Posted on 04/07/2010 5:26:04 AM PDT by listenhillary
So a soldier stationed in Germany, meets a nice girl, gets married . . . OH! Sorry, soldier, you have to stay in Germany if you want your wife around. Yeah. That sounds like a *great* policy. Much more realistic than mine.
“Open borders and open season on unborn babies are two libertarian principles I can do without quite nicely. “
So self-professed small “l” libertarians point out they do *not* believe either of these two principles over 200 some odd posts, and this is the best argument you can come up with. John Stossel’s opinions aside, not all, and I would suggest most, libertarians disagree with your arguments.
It’s a straw man and it does nothing to or for the veracity of any of the valid arguments made here.
When someone says zero immigration, they mean ending immigration, it does not apply to the small number of administrative situations that would number in the thousands, perhaps as much as a few tens of thousands a year sometimes.
This Post should not have been needed to explain that to you.
If you let libertarians self define then they will be what ever fits the conversation, libertarians choose to label themselves and the libertarians that most fit the label are the ones that actually register and support the libertarian agenda which is best defined by the actual party itself.
“Many libertarians are pro choice and ignore any party statement regarding the issue.”
Many conservatives are pro choice and ...
Rudy Giuliani and Kay Bailey Hutchinson come to mind
I meant to say I think a majority are pro-life. My fingers didn’t type what my brain was thinking.
“If you let libertarians self define then they will be what ever fits the conversation, libertarians choose to label themselves and the libertarians that most fit the label are the ones that actually register and support the libertarian agenda which is best defined by the actual party itself.”
So libertarians are not allowed to define themselves, but are defined by the positions by a political organization that has coopted the title. That’s an interesting argument. Let’s explore it a bit.
First, libertarians existed before the Libertarian Party, Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, etc.
Take the few cases where (liberal) individuals have been trying to create a party called “Tea Party” in various states to set a liberal agenda and create restrictions on anyone using the term “Tea Party.” To your argument, that would be legitimate exercise of the law and power and anyone stating they were part of the Tea Party movement would be required to either rename themselves or agree with the positions of the impostors. This is the rule you are applying to libertarians.
To your argument, libertarians who believe liberty applies to the unborn are actually not libertarians because they disagree with something on the Libertarian Party’s platform, even when they aren’t a member of or associated with that political party.
I’ve never heard a prolife libertarian change their position to “fit the conversation,” as you put it. Immigration policy is hotly debated in libertarian circles. It’s also debated in both the Republican (Juan McCain on the wrong side) and the Democratic (where corrupt unions often take an anti-immigration position) parties.
Assuming you are a member of the Republican Party, I could wrongly impute Juan McCain’s immigration policies on you. He was, after all, *your* candidate and I can’t let you go and define your own positions if you agreed to label yourself as a Republican.
I find that position unacceptable and would not dare do that to Republicans or Democrats. That seems to me to be a fundamental rejection of the American ideal that we are free to believe what we choose. I’m Eastern Orthodox. You can say that’s close to Roman Catholic and impute every wrong doing about that church you wish, but you would be wrong. I’m an independent with libertarian leanings who almost always votes for a Republican candidate. You can impute whatever from the Libertarian Party to me you choose. You will be wrong, but it’s a free country.
They have had a party for almost 40 years and their party platform is Libertarianism introduced to the real world of politics.
The Republicans have a platform and the Democrats have a platform, but even then, those parties represent 60 million people apiece.
The libertarians are a little fantasy group whose platform is much more pure.
Here is the 2004 Libertarian Party Platform on immigration, do you like it?
Immigration
The Issue: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new “Berlin Wall” which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government’s policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.
The Principle: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.
Solutions: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.
Transitional Action: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.
Well, since libertarianism as defined by the term "libertarian" has been around since at least 1790, I think I'll reject the notion that a puny, pathetic little party that stole the name in 1971 defines the movement. They don't define me, but then I'm only libertarian leaning.
I think as long as Republicans continue to be for big government solutions and keep crap like how to cope with global warming in their official platform, I'll stay independent, libertarian leaning. You buy a platform from a party. Fine. Don't tell us we all have to. We don't.
Where does libertarianism disagree with this platform?
Libertarian Party Platform:
Immigration: 3.4 Free Trade and Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.
Homosexuals: 1.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.
Abortion: 1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
Drugs: 1.2 Personal Privacy
We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.
Pornograpy: see 1,2 above and 2.1 below.
Advertising: 2.1 Property and Contract
Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.
Military Strength: 3.1 National Defense
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.
In addition; 3.2 “We oppose the government’s use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.”
In addition; 3.3 International Affairs
American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.
I hope that you will answer post 270.
Okay. First, remember my other responses. The Libertarian Party speaks for very few libertarians and there are a lot of discussions about these topics. I will, therefore, respond to each item on the Libertarian Party’s list with a link to other libertarian ideas.
Immigration: 3.4 Free Trade and Migration
From the Mises Institute’s Symposium on Immigration from 1998. http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=87
Obviously this issue has been around for quite some time and has been debated amongst libertarians. The Libertarian Party has fallen into one rather extremist category on this issue, as they have in many issues. Extremist meaning they are more libertine than libertarian, and there is a mighty difference, which you will see below.
Homosexuals: 1.3 Personal Relationships
Abortion: 1.4 Abortion
Drugs: 1.2 Personal Privacy
Pornograpy: see 1,2 above and 2.1 below.
Advertising: 2.1 Property and Contract
http://mises.org/journals/jls/18_3/18_3_5.pdf
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/feser2.html
I think the two articles above discuss these issues fairly well. They may not be brief, but they discuss the issues.
Military Strength: 3.1 National Defense
I could get into the differences between the so-called paleolibertarians and neolibertarians and try to classify myself or others into these nonsense categories, but suffice it to say that there are many libertarians who disagree with this position by the Libertarian Party, notably Neal Boortz.
Personally, I’m a non-interventionist, meaning if it’s not our business we should stay out. I was against the folly of the bombing of Serbia. The current war, however, was instigated by our enemies and if I had my way the Middle East would have paid and would be paying a much higher price militarily. Our response has been weak.
Defense of the nation doesn’t mean only after we lose ten of thousands of lives needlessly.
Don’t allow Reason Magazine and the Libertarian Party make you think all libertarians are amoral minarchists.
Where does libertarianism disagree with this platform?
Where is that platform falling outside of libertarian philosophy?
BTW, I am taking your question as a true openness to understanding where those who call themselves “libertarian” are coming from and why you shouldn’t listen to the radical, well-funded voices claiming to be the primary source of libertarian thought.
I believe the left has maligned and infiltrated the libertarian/Goldwater Republican rank and file in order to keep us divided. We have differences, no doubt, especially concerning active government coercion against bad behavior. However, if you allow the left to use the fringe to convince you that we are all a bunch of lefties, we both lose and the lefties win.
Did you actually *read* the links? Do I have to copy and paste it for you?
Many libertarians disagree with every single platform position you wrote.
Did you not read the link on immigration? The articles by Edward Feser on Abortion, porn, gay marriage, adoption of children by the same, etc.?
The address every single point and they disagree with them. If I could provide a bright and shining light to glow down on you while you read them, I would. If you have no interest in actually reading something other than the fable the left is feeding you, tell me now.
I’m not interested in every self claimed libertarians personal list of which elements he likes, that is meaningless.
I say that the libertarian party is the libertarian philosophy, put into an actual, real world, political platform.
Are you saying that it is not authentically libertarian, that it contradicts libertarianism?
All my exposure to the radical leftism of the libertarians comes from people right here at FR, pushing the left's agenda and calling it "libertarian", and the libertarian party platform is the most refined essence of libertarianism.
"Isn't this to be expected?"
Of course it is, but some people pretend that they are not libertarian at all, that they merely stole the name.
“Are you saying that it is not authentically libertarian, that it contradicts libertarianism?”
I’m saying that libertarianism is a huge, old movement that has a lot of schools of thought, of which the Libertarian Party is a member of one.
Charles and David Koch and Ed Crane (the founders of the Cato Institute) all left the Libertarian Party because of radical positions in the platform. There have been a number of internal battles between the conservative libertarians and the nuts. The reason the nuts won out was simply because, at the time, the Republican Party wasn’t full of big government busy bodies and they welcomed the conservative libertarians into the Republican Party, leaving the clowns to infest the Libertarian Party.
These internal battles were all well publicized. A quick gander at Wikipedia tells about some of them.
I’m not saying the Libertarian Party is not a manifestation of a certain school of libertarianism. However, contrary to your rather feeble, unsupported assertions, all the other schools of libertarianism (e.g. paleolibertarianism or conservative-libertarianism) are also manifestations of the same basic school of thought.
The Mises Institute, Cato Institute, Americans for a Sound Economy, etc. are all libertarian organizations, many of which have plenty of articles critical of the platform positions you listed, a very small sample of which I provided you.
Those aren’t “self claimed libertarians.” They are very influential libertarian individuals and organizations.
“I say that the libertarian party is the libertarian philosophy, put into an actual, real world, political platform.”
The problem with your assertion is that you have provided absolutely no (0, nil, zilch) evidence demonstrating the accuracy of this thesis. All you do is recite the platform from one libertarian organization and claim the beliefs are held by all libertarians. It would be like me quoting the position of the Progressive National Baptist Convention, claiming that all Southern Baptists hold to their positions and refusing to read anything by the Southern Baptists to counter my assertion. They are both Baptist, right? Why should I actually *read* something from the Southern Baptists. I’ve made up my mind and I’m always right.
It’s called a converse fallacy of accident. “All the Jewish people I’ve met are liberal, therefore all Jews are liberal.”
If you’re so indoctrinated that facts don’t matter, I feel sorry for you. I seriously doubt you read the information provided that demonstrates the invalidity of your assertion.
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.