Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
Posted on 05/26/2010 11:32:22 AM PDT by Hanen2010
Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media and America's Survival has a post at News With Views about Rand Paul's now infamous gaffes on the Rachel Maddow Show. In it he warns that some of Rand's libertarian views could put him at odds with conservatives on a variety of issues and open him to criticism from all sides.
According to Kincaid, "The libertarian movement was the product of seminars held by the far-left Institute for Policy Studies back in the 1960s and 70s." And while libertarians are good on fiscal matters, because they believe in limited government, their isolationist positions on national defense, if adopted, would provide opportunities for our enemies to flourish and grow in the vacuum created by our absence.
Furthermore their particular views of limited government lead them to support legalization of marijuana, gay marriage and other positions that are anathema to conservatives. In the case with Maddow, Paul was painted into a corner by his own libertarian philosophy, which implies that government should not be able to regulate how private parties decide to conduct business at all, even if it means allowing them to engage in discrimination.........
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Siminars in the ‘70s?
Seriously?
Because individuals can’t reach conclusions on thie own, they need a “think tank” do their thinking for them... so says one such “think tank.”
“infamous gaffes”...stopped reading right there. There were no gaffes. Private citizens should have the freedom of assembly and association regardless of their creed or color.
If Rand Paul has the same non-interventionist view as his father, he sure will conflict with the GOP’s get involved everywhere view.
“the far-left Institute for Policy Studies”
Not just “far left.” It’s a Communist front.
All these articles have one failure in common. Paul doesn’t have to give a crap about what NYC or Hollywood think. He is way ahead with Kentuckians, and they are the only people who can vote for him.
Wow, this would make the 3rd anti-Rand Paul hit piece article that Cliff Kincaid has churned out this week:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff419.htm
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/rand-paul-and-the-kooky-fox-news-judge/
http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff418.htm
I’d say someone has a case of RPDS, which is a newly diagnosed, big-government RINO loving disorder that seems to have mutated in the last week :)
Dear Mr. Cliff Kincaid.
You fail history.
Forever.
Sincerely.
Notary Sojac
For those that are interested in the history of libertarianism’ and ‘classical liberalism’:
Source: Wiki
Classical liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the 19th century in England, Western Europe, and the Americas. It is committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets. Notable individuals who have contributed to classical liberalism include Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the 20th century led by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, and other economists.
The phrase classical liberalism is also sometimes used to refer to all forms of liberalism before the 20th century. And, after 1970, the phrase began to be used by libertarians to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government. It is sometimes difficult to tell which meaning is intended in a given source...
Central to classical liberalism was a view of human nature as selfish, calculating, idle and atomistic. Being selfish, people were motivated solely by pain and pleasure. Being calculating, they made decisions intended to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. If there were no opportunity to increase pleasure or reduce pain, they would become idle. Therefore the only motivation for labor was either the possibility of great reward or fear of hunger. This belief led them to pass the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834 which limited the provision of social assistance. On the other hand they thought that men of higher ranks were motivated by ambition. Seeing society as atomistic, it was no more than the sum of its individual members. These views departed from earlier views of society as a family and therefore greater than the sum of its members.
Classical liberals agreed with Thomas Hobbes that government had been created by individuals in order to protect themselves from one another. They thought that individuals should be free to pursue their self-interest without control or restraint by society. Individuals should be free to obtain work from the highest-paying employers, while the profit motive would ensure that products that people desired were produced at prices they would pay. In a free market, both labor and capital would receive the greatest possible reward, while production would be organized efficiently to meet consumer demand.
Adopting Thomas Malthus’s population theory, they saw poor urban conditions as inevitable as they believed population growth would outstrip food production, and even desirable as it would help limit population growth. They opposed any income or wealth redistribution which they believed would be dissipated by the lowest orders.
Government, as explained by Adam Smith had only three functions: protection against foreign invaders, protection of citizens from wrongs committed against them by other citizens, and building and maintaining public institutions and public works that the private sector could not profitably provide. Classical liberals extended protection of the country to protection of overseas markets through armed intervention. Protection of individuals against wrongs normally meant protection of private property and enforcement of contracts, and the suppression of trade unions and the Chartist movement. Public works included a stable currency, standard weights and measures and support of roads, canals, harbors, railways, and postal and other communications services...
Raimondo Cubeddu of the Department of Political Science of the University of Pisa says “It is often difficult to distinguish between ‘libertarianism’ and ‘classical liberalism’. Those two labels are used almost interchangeably by those we may call libertarians of a ‘minarchist’ persuasion—scholars who, following Locke and Nozick, believe a state is needed in order to achieve effective protection of property rights”. Libertarians see themselves as sharing many philosophical, political, and economic undertones with classical liberalism, such as the ideas of laissez-faire government, free markets, and individual freedom. Nevertheless, Samuel Freeman, a staunch advocate of ‘welfare liberalism’ (that he argues should be called ‘High liberalism’) rejects this as a mere “superficial” resemblance:
Libertarianism’s resemblance to liberalism is superficial; in the end, libertarians reject essential liberal institutions. Correctly understood, libertarianism resembles a view that liberalism historically defined itself against, the doctrine of private political power that underlies feudalism. Like feudalism, libertarianism conceives of justified political power as based in a network of private contracts. It rejects the idea, essential to liberalism, that political power is a public power to be impartially exercised for the common good.
Those who emphasize the distinction between classical liberalism and libertarianism point out that some of the key thinkers of classical liberalism were far from libertarian:
Adam Smith should be seen as a moderate free enterpriser who appreciated markets but made many, many exceptions. He allowed government all over the place.
For example, Adam Smith supports public roads, canals and bridges, though he favored the use of a toll to pay for these public works, so that they would be paid for proportionally to their consumption.
Adam Smith also supported government regulation of the economy in particular when it benefits the poor or working-class, and was opposed to income inequality which he believed stemmed from concentrations of private property ownership.
Many notable classical liberals, such as the ideas of John Stuart Mill and John Dewey, evolved into democratic socialism, a political philosophy which most modern libertarians are opposed to for its anti-property stance.
In the mid-1800s, Abraham Lincoln followed the Whig version of economic liberalism which included state provision and regulation of railroads. The Pacific Railway Acts of 1862 provided the development of the First Transcontinental Railroad. Thomas Jefferson, a classical liberal, was opposed to wage-labor.
Alan Haworth argues that libertarianism and liberalism are fundamentally incompatible because the checks and balances provided by liberal institutions conflict with the support for complete economic deregulation offered by most libertarians...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_libertarianism#Liberalism_and_libertarianism
One thing I always found interesting was how similar the libertarian motto is to the wiccan motto so loved by leftists:
Libertarian motto - “Live and Let Live”
Wiccan motto - “An Ye Harm None, Do As Ye Will”
Of course the first mention of this attitude of do whatever you want as long as no one can prove harm to another was not so harmless. Aliester Crowley had coined the phrase:
“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law”
Of course this type of argument is used similarly by both libertarians and liberals for gay marriage, drug legalization, etc….
So it would not surprise me at all if the foundation of libertarianism as a political movement was invented by a left-wing think thank.
The GOP has no “get involved everywhere view”. It has an “honor our treaties with allies view”.
Oh, I see....
So Libertarians are EEEEEEEEEVIL Devil Worshipers!
Thank you for posting that. I have a link to the same on my FR homepage.
Your reading comprehension skills lack badly. I was only pointing out a similar attitude between leftists and libertarians. How that attitude is reflected into a common sense platform for a political party is where the two part. Take ‘gay marriage’ for instance… a liberal believes that the government should force people to associate with and agree with the liberal moral position on the issue by penalty of law whereas a libertarian believes that government should stay out of it completely and that people can believe and associate with whomever they please.
Though I do not agree with libertarians on all issues I have respect for them. I have no respect for the leftist (liberal or progressive).
Let me ask you, did Crowley propose “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law” as God’s law, Man’s law, or merely the law of Thelema?
And is it Man’s place to enforce God’s law, or is that the province of God’s judgement alone?
But Leftists do not believe in individual liberty.
They believe in Collectivism, and the Collectivist Will.
And they believe in using Government as a blunt tool to impose that will.
Crowley merely popularized the expression among the wiccan movement which it then went on to morph into the wiccan motto and possibly the libertariuan motto as well.
As I explain above, I do not view libertarians and leftists as being the same at all. I view libertarians as being extremely right-wing and of course leftists as being well… left.
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.