The Hillerytarians won't like that comment.
However, one qualifier to their position which I think deserves more emphasis is their complete opposition to immigrant welfare.
I think if America really had the moral strength to ensure that no immigrant ever received a dime of US public assistance, Aztlan would be far less of a threat to our country than it is today.
Of course, I will always be in favor of almost any immigration policy that could effectively keep Muslim terrorists out.
Open borders, bad idea.
Re-legalizing drugs isn't condoning drug abuse.
Self defense, good. Meddling with other countries, bad. (Remember what the first "W" said about that.)
Why does evry article like this completely omit any reference or hide any indication that there are church-going, military veteran, pro 2a, anti-IRS, college educated, family oriented, pro-life, libertarians, who, unlike their Republican counterparts, actually believe in a smaller, less intrusive government?
But let's remember, it was the Republican Party that brought the clintons to justice, and is currently leading the way to a smaller and Constitutionally sound government, right?
Accentuate the positive. :-)
As Lazarus Long said: "If everybody knows such -and-such, then it ain't so, by at least ten thousand to one"
(1) Most of Europe has legalized (de jure or de facto) various drugs, and drug use has in many of these places gone down.
(2) The iron law of prohibition says that when you prohibit substances, you push people to harder and more dangerous (thus more easily transported and sold) substances. So: alcohol prohibition caused a massive shift to hard alcohol, drug prohibition has created crack. End prohibition and you'll see a big shift back to lighter drugs.
(3) As a parent, one of the most ridiculous things about the current drug war IMHO is that my middle school and high school aged kids could get drugs like ecstasy or even crack much more easily than they could get alcohol. (This is an example of 2 above.)
This too is mushy thinking. Tyranny is imposed by states. What the heck are internationalists and how are they going to impose tyranny?
Do you know when the US closed its borders to Latin Americans? 1965. Until 1965 any latin american who could pass a simple literacy test in either English or Spanish or Portuguese was free to immigrate here. Did we have as big a problem with immigration then as we do now? If not-- how have the immigration restrictions helped?
Know why they passed these restrictions in 1965? Johnson was greatly expanding welfare, so wanted restrictions to prevent freloaders from coming. Get rid of the welfare state, and you will do much more to solve immigration problems than any regime involving laws and borders and id cards could ever do.
But, at least they want to go the right direction on many issues.
As for the drug issue, there is a brand new reason to get rid of the WOD. Watching Alan Keys last night, Chuck Colson said he sees a massive Muslim recruitment going on in prisons. The guy they nailed the other day working on a dirty nuke converted to muslim in a US prison.
To the extent we can use profiling to stop terrorisim, it will work well, as long as terrorists are arab. But in 10 years, when the first southern accented black or latino takes out the Golden Gate bridge with a gasoline truck fire, we'll regret we didn't severly curtail the WOD and emptied out our prisons of non-violent druggies.
...because I don't believe in the Satanic Druids, or the Illuminatis. I don't believe that ALL drugs should be legalized. I don't believe that criminals and crazy people should have access to firearms. I positively don't believe that America's borders should be open, and free reign given to illegal aliens and terrorists! Our borders should only be open to United States Citizens, and legal immigrants.
Libertarians, more often than not, fail to understand the moral dimension so critical to self-government. Read the words of the founders. They all got it. They all intuitively understood that even the best form of representative and limited government would be twisted into coercive tyranny if the people did not have the basic morality necessary to govern themselves.
Libertarians make a fundamental mistake about the nature of man. Man is not inherently good.
Joe makes THE fundamental mistake here about libertarians. I've been reading libertarian thought & philosophy for over forty years, - and I defy ANYone to quote a passage where man is assumed to be "inherently good".
Man can only learn to govern himself when he understands there is a higher accountability – a higher authority. Ideally, that higher authority is not the government, but God. Government can only demand good behavior through force. But when individuals understand they are accountable to God, and that He requires certain kinds of behavior as defined in the Ten Commandments and the totality of scripture, there is a chance for man to maximize his freedom here on earth.
So, -- in these lines we see Joes reason for his 'inherently good' tar baby. -- He wants an 'idealized' religious basis for government. Naturally, libertarians would object, just as the founders rejected such a basis in the 1st amendment.
Freedom can only be experienced and maximized, though, when it is accompanied by personal responsibility. Personal responsibility cannot be legislated. It cannot be forced. It cannot be coerced. Libertarians generally understand this, but too few of them comprehend a laissez faire society can only be built in a culture of morality, righteousness and compassion.
-- Big 'but', - and almost a contradiction in terms. - A society that insists on a morality enforced by its vision of a god could hardly become lazzez faire.
Libertarians who expect to build such a society through politics alone make a fundamental error.
Straw man. - Libertarians do not reject the other structures of society over politics & government. --- I fact, - they much prefer private solutions to political problems.
In a sense, they are utopian dreamers like the socialists, ignoring the importance of human nature in shaping communities and nations. I don't want to be too hard on the libertarians, because of all the political activists in America, they may have the best concept of limited constitutional government. That's a big start, but it's only a start. We cannot ignore the flaws in their positions. We cannot ignore the fact that they don't have a complete picture. We cannot ignore that a libertarian society devoid of God and a biblical worldview would quickly deteriorate into chaos and violence.
Sure Joe. -- The libertarian 'flaws' you see are those you invent. - And hyping 'chaos & violence' as an inevitable result of following constitutional libertarian concepts is just plain bull.
Would this country be better off with more libertarians? Absolutely. Do they have all the answers? Not even close. The truth is there's more to life than politics. Much more.
Disappointing platitudes. -- You have written some fine essays. -- This is not one of them.