If Bigfoot Could Vote, I Know Who He'd Vote For

Testing whether our libertarian friends have a sense of humor or not...

Absolutely! The picture was funnier than the article, but both were amusing.

WRT:

And so there’s not one single party in the political system tailor-made for an eight-foot, forest-dwelling hairy primate that skulks unknown at the margins of human civilization and whose animalistic notion of personal conduct is completely unbounded by any semblance of moral order and self-discipline.

I have two problems. One, there is nothing in the Libertarian philosophy that eliminates moral order or self-discipline. In fact, in many ways, Libertarianism would strengthen those.

The real issue is that a Libertarian believes that those should source from the people, not the government. That's all.

Second, Libertarians are at the margins politically, to be sure, but philosophically I think there are far more of us than is obvious. The basic premise of personal liberty and personal responsibility combined with minimal government is a fairly popular view by anyone who doesn't need the government to force their morals on others.

The basic premise of personal liberty and personal responsibility combined with minimal government is a fairly popular view anyone who doesn't need the government to force their morals on others.

But you see, that's where libertarians go off the rails. When you get down to the level of local governments passing statutes that the people vote for, you're not so much talking about a big, impersonal governing body as the right of localities to make the rules they live under.

As we have it now, it's the big, impersonal government which comes along--usually in the form of federal judges--and says: no prayer in public schools, boyscouts must admit homosexuals, you must accept homosexual tennants in your properties, all Christian symbols must be removed from public places, you must allow an adult video store to open in your town square, you may not put porn-filters on your public library's computers, you may not outlaw abortion, sodomy is a civil right, etc.

We live in an age where government is enforcing their immorality on an unwilling populace which, in any sane world, is orders of magnitude worse than the government actually trying to enforce moral behavior in accord with Natural Law.

There is no such thing as "Natural Law" and morality/immorality is not something that the government should be involved in at any level.

Law, on the whole, should exist, of course and the Ten Commandments are a damn good place to start. Laws governing anything victimless should not exist.

You can argue until you are blue in the face about what constitutes a victimless situation, but really, anything a consenting adult (or any number of them) engage in without harming or risking direct harm to others shouldn't be in the government's purview under any circumstances.

You wanting to ban or support prayer in public schools (using your example) is you imposing your beliefs on others. You can't ask the government to do that for you - either way! If 99 out of 100 people agree that Prayer should be banned (or allowed) in public schools than one person is being oppressed. Period.

Prayer may bother you. Atheism may bother you. The existence of one or the other is not harming you.

The same holds true of the rest of the examples you raised.

Feel free to protest, pontificate, hold meetings or prayer groups, set up alternate organizations etc. but don't force others to believe like you do.

I realize that this isn’t perfect and that there are grey areas, but the alternative sucks worse.

I was writing about the alternative to the government forcing you to be one thing or another which is only tangentially associated with the form of said government.

As for the "never been tried before" issue, you're right. We haven't tried Libertarianism before, per se, but the first few decades of the American government were far closer to the Libertarian ideal (minimal government, maximum individual rights and responsibility) than most will admit. We sort-of have tried that before!

The Constitutional Republic is obviously a superior choice to what we have now, but it is far from the theoretical ideal.

BTW, associating Libertarian government with anarchy is both misguided and rude. Libertarians advocate smaller government, not no government and fewer laws, not lawlessness. There is a significant difference between that and anarchy, thank you very much! ;)

As for the "never been tried before" issue, you're right. We haven't tried Libertarianism before, per se, but the first few decades of the American government were far closer to the Libertarian ideal (minimal government, maximum individual rights and responsibility) than most will admit. We sort-of have tried that before!

Actually the revolutionary French government was probably closer. American had no shortage of legislatures and executives ready and willing to pass and enforce "victimless" moral laws that modern liberal-tarians would have found anathema.

BTW, associating Libertarian government with anarchy is both misguided and rude. Libertarians advocate smaller government, not no government and fewer laws, not lawlessness. There is a significant difference between that and anarchy, thank you very much! ;)

I've debated enough liberal-tarians to know that equating their philosophy with anarchy is neither misguided nor rude--it's just cutting to the chase.

I've debated enough liberal-tarians to know that equating their philosophy with anarchy is neither misguided nor rude--it's just cutting to the chase.

Slinging insults in any form is rude. Comparing Libertarians to anarchists or liberals is insulting, especially 'round here! ;)

Just because you don't fully understand, appreciate or agree with the philosophy doesn't make it the equal of other evils. You're probably right about the revolutionary French government, but it's almost too close to call.

Either way, both early governments were fairly close, albeit with a bit more moral guidance, up until the early 1800s.

Still, the concept of imposing your moral beliefs on others, whether from the left or the right, is equally obnoxious. Granted I (and most Libertarian minded folks) lean more towards the right, but still. . .

Still, the concept of imposing your moral beliefs on others, whether from the left or the right, is equally obnoxious. Granted I (and most Libertarian minded folks) lean more towards the right, but still. . .

The only way pure libertarianism would work is in a society where there are no wicked people--where everyone assumes personal responsibility for their own actions and no one expects a handout. Such a society has never existed and will never exist.

The reason I call you guys "liberal-tarians" is because based on my various discussions, it always comes down to this: both libertarians and liberals believe that people have the right to destroy themselves via their bad behavior, the difference being that when an individual actually does self-destruct, liberals say that it's the government's responsibility to pick up the pieces. Libertarians say it's nobody's responsibility.

The only way pure libertarianism would work is in a society where there are no wicked people--where everyone assumes personal responsibility for their own actions and no one expects a handout. Such a society has never existed and will never exist.

Incorrect. The handouts will, and in some cases should, still exist. The difference is that the government should not be providing them at taxpayer expense. Red Cross type organizations, churches, private charities and other civil institutions are more than enough to care for those that are truly in need. They, at least, will discriminate between the needy, the lazy and the truly worthless much more effectively than an inherently incompetent and corrupt government.

Libertarians still recognize and punish the wicked. I don't think you've ever talked to a Libertarian who said that crime should not exist or that it should fall outside of the purview of the government. Libertarians would decriminalize much of the nonsense crimes that exist today (moral, victimless crimes such as drugs and prostitution) but murder, theft, assault and so on would still be prosecuted. In fact, with the courts and prisons freed up from the aforementioned BS they'd be better able to deal with real crime.

The reason I call you guys "liberal-tarians" is because based on my various discussions, it always comes down to this: both libertarians and liberals believe that people have the right to destroy themselves via their bad behavior, the difference being that when an individual actually does self-destruct, liberals say that it's the government's responsibility to pick up the pieces. Libertarians say it's nobody's responsibility.

Fair enough. If that's your only definition of a liberal than perhaps they are closer to Libertarians than not. I do agree that it is everyone's right to foul up their own life if that's the way they want to be. I'd offer tons of advice and support for those that prefer not to or who want to escape from their mistakes, but not at taxpayer expense! There are better, more effective, more efficient ways.

If you want to do drugs that's your business (until you harm others in doing so) and the government has no business in your business. That doesn't mean that I think you should do drugs or that I think that drugs are good for you or society, it's just that it's none of anyone's business but your own what you choose to do and the government is the last institution that should be involved.

Substitute just about whatever you want for drugs (victimless, of course - rape, murder, theft, child abuse, etc. are still illegal) and we're on the same page.

As for any further comparisons with liberals, they fall apart quickly.

Liberals believe in the redistribution of wealth, Libertarians abhor it.

Liberals believe in discrimination (reverse or otherwise), Libertarians understand that everyone is truly equal.

Liberals (and Conservatives) believe that they are morally obligated to impose their will on others, Libertarians will fight that concept to the death.

Liberals believe that the government is the solution to all ills, Libertarians believe that people are and that government is merely a tool to be used sparingly, if at all.

It’s not chaos – it’s freedom!

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.