Posted on 11/01/2002 1:12:37 PM PST by winner45
Ten Reasons to Vote for Libertarians
....even if you don’t like them!
1..Libertarians understand that freedom requires responsibility. Freedom can be denied to those who harm others or the property of others.
2..Libertarians ALWAYS vote against tax increases and ALWAYS vote for freedom.
3..Libertarians understand that freedom and equality go hand in hand. Your freedom to live as you please is given to you by the same authority which gives freedom to the persons who may have different lifestyles. You have to give them their freedom to do that to obtain your freedom.
4..Your freedom is not given by the Constitution. It is given from a higher power. Libertarians understand that the Constitution merely sets it down on paper.
5..Libertarians understand that God is of libertarian spirit. He gave humanity free will. He could have just as easily made humanity incapable of free choice. It is kind of arrogant for government to deny the freedom that God Himself has given. When the Israelites wanted a king, God was offended. Laws by man are petty and inferior.
6..If you are unhappy with both Democrats and Republicans, register your unhappiness with a vote for a Libertarian. If a Libertarian got 30% of the vote, it would scare the pants off of the ruling class. They would become more receptive to reason.
7..Libertarians understand that a good society is built upon hard working individuals doing their best in a responsible way. It seems that the ruling parties think that a good society is built upon government group efforts wherein people work (shirk) together.
8..Libertarians understand that the Bill of Rights is as relevant and crucially important today as it was over 200 years ago. Libertarians even think that our government should start observing it once more.
9..Libertarians realize that freedom has many limitations. The winners of elections do not have the right to lord the will of the majority over the rights of the minorities.
10..Libertarians are the only political people that believe that 98% of our citizens are morally good enough and intelligent enough to run their own lives. Basic laws are there to protect us from the other 2%.
As I consider the blackened hole where
the Tenth Amendment used to be, the
sincerity of the two major political parties
in their support of the Constitution comes
into doubt. The federal juggernaut is
there not because of, but in spite of the
libertarian philosophy.
You are the smartest and most clever person ever! That's right! You are the one leading the way for the gop. I wish you were running for elected office.
Really? Who we become, and most of the opportunities we are accorded in life, are largely determined before we ever draw our first breath. I have been giving a great deal of thought, lately, to starting a "philosopher's corner" series of threads here on FR precisely to debate just such concepts.
Much of our fate is determined by who we are born to and how healthy we are at birth. Our genetic inheritance determines our race; sex; looks; physical stature; strength; endurance; susceptibility to a range of diseases; intelligence; ability to learn; a considerable part of our personality; and talents. The society, environment, and social strata we are born into determines our language; our religious upbringing, if any; our opportunities for education and personal development; what type of education would be available; our national affiliation; whether or not we have the benefit of one or both parents; whether or not they raise us kindly or meanly; whether or not we have enough to eat; etc.
What kind of free will does a baby or child have who develops a fatal disease before the age of reason? Or who is born addicted and brain damaged to a heroin addict mother? What kind of free will does a little girl have who is born into one of the societies who treat females as little more than chattel? Or a little boy who is brutalized from infancy by a drug and/or drink-besotted parent, and who is more familiar with rage than with kindness by the time he turns 5? Or a child born into a poor family in North Korea, rural China, Somalia, Afghanistan, or any of the other benighted societies on the planet? Even a child born to great wealth and privilege, such as the son of the Queen of England, has his or her future pretty much mapped out in advance.
Yes, within the framework into which we are born, if we reach adulthood with some education and ability to earn a living, and in a society which affords some personal freedom, we can make choices for ourselves -- although we are learning from studies of twins raised apart just how many of our choices are determined by our genes. Even our career choice and choice of mate are partly determined by our genes and family/societal circumstances.
While there are elements of the Libertarian Party platform with which I agree, the fact is their minimalist government ideal is utopian fantasy not grounded in the reality of the human condition. For as far back as humans have existed on this planet, we have organized ourselves into societal units with leaders, followers, and social traditions. Libertarians want to return to an idealized past that never was. If they would get their heads down out of the clouds, stop making their sole aim a spoiler's role for Republicans, and participate in a meaningful way in our political system, they could fill the valuable role of acting as a counterweight toward our society's big-government tendencies. But Libertarians never seem interested in such practicalities.
Umm, I don't know, Whig?
Well, yeah, but as I said you have to be making blatently racist, threatening comments - or being generally disruptive I guess. My point is you kind of have to work at it. Over at DU they just chop you. Heck, just try to post "President Bush is a great President" over there and you will get executed. You could be a liberal over here and say "Former President Clinton was a great President" and you will get flamed a bunch - but not banned, I think.
Just the opposite. I will quietly step into the voting
booth and vote my convictions, not a straight
ticket. Those who object to a reasoned vote
instead the polity of Kool-Aid are the ones
doing all the whining on this thread.
I am in agreement with the libertarians on this.
You could say it's a libertarian document because for the first time it codified into law the notion that our unalienable rights MUST BE PROTECTED by and from government. Which, to my understanding, IS a libertarian position...
A document that codifies into law the idea that our unalienable rights must be protected is also a document that is written (and amended) by a GROUP of people who define what they think our unalienable rights are.It was a group of people who wrote the Constitution and who defined what they thought are the unalienable rights that must be protected and it is a group of people today who have the capability to amend the Constitution based on what they think our unalienable rights are.
The "short" list of rights is mightly augmented by the Ninth and Tenth... and, needless to say, the linchpin is the Second. Because when all else fails we have that... GOD-GIVEN RIGHT... to fall back on.
The second amendment like any amendment in the BOR can be changed.
When the RATS and the RATS-lite continue their evil ways beyond tolerance, we have that. Beyond which, RIGHTS are never GRANTED by government, period. Rights are either recognized and respected/protected or they are ignored by government, but government does not GRANT them. Be very clear on this. What government gives it can surely take away and RIGHTS cannot be taken by government. Only ignored.
www.dictionary.com -- Right n. -- Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.
It seems that you have changed the definition of the word "right". You seem to be making the word "right" synonymous with the phrase "unalienable right". The two are different. IMO, many libertarians I see on this board use the incorrect definition of the word right so that they may connect their libertarian philosophy with the U.S. Constitution. I maintain that the libertarian philosophy and the U.S. Constitution are opposite in this regard.
The Second Amendment says that an individual's right to bear arms must not be infringed. By what method did this right -- IMO an unalienable right -- get put into the Constitution?
Darth was suspended for saying he'd vote for Erskine Bowles,
if I recall correctly.
Then why are you so eager to change them?
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.