Posted on 12/17/2001 12:32:10 PM PST by NC_Libertarian
DU discusses libertarianism. I thought some of you might find this interesting:
Bump for major clarity.
To: Kevin Curry
Where conservatives and libertarians agree:
2nd Amendment, Repeal of the income tax, abortion (mostly), smaller government.
Where liberals and libertarians agree:
Pornography, homosexuality, drugs.
Now I ask you, which of these sets of issues are more important?
My biggest problem with libertarians is that they can't 'back-burner'
the piddling self-indulgence issues and help us defeat the left on the BIG issues.
# 171 by Antoninus
************************
The only thing liberals and libertarians agree on is that homosexuality
shouldn't be legislated against, and even that's not really an agreement,
because the liberals want to give homosexuals special privilages.
Liberals are not against government interference with pornography or drugs.
They love legislating morality,
and they want to increase the size of government,
and laws against pornography and drugs further that agenda.
Of the topics you mention,
I believe that the "War on Drugs"
is the greatest threat to our freedom.
The problem with the whole WOD crowd is their misplaced priorities. Marijuana would be practically legal in California if it weren't for the intervention of the federal government in state affairs. If you could wrest control of state affairs from Washington, the whole pyramid of the WOD would collapse. Because you focus on the sympton rather than the problem, it never gets fixed.
The WOD will NOT go away as long as the feds have control over the rights of the states. Make that go away first. Otherwise, you are pissing in the wind.
Probably one of your best points.
(But aren't you afraid of being painted as a 'doper'?)
Not fair Hank. The 10th amendment is in fact one of the things we talk about the most.
The abortion issue rests on the 10th and Federal meddling.
And you're right about the War on drugs and the States, however, where is the constitutional authority for the feds to prosecute any crimes other than piracy, treason and counterfeitting?
Can you name ANY philosophy that isn't 'prone to dangerous paths' when taken to logical extremes? The conservative philosophy taken to the logical extremes gives us the Taliban and other theocratic oppressors. The liberal philosophy taken to the logical ends gives us Socialist dictatorships. The GOP philosohpy taken to the logical extremes would lead to a corporate oligopoly. The Democrat philosophy taken to extremes [can't bring myself to actually think they use any logic! =^)] would bring us Big Brother.
At least with the extremes within Libertarian philosophy, it is the individual (and their weaknesses) who become their own oppressors, and not some outside authority. It all comes down to who you would rather have telling you how to live your life... your own passions or some extra 'authority' (keeping in mind that old adage, 'power corrupts').
I agree with you, but I don't think it can't be a 2-front war. The W.o.D. might be a symptom of excessive centralized power, but by fighting it (W.o.D.), we bring the state/federal issue to the forefront. Most people can't conceptualize the complex state/federal issue without a concrete example. The W.o.D. is the best one.
In the socialist camp, I'd wager.Libertarianism is the core foundation of conservative beliefs. From that core, typical non-libertarian conservatives differ from libertarian conservatives in that they grant the state additional power to meddle in the private affairs of citizens.
[1] The classic example for me was a GOP candidate's debate in New Hampshire, in late 1995. Pat Buchanan was asked about a school district that had started gay studies program as part of their curriculum. Buchanan's response was that if he was a parent in that district, he'd be horrified. However, if that is what the parents, teachers, and administrators of that school district want, the federal government has no business interfering.
In any case, I'm not who you thought I might me. I'm based in Florida. And my realworld initials match that of my FReepname.
Sounds like some sort of riddle-game....8>)
All challenges to the spirit of man are usurped by government intervention and milked by politics.
How true. I see this going on in my own simple life. The Liberal Left side of me, still an adventurer, sometimes takes undue risks, which usually horrifies the Conservative Right side of me. While the Conservative Right stagnation that occurs with age, has an equal effect on the Liberal Left side of me. It would be nice if all this conflict could exist solely with in me. The shame is, that when I look out at the world, I see it all happening on a grander scale. The Conservative demand for order energizing the Liberal drive toward chaos, which leads to the Right's increased resistance, and subsequent Left's challenge. The harm done to the people seems of no concern to either. The only sure thing for the immediate forseeable future is, as you so eloquently described, that.....
All challenges to the spirit of man are usurped by government intervention and milked by politics.
As far as Dubya goes, I don't think he's conservative enough or articulate enough to persuade liberals over to the conservative side. In my opinion, the net result of his presidency is going to be a further shift leftward in the conventional definition of conservatism.
But isn't it ironic that Leftist governments end up compulsively avoiding risk by regulating, micro-managing, squelching innovation, and tring to control what goes on in peoples' minds? How un-Brad-Pitt is that?
Actually, both the Left and the Right are cool and appealing as long as they're not trying to abuse the power of government. Both can be progressive and energetic. Both can also cause stagnation and misery when they get mixed up with a big government apparatus. That's why I like libertarianism so much -- it lets the best features of both ideologies shine through but keeps the junk in check.
This perfectly illustrates why people support Condit, Clinton, etc. when Condit and Clinton (two good high-profile examples) go out and do things that feminists (another good example) would normally rail against and protest against, they get away with it. It's because they don't know any better, they've been programmed that the democrats in power can get away with this kind of stuff - they aren't used to politicians being held accountable for their actions.
The group in the middle, I'd say they were the "Reagan Democrats" that everybody was so fond of in the 80s. If given a good reason, they will vote conservative.
I would have agreed with that before Oct 26, 2001, that was the day Bush signed the Patriot Act.
To: exodus
"I believe that the "War on Drugs"
is the greatest threat to our freedom"
I would have agreed with that before Oct 26, 2001,
that was the day Bush signed the Patriot Act.
# 198 by Native American Female Vet
************************
Bush has declared that the War on Drugs IS the War on Terrorism.
Apparently the terms are interchangable.
To bad so many are to blind to see.
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.