The Fall of the Libertarians

Opinion Journal ^ | 05/02/2002 | FRANCIS FUKUYAMA

[Pokey78]

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.

[Thraka]

First of all what I am saying is, that a Christian who supports libertarian ideals is just like a pedophile in the church. They by their support of immoral activities are denigrating to the church. Libertarians are whores for vice. They will do anything to have their immoral way. I’d like to see you try to shut me up about this but I don’t think you have what it takes.

Christ was accused and executed for, among other heresies, tolerating and travelling among the sinful. It's not hard to research the subject. If you were really a Christian, though, you would have read the Bible and understood this already.

I suspect, however, that like several other irrational hardliners, you are neither Christian, nor Conservative, but a Communist agent-provakateur, here to make Conservatives and Christians look viscious and evil. It serves your ends, I think, to stir up trouble between Libertarians and Conservatives, so they present a less unified force against your own evil.

Thraka

[TopQuark]

Do you clowns expect libertarians to be 'happy' with your constant idiotic slurs? -- Whatta buncha droll dolts.

Name one slur that I have made with respect to a libertarian.

You owe me an apology.

[jodorowsky]

Most streets in this country are public.

Well, of course they are, that's common knowledge, TQ! :)

What does that have to do with what I said?

[TopQuark]

You seem to delight in making idiotic statements.

I am sorry you do not find my comments to be wise, but you have not offered me so far any at all except for insults.

Whereas the wisdom of my posts is open for depate, your abusive personality, as exhibited on this thread, is beyond doubt.

[calmseas]

At the time of the Gulf War, Cato produced an analysis that argued it would be cheaper to let Saddam keep Kuwait than to pay for a military intervention to expel him

Just one more reason why the Libertarians will never garner more than the extremely limited support they now enjoy. This has got to be one of the most short-sighted analyses I've ever read. Sure it would be cheaper for a few years, but in the end the inevitable conflict would cost us many times more for the delay in dealing with Sad-damn. And by the time we got down and dirty, we'd no doubt be in the fight of our lives!

[Thraka]

First of all what I am saying is, that a Christian who supports libertarian ideals is just like a pedophile in the church. They by their support of immoral activities are denigrating to the church. Libertarians are whores for vice. They will do anything to have their immoral way. I’d like to see you try to shut me up about this but I don’t think you have what it takes.To see how wrong you are read post #84. Then come back and dispute anything you have read there.

If you don't want to read it I'll sum it up for you. JESUS DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOU!!!!! FOOL.

EBUCK

These people are the new Pharisees. They are as far from Christ as Satanists, and less honest about their motivations.

Thraka

[Alan Chapman]

As evidenced by what?

As evidenced by the thousands of new regulations, the thousands of new government employees, and the trillions of dollars in additional government debt which exist now and didn't before Reagan took office.

[tpaine]

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.

Ahhhh yes, -- the old classic communitarian 'synergy' argument. - You don't hear it from libertarians, because they believe in free republics, -- not big brother states.

[#3Fan]

From my encounters and discussions with "libertarians", it seems to me that most of them are embarrassed, disillusioned Democrats. Over time, they came to realize how morally corrupt and dishonest the Democrat party is, but they could never bring themselves to go over to the party (Republican) that they were brought up by their parents to despise. So they take the convenient cop-out and become "libertarians". Whenever you see a "not-a-dime's-worth-of-difference" post or a "Bush-is-no-better-than-the-Democrats" post, you know that this is one of these people posting. They are often very bitter people. I often get the impression from their posts that they are red-faced with rage as they type, obsessed with beating their point of view into the reader. Their lack of a sense of humor is instantly recognizable as the same old affliction seen in liberals. They just can't hide it.

Good post. You put into words what I've been thinking since coming to FR. I used to call myself a Libertarian because I thought that libertarianism was Reaganism exponented, but seeing the Libertarians here on FR make me realize that I'm a Republican, not a Libertarian.

[hinckley buzzard]

I'll say it slowly for the Constitutionally impaired:

..."...a more perfect union...domestic tranquility... the common defense...the general welfare...ourselves and our posterity...

Nope, there's nothing here about collective interests...

[Alan Chapman]

And the connection is...what exactly?

The connection between the money, weapons and military hardware that the US gives to other countries and the wars waged by those countries as a result.

[Reagan Man]

Shall we hold YOU responsible for everything the Republicans have ever done?

First off, I support a majority of what the Republican Party stands for. I support the many conservative positions it takes on key issues. Especially, tax cuts, smaller government and pro-life/right to life legislation. I will defend the party when I think its right and will condemn it, when I think its wrong. I don't believe most libertarians would agree with most of the Libertarian Party agenda. And that's my point. When people say I'm a small "l" libertarian, exactly what does that mean? From what understand, it means I'm a libertarian, but I don't support the Libertarian Party agenda. Well, if I didn't support a majority of the Republican Party agenda, I would leave the party, period and I wouldn't go around calling myself a republican anylonger.

Can you grasp that?

[tpaine]

You 'abuse' me, -- you get it back.

You stop your irrational bull about libertarians, - & I'll stop calling you an idiot.

[Reagan Man]

How are they going to pay for the army, highways, etc.?

That's easy, private enterprise will pick up the slack. [sarcasm]

[jodorowsky]

You are not of the body.

I cannot feel your energy field. Your chakras are not outputting the proper voltage parameters for the maximization of the welfare function.

Society requires your resonance be tuned properly so that the great power chord may sound clearly and sweetly to its ineffable ears.

Society hungers, and grows stronger by the minute.

[Reagan Man]

Thanks for the sane vote of confidence, as we are mired in muke and mud of libertarian philosophy.

[Reagan Man]

Get lost.

Nay. I'll stick around, if only to annoy you, slimy!

[max61]

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?

Not all colonists sided with the Revolutionaries, ever hear the word "Torie"?.

"Collective interest" is the underlying rationale for communism, socialism, fascism, etc.

Which are you, that is, if you are a collectivist?.

---max

[Alan Chapman]

This is a uniquely American thinking --- that the money solves everything. What does the budget have to do with that?

It is significant because Bush and Congress want additional funding for yet another government agency (Homeland Defense) when there are already agencies in place for intelligence gathering and protection.

We had a sufficient budget to fight and win in Vietnam, but the nation simply did not want to do that. We have not fought anything or anybody ever since. Instead we ran from everywhere, and this is what emboldened the enemy.

Who, exactly, is this enemy you speak of which has become emboldened?

Apparently, not only you have not travelled to counties under dictatorships --- you have not even read about them. Only ignorance at that level can cause someone to call the U.S. a "global dictator."

"Do what we say or we will drop bombs on your cities. We will cripple your infrastructure and kill your people." That sounds dictatorial to me. The US has troops stationed in over 100 countries around the world. We don't dictate terms to countries like China because China can fight back. We only threaten and bomb countries like Iraq and Afghanistan because they are powerless to retaliate.

I do not know whether you view yourself as libertarian, conservative, or something else, but you certainly do not hold your own country in high regard.

I consider myself to be a Libertarian. Furthermore, I recognize that the country and the government are two distict things. Perhaps you have them confused.

[tpaine]

I knew a commune leader out on the coast by Willits in the late 60's that talked exactly like that.

Jimmy was a cool dude, when he wasn't robbing everybody blind.