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 ...
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.
Blooming onions, fried morel mushrooms, fried cheese, smoked ribs, ICE TEA!
I am not for a blanket legalization of drugs, but I do believe the war on drugs is a disaster.
And it does piss me off that I can’t ever try marijuana. God created a plant, and in the “land of the free”, I would lose my job if I ever decided to pick that plant and smoke it just to see what happens? What kind of freedom is that?
Government should control bad actions, not unobtrusive personal decisions that simply tend to LEAD to bad actions.
When I hurt someone, or damage their property, that is when Government should step in. But we have this view of government as our direct protector, and for government to “protect us”, it has to regulate our behavior. And it does that, constantly.
Those who have supported all sorts of regulation of non-impacting behavior (like drinking, and drugs) on the basis that a PERCENTAGE of those who engage in those activities DO end up also taking acts that harm people or property, are partly to blame for Obamacare, which in the end is simply government saying that since people without insurance can impact the “property” of others (because we force free health care and pay for it with forced taxation), the government has a right to regulate their behavior.
My favorite example is the 21-year-old drinking age, mostly done so 18-year-olds don’t give 16-year-olds booze. An 18-year-old can fight for their country, can live on their own, can drive, can vote, can have a job, get married, have children. But BY LAW, they are not trusted with drinking a beer in their home. All because we find that 18-year-olds are marginally less mature than 21-year-olds, and therefore are slightly more likely to take actions that could harm other people or property.
I guess I am not framing my argument correctly...let’s try this way.....you have your own set of morals, and feel that these morals should be applied to everyone...ex president clinton had his set of morals, and felt they should be applied to everyone
Our constitution and bill of rights make no mention of the regulation of morality, because morality is formed in the mind of the individual. The constitution and bill of rights do give us certain inalienable rights, that are not to be infringed upon.
In Jefferson’s words that this government can only be kept by a moral people, I beleive he is implying that the government cannot legislate morality, so the people must be willing and able to take care of their own morals, and not to pass restrictive laws that infringe upon the rights guaranteed under the constitution and bill of rights.
If I make the choice to do something, as long as it does not infringe upon your civil rights, the main one being the right to be alive, then it is none of your business, nor is it the business of the government.
If you want to see the slippery road that legislating morality has, take a look at every totaltarian form of government this world has ever known.
It is wrong for people to suffer in any country. People will still suffer if given other people's money by a merciful, caring government (because it isn't). In human affairs, there is always a certain amount of wrong that's going on, else we'd be angels. Capitalism (economic freedom) offers more opportunity to commit charity than any other system -- because you are likely to have more money. This is grade school stuff; you can demonstrate the truth in five days to a class of second-graders.
When there's "wrong" inherent in the human condition, you can legislate until all freedom is extinguished, and there will still be wrong: you'll just see a redistribution of evil, with all the government enforcers doing all the crime and all the sheeple reduced to victims.
And when those sheeple no longer produce enough fleece, they'll be processed. Because it won't be a rich country anymore, it'll be a big old Donner party.
They say capitalism is the law of the jungle, but it's communism that breeds cannibalism.
Babaganoush?
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. We would be within our rights to restrict immigration to only Hondurans, only people with red hair, only women...whatever we damn well feel like, because it's OUR freakin property!
The arguments are ethically weak.
Number one would be, you own your own body. Thus you have the right to do anything you want with it, including having your uterus emptied.
Number two would be the "unwanted intruder" theory. An unwanted pregnancy is an invasion of your body, and you have a right to expel unwanted intruders like you would defend your home.
The pro-life libertarian position is that of course you are free to choose. But when you have sex voluntarily, you have made a choice. You have voluntarily participated in creating a separate life. It's not an intruder, it's an invited guest. Once that life is created it has a right to live.
25 years ago at least half of the party members held the pro-life position. I'll bet it's more now.
I like your explanation.
You don't want people "legislating" morality, and yet, as Adams said "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Laws are put in place to protect society (Normally. Today they are designed to destroy it). If everybody were equally moral and righteous, there would be no need for laws. But since we aren't laws are needed.
We can argue back and forth about one persons morality or another. But our founding fathers based ALL morality, not on what one person said or another, but on the word of God. That was the foundation of the moral code back then. They also had less laws and more freedom.
Today we view morality as relativistic, your morality is not my morality. We no longer have a moral foundation.
Because we no longer have a moral foundation, the form of government given to us by our forefathers WILL eventually fail.
The ONLY way to avoid that is to get back to a moral foundation. We either "legislate" morality...by laws...or as peoplewe turn back to the originator of morality.
Hmm. Conservatives ARE pro this and anti that, but liberals only TEND TO BE pro that and anti this.
If drugs were legal, even WITHOUT government control, there would be advertising, and dealers who killed their customers would go out of business, while dealers who gave their customers excellent product that kept those customers alive and productive (meaning they could still earn a living so they could still afford drugs), would prosper.
However, in our society, the drug users could end up losing their jobs, but then government would jump in and support them, so there would be no negative consequences, and the dealers would still get their money.
Government is the problem. We have made every individual “to big to fail”. We won’t let a single person perish for their stupid, wrong, or bad actions. But without the fear of failure, there is no self-restraint, no push to improve.
Why work hard to “do better”, when everybody who doesn’t gets free stuff from government, paid for with a majority of what YOU made with your hard work? Unfortunately, eventually too many of us will be letting someone else to the heaving lifting.
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?
Ten to hundreds times more people are injured and killed by individuals under the influence of drugs than by misguided police actions. The number of “innocent crack babies” alone would dwarf the “innocent victims’ of police error.
Would a libertarian be OK with letting someone in the front door and then shooting them?
At the same time, I believe that the intrinsic value of all human life, and the safety of our lawful and legal citizens, must be upheld and defended through secure borders. I further believe that in order to defend ourselves and our freedom-loving allies we must maintain a powerful military that possesses the ability to strike our enemies decisively- and preemptively- when necessary.
Someone who believes that the Constitution means what it says and should only be changed prudently.
An "Originalist" could be taken the wrong way because some would argue that means slavery or lack of women's sufferage, etc...
Correct politically. Incorrect morally.
I get what you're saying, but challenge you not to forget that portions of the taxes you pay on the federal, state, and local level go to those forces currently prosecuting the war on drugs, go towards housing, feeding, and taking care of those in prison due to the war on drugs, etc. In that same vein, downplaying the impact the war on drugs has had on society and on the federal government merely further cements the federal use of the Commerce Clause as the rationale behind every single power they unrightfully want to assume. In other words, just because you don't see the war on drug's impact on you in a tangible basis from day to day does not mean it does not affect you. It affects each of us, and on a fairly profound level. In fact, many of the things you listed that do concern you (non-smoking laws, seatbelt laws), arguably, were begat by the principles behind the federal war on drugs.
And so, how do you propose we rectify that situation WITHOUT infringing on the rights of 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.