Posted on 10/04/2006 8:26:14 AM PDT by tang0r
The libertarian ideology is one of the most misunderstood in American politics. Many citizens don't have any idea what it is. Most of them who do - liberal and conservative - aver that libertarianism is nothing but a worthless form of crypto-anarchy. The author of one recently popular anti-libertarian article, titled with brevity "Why I Am Not a Libertarian," argues that libertarians want to privatize everything, and that since privatization of such things like the Pennekamp Coral Reef in Key Largo would destroy the cute fish and their natural habitat there, libertarianism is not for him. He also alleges that to be libertarian is to support abolishing welfare in favor of ruthless Social Darwinism, and since he doesn't like the idea of handicapped people being tossed in the street, so he rejects that axiom of "libertarianism" as well.
(Excerpt) Read more at prometheusinstitute.net ...
I don't see a lot of Republican support for free speech, individual rights, electronic freedom, or smaller government these days. So I find myself becoming increasingly more libertarian.
You can't hurt a 'culture'. If people think you're a fool, they just ignore you. If they think what you're saying is worthwhile, they stop, listen, and if they agree will alter their lives of their own volition. Its called the freedom to change through your own free will.
Societies where the collective becomes more important than the individual and the right to use coercive force on those that don't agree are usually called socialist or communist.
It's anti-individual. Prior to any group there must first exist the individual. Without the individual there cannot be a group. The collectivist and communitarian are anti-self. To sacrifice the individual, in whole or in part, harms the group. The collectivist/communitarian would kill himself and herself for the greater good of the group. The ends justify the means. In reality they call for the sacrifice of others, not themselves.
They claim that without certain laws anarchy and chaos would sweep over society. Yet, excluding traffic violations, almost every person breaks the law several times each year. Such lawless would be deemed anarchy and chaos. But instead, year after year and decade after decade individuals and society have increasingly prospered despite having 3,000 federal laws foisted on them each year. And a third that many state laws from each state each year.
The drug prohibition laws and War On Drugs is a "shining" example of sacrificing the individual for the greater good of the group. Excluding alcohol and tobacco, in exchange for decreasing recreational drug use and abuse that, for the most part harms the user and has small residual affects to others, in exchange, despite almost no decrease in drug use/abuse the prohibition laws facilitated violent drug-turf wars.
Worse, it -- collectivist/communitarian/greater-good-of-the-group ideology -- put the recreational drug business in the hands of violent criminals, organized crime and kingpins; the likes of Pablo Escobar and Al Capone. With criminal enterprise at the helm there's insufficient quality control of product which leads to increased overdose deaths. There's no control over selling drugs to minors.
In sum, drug prohibition laws and the WOD expanded what was a minor drug problem and added a violent crime problem to it. It's not the first time. Recall the failure of alcohol prohibition of the 1920s. What was a minor alcohol problem was expanded by adding a violent crime problem to it.
The way to destroy a group is to sacrifice the individual to the greater good of the group. As the trend increasingly sacrifices evermore individuals, in whole or in part, the more the group declines until there's but one individual standing. Shaking his head at what he has done.
Excluding crimes of passion, lover-triangles, spousal abuse etc., 98% of the population doesn't initiate force, threat of force or fraud against anyone -- they don't commit murder, assault, theft, blackmail, embezzlement, extortion and etc. Those acts are real crimes that have real victims. Thus the need for objective laws prohibiting them.
The largest, most destructive category of crime is extortion. The largest extortion rackets are governments -- actually, politicians and bureaucrats. A critical component of furthering their extortion is manipulating the masses to accept and even champion collectivist/communitarian group-think and, sacrifice-the-individual/ends-justify-the-means laws and regulations.
The vast majority of people are manipulated to act against themselves -- the individual -- in favor of the group. Oblivious to themselves facilitating the problem that leads to their own demise.
Two worthy quotes:
"The oppressor has nothing more than the power you confer upon him to destroy you. Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assault you if he had not the cooperation from you." -- Voluntary Servitude by Entienne de la Boetie:
And...
"The oppressor no longer acts directly and with his own powers upon his victim. No, our conscience has become too sensitive for that. The tyrant and his victim are still present, but there is an intermediate person between them, which is the Government - that is, the Law itself. What can be better calculated to silence our scruples, and, which is perhaps better appreciated, to overcome all resistance? We all therefore, put in our claim, under some pretext or other, and apply to Government. We say to it, " I am dissatisfied at the proportion between my labor and my enjoyments. I should like, for the sake of restoring the desired equilibrium, to take a part of the possessions of others. But this would be dangerous. Could not you facilitate the thing for me? Could you not find me a good place? or check the industry of my competitors? or, perhaps, lend me gratuitously some capital which, you may take from its possessor? Could you not bring up my children at the public expense? or grant me some prizes? or secure me a competence when I have attained my fiftieth year? By this mean I shall gain my end with an easy conscience, for the law will have acted for me, and I shall have all the advantages of plunder, without its risk or its disgrace!" - Frederic Bastiat
The individual is the highest authority. Some erroneously believe or have faith that their God is a higher authority. As such, they do the will of Allah and act according to the Koran. It's still their individual choice -- themselves the highest authority -- to be Islamic-fascist terrorists. That's perhaps the most blatant example of sacrificing the individual for the greater good.
Excellent description! I would generally use the same one for myself.
IMHO, something we keep missing in this thread is the distinction between small-l libertatians who generally just want less government and the Libertarian Party which many here describe as 'liberaltarian.'
Exactly. I am a "small l" libertarian in the vein of Walter Williams or even Thomas Jefferson etc. In no way do I support legalized prostitution, legalized cocaine, open borders, etc. like the Libertarian Party does.
Strange, I don't seem to see anything in there about any separation between church and state.
I'd say your lack of sight it is more sad than strange.
Giving them time to read it, will not make them read it. To make them read it, force them to pass a (proctored) test on the contents. If they don't get a perfect score, then their vote doesn't count.
Ah. But take a libertarian (like me 20 years ago--small and large L) and let him watch the social libertarianism of the 60's crash thru our culture, destroying everything in its path.
If he cares about how his philosophy jives with reality, he realizes that libertarian assumptions about human nature in regards to moral issues are fundamentally flawed. And it's pretty clear at this point that America's experiment over the last 40 years with social libertarianism has been a monumental failure in almost every regard.
OTOH, where libertarian beliefs align with human nature (in the economic sphere), it is a practical philosophical overlay to political decision making.
Libertarians who come to that realization become conservatives. The difference is we do not blindly apply one principle (small government) to every problem. It's a lot harder being a conservative. I no longer have a simple answer for every problem.
You might be a Libertarian if...
...you own a gun...to protect your marijuana plants.
If they can't read, they shouldn't be voting.
Funny. I own a number of "guns" and have never owned a marijuana plant. Nor do I ever intend to.
I don't care who ya are, that's funny right thar!
It's a joke. Lighten up.
With both eyes, no less.
Ah... sorry. I must have a standard of humor that actually requires things to be funny before considering them as such.
The people I put up there were never removed in primaries. And won't be. Particularly the last one, he was removed to prison.
As to the platform, the people in the Republican party don't even know what's in theirs.
BTW, I'm not a Libertarian so I don't have any obligation to defend that parties platform.
I frequently run in to libertarians who, when pushed, would agree to keep crack cocaine illegal but legalize pot. But you cannot draw that line on the libertarian principle of do whatever you want as long as you don't punch someone or steal their money, even though these libertarians will try to argue from that sort of principle to justify legalized marijuana.
That type of 'libertarian' is really a conservative who draws the line in a different spot than another conservative. There's solid, conservative arguments on both sides of that issue and I wish they were made more respectfully, but the 'principle' argument of libertarianism doesn't work because it does not admit permissible lines short of punching or stealing.
I am, in fact, already a libertarian butt...
I'm not a Libertarian. I'm not crazy and I don't live in mom's basement.
"Armed liberal that doesn't want to pay taxes"
Sounds like the Founding Fathers and lots of Americans who took up arms against the king.
Generally I agree with what you wrote but holding liberarians to some "pure" standard is as unreasonable as holding a conservative some "pure" black and white standard. The first problem of course is that no one will ever agree on what that standard should, be be they libertarians or conservatives.
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.