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 used to be an LP State Chair, and was active in the LP for about ten years. Though I think the fundamentals of the creed are sound, I also think it's frequently overextended, demands too much too quickly, and its "formal" organizations tend to attract fringy types whose personalities turn more conventional people off. In all probability, the LP cannot be rescued from these faults and made into a successful, influential party. However, it doesn't really need to be such for libertarian thinking to have beneficial effects on the major parties.
Persuasion of the major parties toward greater respect for individual rights and individual responsibilities requires only that their masters become convinced that ordinary people are moving in that direction. Ronald Reagan, the most successful statesman of the post-World-War-II era, called himself a "small-l-libertarian." By his personal qualities and the admiration they engendered among private citizens, he pulled the GOP in a more freedom-loving direction for several years. He built on the foundation Barry Goldwater had laid down sixteen years earlier. We could do the same with Reagan's legacy.
It thrilled me to hear Dubya, whom I admire, say, "I'm an American because I love freedom." He doesn't always act in accordance with that belief, but he's better than his alternatives, and there's hope he'll improve still further if we can take the Senate back from the Democrats. Though he's not analytically oriented, he seems to have Reagan's grasp of the essential tenets of freedom. There is much to be hopeful about -- especially if we can get libertarian ideologues to show more civility and humility in discourse, and get mainstream conservatives to stop writing us off as promoters of all kinds of vice, which we are not.
For further thoughts about conservatism and libertarianism, please see:
The Conservative - Libertarian Schism: A Harmonization
The Conservative - Libertarian Schism: Constitutionalism And Freedom
The Conservative - Libertarian Schism: Freedom And Confidence
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
You haven't lived until you've heard their hare-brained scheme of substituting law for some 'Shun List.' If you don't like the fact that your neighbor is having marital relations with a horse, then lo! just add him to the bestial shun list, and that'll teach him how much you despise his being cruel to himself or to others! Of course we'd all have to check the shun list whenever we meet or deal with any individual. And of course there's never an explanation on who will maintain the shun list or how much of a bribe it would take to add or remove someone.
In short, libertarianism is an ideology, and we have seen the terrible results over the past 40 years whenever these ideology-oriented people get into power. Their religion is their ideology. They see the world colored by the glasses of their ideology and hence they do not see Reality, and hence all their schemes are doomed to failure and we all have to suffer as a result.
http://www.carlahowell.org/
Such as?
>Such as?
Such as splashing some cologne on these drug dealers and make-believing they are therefore respectable businessmen, and using the powers of the state to protect their heroin depots from arson ... in short, robbing people of their right to determine what kind of a society they are to live in.
My confession: I was a "small l" Libertarian for years, even voting for Harry Browne in 2000. (Could've been worse; could've been Ralph Nader.)
Things changed drastically after 9-11. A few weeks later, I received a mailing (yes, I had sent them a few dollars too) from the Browne people asking me to support their own quaint "hate-America" (anti-retalitation) position that I can only describe as shocking. I returned their solicitation with a few choice words, including "Sell it to Susan Sontag." They were at least smart enough to take me off their mailing list.
But, ironically, it gave me a chance to thing some things through. I had grown most weary of engaging people in so-called debates here who are convinced that libertarians are utopian (they're largely not) and who cannot get their minds around any other concept.
I did eventually understand why libertarians elicit such a reaction: they present their case so badly.
Yet, I'd have stuck with them to the last if not for their anti-war positioning. This is so "over the top," it's breathtaking.
THINGS ARE NOT WHAT THEY WERE! You do not get a pass by being Rush Limbaugh, Noam Chomsky, or anyone in between. THEY MEAN TO KILL ALL OF US...IT IS THEIR STATED PURPOSE!
All convenient philosphies now fall by the wayside if we are to save ourselves.
Screw the Libertarians...to the extent they are listened to, they will only hasten our mass slaughter.
Call me today an American Patriot, and if it comes to philosophy, a strict Constitutionalist. Nothing more.
God Bless America, and the Free Republic people who support the greatest country in the world, a country truly worth fighting and dying for.
I consider myself a libertarian, yet I do not believe in so-called pro-reproductive choice.
In my opinion, the "choice" was made when the woman spread her legs. Becoming pregnant is a consequence of that choice.
All actions have consequences, and with freedom/liberty comes responsibility. Freedom/liberty without responsibility is anarchy. The action of having sex has a (possible) consequence of becoming pregnant. When that happens, it should be the responsibility of that woman to bring that baby to term. If she did not want the baby, then she should have thought about it before she spead her legs.
Anything other than that takes away from the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the child she created. If she would have used wisdom and self control, then she would have never have spead her legs in the first place IF she did not want a baby. Allowing a woman to abort a baby takes away the consequences of her poor choice.
Al least that's my opinion on the matter.
I'll have to get back with you on this a lil' later today. It's time for church.
A: A Libertarian....
Bingo!
I am registered as Republican, but have started swinging more libertarian lately. I think this statement sums up a lot of my ideas. Do you have a link for this?
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.