Posted on 11/07/2019 4:14:39 AM PST by C19fan
Hear, hear!
Also many are atheists / moral relativists
who think no country, no ethics, no economic
system, no way of life is any better than any
others, and stump for no religion in the public
square vs all of them
Many hate Judeo-Christians and their mores, and
don’t hesitate to let you know about believing in
flying spaghetti monsters and suchlike but don’t
say a peep about Muslim extremism
Who’dve thunk “single issue voters” would be
so sociopathic and corrosive
“In the end, the freedom to abandon family, faith, and community is the freedom to be insecure, insignificant, and alone before the Leviathan of government.”
A couple of points regarding this...
1. Every virtue taken to it’s limit becomes a vice or a sin. And so it is with freedom. So what should the limits of freedom be?
2. Individually, we’ve always had the freedom to “abandon” those institutions, but those institutions survived and thrived. What has become their biggest enemy of late is not libertarianism, but postmodernism whose stated purpose is to smash (deconstruct) all these institutions as mere arbitrary “social construct” or worse yet as oppressive cultural entities instituted by white patriarchy.
And this vile, destructive “philosophy” is all the rage on campuses and quickly oozing out to society at large.
A perfect example of how Libertarians actually promote big government is in their push for marijuana legalization.
Legal dope results in taxes. More taxes collected results in more spending. More spending results in bigger government.
Now this I have not seen from libertarians, the liberals maybe, but not Libertarians. One thing they do believe in is constitutional freedom of religion, the right to “not believe” if they want to without reprisal or persecution, and they believe in equality. They have no problem with the religion of others as they like, they just have a problem with any certain faith being universally forced on everyone by using government. And on this point I agree, someday soon a majority of voters might want to use government to universally force Sharia law on everyone. As soon as that door is opened by any faith it can’t be closed, and in the end it will more likely than not backfire in a very bad way.
I would much prefer to have a community and society that cares for the people than a government. Large government has destroyed these societal structures and impoverished the family, spiritual and community life of all of us. People are afraid of shrinking government because the more traditional safety nets are gone.
There is a reason why there is no purely libertarian society and there never will be.
Taken to the limit, it allows individuals full freedom of behavior including freedom to be irresponsible, and the only constraints to the freedom are the natural consequences that the individual would face.
Such a system probably existed when humans started forming the first small primitive tribes. But I’m sure they didn’t last long without some “government” naturally arising.
The first thing that would have happened is for the strongest individual to impose his will on the others through use of force. He would organize his own cronies as the tribe grew to maintain control. This dictatorial form of government is probably still the most common in the world.
So because of human nature, libertarianism will never be a viable system of government. Conservatism is probably the closest you can get to it. It tries to bound personal freedom not just with consequences, but cultural institutions and shared values as well which are not as onerous and arbitrary as a dictatorship.
sometimes the only reason I go into a thread about libertarians is to see the bald faced ignorance some of the clowns on FR bray out.
Nonsensical and stupid crap about being democrats in drag, dope fiends, deviants looking for legal protection, and a COMPLETE ignorance of what libertarians are about is what I usually expect.
Some, like Aquila above, are reasoned and sincere and not stupid... just not very well informed.
The rest of them are the reason why Trump had to destroy the Republican party for there to be any hope at all for us.
MAGA.
I would describe myself as a "libertarian constitutionalist". If it's not listed in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, it's simply not a power delegated to the federal government. The list is quite short, and yet it covers the vast majority of those things that should be properly allocated to it.
If so-called "conservatives" want to delegate additional power to the federal government, there is a method for that. It is called "amending the Constitution". The procedure for doing so is all set right out in the document itself.
Every election cycle we see a bunch of hand-wringing about libertarians, and the Libertarian party itself as if they actually have any power over the levers of government. There are no Libertarian senate or congress critters in office. In fact, I would posit that there are few, if any small-l libertarians in either chamber. Paul comes closest, and that's mostly because of the association he gets from his father.
I would cordially invite folks whining about the fact that libertarian thinkers exist, look to their own parties, as this is where the real problem is coming from.
I'd also note that I don't hold truck with much that is contained in the Libertarian Party's platform. But again, it's not like the part has any actual power to exercise. Libertarian thought has a long history in this country, as the Madison quote in post 9 exemplifies rather well I think. Some of us, rather than running to the government as a response to every perceived ill, would prefer to be left alone as much as is possible, and would especially like to see the government actually be restrained to the limits of its foundational document.
+1
Nope. It has the same basic physical properties as heroin and goes into solution easily. Thus people "cut" or dilute heroin with it, just like people "water" cattle to make them gain weight before taking them to the stockyards.
Yes, as a matter of fact, I DID have a colorful adolescence! If it weren't for Jesus, I would probably be dead. Anyway.........
The Libertarians mistake Liberals “concern” for certain “rights” as a sharing of a real concern for Liberty, when in fact the Liberals remedies on “rights” are for more, and more intrusive government, not less.
“Again, I am all for critiques of libertarianism, but only if you actually understand what you are critiquing, and asserting that the only restraint on behavior would be the “natural consequences one would face” only shows you don’t have much understanding of what you are talking about. “
Please tell me what other consequences libertarians are willing to impose on irresponsible behavior or behavior harmful to others, and more importantly HOW.
As for your reading list I’ve read all of them and more and generally I agree with many of those values. Freedom is right up there on my list of most important values, but I’ve realized that there are limits to freedom, as I’m sure you would agree, and what those limits should be to achieve an harmonious, prosperous and thriving society is the big bone of contention.
I’ve settled with the idea of conservatism, which values freedom, but also traditional values (which impose a kind of organic limit to destructive freedoms) that have proven over time to work, i.e. Pragmatism.
The fact that you’re in FR leads me to think that you’ve arrived at the same point. No? :)
Then it follows, logically, that supply side tax cuts that spur growth begetting greater aggregate tax receipts are really promoting big government. Similarly, innovation growing the economy and wealth that throws off greater tax receipts is really promoting big government. In fact, that means the free market promotes big government.
When “libertarians” run as gadflies and spoilers
(as in KY) and help enable the destructive (D)
policies that go beyond their doper desires
there’s no liberty realized
Right, because no one should be able to run under a party that supports their principles if it is not D or R?
If the GOP wants to win elections, maybe they ought to find someone that supports the liberty of us ordinary folk in flyover country and not spend time whining because someone else ran under an "unapproved" party label.
Not sure I understand this question, so I will just take it on face value. Libertarians are willing to impose punishment in terms of loss of moneys, freedom, or life if you violate the rights of someone else to their life, liberty or property. I am frankly at a loss to how you could assume otherwise. The question itself presupposes that libertarians DON'T BELIEVE IN THE RULE OF LAW.
We do, we just think that the law should be restricted to punishing those who violate the rights of others. If you really have read those people (especially Rothbard) you know that the foundation for ethics is the Golden Rule, which is do to others as you would have them do to you. The child of that principle is called the "non aggression principle" which is that I may not institute force against another party who has not assaulted me. It is NOT saying that I may not utilize force (individually or collectively) in defense of myself or in retaliation for an aggression a person has committed. You seemed to be unaware of this in your assertion that libertarians don't do anything other than let the "natural consequences" of an act run their course. Again, the most cursory and rudimentary review of some of the people I quoted would have revealed that.
As to HOW that defense is made, the first line of defense (against an individual or a state), is the individual. For those unable to defend themselves, libertarians (and anarchists!) believe strongly in the formation of institutions tasked with exacting retributory justice. Anarchists are different than libertarians in that they do not believe in PERMANENT INSTITUTIONS for the exactment of justice... (the joke is that the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist is .... about six months! lol), but both believe that it is the right and obligation of a society to form institutions which will collectively defend against tyranny...., therefore the utterly silly visions of the first tyrant who decides to grab up a rifle and enlist a band of thugs to command "OBEY ME!" being sovereign in a libertarian society is just that.... silly. It is not only without basis in theory, it is without basis in fact and history.
The USA in the west was largely a libertarian society, with people being without permanent government, but almost wholly law abiding, with a citizen's legal committee "posse" coming together only in the event of criminal elements that needed to be resisted. Terry Anderson has a GREAT paper that documents how the "Wild Wild West" as actually very very tame and law abiding except for areas like Tombstone where the criminals were pushed. The title is "American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West" and can be downloaded HERE .
I am still confused about what you are actually asking, but that at least addresses your question at face value.
Rather, when the GOP runs uniparty unprincipled candidates, the best thing that “gadflies” can do is make sure they don’t win.
1) so that people can actually SEE A DIFFERENCE between the two and
2)so that we are not faced with idiots running their mouths about how slow strangulation is sooooo superior to electrocution.
Statist totalitarianism is statist totalitarianism, dressing it in red or blue makes no real difference
The big difference is, I think that libertarians separate these two as TOTALLY DIFFERENT ISSUES. One calls for the use of force to stop, because you are not allowed to assault another person and deprive them of their God given rights. The other says you MUST be permitted to engage in self destructive foolish behavior, as God himself permits us to make choices that will destroy ourselves if we wish. It is what being a free man is all about.
That seems to me to be the nub of the issue
Bloomberg wants in
He’s principled enough for your vote!
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.