Posted on 02/01/2002 9:55:30 AM PST by Exnihilo
That, IMO, is one of the greatest cancers to our country. Congressional representatives are not our leaders, they are our representatives as are senators.
The President is to preside over the government, not lead us. To amny people are looking for leadership in the wrong places and there are too many people willing to accomodate them.
We do NOT elect leaders! We should be electing people to conduct business of the government, but not leaders.
Bork fails to make an important distinction between solicited messages (solicited by buying a book or entering a movie theater), and unsolicited ones, that project from store windows, billboards or public acts. The externality argument of his is spurious. If I literally pollute the environment with a toxin, I am causing proximate harm, which under unjust pollution laws I may have a chance to externalize. If I sell pornography to a free moral agent who then commits a sex crime then the moral agent is causing the proximate harm and I didn't externalize anything. (That is leaving aside the argument that pornography serves as a useful and non-violence release for potential criminals). Only if the pornographic message is unsolicited does the moral equation change.
I could live with that. We'd set up shop away from you, and you'd be rid of us. If we screwed up, it would be of our own doing, and you could use us as a bad example. If we succeeded, more would imitate us. This has been called "Laboratories of Democracy".
The Constitution was designed with that intent. Too bad that's no longer the framework of our government. Federalism of the founders design was lost with the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Steals, too, don't forget that!
Hmmmm...this reminds me of a Bible verse that say that the thief only comes to steal, kill and destroy...
I'm sure there is, but purists of any stripe are going to clash with everone else not of that stripe. But I think nearly every libertarian you will encounter here will support the concept laid out by the founders of "laboratories of democracy" and what support of that concept implies.
Oooh, I like this. Fits in with my minwage arguments. I gots to go Bork texaggie and general_re and badrotorooter and ....parsy.
Minus reality libertarians/ism is fun--harmless!
Reality is relentless/final---
better to keep into the equation and not play word-mind games---artificial intelligence/fantasy!
Minus coherence crypticness/isms are gobble-dee-gookpoppycock!
Comprehensibility is logical/understandable---
better to keep into the context and not play mystical-rhetorical shuffleboard---mindless cryptojargon/gibberish!
Bork holds and advocates the community can justify interference with the decisions of others on the following grounds, 1)the community has accepted his view of acceptable behavior, or 2)The community meets rule #1 and votes to acknowledge it, or votes to reject it and they are over ruled by one so wise as Lord Bork. Notice #2 is legislating from the bench if it is deemed necessary to institute a particular decree.
Bork is an authoritarian tyrant and that is the single reason so much effort went into keeping him from sitting at the USSC. If Bork's long winded claims, that allowing folks to make there own decisions had any basis in reality; Bork himself would be porn star from exposure during the vast amount of time he spent considering the subject matter of what he despises.
Not so.
Had you said "They do not recognize the idea of restraints on THE RIGHTS of individuals by communities " as legitimate.".. You would have been correct.
And the same type of aglommerable, misgloperated, gloptitorial hepondistic, oh heck, whatever Bork called them type people say stuff like "But if you raise their wages to $8/hour, why not raise it to $100....parsy.
I agree with your sentiment, but the environment of small and diverse voluntary communities with restrictive local laws is not a contradiction with libertarianism, because they approximate a society of universal consent. Most libertarians would agree that a religious community such as a monastery is just as libertarian as a hippie commune, because both are entered freely and departed freely.
"Hello. I'm a multi-lingual interpreter, sent by the Royal Princess to interpret for f.Christian"
I think that this runs both ways. On the one hand I support local governance. On the other, I even more strongly support individual freedom. If my community were to decide that home brewed beer was illegal, I'd either have to move or quit, or face the consequences. But at no time would I claim that an individual doesn't have the right to make and consume their own beverages even if the majority doesn't agree. There's the rub.
Libertarianism (pro, con, and internal faction fights) is *the* primordial netnews discussion topic. Anytime the debate shifts somewhere else, it must eventually return to this fuel source.
EBUCK
AB
Yes, it does. Out collecting authoritarian rubbish today?
the longer the freefall--denial of reality---more fun--spin-flip time...
oh-oh--
the bigger the splatt---crash!
So does John Lott.
True enough, but at the local level, you at least have the option of referendum and direct vote on the issues.
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.