Posted on 07/30/2002 6:46:04 PM PDT by 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.
Close - its more like a Star Trek convention, complete with the Non-Interference Directive and emotionless Vulcans.
I see what you are saying. So, if our President, say Clinton, started an unjust war with... oh, China and/or Russia and the US lost...
Then you would accept the victors mandates that would undermine or outright prohibit your religion and value system?
I guess you would have to, since you believe that might makes right. But then again, I don't suspect you have much of a value system if you believe that:
The Godless victors have won, therefore Godlessness is the proper philosophy to adapt given it has proved it is most successful by evolutionary standards of survival and conquest.
cultures that breed terrorists deserve no respect
A pretty daring statement given the lack of respect given the US by the jury-of-the-world, even excluding Islam.
All part of the price you pay when you assume the role of global cop/judge/jury/executioner. Nobody likes the FUZZ eh?
Good thing we are so full of ourselves lest we succumb to the perils of self-examination - we might find that this ingrate job of worlds only superpower is, contrary to what we tell ourselves, one we assume willingly and eagerly and NOT one we grudgingly concede to because of worldly 'peer pressure'.
Those peers are the very ones razzin us now. Screw 'em. Who needs it? Lets just pretend for a bit we are some pitiful powerless third-world rat-hole unless someone messes with our direct interests...
THEN, we pop off a couple nukes up high over thier heads and watch how fast they toe the line.
Bring all our troops from those 180-some countries home, we can run this puppy through sheer nuclear intimidation.
Enough of the good cop/bad cop facade, they arent buying it anymore, and we look schitzophrenic as well as asinine.
I'll have to page up to see what you did to offend A+Bert Junior.
Yea. Thanks. Only the Citizen/Statist dialog is plagerized.
I guess once you bang out an idea enough times, eventually you will hit the mark with a bit of grace.
I find that typing in these debates, as well as text chat, really hones your ability to compress ideas yet retain a vivid compelling character.
Every...word...counts.
Yes, I'm very consistant in my views.
I see no reason to change my tune.
Yes, I'm very consistant in my views. I see no reason to change my tune.
One of the symptoms of an OCD type of dementia is repeating the same futile act, over, and over & over.
Trust me willy, in over four years here I've seen many like you crash & burn. Get help.
LOL!!!
Been around a little over four years myself.
Probably witnessed the same meltdowns you have.
Ol' Willie Green is as stable as bedrock.
Me, I like a bit of variety in the writing styles of the authors I read. What authors do you not find off-putting?
From http://www.libertarian.org :
"While libertarians are a diverse group of people with many philosophical starting points, they share a defining belief: that everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others.
Human interaction should be peaceful, voluntary, and honest. It is never acceptable to use physical force to achieve your goals. The only time force is acceptable is when you are defending against force."
That's about as good a definition as there is, IMHO. There will always be differences of opinion amongst individuals about the issues of the day, no matter what they choose to label themselves with. The defining principle remains.
Go play Rambo with someone that hasn’t been here long enough to have your number. You don't impress me at all much less scare me.
Not as predictable as you presume.
Borders? In a world where most everyone is peaceful and productive, I believe anyone should be able to live where ever they choose. Unfortunately, this is not yet the case. Until such time as we can all gather round the campfire, hold hands and sing Kum-bye-yah, without killing, beating or stealing from the person next to us, I don't have a problem with governments setting and enforcing standards for who can enter and remain in their jurisdictions.
Morality? Since you didn't give any examples of how libertarians advocate immorality, I'll leave this one alone.
Wars? Should we have a strong defensive capability to protect the lives and property of our citizens? Sure. That's the main job of the national government. Should we deploy many thousands of troops around the globe to prop up or despose of every third world dictator that catches our attention? I don't think so.
Drugs? This issue is a thread (many, many threads) unto it self. I'll just say, I don't advocate that anyone put harmful substances in their bodies. But if you do, that's your business not mine.
Not at all. JR's advocacy of the RLC is a non-issue for me.
I can't recall ever commenting on it one way or the other until you disenguously started dangling it in front of my nose as troll bait.
And that's precisely what I explained to A2J that you were doing way back in reply #180.
I have absolutely no problems with JR's advocacy of the RLC.
It is his forum and his right to do so.
I do not criticize him for it. It is a non-issue for me.
Do I disagree with some of the planks in the RLC's platform?
Of course I do. That is a well known fact.
I've consistantly advocated a dissenting view on those issues ever since I've joined this forum.
But political opposition on those issues does not constitute personal opposition to or criticism of JR.
And I refuse to yield to your juvenile attempt to make it so.
Furthermore, if you go into the archives, you'll find that my criticism of libertarians hasn't changed much either.
Perhaps it's become somewhat less dormant as a new election approaches,
but it was certainly there during the Y2K campaign, and is nothing new that you can interpret as "freaked out".
Give up, tpaine. Your troll-baiting tactics are transparent.
Yeah yeah yeah.
Since those in the government are chosen by the rest of us, why would you think they are any more moral? It's one thing to be immoral and another to be immoral and in a position of power. To what moral standards do you refer?
...others on this forum don't want me to criticize or make moral prnouncements to them in any capacity.
On the contrary, criticize and pronounce away. Just because someone might disagree doesn't necessarily mean they don't want to hear your views.
They don't care about the detremental effects their behavior has on the rest of us...
Such as?
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.