Why I am not a Libertarian.

[Carl]

Cause there are so many countries we can prop up as example where those "who are left to their own support" just thrived and lived the dream baby.  

If you go back to that FR thread I posted I made mention that they seem to think that the moral reasoning to live in an ordered society that the law in place imparts will be there somehow even if the laws are removed.

[Chris_]

Come on Bully, sheep?  really?

This is where reality is just completely lost in the equation.   Utopian dreams.  

You'd think, right?  But 99% of people don't want anarchy, chaos, lawlessness, or riots on the streets.  People would organize support for the common defense PDQ.  It would operate very similar to charitable organizations, which came to be because of needs that the government cannot/will not not provide for.

Really, it is all about fear.  

[formerlurker]

You'd think, right?  But 99% of people don't want anarchy, chaos, lawlessness, or riots on the streets.  People would organize support for the common defense PDQ.  It would operate very similar to charitable organizations, which came to be because of needs that the government cannot/will not not provide for.

Really, it is all about fear.  

Uh, charitable organizations.... you mean like ACORN?   Come on!   Corruption mean anything to you?   will you even concede that this would be prime for corruption?   would the people take care of that also?   (psst, again corruption).    I think the mafia would support your proposal most enthusiastically.


   

[formerlurker]

If you go back to that FR thread I posted I made mention that they seem to think that the moral reasoning to live in an ordered society that the law in place imparts will be there somehow even if the laws are removed.

I honestly can't even begin to wrap my brain around that reasoning.

[Chris_]

Abortion,as you mentioned legalized prostitution and drugs.
Take a wander over to the DUmp and you will see that they are pretty high on the lefts priority list too.
Isolationism with an a special focus on the "evil" of Israel being another.

TRUE libertarians* would let the states decide their own laws regarding abortion, prostitution, drug use.  No one is saying Israel is evil.  You're making me laugh.

*thanks for the idea, but I believe in freedom of expression and wouldn't ever dream of copywriting a "cool phrase."

Uh, charitable organizations.... you mean like ACORN?   Come on!   Corruption mean anything to you?   will you even concede that this would be prime for corruption?   would the people take care of that also?   (psst, again corruption).    I think the mafia would support your proposal most enthusiastically.

Note that I never said government should be abandoned altogether, and I specifically stated it would be a bad idea for police forces to be privatized.

[USA4ME]

Sir you may as well be a Libertarian.  BTW I agree people should be discouraged from taking drugs, upholding their own morals and supporting common defense.  I just believe that the government shouldn't be the ones mandating the above (at figurative and literal gunpoints no less).

And I do, which doesn't place me in the Libertarian camp at all.  I want the police keeping drunks and stoners off the road.  I want the gov't saying only a man and a woman can be married.  Like I said, they go too far for me.

.

[formerlurker]

TRUE libertarians* would let the states decide their own laws regarding abortion, prostitution, drug use.  No one is saying Israel is evil.  You're making me laugh.

Lewrockwell.com, the internet mecca for TRUE Libertarians.   They kind of hate Israel and blame them for all  the ills of the world, as does Dr. Ron of course.  

TRUE Libertarians would "let" (how good of them) the states decide?  the states kind of do now.   The Federal Government has laws in place for drug trafficking.   Should we just "let" the people transport whatever the hell they want into whatever state they want and let the states sort it all out?  

Note that I never said government should be abandoned altogether, and I specifically stated it would be a bad idea for police forces to be privatized.

You never said it.  TRUE Libertarians however?

[dutch508]

The Libertarian platform is for the most part unreasonable, specifically in relation to foreign policy.  The idea that we can isolate ourselves and still provide for a national defense is based on an antiquated idea of warfare, and really, reality itself.

   Plenty of countries out there for you to go enjoy then.

The rest of your objections, with the exception of foreign policy, amount to you accepting "necessary evils" because it's OK with you.  Big deal.  What if it's not OK with me?

I'm already serving and have been since 1983.

You have your opinion. Now, Shut the **** up and get back to work.

[TheSarge]

What?  explain yourself, please?

Well the Left and Liberaltarians share the belief that we don't need to be in Afghanistan OR Iraq.  Both are pro abortion...drugs...prostitution anythat makes you feel good.

Both blame their own country for 9/11.

Neither party has a solid and sane financial policy.  

A return to the Gold Standard?  Really?

Shall I continue?

[TheSarge]

I'm already serving and have been since 1983.

You have your opinion. Now, Shut the **** up and get back to work.

And according to some of the more hard core Paulistas out there you've been illegally serving since 1983.

[Chris_]

Well the Left and Liberaltarians share the belief that we don't need to be in Afghanistan OR Iraq.  Both are pro abortion...drugs...prostitution anythat makes you feel good.

Both blame their own country for 9/11.

Neither party has a solid and sane financial policy.  

A return to the Gold Standard?  Really?

Shall I continue?

Your paranoid generalizations have me stumped, chum. 

[TheSarge]

Your paranoid generalizations have me stumped, chum. 

Paranoid Generalizations?

You're only stumped Buylly because you know they aren't paranoid and they aren't generalizations.

And you should remember enough about me from over at SCC to know that when I make statements like that...I can back them up.

[formerlurker]

Your paranoid generalizations have me stumped, chum. 

Lewrockwell.com. 

[Carl]

Michael J. Badnarik,former canditate for President is also a signer of the 9/11 truth statement.

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

[BEG]

And I do, which doesn't place me in the Libertarian camp at all.  I want the police keeping drunks and stoners off the road.  I want the gov't saying only a man and a woman can be married.  Like I said, they go too far for me.

.

I have a strong Libertarian leanings except for items like what you said above, I don't know exactly what I would categorize myself as.   One item I can't get worked up about though is gay marriage.  I have tried to understand the conservative/religious view on gay marriage and I just can't get that worked up about it.  The government can't force a church to marry a gay couple and most people who are against gay marriage don't have a problem with civil unions which are basically marriage without the church with the exception of a few things that I think are important like tax exemptions, social security benefits when your partner dies, or being able to get on your partners health insurance plan (unless the company you work offers it), etc.  I think the average person who is against gay marriage are against it because of religious reasons not because of tax exemptions, etc.

I haven't fully thought through my view on gay marriage yet but something bothers me deep down inside about the conservative view on this that I can't totally grasp yet.  I consider myself a Christian but I still don't have any strong feelings against gay marriage.  I guess what I'm saying is that I really don't care one way or another.

[The Village Idiot]

Your right on most of them even when I disagree.

Taxes for schools and hospitals? NOPE!!!

For throwing violent criminals in prison chains, YES

[NHSparky]

Libertarian principles I agree with: minimal (not zero) government, bare minimum taxes, no corporate welfare/subsidies.

Libertarian principles I disagree with: So-called "victimless" criminal activity, foreign policy, economic retardation (i.e., going back to gold standard), and **instant** abolition of IRS, elimination of Social Security, etc.  The latter activities would only be able to take place over decades, at the very least.

I disagree with them far more than I agree with them, for many of the same reasons pointed out by others--more leftist than conservative beliefs.  To sum it up, Judge Learned Hand said it best, and I've used it often:

What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few; as we have learned to our sorrow.

[Chump]

I'm already serving and have been since 1983.

Awesome, I'm grateful for your sacrifice.  Let's leave it at that: a sacrifice through service.  This whole "I'd make you ****ers serve for two years," meme is borderline retarded just on its face.  "Make you serve."   

You have your opinion. Now, Shut the **** up and get back to work.

Don't be such a baby.

[Chump]

Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow.

This is terribly, terribly true.

[dutch508]

Awesome, I'm grateful for your sacrifice.  Let's leave it at that: a sacrifice through service.  This whole "I'd make you ****ers serve for two years," meme is borderline retarded just on its face.  "Make you serve."   

Don't be such a baby.

Spare me your pathetic attempt at a contrite 'greatful' meme.

My thought is everyone should do two years of national service, period. You want to then off-set the cost of college, fine. Two years of your life to work on the country's needs doesn't sound retarded to me, ****nuts. You don't want to serve in the military? That's fine. We have a whole bunch more service related organizations for you. Maybe you could do two years in the Forestry Service?  Or maybe in a social work role at a hospital? It would kind of depend on what you wanted to do. BUT- what it would do is give you a firm foundation in owning a piece of this nation, rather than expecting it to give you something.

Kids would be getting an education in the real world, working a real job. They'd be better prepared to go to college, or into the regular workforce at age 20 than at age 18. Plus, they may well have a bit of money socked away- not to mention experience.

But...that would mean putting something besides yourself first, wouldn't it?

[rich_t]

Spare me your pathetic attempt at a contrite 'greatful' meme.My thought is everyone should do two years of national service, period. You want to then off-set the cost of college, fine. Two years of your life to work on the country's needs doesn't sound retarded to me, ****nuts. You don't want to serve in the military? That's fine. We have a whole bunch more service related organizations for you. Maybe you could do two years in the Forestry Service?  Or maybe in a social work role at a hospital? It would kind of depend on what you wanted to do. BUT- what it would do is give you a firm foundation in owning a piece of this nation, rather than expecting it to give you something.Kids would be getting an education in the real world, working a real job. They'd be better prepared to go to college, or into the regular workforce at age 20 than at age 18. Plus, they may well have a bit of money socked away- not to mention experience.But...that would mean putting something besides yourself first, wouldn't it?

Isn't what you are advocating a form of paid involuntary servitude? (this is the argument I've seen in the past about it)

FWIW, I agree with you about 2 years serving the country, but I'd make it the military and not just general federal service.

I wouldn't want any young adult being forced to serve in one of Obama's pet projects.

[Chump]

Isn't what you are advocating a form of paid involuntary servitude? (this is the argument I've seen in the past about it)

FWIW, I agree with you about 2 years serving the country, but I'd make it the military and not just general federal service.

I wouldn't want any young adult being forced to serve in one of Obama's pet projects.

This is a much more civil and appropriate response than I would have mustered, and it illustrates why mandatory service in any capacity is reprehensible.  Dutch, for all his bluster, just wants it for the good of the nation.  Hell, think of the young men and the benefit to their development!  I even agree that learning a trade and applying yourself as a young adult is a good thing.  A mandate to do so is a far different thing.  That you would qualify it by restricting it to only military service only means you approve of government compulsion to "serve" as long as purpose of the service is OK with you.

No dice, it's wrong.  Love of country, dedication to something higher than yourself, responsibility, care for others; these are all good things.  Admirable in nearly every instance I can think of.  If you think government compulsion is the path to instilling them, then that's just so wrong it's sad.  Reminds me of an earlier quote:

What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws, and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. And what is this liberty which must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty, and leads straight to its overthrow.

If you think for one second that mandatory, compulsory, at the end of a gun held by the United States government "service" of any sort were to gain a foothold here, and not end up a tool for the idiotic or worse, then you haven't been paying attention at all.

[dutch508]

the above two responses are why, in part, I am not a Libertarian.

[formerlurker]

This is a much more civil and appropriate response than I would have mustered, and it illustrates why mandatory service in any capacity is reprehensible.  Dutch, for all his bluster, just wants it for the good of the nation.  Hell, think of the young men and the benefit to their development!  I even agree that learning a trade and applying yourself as a young adult is a good thing.  A mandate to do so is a far different thing.  That you would qualify it by restricting it to only military service only means you approve of government compulsion to "serve" as long as purpose of the service is OK with you.

No dice, it's wrong.  Love of country, dedication to something higher than yourself, responsibility, care for others; these are all good things.  Admirable in nearly every instance I can think of.  If you think government compulsion is the path to instilling them, then that's just so wrong it's sad.  Reminds me of an earlier quote:

If you think for one second that mandatory, compulsory, at the end of a gun held by the United States government "service" of any sort were to gain a foothold here, and not end up a tool for the idiotic or worse, then you haven't been paying attention at all.

Why do I get the sense of deja vu here?    Didn't we just debate the draft?

[formerlurker]

Ah yes, we did -- the whole wrap myself in the Constitution, but don't you dare ask me to defend it argument. http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,37537.0/highlight,draft.html

Yet another nonsense argument of the Libertarians.