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 ...
One should put his own money where his mouth is, rather than picking the pocket of his neighbors.
So, let me get this right. You're saying, the CATO Institute doesn't support the principles of libertarianism, nor does it have any political connections with the Libertarian Party. Right?
Since when? That's so far from the truth. When did you aquire this need to distort reality?
And you're telling me, I can't recognize the truth.
Too late for that.
You're saying, the CATO Institute doesn't support the principles of libertarianism, nor does it have any political connections with the Libertarian Party.
Putting words in people's mouths is SOP when trying to obsure the truth.
Right?
Wrong. If you want to know the truth about the Cato Institute, go to the web page. WWW.cato.org
But then again, you don't really want to know the truth, you want to obfuscate.
Period. That was my point. It matters not how you attain your goals.
I would be happy to be free again, the manner of attaining it is unimportant to me as long as it's peaceful.
That's government's heavy hand in service to a specific political agenda, not validating the overwhelming will of the populace. The same could be said with lealizing hard drug and narcotic use legalizing prostitution. These involve more than just run-of-the-mill arbitrary policy choices, but part of the fabric of the culture as it exists in relation to religious beliefs, traditions, cumulative history, and even human biology. You can't just delineate all collective human experience into an arbitrary political arrangement and an undifferentiated mass of humanity in a vacuum. That is the chief problem with hypothetically "perfect" political systems as well as others such as language wherein the "perfect" international languages dsigned by lingusitic "experts" ie: Esperanto, Monoglottica,, and Interlingua, to mention a few fail. They lack an active base of popular support and fail to address the human culture to which they were to be applied. This is why communism, although once widespread through force, failed to gain loyalty and longevity.
I recognize this truth, libertarianism + Libertarian Party + CATO = FReeper "ThomasJefferson".
Never did like Mickey Mouse. I was a Bugs Bunny guy. But I am a big Star Trek fan.
Never did like Superman's Bizzaro world though. Too strange for me. Sort of like, talking to a libertarian called "ThomasJefferson". Very strange.
Still are. But I was wrong about Mickey, you are GOOFY all the way. lol
Re government still being involved after being removed, I don't understand your point. What you are stating is a contradiction. e.g. libertarians want to remove government from these items and are therefore forcing government into the mix. This makes no sense.
By removing government from the drug war, for example, are you suggesting that government then promotes drugs?? Thats not the case. Private individuals and institutions would carry on the fight much more effectively and much less collateral damage. As for marriage, where does the government need to be involved other than enforcing contracts between individuals who freely agree to associate? Marriage is between individuals and their god, and its nobody elses business.
AS for the overwhelming will of the populace, we are not a democracy that relies on the will of the mob, but rather we are (supposed to be) a republic that protects the rights and freedoms of individuals. You seem to think the will of the masses makes right. But thats the same problem you complain about. This is where so many go wrong they think if only my party in all its nobility had the power
whereas libertarians promote eliminating said collectivized power and handing it back to individuals.
Perhaps you assume because someone is not pro your policy that they hate the beneficiaries?? That's not the case.
While I can list a host of reasons why Israel currently is in the state it is, and have serious misgivings about their policies and future based on their very premise of existence, I don't hate Israel. Nor do I love it. Simply, it has no more right to pick my pocket than do you or any other foreign policy initiative spouted by our politicians. Yet U.S. policies allow for such. I dont like it, I dont care if its Israel, India, Japan or our farmers. Most libertarians would agree except for a fringe minority that makes up republicans and democrats just the same.
To suggest otherwise about the libertarians is easily viewed is slanderous, suggestive of anti Semitism, and deflective of the genuine problems Libertarians have with U.S. foreign policy in general.
Now that is rich even for someone of your...
I would be happy to be free again, the manner of attaining it is unimportant to me as long as it's peaceful.
Perhaps I could have stated my thoughts a little more clearly. My writting skills are suspect. I will restate
I would be happy to be free again, the manner of peacefully attaining it is unimportant to me.
I hope you can see the difference.
You seem to be making the case for an armed struggle. If so, when should it start? How would it proceed? Who precisely should be attacked?
As I do mine. So we disagree.
"You, can dish out all the insults you care to it's typical of libertarians too."
Insults? Wohh! You're the one painting with the wide brush, here! Besides, this is a discussion site where people constantly debate, for all to see. I questioned your position's validity regarding a sweeping generalization about libertarians that hints at anti-semitism and this is an apparent "insult"?!?
Im sorry you take such as such, but then why even bother to post in the first place? I didnt think this was a site where folks make bold statements as fact, only to have them left unchallenged in the vacuum of the net.
"Our conversation is over!"
Sort of like, "I'm taking my ball and going home". You know where to find me. I welcome your thoughts.
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.