What Am I? (John Stossel)

Realclearpolitics ^ | 4/07/10 | John Stossel

[listenhillary]

I used to be a Kennedy-style "liberal." Then I wised up. Now I'm a libertarian.

But what does that mean?

When I asked people on the street, half had no clue.

We know that conservatives want government to conserve traditional values. They say they're for limited government, but they're pro-drug war, pro-immigration restriction and anti-abortion, and they often support "nation-building."

And so-called liberals? They tend to be anti-gun and pro-choice on abortion. They favor big, powerful government -- they say -- to make life kinder for people.

By contrast, libertarians want government to leave people alone -- in both the economic and personal spheres. Leave us free to pursue our hopes and dreams, as long as we don't hurt anybody else.

Ironically, that used to be called "liberal," which has the same root as "liberty." Several hundred years ago, liberalism was a reaction against the stifling rules imposed by aristocracy and established religion.

I wish I could call myself "liberal" now. But the word has been turned on its head. It now means health police, high taxes, speech codes and so forth.

So I can't call myself a "liberal." I'm stuck with "libertarian." If you have a better word, please let me know.

When I first explained libertarianism to my wife, she said: "That's cruel! What about the poor and the weak? Let them starve?"

I recently asked some prominent libertarians that question, including Jeffrey Miron, who teaches economics at Harvard.

"It might in some cases be a little cruel," Miron said. "But it means you're not taking from people who've worked hard to earn their income (in order) to give it to people who have not worked hard."

But isn't it wrong for people to suffer in a rich country?

[Sherman Logan]

Possibly I’m not framing MY argument correctly.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not “give” us rights, BTW. They enumerate pre-existing rights, which I’m sure you knew. :)

Theft, murder, rape, assault, fraud, and you name it are all illegal because we believe them to be wrong (immoral) and therefore passed laws to prohibit them.

It is bizarre to look back to the Founders as opposed to laws legislating morality (including sexual morality) when such laws were MUCH more prevalent then than now. Adultery, homosexuality, obscenity, blasphemy, etc., etc. were all illegal in their time and enthusiastically punished. I am not aware of any statements by any of the Founders, with possible exception of Tom Paine, that these laws should be eliminated.

“you have your own set of morals, and feel that these morals should be applied to everyone”

Nope. I have certain moral beliefs that I think should be applied to all. Murder, theft, rape, assault, fraud, abortion, slavery are morally wrong and should be prohibited. Other right/wrong (morality) opinions I apply to my own life, as best I imperfectly can, but don’t think are appropriate for the State to impose by force.

BTW, I think it is Adams who said something about the country requiring a moral people.

[TChris]

I think conservatism is libertarianism with a bit longer-term view.

Yes, punching someone in the nose is a violation of their rights, but it's also a simplistic example to use.

Drug use, entirely apart from the drug war and all it entails, DOES affect others. Ask anyone who has an addict in the family to tell you honestly if it does.

Similarly, unrestricted immigration DOES negatively affect others. Just one example is California's hospital system, which has only 1/3 the number of ERs per capita of the national average.

Just because an action doesn't have an immediate, obvious negative impact, it isn't necessarily sunshine and rainbows. "No man is an island" is still true. There are many consequences in life which are profoundly serious, but not as obvious as a bloody nose.

[Responsibility2nd]

They say they’re for limited government, but they’re pro-drug war, pro-immigration restriction

Most of the libertarians I see here on Free Republic are waiving the white flag of surrender when it comes to the WOD.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"you both agree immigration should be regulated, you are only arguing about how many people should be allowed."

Reminds me of the old story about the guy who propositions a girl by saying, would you sleep with me for a million dollars. She says, of course. He then says how about 10 dollars? She says, what do you think of me? A whore? He says, my dear we've already established you're a whore. We're now just haggling over price.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I’d sure like to hear a logical explanation why this one area of human interaction alone should be immune from legislation.

Because intimate sexual interaction between consenting individuals are none of your business.

[Still Thinking]

And so, how do you propose we rectify that situation WITHOUT infringing on the rights of another?

If that situation prevails, it's because people are already infringing on the rights of others. In a situation free from predatory behavior by individuals (which WOULD be a proper time for regulatory intervention) and over-regulation by government, there will be opportunity.

[gura]

Libertarians for Life

[mountn man]

I also see it as a property rights issue, and libertarians are certainly amenable to property rights. The geographical area known as the United States is all owned by someone: individuals, partnerships, corporations, the citizens of a given state or of the entire nation in common. So illegal immigration could be viewed as trespass. We, as individuals and as a group, own the land you're walking on and we don't want you in it. End of discussion. This is no more acceptable than if you were in my front yard without my permission.

This was my line of reasoning too, and then scrolled down and saw your post.

[Past Your Eyes]

Zackly.

[frogjerk]

Let's talk abortion because that is what I keyed on.

For you to actually state that conservative GOPer's haven't done much protecting the unborn is laughable. Is it far enough, no but it is moving in the right direction, toward a culture of life. The enemy party is moving toward a culture of death. There is no doubt about it.

[joe fonebone]

"Okay, philisophically I am actually libertarian. Now lets talk practically. When someone under the influence of drugs gets behind the wheel of a vehicle, they become a threat to me and my family. They are infringing upon me. Now, how do you deal with that and still remain libertarian?"
If I am drunk or stoned in my house, that is one thing. Once I get behind the wheel drunk or stoned, I am risking your life, or the basic right to breathe. Infringing upon your rights is against the law, and I would be subject to arrest, prosecution and punishment as determined by the law. As I stated earlier, I am a conservative with libertarian leanings. The complete absence of law resluts in anarchy. Not an acceptable option. The laws should protect your civil rights, and drink or impaired driving laws do just that. Now, on the other side of the coin, If I am drunk and walking down the street going home, who's civil rights am I violating?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

So, as a functioning libertarian, how do you arbitrate grievences between individuals without resorting to the structures put in place by conservatives, liberals and progressives? Those structures (laws, courts, police) do not exist without compromising libertarian principles.

Sure they do. This is a ridiculous assertion.

[joe fonebone]

see post #84

[SaraJohnson]

Nice conversation happening in the comments section of this article at the source.

Libertarians are anti-moral in their effort to avoid the imposition of morals on the society as a whole. On the other hand, the free society they want demands a population that is morally self directed - which means there has to be a moral structure to society which is passed on to immigrants and to Americans alike. If you are ignornant of behavioral consequences and self control as many in our inner cities are, you will not be able to provide for yourself and your children. You will become a burden upon the living conditions and future of a free American society.

The other problem is the ideal of globalism embraced by libertarians which naturally results in the muddying of American identity and a clear “way of life” that makes success out of freedom more likely for Americans. Libertarism ignores the property rights and the right to self determination of Nations. A citizen of the world has no responsibilities to adding to his own people’s way of life and success. With open borders we are becoming overpopulated with criminals and workers who have no idea of living and acting in a constitutially free America. Hence, our ever growing criminal and dependent element, our police state, Obacomunism and prison population.

Libertarians are not loyal, wise, protective nor nuturing to the free society they claim to want and therefore they make for the self serving, nasty and immoral leaders made in the image of the banksters and wannabe global dictators which amounts to treason. The Libertarian ideology has the ideal of constitutional freedom down, but they have no idea nor concern of how the society operates socially that serves that freedom. In fact, like liberals, they are against the moral and noble nature of a society that serves freedom. American founding fathers, they are not.

[Sherman Logan]

That’s your opinion, and as such perfectly valid.

My (rhetorical) question was aimed more at liberals, who are totalitarian in every area of life other than sexual, where they suddenly become libertarian, or possibly libertine.

There are many areas of life where what I do is nobody else’s business, but we tolerate intrusion into them by the laws and the government. Why should sexual behavior be the ONLY area of life off-limits to legislation “because it’s nobody else’s business?”

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

Mr. Stossel, the label you’re looking for is “capitalist.” If you feel that is too restrictive, being merely a matter of economics, just make it “Capitalist” and it’ll look more political. Just like libertarian/Libertarian. Of course you’ll have to spend a lot of time explaining your platform to the man in the street with no clue. But even small c capitalism has political and ethical aspects, no less than small c communism, which took a century and tens of millions of deaths to demonstrate its ethics, and still some people have no clue.

[Responsibility2nd]

Wow. I like your response so much, that I'm gonna post it again.

 

This is an outstanding article by Stossel. He is spot on in his observation of Big Government's creeping devastation of the family, private charity, individual initiative, and our free society.

What I fear now is that we are no longer a moral people who possess the capacity for self government. What we once relished as freedom, we now fear as license. Without morality, we don't trust people to regulate what goes into their own bodies or to avoid other dangerous behaviors. Without respect for the property of others, we attract hordes of new looters who come not to work -- but to get in on the "free" benefits of plunder. As the Welfare State grows larger, we retreat from private charity and lose its rehabilitative effect. And finally, the temptation grows ever stronger to get whatever benefits we can take for ourselves before the system inevitably collapses.

It is this dark side of human nature which tyranny exploits, and which capitalism recognizes and limits. Unless we can once again exercise the self-control that "libertarian" philosophy and a free society require, we will require a dictator who will make us "behave" as he deems fit, and who will ultimately clothe and feed us.

posted on Wednesday, April 07, 2010 8:04:09 AM by Always A Marine

[wintertime]

So libertarians are for open borders?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I am a libertarian. This is how I would like to see immigration handled:

There would still be limits on how many could enter our country each year. A culture will not remain a culture if overwhelmed with immigrants it can not absorb.

There would be absolutely no welfare assistance or free government K-12 schooling or reduced tuition at government colleges and universities. ( In a libertarian world there would be no government K-12 or university schools.)

Every immigrant would have a sponsor that would would place in escrow all that would be needed to support that immigrant for a minimum of five years. Businesses could do this, family, friends, or the immigrant himself. This sponsorship would also include the purchase of a comprehensive health and life insurance policies and tuition at a private school for any children.

No immigration of Muslims or any other national, ethnic, or religious group that has openly declared its hostility to our way of life.

Absolutely no anchor baby citizenship.

No favoritism show to extended family.

Preference would be given to those with the highest levels of education and who have mastered English.

[mountn man]

You pretty much nailed my thoughts.

[joe fonebone]

"Nope. I have certain moral beliefs that I think should be applied to all. Murder, theft, rape, assault, fraud, abortion, slavery are morally wrong and should be prohibited. "
You are incorrect in your definition. These are all civil rights issues as I have stated several times already. The reason we need a moral people is that regulating morality is the road to totaltarianism, and as such needs to be avoided at all costs. The main roadblock here ( and this is the main argument ) is defining what is morality and what is a civil right. The constitution tells us what civil rights we have. Anything, and I mean anything, that places our civil rights in jeopardy needs to be regulated by the laws of our land. If it is not a civil rights issue, then the government has no business being involved in it. That is why a moral people are needed to keep this republic that was founded centuries ago.