Posted on 04/07/2010 5:26:04 AM PDT by 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?
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Perhaps, but I look at it the other way. Access to alcohol should be more restricted, not marijuana less.
Ask any cop with a year or two's experience, and anyone who has worked much in hospitals, they'll both tell you that a large percentage (a majority, in my experience) of their business is the result of drug and/or alcohol abuse.
It's a simple fact, and both clearly do negatively affect others.
And we pay them to come...
Sorry, but that post made no sense, insulating? rewarding?
What do you mean, we pay them to come?
“”Nice read and so true. That is always the libtard’s argument: “It is inhumane to have the poor...”””
And how much does that individual moaning about the poor do to help the poor?
It’s always “they” should do something.
There are few greater things that a human can do than to reach into one’s pocket to help others.
There are few things more insidious than reaching into another’s pocket to do the same.
Do it with your own damn money and keep your hands off of mine.
College town of about 120,000.
Thanks, and I completely agree.
Welfare.
Exactly... when a country and individual are free to give any way they want, then everyone benefits. When government plays “god” everyone loses...
Me too, same here.
The Mysterious Moving Mark
Nonsense, welfare is not the reason the third world is flooding our shores, eliminate welfare and make it totally legal for everyone to move here and we will recieve hundreds of millions, not just millions.
“If you are barely existing and live in Mexico, or El Salvador, or Nicaragua, or Africa, or Asia, and someone can convince you that you really can move to Los Angeles, or Boston, or Dallas, legally and without any immigration hassles or legalities, then literally hundreds of millions would do it.”
Why are they barely existing instead of thriving? If they have the drive to come here and succeed, why aren’t they succeeding in their own countries? Why do we do so well? Because we’re American? Lucky? Something in the water?
You answer these questions yourself. “. . .they can struggle here in America amongst the wonderful infrastructure, healthy environment, stable government . . .” Why don’t they have it in their own countries? Simple. Controlled markets and political systems. That’s why I say immigration should be based on the origin country’s level of freedom in politics and markets.
Do yourself a favor and read “The Mystery of Capital” and/or “The Other Path” by Hernando de Soto.
Fire the Border Patrol and the INS and truly open up the border, (effectively eliminate the concept) and those people will get up and walk, drive, take a bus, boat, or plane, and move here.
As far as your fantasy of returning to another form of immigration limitations based on “ the origin country’s level of freedom in politics and markets.” that isn’t realistic in modern post 1965 America.
My desire is to end all immigration across the board, and that is slightly realistic because it does not involve race, religion, or national origin.
Oooh, that’s going to leave a mark.
Great one liner summary, though.
Parting Company
by Walter E. Williams
http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2010/04/07/parting_company
Open borders and open season on unborn babies are two libertarian principles I can do without quite nicely.
What am I supposed to do with that?
Is there something that you want to tell me?
Bingo.
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.