Why you might be already be a Libertarian

The Prometheus Institute ^ | 10/4/2006 | Editorial

[lesser_satan]

I think it's more or less a non-leftist forum. Everything else seems to be well represented.

[Protagoras]

If you buy any, you get the package. No thanks.

[antisocial]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Strange, I don't seem to see anything in there about any separation between church and state.

[Protagoras]

[Dead Corpse]

As for the "make 'em read it" part, Ron Paul has H.RES. 709 currently on the table. Prevents passage before enough time has gone by for the Reps to read it in it's entirety.

[Dead Corpse]

Excellent riposte.

[lesser_satan]

I agree. Their ideas are sound for the most part, it's just their priorities are out of order.

[highball]

Limited government used to be the defining characteristic of the conservatives. But very few modern conservatives are trying to limit government -- rather they are trying to redirect government and grow it in other areas that suit their lifestyles.

An excellent point, and one worth repeating.

Too many "conservatives" have decided that they don't care how big the government gets, so long as the government enforces their particular preferences. It's sad.

[lesser_satan]

Same here. I, and many others, quit the party after we saw their tepid, pacifist response to 9-11. I got the party newspaper at the time, and I've never seen so many outraged letters-to-the-editor.

[Dead Corpse]

Agreed. I stopped posting on a number of Libertarian forums due to the noxious anti-war sentiment and outright 9-11 conspiracy nutcases.

If a person can't understand logic, there is no use arguing with them.

[UncleDick]

I remember the words of Harry Browne following 9/11/2001. He blamed America. It might as well have been Noam Chompsky, Osama bin Laden or Pat Buchanan blaming America.

Libertarians tend to be critical of America's Neo-Wilsonian foreign policy of liberal interventionism. Conservatives used to be the same way until Eisenhower drove all of the anti-Commie, small government types out of the Republican party.

Most of the nanny-state laws that conservatives now defend were instituted in the early 20th century at the insistence of the liberal Progressives who wanted to reshape America in the image of their own values. The Progressives have moved on now to bigger and better things while conservatives tacitly accept the incremental usurpation of our liberties. That is why I'm not a "conservative".

[Antoninus]

How can we smoke pot and look at porn in peace when you religious busybodies are looking through our keyhole?

Honestly, I'm amazed that you guys have time to post at all in between tokes and trips to the bathroom.

[antiRepublicrat]

Also there is a solid Libertarian argument aganist abortion.

What I like about libertarianism is that it has a basic set of ideals, and all else flows from it. People think they concentrate on drug legalization, but that is only a byproduct of the ideal of a limited government.

You're right, they do need much better PR.

[RockinRight]

I call myself a conservative, no doubt, but with libertarian tendencies. I acknowledge that the two philosophies have much in common.

[Frohickey]

Around here, the impression I get is that the libertarians' major concern is believed to be legalizing drugs.

That maybe your impression, but I think the impetus for libertarians' legalizing drugs is to eliminate the reason for growth of big government and government agents trampling on people's rights.

No-knock searches, large-sums of money seizures, are some to name a few that are in opposition to the Bill of Rights.

[Paine's Ghost]

I call myself a lowercase libertarian who generally votes Republican. In some circles I call myself a conservative but when pressed, I admit that their is little left to conserve. I want change.

I think that uppercase Libertarianism is a "can't get there from here" party. Until very fundamental changes are realized in western culture, Libertarian principles would probably do more harm then good to our way of life and would further the socialist agenda. Libertarianism attracts more loonies then liberalism.

I do think that those who call themselves Republicans and Conservatives should strive to realize libertarian freedoms. The 1994 Contract with America was the most exciting time in my life. It was a tru revolution. But the Republicans were drunk with the little bit of power they won and were never able to deliver the goods to the people who elected them. It appears they will turn over control to those who specialize in big government - liberal democrats. Time marches on.

[3niner]

The main problem that Libertarians have, is jerks who are not Libertarians telling Libertarians, and everybody else, what Libertarians do and do not support.

Try expressing your own views, and leave it up to others to express their own.

[Jaysun]

Really? I didn't get married because my government thought I should.

Nor did I. But they do promote it through tax policy and in other ways. And the evidence of an irresponsible policy in that area can be seen in the number of unmarried welfare Moms with herds of children. And we saw a rise in the number of divorces once obtaining one was made easier by our laws.

I can think of no other entity with the ability to implement the wishes of people than government. I'm as against big government as anyone. But I do think that there is a place for "legislating morality", if you'll forgive my choice of words. Mankind has lived the alternative and we've evolved away from it.

Laws reflect the morals and sentiments of a society, and the morals and sentiments of a society are influenced by its laws. To do away with laws based on moral ideals would result in moral decay, I believe.

[AdamSelene235]

The 1994 Contract with America was the most exciting time in my life. It was a tru revolution.

Puh-lease. It was a bait and switch.

[3niner]

I know what I read, and what I've read.

What you have "read" is, most likely, non-libertarians describing the views of libertarians, or posing as libertarians.

This reminds me of the anarchist problems in the early 20th century. "Anarchist" means someone who believes in no government (think libertarians on steroids). However, people identified as "anarchists", in news articles, almost always touted socialist or Communist views. They opposed the current government, not all government.

This many years later, it is difficult to tell if the "anarchists" were self described, or mis-characterized.

Corruption and opportunism are common among those active in the Libertarian party, just as they are among professional Democrats and Republicans.