Cool Libertarians

In this, my last scheduled contribution to Editor’s Links, I want to say a few nice words about libertarians – a much-maligned, funny, quarrelsome lot of people who were kind enough to foot my bills this summer.

One of the great things about laissez-faire types is that they’re not in power and – truth be told – they have no desire to be. This is seen by some as a bad thing; a sign that libertarians aren’t “serious people.” But the approach is not without its benefits.

Right- and left-wingers are tethered to partisan political movements or political parties, which can be a weights of albatross-like proportions. Advancing a party’s propaganda and interests often contorts and warps reality all out of recognizable proportion. For instance, a recent Washington Monthly review of right-wing bomb thrower Ann Coulter’s new book Slander relayed her claim that “for about twenty years now, all new ideas have bubbled up from the right wing.” The incredulous reviewer asked “All new ideas? All? Air Jordans? The Macarena? Pizza Hut's Stuffed-Crust Pizza?”

Across the aisle are odious pundits like Joe Conason who, in his Salon blog today credited “big government” with saving the Pennsylvania coal miners, reminded readers that Ted Bundy was a young Republican (only one step removed from Ralph Reed), and compared the Bush administration’s attempts to have hiring and firing flexibility in the newly created Department of Homeland Security to the anti-union “obsession[s] of totalitarian regimes and their imitators.” He justified this last charge by explaining – I am not making this up – that if Ann Coulter could be nasty then so could he.

Libertarians are sometimes damned as purists, but at least they aren’t as predictable or as boring as their sniping counterparts on the right and left. They’re also – and I say this from experience – a whole lot more fun. They lack the anti-corporate nervous tics of progressives (“Oh, I couldn’t order Dominos. Do you have any idea what kind of causes they finance?!”) and the woe is us moralistic hang-ups of conservatives (“There was sex on TV last night! We’re doomed.”).

A startlingly diverse group, the only common ground that all libertarians share is a desire to live in a society in which people are truly free – of wars, of petty government regulations, of a creeping Puritanism that holds suspect any fun activity. That might be a pipe dream, but it's one I’ve come to share.

When you control-freaks can live within the bonds of the Constitution, call me.

The STATE is designed to balance and define authorities among different jurisdictions and the central government is bound to the restrictions of a constitution. Can you show me exactly where in the constitution heroin use, procreating with your sister or sodomy buddies, killing your unborn baby…is a guaranteed right? I have every right to elect a state, county or city legislature that can regulate certain behaviors, and that right is guaranteed to me by the 10th amendment. So if you want to have your porno store next to the high school in my town you better get the rest of your depraved buddies to elect the representatives that will help you out, otherwise move somewhere else.

You Liberaltarian wackos that think the only immorality is that which causes “individual harm” are selfish and irrelevant, matters of “public interest” shall be determined by the legislature, get over it. Spoiled brats that think you can do what ever you want, when ever you want, should go live in your hut in Montana and be a society of one, otherwise be prepared to live with the common sense rules of a community.

So you think you need gooberment permission to exercise a God-given right to possess and carry the necessary means for self protection? Interesting mindset.

Of course not, the second amendment grants me that right, I simply did what I had to do not to go to jail.

Big difference. Children do not have the mental or physical development to stop sexual advance by adults. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is consenting between two adults.

Not really, many children 8-9 and up possess the minimum mental capacity for consent needed to be an emancipated individual, usually 70-75 IQ depending on the state. The only real reason they can’t consent is arbitrary law. The physical development question is irrelevant, there are plenty of adults who can be over-powered by children.

beastiality People really do this?

Yep! What about their rights? What about the rights of incestuals? You Liberaltarians that protect one perversion over another are hypocrites.

I'd not say anything about it but there are standards which should be recognized and other things that should be stigmatized... like beastiality, homosexuality, pedophelia--clerical or otherwise

I have NEVER seen any L/libertarian advocate any of these acts. In fact, L/libertarians almost never discuss these acts except in the context of criminal acts for actions violating consent or for acts involving consenting (human) adults in private.

You and those like you seem to have these vile and disgusting acts on the tip of your tongue at a moment's notice.

L/libertarians promote individual liberty, freedom, and responsibility.

Anti-libertarians discuss necrophilia, pedophilia, beastiality, and all kinds of assorted abominations.

Jesus said that you can tell what lies in a man's heart by what comes out of his mouth, or keyboard in today's vernacular. It is truly revealing to see the vile and disgusting things that are ingrained into your heart.

Interesting. It's your way or the highway. Your rules or prison. Your definition of "morality" or we have anarchy and/or "libertineism." What monstrous egos you control freaks have, to think that YOU hold all universal truths and enyone who thinks otherwise is a hedonist or a "sodomy buddy" or whatever you feel like demonising today.

Ever hear of the NINTH amendment which states that "...the enumeration of certain rights is not meant to demean other rights held by the people" or words to that identical effect... ?" To some (not all) that means among other things, the right to self-medicate for purposes known only to the self-medicator. You have NO RIGHT to attempt to regulate behaviours, no matter HOW repugnant to you, which are done VOLUNTARILY by all actors therein. By giving gooberment the precedent to assume these powers you open the door for ANYONE to do the same... and now they are going after FAT... fast food joints. We, Constitutionalists and libertarians, have been saying all along that this will be the natural consequence of your control-freakism... get over it, statist lackey!

"Of course not, the second amendment grants me that right, I simply did what I had to do not to go to jail."

Wrong answer. The Creator has endowed us with our rights. The 2nd Amendment merely declares that right to be off limits to the government. It will still exist even if Congress or the SCOTUS 'outlawed' it tomorrow. Of course, that would be their last official act.

And if you believe that you have to jump through any hoops at all to exercise your rights, then you are really lost.

"The truth is that the "broad brush" is valid as a general criticism of the laisezz-faire, anything-goes platform of the Libertarian Party."

Laisezz-faire, between consenting adults or in activities that harm no one else, YES. But what you fail to realize or choose to ignore is the obtrusive nature that enforcement requires. Maybe I am doing something that you do not approve of and is 'against the law'. But to find ME in my bedroom, you have to look in a lot of bedrooms. That is what we oppose. Just because we do not want a particular activity outlawed, does not mean that we approve of, or engage in that activity ourselves. So no, the 'broad brush' is not valid.

"If you don't like being painted with this broad brush, I would suggest that you reexamine your priorities and either change your affiliation or work to change the Party Platform."

I am a registered, card carrying member of the GOP. I do sometimes feel dirty when I admit it, though. I am a small 'l' libertarian and am trying to help clean up the GOP from within.

You mention that you are no longer with the GOP. Do you mind telling us to which party you do belong?

" I just don't get it.."

I don't either. On the one hand, we (both BIG L and small l) are insignificant and can't garner even 1% of the vote. Then, on the other hand, we are responsible for every failure of mankind and our entire political system even though "WE" have never been in charge of anything. But they want it both ways, don't they?

I resent the the control freaks no matter which end of the political spectrum they find themselves.

Liberaltarians use the same old tired methods of promoting their sick agenda: extremism.
They are totally unable to cite wide-scale abuses of rights, although that doesn't prevent them from claiming that the sky is falling.

167 posted on 7/31/02 8:14 AM Pacific by A2J

"Sick agenda"?

REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/rlc/721810/posts
- Posted by tpaine - to 167

As is typical of libertarians, it is tpaine's intent to bait and instigate personal attacks against the founder of this forum. They do so in an effort to squash legitimate debate on issues. It is interesting to note that libertarian extremists are the ones most likely to challenge the forum founder's right to moderate the content of this forum as he sees fit, generating a constant flow of "vanities" whining about censorship.

As is typical, willie, you jump to ludicrous conclusions. -- I endorse the RLC positions, as
you well know from reading that thread.

-- A2J was calling libertarian positions a 'sick agenda'.
- I posted the RLC positions, endorsed by JR, as a counter to his slur.

- Getta life willie. Libertarians are not evil. Your attempts to tar them, and me, with weird attacks like the above are getting really bizarre.

I have every right to elect a state, county or city legislature that can regulate certain behaviors, and that right is guaranteed to me by the 10th amendment.

Indeed it is.
- The 14th however, says that states MUST follow & honor the constitution/BOR's in such 'regulations'.
I suggest you read it, and the history behind its ratification. One of the 14th's primary goals was to defend 2nd amendment. rights.
- You never really answered me on that point. Do you believe that states can 'regulate' arms to the point of prohibiting socalled 'assault weapons', as does California?

Well, I think that if the state sets an arbitrary age for emancipation it should apply for EVERYTHING. Driving, alchohol use, voting, consensual sex, crime. Either someone is old and mature enough to understand his/her actions or they are not.

With regards to bestiality, animals are property, aren't they? And if two adults who are related want to "do it" and they consent shouldn't they be allowed to?

(I'm playing devil's advocate here to some degree. I personally believe both are pretty nasty.) I wrestle with questions like this because I really have no problem with adults consenting to sex as long as they do it behind closed doors. S&M, gays, swing parties, etc. really don't bug me. Of course there are extremes in this sort of thing; and they creep me out.

Certain people are going to be physically attracted to deviant sex. What do you think would be better. It being "illegal" but going on behind closed doors anyway (like in Victorian times) or out in the open for everyone to see?

"Don't bother; chunga is going to dishonestly equate "wrote" in the sense of "composed" with "wrote" in the sense of "transcribed" (Jefferson was acting as committee secretary)."

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? If you do, please explain.

Are you saying that libertarians are the ones you want to control at the point of a gun? Cool, tex, give it a real try. Most of the ones I have known are armed and kinda tetchy about stuff like that. Be sure YOU PERSONALLY show up to control them. I'm sure it'll make for interesting reading in the papers next day. (Hint: They ain't 12-year olds {which you seem to have an unhealthy fetish towards, but I digress); MANY are veterans and a good number are COMBAT vets, and I DON'T mean veterans of the live fire exercise in the Gulf some years back.)

You got that right ....

JR 'speaks' for the ad-mods.
One of his guidelines is no 'baiting'. You were baiting me at 139 and were too cowardly to ping me. Now, you are pitifully attemping to justify your actions.
Grow up.

To: Admin Moderator

Would it be inappropriate to observe that it's going to tie his [tpaines] hands considerably?
139 - chunga

-- A2J was calling libertarian positions a 'sick agenda'.
- I posted the RLC positions, endorsed by JR, as a counter to his slur.

Precisely. Your post has been recognized as a feeble attempt on your part to usurp JR's authority as founder of this forum to support your own agenda. IMHO, JR's authority on this forum is not an issue open to debate. His authority is absolute, and rightly so. This is his forum and he has the absolute right and authority to moderate content of forum discussion in any manner he sees fit. If he should awake tomorrow and decide he wants to change and limit the mission of FreeRepublic to the care and maintenance of saltwater aquaria and exotic fish, it is his right to do so. (I doubt that he'd do such a thing, and it'd make an awful lot of FReepers extremely unhappy, but I don't question his right to do so if he chooses.)

This is illustrative of the "narcissistic irresponsibility" I referred to earlier. Libertarians typically lack the self-restraint to respectfully concede to our host the authority that is rightly his. Furthermore, his opinions ARE NOT YOURS to be cavalierly brandished as a magic potion to ward off political criticism of libertarian philosophy. JR is not shy in expressing his own opinion as he sees fit. You should respect his right to do so rather than attempting to employ his authority as your own.

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.