Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Is Libertarianism Wrong?
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/libertarian.html ^

Posted on 02/01/2002 10:21:47 AM PST by Exnihilo

Why is libertarianism wrong?

Why is libertarianism wrong?

The origins, background, values, effects, and defects of libertarianism. Some sections are abstract, but at the end some irreducible value conflicts are clearly stated.


origins

Libertarianism is part of the Anglo-American liberal tradition in political philosophy. It is a development of classic liberalism, and not a separate category from it. It is specifically linked to the United States. Many libertarian texts are written by people, who know only North American political culture and society. They claim universal application for libertarianism, but it remains culture-bound. For instance, some libertarians argue by quoting the US Constitution, without apparently realising, that it is not in force outside the USA. Most online material on libertarianism contrasts it to liberalism, but this contrast is also specific the USA - where the word 'liberal' is used to mean 'left-of-centre'. Here, the word 'liberal' is used in the European sense: libertarians are a sub-category of liberals. As political philosophy, liberalism includes John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Karl Popper, Friedrich Hayek, Isaiah Berlin, and John Rawls. As a political movement, it is represented by the continental-European liberal parties in the Liberal International.

At this point, you might expect a definition of libertarianism. However, most definitions of libertarianism are written by libertarians themselves, and they are extremely propagandistic. "Libertarianism is freedom!' is a slogan, not a definition. Most other definitions of libertarianism borrow from those self-definitions, so I have avoided them. Instead, the values, claims, and effects listed below describe the reality of libertarianism.

values

The values of libertarianism can not be rationally grounded. It is a system of belief, a 'worldview'. If you are a libertarian, then there is no point in reading any further. There is no attempt here to convert you: your belief is simply rejected. The rejection is comprehensive, meaning that all the starting points of libertarian argument (premises) are also rejected. There is no shared ground from which to conduct an argument.

The libertarian belief system includes the values listed in this section, which are affirmed by most libertarians. Certainly, no libertarian rejects them all...

the claims and self-image of libertarianism

Libertarians tend to speak in slogans - "we want freedom", "we are against bureaucracy" - and not in political programmes. Even when they give a direct definition of libertarianism, it is not necessarily true.

The differences between libertarian image and libertarian reality are summarised in this table.

libertarian image libertarian reality
Image: non-coercion, no initiation of force Reality: libertarians legitimise economic injustice, by refusing to define it as coercion or initiated force
Image: moral autonomy of the individual Reality: libertarians demand that the individual accept the outcome of market forces
Image: political freedom Reality: some form of libertarian government, imposing libertarian policies on non-libertarians
Image: libertarians condemn existing states as oppressive Reality: libertarians use the political process in existing states to implement their policies
Image: benefits of libertarianism Reality: libertarians claim the right to decide for others, what constitutes a 'benefit'


political structures in a libertarian society

Values do not enforce their own existence in the social world. The values of libertarianism would have to be enforced, like those of any other political ideology. These political structures would be found in most libertarian societies.

effects

The effects of a libertarian world flow from the values it enforces.

what is libertarianism?

With the values and effects listed above, the general characteristics of libertarianism can be summarised.

Firstly, libertarianism is a legitimation of the existing order, at least in the United States. All political regimes have a legitimising ideology, which gives an ethical justification for the exercise of political power. The European absolute monarchies, for instance, appealed to the doctrine of legitimate descent. The King was the son of a previous King, and therefore (so the story went), entitled to be king. In turn, a comprehensive opposition to a regime will have a comprehensive justification for abolishing it. Libertarianism is not a 'revolutionary ideology' in that sense, seeking to overthrow fundamental values of the society around it. In fact, most US libertarians have a traditionalist attitude to American core values. Libertarianism legitimises primarily the free-market, and the resulting social inequalities.

Specifically libertarianism is a legitimation for the rich - the second defining characteristic. If Bill Gates wants to defend his great personal wealth (while others are starving) then libertarianism is a comprehensive option. His critics will accuse him of greed. They will say he does not need the money and that others desperately need it. They will say his wealth is an injustice, and insist that the government redistribute it. Liberalism (classic liberal philosophy) offers a defence for all these criticisms, but libertarianism is sharper in its rejection. That is not to say that Bill Gates 'pays all the libertarians'. (He would pay the Republican Party instead, which is much better organised, and capable of winning elections). Libertarianism is not necessarily invented or financed, by those who benefit from the ideology. In the USA and certainly in Europe, self-declared libertarians are a minority within market-liberal and neoliberal politics - also legitimising ideologies. To put it crudely, Bill Gates and his companies do not need the libertarians - although they are among his few consistent defenders. (Libertarians formed a 'Committee for the Moral Defense of Microsoft' during the legal actions against the firm).

Thirdly, libertarians are conservatives. Many are openly conservative, but others are evasive about the issue. But in the case of openly conservative libertarians, the intense commitment to conservatism forms the apparent core of their beliefs. I suggest this applies to most libertarians: they are not really interested in the free market or the non-coercion principle or limited government, but in their effects. Perhaps what libertarians really want is to prevent innovation, to reverse social change, or in some way to return to the past. Certainly conservative ideals are easy to find among libertarians. Charles Murray, for instance, writes in What it means to be a Libertarian (p. 138):

The triumph of an earlier America was that it has set all the right trends in motion, at a time when the world was first coming out of millennia of poverty into an era of plenty. The tragedy of contemporary America is that it abandonned that course. Libertarians want to return to it.

Now, Murray is an easy target: he is not only an open conservative, but also a racist. (As co-author of The Bell Curve he is probably the most influential western academic theorist of racial inferiority). But most US libertarians share his nostalgia for the early years of the United States, although it was a slave-owning society. Libertarianism, however, is also structurally conservative in its rejection of revolutionary force (or any innovative force). Without destruction there can be no long-term social change: a world entirely without coercion and force would be a static world.

the real value conflicts with libertarians

The descriptions of libertarianism above are abstract, and criticise its internal inconsistency. Many libertarian texts are insubstantial - just simple propaganda tricks, and misleading appeals to emotion. But there are irreducible differences in fundamental values, between libertarians and their opponents. Because they are irreducible, no common ground of shared values exists: discussion is fruitless. The non-libertarian alternative values include these...

the alternative: what should the state do?

The fundamental task of the state, in a world of liberal market-democratic nation states, is to innovate. To innovate in contravention of national tradition, to innovate when necessary in defiance of the 'will of the people', and to innovate in defiance of market forces and market logic. Libertarians reject any such draconian role for the state - but then libertarians are not the carriers of absolute truth.

These proposed 'tasks of the state' are a replacement for the standard version, used in theoretical works on public administration:

  1. to restrict tradition and heritage, to limit transgenerational culture and transgenerational community - especially if they inhibit innovation
  2. to restrict 'national values', that is the imposition of an ethnic or nation-specific morality
  3. to permit the individual to secede from the nation state, the primary transgenerational community
  4. to limit market forces, and their effects
  5. to permit the individual to secede from the free market
  6. to restrict an emergent civil society, that is, control of society by a network of elite 'actors' (businesses and NGO's)
  7. to prevent a 'knowledge society' - a society where a single worldview (with an absolute claim to truth) is uncontested .
To avoid confusion, note that they are not all directed against libertarianism: but if libertarians shaped the world, the state would do none of these things.


relevant links

Index page: liberalism

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Liberalism - the mainstream definitions of liberalism.

Liberal Manifesto of Oxford (1947), European political liberalism. Some elements, such as "Loyal adherence to a world organisation of all nations..." would now be rejected by the same parties.

Libertäre Ideologie - a series of articles on the libertarian ideology at the online magazine Telepolis. Even if you can not read German, it is useful as a source of links, to libertarian and related sites.

European Libertarians. The Statue of Liberty on their homepage also symbolises Atlanticism: there is no recent libertarian tradition in Europe, outside the UK. More typical of European ultra-liberal politics is the New Right economic liberalism which was at the start of the Thatcher government in Britain. See for example the Institute for Economic Studies Europe, or in central Europe the Czech Liberální Institut.

Libertarian NL, a Dutch libertarian homepage (Aschwin de Wolf). But look at the political issues, the political thinkers, and the links: the libertarian world consists primarily of the United States. In December 2000 the featured theme was an open letter to Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the US central bank (Federal Reserve Board). Yet this is a Dutch website, made by people who live in Europe. Their currency policy is made by European central bank chairman Wim Duisenberg, the former Netherlands central bank president. But they chose to ignore the society around them, and live as wannabe US citizens. Again, a recurrent pattern among European libertarians.

Libertarisme: De renaissance van het klassiek liberalisme by Aschwin de Wolf. This introduction to libertarianism, written for the members of the Netherlands liberal party VVD, illustrates the missionary attitude of libertarians in Europe. European liberalism has become corrupted, they claim, and must reform itself on the model of US libertarianism.

Libertarisme FAQ: explicit about the conservative effects of libertarianism: "Je zou echter wel kunnen stellen dat het libertarisme conservatief is in die zin dat zij mensen in hun waarde laat en geen progressieve experimenten door de overheid toelaat. Het libertarisme is dus heel goed verenigbaar met het koesteren van tradities of andere overgeleverde manieren van leven."

democratic expansionism: liberal market democracy itself depends on coercion, a US military invasion for example

The advantage of capitalist trucks, David Friedman

The Cathedral and the Bazaar: libertarian ideologists are switching their attention from the Internet to Open Source. This text restates a theme from classic liberal philosophy: the contrast between emergent and ideal order (market and Church).

The non-statist FAQ seems to have gone offline (December 2000).

Critiques Of Libertarianism, the best-known anti-libertarian site, but almost exclusively US-American in content.

Elfnet: O/S for a Global Brain?: a good example of the combination of New Age, computer science, and globalism in global-brain connectionism. Opens, as you might expect, with a quote from Kevin Kelly.

Multi-Agent Systems / Hypereconomy: organicist free-market ideas from Alexander Chislenko, "...a contract economy looks much like a forest ecology..."
Networking in the Mind Age: Chislenko on a network global-brain. "The infomorph society will be built on new organizational principles and will represent a blend of a superliquid economy, cyberspace anarchy and advanced consciousness". I hope it works better than his website, which crashed my browser.

Gigantism in Soviet Space: the Soviet Union's state-organised mega-projects are a horror for all liberals. They contravene almost every libertarian precept.

The Right to Discriminate, from the libertarian "Constitution of Oceania". Few libertarians are so explicit about this, but logically it fits. The Right to Own a Business also provides that "Mandatory disability benefits for transvestites, pedophiles, pyromaniacs, kleptomaniacs, drug addicts, and compulsive gamblers are obviously forbidden."

Virtual Canton Constitution, from the libertarian think-tank Free Nation Foundation. Although they claim to be anti-statists, libertarians write many and detailed Constitutions. This one re-appears in the generally libertarian Amsterdam 2.0 urban design project.

Serbia and Bosnia: A Foreign Policy Formulation : libertarianism solves the Bosnia problem. "I am a newcomer to foreign policy and cannot claim to understand all that matters". From the Free Nation site, which advocates a (logically inconsistent) libertarian state.

Libertarian immigration: Entirely free, but, but...."Fortunately, a truly free society would be protected by the fact that all property would be private. Only an immigrant who had permission to occupy the property of another could even enter the country. Even roads and sidewalks would be privately owned and would probably require some type of fee for entry."

Libertarian Foreign Policy, Libertarian Party of Canada. An example of the isolationism which at present characterises North American libertarianism, despite its inherent universalist character.

The Unlikeliest Cult in History



TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aynrand; libertarianism; libertarians; medicalmarijuana
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440441-445 next last
To: A.J.Armitage
"Cite the specific text in the Constitution itself preventing Congress from legislating in the general welfare when it comes to alcohol, ect. If there are no such explicit exceptions, then it really is an either-or..."

Why are you tossing softball questions at me? The obvious answer is:

Amendment XXI
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws theroeof, is hereby prohibited.

401 posted on 02/02/2002 6:20:58 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"The general welfare, left without qualification, encompasses the entire legitimate sphere of government; so unless you can show from the text where certain subject areas are exempted (and I'm not holding my breath) your view, by logical necessity, gives every government power to the federal government, and the fact that such powers do not, in fact, belong to the federal government merely proves you wrong."

No kidding.

Where have you seen the courts ever limit government power?

If government is so limited, why are you complaining? Your own whines and cries against an overbearing government show that your logic about government power being completely restrained is demonstrably false.

Yes, there are a few limits on federal government power. Alcohol, gambling, slavery, and secession come to mind, but there just aren't that many limits.

The whole concept that our Constitution "limits" government is a bunch of hype from clueless Libertarians. Look around you. We've had soldiers' pension plans for almost 2 centuries. We've had a federal Bank since Thomas Jefferson. We've had Social Security since the 1930's, for crying out loud.

You Libertarians run around screaming that these programs aren't Constitutional as if no adult had ever reviewed them in court over the last 200 years, and that just isn't a rational position to hold.

You claim that government is limited, so you show me where. Show me where lawful courts have ruled against government programs. Show me where any respected authority has ever, in the history of our nation, passed down judgements that are in line with your radical claims.

Frankly, I don't see it. Lincoln got the draft and the income tax through because of the general welfare clause. FDR got the New Deal, Social Security, the Works Progress Authority, and the confiscation of gold through because of it. Thomas Jefferson got the first federal bank through because of it.

But oh no. A.J.Armitage says that the general welfare clause conveys no power, has no meaning on its own, and can simply be disregarded.

Well, forgive me if I don't buy that line of nonsense. Show me where government has been restrained by our courts. show me where the general welfare clause has been ruled to have had no value.

You can't do it. You can't do it because you are wrong, and not only are you wrong, but Libertarianism is wrong.

And not only is Libertarianism wrong, but Libertarianism is guilty of try to perpetuate a FRAUD in that its adherents falsely claim that the general welfare clause has no meaning.

And if you disagree, then SHOW ME where the courts have EVER backed your radical, disproven views.

You can't do it, and that's a challenge to you.

402 posted on 02/02/2002 6:35:09 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die
Yes. Libtertarians are much like the Marxist totalitarians in that they delegate the descision of what is and is not force, and what is and is not libertarian to a small elite class, namely themselves.

This is so much bunk!

What Libertarian insurrection were
you witness to that wanted to over-
throw the government and rule by
a handful of elite Libertarians?

IN FACT we are the exact opposite.
No initiation of force, remember!

We will do nothing unless we can
convince you of the rightness of
our argument!  You have nothing
to fear so why do you lie?
 

403 posted on 02/02/2002 8:24:20 PM PST by higgmeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: Southack
And not only is Libertarianism wrong, but Libertarianism is guilty of try to perpetuate a FRAUD in that its adherents
falsely claim that the general welfare clause has no meaning.
 

I'll call you and raise you.

Any use you appear to feel is justified by
your view of the general welfare clause
would only cause or already has caused
grave harm to the general welfare.

The actual reason that it has no meaning
is you believe that you can better society
by taking from some to help others.  You
claim to be against socialism but you want
The U. S. Constitution to allow some form
of misguided social endeavor.  Anyone but
a fool should be able to see that.  Your
claim is socialist.

You make me so sad that we have come
to this point.  Libertarians are the only
true patriots left in our republic, yet we
get vile slander and abuse from those
that give lip service to the same cause.
 

404 posted on 02/02/2002 9:13:39 PM PST by higgmeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"Cite the specific text in the Constitution itself preventing Congress from legislating in the general welfare when it comes to alcohol, ect. If there are no such explicit exceptions, then it really is an either-or..."

Why are you tossing softball questions at me? The obvious answer is:

Amendment XXI
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws theroeof, is hereby prohibited.

LOL

That doesn't say Congress can't prohibit alcohol, dimwit. And it's also not part of the original Constitution. No wonder you can't get anything right.

Since I've been beating the stuffing out of your absurd claim that Congress has a "general welfare power"... except when it doesn't (making sense isn't your strength, apparently), you decided, in your next post, to get aggressive. Am I supposed to be intimidated or something?

Where have you seen the courts ever limit government power?

Try the link in #400.

The whole concept that our Constitution "limits" government is a bunch of hype from clueless Libertarians.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Strike one!

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Strike two!

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Strike three! The hack is out!

And there's plenty more where that came from.

The lesson: an aggressive tone will never make up for not knowing what you're talking about.

Show me where lawful courts have ruled against government programs.

#400.

Show me where any respected authority has ever, in the history of our nation, passed down judgements that are in line with your radical claims.

Respected authority?! I gave you the Federalist Papers! I have more, of course.

The Annotated Constitution:

The grant of power to ''provide . . . for the general welfare'' raises a two-fold question: How may Congress provide for ''the general welfare'' and what is ''the general welfare'' that it is authorized to promote? The first half of this question was answered by Thomas Jefferson in his opinion on the Bank as follows: ''[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.'' The clause, in short, is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification of the taxing power. Although a broader view has been occasionally asserted, Congress has not acted upon it and the Court has had no occasion to adjudicate the point.

The Annotated Constitution, by the way, is a official US government publication. Are you ready to surrender yet?

And remember, there's more where that came from. Face it: you're dying on the wrong hill.

Lincoln got the draft and the income tax through because of the general welfare clause.

You don't know history very well, do you?

But oh no. A.J.Armitage says that the general welfare clause conveys no power, has no meaning on its own, and can simply be disregarded.

You're misrepresenting my position, probably intentionally (in other words, you're a liar). I never said it can be disregarded. Your absurd misrepresentation of my position seems to come from an obviously wrong presupposition, that any clause not granting power is meaningless. No wonder you don't think the Constitution limits government power; you've got your own filter, shifting out everything you don't like.

Show me where government has been restrained by our courts. show me where the general welfare clause has been ruled to have had no value.

Since you seem to think having value means giving power to the federal government, your second "challenge" is absurd.

Your first, on the other hand, is simplicity itself.

United States vs. Lopez

New York vs. United States

Would it be too much to ask you to admit you were wrong? Almost certainly. Either way, let me point out who the true extremist is here. You've angrily denied there are Constitutional limits on federal authority, and called the idea that there are limits "radical and disproven". The disproven proves, yet again, that you don't know what you're talking about, and the radical proves how disconnected you are from American history and the views of the Founders. Of course the federal government is limited by the Constitution. Only a wild-eyed fanatic (who doesn't know what he's talking about) would say otherwise.

You can't do it, and that's a challenge to you.

I just did it.

Now here's a challenge to you. Tell me why I should pay more attention to some guy on the internet (leaving aside your own demostration that you don't know jack) than to the Federalist Papers.

405 posted on 02/02/2002 9:44:41 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

Comment #406 Removed by Moderator

Comment #407 Removed by Moderator

To: higgmeister
"Any use you appear to feel is justified by your view of the general welfare clause would only cause or already has caused grave harm to the general welfare. The actual reason that it has no meaning is you believe that you can better society by taking from some to help others. You claim to be against socialism but you want The U. S. Constitution to allow some form of misguided social endeavor."

You are incorrect. I don't want government to have broad power. All that I'm doing is pointing out that government does have broad power, legally.

If you will look at the history of our nation, we've had a FOUNDING FATHER create the first federal bank two centuries ago, legally. We've had gold confiscated and outlawed up until the mid 1970's. Government programs have grown every year for decades, and the very whining and crying of libertarians illustrates that government is NOT denied of broad power.

Yet you libertarians will consistently claim that the general welfare clause gives no power to the federal government. You will consistently claim that government power is more limited than both reality and court decisions would indicate to any rational person.

Look around you. Is government power constrained in America or are you complaining that it is too powerful?

Why has government power been so broad over the last 200 years of court decisions?

You see, reality contradicts the libertarian worldview.

One of the things that is wrong with libertarians is that they consistently misinterpret the Constitution, specifically the general welfare clause.

Many of the posts above this one being prime examples of that fact.

408 posted on 02/03/2002 9:25:52 AM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: All

Please refer to Post #11 in its entirity, whenever possible, rather than pinging me as your first impulse for a reply on this thread.

Post #11 pretty well sums up my views on this subject.

409 posted on 02/03/2002 9:34:12 AM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
They are for open borders and legalizing drugs.
410 posted on 02/03/2002 9:37:53 AM PST by doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
Given the twitchy fingers at Admin, I give this thread about 30 more minutes...ah, freedom...

9 posted on 2/1/02 11:30 AM Pacific by Central Scrutiniser

Right again, Miss Cleo.

411 posted on 02/03/2002 9:41:14 AM PST by Tall_Texan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
...Ross Perot...and Ralp Nader...both had a better showing than the LP, right out of the box.

Both had more money too. Ross Perot spent $20 million of his own money. Ralph Nader took federal matching funds to finance his runs. Interestingly enough, although Pat Buchanan took $12.6 million in federal matching funds he received only 100K more votes than Harry Browne who declined the $750,000 which he qualified for. It takes money to get the message out. Many people still do not know what Libertarians are or that the party even exists.

412 posted on 02/03/2002 10:23:23 AM PST by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Southack
You are incorrect. I don't want government to have broad power. All that I'm doing is pointing out that government does have broad power, legally.

You're so full of it.

Your sorry excuse for an interpretation has been thoroughly thrashed. That's because it was wrong to begin with.

If you will look at the history of our nation, we've had a FOUNDING FATHER create the first federal bank two centuries ago, legally.

Nothing to do with the so called "general welfare clause".

We've had gold confiscated and outlawed up until the mid 1970's. Government programs have grown every year for decades, and the very whining and crying of libertarians illustrates that government is NOT denied of broad power.

First, that has as little to do with the "general welfare clause" as the national bank. Like I said before, amateur big government hacks use the "general welfare clause". The pros use the commerce clause.

You know, the SC once ruled that a man growing crops on his own land for the consumption of his own livestock was interstate commerce. I know, it's an incredibly stupid ruling, but the Court actually made it. More telling for this discussion is that they didn't just say "general welfare" and let it pass. In other words, your position is even more stupid than the one the Court used as justification. You are, in short, full of it. You know nothing.

And second, that stuff is indeed unConstitutional. You types always get back to the position that "it exists, therefore it's Constitutional" even though nobody knew it until the 1930s. This is so stupid I won't bother refuting it. Seriously, anything Congress does is Constitutional because Congress does it? Please. I suppose you think the Alien and Sedition Acts were also Constitutional.

One of the things that is wrong with libertarians is that they consistently misinterpret the Constitution, specifically the general welfare clause. Many of the posts above this one being prime examples of that fact.

You've been PROVEN WRONG ON ALL COUNTS. Every contention you've made on behalf of your idiotic claim has been incorrect, has had no relation to the topic, or has been nothing but sophistry. Sure, we consistently disagree with you, but, as this thread demostrates, that means we consistently GET IT RIGHT.

413 posted on 02/03/2002 11:17:42 AM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: Alan Chapman
It takes money to get the message out.

It would appear that both the market and the voters have spoken. 0.4%

414 posted on 02/03/2002 11:21:18 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
As with religions, in politics, there is no right or wrong.
415 posted on 02/03/2002 11:21:43 AM PST by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"Now here's a challenge to you. Tell me why I should pay more attention to some guy on the internet (leaving aside your own demostration that you don't know jack) than to the Federalist Papers.
405 posted on 2/2/02 10:44 PM Pacific by A.J.Armitage"

If I'm so unimportant, inconsequential, and wrong, then why do you keep pinging me? You issue a challenge as to why you should pay attention to me, and then you keep paying attention to me.

You keep spouting off your long-since disproven claims of the general welfare clause having no value, too.

Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

Read my post #11. That's what I think is wrong with Libertarians, per the subject of this thread.

Then stop pinging me, talking about me, or protesting so much. I've stated my views, supported my position (especially that you Libertarians are completely proven wrong by the historical scope of government size and power around you in your backward claims that the "general welfare" clause conveys no power), and yet you keep yapping after me like a scolded puppy.

As I said in post #11, I don't want to debate Libertarians. All of you argue too much, listen too unobjectively, and care too much about getting in the last word to ever have a reasonable debate.

416 posted on 02/03/2002 11:27:51 AM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: Southack
If I'm so unimportant, inconsequential, and wrong, then why do you keep pinging me? You issue a challenge as to why you should pay attention to me, and then you keep paying attention to me.

Nice try. You haven't answered the substance of what I said. Why should some random idiot on the internet be given more trust in matters of Constitutional interpretation than the Federalist Papers?

And for the record, I want to make sure no one falls for your crap.

You keep spouting off your long-since disproven claims of the general welfare clause having no value, too.

That's rich. I've left your pathetic, worthless swill in the tatters is always truly was.

Nevertheless, as your return in an earlier post the your phrase fixation demonstrates, you have a very short memory, in addition to a brain that has difficulty using logic, so we'll review.

The Federalist Papers call your position absurd. Game over, I win. And that's a perfectly serious statement: any legitimate contention is over as soon as someone quotes Federalist #41. The issue has been settled for over 200 years. You, and a few other ignoramuses, are standing alone on this with nothing of any value to suport your loony assertions.

The clear meaning of the text (the entire sentence) is that the general welfare is the purpose of the power to tax. Not "without value", as your idiotic mantra asserts, but certainly not a grant of all power in Heaven and Earth, which is what your position implies, although, undercutting yourself, you're saying it's an unlimited grant of power except when it isn't. Your position can't but be wrong; you're contradicting yourself.

The context of the rest of the Constitution clearly shows that I'm right. The rest of Article I, Section 8 would be unnecessary if you were right. But you're not right and it is necessary, so it's there. In particular, there's a grant of the power you say was granted over the whole country, but it's not over the whole country, it's over an area of ten square miles or less. And, of course, there's the Tenth Amendment.

Each of the three above paragraphs is enough, on its own, to utterly demolish nonsense about a "general welfare power". The fact is, I have crushed you totally. You have nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, to stand on. It's far to late to bow out gracefully. You've been humiliated. You can't stand that, can you?

I've stated my views, supported my position (especially that you Libertarians are completely proven wrong by the historical scope of government size and power around you in your backward claims that the "general welfare" clause conveys no power), and yet you keep yapping after me like a scolded puppy.

The scolded puppy is you. You've been shown for what you are, and you hate it. By this point, you can't just admit you were wrong; it would be to have your nose rubbed in it all over again.

Oh, and on to the "serious" "content" of your comment quoted above. That the government does something in no way proves that it has Constitutional authorization to do it. And the post New Deal government powers aren't based on the "general welfare clause", they're based on a twisting of the commerce clause. In other words, your claim is twice wrong. Smacked down again! This has to be painful for you.

Then stop pinging me, talking about me, or protesting so much.

...

As I said in post #11, I don't want to debate Libertarians. All of you argue too much, listen too unobjectively, and care too much about getting in the last word to ever have a reasonable debate.

"Please, stop thrashing me! My ego cannot stand the humiliation! Please let me attack others, but I am far to fragile to take it myself! My arguments are weak, but please pretend your irrefutable arguments are the weak ones. After all, the title of thread say "Why Is Libertarianism Wrong?" Pretend I beat you. Please?"

417 posted on 02/03/2002 12:45:23 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

Comment #418 Removed by Moderator

To: palo verde;Aquinasfan
AqFa> The central problem with libertarianism is that God doesn't give anyone the "right" to do anything intrinsically evil.

PaVe> Hi Aquinas I was just thinking God gave us free will and probably man-made law which reflects it is the most sensible one.

Everyone has free will, not just criminals and perverts, and it is ludicrous to allege that laws which discourage evil somehow thwart free will. Apparently the jack-booted thugs of the L.P. would discourage the free will of conservatives to decide what kind of a society they are to live in.

419 posted on 02/03/2002 4:34:24 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan
Right again, Miss Cleo.

LOL!


"I say this thread was pulled two days ago, baby,
and bad mojo from Scorpio's bong is making you all hallucinate.
You give me your credit card number and I'll tell you how to get straight."



420 posted on 02/03/2002 4:44:53 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440441-445 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson