Why I'm not a libertarian

World Net Daily ^ | June 18, 2002 | Joseph Farah

[Japedo]

As my father so nicely said to me once,

Democrats : want to Steal your money and Stay out of your Bed room

Republicans: Want you to keep your money and get into your Bed room (legislate Morality) (Side note, Please note that this was prior to the Recent President Bush Free Give-A-ways)

Libertarians: Want you to keep your money AND stay out of your bed room.

With that type of Ideology I'm pretty much Libertarian. I do have to say that there are SOME issues I do not agree with the "PARTY" such as Immigration, But I feel more Constitutional Loving people Can change what ill's the Libertarian Party. (IMHO!)

[old-ager]

Typical anti-libertarian strawman argument

Why don't you email him about this and post his response? I know him better than I know you, but you dismiss him as though you were very wise ...

[old-ager]

Do you write your posts extremely drunk or stoned?

Do you always take potshots like this? Or are you just too stupid or uninformed to follow along?

[dheretic]

Do I always take potshots like that? That's hardly a potshot. Your post is coherent. Mine is coherent. We both use standard english syntax. f.Christian does not. I am definitely not the first person to vocally criticize his/her posting style.

[dheretic]

Drug use is taboo therefore it is going to be big. Alcohol use was higher under prohibition that it was after prohibition was ended. People did it because it was a way to rebel. We are rebels by nature. America historically is practically synonymous with rebellion. Drugs legalization would no more condone their use than alcohol legalization condone's alcohol use. You cannot stop drug use. If you want to get the drug dealers off the street, legalize it, tax it and regulate it. We aren't asking for a free-for-all. We recognize that restricting the flow is necessary.

As for your argument that driving under the influence of drugs is any more dangerous than driving drunk, that's totally inane. An intoxicated driver is just as dangerous regardless of whether he/she is drunk or stoned. Singling out drug users is not going to save anyone. We have judges who won't hesitate to lock up a pothead who drives stoned but won't lock up drunk drivers because the judges themselves are drinkers. One drunk driver who was arrested in VA had 8 DUIs in NC for which he served virtually no jail time. It finally took one of our judges giving him a 5 year felony sentence for his 9th DUI to get him off the streets. Until you get every judge like that off the bench, don't talk to me about the dangers of drug users behind the wheels. Drinkers are far more dangerous because drinking judges often won't give them harsh sentences.

[yendu bwam]

As for your argument that driving under the influence of drugs is any more dangerous than driving drunk, that's totally inane. An intoxicated driver is just as dangerous regardless of whether he/she is drunk or stoned. Singling out drug users is not going to save anyone. We have judges who won't hesitate to lock up a pothead who drives stoned but won't lock up drunk drivers because the judges themselves are drinkers. One drunk driver who was arrested in VA had 8 DUIs in NC for which he served virtually no jail time. It finally took one of our judges giving him a 5 year felony sentence for his 9th DUI to get him off the streets. Until you get every judge like that off the bench, don't talk to me about the dangers of drug users behind the wheels. Drinkers are far more dangerous because drinking judges often won't give them harsh sentences.

Wow, talk about inane. I never said that driving under the influence of drugs was more dangerous than driving under the influence of alcohol. Permitting widespread drug use will obviously cause more situations of driving while under the influence, and more people will be killed and maimed. Your argument that because we have some poor judges with regard to alcohol, this doesn't apply is ridiculous. We as a society have taken the view that the overall damage to innocent people (young addicts who didn't know what they were getting into, people acting dangerously while on drugs, etc. etc. is worth the cost of restricting those who want to use drugs).

[yendu bwam]

Libertarianism requires absolute responsibility.

I agree with you here dheretic. The problem is that: THERE ARE A LOT OF REALLY IRRESPONSIBLE PEOPLE OUT THERE. You can try to round them up and punish them after they've committed atrocious crimes. But that's too late. If absolute responsibility were even close to being possible (it's obviously not, to most people), then libertarianism would make some sense. It comes back to what Farah said. A lot of people are bad and do bad things.

[yendu bwam]

Until you get every judge like that off the bench, don't talk to me about the dangers of drug users behind the wheels.

So, until we have a perfect society, we're not allowed to talk about real problems? That sounds rather illibertarian to me!

[monday]

"He said that libertarians do not understand that man is inherently bad."

Some people are bad, some are good. Some are bad one day and good the next. Some are good in one area of their lives and bad in others. Being overly general and stating that man is either totaly good or evil in nature is very simplistic, and idealistic. Something he accuses libertarians of.

I don't think he is saying that he thinks man is inherently bad. I admit am puzzled why he thinks libertarians believe man is inherently good? I think libertarians are far more realistic than he believes.

[Kevin Curry]

Fine essay. I disagree that the federal government has no role in fighting the proliferation and use of illegal drugs. To the extent that these drugs originate in other countries and enter our nation across international borders, only the federal government has the Constitutional power to fight the battle. Other than that minor disagreement, I applaud Farah for this well-reasoned piece.

The paradox is, and for the very reasons Farah cites, many of the people most anxious to implement a libertarian government (pro-gay, pro-drug, pro-porn atheist fiscal conservatives) are least likely and able to make one succeed.

On the other hand, many of the people least anxious to implement a libertarian governent (Judeo-Christian cultural conservatives) are most likely and able to make one succeed. They are not anxious to see a libertarian government implemented because they realize popular culture has become so debased and disdainful of morality and self-discipline that this nation would almost immediately descend into anarchy and chaos that the Constitution could neither ameliorate nor prevent.

As a practical matter, libertarianism is the least likely form of government to be implemented anyway The strong tendency is toward nanny government socialism. Therefore, any part of the libertarian agenda (e.g., legalization of drugs etc) that can be implemented will almost certainly be implemented according to a socialist model--not a libertarian model.

[tortoise]

Ideally, that higher authority is not the government, but God. Government can only demand good behavior through force.

And God doesn't demand good behavior through force? I don't see the distinction.

[KC Burke]

I don't think he is saying that he thinks man is inherently bad. I admit am puzzled why he thinks libertarians believe man is inherently good? I think libertarians are far more realistic than he believes.

Pick up Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions for a truely through insight into the difference between, what he terms, the Constrained and Unconstrained Visions of Mankind. Sowell points out that libertarians are one of the peculiar few that have a blended group of positions. The Unconstrained vision holders, Sowell maintains, concieve as man as "perfectible" and society capable of being systematized to achieve such perfection. The Constrained vision, on the other hand, believes man to forever be a blend of good and bad, virtueous and evil and largely improveable, but not perfectable. Salvation is not worldly, but instead Godly or historically viewed only.

[monday]

"And God doesn't demand good behavior through force? I don't see the distinction."

The distinction is that with God you have a choice. God doesn't force you to behave regardless of what think.

God is a libertarian. You decide how to live your life, and you reap the rewards of you are good, or the consequences if you are evil. Its still your choice, and your responsibility.

Gov't uses force. Mis-behave, you go to jail. Disagree with the majority? Too bad, you still have to go along with them or go to jail. Gov't is inherently authoritarian, the opposite of God.

[rdb3]

No, He doesn't enforce through aggression... yet.

[Kevin Curry]

God is a libertarian.

To the extent you are suggesting there is no divine favor or allowance for secular government that is not libertarian, your assertion is absolute hogwash.

Jesus Christ taught that men live under the authority of God AND secular government. He commanded that Christians give each sovereign its due. Jesus Christ himself was extremely careful to obey Roman law and to subject himself to Roman authority--and Rome was NOT a libertarian form of government. He was accused of resisting Roman authority, and the Roman magistrate--Pilate--found him not merely not-guilty, but innocent.

Jesus Christ's life was traded for the life of Barabbas. Barabbas was a libertarian. The rabble chose a secular libertarian over Jesus Christ. About thirty years later they were annihilated by Roman forces as a consequence. Not just the libertarian rabble were annihilated, the whole people suffered grievously.

Don't try to fob off secular libertarianism as God's favored form of goverment. Secular libertarianism can only work where the greater part of the people are moral, religious, and self-disciplined. When the people lack those characteristics, secular libertarianism is a recipe for anarchy and disaster. That God allows people to make stupid decisions does not mean He exalts and rewards stupid decisions in either the spiritual OR secular sphere.

[Lamont Cranston]

Barabbas was a libertarian.

Chapter and verse?

[monday]

"Pick up Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions for a truely through insight into the difference between, what he terms, the Constrained and Unconstrained Visions of Mankind. "

I have read several of Sowell's books but not that one. I will pick it up next time I order some books from Liaises Faire.

I suppose there are some individuals within every political camp who are forever idealists. The communists/socalists seem to have the majority but I guess there are some utopians within the libertarian party as well.

I think that the misperception that libertarians all think man is inherently good comes from our belief that man should be free. Authoritians cannot reconcile their belief that man is inherently evil and therefore must be controlled, with the concept of individual freedom and personal responsibility.

[Hot Soup]

I believe a nation's borders are sacrosanct
America needs a strong defense

Are these beliefs really at odds with libertarian philosophy?

[dheretic]

Figure of speech not government policy

[monday]

"To the extent you are suggesting there is no divine favor or allowance for secular government that is not libertarian, your assertion is absolute hogwash."

I made no such assertion. I was simply pointing out the differences between Gov't and God.

"Don't try to fob off secular libertarianism as God's favored form of goverment. "

I have no idea what type Gov't, God prefers. Do you?

"That God allows people to make stupid decisions does not mean He exalts and rewards stupid decisions in either the spiritual OR secular sphere. "

I didn't say that either. Actually I said that if one misbehaves, (makes stupid decisions) one can expect to pay the consequences. The idea that God exalts or rewards stupid decisions is absurd. Where did that come from?