Posted on 05/03/2006 2:49:08 PM PDT by ghostmonkey
Often I see Libertarians refer to themselves as "Conservatives" or "Right". Yet, many times, on many web-boards, I see the libertarians taking the same positions as Demonrats, and they seem to support Demonrats over Republicans.
I did a bit of research, and I found why this might be the case. Libertarianism is actually in the same political system as Liberalism.
http://www.moral-politics.com/xPolitics.aspx?menu=Political_Ideologies&action=Draw&choice=PoliticalIdeologies.All
So if the Founder were libertarians, why would they want big government to run post offices? They wouldn't. They weren't.
How can you speak of "the Founders" as if they had a common set of beliefs? They did not. Consider, for example, the philosophical differences between George Mason and John Adams.
I think you are missing my point.What is the reason that most petty thieves aren`t up to bloodshed?
How much of it is due to the severity of the punishment that goes along with it.
I am postulating that within the system that you are presenting,which is no government or "official" laws that go with it,that deterrent would possibly be removed.
There already exists areas where there is limited enforcement or respect of laws or the teaching to do so.It is in the inner city and in third world countries.
The absence of government and laws for some reason does not lead to a self restraining individual government or to the communal sharing that Marx envisioned.
Libertarians and conservatives just have different definition of "rights."
That's pretty paradoxical too, right?
It can be in the context of government as arbiter of morality.
The FreeRepublic is a Conservative site not a Libertarian site.
The Founders may have disagreed about some things but the certainly did have some beliefs in common. As Jefferson said, "We are all republicans, we are all federalists."
Paradoxically, that's going to get you labeled as a liberal/libertarian when it comes time to talk about using the federal government as a means of controlling individual vices.
Tgun Joe:
How about when liberals/libertarians loudly appladed the federal government imposing its immorality on the states in the Lawrence vs. Texas sodomy case? That's pretty paradoxical too, right?
Wrong, -- the fed-gov didn't impose 'immorality', [it has no 'moral' powers, nor do States].
The Constitution was used by the USSC to 'strike down' a State infringement of a fundamental property right, -- the right to close your bedroom door and act as you please with another consenting adult.
The paradox is in a constitutional conservative claiming a State has the power to prohibit misdemeanor sin & dictate morality.
sodomyOne entry found for sodomy.Pronunciation: 'sä-d&-mE Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Old French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1-11 1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal 2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex - sod·om·it·ic /"sä-d&-'mi-tik/ or sod·om·it·i·cal /-ti-k&l/ adjective |
 |
Read the 14th.
They were classical liberals, essentially libertarians. That does not mean they were libertarians. Also, the postal service was the country's comm link. There was no private service available, nor was it possible to create one of the same capacity. As a matter of fact, the service was necessary to conduct govm't operations and for the conduct of commerce, which was one of the major motivations for the creation of the Constitution in the first place.
The "culture war" is about who's going to get control of the government for their own agenda. The political war is about keeping the goverment out of the culture war.
How much of it is due to the severity of the punishment that goes along with it.
Very little would be my guess. For the same reason some soldiers freeze in combat and some first time hunters can't pull the trigger.
And no. The Deterrent becomes DEATH at the hands of your intended victim or having to pay direct restitution. Much worse than todays "maybe go to jail".
Yeah, here's mine. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
You have it exactly backwards. The political war is about which side will control the government, the left or the right. The culture war is about whether or not the culture itself, including the government will be forced to accept deviant immorality in the guise of "tolerant" leftist social values.
I'm not falling for you "all or nothing, with us or against us" crap. There are two sides both determined to obtain and use extra Constitutional means to different ends. I do not accept that I must be supporting the left's agenda because I am opposed to either side getting control of those means.
That assumes that as the intended victim you have the forwarning of their intent.I am suggesting that without the restraint of law and its consequences you could be the victim without any warning,as in some gang infested areas that for the most part exist in a state of lawlessness.
I am curious as to the paying of direct restitution.
Wouldn`t that require,in Al Gores famous words "a controlling legal authority",to enforce that?
Accept that the Post Office is a government monopoly supported in part by tax money. Taxes are theft.
Also the recent proliferation of private carriers points out that there are much better ways, cheaper too, to move the mail.
This is a sane system to you? This is preferable?
This also glosses over the part about being able to own and carry weapons without interference. You can't fight a fire if you don't have a fire extinguisher because some arbitrary LAW says you can't have one.
Under a libertarian system, courts would still exist. However, adjudication would only come through a mutually agreed upon, and contractually binding, court. Fail to pay up would be the same as not paying a debt or welching on a contract. No one would do business with you. You'd be an outcast. Possible you could starve to death if no one would sell you food. Also possible that your "victim" would just challenge you to a duel and kill you that way for failing to live up to your word.
Bunch of "honor" type stuff all mixed in there. Kinda goes with the territory. You start thinking ethically, next thing you know, you are acting ethically. Honor comes from the realization that your word really does mean something.
It's a neat subject.
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.