Posted on 07/31/2002 5:20:31 AM PDT by fporretto
Each abridgement of liberty has been used to justify further ones. Scholars of political systems have noted this repeatedly. The lesson is not lost on those whose agenda is total power. They perpetually strain to wedge the camel's nose into the tent, and not for the nose's sake.
Many a fine person will concede to you that "liberty is all very well in theory," follow that up with "but," and go on from there to tabulate aspects of life that, in his opinion, the voluntary actions of responsible persons interacting in freedom could never cope with. Oftentimes, free men and free markets have coped with his objections in the recent past, whether he knows it or not. You could point this out to him, provide references and footnotes, and still not overcome his resistance, for it does not depend on the specifics he cited.
His reluctance to embrace freedom is frequently based on fear, the power-monger's best friend.
Fantasist Robert Anton Wilson has written: "The State is based on threat." And so it is. After all, the State, no matter how structured, is a parasitic creature. It seizes our wealth and constrains our freedom, gives vague promises of performance in return, and then as often as not fails to deliver. No self-respecting people would tolerate such an institution if it did not regard the alternatives as worse.
The alternatives are seldom discussed in objective, unemotional terms. Sometimes they are worse, by my assessment, but why should you accept my word for it?
Let it be. The typical American, when he opts for State action over freedom, isn't acting on reasoned conviction, but on fear of a negative result. Sometimes the fear, which is frequently backed by a visceral revulsion, is so strong that no amount of counterevidence can dissolve it, including the abject failure of State action.
We've had a number of recent examples of this. To name only two prominent ones:
In either of the above cases, could we but take away the fear factor, there would be essentially no argument remaining.
Fear, like pain, can be useful. When it engenders caution, it can prolong life and preserve health. Conservatives in particular appreciate the value of caution. The conservative mindset is innately opposed to radical, destabilizing change, and history has proved such opposition to be wise.
However, a fear that nothing can dispel is a pure detriment to him who suffers it.
Generally, the antidote to fear is knowledge: logically sound arguments grounded in unshakable postulates and well buttressed by practical experience. Once one knows what brings a particular undesirable condition about, one has a chance of changing or averting it. The great challenge is to overcome fears so intense that they preclude a rational examination of the thing feared.
Where mainstream conservatives and libertarians part company is along the disjunction of their fears. The conservative tends to fear that, without State involvement in various social matters, the country and its norms would suffer unacceptably. Areas where such a fear applies include drug use, abortion, international trade, immigration, cultural matters, sexual behavior, and public deportment. The libertarian tends to fear the consequences of State involvement more greatly. He argues to the conservative that non-coercive ways of curbing the things he dislikes, ways that are free of statist hazards, should be investigated first, before turning to the police.
I call myself a libertarian, but I can't discount conservative fears in all cases -- especially where the libertarian approach to some social ill involves a major change to established ways. Radical transformations of society don't have a rosy history.
Yet conservatives, too, could be more realistic, and could show more confidence in the ideals they strive to defend. As Thomas Sowell has written in discussing the War On Drugs, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damned fool about it."
The past two decades, starting roughly with Ronald Reagan's ascent to national prominence, have laid the foundations for an enduring coalition between freedom-oriented libertarian thinkers and virtue-and-stability-oriented conservative thinkers. Each side needs to learn greater confidence in the other, if we are to establish the serious exchange of ideas and reservations, free of invective and dismissive rhetoric, as an ongoing process. Such confidence must include sufficient humility to allow for respect for the other side's fears -- for an unshakable confidence in one's own rightness is nearly always misplaced. There is little to learn from those who agree with you, whereas much may be learned from those who disagree.
Just because you say they are wrong (since you pretty much never use factual info, usually just knee jerk reactional stuff), doesn't make them wrong. The platform that they all run away from?
The LP is not all of libertarianism, and while libertarians agree with probably 90-95% of the LP's party platform, they are not uniform on many issues such as borders, money system, roads, etc
That's why I'm not a libertarian.- Cheers, HV
325 posted on 8/4/02 4:26 PM Pacific by HumanaeVitae
Oh come on. To attack the LP on this point is ridiculous.
The Republicans have this very same schism in their party, PLATFORM aside.
Even when the REPOs control the House and split the Senate, Cheney IS THE TIE BREAKER BTW, we have seen NOTHING to prove they mean what they say on abortion. Talk's cheap. Show Me!
They could pass a Bill outlawing the practice and let the Supremes and the Death Merchants fight it out in the courts for years, in the meantime GWB could "Implement" all provisions of any such Bill and at the rate we abort we could save Millions of lives by the time the Supremes come to a decision.
Do you think Ole' Bush would do this??
No way, because he does NOT really believe abortion should be outlawed completely. There are ALWAYS special circumstances, exceptions and Politics not to mention Social Management to think of that prevent this.
As a Good NWO guy and VERY Compromised by the skeletons in his closet he will continue on the SAME path we have been on for 29 years. Our Nation WILL PAY a steep price for this crime as a result.
FWIW, I am a Christian and think abortion is murder.
I am a libertarian too!!!!!
You take care,
CATO
Not so much as a single sentence, and nothing relating to the burden of proof.
As Congress pointed out, "Controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate cannot be differentiated from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate. Thus, it is not feasible to distinguish, in terms of controls, between controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate and controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate."
You haven't come close to addressing the point.
Laughing at the killing of the child?
What about 99%? What about 10%?
Just about the dope.
I'm sure you would say that. Because if some libertarians are for partial birth abortion and some aren't, that means that libertarians disagree about what "liberty" entails. Which means libertarianism is in trouble.
"If the fetus is human, then it has rights, if it is not, it does not have the same rights."
Really? What does "human" mean? I'm asking you in all seriousness.
Well sort of, I'd say that would really make the other's simply not completely libertarian
"If the fetus is human, then it has rights, if it is not, it does not have the same rights."
Really? What does "human" mean? I'm asking you in all seriousness.
I'd say a combination of many things including would be: complex and abstract thought, reasoning, form (shape), & of course having a soul.
Also, as Cato points out so eloquently, the GOP really isn't all that Pro Life either, regardless of what their platform says.
Then we have common ground. You in affect agree that certain "restraints" need be placed on businesses to maintain a free market place ... as I do. I do find your contention that customer pressure will prevent companies from engaging in practices that are repugnant naive at best. If customer pressure were that effective Target and Wal-Mart would NOT exist. BUT the more important point is that if most or all companies engage in the same repugnant practice it will be real difficult to purchase ones goods from a company that does not engage in the same. Reference my last post about forming new companies in a free for all market place. New business CAN NOT get a foothold in a monopolistic environment and the notion that business unchecked will not evolve into a monopolistic enterprise IS the height of naivety.
The gist of my argument is that the right of any business to swing it's collective arm ends at the point of societies nose. I happen to find drug testing and private information searches like driving records and credit checks by employers which are not germane to an employees job the tip of that nose. I for one do NOT wish to live under ANYONES tyranny whether it be from the government or big business. Your contention that history shows that big business did NOT resort to the things I described in my previous post is BS. The only reason that business has NOT done whatever they could get away with IS because there ARE restraints in place ... so nice try. You mentioned Enron ... guess what ... they tried to get away with stuff AND GOT CAUGHT and so did many other companies recently ... what else would these and/or other companies have tried if restraints had not been in place ????
That would be a heck of an ex post facto law.
Thanks for the irrationality.
If you think that is irrational, you are dillusioned. Jesus made wine for a party, which pretty much gives His consent for drinking alcohol. If you are for having alcohol illegal, it means, had you been at Jesus' time or vice versa, you would be in favor of arresting Jesus.
"Piracy, n. Commerce without its folly-swaddles, just as God made it."
-- Ambrose Bierce
Well, first, we'll never know when a child has a soul. My attitude is to assume that ensoulment happens at conception; call it "playing it safe". No one can know the will of God so we have to assume the best. Second, if you're willing to destroy life that doesn't engage in abstract thought, well infanticide might be for you. Babies can't reason.
People who are pro-choice seem to have this breezy attitude of "if you can't see it, it's o.k. to kill it".
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.