Libertarianism Lives

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.

Below is the powers of congress. Maybe you could also refere to the 10th item in the Bill of Rights.

I pray that you don't change the meaning of the Holy Scriptures to fit the times, like you seem to change the meaning of the Constitution as times change.

US Constitution Article I

Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

>>>OMG!! You're one of those "Republicans are great and right no matter what" people, aren't you? I've heard that there are some like that.

I'm just stating the facts. Republicans were opposed to Social Security from the get go. That's a fact. I don't believe Republicans can do no wrong. Far from it. While I am a life long Republican, I consider myself a political conservative, above all else. I wouldn't be so assuming in your remarks, RJCogburn. You'd be wrong, more often then right.

>>>... your statement, in context, is ludicrous as far as a response to the idea that the privatization of social security is really a 'small l' libertarian idea. ...but it really originated in the minds of libertarian thinkers, by and large.

In the 1950`s, a young conservative, named Bill Buckley, spoke of eliminating social security. In the 1960`s, another conservtive of his time, Barry Goldwater, spoke of ending social security. Another conservative, Ronald Reagan, talked of doing away with social security, throughout his political career. As you said, George W.Bush is the first President to seriouly, raise the issue of privatization. I don't doubt that CATO libertarians, promoted this issue of SS privatization. I believe they even have a "Policy Analysis", on the issue. I just don't believe their advocacy was the main thrust, behind the issue coming to the political forefront. Its good that libertarians agree with conservatives, on the need for fiscal responsibility. Tax cuts/tax reform and smaller governemnt, is something all conservatives can agree on.

>>>Uh. oh....it's silly time for Reagan Man. There are the thinkers, the idea people and then there are the politicians. As you must know, a lot of the socialist programs of the early part of the20th century made it into practice without them winning elections...including, remarkably enough, social security.

The idea that libertarians, or Libertarian Party members are the only so-called, "thinkers" around today, is whats really ludicrous. Now whose being silly, Rooster? The socialist programs of FDR`s New Deal, were advocated and promoted by the socialist, FDR himself, with the help of other socialists in the Democratic Party. And political philosophy, can never be advanced, without a political party, a political agenda and without winning elections. Again, this is basic politics 101. Pretty simple stuff, Rooster. If you waited on political philosophy alone, it would be a very long time, before anything substantial ever happened.

I've got news for you, the US Constitution isn't holy scripture and wasn't written in stone either.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square)...

I've never heard of this paragraph of the Constitution, being utilized to circumvent and limit the Constitutional power of the federal government. Quite unique, but of course, quite wrong. If that was case, we wouldn't need a Congress.

The last paragraph says it all.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The Constitution was designed to limit the power and authority of government from despotic fiat and not from a free citizenry. Not from a free people, capable of governing themselves, through specific legislative procedures, which are laid out and mandated, with brilliant checks and balances, that serve to moderate majority passions of the day.

"My hunch is if Libertarian Party can get its act really together by next election."

Well I wouldn't hold my breath for them to win a presidential election in the near future, but they have slowly but surly been making gains in local elections throughout the country.

A lot of people on this site bash Libertarians as being a party that is going nowhere, and I will admit that they could use a good revamping of their PR strategy, but the fact remains that they have been around for 20 years now, and I am not aware of any other third party that has been around that long.

Over that twenty years there have been several third parties that come and go and for a while make a big splash and then are never heard from again. I have always found it interesting that the major press outlets will give any of these parties quite a bit of coverage, but will very rarely give Libertarians any coverage at all. Could it be that the press understands that if the general public were to finally start grasping what the principles of the Libertarians are that the press would not be the power base that they are now and so have developed a policy to not truthfully cover Libertarian positions?

But at any rate if we are ever able to get back to the idea of a small limited, non intrusive into peoples private affairs, type of government, it will indeed be a long struggle. But for me that struggle starts with my vote and my refusal to give it to a party that’s basic principles are the advancement of socialism. Which today can be used to describe both the Democrats or Republican parties

My apologies if I was offensive in my characterization of you...it was done half tongue in cheek but perhaps my tongue got a little twisted.

Back to the issues, about which we do not particularly disagree, but...

Another conservative, Ronald Reagan, talked of doing away with social security, throughout his political career.

I admire Reagan, as I said, but it was his "Greenspan Commission" on his watch, the results of which he accepted, that 'fixed' social security by raising the taxes and increasing the 'retirement' age. Reagan certainly had a wonderful opportunity then to at least get a really good debate about privatization going...

I like loyalty as much as the next guy, and more than the guy after that, but you are in a big streeeeetch there.

No, the libertarians are not the only thinkers around. But the socialist programs of Norman Thomas which came into being under the administration of FDR and others show the power of an idea, even a bad one. Call FDR a socialist...I won't argue...but then, because GWB is in favor of a privatized (partially) social security does that make him a libertarian?

My point is that the people who come up with the ideas are not necessarily the ones who enact them or put them into action. The underlying philosophy of government leads to the ideas which are the practical implementation of those ideas, put into place by the people who get elected...often different people than the 'theorists'.

I guess we might look at our own country...it was based on ideas...rather revolutionary ideas of individual rights. The men who helped develop and promote these ideas often did not hold office or military position, but the power of the idea prompted others to work for its implementation.

So, we need both the people with the ideas, some of whom are libertarian 'thinkers' and the people who implement them, many of whom we hope will be Republicans. I hold little hope for Libertarian electoral success, but much hope for eventual implementation of libertarian ideas.

Hi Kerberos
Both Dem and Pub Parties were stunned when Jesse Ventura won governship in Minnesota
they had both been telling citizens not to throw their vote away
I think what Jesse offered was a fresh attitude

It's hard to predict 2004
The Dem Party has been taken over by gangsters
when this dawns on their voters, lots of their votes will be up for grabs
some will go Green, some will go GOP, and some may go libertarian
The mass of voters are now Independent
(in the past few elections whoever won the independents won the election)
which is why both GOP and Dem Party will go after them this time again
The Dems will be lucky if they get their own base on board
I figure half the independents will vote GOP
Most voters aren't ideological, but libertarian ideas are sensible, and reflect what is in many many people's hearts

What Jesse had going for him is he believed he'd actually win
The Libertarian Party would have to believe they're gonna take this thing
for groundswell to come out
The time is ripe
Love, Palo

The problem is, and I'm certain you have noticed, conservatives are not being elected.

Like I said, for conservatives to get elected, they must appeal to independents and dissatisfied voters of all stripes. You and I may not like that, but that's political reality, in this age of political gridlock. Conservatives make up 20%-25% of the voting electorate, may be. They must work harder and smarter, in order to win victory. Ronald Reagan showed how to get elected, as a conservative-Republican. I suggest conservatives read up on the finer points, of Reagan's overall political strategy.

... whenever RINO's are running, freepers get all excited and jump up and down for joy and flame anyone who dares to voice an opposition opinion to a RINO candidate.</i.

I agree. That seems to happen far too often and needs to stop. I don't want any RINO, to be given preference, over a true conservative.

It might be helpful if the Libertarians took a lesson from the 'progressives' of the early 1900's. At the time, rugged individualism was the order of the day, and socialist ideas were anathema to the average American. So what did they do? They infiltrated the Democrat's ranks. Their ideas, a 'safety net', wage issues, unionization, etc. are now the bedrock of the Democrat platform. They pervade society; it is difficult to find an average, uninformed person who thinks a Federal 'social security' system is a bad thing in and of itself. Over time, the concept of the individual as king of his own domain has been replaced by an increasingly collectivist attitude. Maybe its time the Libertarians started to make use of the apparatus built by the GOP.

I suggest conservatives read up on the finer points, of Reagan's overall political strategy.

You are much more optimistic than I. Something libertarianism offers is a philosophy. Conservatism doesn't. Conservatism stands for: status quo. Where does that get us? We continue to fall, granted slower than to the liking of liberals, down that slippery slope. Though I do not embrace all of the libertarian philosophy, they at least have a well known agenda to reduce government and taxes. They actually see the problem where Republicans often are the problem. And, you can no longer equate republicans=conservatives.

I used to think that conservatism meant less government, less taxes, etc. but really all it's been of late is stopping liberalism (and not doing so well at it either), which has it's own philosophy too~ however evil.

When you say conservatives should read up on Reagan's finer points of political strategy, I would agree but they need something larger than this. Conservatives need a philosophy.

I believe you take a very shallow view of libertarianism. Wanting the legalization of drugs is not the same as condoning drug abuse. As we are all aware, the drug war is a joke that will never yield the desired results (unless those results are the incarceration of more of our population). On the drug issue, people should be free to make stupid mistakes. The government shouldn't be the "big brother" who decides your conduct. As for sodomy, it shouldn't be illegal for the same reasons. In a free society, you should be able to try and convince people of the immorality of sodomy, drug abuse, etc., but you shouldn't be able to incarcerate them for it. One of the points that "conservatives" seem to ignore is the basic principles behind their agenda. If you think it is okay to legislate morality, the next question is who's morality. As you are well aware, democracy is simply majority rules. So if we don't shut down the borders, make drugs, sodomy, Islam, Judeaism, Black Nationalism, etc., illegal, once they are in the majority your brand of legal morality is out the window. The key is to protect freedom is to try and convince people of the error of their ways. Once you start legislating you may find yourself out of the majority and your cherished way of life in jeapordy. The only way to make sure that you will have the freedom to hold the beliefs you do (drug's, sodomy, etc. are immoral), you have to defend the freedom to do those things. If you wish to have a "Christian" state where the bible is the law of the land, and you stone people for transgressions, you have just become the taliban, (just a different set of rules). I know the difference is that you are "right", but the muslims are as sure they are right as you are. The only viable option is freedom from coercion. The state shouldn't dictate personal conduct when it doesn't interfere with others freedom. Once you open the door (as we already have), all hell breaks loose.

The contemporary libertarian philosophy is unrealistic. The Libertarian Party platform is unattainable. Libertarianism is a fringe political movement, that is both radical and extremist. Outside of a desire for fiscal responsibility, libertarianism offers nothing positive to the people of America. It would lead to chaos and anarchy. I have done extensive research on the pro`s and con`s of libertarianism and the Libertarian agenda. This political philosophy has NO respect for the orderly nature of a free will society and is opposed to the rules and regulations, which have been created, to govern abhorrent, disgraceful and unlawful behavior.

>>>Conservatives need a philosophy.

While its true, there is no national conservative party, there is a conservative philosophy that has created and established, a strong conservative movement in America, which has been growing and gaining support since the 1950`s. The political home of the conservtaive movement, is the Republican Party. In American politics, conservatism is a political philosophy that is based on traditional America values and beliefs, of social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change. Conservative-Republicans, like myself, want tax cuts/tax reform that would stop feeding the bloated federal bureaucracy in Wash-DC. This would lead to a smaller and less intrusive federal government.

Without a viable political base and party, a political philosophy will go nowhere. That's why libertarianism is basically dead.

If you stripped away the radical and extreme elements of the libertarian philosophy and most of what is contained in the LP platform, what you'd be left with, is what most folks would recognize as a form of political conservatism.

Modern day 'conservatism' is a massive fraud perpretated by loud mouthed liberals calling themselves 'conservatives' on AM radio.

More Federal money for Education? Hey no problem. Conservatives love it.

Higher Federal Tarrifs on imported steel at the cost of billions to taxpayers and consumers? Hey, conservatives love it.

Warrantless searches of mail and computers? Hey, conservatives love it.

More money for the two agencies who were responsible for the most massive inteligence failure in the history of mankind? Hey, conservatives love it.

Billions of dollars to Agri-business so farmers won't actually have to grow crops? Hey, conservatives love it.

I have a question for you RM; just what the hell is it you people are trying to 'conserve' anyway? It looks to me to be New Deal Liberalism. It sure isn't anything even remotely resembling a Republican form of government.

While I agree with much you have stated, I have lost hope with Republicans holding to conservativism. And, I've lost interest and regard lately for libertarianism. It's not a pleasant place to be right now.

It appears you've taken further steps than I have in researching libertarian philosophy. I'm taking a break from them because I couldn't stomach the anti-Israel/anti-American remarks. I'm not fully convinced to walk completely away because they do strongly desire less government less taxes,and, I believe they actually would hold to those beliefs. I figure hell would have to freeze over before the real radical stuff even got talked about seriously.

Well, I see we have another pessimist in our midst, who would rather look at the world with blinders on, then face the realities of life.

Being a conservative doesn't mean you throw away all your principles or all your politics either. The reality of politics in 21st century America, means you strive to get most of your agenda enacted and hold back, the agenda of your liberal-Democratic opponent. Come to think of it, that sounds like politics during the time of our Founding Fathers and for good reason.

I've already explained the serious gridlock that exists in Wash-DC. Political conservatives are in the minority and Republicans, barely hold a majority in the House, while liberals and Democrats comtrol the Senate. Bush isn't a dictator, he is a democratically elected leader and has to work within the limits and parameters of the political process.

Bottom line, the President has had numerous accomplishments in his short time in office and his handling of the war effort has been quite remarkable and highly successful.

Your dreaming if you expect perfection from our elected leaders. Thats never been the case throughout civilized history and isn't about to change any time soon. The world is an imperfect place to live and human beings are imperfect creatures. The sooner you realize that, the better off you'll be.

Bottom line, the President has had numerous accomplishments in his short time in office "

Name two instances of President Bush doing something to actually shrink the size and scope of the Federal Government or reducing Federal Spending and I'll buy you a steak dinner.

You must mean an 'accomplishment' like the Education or the Farm Bills.....

You know, Bush does have veto power. All he has to do is say "NO".

Sadly, he hasn't. Not one single time.

I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. When I see just one single Department, Bureau, or Agency shut down I may change my tune. Until then, the Republican Party I see is the home of frauds, charlatans, fools, and outright criminals.

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.