Posted on 03/02/2006 1:31:36 PM PST by NewRomeTacitus
Harry Browne, who was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000, is reported by multiple sources to have died yesterday. I just confirmed the general information with Jim Babka of DownSizeDC. DownSizeDC intends to be distributing pertinent information by e-mail and on their website later this evening.
Pending a statement from family or friends, the best (speculative) published source of information about his condition is currently on Wiki:
"In June of 2005 an unknown neurological illness confined him to a wheelchair. After spending a considerable amount of time in the hospital, he resumed some of his writing and speaking, though it was uncertain whether he will walk again. He succumbed to illness on 1 March 2006."
Oh please, you have many many favorable posts, but when one disagrees with you, you have a fit.
A little brittle this morning?
That was ALL I saw at the one meeting I attended - it totally soured me on the party. A whole afternoon spent listening to how best to get drugs legalized & why they ought to be - yuck!
I met Harry Browne in 96 at a fundraiser in Rosslyn and was greatly impressed with his knowledge of, and love for, the Constitution. I voted for him in that election, though I realized a few years ago that I WOULDN'T trade my favorite government program to never have to pay the income tax again. My favorite federal program is the US military. At the time I hadn't even considered that the military counted as a federal program (in the "expendable" sense that he meant - obviously it IS a federal program).
RIP, Mr. Browne.
Libertarianism, as with any other political movement, has it's share of people who are merely promoting their own agenda, and attempting to justify it as "the core of (fill in the name of the political movement)". It's hardly unique to Libertarianism.
If you wanna do that, fine with me, but it's utterly against libertarian ideals to have the Government sanctioning relationships like that. I'd say the only completely consistent Libertarian position would be to get government out of marriage (a position that I think there is something to), or possibly even allowing ANY adults to be married, be they related, more then two, etc. But forcing a government saction of marriage to a specific group like that isn't consistent with any libertarian principles I've ever heard espoused by ANY libertarian before.
We have a winner here folks!
i'm glad you recognised the inconsistency in both the Family values advocates, and the Marxists that call themselves liberals. That inconsistency being simply stated in Libertarianism as: The nature of relationships between consenting adults is none of the business of Government or any other agency of force, to regulate, or endourse.
"Libertarians have this annoying but dangerous belief that the President can make policy unilaterally. I find this quality to to be suspect...and would never want a Libertarian to be in any office given their predilection alpha male behavior.
Read your Constitution!"
The problem is, we HAVE read our Constitution, and we understand that one of the most horrible weapons at the disposal of the President is the Executive Order, which was not intended to be by the Founding Fathers. So Harry's point was to use the EO to eliminate unconstitutional programs, them sign one more EO, abolishing the EO.
Sometimes it comes under the heading of KISS; Keep It Simple, Stupid.
Your "unilateral policy implementation" theory about Libertarians is explained. NEXT VICTIM!!
EOs have been around since the inception of the nation. No Supreme Court has even touched the issue. That would indicate that Article 2 - presidential powers includes this prerogative.
They are especially helpful in times of war. Doing away them would limit the Commander in Chief's ability to wage war.
Am I correct in assuming the Libertarians are against defending our nation's interests by waging war?
Nice try, why don't you post the ENTIRE CONVERSATION? Where O'reilly askes " So you would be OK with a 10 year old Boy going to a local pharmacy, and buying heroin?"..and Browne responding in the affirmative..........coward!
Thus spoke one of the biggest Arnold syncophants on FR.
They're angry because there is a lot of bull$hit that goes on in government. Let's start with the 2nd Amendment. Do gun laws not make you angry?
That annoys me. I mean, the guy believes in gun control for crying out loud. He's not even remotely libertarian. That said, he's about the only liberal political comedian that I find funny.
In 1997 here in Jersey, we had three candidates for governor, pro-abortion RINO Christie Whitman, pro-abortion Dem Jim McGreevy, and pro-life Libertarian Murray Sabrin. I voted for Sabrin. Did I do the right thing?
I watched his acceptence speach on CSPAN for the Lib Party Pres nomination; He was awesome! His exclusion from the debates despite his high voter turn out was a shame to the U.S. political system. He did his very best for America...
R.I.P. Harry
"Am I correct in assuming the Libertarians are against defending our nation's interests by waging war?"
Defending is the key word. Force should be used in defense only, according to the party.
Restitution for the acquitted: I fully agree. If I suspected you of robbing my house, seized you, tossed you in a cage, investigated the matter, and determined you didn't do it, wouldn't I owe you restitution for your troubles? If so, why shouldn't the government?
I'll even go a step further. If the government (federal, state, or local) "prosecutes" a victimless crime - i.e., initiates a court proceeding fully cognizant that it has no damages to show - then it is THEY that are guilty of serious crimes. Police, judges, prosecutors, polititians, jailers, and anyone that makes a living or profit from victimless non-crimes SHOULD be liable for restitution. Their entire personal assets, if necessary. And that includes YOU, since you seem to have such an interest in the matter.
Quitting the military: I would, of course, have a problem with this during actual combat. Less during wartime when the soldier is stateside. Even less during peacetime - which, if some people get their way, we may never see again. I don't know much about the contractual aspects of enlistment, but strongly believe in enforceable employment contracts. Contractual relationships are, indeed, prominent in libertarian thought, and yes - the military is no different.
Emancipation of children: This is already legal. In certain circumstances, teenagers are currently able to emancipate themselves from their parents before turning 18. The age of consent in most states is 16. I see no problem with this. Do you have a philosophical objection to this, or a personal axe to grind?
In any case, the LP platform points you honed in on in no way warrant what you tastelessly said about Harry Browne one day after he died. I don't have to memorize their platform word-for-word to realize that your scenario of America becoming NAMBLAfied should a few Libertarians win office is ludicrous.
Finally, thank you for your thoughtful suggestions, but I'm very satisfied with how I come across on FR. Perhaps you should follow your own advice before calling me an "ill-informed dolt." After this thread, it's YOUR image with which you should be more concerned.
I enjoyed taking a lot of flack from folks for voting for him.
Godspeed, Harry.
Rest In Peace Harry Browne. I disagreed with the man on a few issues, but he truly worked for what he believed in, without thinking about the power that it would bring him.
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.