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 ...
How true. I, too, am yet to meet a happy libertarian.
Shall we hold YOU responsible for everything the Republicans
have ever done?
It is the Republicans and Democrats who play politics, pandering to everyone and compromising on everything in exchange for campaign contributions and power. There is so little difference in the way the two parties vote in Congress that one politician is indistinguishable from another.
Even if what you said were true, how does this invalidate the first line above?
Since we believe that all persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor, we oppose all government activity that consists of the forcible collection of money or goods from individuals in violation of their individual rights. Specifically, we:
How are they going to pay for the army, highways, etc.?
A bloody shootout would have been better than the destruction of the WTC and the deaths of thousands.
On 9-11, even the pilots were disarmed by government. Had that been different, your argument is demolished - no shootouts if the pilots have guns but the hijackers didn't.
Finally, after thousands of deaths, the government is backing off this particular prohibition - and thus tends to Libertarianism. This itself cuts against the premise of the article that Libertarianism necessarily fails and government alone can save us: government has thrown its hands into the air and is considering giving power of self-defense back to pilots.
Does this apply to libertarians who live in foreign countries?
Libertarians seem to be utopian anarchists.
You follow this pattern of throwing in far-reaching statements with zero support for them.
By what system of morality do you judge such actions of Congress as immoral?
Thraka: Let us try some logic to cool the flames of your raving.
Not nice, but let us examine the logic.
1. It is not possible to be anti-government while at the same time supporting the Constitution. Nobody, including Regan Man, accused libertarians of being logical and consistent.
2. I served my term in the military, and am a better man for it... Thank you for sharing with us, but what do your personal experiences have to do with the claim of Regan Man that you are trying to repudiate?
3. Christ stood against a mob of men who had it in their mind to stone an adulteress. And this has something to do with logic? Or with what Regan Man said?
4. Communities are as varied as men themselves. I would stand against a community of robbers. I would stand with a community of honest men. Your 'anti-community' accusation is meaningless wordplay.
No, it is not. Just one example: libertarians are against taxation and coercive power of the government, yet without it it is impossible to provide public goods.
Incidentally, your call for compulsory military service can be implemented only be coersion.
5. See above. This is the most strong argument of all.
I am still wating for the logic to kick in, Thraka.
You're also trying to change the subject from the planes landing safely to preventing the destruction of the WTC. Two different subjects. Granted, a "bloody shootout" might have prevented the later, but it is unlikely to enhance safe landings.
As I've made clear in other posts, I have real difficulties in arming passengers simply from a safety point. I've seen too many instances of improper and unsafe gun handling to be comfortable with large numbers of armed passengers. Armed pilots are a different matter.
5) Most importantly, it comes down to the fundamental issue of who our bodies belong to. If you value property rights, hopefully you will agree that your body is your own property, and only you should decide what to do with it. If this model were correct, your conclusion would indeed follow logically at once.
The problem is that the model is not correct. This is not just about the body: it is about behavior as well. And behavior has a social component to it, hence not personal entirely.
Your excrements are produced by your body, but urination is a behavior. This is why you cannot do perform it in the street.
That would depend on who owns the street.
Don't you understand that society is made up of individuals?
I think the lack of understanding is exhibited on your part.
In any system of entities --- from particles of matter, to goods-producing companies, to animals and human human being --- the whole is bigger than the sum of the constituents. The difference between the two is what is call synergy.
In application to society, it means that there are actions and interests of the community that are not represented by the individuals themselves, taken one a time.
It is the synergy that is missing in yours and most libertarian arguments.
-- And you are a vile, vicious, sicko wacko to so characterize our philosophy, or our group.
It has little in common with traditional, mainstream conservative values.
Bull, -- libertarian principles have long been 'mainstream'. It is your version of 'conservative values' that is sick & twisted, as we can see in your rant above.
Aside from some libertarians agreeing with conservatives and many republicans, that fiscal restraint, lower taxes/tax reform and smaller government, is the way to go, nothing else about the libertarian agenda makes any sense for America. That's why most people reject the Libertarian Party platform.
Sure, - 'most people'. Great original argument.
The truth hurts, but it must be told. Read the platform. Libertarians are fiscally conservative, socially liberal and wrong most of the time. If you want to pick and choose your political posiitons, like its a Chinese menu, don't be so quick to associate yourselves directly with the Libertarian Party. In other words, if you define yourself as a libertarian, then you must be held accountable for the positions of the Libertarian Party platform.
Sorry, your idea that I 'must obey' your silly dictates, - only highlights your demented authoritarian vision of true 'conservatism'.
Get lost.
Without it, your statement is no more than an insult, which is not nice. The fact that you make accusations without support invites one to question your qualities and standards.
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.