Posted on 09/23/2002 8:56:33 AM PDT by Commie Basher
If force were used against some citizens, it would be against a decided minority of citizens. Like most pro-dope libertarians you vastly overestimate the number of your fellow citizens who would side with you in such a confict. Most Americans consider dopers childish, irresponsible, self-absorbed, and generally useless.
Pro-dopers may be feckless, gibbering gas-bags, but there's insufficient octane in their movement to jump-start a revolution.
You've been offending FReepers since you first got here and JimRob has allowed to to get away with it all along and across all the forums. This idea that libertarians are morally superior to anyone else, is sickening and repulsive. Libertarians are the lowest form of political creatures and you're the lowest form of libertarian.
I think thats pretty clear, especially when one couples it with the Libertarian Party platform.
>>>You will notice the distinct lack of wishing to dismantle the state alltogether. That would be under the 'anarchist' entry.
It's my opinion that most libertarians have some level of anarchy in their blood, or as libertarians like to say, minarchy.
I repeat, my experiences with libertarians, indicates an inherent absolutism in their philisophical thinking and political agenda. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you become a political independent. That way those issues, you may disagree with the majority of libertarians on, won't find you at odds with your fellow minarchists.
Carry on, little boy.
(1) defense of rights of the individual
(2) non-interference with self and property
(3) ensuring contracts are honoured
(4) ensuring procedural justice
My observation is that all of the above principles are "reactive". They also are not only not in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, but were developed in the framework of the Constitution.
So, let's take some examples. From the above, is it reasonable for libertarians to support stomping on Al Qaida? Yes - they hit first. Is it reasonable to stomp Iraq? More debatable, but if in the big picture "radical Islam" has been attacking the US (and it has), and capturing Iraq is part of a long strategy to defend ourselves against radical Islam, then it can be considered reasonable. Some libertarians would say nay, some yea.
Right to carry concealed weapons? Yes.
Right to be free of feds kicking in your door? Yes.
Privatize social security? Yes.
Support capitalism versus socialism? Yes.
Support home schooling? Yes.
Support government "land takings"? No.
Support welfare? No.
Support Medicare? No.
Support the NEA? No.
Support the WOD? No. - and interesting, it is on this issue that libertarianism diverges from that of most of whom consider themselves "conservative". Most conservatives would agree with all the yes/no answers above except that last one. But it follows directly from the "non-interference with self and property" principle. Some posters on this board think the marijuana postings are a waste of time, some think the discussions should actually be banned, some think that only "potheads" are against the WOD. But you can see that it is possible to have a principled position against the WOD and not be a "pothead".
So, to your original question, where are there areas where the core philosophy conflicts with the stated Libertarian Party platform?
(1) The LP platform wants to repeal the federal income tax. But how the government is going to protect individual and property rights, while defending us from enemies, without taxation, is not explained.
(2) The LP platform is for unrestricted immigration. This begs the question as to who "we" are as a society. The classically defined libertarian principles presupposed a society of US citizens under the Constitution, strictly interpreted (I believe.) Therefore the principles refer to US citizens, not "the planet". The whole world is not our society. Therefore unrestricted immigration makes no sense, and cannot be justified by classical libertarianism. Here is the official LP platform. I think it is about 90% congruent with "conservative" thought, if such a concept can be thought of. Clearly "conservatives" disagree about all that is in the Republican party platform - lots of Freepers think there isn't much difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. And the Republican party platform can have some strange things in it also.But differences I notice between the LP and Republicans are:
(a) The LP is against the WOD, the Republicans are for it.
(b) The LP is against govenment funding of abortion, but believes it should not be illegal. The Republicans are against funding it and believe it should be illegal - although in fact really there is a wide range of opinion in the Republican party on that - I should say the religious right feels it should be illegal, most others think it should be legal but restricted and not funded by the government, and the Rinos agree with the Democrats - legal and funded.
(c) The LP believes sexual orientation and behavior is not a government issue. The "Log Cabin" Republicans agree, as do the Rinos, while the conservatives say "gross" and the religious right says "hang em!".
Anyway, I think I kind of digressed but I hope I did show that the LP platform is not 100% congruent with the principles of classical libertarianism, and that most "small l" libertarians are more focused on the principles, and thus can disagree with the platform (just as many conservatives don't agree with everything the Republican platform contains.)
Knock yourself out, little boy.
"Classical libertarianism"?
Google search: "classical libertarianism" = 19 hits
Google search: "classical liberalism" = 16,800 hits
"Classical libertarianism" seems like an essentially unknown and meaningless term which you're free to invest any qualities you want.
Or to fill a Denny's.
"Because they are the ONLY party which specifically says they don't believe in the initiation of force to attain political goals."
Well, I thought you all were whining that the Evil Government had instituted force against you by preventing you from using your drugs or whatever other "rights" have been denied you. The basis of this thread is that the Libertarian Party wants the National Guard to protect marijuana users from the DEA "Thugs". Well, if that isn't meeting "force" with "force", then I don't know what else is. You all want the "State Army" to combat the "Federal Army" for your "rights".
If you all truly feel that your "rights" have been violated, then take up arms .. as our forefathers did .. and take back those rights. Otherwise, your .5 percent party is just whining about nobody taking you seriously.
LOL! They would rather hijack the taxpayer-supported National Guard and use it as a private police force.
How libertarian is that?
You are confused as usual. I play a lone hand. I have never pinged anyone to a thread, much less people who may agree with me.
You, on the other hand, have pinged all the Hitler youth here to join in your three minute hate. It is also known that the group in question has a private message net work to co-ordinate it's attacks. You probably haven't even been included in that deal due to your ineptitude even among that august group of the terminally stupid.
He is a former, and maybe present user of illict substances. He claims to have "forgotten" the details of his involvement in distribution and dealing in those substances. He has "Hillary" recall on those things. Ask him if you want a laugh.
And they're blind to their own hypocrisy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.