Posted on 11/17/2002 5:08:05 PM PST by Commie Basher
I agree. But I also think he made a number of very valid points at the same tmie (along with some invalid ones).
Republicans are deluding themselves if we think that Libertarian votes are "rightly ours", or that we're the "party of freedom" without fault.
I think Smith is entirely wrong-headed on foreign policy, but when it comes to his list of domestic Republican failures, he scores some excellent bullseyes.
Then you need to read it again.
But, if I say that they are against everything and are not for anything, the libertarians will become indignant and offended.
Of course they will -- people do tend to become indignant and offended when you say ridiculously simplistic things about them which are not true.
You may not agree with libertarians, but it's ludicrous to claim that they're "not for anything".
Try raising the level of your analysis and maybe people won't find your comments as offensive.
I don't get it either.
What a lot of folks also miss is that many libertarian voters are disaffected *Democrats* (i.e., people who could no longer stomach voting for a Democrat, but who still wouldn't vote Republican in a million years). For all we know the Libertarian candidate might have siphoned more votes away from the Democratic candidate than from the Republican candidate, *raising* the Republican odds of winning.
Since this thread started with an essay by L. Neil Smith, it's worth pointing out that some of his novels depict varying visions of a libertarian society. In both "The Probability Broach", and "Pallas", the citizens are peaceful, respectful of each other's rights, and ARMED TO THE TEETH against anyone who doesn't treat them likewise.
There are several gun battles in The Probability Broach, all enthusiastically participated in by the libertarian citizens in response to unprovoked attempts by others to initiate force (kidnapping, etc.) against them.
And in Pallas, preserving the right to keep and bear arms in defense against tyranny is the entire point of the book.
A hundred years ago, the same ugly things were being said about the "third world" immigrants of their day, the Irish, Italians, Slavs, etc....
Ah yes...those were indeed libertarian times.
Glad you agree, and that you realise that your remarks were ugly.
People who came to America had to be physically fit to be accepted into the country, and jobs were provided by one's own family, clan, or community not by the government. Everyone needed to pull their own weight -- and learn to speak and read English within weeks of arrival. Immigration 100 years ago was marked by hard work and a responsibility to learn to be an American. Times have certainly changed.
Yep, how true. -- You can be quite rational & unbiased when you try. -- Thanks
Hmm, I might pay good money to see that...
9. Fisting your lover on a park bench -- protected
10. Walking naked on the streets -- protected
"Protected" is a very misleading word here.
While it's true that libertarians would on principle be against using the power of the *state* to regulate such behavior, they're not against using *social pressure* (i.e. "community standards" and the like) to regulate such offenses to good taste and propriety. Behavior such as you list would hardly be "protected" in the sense of "there should be no repercussions for that, it's a god-given right". In *any* society there's no right to be offensive to your peers and not suffer the consequences.
And let's face it, how many people actually engage in your list of behaviors even *now* simply because it may be illegal, and *not* because they were either raised with better sense/ethics/morals/taste or were unwilling to face the reaction of the public or their peers?
In other words, just how many people do you think would start to "walk around naked on the streets" even if it weren't expressly illegal. Is this the sort of thing we truly *need* laws to control? Or isn't being yelled at (or pointed at and laughed at) by the people they pass on the street enough discouragement?
Actions have consequences, even if getting arrested for them is not on the table. In a libertarian society there would still be plenty of curbs and disincentives for behaving like a crazy person.
But sure, it's a trade-off -- along with decreasing the spheres of governmental power in order to reduce the mischief and harm it can cause, it would open the door to some people -- I would think not many -- taking too much advantage of it and acting like asses. But if seeing some idiot walking around naked once every few months is the cost of getting government the hell out of the things it has no business micromanaging (or flatly outlawing/mandating) in the first place, I can live with that.
Uh, I've got news for you, but Harry Browne's opinion represnts Harry Browne, not all libertarians, which is what you were/are implying. I suspect Browne's sentiments are a minority position among libertarians, and in fact are in opposition to the libertarian philosophy, which is (as I understand it) to not instigate aggression, but if transgressed against, to respond as needed to end the transgression.
And in any case, such a claim is false. Do you want to cede the point to me now or do I have to dig up other quotes from other libertarians which support my assertions? Or would you then claim that I have still selected a non-representative sample? I guess I'd have to commission a Gallup poll on the subject.
Anyway, I think that I have proved my case.
Now it is true that a minority of libertarians would support the War on terror and support the US government. And I always believed that indeed national defense was a proper function of government and that's why I was so shocked at the libertarian reaction. It seemed to me that the libertarians (most of them) were turning their back on their own philosophy.
Nope, 'fraid not. You can't prove a case like this with quotes. Now, if you have a statistical survey of libertarians that actually gives DATA on your second assertion above, then you have a case. Otherwise not.
So who do you suppose is ahead in this little discussion? Hmmm?
In turn, I suggest that you try this link:http://www.fff.org/comment/ed1101a.asp
This is Hornbergers comments in 10/01 about the War on Terror.
So, interestingly, two of the leading lights of libertarianism (Browne and Hornberger) are foursquare against the War on Terror. The "rank and file" however and less opposed to the WOT. They support it with majorities but not overwhelming ones. And they support it with qualifications.
Here is my attempt to summarize. Some libertarians, but not all, support the War on Terror. Libertarians support the War on Terror less completely than does the American public at large (even Democrats). They also impose more qualifications on their support than do most Americans. (Such as opposition to measures such as the Patriot Act). Libertarians, despite this support of the WOT, still retain their traditional attitude of distrust and (yes) hatred of the US government.
Now I hope I have accurately stated the case. I agree that the situation is not black and white (as perhaps I had originally held) but rather highly nuanced and needing the details examined.
Now on a personal note, here is what happened to me as a result of 9/11. Prior to that, like most libertarians, I too was highly suspicious of the US government and basically in opposition to it. 9/11 cleared my eyes (at least that is how I see it now). The USA clearly has many many flaws. I still oppose government policy in most of the same areas I always have. However, I now see that, despite these flaws, the USA is a pretty incredible place - the greatest country in human history. By insisting on perfection, we can make the perfect the enemy of the good.
Yes, perhaps it is possible to tear down the US (as the leftists perpetually do). But when it is gone what shall replace it. Again the US is mankind's brightest hope and I wish primarily to support it not tear it down. Yes I will continue to criticize it but in a more constructive way. And I will realize that it is a long term battle in which America is not the enemy. The enemy is the Left, both domestically and abroad.
As someone who's dabbled in LP circles since the late 1970s, and heavily since the late 1980s, I can assure you that Browne represents the majority opinion among the LP rank & file, if not among the "small-l libertarian" bloggers.
You have not. NINETY-FOUR PERCENT is not "some libertarians". What that says is that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of libertarians support the War on Terror. They have major reservations about some of the specific actions (loss of civil liberties) suggested as part of that war, but they DO support the war. HUGE majorities support military action.
You are simply wrong, and unwilling to admit it.
You are joking right ?? If the LP supports murder of children/infants, F#$% the Libertarian Party.
24.3% of libs oppose putting ground troops into Afghanistan - what do you think that percentage would be among Americans at large (or would have been in 10/01)? I'd say a lot lower.
21.4% oppose attacks on the Taliban. Again likely a higher number than for the populace at large. 30.2% oppose efforts to topple the Taliban. Only 52% support action against nations that support terrorism or harbor terrorists.
From the LP press release "Those last three questions indicate that Libertarians are unwilling to give the U.S. government carte blanche to engage in limitless military action in the name of fighting terrorism..." That is they give only conditional support to the WOT.
"It's obvious that as military options move beyond striking back at those terrorists directly responsible for the September 11 attacks, Libertarians grow increasingly uncomfortable..." a quote from Dasbach.
69% oppose any attck without a declaration of war by Congress. I don't know what to say about this one. It seems to arise from the "strict constructionism" of libertarians. The fact is though that declarations of war have not occurred since WWI I think so, like it or not, you're not going to have one.
As I said, perhaps I was too hasty in asserting broadly that "libertarians oppose the war on terror." Rather their support is weaker than that of the public at large and they support the WOT only with major reservations. Finally, many libertarians wish to treat the attempt to bring UBL to justice as just a criminal matter rather than a casus belli.
It is a criminal matter. Harry Browne is correct.
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.