Posted on 09/22/2002 6:53:05 AM PDT by EggsAckley
Okay, folks. I've been hanging around here, trying to sort out the local population for about four years. I have discerned that there are "big-L" Libertarians, and there are "little-l" libertarians, and these sometimes do not agree with each other. And I've also encountered some threads where the big-L's seem to gang up on everybody, and I'm really trying to figure out why there are so MANY different ideologies here.
From what I have gleaned, Libertarians (both big-L and little-l) are against big government. Well, guess what! So am I. I think we have wa-a-a-a-y too many laws about wa-a-a-a-y too many things that should be none of the government's business. I also think that those laws favor certain groups of citizens while encumbering others. Of course, the obvious example would be the givers and takers of our nation. The hard-working give to the non-working, who gladly lap up what is offered. Or the issue that's currently a burr under my personal saddle: THE DEATH TAX. But these are just BIG examples; there are lots of little ones.
How about, when we get RID of a few laws, let's make some NEW ones, laws that really HELP people, all people. Like, a law against putting labels in the neck of women's garments? Or a law against the goofy "easy open" packaging? Or a law against too much fog (oops, just being a little selfish there.) And a law against the BIGGIE: it should be a federal offense for any book to be published WITHOUT an INDEX! Ya know, these are laws that would help EVERYONE, rich or poor, left or right.
Okay, I know this is silly, but there ARE some laws I'd like to see enacted, such as a law requiring that all appointed judges be subject to a performance review, say....every ten years. For that matter, ANY lifetime government jobs should be subject to this. In fact, even tenured professors should be reviewed regularly.
And who should review them? US. We the people. Maybe put it on the ballot so that all citizens can comment on the matter. Yeah, you're right.......too many people don't vote, and it would probably turn into a huge and expensive political football, and we don't need any more of those.
Yes, I know I'm veering off from the title of this missive, but it's all still pertinent, in a round-about way. I simply would like to understand why there is so much consternation here on FR when the word "L-libertarian" pops up. I do know that several of the "big-L's" whip out their copy of a book written by a woman whose name escapes me now. But that's NOT what I want. I want to read their OWN words, their OWN ideologies, not some L-libertarian "handbook."
I'm really serious (series?) here folks. Yes, I want less government; yes, I want less laws. Could I be (*gasp*) a closet L-libertarian??
Confusion reigns.
I do think people should be allowed to make choices that cause them to be non productive members of society.
But I absolutely do not think they should then expect the government to coerce other citizens into supporting them.
I think this makes me a libertarian.
Does Sam Cree come fromthe book, "My Brother Sam (or My Big Brother Sam)?
I like that quote. It nicely describes one of the ideals of socialism.
I do, too. I just like pointing out the obvious....
Can you please explain how you come to this conclusion?
Q: What do you call a Communist whose wealthy uncle just left him $5 million?
A: A Republican....
Q: What do you call a pot-smoking liberal who's just been audited?
A: A Libertarian....
Okay....THIS is the kind of thing I'm looking for. As I said, some of what libertarians believe is fine with me, it's just their intensity and lack of humor that worries me.
I'm starting to get that idea. I do like all the founders' quotes about the necessity for virtue in a free people, though. I just disagree that they wanted to coerce us into virtue. I believe the beauty of those quotes is their inherent acknowledgement that their is no virtue in an act that is coerced.
I also believe that as the governing authority assumes more and more responsibility, the people act less and less responsibly, more criminally, thus losing their virtue and causing the authoritarians among us to gleefully call for more and more restrictive laws.
Sam Cree was written on a takeout dinner I once picked up at a Japanes restaurant, they couldn't get my real name right. Lots of folks know I use it as a screen, if they surf here, they'll know me. I didn't know it apparently has other references.
Lefties that for some reason decided the DNC no longer was their piece of cake...have been attracted to the party that says, in effect, "Leave me alone, I'll leave you alone". Which of course sounds great in debating circles, but is clearly ridiculous in a large society that must be governed in some form or fashion.
The poster child for libertarians is...Ramsey Clark. A man whose civil libertarian views would put this world into a war faster than you could say S-A-D-D-A-M. Evil exists in the world, even though libertarians deny that it does.
Warm milk. Thats the best anaology I can draw when thinking of libertarians and their senseless ideology.
All the proof one needs when trying to decide whether or not libertarians are freaks in the political world...is the Impeachment/Removal vote of William Jefferson Clinton. When the US Constitution was flagrantly being violated by his administration...only the GOP came to the defense of that document. Did these Libs who claim to honor our Constitution come to its rescue? No they did not.
The Libertarian Party and all of its members remained in the background and did nothing to protect our Constitution and Bill of Rights from a man who violated nearly every aspect of that Constitution. They remained as silent as termites in the wall, planning more destruction.
When they now claim that they want their 'rights protected', I ask them - from whom? Yourselves?
We have laws against bank robbery. When a would-be thief decides to walk away from a bank because of the possibility of immediate consequences to bad behavior, we don't wring our hands and whine that the would-be thief is not thereby made into a saintly person. Society is pleased enough with the peaceful outcome regardless of why it came about. Laws against bank robbery do not rob would-be robbers of their free will choice on whether to rob or not. The existence of laws do not produce zombies unable to determine their own fates.
We need much more than mere human laws in order to have a healthy, functioning society, but the law does have an important role to play. Obviously, the ideal situation is one in which there are interior cops speaking within each and every individual. In such a scenario we wouldn't ever need any policemen or laws. We as a society can and should actively pursue policies and laws which foster the abilities of more and more people to be moral, self-governing individuals, such as discouraging self-destructive selfishness, hedonism, drug abuse, and other fashionable causes of moral-liberalism.
I didn't mean to imply such, just the opposite. "If everybody's thinking alike, somebody isn't thinking." -unknown"
Socialism assumes that everyone thinks alike. Since they don't, usually, at all, I thought the quote implies that most of the "sheeple" are not thinking, which they are not really allowed to do in a purely socialist society. The reality of socialism is that to get everyone "thinking alike," a central authority must tell them how to think.
Maybe I'm being more than unusually incoherent today. Sorry if I am, I still like the quote.
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.