Libertarianism III: It's All About Me and My Needs

Sand in the Gears ^ | 11/15/02 | Tony Woodlief

[The Green Goblin]

As a reformed libertarian (9/11 made the difference for me) I think this guy's analysis is totally correct.

If you think this guy's analysis (which is filled with micharacterizations about libertarianism) is correct, then I really have to doubt you were ever a true libertarian in the first place...

[jjm2111]

"If you don't think drug use would skyrocket with legalization, you're ignorant about what comprises human nature. "

I don't think so. Alchohol is legal and everyone is not an alchoholic. I also think most Libertarians are concerned about the glaring government overreaches in fighting the "war" on drugs.

[hscott]

Oh yeah, that really makes a lot of sense. Here's your theory - anyone who deserts the libertarians is by definition off his rocker and therefore, could not have ever been a libertarian in the first place since libertarians are always perfectly sane.

You sound like a Randite to me.

[xdem]

Libertarians are already alienated. Direct confrontation will not get libertarian votes. Only noble deeds will.

Republicans will have to reduce the size of government, restore property rights, stop harassment of home schoolers, reduce taxes, etc. if they want libertarian votes in 2004.

Are Republicans up to the task? We'll know by November 2004.

[The Green Goblin]

Oh yeah, that really makes a lot of sense. Here's your theory - anyone who deserts the libertarians is by definition off his rocker and therefore, could not have ever been a libertarian in the first place since libertarians are always perfectly sane.

Wrong. First, I didn't say you were crazy. I said the reasons you gave for leaving libertarianism were based upon a faulty understanding of the philosophy of libertarianism. Take 9/11 for instance. Many libertarians (including mysrelf) believe that using the military to defend the country is thoroughly proper. Thus, your "defection" appears to be based on an erroneous (or at least incomplete) understanding of libertarianism.

Furthermore, the author of the posted article stated many false things about the beliefs of libertarians (such as the WWII example I refuted). The fact that you publicly accepted all of his arguments as valid shows that you at best lack a comprehensive understanding of what libertariansm is.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

OK, class, what foolish and dangerous notion is (thinly) hidden in this statement?

Too easy.

[hscott]

Well at least we are getting somewhere. You say that "..using the military to defend the country is thoroughly proper." I agree and in fact I had always thought that national defense is a proper function of government according to libertarianism.

But would you agree or disagree that many (most?) libertarians have grave doubts about the war on terror and especially the proposed war on Iraq?

For example from Harry Brownes website: "Declare an end to the so-called War on Terrorism. Call it a victory, a defeat, or an armistice. But quit acting as though it's an excuse to invade any country or take away our civil liberties.

[steve-b]

Yeah, you're right. Does hiding the key clue (see below) make it sufficiently challenging?

The 2nd amendment gives every American the right to keep and bear arms.

[The Green Goblin]

But would you agree or disagree that many (most?) libertarians have grave doubts about the war on terror and especially the proposed war on Iraq?

It is true that many libertarians do have doubts about those things. But even those of us who approve of wartime actions against terrorism should always have "doubts" when it comes to the poissible revocation of our precious and hard-won civil liberties in this country. To do otherwise would be folly and failure to learn form the lessons of history.

[hscott]

Sure, absolutely you are correct concerning civil liberties. And I have to confess to being conflicted about this. Do security and freedom necessarily conflict? And, if so, how are they to be balanced?

But you are glossing over the fact that many libs are members of the "hate America" crowd, just like Chomsky, et al. They fail to acknowledge that America, with all its faults is still the best country in the world and in fact the best country in human history.

[jjm2111]

This is a great piece. I never knew much about classical reasoning and logical arguments (or what terms like "straw man" meant). Thanks.

Now I can go read the New York Times and check off the logical fallacies.

FR is such an education enhancer.

[Reagan Man]

>>>You, like they, are lying in order to prevent a something from becoming legal.

First off, I haven't lied about anything. I have only spoken the truth and that truth is quite clear. The legalization of prostitution would not end the spread of STD's. Nor would it end illegal prostitution either. Your analogy to concealed firearm permits is convoluted reasoning, only a libertarian mindset could fabricate. The vast majority of American's have a moral value system and oppose behavior that is both wrong and harmful. This seems to upset you. Well, too bad. It would appear you have much in common with the immoral values espoused by liberals. So be it.

>>>You might consider using logical fallacies less if you wish to bash libertarians as non-logical debaters. Or, libertarians aside, if you wish to have rational support for your political positions.

The libertarian philosophy has never been accepted by the American people and never will be, beyond the extremist fringe faction. Libertarian politics is for all practical purposes, nonexistent. As with liberalism, there's nothing rational or logical about libertarianism.

And I'm very satisfied with my conservative values and the political positions those values represent. I will continue to defend them.

I'm sure you have more gibberish in your bag of rhetorical nonsense. Rant on!

[xdem]

> I'm very satisfied with my conservative values

I'm happy for you. And in fact, I voted mostly for Republicans in 2002.

But in those cases where the only Republican is a RINO, can you explain why I shouldn't vote Libertarian?

[xdem]

> The libertarian philosophy has never been accepted by the American people.

Ronald Reagan got elected by offering the core of libertarian values. Americans loved him. And they accepted his views.

Check out REAGAN, IN HIS OWN HAND from a library to learn more.

[rdb3]

If only libertarians would agree that socialist Israel must be forever supported by the U.S., and we need to conquer the entire world -- then we can join ranks with this Mr. Nobody. Pardon me if I pass up the opportunity.

An honest critique of Israel is one thing, but being vehemently anti-Israel is another. You fit into the latter camp.

Oh, and he quotes Murray Rothbard only in part on the strategy question: to read this dimwit, you'd never know that he's quoting from an essay wherein Rothbard constructs an entire theory of libertarian strategy.

Really? And just how is that strategy going? A quick glance at the scoreboard will tell you that this strategy is losing very badly.

No mercy.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[Eagle Eye]

Some people lack the internal controls needed to live responsibly. Those people need restrictive laws to prevent themselves from harming others or perpetrating fraud and theft.

Many of those same people, primarily motivated by their self-awarness and need for restrictive laws, feel a need to impose these rules and laws on as many others as they can. To them, those who believe that they can act responsibly without the State's interference represent evil, license, laciviousness, and the doom of civilization. Lovers of individual freedom and responsibility represent a threat to lovers of the State.

Government, especially in a free country, does not exist to tell us what or when or how much we can eat, drink, read, or if and how one can self medicate. Government exists to protect individuals from those that violate others rights and other's property.

It is too bad that only 200 years after the American Revolution there are those that cannot handle personal freedom and responibility and are passionate about depriving others of the same.

[coloradan]

First off, I haven't lied about anything. I have only spoken the truth and that truth is quite clear. The legalization of prostitution would not end the spread of STD's. Nor would it end illegal prostitution either.

Now you're changing the subject. Before, you claimed that legalization of prostitution would cause a spread of STD's, now you have backed off and are merely stating it wouldn't end them, and wouldn't end illegal prostitution. (I agree with both of those statements, btw.) But what you said earlier was: I guarantee you, the legalization of prostitution would see skyrocketing increases in STD's, from sea to shining sea. Given that STDs are rarer where prostitutition is legal, this statement is a lie.

Your analogy to concealed firearm permits is convoluted reasoning, only a libertarian mindset could fabricate.

Not at all:
"If we legalize prostitution, the sky will fall because STDs would then spread rampantly, whereas it isn't now (even though STDs are lower in NV where it's legal)."
"If we legalize concealed carry, the sky will fall because there will be shootouts and blood running in the streets (even though crime rates are lower where concealed carry is legal, and such shootouts have never occurred)."

The vast majority of American's have a moral value system and oppose behavior that is both wrong and harmful.

Yet another logical fallacy, appeal to the majority.

The libertarian philosophy has never been accepted by the American people and never will be, beyond the extremist fringe faction. Libertarian politics is for all practical purposes, nonexistent. As with liberalism, there's nothing rational or logical about libertarianism.

There's nothing rational or logical about your posts, because you insist on using logical fallacies. Your reply here, incidentally, is not responsive to my criticism of you for using a different logical fallacy earlier.

And I'm very satisfied with my conservative values and the political positions those values represent. I will continue to defend them.

I'm sure you will ... but you have to use non-fallacious reasoning if you wish to appear rational.

I'm sure you have more gibberish in your bag of rhetorical nonsense. Rant on!

LOL! Pointing out fallacies isn't gibberish, except to someone who has never heard of them.

[Reagan Man]

I own several books on Ronald Reagan, including a copy of "Reagan In His Own Hand" and read it quite often. I also campaigned for Reagan three times, 76, 80 and 84. However, Reagan never claimed to be a libertarian, nor did he support the libertarian agenda, philosophy and ideology. Reagan was a moral conservative, a social conservative and a law and order conservative. Reagan based his life on a set of core conservative values.

Reagan gave one extensive interview on the subject of libertarianism. That was the 1975 interview to the libertarian publication, Reason magazine. Many libertarians here on FR have taken what Reagan said in that interview and offered an inaccurate portrayal of Reagan's political beliefs. Reagan was a loyal Republican and staunch conservative.

[Action-America]

I have to agree with much of what the author said... most, but not all.  He used a method of argument typically used by liberals, when their arguments are either weak or nonexistent.  He presented several real solid facts, interspersed with hyperbole, conjecture and outright lies.  Furthermore, he failed to even consider two questions that his thesis raises.

1. He failed to even mention any of the positive issues that Libertarians stand for, of which there are many.
2. Not only did he fail to consider the all too real problems with the alternatives, he didn't even offer any viable alternative.  By failing to offer an alternative, he comes across as a spoiler who, knowing that his team isn't any better, wants to complain about the other team, rather than fix the problems on his own team.

But, before I go into those issues, I want to address a couple of the author's statements, both pro and con (something that the author failed to do).

Pro:  Indeed, most Libertarians of note have no concept of how to deal with hostile foreign governments.  Their foreign policy ideas are actually ideals, based on laboratory philosophy that works only in the vacuum of intellectual thought.  Were the world filled only with educated, thoughtful philosophers, maybe their foreign policy ideas would have a chance of success.  On the other hand, many Libertarians of lesser note have a much more realistic grasp of the world as it is.  They understand the need for a strong and proactive military.  Unfortunately, such realistic Libertarians are in the minority or at least, not in a position to make their views known.

Con:  The author loses a large degree of credibility when he suggests, not only, that the Civil War was not a great infringement on liberty, but that the Civil War was about slavery.  In fact, more than any other single person of any era, the Father of the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln, was responsible for the first major subversion of the Constitution and the introduction of Federalism, that our Founding Fathers had worked so hard to deny the government and now threatens the very fabric of our society.  Furthermore, only a graduate of a public school would ever think that the Civil War was about slavery.  Even most liberals, when you pin them down, will admit that the Civil War was about economics and greed - greed that led to a willingness to ignore the Constitution and grant the Federal government far more powers than the Constitution allowed, just so the North could have justification for imposing their will on the South and punish them for their wealth.

Pro:  The Libertarians (at least the ones who seem to be in control of the party) seem to have no idea how they would actually go about governing, should they ever come to power.  Granted, since there is very little chance of that happening, they have the philosopher's luxury of not having to deal with that possibility for a long time.  Many of them may indeed have solid and well thought out plans.  But, we have yet to hear any of them, so we must expect the worst.

Con:  The author would have us think that Libertarians would try to indoctrinate people to their way of thinking, as a way to scare the reader into worrying about his freedom to raise his children according to his own values and the subversion of community norms.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Granted, Libertarians would see to it that information concerning Libertarian thought was no longer suppressed, as it is today, by mutual agreement of both major parties.  In fact, most Libertarians that I am familiar with would tell you that, community norms are only surpassed in importance by individual freedom.  They want the most control at the lowest levels - personal first, community second, state third and national last.  As a reformed Republican, Independent, I know many Republicans and more than a few Libertarians and it has been my observation that, while only a few Republicans send their kids to private schools, almost all of the Libertarians that I know send their kids to private schools (some even go to, dare I say, "religious" schools).  Libertarians are, in general, more concerned with a "complete" education, than with a Libertarian education and much more so than Democrats or Republicans.  They believe that, given ALL the facts, most people will side with them.  In this instance, the author is just blowing hot air to achieve scare value.  It's hogwash.

Now, on to the things that the author left out -

The Good Side of Libertarianism:

Like it or not, the ONLY political party that stands steadfastly behind the "original intent" of the Constitution, is the Libertarian Party.  There is no doubt that the Democrats would just as soon forget all about the Constitution, but in that regard, the Republicans are not that far behind.  Despite all of their shortcomings, the Libertarians are much more dedicated to Constitutional law than either of the major parties.

Most of the author's supportable facts had to do with only two points; the failure of the Libertarian leadership to understand real world foreign policy requirements or their failure to present their plan to govern.  But he failed to address the nine points that stand Libertarians in very elite company.  The nine points are the nine of the ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights that have been subverted by our elected representatives of both major parties (not including the third amendment, which has not yet been subverted).  Then add to that most of the other 17 amendments that have been subverted by the major parties and the author's points, though still valid, shrink significantly in relation.  All this brings up the second point that the author left out.

In many cases, the alternatives are even worse:

Most people tend to vote for candidates from one of the two major parties.  So let's look at what those two parties have given us.  In fact, since many of the people on this forum seem to think that the Republicans can do no wrong, let's particularly look at what the Republicans have given us.

• USA Patriot Act - Only one Republican in the House voted against this abomination, described by Constitutional scholars of both political persuasions, as the greatest single attack on the Fourth Amendment in history and it weakened 15 other privacy laws.  Over one-third of the 367 pages that make up the USA Patriot Act have nothing to do with anything but information gathering in US banks and other US financial institutions, most of which are in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment.  Both parties overwhelmingly voted for this bill, but it points out that the Republicans are very little different than the Democrats, when it comes to taking away our rights.  Thank you so much Republicans.

• The Homeland Security Act - The Republican controlled House just passed this disgraceful legislation that will, among other things, create a mammoth Orwellian database, overseen by the Defense Department's Information Awareness Office, headed by the convicted mastermind of Iran-Contra, John Poindexter.  According to this legislation, this database will contain massive amounts of private data about every citizen, including every credit card purchase you make, every magazine subscription you buy, every medical prescription you fill, every web site you visit, every e-mail address that you send to or receive from, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book, every event you attend, judicial and divorce records, traffic tickets and even complaints from nosy neighbors.  If you have one of those toll road tags on your car windshield, then it will also record the date and time of every toll plaza you go through.  If you have OnStar in your car, then it will record your car's location at specific intervals.  So, if you spend too much time at a gun store, you may be classified as a subversive.  If you spend too much time at church, then you will be classified as a right wing wacko.  And frequenting the FreeRepublic web site,...  well, even if you don't post, it will certainly put you near the top of the list of suspicious people to watch.  Thank you so much Republicans.

• The Our Lady of Peace Act - The Republican controlled House just passed this outrage, as well.  It requires states to forward to the FBI, all kinds of private information about every citizen, for use in instant background checks.  This goes far beyond the criminal history information and judicial restrictions that may be in place for a person.  For example, you could be denied the right to purchase a gun because the computer turns up the fact that 30 years ago, when you were in junior high school, you underwent psychological evaluation for depression after you broke up with your first girlfriend, even though no problem was found.  Even arrests that were dismissed for lack of evidence, including wrongful arrest, would be submitted and could prevent you from purchasing a gun.  Thank you so much Republicans.

• Campaign Finance Reform - Once again, Republicans voted en masse to pass this diabolical Incumbent Protection bill, weakly disguised as campaign finance reform.  Among other things, it is clearly a violation of the First Amendment.  Thank you so much Republicans.

• The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) - In 1996, Republicans inserted an amendment into HIPAA, that claimed the right of the IRS to tax the earnings of US expatriates for ten years after they renounced their US citizenship and had become taxpaying citizens of another country.  This is saying, not only to those American expats, but to everyone who remains here, that your money isn't yours.  It belongs to the government and if you leave, we are taking it back.  Thank you so much Republicans.

The list is far too long to present here.  But, it should be clear that BOTH parties have not only failed to protect our rights on numerous occasions, but have actively subverted our rights repeatedly.  Certainly there are some Libertarians that I would never vote for.  But, on the other hand, there are more than a few Republicans that I would never vote for, too (Senators Specter, McCain and Grassley come to mind).  That's why I am a reformed Republican, Independent.  Today, I look closely at every candidate's record and his stand on the issues and unfortunately, I most often end up voting for the lesser evil.  Most of the time, that means voting Republican, but some of the time, it means voting Libertarian, Reform, Constitution or even Independent.

By following this "the party can do no wrong" philosophy, we are digging ourselves and our country into a hole that we may never climb out of.

It's time that we put away labels and start voting for the MAN, rather than the Party.

 

[laredo44]

A libertarian is someone who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty.

On the odd chance I might get a civilized answer, what restrictions do you propose be placed on liberty?