Cool Libertarians

reasononline ^ | July 30, 2002 | By Jeremy Lott

[RANDomScout]

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.

Jeremy Lott is Reason's 2002 Burton C. Gray Memorial intern.

[mindprism.com]

The mass-infanticide that has occured in this nation since Roe v. Wade dwarves the Holocaust in sheer magnitude. I am a staunch advocate of the harshest of penalties that society may impose on those committing the atrocities of abortion, rape and pedophilia.

I agree, but I also see from your examples here that you aren't aware of my meaning by the word 'moral'-

I use that word to designate religious-based philosophy in contrast to the word 'ethical'. Ethical designates activities that do not 'harm others' in the libertarian or common law sense. Whereas 'moral' contains the action-at-a-distance phenomena, moral is about example-setting and 'environmental ramifications' of undignified or dishonorable behavior.

For example, if I pass a beggar on the street who has no shoes and I do not give him my old shoes -- that is immoral but not unethical. Simply put, its not 'nice' but it is not a crime for I have not forced a suffering on someone.

To compare this with the porn issue, say a strip club -- no one is forced to enter a strip club and become morally corrupted, hence it is an ethical enterprise. But the action-at-a-distance mentality would hold the club responsible for the moral degeneracy of its patrons and the potential misdeeds that may arise from that erosion.

Its the lets-sue-McDonalds mentality all over again but worse, it wants to outlaw McDonalds.

I will grant that it would be ethical to outlaw McDonalds or the strip club provided we had a more finely grained type of republic-

The problem with our current system is that we have no constraints on the will of the majority: We do not 'set-aside' territory (counties) where the minority may retreat in order to live amongst like-minded people.

Say you have a county in a state who wants to outlaw porn - they may do so under the following constraint:

If 80% of the people in the state wish to outlaw it, then 80% of the counties (with the highest county percentages of agreement with the new law) may THEN outlaw it, but the remaining 20% of the counties MAY NOT (even though those counties still contain a majority who wish it outlawed).

This is fundamentally fair and can be thought of as a non-monopolization policy of political territory. Eventually migrations would occur that would mathmatically prove to be a 'lets-make-as-many-people-as-possible-happy' policy instead of merely a 'lets-make-the-majority-happy' policy.

Man builds political monoliths instead of honeycombs, he is still hung up on dominating others and we waste a lot of energy in these eternal battles of will.

Its ridiculous and unneccessary.

[Willie Green]

We do not 'set-aside' territory (counties) where the minority may retreat in order to live amongst like-minded people.

The infamous "Blue Zone" exists as an example contrary to your statement.

[tpaine]

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.

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.

What a weird opinion. JR established a RLC forum at FR, and posted their position. -- I AGREE with the RLC position, and JR's concept for a new forum.
You see an attempt to usurp? Bizarre.

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.)

I argue with JR on some of the fine points of his enforcment of his posting guidelines. Many of us do. - So what?

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.

I don't question his ownership authority. I question guideline usage and how fairly they are enforced. - Again, you generalize about 'libertarians'.

Furthermore, his opinions ARE NOT YOURS to be cavalierly brandished as a magic potion to ward off political criticism of libertarian philosophy.

You are simply going off the deep end, willie. Nothing like that is happening. - Get help for your delusions.

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.

Sure willie.
As you say, JR is not shy, and if I did ANYthing like you imagine, he would ban me in a flash. Getta grip.

[technochick99]

standards which should be recognized and other things that should be stigmatized

I agree. And much of what you listed should be illegal. But to go further than that, one can stigmatize something and not have to make it illegal. I am a Libt., but a 'moral' one. I probably share many of the same beliefs that you do (as far as what you think is wrong), but, I'm not ready to make as many things illegal.

[technochick99]

Not at all. Generally, we believe that government hasn't been given the power to interfere in non-criminal areas such as abortion

Except that there are pro-life Libt's though.

[technochick99]

instead of being the anarchists that you are

I'm sure that someone has already said this, but let me stress that Libt <> anarchism. That's a very basic concept that you have wrong.

[Willie Green]

I don't question his ownership authority. I question guideline usage and how fairly they are enforced. -

Typical dodge practiced by both liberals and libertarians.
"Guideline" and "fairness" are irrelevant issues if one truly concedes and respectfully accepts his absolute authority.
JR's forum, JR's rules. He has the ABSOLUTE right to change them on a whim, as he sees fit.
This is not an issue that is open to debate or questioning.
JR is our host, we are his guests.

[mindprism.com]

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?

Your 'legal rights' are PARTIALLY ELUDED TO by the US and state constitutions -- your 'natural rights' are the same as every human on the planet. They are innumerable but can be condensed to the following:

Man has the right to conduct himself as he will as long as he is not inflicting physical harm on another. In cases of fraud, slander or 'endangerment' society has put in place civil courts that allow a jury of his peers to determine proper compensation for such actions.

Civil complaints, accusations and suits may not be issued by agents of the state, but by the aggrieved party only.

Your 'right' to procreate, raise your child, or eat tuna fish is not 'guaranteed' by ANY constitution I know of EITHER -- but those are still your rights.

Your confusion on the word 'rights' is like other peoples inability to discern 'unlawful' from 'criminal' -- study the following until you GET IT:

Citizen: How do I know if I have committed a crime?

Statist: Because a court, a jury of your peers has decided you have broken the law.

Citizen: Why do we have laws?

Statist: To prevent crime.

As you can see, there is something logically wrong with the above -- it obfuscates the word crime. If the above were TRUE we could reduce crime by repealing laws. The above is a circular definition and senseless...

The REAL definition of crime is physical harm to another -- assault, property damage or theft. Period.

'Unlawful' means breaking one of the infinite laws we have put in place to PREVENT THE POSSIBILITY of crime or civil injury (fraud, slander or 'endangerment'). The only valid mechanism for deterring crime is punishment after the crime has been committed, and the only valid mechanism for deterring civil injury is settlements ordered after a court determines damages are due.

See? Nice clean bright lines on what is the proper function of law, and what is not.

Deviation from those lines leads us to the boundless world of infinite regulation we live in. it puts us to sea without a compass, without a landmark, lost in a world of confusion over 'what is justified' or 'what is sufficient endangerment'.

The flesh of tyranny.

[technochick99]

this imposes enormous external costs

Kevin, I am starting to believe that everything imposes external costs. Where do you draw the line? I'm in a very restrictive HOA and think that much of what they are against makes sense for the point of preserving property values and keeping the place looking nice. But some of their rules are just ridiculous. (Like someone having the flag up permanently is going to harm property values?)

FWIW, I am more open to local standards because I am more likely to have an impact on something I don't like. When things are federal, or even at the state level, one voice is nothing.

[mindprism.com]

The infamous "Blue Zone" exists as an example contrary to your statement.

Thats a good example people-wise, but I doubt you could show there is a significant difference in law because all criminal law is state law and the only difference in law would center around what a city permits through zoning.

[mindprism.com]

Kevin, I am starting to believe that everything imposes external costs. Where do you draw the line?

#208 shows why you cannot find the line.

[tpaine]

I don't question his ownership authority. I question guideline usage and how fairly they are enforced. -

Typical dodge practiced by both liberals and libertarians. "Guideline" and "fairness" are irrelevant issues if one truly concedes and respectfully accepts his absolute authority. JR's forum, JR's rules. He has the ABSOLUTE right to change them on a whim, as he sees fit. This is not an issue that is open to debate or questioning. JR is our host, we are his guests.

Invited guests, urged to discuss restoration of our original constitutional principles, as long as we comply to JR's posting guidelines. Occassionaly, enforcement of these obscure guidelines seems whimsical. -- Questions are raised.

You don't like that willie? - Tough. - As you say, the only one that can tell me to shut up is JR. -- Not you.

[technochick99]

Actually, I'm very Libt. (I refuse to keep typing out that long word). In view of a brief discussion that Kevin and I had on another thread, I am trying to fully understand his point of view - to find out where *he* draws the line.

[technochick99]

And, everything does impose external costs, to some degree. But I think that's just part of living in a society. When I ride a bike on a busy street, I inconvenience drivers - I impose a cost on them - I influence their behavior in a way that is negative to them by making them slow down to get around me (I hope). But such is life! So to argue against external costs like he is doing is not as meaningful as he appears to believe. Of course, I'd rather hear from him before I start making assumptions.

[tpaine]

Nice essay. I think you should format it & post it as thread.
- You the writer?

[dirtboy]

Libertarians are hell-bent on giving this nation over to a suffocating nanny state.

Kevin, even Stalinist propagandists couldn't come up with a claim as absurd as this.

[Willie Green]

You don't like that willie? - Tough. - As you say, the only one that can tell me to shut up is JR. -- Not you.

You're the one who admittedly questions his "guidelines" and "fairness".
Not me.

It is obvious that you have never served in any managerial capacity of any significance, tpaine.
Otherwise, you'd not be so concerned about holding our host to YOUR interpretation of "guidelines" and "fairness".
Flexible interpretation is necessary to tighten or loosen the reigns as forum dynamics indicate. This flexibility is also necessary to permit the use of sound judgement as new and unique situations may arise. IMHO, JR has exhibited remarkably good yet admirably tolerant judgement in these situations. Yet libertarians constantly harass the gentleman with their whiney vanities about "censorship".

[JMJ333]

I agree with you, but what has happened is that our culture has rejected most moral standards, and when that happens the government is too eager to step in and fill the void. Libertarians make the mistake of accusing me of wanting to make things illegal. On the contrary, I want people to reject the immoral guided by their own conscience. I'm a culture warrior. gcruse and others on this forum don't want me to criticize or make moral prnouncements to them in any capacity. They don't care about the detremental effects their behavior has on the rest of us, yet they're the first ones to sqwack when the government tightens down on laws as the result of their own lack of self control.

[dirtboy]

Why do you even bother with Kevin Curry? You can fool some of the people some of the time, but Kevin is a fool all of the time. How can you possibly take a man seriously who claims this:

Libertarians are hell-bent on giving this nation over to a suffocating nanny state.

He is the leading promotor of the nanny-state philosophy, yet claims people who adhere to a limited government philosophy will create an even greater nanny state.

That makes about as much sense as claiming that sexual abstinence increases pregnancy rates.

[Chunga]

You take yourself too seriously.

I rarely see you make a point without insulting those with whom you disagree...hence my light-hearted comment, which I thought you'd see:

To: Admin Moderator

Would it be inappropriate to observe that it's going to tie his hands considerably?

I'll be sure to ping you every chance I get henceforth.