Posts Tagged ‘Libertarianism’
From The Classic Liberal, we get a reminder of what it means to be Libertarian.
Recently a member of my family labeled me an extremist for my political activism so, this quote became my instant favorite:
“I have need to be all on fire, for I have mountains of ice about me to melt.” It is this spirit that must mark the man truly dedicated to the cause of liberty.
The article also posits a question: “Would you push the button?”
My answer: In a heartbeat.
How about you?
UPDATE: Richard McEnroe of Three Beers Later posts a Serious Libertarian Quiz in which he ponders the limits of property rights in a purely libertarian society.
And Wyblog’s Chris Wysocki questions the academic vs. real world applications of Rothbard’s button.
Be sure to join in the lively discussion after both of these pieces.
I missed the Peter Morrison Report in my inbox Friday.That’s OK though, it’s not too late, because there are still some excellent points Peter asks us to remember as we go to the polls tomorrow. You are going to vote tomorrow, aren’t you?
In case you’re not acquainted with Mr. Morrison, he writes a newsletter concerning National, Texas State and southeast Texas issues from a conservative / libertarian perspective. If you haven’t signed up for his newsletter, I highly recommend it.
Here is The Peter Morrison Report:
Will 2010 Elections Be a Repeat of 1994?â€
Election Day is fast approaching, and if the long lines for early
voting here in my hometown of Lumberton are any indication, big
changes are coming. It appears that the Republican party is almost
certainly going to win back control of the US House of
Representatives. There is even a slight possibility that they will
also win control of the Senate (although that is less likely). You
don’t have to be a prophet to see that this election is going to be
a major setback for Barack Obama and the Democrats. All the polls
point to major gains for the GOP. Republicans need to take at
least 39 seats currently held by Democrats to become the House
majority party. Five Thirty Eight, the website which was amazingly
accurate in its predictions for the 2008 elections, is currently
projecting that the GOP will pick up 61 seats.Some pollsters are projecting lower numbers, but still enough to
control the House, while others are saying that the GOP could even
pick up 70 seats. Peter Hart, a well known Democratic pollster,
stated bluntly: “It’s hard to say that the Democrats are facing
anything less that a Category 4 hurricane.”Of course, anything can happen between now and November 2nd, but
barring some sort of shocking development, it seems pretty clear
that the anger and energy we’ve seen expressed over the past couple
of years at town hall meetings and Tea Party rallies is still going
strong, and Democrats are going to be held accountable at the
ballot box for signing on to Obama’s radical leftist agenda. This
is certainly good news, and it shows what conservatives can
accomplish when we work hard and refuse to give up the fight.However, if we’re not careful, a massive GOP victory could actually
be a setback in the long run. Many conservatives will be lulled
into a false sense of complacency if the GOP takes control of one
or both houses of Congress. Far too many people are locked into a
“Democrats bad, Republicans good” worldview; they assume that with
Republicans in place to oppose Obama, there’s nothing to worry
about. This attitude is widespread, and it has been one of the
main reasons conservatives have seen our agenda remain unfulfilled.In 1994 a very similar realignment occurred. Voter anger at Bill
and Hillary’s left wing activism–NAFTA, ordering the military to
stop discharging homosexuals, and attempting to socialize health
care (not to mention the Waco massacre)–led to the so called
Republican Revolution, when the GOP took control of the House and
Senate for the first time in 40 years. For all the talk of
revolution, very little came of it. Which should have been no
surprise as the first thing the GOP majorities did was elect Newt
Gingrich Speaker of the House, and Bob Dole Senate Majority Leader.
Gingrich, for all his conservative bluster, has always been most
interested in advancing his own career, not pursuing an authentic
conservative agenda. Bob Dole was a McCain style Republican, a
“moderate” who prided himself on being able to compromise with the
Democrats.Both Gingrich and Dole (and most other Congressional Republicans)
had helped Bill Clinton pass the disastrous NAFTA “free trade”
agreement prior to the 1994 election. After the “revolution”, they
then helped Clinton secure Congress’s approval of GATT/WTO.
Together these trade treaties have nearly wiped out America’s
manufacturing base, and led to increasing economic dependency on
Communist China. In spite of all these betrayals (and many more),
conservatives became complacent after the 1994 election, simply
because they assumed that with Republicans in charge, everything
would be fine.Nothing could be further from the truth, and by now it should be
crystal clear that the words “Republican” and “conservative” don’t
have the same meanings, and that the problem isn’t just limited to
Gingrich and Dole. Look at how George Bush treated us. He teamed
up with Ted Kennedy to give us No Child Left Behind, the expensive
folly that won’t do a thing to close the achievement gap, but will
fill decent public schools with bad students after their own
schools have been shut down by NCLB. He pushed banks to lower
lending standards for minorities, leading directly to the mortgage
crisis. He bailed out Wall Street to the tune of 700 billion
dollars. In 2004 he mobilized Christians and conservatives to
rally to the polls to re-elect him by talking tough on gay
marriage, but after he won re-election he never mentioned the
subject again. He and the GOP Congress gave us the prescription
drug bill, which is projected to cost America trillions in the
future. They also did nothing as millions of illegal aliens poured
into America under Bush’s watch.
I’ve recently read several bloggers posting in what can only be described as another one of those “I’m a Libertarian and anyone who criticizes Libertarians, no matter how stupid those Libertarians acted, is a big fat poopy head†arguments. The funny thing was the topic wasn’t even Libertarians in general. The topic was the California gay marriage ruling by some wacko homosexual activist judge.
There are a few points missing from your arguments. I’ll start with those.
1: James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, clarified the authority of the federal government in the Federalist Papers #45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.â€
The Federal Government is growing beyond our control. This is the leviathan we fight. Define it as that. Our problem is with the Federal Government, if you have a problem in your State, battle it in your State either now or after the fight to get the Federal Government reeled back in.
2: Madison continues: “Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.â€
Remember that line?
What part of numerous and indefinite don’t you understand? It’s mighty convenient for someone to spout off about “The State†when “The States†might just be our knights in shining armor that begin the march away from Socialism and against the Federal encroachment that (can we agree?) the Federal Government  has been pursuing.
3: Don’t confuse 1 & 2 and don’t paint them as equal. Over generalization doesn’t suit you. You’re smarter than that, and besides, aren’t we trying to restore some semblance of a Constitutional Republic?
I thought we were.
On the gay marriage issue: You know, the one that started the whole thing?
The California ruling by an openly homosexual and obviously activist judge struck down, for the SECOND time, a public vote (the very basis of our Constitutional Republic) against gay marriage. This is no small pittance of an issue but seems to be disregarded in all defenses of Libertarians for Gayness. I’ll state my views now and let the chips fall as they may.
I’m against “gay marriage†and all that comes with it. Reason being is that it is nothing more than another attempt to legitimize and promote an abhorrent activity. The gays and lesbians have used this issue and others to infiltrate our school system with the indoctrination of our children along with Hollywood and the media and their incessant promotion of the “alternative lifestyle†that if any of their parents had practiced, they would not be here to promote in the first place.
Let me state the freaking obvious for all of you who wish to quote me. There is an argument against homosexuality that stares you in the face each and every day. That argument is called anatomy and reproduction. Without the male and female sexes being different and shall we say, “accommodating†by design, uniting to produce a another human being, or procreation, would not be possible, much to the chagrin of the leaders and activists in the gay and lesbian community who would like nothing more than to promote the homosexual lifestyle to our children as legitimate. Perhaps in the glorious future it will be possible for us lowly humans to reproduce asexually, but we can’t right now, thank God. This is just one facet of the fight and you didn’t even address it!
I don’t care what someone does in the privacy of their own home, but this issue to me is about our children and the left’s attempt to sell homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle. It is not, in my mind, legitimate, I would rather let the child grow up to make up their own mind, not influenced by some pre-indoctrination from the schools or the government or the media in general. This stance is not so much anti-homosexual as it is pro-creation.
If someone continues to sidetrack these issues, your arguments will no longer hold water with me. I don’t care what political bent you side yourself with, if you would support those who would promote a lifestyle that denies the very basics of human nature and design, then you are on the wrong side of the issue.
Likewise you’d better subject yourself to the same scrutiny that you apply to others when you accuse some brother in the fight of using over generalizations and ad-homonym attacks against your particular ism.
You have done yourselves a disservice in my eyes. Maybe I’m the only one who holds that opinion, but I don’t think so. I encourage you to re-read the entire exchange. The topic quickly went from a legitimate rant about an activist judge ruling against the will of the voters to some defense of Libertarianism in general, which was taken somewhat out of context with the discussion at hand.
Something was in the water that few days is all I know. The usually well reasoned folks I’ve come to respect had gone off and created some weird-ass feud as if we don’t have an enemy already. Grow up people. Not everyone is impugning your particular point of view and no-one would know of your bias unless you opened your own blog and removed all doubt.
The funny thing to me in reading the rebuttals was, like I said, the original bitch got thrown out of the kennel, roaming free in the woods to breed some more while some of the would-be handlers got caught in the pen, arguing about what type of dog food is best for the pack.
I’m an admitted newcomer to your particular blogging party, but I’m no idiot and I can call out inconsistency when I see it.
Police yourselves people, and remember whose side we are on and who and what it is we are fighting for.
And BTW, marriage hasn’t always been sanctioned by religion, but it has nearly always been a legal contract and as a contract, if it is broken, bears legal consequences as to possessions and the rights of children etc. Who is going to preside over the separation and subsequent issues of ownership and custody if not the State or some local form of government?
This week the Robot’s featured blog is known to many in the blogospere because of his tireless work linking to other fine blog posts with his damn near daily “Right Wing Links” in which is invariably featured some beautiful Rule 5 action to help us all wash down the inevitable bad news we are about to stomach. Mike has great taste in the female form and never disappoints in that regard.
His insight into the Liberal psyche is just as keen, as he displays when speaking on subjects such as the economy or his absolute passion for the Classic Liberal ideals of Libertarianism. He and I may disagree on a very few finer points of application of those ideas, but you will never hear me discount the rightness of them.
I learn something new every time I visit The Classic Liberal and I know you will also. So quit sitting there reading my incoherent drivel, check out The Classic Liberal Blog and be sure to tell him a drunken automaton said hello.