Posted on 11/08/2007 9:27:47 AM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
It seems that calling yourself a libertarian is the chic thing to do in college these days. If students are frustrated with both parties, they often say, "Oh, I'm a libertarian."
On the surface, modern libertarianism does seem enticing -- it's either "the stay out of my bedroom and don't pass laws against what I want to smoke" or the whole "capitalism is god" thing that seems to grab students' attention.
It's understandable. What's more enticing than sexual freedom, reefer madness and lots of money? Hey, throw in unlimited nap time and I'm on board.
I'm not trying to marginalize libertarians, though. They did that to themselves a while ago. But those pesky, politically inept creatures seem to be making a comeback.
Take, for example, the Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. Paul is an outright libertarian, having run on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1988.
He has generated a bit of buzz on the Internet and managed to pull in $4.2 million in fundraising Monday with his "This November 5th" campaign. It was the largest fundraising record of all the Republicans in the race for one day.
Don't let that fool you, though. Paul is lagging far behind in the polls, and his record speaks more about the poor field of candidates than anything. Paul even had some supporters holding signs Monday out on the corner of Valley Mills and Waco drives. That still doesn't change the fact that Paul is a nutcase, however.
For starters, Paul has gone on record as advocating an end to the federal income tax. Sounds great on paper, but stop and think about all the basic government services you would lose.
No worries for Paul, though, because he is also for abolishing the Department of Education, the Internal Revenue Service, Federal Emergency Management Administration, the Department of Homeland Security and the Interstate Commerce Commission. Basically, if you hate the government, then Paul is your man.
Paul also opposes the Federal Reserve and advocates a return to hard money (gold standard) or authorizing gold and silver as legal tender to compete with our current fiat currency. He also advocates withdrawal from the United Nations and NATO and for workers to opt out of Social Security.
He votes against most spending bills and pretty much anything else not expressly mentioned in the Constitution. This attitude is unproductive at best and downright destructive at worst.
The point is, libertarians are unrealistic people.
They come in all shapes and sizes. Technically, they can lean right or left, but the true libertarian falls within no specific party at all.
But really they are unreasonable people and are usually just lazy closet liberals or conservatives. But I'm just talking about the diehards here -- they can be really annoying.
After all, if you believe in democracy, you have a little libertarian inside of you, too -- we all do.
Modern libertarians are descended from classical liberalism. In the classical definition of the word, most of us are "liberals" -- we believe in limited government, free markets and individual rights among other things.
Both parties today simply put more of an emphasis on either the individual or the economic side of things. But libertarians try to have it both ways, and it doesn't always work. They are just extremist pessimists and should be considered a menace.
You might think I'm picking on Paul. That's because I am.
People like him have no concept of community. They say the "invisible hand" can solve everything, but deep down inside, I think they're just selfish.
If you consider yourself a libertarian or know a libertarian, you should seek immediate professional help.
That sounds familiar.
A Communitarian Ethos
The Groton influence of Endicott Peabody showed in a speech Roosevelt gave at the People's Forum in Troy, NY in 1912. There he declared that western Europeans and Americans had achieved victory in the struggle for "the liberty of the individual," and that the new agenda should be a "struggle for the liberty of the community." The wrong ethos for a new age was, "every man does as he sees fit, even with a due regard to law and order." The new order should be, "march on with civilization in a way satisfactory to the well-being of the great majority of us."
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0799fdrcharity.htm
Agreed, when snot-nosed college paper columnists are against you, you must be doing something right.
I've never thought of that. Excellent idea!
Never a truer statement. If he would be in support of the troops and our efforts there, I would be in support of him.
The President. Dig out a copy of the Constitution and read what it says about militias. Then dig out a copy of the Militia Act of 1792 and read how the same guys who wrote the 2nd Amendment intended the Constitutional directive be carried out.
what are they supposed to do?
Defend the country.
shoot down missiles with their rifles?
Of course not. If not for the unconstitutional NFA laws, there would be plenty of hardware in citizens' hands to deal with missiles et al.
Remember: the Constitutional take on militias was written by guys who had functional cannons decorating their front lawns, and hung out with other guys who owned battleships - and wanted YOU to have the freedom to do/own the same.
I often have difficulty distinguishing the latter from Conservatives.
Yes, well said.
The one problem is most of them have little to no access to at least two of those...
Now, the Fed does need revenue, no argument there. Perhaps a flat tax or National Sales Tax would seem more equitable. With a smaller streamlined government, we would be taxed less.
Nothing wrong with the government providing national security. With 200K employees it seems a bit over bloated. Plus the FBI, CIA are not even in it. Plus the unionizing of TSA, etc.
On a side note, when I was stationed in Germany, my friend who I shared an apartment with was very politically astute and believer in personal freedom and liberty. We spent many a night talking politics and the proper role of government. After getting out of the service, my friend got involved in the fledgling Libertarian Party and eventually became the National Chairman. Although I remain an independent, those talks around the kitchen table influenced me greatly and I’ll always be thankful to Jim Turney for that!
no disagreement on changing the tax system. It just sounds like someone is off the deep end when they say there is no need for an IRS at all. The money has to be collected somehow in a secure fashion otherwise all those govt bonds will be riskier.
Yeah. What do we need that constitution thingy for anyway? It's all just ancient history!
Ahh, Endicott Peabody.
There’s a town in Massachussetts named after him, you know.
Athol.
So work it out based on the number of Senators and Representatives from each state (base fee for each state, then more based on population thereof).
Please clarify... what I said was that what one does in public venues may legitimately be regulated by local government; what goes on in PRIVATE between one or more consenting individuals (who are of an age to be able to GIVE consent) may NOT be regulated or proscribed by ANYONE. I don’t know what YOU meant.
so, basically based on population.
I haven’t found much by googling “taxing the states.” One proposed it based on state GDP which probably won’t work because who will determine state gdp and how?
Well maybe that’s why the Founding Fathers funded the federal government the way they did - and maybe it’s wise to return to their system, rather than inventing yet another.
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.