Posted on 12/22/2001 8:31:03 PM PST by jackbob
Very precise and astute....I'd throw "Uncle Tom's Cabin" in that mix as well>
Merry Christmas to you and yours btw!!!!
The biggest problem with that attitude, which many of us completely deride and discard until we become parents (or contemplate doing so) is that none of us was raised in the wilds by wolves. Many, many people-- parents, other family members, youth group leaders, dedicated teachers, and friends make enormous investments of time, energy and love in all of us
Although libertarianism fosters self-reliance I don't believe that this is what it is based upon. In fact, in raising issue, for example, with how the public schools and the state at large is becoming the new nanny (the "It Takes a Village" mentality), it claims that these functions should be handled by the families. In other words, it stands for individual sovereignty but this is not to say that it is against the family collective; in fact, it is pro-family in the sense that it takes the parenting away from government.
....those who survived lived for something larger than themselves-- whether for God, or for a family member, or for a passion for music, or science or some other intellectual endeavor. The self simply wasn't enough to sustain them-- they had to believe that there was something larger and more valuable than themselves that they needed to serve
Well said, but I don't see how this reliance on others is anti-libertarian. Again, I think you're mistakenly representing it as a philosophy of "me, me, me" when it's really about free choice. As a Christian and a libertarian I see no incompatibilies between the two, since God gave us free choice. It's when the reliance on others is fostered through state control that libertarians object.
A common response to my point of view expressed here is "What of those who can't raise their own children?" Yes, there's always a what if. What to do about those who can't afford privatized education - they're going to rely on charity?
I think what they mean, and pardon my being blunt, is that "white trash" parents, for example, don't love their children enough to raise them properly. I quote Vin Suprynovich here, "That these children should be entrusted to the care and upbringing of these parents who have borne them was decided before you came into the picture. If in your insufferable smugness you believe you have a superior wisdom that allows you to decide from which mothers' breasts the babes in arms may be riped away.....you'd better look up what happens to those who think their plans are better than the Creator's" (referring to Hitler and the like).
I think what Vin is saying here was summed up by jackbob in another post - there is no utopia, and libertarianism should not be interpreted as proposing a "freedom utopia", although many mistakenly do so. Instead, it's a realization that free choice usually results in the greatest good for the greatest number of people, yet there will always be those that abuse freedom, and those that seem to get screwed by something we could change. But there are really only two options - state control in the name of making things better, whereby conditions are worsened for the greatest number of people, or self-government, which, far from perfect, results in the best possible outcome.
For what it's worth, many intelligent people under 30 think that they discovered libertarianism all by themselves and no one has ever understood it before. By the time one reaches middle age, its limitations have become apparent.
What about those Founding Fathers geezers? They were basically libertarians.
Also, I think you're mostly correct in saying that it's good that opposing ideologies keep the political pendulum swinging within a relatively narrow range. The problem is that the point at which the pendulum is anchored is inching away from our founding principles, and towards bigger, more intrusive government. Libertarians are about the only people around that seem serious about reversing that trend.
As for any incompatibility between libertarianism and a belief in God-- I'll leave that question to the libertarians. How many of you consider yourselves to be religious? How many of you believe in God? While the two are not necessarily at odds, as you note, I will place a bet that a libertarian belief system is usually embraced by non-believers.
"But there are really only two options - state control in the name of making things better, whereby conditions are worsened for the greatest number of people, or self-government, which, far from perfect, results in the best possible outcome."
That, I think, is the true flaw of libertarianism-- it is a philosophy of absolutes. I'll give you an example of state control: my child cannot drive until she is 15 and has had driver's ed and acquired a permit, at which time she can drive with a licensed driver over 21 in the car. At 16 she gets a license, but in Texas now, cannot drive with other young people in the car other than siblings for a period of six months to a year. There are also local curfews that prevent them being out in the wee hours of the morning. At 18, all restrictions are lifted and they can drive like any other adult, during all hours. These laws wouldn't be necessary if every parent carefully monitered their children, but of course, they don't. As it is, these laws protect not only the kids they pertain to, but the rest of us as well. Nothing could be further from an absolute than this interlocking network of laws, but it strikes a balance between freedom and safety and protection of others.
A conservative philosophy does exactly that-- strike a balance between individual liberty and societal (or "state", if you prefer) control. That's why conservatism isn't as wonderfully internally logically consistent as either libertarianism or socialism-- it weighs and balances competing goods and evils and attempts to maximize good overall. The other day I was in downtown Houston, and watched a poor, crazy homeless woman wander around talking to herself, plucking at her clothes. She was very thin and very dirty. Fortunately, it was a warm, pretty day, but that woman will still be there on dark, cold nights. I know it was the liberal philosophy that put her there, but I also believe that libertarians would keep her there, if she expressed the wish to stay. Conservatives, on the other hand, would gather her up, get her seen by a doctor and prescribed medication, clean her up, feed her, and give her a warm place to sleep. Yes, we would try to get her out as much as possible, but to us, her life and health are more important than her freedom. But, the liberals and libertarians would not only say that we were wrong to take care of her against her will, but that somehow we would do so for our own selfish purposes, for our own comfort or convenience. Uncomfortable with the outcome of their own philosophy, libertarians and liberals often feel the need to impugn the motives of others.
As I said before, many intelligent young people are attracted to libertarianism, and I don't necessarily think there is anything wrong with that. As a prescription for running a society, though, I think a true adherence to libertarian principles (just like a true adherence to liberal, or to socialist principles) would be extremely destructive. Libertarianism is consistent with the optimism and sense of invulnerability of the young, while I think conservatism is more consistent with the wisdom and sense of mortality of the old. :)
The problem I have with that anaylsis is that it makes no distinction between society and government. This view leads to the conclusion that any legitimate concern of society is a legitimate concern of the government, and results in endless expansion of the government in search of "social justice".
I would also like to say that I secretly worry about very young true conservatives-- those in their teens and twenties. I can't help but think that they're going to be REALLY BORING old people. :)
It could get quite involved, I agree. I would, however, encourage you to go back and re-read you post with that need to make those distinctions in mind.
The Abolishonists did NOT start the Civil War, no matter what anyone claims. The Southern states did.
OTOH, Dickens had been publishing Christmas ghost stories for years. After the Cromwellian suppressions , in England, and the Mather's attempts to ignore / suppress long ( from the beginning of the celebrations, which Constantine actually instigated ! ) popular / performed paganistic , carnaval type Christmas revelries, it was the popularity of " A CHRISTMAS CAROL ", unaided by sermons from pulpits, and any organized movement, which changed / gave birth to what we tend to think of as Christmas traditions. Yes, Prince Albert, and Queen Victoria, also had a hand in it, as did both Moore and Nast, in America. What is the difference, is that it was a cultural reversal, influenced primarily by one book; bereft of ANY outside help, from anyone, or anywhere !
Since this was a SECULAR overlay, over a religious celebration, and NOT in any way, shape, manner, or form, a POLITICAL ( unless one adds in Victoria's concerted effort to clean up / improve the monarchy's HORRIBLE image, with the pushing the " PERFECT FAMILY " idea and ideal, and Prince Albert's Germanic / pagan introduction of the Christmas tree ) change. est one forget ( unless one hasNEVER known ! ) Dickens was a bleeding hearted LIBERAL; adstinct foreruner of today's PC Hollywood crowd. He wrote books just FILLED with social commentary, but none ofthem changed politics, nor governace !
Rand's works haven't managed to EVER do / influence anything a all. Her books used to be lugedaround, and quoted by geeky, psuedo-inteletuals , on college campuses, decades BEFORE the LP was founded ! They were later surplanted , on campus, by the hippie types, who, WITHOUT any book at all ( discounting Marx and Mao, of course. LOL ) DID unfortunately change both the cultural and political atmosphere , in America.
The problem here, as in most cases, in the abject lack of historical and cultural knowledge, by most people.
A big Blessed, and MERY CHRISTMAS t YOU, and your's, my very dear friend. I ope that Santa is VERY good to all of you, and most especially to your lovely kiddos !
As with ALL Libertarian theories, the consiquences of their yearnings, are completely ignored by all of them ! Let's take just ONE example. If, by some utterly horrible happenstance, our entire governnment was Libertarian, when we all wake up in three weeks. Every public school is closed that day. NOW WHAT ? Please post your thoughts on this, and I'll refute your's. : - )
0.4% and falling.
Atheism? Humanism? Be more precise, please.
And I honestly believe that this is a strawman argument, misrepresenting libertarianism. In fact, the way I see it, I think it is the most selfless of all political philosophies because it requires that you not inhibit others' freedoms lest yours be inhibited. But in that sense, maybe it's about "me, me, me" because the freedom of others is preserved so that the system that protects your own freedom is preserved. Always two ways to look at it.
The only conservatives who come down on the side of legalization (I think W. F. Buckley is one) do so from a practical perspective-- i.e., that prohibition doesn't work, and perhaps only makes such things more attractive to more people.
But I think that the practical aspect, although it may or may not be the true impetus that drives libertarians to fight for freedom, always supports arguments for freedom. In fact, if I didn't see how practicality logically followed, I would not be a libertarian.
As for any incompatibility between libertarianism and a belief in God-- I'll leave that question to the libertarians. How many of you consider yourselves to be religious? How many of you believe in God? While the two are not necessarily at odds, as you note, I will place a bet that a libertarian belief system is usually embraced by non-believers.
This could be. However, speaking for myself, I am a Christian (while rejecting the term 'religious' because I see it to be a misnomer). It's also worth mentioning, however, that many who call themselves Christians are not Christians, based on the the fundamental tenets of the faith. That is, I'm not judging their actions and determining that they're not Christians, I make the judgement based on the idea that they do not ascribe to the ideas laid forth in the Bible (i.e. if you do not believe Jesus is the only way to God, you are not a Christian, although you may claim to be one still). Before becoming so interested in politics, theological discussions were my passion. Actually, my interest in libertarianism grew out of my experiences in sharing the Christian gospel, but this is another thread.
That, I think, is the true flaw of libertarianism-- it is a philosophy of absolutes.
I would say that it is a philosophy of consistency of principle. Sometimes it may be painful to be consistent, and hence it seems to be about absolutes.
I'll give you an example of state control: my child cannot drive until she is 15 and has had driver's ed and acquired a permit, at which time she can drive with a licensed driver over 21 in the car.
This is really another can of worms. The issue of freedom applies to adults, and the question of when children go from being children to adults having their own free will has before been debated on this site. If libertarianism of open to flaws in reasoning, I think this is where they might likely come from.
With that said, though, I always see it from the perspective that problems with children (drug use, for example) are cultural and therefore the government could never hope to alleviate this. Driving laws, however, for children or for adults, are not against libertarianism as I understand it. Libertarians don't object to speed limits or even laws that determine when a child can drive etc. It's no one's right to drive, and these laws therefore infringe on no one's rights. Furthermore, it seems to me that kids' driving poorly, like drunk drivers, are causing harm to others. They are being judged for what they're doing, not for what they own, what they think, or what they do strictly unto themselves.
You've written an interesting take on conservatism. Most conservatives I know (and I used to be one) cannot put their beliefs to words as you have. Moreover, I'm further and further dismayed by the fact that it's becoming harder and harder to find true conservatives (G.W. is NOT a conservative, yet true conservatives support him). This in itself is what I think attracts many of us to libertarianism. The term conservative has lost all meaning, and is not a postion but rather a chaning perception of a position.
But, the liberals and libertarians would not only say that we were wrong to take care of her against her will, but that somehow we would do so for our own selfish purposes, for our own comfort or convenience. Uncomfortable with the outcome of their own philosophy, libertarians and liberals often feel the need to impugn the motives of others.
I don't really see the strong link between liberals and libertarians that many on this site have suggested exists. Liberals as they are today, at least, (and remember, I wasn't around to see the liberals of yesterday) couldn't care less about free choice and freedom. I see liberals today as Marxists, saying that because of selfish others, poor people like the woman that you saw exist. They are the ones that created the 'war on poverty' after all. I could never see their saying that the woman has a free will to remain destitute when they seek to make the state powerful enough to provide for her and thus be her master.
I've thought about these issues. I think it comes down to how fast you'd like change. Now, one can make the argument, as Harry Browne does, that gradualism won't work, which means all changes must be enacted immediately. I generally feel that way but in some cases it may not be appropriate. Or, perhaps initially the change may cause chaos but the end result will be better (witness Russians' initially now knowing what to do when they were presented with the freedom to determine their own professions - eventually, their eyes adjust to the bright light of freedom and they can see).
Or perhaps you're arguing from utility, in which case I would say that, if all public schools were closed, and kids were to be either home-schooled or were to go to private schools, all the other freedoms would have to be in place. That is to say, the income tax would have to be repealed so that parents could afford to send their kids to private schools, along with the property tax, of course, which funds public schools. To be cliche, freedom is not like a chinese menu, it's either all or nothing. Giving partial freedom creates disastrous results (witness the 'deregulation of California's power industry where the price was deregulated from producer to distributor but NOT from distributor to consumer - partial freedom created a situation worse than previously existed, but this is not a failure of freedom of choice, since none really existed)
Nonsense.
There ARE huge consiquences to wishing for immidiancy, which would inevitently lead to a TOTOLITARIAN state, far worse, than anything you can imagine. People don't like chaos, and they don't take kindly to the unexpected. Incrementalism is THE only way to change things.
-- Libertarian thought, & principles have gained national prominence in the last 30 years.
Conservatives such as Reagan & Goldwater have spoken highly of many of its ideals.
Socialists & authoritarians have irrational fears of its precepts. As is evident here on FR.
100 posted by tpaine
0.4% and falling.
Idiotic response. -- But entirely expected.
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.