Goofy May Be a Libertarian

The Boston Herald ^ | May 15, 2000 | Don Feder

[quidnunc]

The problems with libertarians is that too many of them aren't.

Leaving aside the obvious, that a plurality who espouse the philosophy are single-issue libertarians and Libertarians — they want the right to get stoned without having to worry about getting arrested or fired — there is one aspect which should geve every thoughtful person pause.

Those who take libertarianism to its logical conclusion are apt to wander into the fever swamp of populism, with its all-to-ready tendency to have a soft spot for authoritarianism.

[BenLurkin]

Goofy? Maybe, but Scrooge McDuck is really more of the quintessential libertarian.

[steve50]

The libertarians are for strictly limiting the powers of the government(as were our founders), you might want to re-think that leading to authoritarianism line.

It's the neocons and progressives who want an all powerful "democracy", or as our founders phrased it "a tyranny of the majority"

[Tony Niar Brain]

What I cannot tolerate from some Libertarians is the notion that they have _the_ fresh, correct point of view on the debates in American politics. Sure, government non-intervention is nice, but this is the real world we're talking about here. The abortion issue, as illustrated above, shows where individual freedom is subject to lots of interpretation.

[Valin]

FOOD FIGHT!!!

[quidnunc]

Steve50 wrote: The libertarians are for strictly limiting the powers of the government(as were our founders), you might want to re-think that leading to authoritarianism line. It's the neocons and progressives who want an all powerful "democracy", or as our founders phrased it "a tyranny of the majority"

If you want to see libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion take a look at Somalia or much of sub-Saharan Africa.

Ideologically pure libertarianism leads to tribes and warlords.

[habs4ever]

Ping for Walt Disney ;-)

[RJCogburn]

An old and typically limp Feder piece.

Here's a little interesting history for you. Feder, in the 60s was the head of YAF at Boston University. He left YAF to become a founding member of something called the New Right Coalition, which was a libertarian organization, YAF having been deemed too traditionally conservative.

I guess he must figure he was a sinner by those actions and has been repenting ever since by doing Libertarian Party hit pieces. I'll certainly give him credit, he was no fool but not a real bright guy, but a determined hard worker who has been somewhat successful in his field.

[quidnunc]

RJCogburn wrote: An old and typically limp Feder piece. Here's a little interesting history for you. Feder, in the 60s was the head of YAF at Boston University. He left YAF to become a founding member of something called the New Right Coalition, which was a libertarian organization, YAF having been deemed too traditionally conservative. I guess he must figure he was a sinner by those actions and has been repenting ever since by doing Libertarian Party hit pieces. I'll certainly give him credit, he was no fool but not a real bright guy, but a determined hard worker who has been somewhat successful in his field.

So, what's your point?

[rb22982]

First of all, the author of this piece leaves out some grave information. The LP wants open borders, however, the LP is also in favor of removing EVERY LAST SOCIALISTIC PROGRAM IN AMERICA, which means people moving here would be forced to earn an honest living to pay for everything which would greatly cut down on immigration. He also doesn't mention that not all libertarians agree with the LP position.

His second grave mistake is that the author assumes that the drug war is doing anything. Well the drug war IS doing something, it's taking more money each year for taxes than all societal costs combined alone, plus obliterating state power in addition to destroying search & seizure rights while still allowing everyone who wants to do that crack cocaine to do it now.

As for WW 2, and Taiwan and a standing military, I think HB is looney on that also. Also, last I heard, Harry Browne isn't running for president anymore. Lastly, Harry Browne would have received far more votes had the vote not been close. Many libertarians voted for Bush (like myself) out of fear of Gore, and I know a great many of my libertarian/libertarian-leaning friends did likewise.

[steve50]

If you want to see libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion take a look at Somalia or much of sub-Saharan Africa.

Ideologically pure libertarianism leads to tribes and warlords.


You got a copy of their Constitutions to back that up. One of the silliest statements I've seen around here, and that's saying alot.

[Defiant]

Goofy May Be Libertarian.

Or, Libertarians may be Goofy. Either is possible.

[Dawgsquat]

What I cannot tolerate from some Libertarians is the notion that they have _the_ fresh, correct point of view on the debates in American politics. No, they believe the founding fathers did.

[decimon]

...they want the right to get stoned without having to worry about getting arrested or fired...

That's not true.

[decimon]

Ideologically pure libertarianism leads to tribes and warlords.

Quid has a point and one often made by Objectivists. Remember that ideologically pure libertarianism is anarchocapitalism.

But I'll bet that quid cannot begin to define what is ideologically pure Conservatism.

[quidnunc]

Steve50 wrote: You got a copy of their Constitutions to back that up. One of the silliest statements I've seen around here, and that's saying alot.

Taken to its logicval extension a libertarian state would have no constitution.

libertarian (n. )

1.One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
2.One who believes in free will.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Anarchy is, after all, libertarianism run amok.

When people begin to feel threatened they will band together in bands (read: tribes) for protection.

This is the genesis of tribalism and warlordism.

[steve50]

Anarchy is, after all, libertarianism run amok.

And the progressives run amuck is marxism, the neoconservatives run amuck is fascism, what's your point. The Constitution is supposed to protect from these extremes, we are not just supposed to trust our leaders not to go there.

[Cultural Jihad]

If you want to see libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion take a look at Somalia or much of sub-Saharan Africa. Ideologically pure libertarianism leads to tribes and warlords.

Or look no further than in Ohio where a loony Libertarian murdered a policeman Friday night over a mere traffic ticket. The man was the victim of the police initiating force (a traffic stop), and according to the Libertarian lunacy, he was within his natural rights to resist that unconstitutional force (commit murder).

[quidnunc]

Steve50 wrote: The Constitution is supposed to protect from these extremes…

You don't seem to be grasping the whole point if libertariansim.

A nations constitution is a statement of the rules under which that nation is founded.

Ideologically pure libertariansim rejects any such rules which would fetter any person's freedom to do as he or she pleases as long as that conduct does not harm any oither person.

Therefore, a nation founded on and functioning according to libertarian principles would have no constitution.

[HumanaeVitae]

There is no such thing as ideologically pure conservatism. Conservatism isn't an ideology. Think about it.