Political homelessness can be a difficult thing to cope with. When I first encountered libertarian ideas, I thought my search was over, but subsequent reflection caused me to continue my quest. The refinements discussed here are my response to the widely expressed opinion that political libertarianism, particularly as promulgated by the Libertarian Party, is still "three or four feet from home."
Your comments are invited.
Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com
Libertarian, from what I have picked up on FR seems kind of anarchist to me. And anarchy is mahem, I'm far too lazy for mahem.
Some of my thoughts:
Collectivists and other anti-freedom forces are more powerful than individuals. It is impossible to maintain freedom from tyranny (we have a small government Constitution yet we have a large government). Collectivists lust for the wealth of capitalism and use it to fund their power grabs. Individual freedoms include religion but religions are also groups which seek power. Greed and the desire to control others is a powerful force.
The downside of bigger government is never obvious to the individual The power seekers never think 'out of the box' for problem resolution. The answer is always bigger government and tax the rich. It's like curing a headache by hitting our head with a hammer to creater a greater pain. Here's where propagandists use democracy to their advantage. We don't need government to fund our insurance policies. Capitalism won't break if we do nothing. On the contrary, the individual, the nation, and the world thrive with minimal govenrment. The unattainable ideal for problem resolution is to default to non-government solutions.
As I've read this thread, my initial hunch is coming to pass, namely, that heated idealism is getting in the way of anything constructive. Your idea here is viable constructivism (as I see it) and must be supported. But when ideologues get in the way as they already have here, this becomes nothing more than a 2002 version of the Tower of Babel which is doomed to destruction.
I like your thinking here, Mr. Porretto. Would that there were more of it.
Thanks for this fine, insightful essay, fporretto. I like the way you solve the abortion impasse. But of course, it doesn't quell the controversy to say that our presumption ought in principle to be the protection of the rights of the unborn. Some Libertarians believe that a pre-born person doesn't have rights; or if in some sense he does, they are not such that can possibly trump the mother's right to "control her body" (i.e., to terminate an unwanted child). Libs and Cons can get together on many, many issues. But clearly not all. best, bb.
The discussion should not be about Republican or Libertarian Parties at all. It should be about conservative (defined as supporting the Constitution, as written) or liberal (bypassing the Constitution for political expedience). You will note that I did not rely solely on terms that might be interpreted differently by different people, but defined my usage of those terms.
We must keep in mind that our purpose is to elect those who will restore the Constitution and Bill of Rights, regardless of what terms they use to describe their position or what banner they run under. I expect that there are few Republican voters who honestly believe that there are not some elected Republicans who have let down the voters. In fact, in the name of political expedience, many Republicans gleefully voted for such totalitarian legislation as the USA Patriot Act and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, among others. In fact, if a Libertarian fits the bill better than the Republican candidate, then we should vote accordingly. Conversely, avowed Libertarians should not let party loyalty keep them from supporting a Republican, who stands solidly behind the Constitution.
We need to send a message that we will no longer sell out the Constitution for such a trivial excuse as party loyalty. And yes, I know the party retort. Someone is going to start spouting that tired old GOP party line, about how we sometimes have to compromise on the Constitution, or lose half of our seats in Congress. Well, if that's so, consider this.
Compromising on principle is how we got into this position in the first place. If Republicans can't get elected and win re-election by sticking solidly by the Constitution, then it's already too late and we have already lost.
I don't think that it has reached that point yet. But, if loyal party robots don't start voting their convictions, rather than blindly voting straight ticket, it won't be long before it does reach that point.
The discussion of abortion, being a strictly religious issue, that is seen differently by the various religions that have congregations in the United States, has no place in political discussion in a country that claims as a founding principle, that it will not endorse nor deny any religion.
Although, because of my Christian upbringing, I am personally opposed to abortion, I believe that any law that prohibits abortion would violate the 1st Amendment to the Constitution by, in effect, establishing Christianity as the national religion.
The Constitution is a fluid document, but not in the way that the liberals would have us believe. It is fluid because of the defined amendment process, that allows the people to vote to change the document, as necessary. The original document has been amended 27 times. The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment. If anti-abortion advocates want to make Christianity the national religion, then they should be pushing for an amendment to the Constitution, that will remove the restriction that is the very first part of the 1st Amendment, rather than pressing for an obviously un-Constitutional law. Get that amendment to the states and I will cast my vote. But, if we continue to reinterpret the Constitution every time we don't like a restriction that is a part of it, we might as well not have a Constitution.
The Constitution not only gives us a way to amend it, but a way to remove or modify those amendments, as well. Until the Constitution is amended to allow for the establishment of a national religion, the discussion of abortion (pro or con, Republican or Libertarian) has no proper place in our political dialog.