Posted on 05/25/2002 1:37:39 AM PDT by LibertyRocks
High on liberty
- - - - - - - - - - - -
by Wayne Laugesen (letters@boulderweekly.com)
LEADVILLE, Colo.-At 10,188-feet above seal level, Leadville is more than just high. It's high on liberty. It's high on life. Some folks are high on drugs. Mostly, Leadville is high on the fact that with four Libertarians in office, the Leadville City Council stands as the first government entity in America to be controlled by Libertarians. People enjoy a sense of freedom up here, and they speak with rare pride and joy about their famous and friendly city council.
Two of the Libertarians are women. One man has long hair and a beard. The other looks conservative. All are classical liberals who understand the proper and limited role of government. They love people, life and liberty more than the bureaucracy they control.
Boulder was once a tolerant, liberal, diverse and progressive town. It's none of that, today. Instead, Leadville is. Today, Boulder represents everything classical liberals oppose, because it's elitist, exclusive, bigoted, tyrannical and oppressive. Anyone who doesn't believe this needs only examine the manner in which the Boulder County Commission-comprised 100 percent of liberal Democrats-plans the greater community and treats local citizens.
Because of the Libertarian revolution in Leadville, the Colorado Libertarian Party chose it as the site of their 2002 convention, renting out the swank Columbine Hotel and every other motel/hotel in town. Among a long list of speakers was yours truly, from the People's Republic of Boulder. Dozens of other Boulder residents attended, young and old, representing a rainbow of ethnic diversity.
It was an honor, speaking to this convention, because the Libertarian Party's time has almost arrived. This fall, look for Libertarians-at the very least-to shake the foundations of the two-party system and throw the expected outcomes of elections out of whack. And don't be surprised if a few Libertarians land some lofty offices throughout the United States.
The success of the party will come at the expense of Democrats and Republicans, and Libertarians will have more and more success in coming years drawing voters away from both camps. Liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans have become equally guilty of growing government in order to enforce-by blunt force of law-their own agendas. The conservative Bush administration has sold out a host of our civil liberties in order to create a perception of post Sept. 11 safety; liberal Democrats and "progressives" have been cashing in our constitutional freedoms and extorting our money for decades in order to impose their values on society.
Greens aren't much different. They, like Republicans and Democrats, want more government. They just color it with an alternative brush, proposing a "Department of Peace," for example, to enlarge the country's war bureaucracies.
Libertarians, however, take the only true stand in defense of diversity, tolerance, youth, peace and optimized liberty. Although so-called "pro-family" politics are often associated with the religious right, it's the Libertarian platform that stands to strengthen the American family-and it does so without clubbing the public over the head with religion. Many Libertarians respect religion, and understand that it thrives in a culture of liberty. They do not, however, wish to serve it up as a government product or mandate.
So what's pro-family about the Libertarian platform? How about the fact that this party helped eliminate the Alaska state income tax, and pledges to eliminate the federal income tax. Libertarians understand that taxes, which today take one half of a middle class family's income, are destroying families. Libertarians think it's somehow wrong that people who provide for American families work from January to June, just to pay taxes. They remember the 1950s, when the federal government took only 2 percent of a family's income.
Once upon a time, Libertarian philosophy appealed only to anarchists and a minority of disgruntled Goldwater-era conservative Republicans. Not today. The ultra-left wire service AlterNet this week carries a story about the Cato Institute-an ultra-Libertarian think tank. The story warns-mostly through the mouth of an ex-Nader supporter-turned Cato employee-just how appealing the Libertarian philosophy can be to liberals and progressives. It's appealing, the story says, because of:
* The compassionate, pro-immigrant view of Cato in contrast to the anti-immigration hysteria of liberals and conservatives alike following Sept. 11.
* How Cato, and most Libertarians, think the war on terrorism has lost focus and no longer pertains to America's vital interests.
* The fact that Cato and typical Libertarians oppose post Sept. 11 corporate subsidies.
* The opposition of Cato and most Libertarians to military tribunals: "The Bill of Rights is more than scrap paper. And it applies to all persons, not just U.S. citizens."-Robert Levy, Cato's senior constitutional studies fellow.
Most Libertarians also oppose all aspects of the drug war and favor legalization. That's why, says the lefty AlterNet story, hundreds of dyed-in-wool lefties gathered to hear Cato's executive vice president David Boaz speak last month at the annual convention of NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.
Americans, and not just druggies and lefties, are sick and tired of paying for the drug war. It's a modern Vietnam, and Libertarians have the answer: End it.
At their Colorado convention, Libertarians nominated a Boulder man-Ralph Shnelvar-as their candidate for governor. They nominated Flux Neo-a bright, young Hispanic Boulder man-as candidate for the University of Colorado Board of Regents. They nominated Denver businessman Rick Stanley as their candidate for Senate. In all, the convention nominated 51 candidates for the 2002 ballot. Learn about them. If you're a true liberal who loves liberty, you'll find them appealing.
Respond: letters@boulderweekly.com
I don't belong to any political party but find myself agreeing with the LP more and more. I know these kinds of theads always generate heated debate, but I think I need a bumper sticker that says, "I think I'm Libertarian!"
Consider adding some punctuation to that bumper sticker. Rather than "I think I'm Libertarian!", consider "I think. I'm Libertarian!"
I'm a LP member, but I (and many other libertarians, small "l" and big "L") part ways with the party line on this issue. 9/11 was more than an act of terrorism - it was an act of WAR by a group of foreign religious fanatics who are hell-bent on our annihilation. Securing the borders and clamping down on immigration is a necessary step we must take in order to preserve our unique American freedoms for ourselves and our posterity.
* How Cato, and most Libertarians, think the war on terrorism has lost focus and no longer pertains to America's vital interests.
True. If we're really serious about stopping terrorism, we have to end the latest "War on a Noun" (i.e. terror), and recognize that we have a real enemy (radical Islam), which is just as real as the Japanese Empire was in December 1941. The "War on a Noun" approach has failed miserably when applied to other nouns such as "Drugs" or "Poverty", but in this case it cannot be risked: our national survival is at stake.
* The fact that Cato and typical Libertarians oppose post Sept. 11 corporate subsidies.
Libertarians oppose ALL corporate subsidies, regardless of the circumstances.
* The opposition of Cato and most Libertarians to military tribunals: "The Bill of Rights is more than scrap paper. And it applies to all persons, not just U.S. citizens."-Robert Levy, Cato's senior constitutional studies fellow.
Sorry, fellas, you missed this one, too. The scumbags at Gitmo have committed war crimes by plotting and carrying out horrific acts of terrorism against civilians, and are sworn enemies of America. I have no problem with trying these bastards before a military tribunal, and frankly, I believe that even American citizens (such as Taliban Johnny) that commit such acts should be afforded the same treatment.
It is desperately poor, and a bedroom community for illegal aliens who work in the ski resorts. A high percentage of other residents may have reason to fear or be unhappy with their country. It is traditionally a refuge for many who don't quite fit into today's society.
To think that because Libertarian's are thriving in Leadville you can build on that to win offices in Colorado or the United States might be just a tad overly optimistic.
Just my two cents worth. I don't have time to get into a philosophical debate about the Libertarian Party so if I don't make it back to answer the flames you'll know why. I just wanted to shed a little light on the town for those who are not familiar with it. BTW, I love the place and have for many years. If Libertarians can do something for the town, I'm all for it.
My posterity can take care of itself.
If securing our borders means that socialist liberals stay here and continue to undermine our Constitution and that freedom-loving Mexicans who are willing to work hard to provide for themselves and who would support our Constitution are denied entrance, then secure borders are a bad thing.
If we did away with socialist programs which make it possible for the undeserving to thrive here and made life miserable for corrupt, socialist pits like Mexico, then there would be little problem with our borders.
I like Libertarians because they are outspoken on issues of personal liberty. Its good to have them at your back in a fight.
Most Conservatives are what I call "small L" libertarians, and we have a lot in common. I have toyed with the idea many times of abandoning the Repubs for the Libs but I have not done so for the following concerns:
#1 Contrary to the above quotation, Libs seem to be very hostile to religion. I wonder if a believer can ever be comfortable with these guys.
#2 I am not ready to abandon the war on drugs. The fact that the war never ends doesn't bother me; the war against murder, and theft, and other kinds of crime never ends either. But I recognize that drugs are different; most of us are familiar with them at some level. But most of us have also had to fight to keep drug use out of our families. So before I am willing to legalize, I need to sort out a few issues:
If drugs are legal, by what right do we prohibit Madison Avenue advertising, promoting their use? If we legalize their use, do companies still have the right to refuse employment to drug users? Can we refuse public benefits to people who are unemployable due to their drug use? Can I shoot the guy who is trying to sell to my kids?
#3 There is nothing wrong with implementing immigration policies to exclude citizens of enemy nations, who are not refugees from those nations. There is nothing wrong with limiting numbers of immigrants to numbers that can be assimilated. I agree, though, and have said, that the Mexicans wading the river to look for work are not a danger to the culture... the leftists born here are a danger to the culture.
#4 A lot of Lib criticism of Repubs have to do with the fact that, as Repubs are part of the governing coalition, they are forced to deal with the fact that at least 50% of the voting public is socialist. Libs, once they are in actual elective office, and have to deal with the same realities, will have to face the same kinds of compromises. But Repubs have gotten used to being beaten up, and beaten down, and are maybe a little too quick to compromise. And Libs are effective in winning socialists over to our side, I assume due precisely to their more liberal stance on social issues like drugs, etc.
If drugs are legal, by what right do we prohibit Madison Avenue advertising, promoting their use?
The same "right" that was exercised to restrict the tobacco industry.
If we legalize their use, do companies still have the right to refuse employment to drug users?
Of course. Consider this: is a raging, skid-row drunk (whose "drug of choice" is perfectly legal) going to be able to be hired for anything until he cleans himself up? Unlikely.
Can we refuse public benefits to people who are unemployable due to their drug use?
I would like to say "yes" to this unequivocally, but considering how "compassion" is the order of the day among "conservative" as well as "liberal" politicians, the answer is unfortunately no. In a true libertarian society, however, there'd be no "public benefits": charity would begin at home, just like it once did in America before socialism took root. But consider this for the real world: how much money do we spend as a society to arrest, prosecute, and jail these unfortunates, and just how effective is it? I believe that if drugs such as heroin were legalized via prescription (like it was 50 years ago), the problems associated with chronic drug use (such as committing real crimes to get the money to pay for the habit) would be greatly reduced, and our cities would become much more livable.
Can I shoot the guy who is trying to sell to my kids?
It will become unnecessary. Do you hear of people shooting bartenders and liquor store clerks for selling booze to their children? Of course not, because the bars and liquor stores are lawful businesses, and their owners prefer not to lose their licenses for selling to minors.
I'll grant you: there are many freedom-loving, hard working Mexican people who deserve a break in America. But let them come here legally and assimilate, just like the millions of European immigrants that came through Ellis Island in the late 19th and early 20th centuries did. They shouldn't expect to be able to break our immigration laws and not learn the English language, and not suffer any consequences.
If we did away with socialist programs which make it possible for the undeserving to thrive here and made life miserable for corrupt, socialist pits like Mexico, then there would be little problem with our borders.
Couldn't agree more. But, unfortunately, I think pigs will learn to fly before that ever happens. I do hope, however, that we see the Free State Project (with the socialist programs undone) come to fruition in our lifetimes. But, like the Red Army marching into Prague in 1968, the fedgov probably won't let it happen.
We will probably have to do it the same way that it was done in the Soviet Union. Bankruptcy and break-up of the union. Get ready.
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.