Posted on 05/27/2003 10:01:25 AM PDT by gcruse
Uh huh. The truth is that libertarianism will work as long as people are already largely self-policing. If people are not, then one gets a spiral toward anarchy instead of an orderly society -- which begets the proliferation of laws to try to limit those who use the letter of the law to get around the (moral) spirit of the law.
A good a non-governmental example is found in mortgage paperwork. A nice libertarian society might expect it to be one sheet of paper -- at most. Why? Well, because a good libertarian would live up to his obligations, of course.
Here in reality, your mortgage closing will have you signing something that's tens of pages long, and just about every sheet and clause has something you must or cannot do -- and just about every one of those was added because somebody tried to get away with something, instead of honoring the spirit of their agreement.
You, Marx, Engels....
and
I am talking going into terrorist supporting foreign countries without having been attacked by them.
Okay, I read the first passage as promulgating efforts to prevent the growth of new cells domestically.
Now. Where is the line drawn when deciding what nations to "pre-empt", and which to ignore? IMO, we should have "pre-empted" China when they hijacked our EP-3 in April, 2001. We should certainly "pre-empt" Saudi Arabia, yesterday, if not sooner, for it's continuing role in fomenting terrorism. That funny guy with the beard in Cuba, let's "pre-empt" him, while we're at it. And those nasal voiced snots in Paris, they could use a solid dose of "pre-emption", at about the same time we "pre-empt" Mexico for it's unofficial ongoing invasion.
What ever happened to the idea that Congress is supposed to declare war, then the president wages it?
It's no contradiction at all. How others live can and does affect my quality of life. People living in community have the right to ensure that the bad actions of a few do not degrade conditions for everybody else. Thus, a community may pass laws against people having sex in public, or public intoxication, or playing ultra-loud car stereos in residential areas.
That was not preemptive.
Iraq...
So far, there is no proof that they were a threat to us. I supported the war when they told me that Iraq was preparing to attack us. I'm waiting for the evidence to come in. I am patient, but history will judge.
...Syria? North Korea?
Syria is going to attack us?
As to North Korea, are you advocating a preemptive war? If so, please say so.
How would you defend against another 9/11?
By enforcing and tightening the immigration laws. All of the attackers, (Saudis) were in this country legally at first.
And if you think that another 9/11 type attack can be prevented absolutely by any means, you and I disagree. It is impossible to prevent small groups of whackos from doing harm to others.
... John Adams, George Washington, and a few others. (The key word was "untrammeled," in case you missed it.)
Your quip is a shining example of why libertarians will forever be marginalized as a group of unpleasant and unelectable loudmouths.
For starters, you would arm everyone. At least, you would remove all un-Constitutional, and un-ethical, restrictions on invidividual arms carry. Anyone could carry anything they wanted anywhere they wanted. Including airplanes.
Private property owners, including "public" business owners, set the rules for carry on their property.
Once you'd gotten the liberals revived from that conniption causing issue, then you'd go on to kill the welfare state and impose an NRST with no exepmtions. This would allow business to flourish as well as reducing the incentive for illegals to want to come here. It'd also kill a lot of the power the government has to make and regulate business deals. Most of these tin-pot dictators would get strung up within a few short months as moneyed US based interests buy them out or pay for their over-throw so we can get our capitalistic hands on their un-tapped resources.
The things you mention affect you so I agree. Now I must assume you have no problem with personal behavior as long as they are done in private.
You are not entitled to happiness.
Only to the right to act unrestrained in pursuit of it, provided your actions do not violate the rights of others.
Libertarians will of course remain unelected.
People have no wish to be free.
They simply appeal over and over to government, to save them from themselves.
And the chains grow ever tighter.
Try looking up the definition of the word "commune" sometime you friggin' socialist. You don't even have the decency to deny it any more, do you? I've suspected you of being a democrat plant for some time, this really takes the cake.
You have a bizzare and inaccurate concept of libertarianism.
Not hardly. Ask OWK if you think so.
"They can make any laws which do not violate rights", might be a better statement.
The question, is whether it may do so morally.
I would argue that anything that is immoral for an individual to do, remains immoral if attempted by state.
Morality does not benefit from economies of scale.
If it is immoral for me to stick a gun in my neighbor's face to pay for my grandmother's kidney transplant, then it is likewise immoral for 100,000,000 of my neighbors to do so.
And the conflict draws ever nearer. I hope it's a long time from now, but I'm not convinced it will be.
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.