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.
I doubt the Founding Fathers would have approved of abortion for convenience.
I like the tagline. If the Constitution were followed, we’d have very different political parties for sure.
The problem I have with libertarians is that they are often illogical and inconsistent in their application of their stated core principles of keeping the government out of the way and maximizing the liberty of the individual also they entirely disregard ideas of natural rights versus trumped up government designed rights that have a primary purpose of restricting the rights of others to associate and exercise free speech as their conscience dictates.
An libertarian if true to their principles would be steadfastly pro-life especially when concerning a normal health pregnancy. This would be based on a simple idea that an unborn child should no more be deprived of liberty than a born child regardless of the will of the parents. A libertarian would hardly support the idea that parents or communities should be able to kill or sacrifice babies who have not achieved independent person-hood simple because it does not directly impact the liberties of others. A libertarian I would think would be clear on this and would see the danger of allowing any ambiguity on such a critical issue of liberty as it relates to individuals.
Also libertarians even if they do not agree with all points on the above issue should at a minimum object to the idea of a government using tax payers money to encourage or provide abortions in any case. They should also stand solidly against the government disregarding the natural rights of parents in concern for the well being of minor children for whom they are responsible for. They should object to the government intrusion into issues of privacy, sexuality, religion, and health in relation to these minors without parental consent and without any evidence of explicit danger to the child.
Libertarians also should be entirely opposed to efforts of the government intrusion in the freedom to associate and on clear grounds oppose thought crime laws and on purist grounds oppose efforts to force the acceptance of such ideas as gay marriage and the creation of laws to silence and intimidate those who disagree.
Misinformation about libertarians is rampant. Open borders? Well, the GOP hasn’t done much about that problem, mainly because they like cheap labor. I think eventually Mexico must be made part of the US. Right to life? That’s a moral issue, and as a libertarian I believe abortion is murder of the innocent. There isn’t going to be a government solution to that one either. Age of consent? When you have the government selectively enforcing arbitrary standards based strictly on age, the results haven’t been very good either. Personal responsibility is the answer to all of these problems. If you need the government to enforce morals like not invading other people’s countries, not murdering innocent unborn babies, not talking advantage of immature girls, then you’re admitting you’ve lost the battle. Libertarians don’t support any of those behaviors, they believe that the government won’t solve every human problem, in fact, they almost always make the problem worse.
Please, leave the name-calling to the liberals. What specifically about Ron Paul’s ideas don’t you like?
How does it follow that an agnostic fails to appreciate the sanctity of life? My take on libertarianism is that it prizes life more highly than any other political ideology, inasmuch as it puts individual liberty at the top. Also, specifically how is he "off" on his opinion of conservatism?
I searched the title...
Stossel is lately making a big point of his libertarianism.
I searched the title. I think the search routine has trouble with the title have a very common word and two other words shorter than 3 letters.
I searched again, by title, and it finds neither one! Maybe I'm doing it wrong...
I struggle with this. I don't want to tell people what to do with their lives, but I also don't want to be in their "collateral damage zone."
I think post 12 covers that pretty well.
I sometimes wonder whether the FR search function could find a moth with a searchlight.
That’s the problem.
You can’t get out of the collateral damage zone. Even if you dodge the bullet, there are friends and family to consider. Tolerate a druggie, and he can turn your neighborhood into a toxic waste dump brewing meth. Tolerate prostitutes, and they can spread disease. Tolerate scumbags in your neighborhoods and property values can go to hell.
I love L. Neil Smith’s books. My idea of paradise is his “North American Confederation.” But I know it won’t work. People don’t just “mind their own business” and their behaviors don’t affect just themselves. Anarchy doesn’t work. It ends up like Somalia.
doesn' recognize marriage as one man + one woman (voted against it; and voted against homo marriage ban)
opposes death penalty at state and fed level
supports alternatives to prison
Doesn't support US mission in SKorea
Anti-Israel
Thinks gun manufacturers can be sued because someone else misused a gun
voted against a law banning the transport of minors accross state lines for abortions
And he thinks we brought terrorism on ourselves.....
....and he's a truther
So, in otherwords, America shouldn't stand up for itself, and can't attack a country plotting and preparing to attack us. That's like standing there going "come on come one, hit me." And waiting for the other guy to land a knock out punch; just so you can say he hit me first.
He also thinks we shouldn't maintain the peace where our men have died to preserve (and can project US strength from), wouldn't mind if the communists wiped out SKorea at the hands of China and Russia. Believes I should have to wait for gun, yet if someone kills me during my waiting period, they shouldn't be executed and may possibly get "alternative punishment." But, don't worry my parents/wife can still sue Colt because my killer misused an evil gun.
All the while allowing the state MORE authority to engage in marriage (a religious insitution the state has no business in) that the fag lobby can use to pressure churches into "marrying" fags.
Essentially Ron Paul is a pascifist, commie tolerating liberal, that believes we can rehabilitate even the most vile criminals..... just don't tell him what to do.... ie a spoiled brat from the 60s that never grew up
No thanks.
I think there are a lot of us who appreciate the sanctity of life, but recognize that there is not much we can do about it at the national political level.
As many babies have been killed, year upon year, under Christian, pro-life Presidents as there have been under the opposition.
The culture is changing from a pro-abortion to a pro-life viewpoint. It will reach critical mass when enough hearts have been changed.
"libertarians" do not.
But "Libertarians" do.
Boy, do they ever.
It makes the arguments on FR about who is a RINO look like a cordial Sunday afternoon game of croquet.
One of the reasons I left the Libertarian Party after a brief membership in the early '90s.
Cool! Cafeteria-style libertarianism.
Personally I prefer my libertarianism wrapped in bacon with a pat of real butter melting on top.
bfl
you sure can talk buddy.
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.