this one over to the degree it needs. I understand the argument and appeal the position has to many middle and poorer classes of Americans that they shouldn't have to pay to protect rich Americans hobnobbing, vacationing, and even doing business abroad. The problem however, is where to draw the line.

We of course could argue that even where American citizens are invited, they travel at their own risk. We can also argue that merchant shipping companies should cover the costs of their own naval protection. Likewise, the same can be proposed for airlines. As far as American officials and employees at foreign embassies and councilets, we can just bring them home. Or require even them to travel and stay abroad at their own risk.

On the otherhand, do we want American companies engaged in fullblown private wars with foreign powers? If not, what kinds of limits would we put on private company self protective measures. Currently, though only selectively enforced, we have laws limiting the paramilitary security activities abroad of American citizens and large companies. Admittedly we could enforce more fully such laws and leave the entirety of our foreign relations to good will. But...

That would be a different world, with a different set of problems. For example, foreign based piracy of American ships, with official deniability of host nations, might very well eliminate our shipping industry completely. Problems we see as non-existant in the current world, may very well become the norm with a libertarian America. Now mind you, I am a radical libertarian. But I say a lot more work on the libertarian philosophy is needed before we acquire any kind of electoral presence in American government.

I agree with you that we need to end foreign entanglements and we should not be protecting foreign governments. I also agree that we should not be protecting Americans abroad. But on this latter one, I do not know where the line should be currently drawn, at least not at this time.

OK, so you are unable to distinguish a difference between an oath, a pledge and a statement of agreement. Likewise, you are unable to distinguish a difference between the words "aggressive" and "initiate." Fine, but words have meaning no matter how much you shut your eyes to them.

I did not concede your point that Pennsylvania or any other state LP required a pledge, as it was me that brought the word "pledge" into the discussion while disagreeing with your claim that their was a required "oath."

Your ability to make a statement of agreement you really don't consider binding, indeed, says everything about you and nothing about me whatever.

Now that's interesting, I never implied such, and your saying as much, does say a lot about you.

Nice try, but even your ad hominem doesn't cut it.

I agree. I'll cut out the ad hominem counters, if you will cut out the same, as well as your dishonesty.

...you originally claimed the LP wasn't a pacifist party, you then took great pains to prove that pacifism is the direction in which the LP has always and consistently been moving.

Hmmm, "great pains" seems a bit of an over statement for a couple sentences relating to the subject. At any rate, I stated nothing that suggested that the LP is even remotely a pacifist party. Nor did I state anything that demonstrated pacifism to be the direction the LP was taking, as you claim. I did however set out by definition, that the LP is not a pacifist party. You might have missed it as you do not concern your self over the meaning of the word "initiate."

I see... you've... dropped... an indefensible position. ...I see you've dropped that position, too...

I've dropped nothing. You just hadn't offered anything new that was worthy of a return to old ground. I see no reason to repeat myself over and over with the belief, as you seem to have, that in doing so it somehow will make it true.

So why then is this pledge/oath/vow/silly sentence so important that it appears in the membership application of most LP's?

It doesn't.

I'm wondering why I upset you so much. I've looked back over our exchange and have found the one sentence from my first reply that seems to have set you off. It started with you replying to a comment by another poster that:

A man who truly loves liberty would be willing to fight for it.

Where upon you wrote:

A man who truly loves liberty has a duty to die for it.

Upon which I wrote:

I see you are still alive.

I agree that a man who loves liberty is willing to fight for it at risk of his own life. I do not however agree that he has a duty to "die for it." Since you are still alive, it seems you don't either.

A crew of libertarians in Kentucky plans to serve alcohol to an underage military veteran next month, letting local police know ahead of time for maximum exposure.

Best idea I've heard out of libertarians in a long time. If there is single issue that libertarians could get a lot of milage on, lowering the drinking age is it. This single issue has the potential to reach out to a younger generation like no other issue has. Three cheers to the Kentucky crew.

"A decade ago, we tried to make changes by lobbying politicians and talking to people, and we got nowhere," Babiarz said.

Barbiarz may not be aware of it, but during the period of greatest libertarian growth, that is the period that ended 2 decades ago, libertarians were regularly involved in publicity stunts and didn't bother much with lobbying politicians. Its about time libertarians return to direct action, and leave all the political bull to the republicans and democrats.

Libertarians such as Don Gorman want to build the Libertarian Party into an unprincipled pretend real political party which at best might replace one of the other two major parties while becoming useless authoritarian carbon copy of them. But more than likely, the LP will just grow enough to be a spoiler for the other two major parties. In either case, there is no good that will come out of it. Libertarian Party members need to think in terms of movement building and not at playing pretend politics.

Well, my pro-libertarian comments were most recently removed by the moderator... I have no idea why...

Wow! So you made a pro-libertarian comment on a thread that can not be read because it was removed by the moderator. Now that really sounds like you "commonly defend libertarians," and there by proves that you "defend them in most threads" as you stated in reply #12. Hmmm... with that kind of proof, its no wonder that our country has been loosing its morality at an expedited rate. Without honesty, there can be no real morality.

And my posting history is pretty consistent with wanting to get back to a pre-FDR size Federal Government.

That's nice, but it has nothing to do in the slightest with libertarianism, or defending libertarians.

You ought to go back an reread replies #42, 81, 89, 97, 104. Not one of them was addressing the topic of "out-of-wedlock first birth rate" as you claim.

But again, we have to face the choice to either isolate our children socially, or to give in to the corrupting influences of society.

Actually good parents have always had to do both and a good deal more. It sounds to me like you don't want the challenge of parenting, preferring instead that government do your parenting responsibilities for you. If that is the case, then you probably shouldn't be a parent. But I know, you are now stuck with the responsibility. Well then do it, and stop trying to get government to do it for you.

This comes from what libertarian economists such as the Austrians often refer to as "What is seen, and what is not seen."

The concept you speak of here is from "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen," written by Frederic Bastiat, a Frenchman, and one of the most entertaining of the fathers of modern libertarian theory. The concept pre- dates the Austrian school. I think it would be worth your time to read it. At least before attempting to use it. Likewise, you might want to use a dictionary before spouting off about "liberal" trends.

There are daughters that today are being socially isolated from their peers because they don't dress like the girls in a booty video.

There are always going to be daughters isolated from their peers for a wide range of reasons. I hope you really do not believe that government should step in and prevent such isolations.

I commonly defend libertarians on economic grounds, and I even defend them on moral grounds...

I've searched through you replies at FR and I do not see where you commonly defend libertarians on any grounds. The fact that you like the communists, socialists, fascists, monarchist, democrats, republicans, can find some areas of agreement from time to time does not prove that you "commonly defend libertarians" as you claim. As far as your original claim goes, that I responded to, that you "defend them in most threads" --- I don't see it. On the other hand libertarians do not need to be defended, and your claim of such accompanied with an attack on such a libertarian fundamental as the First Amendment is as hollow as it is dishonest.

However, as this thread has demonstrated, libertarians don't like to think about external costs in transactions (costs that are paid by third parties and not buyers or sellers).

Of course most libertarians are well aware of the external costs of living in a free society. You have not demonstrated one example on this thread otherwise. They well recognize that freedom is not free, which is something that you obviously have not quite internalized as yet. The second most common quote I've heard libertarians use over the past 30 years is that "utopia is not an option." Interestingly enough, the common measure over the past 15 years used to attack them is that they fail to measure up to the standards of a utopia. Which is precisely the form of attack you use.

It is true that problems faced by todays parents are different than those that past parents have had to endure. But they are no more severe, nor unendurable. You are also correct that "out-of-wedlock first birth rate has never been even a third as high as it is these past few decades." But that was not the topic of discussion that libertarians were answering when then say "block that channel," as you imply. Nor did I see any of them say that by blocking the channel "you'll be fine," as you also claim. I think they all would agree that a parent needs to do more than block channels on the TV set. Some would even say, don't block the channel, instead teach your children. But that kind of discourse didn't arise here as the topic of the thread was not how to raise children.

As far as causes for out of wedlock pregnancies among teenage girls goes, you already identified a primary cause that could be solved with of out interfering with the First Amendment. Maybe you recall it. Back on May 31st you wrote in We Must Not Pay Teens to be MUMS - #26" that:

...this behavior is a rational economic response to subsidizing out-of-wedlock childbirths. Parents can shift some of the burden of raising children to the state, and the girl gets a decent career. ...we really need to attack the root and get rid of these family-destroying subsidies.

But now it seem that you want to shave off some of our First Amendment rights to end teenage out of wedlock child births. In other words you want to immorally impose your private morality on others at the expense of the greater public morality.

It's nonsense like this and the transnational open borders beliefs that keep me from taking the libertarians seriously (even though I defend them in most threads).

I very well understand your reservation about libertarians calling for voters not to throw their vote away by voting straight a republican ticket. I also understand that when combining this reservation with the libertarian stand on open borders, taking them seriously can be a difficult step. What I don't understand is your claim that you "defend them in most threads," and then turn around on this thread attacking what is generally held as pretty fundamental to all libertarians as well as most all Americans. That is respecting other's right to freedom of speech.

Our society has reached the point where you essentially have to pull a Timothy Leary, drop out, and live in a bubble in order to raise children with a decent morals. And yet the sex, drugs and libertarianism crowd wants us to make it even more difficult to raise healthy children.

Its always been difficult to raise children with decent morals. I don't understand however why you think one has to "drop out, and live in a bubble in order to raise children with a decent morals." I also do not understand why you toss the libertarians in with the sex and drug "crowd." Nor do I understand why you think any of them want you to make it more difficult to raise children.

Libertarians as I see it, want to make it easier for you to raise your children to be decent moral citizens. It seems to me that your unsupported claim otherwise, is not much different than your claim that you "defend" libertarians on "most threads." I am not just questioning your honesty here, but am also questioning your morality.

OK - but don't write anything special. I'm just curious as to how much I might agree with you.

The second amendment as it was written was taken away a long time ago.

This is quite true politically speaking. But from a practical stand point of the population having enough arms available to it to be able "protect... rights" as you said in #41, it is still in full force across most of America. Thus I concluded that either you think that government has not taken away any of your rights, or your claim to be able to protect them was hollow.

No flame is intended here. As I see it, strategic visions need to be solidly grounded in the reality of the situation. The second amendment will protect us from sudden drastic usurpation of our rights. But it affords little real protection against the gradual usurpation. That kind of protection comes with a readiness to engage in the war of words.

As a martial artist, I'm sure you are aware of the necessity for training and sparring in friendly battles for preparedness. The same is true in the war of words. Sparing here with allies over petty differences, helps prepare ones self, as well as opponents here, to do battle with real enemies later. As a sparring partner, you help your opponent prepare. Assuming at the get go that an other is probably right and oneself wrong, is a disservice to all concerned.

You are wrong about what you inaccurately call the required oath to join the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania. Beside the fact that their is no oath, neither the word "aggressive" or "aggression" appear in any membership statement of agreement or pledge. The Pennsylvania party's statement is a pledge, where as the national LP only requires a statement of agreement.

Your bragging about your inability to distinguish a difference between the words "aggression" and "initiation" are only surpassed by your inability to distinguish a difference between an oath, a pledge and a statement of agreement. As one of those who on more than one occasion has taken a serious important long lasting oath with full understanding of its significance, your belittling it as nothing more than a pledge or worse, a statement of agreement, I find quite distasteful. There are those who attach a special meaning to an oaths that reach far beyond any petty domestic political differences. When you choose to try to dishonor the value of an oath, you only show off your own dishonorable character.

The fact that you considered your LP pledge to be an oath, say that you have never taken a serious oath, or if you did, you didn't take it seriously. In either case, I would never put any trust in you as an honorable person.

The way in which you exaggerate and misrepresent libertarian positions, show you to be a person who lacks honesty as a personal virtue. It also shows you to be a person who fears the truth battle. As for me, I'm glad you are out of the LP, it currently has far to many chickenhawks.

Have a nice life - good night.

What I meant to say was that libertarians belonged to the Republican Party before there was a Libertarian Party.

They actually belonged to both the dems and puppys prior to the LP. But were in very small numbers. Libertarians have a long history of rejecting both parties that predates the founding of the LP.

The LP has been a one man show and even now more libertarians are RP than LP.

What do you mean that the LP has been a one man show? Who is this LP guru you speak of? Or did you just make that up because the idea sounded good to you?

Likewise, on what basis do you claim the Republican Party has more libertarians than the LP. I know that surveys done in the past by various non-LP libertarian think tanks and independent publications found the vast majority of members, subscribers and supporters to be politically non-affiliated. A very credible national survey published in the Washington Post, titled "Core Beliefs Recast Party Lines" on October 4, 1998 placed libertarians as one of the 5 main groupings with in the Democratic Party. Of course they were the smallest grouping at only 9%, but on closer examination of the strong criteria used to identify them, it looks to me as though at least a third of them were probably real libertarians. If that is the case, then by my assessment, there are about twice as many libertarian democrats as their are libertarian republicans.

Also if we look at average libertarian vote percentages nation wide at 2.5% for non campaigning "paper candidates" for state legislatures in 3 way races, as well as the size of local Libertarian Party organizations as compared to Republican Party organizations a 40 to one ratio appears to hold. Now if you think libertarians make up even 2% of the freepers, you are dreaming. And I assure you they are better represented here than in the Republican Party. There are not more libertarians in the Republican Party than in the Libertarian Party.

The Republican Party was libertarian before there was a Libertarian Party... Libertarians are small government capitalists. You don't find libertarians in the Democrat Party.

The Republican Party was never libertarian in the slightest. The fact that a few republicans hold a few high priority positions in common with libertarians, does not make them libertarians. Libertarians are so much more than "small government capitalists" that saying such amounts to a gross inaccuracy. Additionally, a rather large minority of libertarians reject "small government capitalism." Libertarian democrats are harder to identify because of different priorities which force them to place Democratic Party unity to stop the Republican Party, ahead of many of their libertarian interests. A slightly similar kind of reasoning can be found among libertarian republicans. I wish the best for both at teaching libertarianism with in their respective parties.

But why, for you, does morality even make sense as a concept?

Considering that there are many different ways of answering this question, and no matter which one I chose, you will say that it is not the type of answer you are looking for or will reinterpret the question so as to make it not the answer you are looking for, I choose not to answer at this time.

If you are honestly looking for an answer, then first set the type of answer you want, by answering the question yourself. I'll then answer it in kind with my own answer, expressing my own position.