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.

[The Green Goblin]

Libertarianism is just another gnostic cult which seeks to impose a metaphysical order on reality

Every political philosophy is an attempt to impose a metaphysical order on reality. That's why they're called "political philosophies".

[Baseballguy]

I think what is lost is that Libertarians are not a party. Ask Ross Perot! Its a group of loosely grouped people. We think of eachother as eachother. There is no platform cause there is not primary goal. Anarchy is not Libertarianism. Since there is no plan of not having government but a government for the people by the people. A Republic is the best government since we elect a few to follow those of the many. A pure Democracy is a Ruse.

Our government should care 1stly about America and its people. Why if we had to supply ourselves with energy and goods first the rest of the world would collapse and change. With the way we have it now we support those other government by our actions. Terrorism is the result. Why not have a defense shield and remove our status with those world order groups: United Nations and NATO. Have the Navy patrol our waters and Amry Patrol our borders. Those that visit have no rights and should be identified and have a GPS chip inserted. The world has changed.

[Roscoe]

Be no stretch to get it to 'cover' 2nd amendment rights in CA

Perhaps in a "Militia Common Law court."

[The Green Goblin]

Libertarian's are anti-government, anti-military, anti-religion, anti-community and anti-society

In your case, clarity of thought would likely induce a massive headache...

[Roscoe]

There is no platform cause there is not primary goal.

Sure there is.

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/

[FreeTally]

Good post.

[NMC EXP]

You need to get out more, since most libertarians are actually embarrassed, disillusioned former Republicans. Myself, for example...

Yup. Nothing more despicable than a party that claims to favor less government and more liberty then trys to out liberal the damn democrats.

I have more respect for the democrats -- at least they don't lie about their intentions before they screw you.

Regards

J.R.

[edsheppa]

Ah, we must be having a failure to communicate. By "here" in my original post you have intepreted "on this thread," right? That is incorrect. I meant, as I think my subsequent posts should have made clear, "here at FR."

To further clarify, when I say "quite a few" I don't mean "all." The only reason I point this out is that in the post to which I'm responding you quote me as saying "quite a few" and evidently take it to mean "all."

Lastly, you asked me to name one doper-L. I did so. (You don't dispute that do you?) I recall one of the first threads I posted to was a vanity in which a L-poster had posted a sort of L-manifesto. One plank of maybe ten was the usual pro-drug legalization/do-what-I-want-with-my-body. The poster formerly known as Deb was flaming away in her usual style focusing on this one thing and I had the temerity to point out that it was just one of many points in the vanity. She blasted me as a disruptor (rather amusing that). Later another, kinder poster pointed out that the vanity poster's screen name "DoBe" is slang for a marijuana cigarette - live and learn.

Now, I think that's the last I'll post on this topic.

[Roscoe]

Nothing more despicable than a party that claims to favor less government and more liberty then trys to out liberal the damn democrats.

Yes, I'll never forget the way the Libertarians climbed into bed with the Democrats in opposing Proposition 187's proposed benefit reductions for illegal aliens. Quite an eye opener.

[The Green Goblin]

Nothing more despicable than a party that claims to favor less government and more liberty then trys to out liberal the damn democrats.

Your statement fits the Republican Party to a "T" (take Bush's recent steel tariffs for example). Bush has actively passed most of the Democrat's agenda in the last few months, as even Rush Limbaugh openly acknowledges. So pardon me if I can't take such statements seriously.

[KC Burke]

Your reference to the Social Contract issue and the related State of Nature brought to mind something I think Chesterton said. His comment was that no Social Contract devolving from a state of nature was formed by two primitive men to agree to not fight each other by their meeting, intellectualizing and thence agreeing: We will not fight each other. Instead he asserted, the initial form of this was: We will not fight each other in the Holy Place..

He thought even cleanliness originated in worship or observance rather than agreement or understanding.

His instances are actually observable in pre-history, the Social Contract in action is not. A great response to the Enlightenment thinking.

[The Green Goblin]

Yes, I'll never forget the way the Libertarians climbed into bed with the Democrats in opposing Proposition 187's proposed benefit reductions for illegal aliens.

Ah, but you'll overlook Bush climbing in bed with the Democrats to such a degree that even Rush Limbaugh is outraged. Hypocrite.

[Liberal Classic]

Yours is a very reasoned post. It is also informative for me: I do not know, for instance, that there are many libertarians that believe in limited government. That would disqualify them from being construed as anarchists, as I did earlier.

Thank you. I am not an anarchist, myself. I am more of a federalist, I believe in constitutionally limited government, not no government at all. I have some rather significant departures from more anarchist-leaning libertarians, not the least of which is the legitimacy of the military and police, and the manner of laws that may be passed by the states as opposed by the federal government.

It is my sense that there are more limited government libertarians, but more of the are in the Republican party or have no party affiliation since the national Libertarian party is being run my the anarchist-leaning libertarians. This has always been off-putting for me, because I am often told I am not a "real" libertarian (what ever that is) or that I am a "statist" or "government-lover" and so forth.

In my opinion this is unfortunate and unnecessary. I find that for the party of individualism to require a litmus test is highly suspect. However, what ever limitations the organized party may have, that's a far cry from a political position of constitutional republicanism. I think that the libertarian position has a great deal of merit, despite the best efforts of the party. I'm certianly willing to discuss any drawbacks that libertarian positions might have, but I would like to separate complaints about the party I might agree with from criticisms of policy that I might not.

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?

I was speaking generally. Sorry, I did not mean to imply that you personally said those things. I think your posts have been respecful and interesting.

[Roscoe]

The Proposition 187 episode demonstrated that Libertarian "principles" are meaningless.

[tpaine]

"Leftists and libertarians would love to stretch the 14th Amendment even further". - roscoe -

Their fondest dreams are to gain power and prevent the states from enacting any law that "enforces morality" on the immoral. The libertarians are the very definition of "statist". - tex -

Ludicrous. We simply want the constitution honored in a free republic. YOU clowns want states to have the power to ignore the bill of rights. - That's a 'statist' agenda.

I have asked old Tpaine to cite ONE example of court decisions based on the 14th that was NOT an advancement of liberal agenda. The result was in the words of that great libertarian thinker OWK ,,,,"crickets".

-- Absolute BS lie, - no crickets, empty texas mind. -- The 14th protects individuals from state laws that abridge immunities or deprive persons of life, liberty, and property. --- ALL such decisions advance personal liberty, thus should be on the free republic agenda.

Sadly, you statist Rinos spread this agit-prop about the 14th as an 'evil amendment', and far too many conservatives buy the bull. -- The result is states like CA using their socalled 'rights' to grab guns. - Its majority rule. - A tyranny.

[Reagan Man]

Authoritarian leanings?

First off, I don't blindly submit to any authority and I don't favor power in any leadership that isn't constitutionally responsible to the people.

So, once again, you're wrong.

If you would think before you spoke, you'd be far better off, you boob.

[tpaine]

You quack like a authoritarian duck, & I'll tar your feathers for being a booby.

[Roscoe]

Their fondest dreams are to gain power and prevent the states from enacting any law that "enforces morality" on the immoral.

Useful idiots.

[tpaine]

Now, I think that's the last I'll post on this topic.

Thanks for pulling a 'roscoe'. -- Long overdue.

[tpaine]

Texasforever - Their fondest dreams are to gain power and prevent the states from enacting any law that "enforces morality" on the immoral.

Useful idiots.

Idiotic comment. - 'Useful' for what?