Posted on 05/28/2002 7:39:35 AM PDT by TroutStalker
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:46:33 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Political fashions come and go, but political principles endure. President Clinton noted some six years ago that the era of big government was over. Yet today, conservatives who should know better see a new fashion. George Will, high on his Hamiltonian horse in the Washington Post last month, seemed delighted that minimal-government conservatism was dead. And on these pages recently, Francis Fukuyama declared1 the libertarianism that followed the Thatcher-Reagan revolution to be in retreat. We're all Keynesians now, apparently.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Its one thing to argue ideology -- after all, everyone has utopian ideals of the perfect political balance -- which then serves as the guide point on the horizon. Every thoughtful individual in this group has such a "point".
While I might really want 75% reduction in government, I’ll settle for the politician who knocks us down 4% over one who grows it 4%. Still, ideally I'd like 75% and will continue to argue for it.
The problem is that the republicans claim victory with the +4%. Call us picky (or extremists!) but are we asking too much by calling this what it really is – a loss? Compromise is one thing, but caving in and calling it victory is pretty weak.
What I may frown on for moral or religious reasons does not give me carte blanche to form a cartel of like minded individuals to force our collective will on others.
Great statement. It sums up my beliefs to a tee.
They aren't an ideological organisation per se.
The best organisation I have ever belonged to is the Cato Institute.
This is why I say the LP is extremist. The objectivists and anarchists set the terms of the debate, write the platform, etc. While it is interesting for a philosophy club to discuss theory of eliminating government, the goal of a political party is to elect candidates to public office. The LP to date has been less than successful at this, and my point is that this is because the LP considers itself a "political philosophy" rather than a party.
Um, the LP is off topic for this thread?
Listen TJ, how about bringing up counterpoints to my arguments instead of hurling insults.
Who the hell are you anyway? :-)
Yes, initially. Unfortunately the usual suspects turned it from Cato to the LP and drugs. You then couldn't contain yourself from aiding them and letting them change the subject to your mutual enemy, the LP.
And you are pretty picky about insults after you insult every member of the LP every chance you get by making broad brush generalizations to further your vendetta.
I disagree with this assessment. The Socialist Party of the thirties was one of the most sucessful parties of all time, and they never elected anyone of consequence. They saw almost all of their (terrible) agenda enacted.
I couldn't agree with you more. I'd really like to see the Ed-dept bite the dust, followed by HUD close behind. And if must continue to fund an energy dept and EPA, at least merge them and cut their combined budget by 25%.
I knew Bush would increase education funding, I just wish he'd let all the money distribute down to the local community level. Back where it belongs! As of now, the ED dept budget has doubled since 1996.
ThomasJefferson's comments not withstanding, I do not hate libertarians. I would like the LP to see more candidate hold office, than the occasional state representative. However, I see the LP making the same mistakes over and over again, yet expecting different results. The LP makes this same argument against the prohibition, and rightly so. However, when I make this argument about the LP itself, people get defensive and indignant, like TJ just did.
And your point?
The last time I looked, The CATO Institute was still promoting the libertarian philosophy, while being an arm of the Libertarian Party. Can't deny the truth TJ.
I do think George W. Bush is a lot better than Gore. It's just that Clinton set such a low bar, that anyone looks good in comparison.
Personally, I have mixed feelings about W. I am 100% behind sending terrorists to Allah, and got warm fuzzies from Ashcroft's support of an individual 2nd amendment right, and Bush's rejection of the ICC. On the other hand, I can't ignore the education spending increase, recent reversal on global warming, etc. Sometimes I get the sense he's pulling a Clinton by lifting his finger in the air to see which way the wind's blowing.
For that, they deserve a lot of credit from all non-leftists.
Seems like a correct impression. There is however, what I would title, "Thread creep" on every topic. The problem for me arises when people with an agenda about drugs, the LP, etc. change the topic immediately to their own pets.
Some of those people are the obvious ones who simply hate the idea of self-government, but the far more dangerous are those who appear to be friends of freedom but play right into the hands the enemies of same.
You and Liberal Classic seem to agree with each other about the LP generally, but you make your case without "mischaracterization by generality".
I happen to share most of your criticisms of how the party operates BTW. I just don't try to figuratively assassinate the whole political arm of the movement because I don't agree with the strategy currently employed. If I allow Liberal Classic to get me to engage in a debate about the LP, it will take away from the real topic of this thread, namely the huge postive contributions to liberty made by the Cato Institute.
Thanks for updating your page, I peeked at it before and it seemed devoid of interesting info. We seem to share many views. Regards
I'm sure you realize that your criticism of the LP is not why I became indignant. It is something far different and it stretches back to a thread last week. You have made charges and generalizations that would make our enemies proud. Even up to describing the party with the "A" word. A word so politically charged it is used as the first shot by opponents of freedom whenever possible. I find it repugnant that anyone who claims to be a friend of liberty would say such things. I attribute it to old personal vendettas against people in the party. Which may be incorrect, but an understandable speculation I think.
You can't recognise the truth.
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.