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 ...
There is no conservative party. So we will cross that bridge, when we reach it. But under your set of parameters, I don't believe anyone has to agree with their political party on each and every issue. I'd say 75% or better would be a nice round figure to apply in this case. Now, if there was a true 'conservative party', I don't believe it would move away from its basic conservative agenda. Therefore, I would have no worries about straying from the party line. The same goes for the real world of Republican Party politics. The problem arises, when you apply these standards to the Libertarian Party. There appears to be no viable substance there and that means we have a huge gulf in what defines libertarianism and what policy agenda constitutes, the Libertarian Party.
In my book, you can belong to the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, tyhe Libertarian Party, the Reform Party, the Constitution Party or a bunch of lesser known third parties. That's how I look at politics and that's how a majority of American's view politics. Some people don't associate themselves with any political party. I call those people independents. Under that criteria, any individual can then choose to define their political positions, without fear of criticism from hardline political types, like me. Frankly, all this political labeling, drives me up a wall sometimes and I balme it on the political fringers.
"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."
Thanks.
Tpaine, you don't have a reference point from which to define what is rational or not. You have never known that condition.
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. This is utopian: one cannot enforece anything without some force. This is because in a society it is impossible to attain an outcome desirable by everybody: whenever someone benefits, someone else gets hurt. It is the force that prevents that hurt person from changing outcomes in his favor.
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.
Do you notice that in response to clarifying questions you bring new issues into the discussion?
You said earlier that "it is immoral for Congress to redistribute wealth." I asked you to clarify that. Whatever you said so far does not even touch the question.
I made no assertion that money solves everything.
Almost all by now, but particularly the Arab world.
Almost all the world is our enemy by now? Particularly the Arab world? How you suppose this happened?
Furthermore, when you speak of the enemy are you referring to foreign governments, citizens, or both? Do citizens in foreign nations deserve death for the acts of their governments over which they may have no control? In Arab countries, do you believe that families sit around the kitchen table and conspire to kill Americans? Come how Canada and Mexico aren't our enemies?
We have never said that, except in response to an attack.
You must be joking. You mean the US only invades countries who attack us but never before and never unless?
More importantly, what subversive and dictatorial activities have our troops performed?
Suppose your neighbor were to park his car in your driveway, camp out on your front lawn, force you and your family to submit to random searches and frequent displays of identification, and have your weapons confiscated. Would you thank him for his protection or tell him to get lost?
That has always been the case with enforcement --- from laws, to morals, to policies.
I see. Convenience is the standard by which we should measure. So if we become bigger and stronger than China then we should threaten and bomb them too just like Iraq and Afghanistan.
...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.
As it should be. An agent is a proxy representation of the principal. However, it is a common and erroneously held belief that a criminal act committed in one's individual capacity somehow becomes right and just when sanctioned by law and committed by an agent of the government.
That is exactly the point: we have also observed before Sep 11 that most of the attackers had at least once in their lifetimes, eaten cucumbers. Should I consider that also to be a reason for the attack.
I am not joking. You may want to read on causality in some research methods book or consult J.S. Mill for initial contributions. You are very hasty with causality.
I admitted nothing. Reagan's beliefs had nothing to do with libertarian leanings, you boob! Reagan was an old guard conservative Democrat. And please, stop referring to Ronald Reagan as "Ron". It shows disrespect for a great American.
Hey, tpaine, I believe in the same ideas of fiscal policy that Reagan believed in. Do I get a thanks from you too?
Then why did you limit your observation solely to Libertarians if not to demean in order to create animosity? Perhaps I could offer an observation of my own: most Republicans and Democrats seem to be utopian socialists.
Now, bear in mind, I did not place any value judgement. I just tried to conceptualize what I observe.
Unless, of course, he sees the bashers here as fringers. -- Which, while it certainly is true, is going too far. He is not at that level of lucidity.
You complaint about name-calling is also justified and well-expressed; I agree with it completely. The only question I have, why was that complaint addressed to me? Did I call anyone a criminal?
No. It *validated* it, since the US never actually followed the policies set forth by libertarians. If you are going to look at 9/11/02 in the light of a result of national policy (which may or may not be a wise thing to do), then it is ludicrious to blame something that the US never followed and, with the exception of Reagan, never even mouthed.
Another straw man argument against limiting US foreign involvement and for globalization. What a surprise.
Tuor
Savagery and barbarism have always been with us as well. Even animals exhibit it: when they want something they kill and take it. Unless you desire to live like an animal I would submit that it would be wise to discourage such behavior since we have observed the consequences of it just as with the consequences of too much government.
We have an ability which animals do not. We have the ability to obtain the necessities of life without resorting to violence.
At post #208, you called libertarians anarchists. -- He replied to that slur.
The Federal Government does not currently have any authority in this area *unless* it regards the unborn as having the same constitutional protections as those who have been born. If it were to do so, then it could say that no one has the right to interfere with the birth process.
I *think* that what should be done is a Constitutional Amendment should be made to ban any and all cloning of human beings, though not necessarily all research as some of it has other uses. It would have to be very precisely worded.
Without such an amendment and without the government stating that the unborn have the same rights as the born (which wont happen due to the abortionists), the US Government has no authority to intercede. Bush is not a King, but the President: He can't just make up whatever laws he wants.
So, insofar as I am a libertarian, I view the US position on this matter as both ironic and hypocritical, but not surprising. As a Christian, I view cloning as morally repugnant and flat out bad, if not downright evil.
Cloning should be banned, but the US needs to follow the procedures set forth in the Constitution in order to acheive this, not just act through fiat.
Tuor
Could it be that those "policies", taken to their logical conclusion never hold up?
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.