Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Fall of the Libertarians
Opinion Journal ^ | 05/02/2002 | FRANCIS FUKUYAMA

Posted on 05/01/2002 9:09:03 PM PDT by Pokey78

Edited on 04/23/2004 12:04:26 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Sept. 11 might have also brought down a political movement.

The great free-market revolution that began with the coming to power of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan at the close of the 1970s has finally reached its Thermidor, or point of reversal. Like the French Revolution, it derived its energy from a simple idea of liberty, to wit, that the modern welfare state had grown too large, and that individuals were excessively regulated. The truth of this idea was vindicated by the sudden and unexpected collapse of Communism in 1989, as well as by the performance of the American and British economies in the 1990s.


(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: libertarians
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 521-534 next last
To: r9etb
We're not all "objectivists" either.
141 posted on 05/02/2002 1:57:58 PM PDT by Liberal Classic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent
Of course. I believe hatred of the US could be reduced with less interventionist policies, but not eliminated. Peaceful coexistence is just not acceptable for some, again see the Middle East.

I agree, partially. I tend to think that the desire to travel 4000 miles to blow up one of our buildings would be greatly diminshed if we just left them them to their own devices.

There are some that would travel that far, refer to Pearl Harbor. But do you think that any amount of world policing/intervention would have stopped that?

EBUCK

142 posted on 05/02/2002 2:01:07 PM PDT by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62,glasser
Heck, it seems Libertarians don't even know what a Libertarian is. They each have their own self-centered definition, naturally

That has been my general experience.

143 posted on 05/02/2002 2:01:15 PM PDT by MarMema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Khepera
There are plenty of Christian libertarians

Yea like homosexual pedophile priests!

How truely pathetic of you.

144 posted on 05/02/2002 2:02:47 PM PDT by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: MarMema
Libertarians don't even know what a Libertarian is

Libertarian: One who does not commit or support initiation of force or fraud.

It's that easy.

145 posted on 05/02/2002 2:04:32 PM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man; Alan Chapman
Face it Chapman, libertarianism is a shallow form of politics, filled with hollow headed followers, void of both moral and ethical codes of conduct.

And the Republicans that ran the farce called impeachment hearings are moral, ethical, and deep political thinkers? Those Republicans who had the power to allow evidence that would conclusively tie clinton with China and expose treason and treachery? Those same Republcans who covered up clinton's crimes for fear of exposing their own?

And what of those that support those Republicans who subverted justice?

You have irrational fears about what you imagine libertarians would do while I have a thorough, rational disgust for what Republicans already have done.

146 posted on 05/02/2002 2:12:04 PM PDT by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Thraka
Your post #84 says everything necessary.

The shameless puke corps has been out in force on this thread, I notice.

Such a display of sophistry, outright lying, and general bamboozlement I haven't seen since perusing some marxist muck last week.

The Kheperas, ReaganMans, etc. of this world are sad and pathetic little beasts.

They are not worth the powder to blow them home to Hell.

147 posted on 05/02/2002 2:15:07 PM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Why are you trying to run away from the party that supports and promotes your political agenda?

Because we don't agree on a lot of issues. I agree with the Republican party some of the time and the Libertarian party at other times. As a matter of fact, party politics turns me away from political parties in general. Do you agree with 100% of what the Republican party stands for?

148 posted on 05/02/2002 2:15:08 PM PDT by opinionator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
The Republican Party is the home for the conservative movement in America.

You ARE being sarcastic, right?

149 posted on 05/02/2002 2:15:40 PM PDT by thrcanbonly1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Libertarian's are anti-government, anti-military, anti-religion, anti-community and anti-society. Don't you libertarian pinheads get it, yet?!

You’re retarded.

150 posted on 05/02/2002 2:19:04 PM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: realpatriot71
Looks like I'm talking about you don't it?
151 posted on 05/02/2002 2:21:19 PM PDT by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
"Had the government not disarmed the passengers, there is some chance the terrorists would have been shot and the plane landed safely. But, thanks to the government-imposed airline-traveller defenselessness act, no such luck."

You gloss over the point that this would have meant the hijackers would not have been armed with boxcutters but with their favorite firearms as well. At best this results in a bloody shootout.

152 posted on 05/02/2002 2:21:34 PM PDT by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
As you well know, there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids taxpayer funding of religious activities. Tell us, exactly what advancement of religious dogma are you referring to? Congress has made no law respecting an establishment of any religion.

The issue here is that the constitution is "made up" of two parts: The constitution itself, which is a list of things that the federal government may, or is required, to do and the bill of rights, which is a list of things that the government is prohibited from doing.

The is nothing prohibiting the taxpayer funding of religious activites, but more importantly, there is nothing in the constitution stating that it's the government's responsibility to do so, so it should not be allowed.

On the other hand, if a group of citizens wanted to do something that promoted one religion o ngevernment property (like a manger scene), there's no reason that they should be prohibited from doing so, as long as they bear the costs of the exhibit.

Mark

153 posted on 05/02/2002 2:22:29 PM PDT by MarkL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
I'll say it slowly, for the Constitutionally impaired. There is no such thing as 'collective interest'. There never has been, and there never will be.

...

My interests are not, and only occasionally will be the same as yours.

So, in a case where our DO interests coincide, why is it unreasonable to call this circumstance a "collective interest"? You are quibbling over definitions--making a distinction without a difference.

When the British attempted to enforce their will upon the American colonies, did the colonists opposing them not have a collective interest in securing their liberty?

While the "General Welfare" clause in the preamble to the Constitution has been abused almost beyond recognition, it is not irrelevant. It is present precisely because there ARE collective interests--specifically the natural rights to which all persons are entitled. The Constitution is necessary and efficacious because of these interests. If there were no such thing as collective interests, then no social contract, no Constitution would be possible.

I think your Swiss watch is broken.

154 posted on 05/02/2002 2:23:38 PM PDT by TigerTale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
At best this results in a bloody shootout.

Doesn't sound like such a plane would be hitting any buildings....

155 posted on 05/02/2002 2:23:49 PM PDT by freeeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

Comment #156 Removed by Moderator

To: r9etb
Perhaps you desire to tell us all about how traffic and driving laws serve no community interest?

Trafic laws are there to protect individual drivers. Trafic laws are there to clearly define "individual" rights of way in various driving situations.

Or perhaps you would like to quibble about the long and happy history of INDIVIDUAL (mine) charitable giving and large-scale philanthropy in this country -- acts of generosity often undertaken with the community-interested view of "making this a better place to live," and with beneficial results stretching decades after the act?

Until the fairly recent socialist coup (of which you seem to be a part of) all charity was a private concern regardless of benificiary. The fed was left out of funding such matters.

And, of course, you'd have to argue against the whole idea of Duty -- to country, state, family -- upon which our nation and our freedom were founded, and continue to depend. A more "community-interested" thing than a sense of duty would be difficult to find.

Again, purely private concerns. "I" am community orientated. I volunteer at the local Christian School. "I" participate in fund-raisers to make my community better. "I" volunteered to defend my country by joining the USMC. GET IT? "I" as an individual did/do these things of my OWN volition.

And, by golly, if you're going to deny the concept of community interest, you'd even have to argue against the fact that libertarianism has a strong "community interest" at its very core. To wit, not only are libertarians expected to protect their own rights, but for a libertarian society to work, they are also required to respectthe rights of others -- both individually, and in aggregate, which is certainly an example of "community interest".

Right, you do get it!!

In trying to ignore the idea of "community interest" libertarians pretty much have to give up everything but the profit motive, and even that's a dodgy proposition.

Crap, you lost it. Those that don't understand Libertarianism assume that our "individual" rights are counter to community-interest. Which is false, even according to your previous statement.

Libertarians are willfully blind on the idea of community service because, as often as not, they are trying to live according to Ayn Rand's objectivist creed, which denies the existence of "community interest." (Of course, the basis for this "objective" idea is utterly subjective -- but then, Rand's ideas are rife with such contradictions.)

The message you missed was that in the end, in the valley, the ultimate community-spirit arose, "live and let live". You also seemed to miss the point that greed ultimately serves the community by way of jobs, security, and profit for all that partake the producers credo. If you think community spirit is a gubment enforced "free ride for the weak on the backs of the strong" you are no better than Lenin or Clowntoon for that matter.

EBUCK

157 posted on 05/02/2002 2:25:21 PM PDT by EBUCK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
The federal government, has every right to secure, protect and defend American interests around the world. If the LP ever had the power, they would dismantle the current military establishment, in favor of sling shots and bows and arrows, reducing America to third world status overnight.

"American interests" is a nebulous term, but there are some cases where I believe that we can all agree that US interests are served... IMHO, I believe that "the war on terrorism" is a very good idea, however, I don't believe that it's being pursued anywhere near as ruthlessly or aggressivly as it should. The gulf war in 91? Well, I'm not 100% sure on that one, but keeping ME oil flowing at market prices is important to the economy of the US, so it may have been in the best interest of the US. Going after Hussain? I believe that the world owes Israel a huge "thank you" for taking out the nuclear reactor that the French were building him, all those years ago. He must never be allowed to gain possession of a nuke. That is in the interest of the US.

Mark

158 posted on 05/02/2002 2:27:43 PM PDT by MarkL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Alan Chapman
Just as I would expect from the libertarians that they would call me names. If their vote count wasn't so pathetic they would not have to worry about what I say.
159 posted on 05/02/2002 2:27:45 PM PDT by Khepera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Are you scared to be associated with the Libertarian Party and its platform of anti-government and liberal pro-abortion, pro-drugs and pro-prostitution agenda?

I'm not anti-government, I'm anti-big-government. I think you have Libertarians confused with Anarchists. As for the drug issue, why would you have decisions about what drugs are ok for you to take being made for you by those geniuses in Washington. Sounds like you need a daddy to keep you from getting in trouble. LMAOAABD

160 posted on 05/02/2002 2:29:22 PM PDT by opinionator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 521-534 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson