Libertarians in debate mode.
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 ...
That was a reply to your #214, wherein you brought up the question of street ownership.
You are either one extremely deluded individual, or just plain dumb. Care to offer some proof to support that which the party you support has pushed forward these positions?. HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa.
Like PT said, there's a sucker born every minute.
---max
If your assertion is true, is being a utopian anarchist necessarily a bad thing? How so?
Are not all people with political aspirations actually utopians at heart or is this a uniquely Libertarian phenomenon? Do you hope government exists forever or do you hope that humanity will one day evolve to the point where it is no longer needed?
Was your intent simply to demean?
Thank you for the clarifucation. I have to comment, however, that you seem to be very hasty in establishing and declaring causality.
Ron was proud of his libertarian 'leanings'. - And said so.
Your irrational hate for those same principles says it all. - Authoritarian.
I just do not interact with people who have more anger than intelligence and knowledge. So, please do not expect any further comments from me.
Talk about dumb and dumber...
ping
Try using a little deductive reasoning some time. If it is wrong for one person to plunder another then it is also wrong for a million people to plunder a million others.
By what system of morality do you judge such actions of Congress as immoral?
I ascribe to the principle of non-aggression which holds the initiation of force or fraud against another as an unnacceptable means of problem solving. It recognizes sovereignty of individuals and the sanctity of private property. Congress often passes laws which run contrary to the principle of non-aggression. That is how I judge acts of Congress to me immoral. It's quite simple really.
Libertarians in debate mode.
Ron??? Show some respect you dope.
You know we've been through this before, more then once. But I will review the facts, once again.
In the now famous Reason magazine interview from 1975, Reagan was basically talking about his desire for a smaller and less intrusive federal government and how his conservatism on that specific issue, was very similiar in regards to the libertarian idea of limited government.
Beyond Reagan's agreement on the issue of a smaller federal governemnt and the over whelming need for fiscal responsibility, Reagan never claimed to be a libertarian, nor did he support the libertarian agenda, philosophy or ideology. Reagan was a moral conservative above all else. Reagan never supported the legalization of drugs, or prostitution in America. Reagan supported a strong military armed forces, quite the opposite of the Libertarian Party platform. Reagan didn't support the dismantling of our criminal justice system. Reagan didn't support abortion on demand, but he did support the right to life for the unborn child. Reagan also supported a strong national drug control strategy.
Reagan said:
Now, I can't say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don't each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves.
Reagan also said:
Well, third parties have been notoriously unsuccessful; they usually wind up dividing the very people that should be united. And then we elect the wrong kind-the side we're out to defeat wins.
Lets not confuse Ronald Reagan's conservatism with the extreme agenda of the Libertarian Party. Reagan was a strong believer in individualism, as all conservatives are, but he didn't support allowing individuals to walk all over society and he didn't support the the libertarian idea of upholding the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty. That behavior breeds chaos which leads to anarchy.
-------
Just wanted to offer a clarification. Before the Libertarian Party existed, there was libertarianism. But many libertarians do not feel represented by the LP. There are libertarians that are "cultural conservatives" who understand and agree with the need for natural order and morality. They believe that it is the *government* that has undermined the authority of the family, for example. Murray Rothbard is a good example of a libertarian that rejected the countercultural-left--he criticized a lot of juvenile libertarians for making libertarianism nothing more than "free" drugs and sex, for instance. Another good libertarian who is pro-family (pro-natural order) is Hans-Hermann Hoppe. In the Hoppean sense, I consider myself both a conservative and a libertarian.
Anyway, the example of the Republican Party and calling oneself a republican needs some clarification or fine-tuning. Suppose a party comes along and calls itself the "Conservative Party." (I know they have one in NY but that's not what I'm talking about here). Suppose that "Conservative Party" then takes un-conservative positions. Does that mean I can't call myself a conservative, just because they came along and tainted the label? That's pretty much the case with small-l libertarianism and the Libertarian Party.
AC: It is significant because Bush and Congress want.. No, I was referring to your assertion.
TQ: this is what emboldened the enemy.
AC: Who, exactly, is this enemy you speak of which has become emboldened? Almost all by now, but particularly the Arab world.
"Do what we say or we will drop bombs on your cities. We have never said that, except in response to an attack.
The US has troops stationed in over 100 countries around the world. True: they have been placed there as a defensive action against the Eastern Block. This placement is the sole reason we were not attacked at the time and the sole reason Western Europe was not overrun by Russian tanks.
More importantly, what subversive and dictatorial activities have our troops performed?
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. That has always been the case with enforcement --- from laws, to morals, to policies.
If this is the standard you apply, then all countries of the world fall into this category; according to you all countries are dictatorial. You can use whatever term you want but, with no exceptions, it becomes vacuous.
I consider myself to be a Libertarian… I recognize that the country and the government are two distict things. Perhaps you have them confused.
No, not at all. I used the word "we," referring to both. >
As I wrote elsewhere just today, it is a long-established notion of the tort law that the principal that hires an agent to perform a task is responsible for the actions of that agent. Being an American and acting as principal, I elected a government (agent) to represent me abroad. I am responsible, therefore, for the actions of my government.
In the past we've observed numerous military excursions by Middle-Eastern countries preceeded by infusions of weapons and military hardware from the US. It was no hasty declaration on my part but rather an examination of the facts and the application of reason that allowed me to formulate a conclusion.
If your assertion is true, is being a utopian anarchist necessarily a bad thing? How so? I did not place any value judgement; just tried to conceptualize what I observe.
Are not all people with political aspirations actually utopians at heart or is this a uniquely Libertarian phenomenon?
I think you are correct to the extent that all political aspirations (I think this is a great choice of words) are idealized, hence imperfect, hence cannot be perfectly implemented.
Most people, I believe, reserve the word "utopia" not to something that contains idealizations but to that which is an idealization alsmost entirely. Utipian ideal are mostly imperfect and mostly unrealizable. That, seem to me, is the differnce.
Do you hope government exists forever or do you hope that humanity will one day evolve to the point where it is no longer needed? I think that the government will exist forever, it is the form of the government that will change, perhaps drastically. I do not know whether the society will become more or less totalitarian.
The government was always with us. Even animals have it: the alpha male governs the pack of volves, for instance.
Was your intent simply to demean? I assure you that nothing can be farther from the truth.
Then what you are describing is a life-style. I have yet to see one of these threads that various small "l", never a big "L", libertarian do not invariably decry everyone else's lack of "understanding" of what it means. They then go on and contradict each other in every post. If the concept is not definable then there is no way to make a case for a governing model based on it,. The only clear consensus that seems to emerge from those libertarians on this site seems to be complete disregard for the realities of any given society in which they find themselves. In this country there are very few constraints on an individual that does not share the values of the community around him however; many have an almost pathological need for that community to recognize his perceived "right" to thumb his nose at those around him.
I have my problems with the party and sometimes feel like throwing brickbats of my own, but let's distinguish between the party and me, please. You can tell me what would happen if I were sherrif/president and you can dump on the party, heck I'll throw a tomato or two. But the homophile and criminal comments should stop. I have never even been charged with any crime, certianly nothing against children. No such comments from my direction would be tolerated, so please do to others as you would have them do to you and not refer to me as criminal.
You lost any semblance of rationality with that statement. It didn't take you long.
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.