Why I'm not a libertarian

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

[old-ager]

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27981

Tuesday, June 18, 2002

---

---

Why I'm not a libertarian

---

Posted: June 18, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Editor's note: WorldNetDaily Editor, Chief Executive Officer and daily columnist Joseph Farah is working on a new book set for release in early 2003 called "Taking America Back," delineating the problems the country faces and their solutions. In the meantime, you may wish to consider purchasing his most recent book, "This Land Is Our Land."

By Joseph Farah

---

© 2002 WorldNetDaily.com

After I wrote my column last week, "Why I'm not a conservative," many libertarians wrote in happily proclaiming me one of their own.

I hate to disappoint them, but that political label doesn't describe me, either.

Here's why I am not a libertarian – and why, I believe, that political movement will never resonate with the American people.

• I believe a nation's borders are sacrosanct. Without borders, there are no nations. We become one big global village – subject ultimately to a new form of tyranny imposed by unaccountable internationalists. Borders are also critical to maintaining the distinct culture of a nation. That's not a racist or jingoistic concept – it is a matter of practicality. If anyone and everyone can become an American simply by relocating – and without any pledge to our nation's Constitution and political creed – then we lose everything our founding fathers established in fighting for our independence, our sovereignty and for the rule of law.

• While I agree with libertarians that our national drug laws and the enforcement of those laws are terribly abusive and beyond the scope of our Constitution, I have no problem with states and local governments passing laws prohibiting the sale of narcotics and enforcing such laws. The truth is, legalizing dangerous drugs will surely lead to increased use and abuse – a trend that could pose problems as severe or worse than those created by the drug war. I'm all for ending the drug war at the ineffective federal level, but condoning drug use is the wrong prescription.

• America needs a strong defense – and this is a reality many libertarians don't accept. True, the concept of defense in America has been distorted and twisted. We spend mega-billions not on defense, but on offense. We deploy tens of thousands of troops in more than 100 countries around the world as if America was the world's policeman. That is wrong. We leave Americans at home virtually defenseless against terror attacks and weapons of massive destruction. That is equally wrong.

• 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. 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.

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.

Libertarians who expect to build such a society through politics alone make a fundamental error. 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.

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.

Here's the way the father of our country and, as some have described him, "the father of freedom," George Washington put it in his inaugural address:

The foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens, and command the respect of the world. I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my country can inspire: since there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity: since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the external rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: and since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the republican model of government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American People.

When the libertarians add such a provision to their national platform, let me know. I'll be happy to consider the new label.

---

Special Offer!

Get an autographed, first-edition copy of Joseph Farah's 1996 book, "This Land Is Our Land," now available in WorldNetDaily's online store while supplies last.

---

Joseph Farah's nationally syndicated column originates at WorldNetDaily. If you would like to see it in your local newspaper, contact your local editor. The column is available through Creators Syndicate.

[yendu bwam]

I pose to you a Question Yendu, Who "GIVES" us rights? Does Government Grant our rights? Or Does our Creator (God) grant us our rights?

Good question. I'm a religious guy, and I believe that the possibility (not the right!) of salvation comes from God. For me, God also gives us moral precepts, and He hopes that we'll follow them (don't kill, don't commit adultery, love thy neighbor as yourself, etc.). A lot of people use the word 'rights' when referring to what God expects from others. (God says don't kill, therefore I have the 'right' not to be killed. - In actuality, if you believe in God, YOU don't have the right to kill. Since God gives people free will, someone else may kill you one day.) When the word 'rights' is used in the context of nation-states, it signifies to most people the collective agreement that those people entered into with regard to the setup of that state. In the US, we have the Constitution, and our nation-state rights flow from that Constitution. In the Declaration of Independence for this country, the framers mentioned the 'inalienable rights' from our Creator. But again, this was their way of saying that we should be bound by the Demands of our Creator.

[yendu bwam]

I guess there is no point in arguing with you since you don't believe in freedom. You have alot of company in this country unfortunatly.

Hey Monday. I DO believe in freedom, and I am more libertarian than many. But I don't believe in UNLIMITED freedom. As Farah pointed out, there are cases where all our freedom needs to be constrained, given that the social cost (due to irresponsible, bad people) of not doing so becomes too high.

[yendu bwam]

Don't say I didn't warn you when something or some activity you hold dear is banned as well.

Well, there are a lot of things banned that I personally hold dear. For instance, I can't walk my dog in the park in our town. But I understand that when people were allowed to do so, a great many of them didn't clean up after their dogs, some brought dangerous and life-threatening dogs to the park, kids were knocked over and hurt by big dogs, dogs got into peoples' picnic food, etc. etc. The cost of patrolling the park on a continuous basis by the police, and checking to make sure that every dog owner used a pooper-scooper (the poop police) was too great for the town to responsibly bear. I can accept that. Such decisions are indicative of the sorts of decisions governments make every day.

[Protagoras]

Joe is always able to put into words well that which escapes me.

Joe puts into words well, the things he makes up and attributes to others.

[Protagoras]

We have overregulation here, but some regulation is necessary.

Correct. Precisely enough to defend our rights, not one bit less, or more.

[Protagoras]

God is a libertarian.

Note the lower case. It has nothing to do with political parties. You make the same mistake most make.

As to God's political philosophy, he is a monarchist. He is king, all others are subservient to him.

That's not blasphemy, it's theology.

[rdb3]

I've made no mistake, and I don't give a flip about whatever case it's in.

Reducing the Almighty and Omniscient True God down to fit into a manmade political view is BLASPHEMY.

He's King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and He in no way can be brought down to the level of thought of a mere man.

Period.

And, lastly, if you or anyone else doesn't like this, tough! But it is the absolute truth. Deal with it.

[Protagoras]

I've made no mistake, and I don't give a flip about whatever case it's in.

The fact that you don't give a flip is why you made the mistake. Sad truth. You are mistaken.

Reducing the Almighty and Omniscient True God down to fit into a manmade political view is BLASPHEMY.

Glad to have your opinion. It will get the respect it deserves.

He's King of Kings and Lord of Lords,

I rest my case. He is what we call a monarchist. He is my king as well.

and He in no way can be brought down to the level of thought of a mere man.

No one suggested he could. Which does not preclude us from trying to describe him in terms we can understand. The bible tells us to seek after him. I'll follow the bible and I don't give a flip about your ideas.

And, lastly, if you or anyone else doesn't like this, tough! But it is the absolute truth. Deal with it.

You don't define the truth. It's a good thing too. Deal with it.

And lastly, if you don't like this next thing, tough! Only God defines absolute truth, and you ain't God. You just think you are.

[Japedo]

I'm a religious guy, and I believe that the possibility (not the right!) of salvation comes from God. For me, God also gives us moral precepts, and He hopes that we'll follow them

Well Yendu, you are entitled to believe what ever you wish. However you can not use the argument FOR ME . You can not expect an entire country to go by YOUR BELIEFS! In the Bill of Rights, Rights are to be exercised FREELY By man,without Government INTRUSION Or Infringement. That Congress "SHALL MAKE NO LAW" infringing on specific rights. IF you choose to surrender such rights, You may do so for what ever reason you wish, However not you or anyone else can "dictate" to another "FREE" person how they are allowed to exercise their own rights.

Your argument using murder is lame, and very Taliban like IMO. Murder of course WOULD be infringing on another's RIGHT TO LIVE. Perhaps you don't realize or grasp just what freedom is all about, I suggest you get a copy of a pocket constitution and carry it around an memorize it.

Live Free or Die Trying

[rdb3]

Only God defines absolute truth, and you ain't God. You just think you are.

That last statement makes you a bald-faced liar. Nowhere did I ever intimate or even suggest that I was God and you know it. Since you made the claim, substantiate it. Back it up.

I don't define absolute truth. I stand on it in His Word.

I don't take too kindly with liars. Mark that. We can debate, and we may disagree. But don't

EVER

lie on me as I most certainly won't lie on you.

[Protagoras]

That last statement makes you a bald-faced liar.

Tsk, tsk. Caught declaring ABSOLUTE TRUTH can get one very testy when it exposes them. I didn't lie.

Nowhere did I ever intimate or even suggest that I was God and you know it. Since you made the claim, substantiate it. Back it up.

You declared absolute truth. YOU said it. You made no attribution to anyone else. If you choose to now back off that claim, feel free to do so. Until then, YOU claimed absolute truth. As I pointed out, only God knows absolute truth. Better backpedal or you are intimating you have taken God's attributes.

I don't define absolute truth. I stand on it in His Word.

Please cite his word then, chapter and verse, and GIVE ATTRIBUTION.

I don't take too kindly with liars. Mark that. We can debate, and we may disagree.

Mark this.

I don't take to kindly with you, so push it where the sun don't shine. .

[yendu bwam]

Well Yendu, you are entitled to believe what ever you wish. However you can not use the argument FOR ME .

Hey, you asked me a question, and I gave you an honest answer - which was that for most people rights are seen to emanate from the Constitution. Never said I had the right to define rights for you at all. Not sure why you're so upset. I DO have a good knowledge of the Constitution - and it is a great document (one of the greatest!).

[Japedo]

I'm Not upset in the least, The constitution doesn't "GRANT RIGHTS" is my point. It is only a Leash on which Government can NOT INFRINGE on said RIGHTS.

Therefore Freedom is how ever you choose to exercise your rights, with out being regulated. Once regulation starts on "rights",Then Government then tells you what "rights" you have. Government then self appoints themselves the giver of rights, and that is NOT the case. Regulations are infringements.

Live Free or Die Trying

[yendu bwam]

I'm Not upset in the least, The constitution doesn't "GRANT RIGHTS" is my point. It is only a Leash on which Government can NOT INFRINGE on said RIGHTS.

I see. Interesting and attractive idea. But then where do the rights come from?

[Japedo]

I see. Interesting and attractive idea. But then where do the rights come from?

This is why I posted my previous statement Yendu. what part of "CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW" do you NOT understand? LOL! The constitution was written as a "RULE" book to the GOVERNMENT, NOT TO THE PEOPLE!

[rdb3]

I didn't lie.

You did in fact lie when you said that I thought I was God. And you still haven't given any evidence of how I inferred or said that I thought I was God. You didn't give an opinion. You stated it as fact and got called on it. Now, if you can't produce evidence that I did say this, let it be known that you are a contemptuous liar.

That's two.

Give attribution? Okay. Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21. In other words, on the whole of the Word I stand.

OP, Jean, Mom, drstevej, Dr. Eckleburg; Ambassador, please give your opinion(s) as dispassionate third parties to this. Read what I wrote then what ThomasJefferson wrote about me. Was this or was this not a blatant lie?

I'll let others decide, and I won't submit another word to this until I receive their judgements.

It's real out here on the battlefield. Ya heard?

[yendu bwam]

OK. Do people, in your estimation, standing in a no country zone, have the right to do anything they want to do? If not, why not?

[Protagoras]

You declared absolute truth. YOU said it. You made no attribution to anyone else. If you choose to now back off that claim, feel free to do so. Until then, YOU claimed absolute truth. As I pointed out, only God knows absolute truth. Better backpedal or you are intimating you have taken God's attributes.

Here is what I said to back up my opinion. Opinions aren't lies. Your own words lead people to think things about you and form opinions.

Now you add an attribution that includes the whole bible. I think you might be mentally unbalanced. That is also an opinion.

And when you say I am contemptous, you are correct. I hold you in contempt.

[Japedo]

OK. Do people, in your estimation, standing in a no country zone, have the right to do anything they want to do? If not, why not?

Well Yendu, Standing in a no country zone? Who's going to stop them? I'm not sure of your question exactly. If you're in a "country" with no laws or government who's going to stop them from doing anything they want?

As I have stated you need to clarify what you mean by this statement. I am referring to the BILL OF RIGHTS, where congress shall pass no law on specifically stated Rights and liberties. I don't understand why you go to the extreme and say something I completely didn't say or stress. Please clarify your comment, Thank you.

[CCWoody]

You just think you are.

Ad Hominem! Really, though, only God would actually have the ability to peer into rdb3's soul and know his thoughts. So, in declaring to know that which only God knows, you are in fact declaring yourself to be a god.

Now, that analysis has more logical foundation than what you said.

Off you go back to your "discussion" with rdb3.