Posted on 12/25/2005 4:45:24 PM PST by plain talk
Essay one addressed Modern Liberalism as the religion, albeit the false religion, that it is. Next, enter stage right, Libertarianism.
Libertarianism, or at least that mainstream brand of Libertarianism which zealously waves that oxymoronic political banner "Political Conservative, Social Liberal," has its own pint-sized political party, but more importantly the faith of Libertarianism has a Titanic-sized impact upon the religious inclinations of the leadership ranks of the Republican Party, and upon many of the prestigious think-tanks which preach republicans their gospel.
Libertarianism's central claim to fame from a political standpoint is that it represents an anti-statist, limited government answer to the ‘new' religion of Modern Liberalism, in that it sets out to contract the reach of the state. "Contract the size of the state," they say, "and all private interests are benefited—religion included." Amen.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
His reply: "About $10,000."
The longer I live, the more I appreciate the old man's wisdom.
Horse manure. libertarianism is more aking to classical liberalism than conservatism is today. Too many conservatives love big government, as long as it funds the projects they like - see Bush's compassionate conservatism for an example. Conservatism as practiced by today's Republican party replaces the individual welfare state of the Democratic Party with corporate welfare. Both lead us away from the intent of the country's founders.
Well, your father's wrong. Libertarianism has nothing to do with anarchism.
Nah, just "moronic".
Apparently, the poster has an axe to grind, since he/she obviously didn't receive what they wanted for Christmas.
Good point.
I like Bush, but Bush LOVES big government.
If I'm wrong, persuade me with truth and logic built into a sound argument.
"Well, your father's wrong. Libertarianism has nothing to do with anarchism."
How is it different?
In other words...what level of government is acceptable to libertarians?
The level of govt necessary to provide internal and external security or in other words, a military and a police force. The welfare state is not necessary.
The level so enumerated by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Uncalled for...go to your room, without Christmas cookies.
This article is so stupid, I'm not sure where to start. Anyone else want to try?
For my own part, I'll only point out that, being a Christian, I am obviously not interested in pushing any laws hostile to religion.
Add...."An anarchist just might have a slight sense of humor someplace...a libertarian cannot possess this gene."
I don't know what is the right level of government. I would rather have a president change the direction, by identifying laws that should be repealed, and government programs that should be defunded.
The problem with Libertarians is not their goals, but rather a lack of understanding of Game theory as applied to their methods.
Their usual approach is to complain about the amount of water in the boat, and to suggest that the right way to remove it is to shoot holes in the bottom of the boat.
I'm a libertarian Republican, but the more I see of Republicans in action with actual power, the more I emphatize that libertarian part, which isn't for sale as cheap as $10,000, but I'm pretty sure the Republican part is.
"The level of govt necessary to provide internal and external security or in other words, a military and a police force. The welfare state is not necessary."
Hmmm. well the police force can only exist if there are laws to enforce. I am assuming that, as a libertarina, there would not be any laws that regulate "morality" so no laws against prostitution, drugs, gay marriage, polygamy, etc.
Also, I assume you would have no regulatory agency such as those that regulate the restaurant business, the gasoline distribution business (or any other dangerous material), hospitals, medical practices, no bunko squad, no DMV, no FAA....etc etc.
It certainly would be an exciting society. And we would not have to worry about over population at all.
I would wager that you want more government than you are willing to admit to...because the idea of less government is so appealing (to me too) but the reality of things, in this complicated and technical era...make such an ideal not quite as practical as it was in our founders day.
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.