Posted on 04/08/2010 7:21:50 AM PDT by Onelifetogive
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?"
For my FBN show tomorrow, I ask 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?
"The number of people who will suffer is likely to be very small. Private charity ... will provide support for the vast majority who would be poor in the absence of some kind of support. When government does it, it creates an air of entitlement that leads to more demand for redistribution, till everyone becomes a ward of the state."
Besides, says Wendy McElroy, the founder of ifeminists.com, "government aid doesn't enrich the poor. Government makes them dependent. And the biggest hindrance to the poor ... right now is the government. Government should get out of the way. It should allow people to open cottage industries without making them jump through hoops and licenses and taxing them to death. It should open up public lands and do a 20th-century equivalent of 40 acres and a mule. It should get out of the way of people and let them achieve and rise."
David Boaz, executive vice president of the Cato Institute, took the discussion to a deeper level.
"Instead of asking, 'What should we do about people who are poor in a rich country?' The first question is, 'Why is this a rich country?' ...
"Five hundred years ago, there weren't rich countries in the world. There are rich countries now because part of the world is following basically libertarian rules: private property, free markets, individualism."
Boaz makes an important distinction between equality and absolute living standards.
"The most important way that people get out of poverty is economic growth that free markets allow. The second-most important way -- maybe it's the first -- is family. There are lots of income transfers within families. Third would be self-help and mutual-aid organizations. This was very big before the rise of the welfare state."
This is an important but unappreciated point: Before the New Deal, people of modest means banded together to help themselves. These organizations were crowded out when government co-opted their insurance functions, which included inexpensive medical care.
Boaz indicts the welfare state for the untold harm it's done in the name of the poor.
"What we find is a system that traps people into dependency. ... You should be asking advocates of that system, 'Why don't you care about the poor?'"
I agree. It appears that when government sets out to solve a problem, not only does it violate our freedom, it also accomplishes the opposite of what it set out to do.
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.
John, I love your way of thinking, except you need to figure out your inconsistency here!
What about borders? Do libertarians really think open borders will lead to a better country or its destruction?
“Right to Life...” Oops, I guess Libertarians go blind at that part.
What about, say, the age of consent?
Things like that.
Actually, the best way to define politics in our nation is to define them relative to the constitution. Work from a constitutional initial point.
see my tagline - - let me know what you think.
I see the date but this sounds suspiciously like another article posted on FR not long ago.
Start here:
Whether you are Democrat, Republican, or otherwise, this pastor sums it up for me.
“NO ONE HAS GREATER LOVE THAN
THIS, TO LAY DOWN ONE’S LIFE FOR ONE’S FRIENDS.” JOHN 15:13 Amen.
It’s a good day when the clergy begin to resume their proper role in shepherding believers.
Dr.David Barton is more of a historian than a Biblical speaker, but very famous for his knowledge of historical facts as well as Biblical truths.
Dr. David Barton - on Obama
Respect the Office? Yes.
Respect the Man in the Office? No, I am sorry to say.
I have noted that many elected officials, both Democrats and Republicans, called upon America to unite behind Obama. Well, I want to make it clear to all who will listen that I AM NOT uniting behind Obama!
I will respect the Office which he holds, and I will acknowledge his abilities as an orator and wordsmith and pray for him, BUT that is it. I have begun today to see what I can do to make sure that he is a one-term President!
Why am I doing this?
It is because:
- I do not share Obama’s vision or value system for America ;
- I do not share his Abortion beliefs;
- I do not share his radical Marxist’s concept of re-distributing wealth;
- I do not share his stated views on raising taxes on those who make $150,000.
(the ceiling has been changed three times since August);
- I do not share his view that America is arrogant;
- I do not share his view that America is not a Christian nation;
- I do not share his view that the military should be reduced by 25%;
- I do not share his view of amnesty and giving more to illegals than our American
citizens who need help;
- I do not share his views on homosexuality and his definition of marriage;
- I do not share his views that Radical Islam is our friend and Israel is our enemy
who should give up any land;
- I do not share his spiritual beliefs (at least the ones he has made public);
- I do not share his beliefs on how to re-work the health care system in America ;
- I do not share his Strategic views of the Middle East ; and
- I certainly do not share his plan to sit down with terrorist regimes such as Iran .
Bottom line: my America is vastly different from Obama’s, and I have a higher obligation to my Country and my GOD to do what is right!
For eight (8) years, the Liberals in our Society, led by numerous entertainers who would have no platform and no real credibility but for their celebrity status, have attacked President Bush, his family, and his spiritual beliefs!
They have not moved toward the center in their beliefs and their philosophies, and they never came together nor compromised their personal beliefs for the betterment of our Country!
They have portrayed my America as a land where everything is tolerated except being intolerant!
They have been a vocal and irreverent minority for years!
They have mocked and attacked the very core values so important to the founding and growth of our Country!
They have made every effort to remove the name of GOD or Jesus Christ from our Society!
They have challenged capital punishment, the right to bear firearms, and the most basic principles of our criminal code!
They have attacked one of the most fundamental of all Freedoms, the right of free speech!
Unite behind Obama? Never!
I am sure many of you who read this think that I am going overboard, but I refuse to retreat one more inch in favor of those whom I believe are the embodiment of Evil!
PRESIDENT BUSH made many mistakes during his Presidency, and I am not sure how history will judge him. However, I believe that he weighed his decisions in light of the long established Judeo-Christian principles of our Founding Fathers!
Majority rules in America , and I will honor the concept; however, I will fight with all of my power to be a voice in opposition to Obama and his “goals for America .”
I am going to be a thorn in the side of those who, if left unchecked, will destroy our Country! Any more compromise is more defeat!
I pray that the results of this election will wake up many who have sat on the sidelines and allowed the Socialist-Marxist anti-GOD crowd to slowly change so much of what has been good in America !
“Error of Opinion may be tolerated where Reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson GOD bless you and GOD bless our Country!
(Please, please, please, pass this on if you agree.)
Thanks for your time, be safe. “In GOD We Trust”
“If we ever forget that we’re one nation under GOD, then we will be a nation gone under.” - Ronald Reagan
I WANT THE AMERICA I GREW UP IN BACK....
In GOD We Trust........
“What Am I?”
Start with “American”....whatever you work out from there, you can’t go wrong!
Militant
Fine.
But that will never win over the liberals, which is one thing that we must do. We have to make them think.
I used to think I was a libertarian.
Then I grew up, got married and had kids. Now I’m plain ol’ conservative.
I have learned that most “victimless crimes” are not victimless. The consequences of “victimless crimes” often snowball destroying lives and families, and leading to crime and violence.
For the most part, I’m for leaving people alone, but I have also learned that some people can’t be left alone for a second without them doing something exceedingly stupid. This wouldn’t be a problem except than the consequences of these stupid actions aren’t victimless either, and that getting redress for them is nearly impossible.
I’ll settle for being a God and Country conservative.
(1) the status quo, semi-porous borders with massive welfare state benefits and anchor baby citizenship, or
(2) open borders with neither of those
(1) is far and away the worst.
I figured this thread would attract Paulbots like 0bama attracts welfare recipients.
John is using a bit of a straw-man argument in his characterization of conservatives here.
1. - "pro-drug war" - is an over-simplification of the conservative position of being rule-of-law and recognizing one of the few legitimate roles of government is in enforcing the laws that have been passed by a representative republic, especially in the area of protecting citizens from criminal acts.
2. - "pro-immigration-restriction" - is either an oversimplification of or a misrepresentation of the position that one of the few legitimate roles of government is to protect our borders and manage immigration into this country. People who enter the country illegally, and then consume resources and services that must be paid for by the taxpayers are a drain on our economic system. Furthermore, the illegal immigration racket contributes to more violent crime and property destruction.
3. - "anti-abortion" - Even a libertarian who recognizes an unborn child as a human with the God-given right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness would oppose abortion on demand.
4. - "support nation building" - another one of the few legitimate roles of government under the Constitution is national defense. Where international intervention is strategically appropriate for our national security, conservatives recognize it as a legitimate activity of our government, even if some would characterize it as "nation-building".
If they don’t consider this, then they are pretty stupid. What they should do is answer this, even if to themselves.
The good news about Stossel is that he is an outside-the-box free thinker, which absolutely cannot be said for libs.
I’m convinced he’s also an atheist or agnostic who fails to appreciate the sanctity of life, so the abortion issue isn’t high on his priority list.
I like the fact that he’s sees things through the lense of open possibilities and seems to have no political filter, as it were. He is quite a bit off in his over simplification of conservatism.
The good news about Stossel is that he is an outside-the-box free thinker, which absolutely cannot be said for libs.
I’m convinced he’s also an atheist or agnostic who fails to appreciate the sanctity of life, so the abortion issue isn’t high on his priority list.
I like the fact that he’s sees things through the lense of open possibilities and seems to have no political filter, as it were. He is quite a bit off in his over simplification of conservatism.
RE, Right-to-life. Political reality is that abortion will never be eliminated, and we have to consider both the mother and the child. Some libertarian views only consider the mother, which falsely excludes the unborn child. But as with any pollitical group, there is a wide range of beliefs. The libertarian viewpoint is more reflective of the founding fathers. Limited government and a leave-me-alone attitude. Individual responsibility, individual reliance.
Do libertarians have arguments over who is a real libertarian? Are they waiting for a leader who is pure?
“”Instead of asking, ‘What should we do about people who are poor in a rich country?’ The first question is, ‘Why is this a rich country?’”
While there are countless good arguments that can be made for conservatism, most don’t work well with people who only think in stereotypes (liberals are generous, conservatives are mean, etc.) I have found that two work better than any other. The type of question used here just doesn’t work too well, IMO. Most people shrug it off, or have bumper-sticker level answers.
My first general approach is to point out that government is not designed to solve problems. It is designed to perpetuate them. If you want to solve poverty, the last thing you want to do is ask the govt. to do so. Not only will poverty get worse, but it becomes unsolvable by other means. (Which can lead to the nice follow up question — why do you want to perpetuate poverty?)
My second approach (which I personally like :) ) is to turn the tables on them. IE “so you are for Obama’s health care plan? Why are you so selfish? You are asking millions to suffer needlessly, just so you feel better about yourself?” Done subtly, this can be very devastating to those fashionable left-leading people who never really analyze the issue. Surprisingly, I have turned quite a few people this way.
I am a FISCAL libertarian.Period.
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.