Replies

. . . that of those who reject the use of state power to enforce traditional morality, but are nevertheless critical of those who flaunt it.

I'm shocked I tell ya! Shocked! This describes me almost to the letter! Yet somehow, speaking highly of traditionalist values (authoritatively, even) raises the ire of some of the most vocal libertarians here at FR. It is as if they believe my disapproval, say, of the homosexual lifestyle is somehow an endorsement of the state outlawing these activities.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

If a man desires to have sex with another consenting adult man, they have the right to engage in their desire. However, I will voice my belief in the immorality of that desire and practice.

The same goes for drug use. I've witnessed the absolute destruction that hard drug use brings within both a family and a community as a whole. But this is another subject.

From reading this column about what libertarianism "isn't," the most glaring theme within the libertarian sector appears to be a failure to properly pin down just what libertarianism truly means. It apparently means different things to different people. And if this is the case, the lack of a truly unifying theme hurts the libertarian movement severely.

As a libertarian- a enjoy taking criticism from modern liberals and conservatives. One of the popular ad hominem attacks they will make is that the philosophy is "simplistic". This is especially the case when legislators are proposing public policy.

As I will discuss in my upcoming health care commentary- libertarianism is a philosophical foundation. For example, when both sides of Congress have differing education bills- the libertarian will say "Government should not be involved in education". Simplistic, yes, when compared to the hundreds of pages in each competing proposal.

It is important to point out the invalid comparison. Because the legislation is simply a product of a Marx, collective, and utilitarian philosophy- which is itself "simplistic". THe proper comparison on would be the neverending pages of education law from the Dem-Reps and the regulations, standards, and operating procedures from a body of private schools.

"From reading this column about what libertarianism "isn't," the most glaring theme within the libertarian sector appears to be a failure to properly pin down just what libertarianism truly means. It apparently means different things to different people. And if this is the case, the lack of a truly unifying theme hurts the libertarian movement severely."

This problem came about in the late 1960's and the 1970's when a large number of people came to march under the libertarian banner who had no ties to the tradtional western heritage from which libertarianism arose. The result was to cause the movement to drift philosophically. There is also the celebrity factor that the author mentions. Libertarianism has its origins in Classical Liberalism, which was originally rooted in the Natural Law philosophical tradition. At it core was the recognition of natural rights that stem from the reality of human Free Will.