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 ...
What is the best definition that you have found of conservatism?
Yeah. And the conservative Republicans have done such a wonderful job of protecting the unborn. Just look at all the places it's illegal! And look how well protected the borders are! Not to mention the excellent budget control exercised under BushII. And look how well they have stemmed the flow of illegal drugs! Just imagine how terrible immigration, drug addiction, govt spending and abortion rates would be if libertarianism became more widespread. The country would collapse!! We know we can rely on conservative Republicans to protect our nation from these scourges.
/s... can't forget the /s.
Did you mean pro-choice or pro-life?
Immigration is a security issue, not a citizens individual rights issue. Government should leave citizens alone, but that doesn’t mean allowing non-citizens to invade our country without regulation.
Libertarians DO believe in “commons”, and agree that government is supposed to regulate the “common good”. Immigration law is a regulation of that common area, in this case the physical are known as our country.
A Libertarian would understand this if you simply apply a “limit argument”. Ask them if they think it would be fine if the Government allowed the entire population of South America to come into our country.
Most will say no, at which time you can point out that the argument is now about “how much regulation”, not about regulation itself — you both agree immigration should be regulated, you are only arguing about how many people should be allowed.
Libertarianism is practical as a life philosophy. Freedom to do what you want as long as you do not infringe on the rights of another. It fails as a political philosophy. It begins breaking down when you realize there must be a method for arbitration of grievence when one party is infringed upon by another. What shall it be, pistols at 10 paces or police and a court of law? A large functioning society requires wading deeper into that pool.
There are many life philosphies that are functional yet not valid as a political philosophy; live and let live, do unto others..., etc. So, although my philosophy of life may be quite libertarian, from a political standpoint, I am a conservative.
In general I agree with Stossel, with the one exception that I don’t see how allowing someone to electively terminate the life of another human constitutes “Leav[ing] us free to pursue our hopes and dreams, as long as we don’t hurt anybody else.” I thought libertarians didn’t believe in the initiation of force.
Libertarians (large L variety) have always seemed to me an odd coalition between hippies who don’t want their drugs to be illegal and rednecks who want to keep their guns.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Oooh! I hate when I do that. They are pro-life. I don’t know if any studies have been done on where the Libertarians fall on the issue. But I would think if any have a brain cell they would be pro-life.
It’s CLOSE to slavery, except that you can always stop working, and then you don’t have to pay taxes.
In a sane world, you would then starve and die, but in our country you will now get free food, shelter, and health care; probably also enough money to buy cable TV and a car.
In other words, you could live a pretty great life paid for by Bill Gates, without any real worry about how your sloth might reduce your life span or deny you something you would really like.
Absolutely not! Sometimes there is a purpose to such suffering - just ask Job.
A lot of them, yeah. They think borders are an artificial construction by governments that interfere with people's innate right to live where they want and contract for work.
I’d wager that if you eliminated all the benefits that illegal aliens get from the Government, you’d see 90% of the illegal immigration problem go away. You’d be left with those that come here, work hard, and try to get ahead without stealing or relying on someone else to carry their load. Typically the type of people we’d like to see here.
Of course, some libertarians, even some Libertarians, believe in libertarianism in one country.
Good point, nicely explained. I suppose some liberatians would argue, wrongly, against any limits.
As long as there's opportunity? NO. And libertarian principles enshrined in policy lead to more freedom which leads to more opportunity. If people are suffering and have no feasible means to improve their own situation, that's NOT acceptable to me.
Excellent & well done.
The government’s position on the war on drugs is to prevent fraud. You know, the economic and potentially physical harm that comes from someone misrepresenting their product. Some of the illegal drugs are illegal because one trip, your first trip, just might be your last. Or it might leave you emotionally or psychologically crippled for the rest of your life.
Do you know of any drug dealers providing full disclosure on their products? Do you know if that joint is laced with cocaine or heroin or speed or rat poison? Do you know if your dealer is trying to get you hooked on the more powerful stuff?
Another difference between me and many libertarians, is that I don't believe the principles apply to abortion.
Chopped liver.
Good explanation.
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.