Posted on 08/25/2014 9:21:23 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
I have always had a certain sympathy for libertarianism and it has only grown during the Obama administration. Who could believe in big government living under the fiasco of this man’s presidency?
And I am certainly not alone. Libertarianism, if we are to believe none other than The New York Times, has become quite chic.
But paradoxically, during this same time frame, it has become perhaps even more evident that one of the apparent tenets of libertarianism — a kind of neo-isolationism — is, well, to put it bluntly, insane. In the era of the Islamic State (not to mention a dozen other similar murderous, increasingly global organizations we could name or are being invented as I write), anyone who believes we can roll up the gangplanks to create the perfect libertarian state and everything will be just ducky is living in dreamland.
But a fair number of libertarians are. As an example, one of the leading spokesmen for the movement (I’ll be gracious by not naming him, because he’s probably embarrassed at this point) was quoted as likening the problem of Islamic terrorism to herpes — I guess he meant an annoyance you can live with if you find the right partner (who doesn’t behead you).
Do those same isolationist libertarians think that one Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, current leader of the Islamic State, was kidding when he said “See you in New York” when let out of detention camp in Iraq in 2009? If not, what do they propose to do about it? Wait until he is in New York? Maybe Eric Holder will arrest him. Or maybe he’ll blow up the Stock Exchange and sink the free market. Or one of his now thousands of minions will. Do you want to sit back to wait to find out? And what about all the unknown unknowns lurking out there?
Some of this non-interventionism is based on the theory that if we reach some kind of domestic perfection, others will try to emulate us. That may have occurred in the past in some instances and still might. But the truth is our adversaries couldn’t be less interested in our internal politics. Do you think the Ayatollah Khamenei cares about the size of our social safety net, that if we shrink it proportionally and erase our national debt, he will stop leading the masses in chants of “Death to America?”
Ironically, this roll-up-the-gangplanks approach was tried before — by Joseph Stalin. The General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, as many will recall, based his argument with Leon Trotsky on Stalin’s preference for socialism-in-one-country as opposed to Trotsky’s continuous global revolution. A perfected Soviet Union would be an example to the world. We all know how that turned out.
Okay, it’s unfair to compare libertarians to Stalinists, very unfair, but it’s not unfair to take a serious look at the danger of adherence to extremely orthodox ideology in extremely dangerous times.
In other words, it’s time for libertarians to put on their big boy pants and give some serious thought not just to national defense but to global defense, because I have some news for them: The Pax Americana was the real deal. It worked for decades, saving myriad lives, and now it’s almost gone. We have seen that writ large for us in the last few years as never before. Obama’s non-existent, feckless, reactionary, confused, absurd (or whatever other adjective you want to pick) “leading from behind” foreign policy has brought the world to the brink of madness as nothing since WWII.
These days the man carrying the libertarian mantle most prominently — Senator Rand Paul — is off curing Guatemalans of eye disease. Laudable an enterprise as that is, I am less interested in what Paul can do for a few indigent Guatemalans as I am how he would respond to that other ophthalmologist/politician Bashir Assad. And not just Assad, of course, all of them.
It’s not enough to say we would respond as necessary. We live in a peanut-sized globe. What happens in Singapore redounds in San Diego and so forth. Paul has been a captivating candidate so far with some original ideas and approaches, but given the way the world is headed he is going to have to pull on his big boy pants and start articulating how he will deal with this escalating era of jihad.
And as for those libertarians who still prefer an isolationist approach, I can first remind them of Reagan’s advice about the necessity of a strong defense in order to have peace. If they don’t believe that, then I can promise them they will meet head on the famous prophecy of that same Comrade Trotsky: “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”
“But the motive was correct.”
As yes the old, “but we had good intentions” statement. Bullhocky, Saddam was not crazy just very ruthless and what we did was protect those that fund groups like the ISIS (hint, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait). What we did was destabilize the entire region because of a grudge match between Saddam and Bush Jr. You can try and rationalize this but the evidences speaks louder than any poor excuses you can give.
There some serious flaws in libertarian platform. Abortion. There should be no right to take innocent life.
Also the fight of Iran to develop nukes. However there is a lot of good also.
My ideal party would be a mix of strong conservatism and libertarian ideas.
Right of iran
I was just curious if you would give a non-evasive answer.
As far as the platform:
Regarding abortion, it wants government out of it, so on the one hand it's pro-abortion. But it doesn't want government financing abortion, nor giving special protections for clinic against protestors, nor mandating that medical students study abortion procedures if they don't want to, nor mandating employer health coverage of abortion or abortificant birth control, so it's more pro-life than what we have.
As far as "gay rights", it is against government passing laws restricting "voluntary sexual relations", on the one hand. On the other hand, it specifically upholds the right of people to choose not to do business with others. So libertarianism would not compel Christians to associate or do business with homosexuals, which again is better than where we currently are.
It is a little early for you to go personal isn’t it?
So it is pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, and pro-gays in the military etc.
The same platform as today, far to the left.
I don’t think they have any.
Meanwhile, Democrats would consider it "beyond radical right wing", due to it not compelling people to associate or do business with other people.
Libertarianism would allow unions, but not allow unions to engage in violence and intimidation, nor compel businesses to recognize them, which would effectively gut unions.
Libertarianism would allow people to associate or not associate, hire or not hire, rent to or not rent to, other people on any basis they chose to. No more "anti-discrimination" laws. If a baker didn't want to bake a gay wedding cake, he wouldn't have to. If a business owner wanted to hire only red-headed Irishmen, then the government would not bother him.
You think the average Dem would agree with you that libertarianism is left-wing?
More precisely, democrats would find some elements of the childish politics of the libertarians, “conservative”, while much of it, in fact the easier to attain parts, or radically left wing.
Here is the leftists agenda hidden behind the Libertarian Party curtain.
Libertarian Party Platform:
Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political boundaries”, eliminate the Border Patrol and INS.
Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.
Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments full 9 months.
Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.
Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science and marketers can come up with, zero restrictions.
Advertising those drugs, prostitution, and pornography; zero restrictions.
Military Strength; minimal capabilities.
That Bush was strategically negligent in not pursuing those weapons was the sole error.
After all, absent the free flow of oil and WMD, the USA has NO INTEREST in the Gulf or elsewhere in the Middle East.
We could simply allow them to kill each other til such time as they reach Europe.
Overview Of America:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MzxC8Mqupw
I Want Your Money:
http://www.firedrive.com/file/B7DF0B2EDD1E9CF4
Agenda: Grinding America Down:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUMOWZc8PU8
The Project parts 1-2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcPIaEVrS8U
I’m pretty much an independent conservative because I cannot agree with the dovish pro-abortion and pro-drug libertarian platform. The end. I support conservatism at its core.
“The fact that he turned those WMD over to Syria is all the evidence we need to declare the operation necessary.”
There were no WMD’s and even if there were that’s no reason to invade. Heck we’ve got more WMDs than any one else on the planet, so does that mean anyone can invade us? And don’t say that we’re more responsible because history shows that we are more than willing to use them if we want to.
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.