Posted on 02/27/2022 4:16:50 AM PST by Kaslin
The reason I'm not a libertarian is because I'd like to be free. The libertarian says he does, too, but is living proof that wanting something and getting it are two completely different matters — and his theory stands directly in the way of his practice.
His first problem is his dislike of government, which he shares many times with other "conservatives." This means he's the least likely to actually go into it (and who wants to hire a man who doesn't believe in his job?), and since he forfeits the position, all kinds of important bureaucratic and so-called "oppressive" jobs get filled by his enemies. A quick look at the policies of the FBI, the CIA, the FDA, the CDC, and OSHA proves it. He says he'd like to downsize or even get rid of them, but he can't, so instead many times he does nothing — not a fight, but a forfeiture.
Second is his tendency, also general among the right wing, to say public schooling and other cultural and state organs can be "neutral": that you can cater to everybody and nobody at the same time, somehow, and still churn out solid people, and that we don't have to clean house of obvious heretics — a job nobody securely on top ever forfeits, and which most people who love truth usually enjoy. The leftists don't believe that any power can be entirely neutral, and that's why they own the institutions and will continue to own them even when we win elections.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I’m not a libertarian because they are pro-choice on EVERYTHING.
This dude can’t abide with that.
I was granted by my creator the right to stand up on my hind legs and bark at the moon if I so choose.
The only thing God proscribes is harming another of the creatures created in His own image.
Yeah, most people cannot abide that freedom.
“The leftists don’t believe that any power can be entirely neutral, and that’s why they own the institutions and will continue to own them even when we win elections.”
—
True. If you’re against moral guidance you leave a vacuum the left is more than happy to fill - with their own version of morality (such as it is).
A Liberaltarian would vote for any radical that promises them a big sack of dope to smoke with their queer boyfriend.
Most people are blends of ideologies. To say all Libertarians are the same is childish. Many here on FR are a blend of conservative and liberty minded individuals. There’s a reason many threads turn into arguments.
If all Libertarians are the same, then so are all Conservatives and Republicans.
Some people are intelligent enough to harness their own beliefs and stand up for them.
Truly a stupid and childish post.
“I was granted by my creator the right to stand up on my hind legs and bark at the moon if I so choose.”
That is exactly right. And the Bill of rights before it was infringed was meant to protect this very concept. As long as you cause no harm, you should have every right to do as you like.
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
I am not libertarian because they lack moral base.
Abortion is fine, homosexuality is fine, I have my rights, the hell with yours…..
I’m with them on the limited government thing, but they usually come across as self-centered, spoiled, petulant two year olds who throw a temper tantrum when they can’t do what they want, when they want, how they want, or they have to take others needs and rights into consideration.
Liberaltarians are childish and stupid. We agree on that.
A couple of them in this thread too (to be expected ;^))
The depth of your wit knows no bounds.
“If all Libertarians are the same, then so are all Conservatives and Republicans.”
Well stated.
And that right there is the problem. Stereotyping and “one size fit’s all” collectivism overriding the value and respect for Individualism has become a serious problem. It is a very unconstitutional perspective.
But in turn the current Libertarian base has also moved from Constitutional Individualism to leftist, collective Anarchism. There is a civil war going on right now within the Libertarian community.
In concept libertarianism sounds on. In practice they go insane with drugs and abortion.
“all kinds of important bureaucratic and so-called “oppressive” jobs get filled by his enemies.”
That is true, because we have not “killed” the government.
The author presumes that government is an fact of life and cannot be destroyed.I’m not a true libertarian as I believe in a strong national defense and I work within the system, however I’d “kill” most of it if I could. By killing I mean de-fund it. eg EPA DOE(education) FBI, DOI, IRS, HUD, BLM, et al would be gone.
There are some necessary functions of the government spelled out in the constitution. I’m fine with those but Democrats have expanded the Federal government into an un-manageble monster coupled with employees unions to be a monster that needs to be put to death, peacefully. Fentanyl will work.
So, just how much government do you want? I love garlic but I don’t want to make a meal of it. Minarchism is the libertarian flavored position that allows for essential services but doesn’t really want the government funded studies of the sex life of sea slugs.
Libertarians get a bad rap because critics take the idea to an extreme. Look at it this way, in the extreme, under socialism opening a lemonade stand would be a felony and under communism, in the extreme, your left arm is community property.
One learns little examining an extreme variant of any idea.
My favorite questions to a true libertarian:
- You’re in favor of unlimited immigration, right?
- You don’t believe in any restrictions on the number and types of weapons, right?
- What would you say to the 2nd Chinese Armored Division if it showed up at the border?
I was active in the LP long ago. They worked very hard at fielding candidates for every office. Often, they were just "paper candidates." Longtime LP activists, who had no political experience, other than running for office many times over the years.
LP officials took great pride in filling up the ballot with candidates for every office. They bragged about it, as if it were a sign of strength and growth, despite never garnering votes outside the 1-3% range.
THINGS I WISH I HAD SAID
True Liberty is not license. Those who think as you, sir, pervert liberty, and destroy the fundamental principles that allow a culture to thrive economically. This is the error of libertarian philosophy.
What libertarianism proposes is moral relativism under the pretense of “non-interference.” However, in the final measure, the result is that guaranteed outcome of any morally ambiguous system, which denies human nature and the transcendent truths that govern all cause and effect relationships. In practice the imagined utopia of the libertarian is identical in its altruistic deception to that of atheistic communism; and the outcome is predictable: the destruction of the individual and the corporate body of humanity we call society.
Libertarians think they may advance the cause of “social liberalism” simultaneously with “fiscal conservatism;” but this duality of purpose is folly, and works diametrically and insidiously against itself. The social plagues induced by such novel philosophies invariably drain the public treasury, render the distinctions of absolute right and wrong to ambiguity, destroy public confidence in justice, and dissolve private wealth.
Human society does not and cannot exist in a moral vacuum. A society that having no absolute standards of conduct defers all decisions to the individual, exercising little or no restraint on behavior, abdicates the single most legitimate purpose of the state: to increase the common good and uphold the moral order. To quote Edmond Burke:
“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, — in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, — in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
-— Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791)
A corrupt society, filled with men of licentious inclinations, cannot maintain its economic stability; or do you suppose the folly of the Roman Republic is worth revisiting in our times? “Give us bread and circuses!”
Economics does not transcend moral absolutes. Economics does not trump the Natural Law. History proves conclusively that no immoral or amoral culture can long prosper, nor survive its growing litany of perversions against the Natural Law; for such a corrupt body becomes its own undoing. Unfettered liberty generates unfettered vice.
Vice is not virtue; even if for a time libertarianism may advance a nation’s economic standing, it remains a foundation of sand because it denies the absolute transcendent truth indelibly stamped on the consciousness of every man by He who created all things. God is not mocked.
“Under this philosophic instructor in the ethics of vanity, they have attempted in France a regeneration of the moral constitution of man. Statesmen, like your present rulers, exist by everything which is spurious, fictitious, and false; by everything which takes the man from his house, and sets him on a stage — which makes him up an artificial creature, with painted, theatric sentiments, fit to be seen by the glare of candlelight, and formed to be contemplated at a due distance.
Your practical philosophers, systematic in everything, have wisely begun at the source. As the relation between parents and children is the first amongst the elements of vulgar, natural morality... Your masters reject the duties of his vulgar relation, as contrary to liberty; as not founded in the social compact; and not binding according to the rights of men; because the relation is not, of course, the result of free election; never so on the side of the children, not always on the part of the parents.
The next relation which they regenerate by their statues to Rousseau is that which is next in sanctity to that of a father. They differ from those old-fashioned thinkers, who considered pedagogues as sober and venerable characters, and allied to the parental...Thus they dispose of all the family relations of parents and children, husbands and wives. Through this same instructor, by whom they corrupt the morals, they corrupt the taste. Taste and elegance, though they are reckoned only among the smaller and secondary morals, yet are of no mean importance in the regulation of life. A moral taste is not of force to turn vice into virtue; but it recommends virtue with something like the blandishments of pleasure; and it infinitely abates the evils of vice.”
A Letter From Mr. Burke
To A Member Of The National Assembly In Answer To Some Objections To His Book On French Affairs
1791
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/burkee/tonatass/index.htm
This is common ground for both marx and libertarians
Marx hated the nuclear family as an artificial construct of, God, patriarchy and bourgeois economics. Libertarians view the nuclear family as an artificial construct of God and in their moral relativity, discriminatory against any other definition of a family, 3 men, 1 man 10 wives, 1 man prepubescent girls, etc.
If it feels good, do it.
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.