Posted on 03/10/2005 6:17:35 PM PST by curiosity
bump, very nice.
I suppose there is a third possibility, that the author is a liar. But, I sure don't like to think that about anyone right off the bat.
L
There are many varieties of libertarianism, from natural-law libertarianism (the least crazy) to anarcho-capitalism (the most)...
It is true there are many varieties, but his above example demonstrates a complete ignorance of who and what they are. First off, his "from... to..." range is completely wrong. Had he understood what he was writing about he would have said '...from natural-law libertarianism to utilitarian libertarianism...'
As far a "crazy" goes, he has got that completely wrong. It is "natural-law libertarianism" that is fanatical, uncompromising, and often way out in the extremes of left and right wings. Where as utiltiarianism, is for the most part grounded in the theory and practice, as to what will work and not work, regardless of Libertarian principle. Many Libertarians, myself included, view both as having advantages as well as disadvantages.
In as far as Anarcho-capitalism goes, it is not at the opposite end from natural-law libertarianism as he proposes. It in reality is found under the natural law umbrella, as it is pretty much monopolized by the natural-law libertarians, and thereby may be seen as more crazy than some other varieties. There are however utilitarian anarcho-capitalists, who present very good utilitarian arguments (ie International Society for Individual Liberty, formerly known as the Society for Individual Liberty).
"You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think"
Both sides are right.
>>as a whole it is a seductive mistake.
The seductive mistakes are socialism, communism, collectivism, teacher's unions, heath care, global warming, judicial activism, social security, France, Islam, and (you get the idea)
Freedom of the individual is the tenet which has been slowly removed in the US but stamped clearly in our Constitution.
The goverment of the jungle has worked everywhere it has been tried. And later changed to something worse.
So Ayn Rand was wrong ?
Atlas Shrugged is the libertarian Bible.
BUMP
"Furthermore, the reduction of all goods to individual choices presupposes that all goods are individual. But some, like national security, clean air, or a healthy culture, are inherently collective. It may be possible to privatize some, but only some, and the efforts can be comically inefficient. Do you really want to trace every pollutant in the air back to the factory that emitted it and sue?"
I have said this same thing in the past here about the clean water act of 1968. Prior to this, people and communities were not prevented from dumping human waste directly into rivers. Anyone downstream had to clean it up, not the ones who made the mess. And some libertarians insisted that suing the source was the better way to go. That means that someone in New Orleans would have to track each pollutant in their water to the individual (or company) who dumped it into the water upstream -- approximately 1/3 of the entire United States -- and then prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt in a Court of Law. It won't work.
I happen to be a libertarian myself. Will I vote for the Libertarian Party? Never! The reason, they more interested in a Kerry victory more than anything.. Why I don't know..
The latter. I'd rather see social laws I don't like enacted in each individual state legislature than social laws I like forced on the whole nation by federal judges overstepping their bounds. I often wonder the same thing about conservatives. Would they rather have abortion law decided by the states, or have abortion banned nationwide by the Supreme Court waking up one day and suddenly saying it's against the Constitution? I'm a pro-life libertarian, and would prefer the issue decided in state legislatures where it belongs. And if it was to do done nationwide, it would require a Constitutional amendment.
Very true Kevin
The LP has some good ideas, but I will never vote for the party after this election. To me it is better to within the GOP that voting for the LP
I fail to see why it should matter. You want to talk about this article today. He started a thread 4 days ago. So what!
The supposed answer is that the license to do my own thing could not possibly hurt you. however, this is only cant because the push is always to prostelytize and expand.
A good illustration is the way the marxists and the libertarians join forces in the [legal and constitutional] assault on traditional American mores, institutions and moral standars. Raising doubts as to the previously unquestioned is the tactic of both to their similar ends.
My, you really know how to make friends fast, don't you?
Because I don't support Big Stupid Republican Government and its many excesses, spending sprees, vote-buying scams and intrusions since taking power, I suppose I can't be your friend.
I'll try to soldier on, somehow.
Certainly, but altruism imposed is not really altruism, now is it?
Read the preamble. There are other things besides individual freedom which were important to the founders.
Not all altruism is individualistic. Collective altruism sometimes needs to be forced on indivuals who refuse to cooperate.
>>other things besides individual freedom which were important to the founders
You mean welfare? The context then was health, happiness, or prosperity - not food stamps and certainly not socialism.
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.