Posted on 08/11/2002 8:44:07 AM PDT by quidnunc
The Libertarian Party is having its national nominating convention at the Marriott Hotel in Anaheim, Calif., from June 30 to July 3.
But there's a much better site in the same city — Disneyland.
What could be more fitting for these laissez-faire visionaries than to convene in the theme park's Fantasyland? Goofy might even be available for their national ticket.
I recently sat down with the man who will likely be the party's presidential candidate this year (as he was in 1996), Harry Browne. An author and investment guru, Browne is charming, articulate and, well, about what you'd expect of a Libertarian ideologue.
The party boasts that there are "over 270 Libertarians serving in public office" nationwide. But its highest elected official currently is a Vermont state legislator. Of course, there is also Art Olivier, who served one term as mayor pro tem of Bell Flower, Calif. Based on his resume, Olivier is now running for the party's vice presidential nomination.
In 1996, Browne drew 485,120 votes. As the candidate of the Green Party (which wants to repeal the Industrial Revolution), Ralph Nader pulled in 651,771 votes.
Still, I'm surprised Browne did as well as he did. I have to assume that most of those half-million voters didn't read the party's platform and were unaware of the nominee's more exotic stands. Libertarians have taken a good idea — opposition to bullying government — and turned it into a crusade for a utopian agenda.
The party's ideal society could exist only in the realm of theory. Its platform calls for "the elimination of all restrictions on immigration." If 50 million Mexicans chose to move to California and Texas, resulting in chaos and the obliteration of national identity, why should that concern Libertarians?
If these new Americans (then constituting a majority in the states where they settle) wanted to secede and reunite the territory with Mexico, presumably Libertarians would not stand in their way.
The party's position on national defense is equally loony. In a Browne presidency, no American soldier would set foot on foreign soil. "What if China invaded Taiwan?" I asked. None of our business, he replied. Well, what if it invaded Mexico? In that case, Browne said he'd fortify our southern border and await an invasion.
Is there never a role for alliances or the use of U.S. forces abroad? According to Browne, even our involvement in World War II was a mistake. The Nazis and Japanese posed no direct threat to us, Browne claims (a la Pat Buchanan).
Libertarian aversion to government often leads to strange dichotomies. Browne assumes "life begins at conception." He believes Washington should be neutral on abortion. (Roe vs. Wade was "an example of judicial activism at its worst.") Sound reasoning.
Abortion policy should be set by states, Browne says. However, "Do I believe the states should outlaw abortion?" the Libertarian rhetorically asks. "I do not."
I said, "You assume that the unborn child is human life, but you don't think government at any level should act to protect that life? What about laws against murder?"
Browne doesn't think much of them, either (look at all the murders despite the law) — though he hastens to add that he's not calling for their repeal.
A Libertarian government would consist of open borders, no troops abroad, no alliances and the repeal of laws against prostitution and drugs. If someone on crack cocaine kills your family, you can go to your private arbitration agency for adjudication.
Impractical? Delusional? Let's just say that if there were Libertarians in the Third Reich, they would have probably been drawing up plans to privatize the autobahns when the Gestapo arrived to take them away.
Browne believes our borders should be open to immigration yet he believes the defense of our country against it's enemies should be waged strictly at it's borders.
What you refer to idealism is what the Founding Fathers had in mind. They even put it in writing. I don't see where libertarian philosphy associates with leftist/'RAT-socialism. I have never voted Libertarian, always Republican. I will vote against any Democrat whether the candidate is a RINO or not. But if the GOP wants to get any more converts to basic conservatism, it needs to shake the idea that they want to lock everyone up for jaywalking . True, logical people realize that the Democratic socialist program puts us all under gov't cradle to grave control/care, but the bone headed general public only sees 60 second images during the election and 10 min mainstream news (Democratic propaganda) on occasion during non-election times. The GOP needs a "leave the people alone and leave their money alone too" image. Rather than ridicule libertarians, an agree to disagree on some issues and unite on the main ones such as limited govt. would serve the GOP well 9if it wants to win with any regularity).
Anarchy pimpled with pus-pockets of vicious private authoritarianism. No law, no predictability, just the arbitrary and carpicious "freedom" of the jungle where tempers are short and life-spans even shorter.
Well, at least they're not out shooting cops like you obsessives.
You are right. Our Constitution uses group rights to protect as many individual unalienable rights as possible, but it is still a group document -- we the people.
What's this?
"He memorized the Constitution and its relationship with God's law."
Galatians...chapter 5
13] For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
[14] For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
[15] But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
[16] This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.
[17] For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
[18] But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
[19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
[20] Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
[21] Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
[22] But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
[23] Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
[24] And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
[25] If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
[26] Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gal.6
[1] Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.
[2] Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
Ideologically pure conservatism leads to witch trials, Blue Laws, or even the Taliban.
Ideologically pure democracy leads to forced fads, mob rule, and the worst sorts of populism.
Ideologically pure communism leads to peaceful sharing, compassion, and equality (and is entirely impossible because human nature is radically miscalculated).
Ideological purity is undesirable in ANY philosophy. The wonderful dichotomy of Left vs. Right has been VERY good for America in many ways. That being said, a solid move towards Libertarianism (a limited, small, and well-defined government and code of laws) would go a long way towards restoring our lost Liberty (personal property rights, rights to the full fruits of our labors, etc.).
‘And who is my neighbor?.’ (Luke 10:29)
"Jesus had just finished telling his parable of the good Samaritan. In the story, a desperately wounded man was left by religious leaders to perish. He was saved by someone another man, who happened to be a religious outcast. The lawyer who asked the question, "Who is my neighbor," understood well why the priest and Levite would not help the wounded man. To do so would have meant defilement for them. It was their religion, that prevented them from being compassionate."
"As for the Samaritan, he was one of a breed of people whom Jews in the southern part of the country, counted impure. They were considered unclean, in the same way that the priest and Levite saw the blood stained man as unclean. For the most part, Samaritans were not thought of as neighbors. It is all too easy for any of us, to make love for a neighbor less arduous, by classifying large tracts of the human race, as non-neighbors. Jesus refused answer the question: "Who is my neighbor?" Instead, showed that it was a wrong question."
"The person who asks that question only wants to know what the limits of his duty are? He wants his maximum obligation spelt out so he can leave off being neighborly as soon as possible. Rather than ask, "Who is my neighbor?" Jesus would have us ask, "Am I a... genuine---neighbor?" May God help me to be a neighbor."
Is CJ fulfilling the law of Christ with his obsessive hatreds?
What in the world is your point?
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives(no govt religion--none) who advocated growth and progress---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law--reality... UNDER GOD---the nature of GOD/man/govt. does not change. These were the Classical liberals...founding fathers-PRINCIPLES---stable/SANE scientific reality/society---industrial progress...moral/social character-values(private/personal) GROWTH/responsibility---LIMITED intrusive Govt/anarchy--crime!
So did the Nazis (the trains and postal services sure ran on time, too!). So did the Communists (class structures).
Everyone else is pursuing fanciful ideals that never work out.
So are conservatives. Theocratic failures litter History as much as any other. The greatness of the American Experiment was that it left the individual to rule himself, within a small framework of laws, in a nation that was overwhelmingly comprised of people who were devout Christians, hard-working individualists, and/or exceedingly interested in maintaining a Just society... basically a fragile balance of a Libertarian framework populated by conservative citizens.
Today, our half-amoral and almost totally self-interested population is operating within a populist framework that is leaning heavily towards Socialism. Moving back may not be possible, but any attempt should be applauded. The "reefer-madness" aspect of Libertarianism, while distatsteful, is easily a bigger draw for the amoral parts of the citizenry than conservatism's demand for huge amounts of legislated limits on (stupid, self-destructive, etc.) human activities.
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.