Libertarianism was based on the assumption that the individual could be responsible for himself. That he had the discipline and self restraint to rule himself.
NOW days what Libertarians want is to be free of ANY restraint of any kind. That is not liberty, that is license.
“licentiousinism”, “licentioustinarians”
NOW days what Libertarians want is to be free of ANY restraint of any kind. That is not liberty, that is license.
:::::
There is a happy ground between radical opporessive socialism (the American left) and libertarianism (virtually no government, or purely consensual government). That happy ground I call a “Constitutional Republic” where RESPONSIBLE government and law prevail. We true American conservatives continue to fight to maintain that middle ground. :-)
That’s why I recoil today when offered the label of “libertarian”, and feel the need to hyphenate with a “conservative” in front. I don’t so much think it is a rift between libertarianism and conservatism as much as it is a rift between the two major strains of libertarianism (right vs left - as you say, liberty vs license...the third minor strain of libertarianism is the anarchist camp).
For example, a hotel having the ability to not serve gays is, IMO, entirely compatible with true liberty - while the government busting into private bedrooms to look for evidence of sodomy is not. To some, that is a subtle difference...which is a pity.
Isn't that the definition of anarchy? My understanding of a a true Libertarian has always been: "you do whatever you want as long as it does not impose on me and I'll do whatever I want as long as it does not impose on you."
Laws sort of get in their was as does government.
The “restraint” should be the natural (bad) consequences for (bad) behaviors and choices. (Do something stupid and get hurt - spend the rest of your life having to live with the injury - without “disability”. Let your daughter run around unsupervised, you may have to take care of an unexpected grandchild for the next 18 years.)
When our society subsidizes and alleviates those bad consequences, that’s when you get the huge moral decline that you see.
I'll bet you believe the New Deal interpretation of the Commerce Clause that says Congress can regulate virtually anything as "interstate commerce".
It would be foolish to think that Libertarians, of all people, would be homogeneous in their beliefs...and most of us small-L libertarians never quit being plain constitutionalist conservatives in the first place.
You’re as backwards in your thinking as your “Macaca” hero was—and that’s the real reason he lost the Va. Senate race. Libertarians basically liberals out of our wallets and you foaming-mouth right of Atilla the Hun types out of our bedrooms...what right does (left-wing or right-wing) government have to tell us what we must wear (i.e. seatbelts), or outrageously tax for doing (i.e. smoking), or for even making bad choices for ourselves when it does not harm others?
Wow, as a Christian and a libertarian, (or what used to be a libertarian), I actually agree with you. Good post.
The commie Liberals high jacked the Libertarian Party. I concur with what you say, and I also believe that some liberals are disgruntled with the Demorats. They are looking for a place to go and they are so stupid that they think Libertarian is close to liberal, so it must be for them.