Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

In Defense of Libertarianism

An open letter to left-liberals

To my left-liberal Democrat friends:

As you engage in intellectual dishonesty using Rand Paul’s silly comments on the 1964 Civil Rights Act to misrepresent libertarianism, perhaps you might want to consider a little history of the political philosophy of the founder of our party, Thomas Jefferson, the original libertarian. Let me help you escape your ignorance about libertarianism without a capital L, a political philosophy far from conservatism.

As a child of the 1960s, I was one of you. I wore a “Madly for Adlai” button, delivered Kennedy brochures on my newspaper route, and defended Medicare in speech class. Growing up in the Bible Belt, I was the only kid in town to subscribe to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, a near-communist rag according to neighbors who read the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, for which a young Pat Buchanan was writing editorials.

After three years of reporting, I became a press secretary, arriving in Washington in 1975 with Rep. Paul Simon who embodied the Progressive Era. He believed programs, regulations, and social “science” expertise could lift the poor and end corruption.

By the mid-1980s, I was press spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, when “centrist” Democrats began to repair the damage that led “Reagan Democrats” to desert the party. I joined other “New Democrats,” rejecting tax-and-spend excess and the group-outcomes mentality that advocated preferences based on race rather than focusing on individual opportunity.

Then, by the middle of the 1990s, I made the logical progression to libertarian.

My own evolution might help inform those of you who think libertarians are a bunch of self-centered, conservative, anti-poor ogres—unless, like some liberals in the cable babble and op-ed page commentariat, you wish to willfully mischaracterize the word libertarian and use the philosophy as a whipping boy. I’m talking to you, Joe Klein of Time magazine, who wrote that “Tea Party libertarians” would “expose the utopian foolishness of their ideology.” And you, Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post, who informed readers that “Paul lives in Libertarian La-La Land, where a purist philosophy leads people to believe in the purest nonsense.” Surely, Mr. Robinson, you know the difference between capital L Libertarian Party members, and those of us who are members of the two major parties, or of no party at all. The Tea Party is not a libertarian movement. It’s a hodgepodge of populist beliefs, like those always accompanying economic downturns.

Classical liberalism, on the other hand, has lasted centuries. It was a natural fit for an Agrarian Era, with self-sustaining farmers, frontiersmen, and shop keepers. When the Industrial Era arrived, these individualists railed against “wage labor.” They wanted no part of centralized industry and its abuses. Corporate excesses fed Progressive Era reformers, who promoted one-size-fits-all government to address the sins of the Robber Barons.

With adoption of the income tax and world wars, a depression, and a big tax-paying middle class after World War II, Big Government was in full bloom by the 1960s, complete with a tax-hungry Cold War military industrial complex, entitlement programs that devoured revenue, and government dependency by both an impoverished underclass and a corporate welfare class.

Then came the push-back that brought Ronald Reagan to power. With about twice as many Americans calling themselves conservative as liberal, Democrats abandoned liberal and used the wimpy mush-word progressive.

Concurrent with abandonment of the New Deal and Great Society by large blocks of voters, there arrived the third great economic wave, the Information Age, which intellectually empowers individuals, allowing them to enjoy more control over their own economic lives.

If you made it this far, left-liberal friends, you’ll see why many of us consider you reactionary when in comes to one-size-fits-all government. But we know you make common cause with us on cultural concerns like gay rights, and you share our non-interventionist views on foreign policy—though many of you avert your eyes as Barack Obama places young men and women in harm’s way in Afghanistan.

Of course, Rand Paul was ridiculous questioning four-decade-old settled law that recognized slavery and segregation as conditions justifying the coercive power of the state to prohibit discrimination. We libertarians could give you a long list of things, like fighting crime and enforcing contracts, we regard as appropriate for state intrusion. We just insist the use of government power be minimal, consistent with individual liberty and responsibility.

If you want a short explanation of a what a libertarian really is, here’s one from a self-described “libertarian Democrat” who used to be one of you: Get the government out of my bank account, out of my bedroom, away from my body, and out of the backyards of the rest of the world (we should lead by example, not military force.)

And now, please have enough intellectual honesty—which Rand Paul had to a fault—to call yourselves liberals, instead of hiding behind that bullshit progressive euphemism!

Terry Michael is director of the Washington Center for Politics & Journalism, which he founded in 1988 to teach journalism students about politics. His writing is collected at “thoughts from a libertarian Democrat.”

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I fear this might cause John's head to explode.

  • ||

    I hope it is caught on video. I love watching real life exploding noggins.

  • ||

    I've always thought the word progressive was much more intellectually honest to use on them than liberal.

  • ||

    Pantload comes closer to the truth.

  • ||

    I think it's more psychological - if you are against progressives, you are against "progress" thus either *for* stagnation or regression. It's very clever, thus I want to coopt it from them like they coopted "liberal" from us. If they are for the betterment of the poor and minorities, welfare dependency, overregulation of small businesses and devalued currency/gov't created price inflation are as regressive as possible.

  • ||

    I think it's more psychological - if you are against progressives, you are against "progress" thus either *for* stagnation or regression.

    But doesn't a conservative by definition want to keep things the same, or even go back to the way things were?

  • ||

    Yes. Which is why it's an equally worthless philosophy.

  • ||

    Depending on the relative worth of the status quo and the proposed changes, either "progress" or "conserving" might be a good idea. Although neither is always right, of course.

  • ||

    Eduardo?

  • ||

    But doesn't a conservative by definition want to keep things the same, or even go back to the way things were?

    Ultimately, it depends on where you are, where you are headed and where you want to be.

  • ||

    No, that is incorrect, at least as a broad brush definition. Conservatives want to protect or conserve that which is good.

  • ||

    Dan, if I "change" my dentifrice from Crest to Pillsbury vanilla cake frosting, I am not doing myself any good even though both look similar and have similar consistencies.

    IOW, change just for the sake of change isn't always a good thing.

    But you know that already.

  • ||

    I definitely agree with this. It's like why people aren't allowed to choose their own nicknames. I just think their ideas fall more in line with the "progressive" movement and I don't think they should get the term liberal. It would be better if people today knew what racist, authoritarian, eugenics-and-fascist loving people the "progressives" really were.

  • ||

    So wanting to improve the lives of the poor is regressive? I guess Adam Smith and Jean Baptiste Say are regressive since they adovacted free markets in the name of the poor and the working class.

  • ||

    No - sorry if I was unclear - the opposite - the Leftists are regressive because they advocate policies that make the lives of the poor worse. Smith and Say were the true "progressives". That's my point.

  • ||

    "If they are for the betterment of the poor and minorities" is a dependent clause and not part of the subsequent list of policies which happen to have regressive, unintended consequences.

  • ||

    And now, please have enough intellectual honesty—which Rand Paul had to a fault—to call yourselves liberals, instead of hiding behind that bullshit progressive euphemism!

    It's intellectually dishonest to call illiberal political views liberal.

    It's also intellectually dishonest to describe attempts to make things worse progressive.

    Left-authoritarian would be honest, but political suicide.

  • Thomas O.||

    Yeah, but Limbaugh, Beck & Co. have recently made "progressive" another right-wing dirty word, along with "liberal" and "community organizer". Just goes to show you how much power these asshats wield in the media.

  • ||

    Progressive is a dirty word no matter who is using it. Any time some twit starts talking about how "progressive" a program/law/whatever is, I know I will be losing money, freedom, or most probably both.

  • ||

    If you call a turd by any other name would it still not smell like shit?

  • ||

    So to summerize, it is illegal for a mall to ban someone for wearing a shirt that professes his religion or race, but it is leagal to ban someone from a mall for wearing a shirt that professes his dedication to legalizing pot.

  • ||

    Superb!

  • ||

    We libertarians could give you a long list of things, like fighting crime and enforcing contracts, we regard as appropriate for state intrusion. We just insist the use of government power be minimal, consistent with individual liberty and responsibility.

    A true libertarian would not ask the government to enforce private contracts. Why? Because if you ask the government to enforce contracts, it gives the government the right to dictate what kind of contracts it does and does not consider legally binding.

    Libertarians should exercise personal responsibility and not coerce the rest of us into helping you out if you make a contract with somebody who is not trustworthy.

  • ||

    Starve it, people.

  • ||

    Hey, he addressed this piece to liberal-left Democrats...it is not trolling to offer a response.

    Of course, here in the land of Free Minds (drink!), any step away from the Ideology is trolling.

  • ||

    "Free Minds"...proper noun? Also, he addresses the article to left-liberal Democrats.

  • ||

    Not a proper noun but capitalized as a sarcastic reference to Reason's motto.

    And yes, you are correct...sorry to confused liberal-left and left-liberal Democrats.

  • ||

    It wasn't funny and don't do it again.

  • ||

    It wasn't meant to be funny but it was an apt illustration of the irony of the way libertarians claim to be for "free minds" but also demand ideological purity.

  • Beezard||

    It wasn't meant to be funny but it was an apt illustration of the irony of the way libertarians claim to be for "free minds" but also demand ideological purity.

    Point taken, but this comes from the past, hard learned experience of creating liberals and progressives the second we muddy the ideological waters...

    American Revolution: legal equality, self-rule, and the US Constitution, French Revolution: social equality, Guillotines, and the Code Napoleon.

  • ||

    I agree with that, however there's also risk of that from the other end too.

    Sometimes the biggest barrier to convert someone to libertarianism are libertarians themselves.

  • ||

    +1

  • ||

    Let's see a show of hands for every pro-growth, small-government, small-taxes liberal!

    Okay... one... uh, does that guy have his hand up or not? Okay... two. Maybe.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    "Free minds" refers to allowing people to think and say whatever they want without threat of force, Dan... Like, you say what you want, and the government will not put you in jail or beat you up for it.

    That doesn't mean that individuals - even groups of individuals like the Hit & Run commentariat - can't demand (non-violently, of course) that the people they associate with aren't complete morons.

  • ||

    Desert loving in your eyes all the way.
    If I listened to your lies would you say
    I'm a man (a man) without conviction,
    I'm a man (a man) who doesn't know
    how to sell (to sell) a contradiction.
    You come and go, you come and go.

    Karma karma karma karma karma chameleon,
    you come and go, you come and go.
    Loving would be easy if your colors were like my dreams,
    red gold and green, red gold and green.

    Didn't hear your wicked words every day
    and you used to be so sweet, I heard you say
    that my love (my love) was an addiction.
    When we cling (we cling) our love is strong.
    When you go (you go) you're gone forever.
    You string along, you string along.

    Karma karma karma karma karma chameleon,
    you come and go, you come and go.
    Loving would be easy if your colors were like my dreams,
    red gold and green, red gold and green.

    Every day is like survival (sur-vi-val),
    you're my lover (you're my lover), not my rival.
    Every day is like survival (sur-vi-val),
    you're my lover (you're my lover), not my rival.

    I'm a man (a man) without conviction,
    I'm a man (a man) who doesn't know
    how to sell (to sell) a contradiction.
    You come and go, you come and go.

    Karma karma karma karma karma chameleon,
    you come and go, you come and go.
    Loving would be easy if your colors were like my dreams,
    red gold and green, red gold and green.

    Karma karma karma karma karma chameleon,
    you come and go, you come and go.
    Loving would be easy if your colors were like my dreams,
    red gold and green, red gold and green.

    Karma karma karma karma karma chameleon,
    you come and go, you come and go.
    Loving would be easy if your colors were like my dreams,
    red gold and green, red gold and green.

    Karma karma karma karma karma chameleon,
    you come and go, you come and go.
    Loving would be easy if your colors were like my dreams,
    red gold and green, red gold and green.

    Karma karma karma karma karma chameleon
    You come and go....

  • ||

    Yawn. AC tries to claim AC is the only true libertarianism. Sorry, while I'm sympathetic to AC you don't own the word libertarianism and you don't help anyone on the path by leading with the most extreme position.

  • ||

    Well, at least I'm not a conservative, poor hating ogre, but I'll cop to the self-centered.

  • ||

    I don't use "we" when I'm talking about libertarianism, because I'm not a libertarian, and my sympathy with them is limited. Making myself king of their royal "we" and poorly lecturing them about themselves (in the guise of introducing them to someone else) would be rather rude and unpersuasive, I'd think. So I wouldn't do that, if persuasion were my thing.

    To my left-liberal Democrat friends:

    Yeah, they're not here. You're not talking to them either.

    The other fake libertarians already handled the Paul thing with their usual, totally independent-minded, spontaneous-as-the-order-of-the-market, left-apologetic unanimity. Who's this ridiculous pose-out for?

  • ||

    In the apt words of barfman: *barf*

    Spare us the barely disguised pride at being the only enlightened little socialist in the intellectual darkness of (gasp!) the Bible Belt.

  • ||

    You know we don't actually use Bibles for belts, right? That's a really unfair stereotype, Dagny.

  • ||

    Well, I should think not. Aren't all of you too obese for any sort of belt? Except for the kind you use to beat your unwashed, inbred children?

  • ||

    You got us there.

  • ||

    You could have Bible suspenders, say the Ten Commandments, five on each strap.

  • ||

    Well we also have all the best athletes.

  • ||

    Sure, but you won't let them date your daughters and would prefer it if they still had to ride in the back of the bus.

  • Mikko||

    Best retort ever.

  • ||

    Actually, not a bad column, all in all.

    I just continue to wonder how much of the almost uniformly statist agenda of the Democrats, and their uniformly statist performance in power, Mr. Michaels really supports.

    If he supports much of it at all, he can't be a libertarian under any definition. If he doesn't support much of it, he can't be a Democrat.

    "Libertarian Democrat" is an oxymoron.

  • ||

    I suppose "Libertarian Republican" is equally oxymoronic then, since it is generally the GOP that wants to be involved in your sex life, etc.

  • ||

    I want to be involved in your sex life...cool?

  • ||

    I think the DNC is pretty interested in your sex life... if you're a Republican politician.

  • ||

    Golly, you're right. Just last week I heard Republicans sponsored a bill banning all sexual positions except missionary and demanding equal numbers of sexual partners for everyone regardless of attractiveness.

  • ||

    That's a trade-off I could live with.

  • Beezard||

    party gone out of bounds!

  • ||

    Where's the defense? Liberals believe in all the same platitudes you do, limited government intrusion into private lives, etc. We just accept that reality is a little more complicated.

    So did Jefferson, by the way, who when he wasn't being the forefather of libertarianism was self-consciously violating the constitution to purchase a third of the continent and place it under martial rule.

  • ||

    Liberals believe in all the same platitudes you do, limited government intrusion into private lives, etc.

    Progressives believe no such thing.

  • ||

    There's nothing more progressive than a 19th century technocracy.

  • ||

    Purchasing land is more libertarian than invading it.

  • ||

    which is the great contradiction in this country...for the real reason why Columbus Day is NOT to be celebrated is because he INVADED the northern american natives.

  • ||

    So you're saying that you have the same principles, but you just chose to ignore them when it's inconvenient?

  • ||

    No, we believe in individual liberty, we just believe in people actually having access to it.

    Which is different to libertarians, who believe in trickle-down liberty (which works about as well as trickle-down economics).

  • ||

    Telling us where we may smoke (if such places still exist, and for how much longer), what kinds of foods we may eat/sodium content of same, kinds of cars we are allowed to drive, gun ownership, private property... hell, some liberals are DRUG WARRIORS, for fuck's sake. Some are even priggish anti-porn bluenoses, for double-fuck's sake. (Dig the irony.)

    Now, how much individual liberty is your side really for again, Tony? Basically, all I see on your side is gay and abortion rights, and... that's pretty much all your side gives a shit about. "Economic liberty" sure as fuck ain't on your list, either.

    So, tell us why we should vote Team Blue over Team Red/vice-versa.

  • ||

    Because with the sole exception of prohibition, left-liberals have been right about everything.

    Public health, privacy rights concerning birth control, working conditions, child labor, voting rights for women and minorities, civil rights, humane animal treatment, integration of the military, establishing the minimum wage, social security, ending HUAC abuse, integration of schools and universities, defense against sexual discrimination, ending Vietnam, sexual behavior privacy rights, etc.

    You're welcome!

  • ||

    What about the stuff I mentioned, Orel? Or are you going to dazzle us with more liberal horseshit?

  • ||

    Oh, that's right: you're a typically dogmatic libertarian boob whose perspective ends at the tip of your cigarette.

    Luckily for everyone else, there's the decades and decades of progressive history that matters a great deal more than that.

  • ||

    Still fighting the War on Drugs.

    Still in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Still playing the same old power-grab games.

    Yep, Obama sure has broken away from all that conservative leadership stuff.

    Oh, and make a note... I don't smoke. But thanks for the effort.

  • ||

    Progressives don't start wars. Our history is that of cleaning up after racists and fascists and militarists and corporatists.

    Meanwhile, you libertarian chumps accomplish two things: flick boogers from the sidelines and give cover to the grabbiest corporate pigs our society has to offer. They grab the commons, you applaud. They grab the government, you blame the government. They grab our standard of living and replace it with Malaysian children in sweatshops and you're too busy fellating the "free market" to object.

    Good thing progressives are around to oppose all of this, because you suck at it.

  • ||

    What kind of psychobabble is that, Edwin? And who tells you to post it?

  • ||

    I may not have started WWII, but I damn sure made certain we'd be IN it...

  • ||

    My God, it's like a condensed version of any Keith Olbermann show!

  • ||

    Um, technically, Korea wasn't a "war", but...

  • ||

    In retrospect, I should have gotten us out of Vietnam. Fuck, that was a big mistake on my part.

  • ||

    Y'know, in hindsight, maybe that Great Society thing didn't work out so great...

  • ||

    Don't forget me, the first progressive president! I got us into the most pointless war in the history of humanity, then locked people up if they didn't like it!

  • ||

    Don't forget me, the first progressive president! I got us into the most pointless war in the history of humanity, then locked people up if they didn't like it!

  • ||

    "Progressives don't start wars."
    Well... except for the Spanish-American War and the resulting occupation of the Philippines & Cuba, dragging the US into WWI, dragging the US into WWII, escalating us into Vietnam, sending us into combat in Somalia, Bosnia, & Serbia. Progressives never see a nation that couldn't use a little more nation building.

  • ||

    Dragging the US into WWII? I believe that was Pearl Harbor. Oh yeah.. and that was such a horrible move. If it wasn't for the progressives I wouldn't be alive because I'm a jew. Thanks Progressives! :)

  • ||

    "If it wasn't for the progressives I wouldn't be alive because I'm a jew. Thanks Progressives! :)"
    Yeah... try telling that to the passengers aboard the MS St. Louis.

    Also, the attack on Pearl Harbor dragged us into war against the Empire of Japan, not WWII. FDR had been trying for several years to get us into the European theater but the nation was not that into it. It took Hitler declaring war against the US to get us into Europe, and even then, it most certainly was not to save the Jews.

  • ||

    You do know that eugenics was a "progressive" idea, don't you?

  • ||

    "Progessives don't start wars?"

    Truman. Kennedy. LBJ.

    Progressives also like to lock up Japs.

    Progressives also like inflation. Talk about screwing the poor!

  • ||

    shit, nm.

  • ||

    Uh, WWI, WWII were started by progressives. Vietnam was started by Kennedy and ended by Nixon.

  • ||

    "Progressives don't start wars. Our history is that of cleaning up after racists and fascists and militarists and corporatists."

    To quote Nancy Pelosi: "Are you serious?"

    SOMEONE didn't pay attention in Kommunity Kollege.

  • ||

    You've got the blinders on, pal. Free your mind by considering other ways of thinking.

  • ||

    um...Nixon ended Vietnam (although Nixon was the greatest Democrat the Republicans ever had in office - but still...)

    But still I think I'd prefer progressivism to social darwnism (it is - deal with it).

  • ||

    Conservative right LOVES to torture small creatures, right? Say yes, so I may better understand your mind?

  • ||

    My dear Orel, you are talking to a group of people who have embraced the philosophy (against the status quo) that optimal liberty is best. If you want to hash out that argument, fine attempt to do so. But that is not the discussion. The discussion is which team (red or blue) offers the most amount of liberty, as our philosophy is based around this concept. And as The Libertarian Guy has pointed out, even though “liberals” claim to be pro liberty, you have a really fucking horrible track record. So please defend the liberal track record or shut the fuck up, as just spitting out the same old tiresome progressive dogma about how you are protecting us from evil men in top hats and monocles makes us roll our eyes.

  • ||

    "My dear Orel, you are talking to a group of people who have embraced the philosophy (against the status quo) that optimal liberty is best"

    An embrace for which BP and every other brand name of the hydra head of corporate capitalism thanks libertarians very, very much.

    How brave of you! Yeah, BP's optimal liberty to foul the Gulf, railroad (and impregnate!) its regulators, work the revolving door between public interest and private interest, pimp the coast guard into threatening news crews who dare point their cameras at beach oil slicks - none of these are examples of the status quo, right? Bravo, geniuses.

    You don't even know the ground rules of the world you're living in.

    Again, you guys suck - really, really suck - at opposing, let alone admitting the natural abusive consequences of the unregulated market. You are the political equivalents of people who blame rape victims for how they were dressed.

  • ||

    It wasn't libertarians that suggested that oil companies be insulated from liability. You're burning an awful lot of straw men there. You are blaming us for political corruption? What a joke. Politics is corrupt by its very nature, as the entire purpose is to amass a large enough block from via game playing to bully all the other interest groups around. No amount of regulation will ever cause politics to be "pure" or sacred. I like how you pretend that every political failure is a failure on the part of freedom of association and exchange. Dumbass.

  • ||

    Orel, your precious government limited the liability of BP.

    "Under the law that established the reserve, called the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, the operators of the offshore rig face no more than $75 million in liability for the damages that might be claimed by individuals, companies or the government." -NYT

    Now in my libertarian view, the operators would face strict liability for damage caused by the spill and thus have forced those involved with drilling to be FAR more careful. You're the corporate puppet, not us.

  • ||

    >social security
    going broke
    >ending Vietnam
    You got us into it, and a good portion of you were against it not because of opposition to war and imperialism, but because we were fighting commies.

    Sexual behavior, birth control/privacy, integration and voting, we were just as for it, and for gay rights a good 2 decades before you were
    Let's look at some more things

    Public housing- subsidized crack dens and murder traps
    Subprime mortgages- need I say more?
    banning DDT- killing millions of children in third world countries
    plenty more

  • ||

    Since when is buying something nonlibertarian.

    And you don't believe in platitudes, neither do we. You just don't believe in freedom, and to us freedom isn't a platitude.

    "Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." - Milton Friedman

    "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?" TJ

    You always put the people who seek control, who are the least trustworthy, in power, and so we have the massive failure of socialism and planned markets happening in what was long ago thought to be the bastion of liberty.

  • ||

    Since when is buying something nonlibertarian.

    Yeah, luckily the land had been pre-conquered. Just saying even the father of liberty himself had to give way to unlibertarian (not to mention unconstitutional) pragmatism, because libertarianism is a failure in practice. It's also a failure on the page, but whatever.

    "Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." - Milton Friedman

    "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?" TJ

    Thanks for the platitudes.

    You always put the people who seek control, who are the least trustworthy, in power

    But at least in government it's me putting them there, and me voting them out. You just don't admit that in your setup there'd be people just as power-hungry, except they'd be less constrained and less accountable.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    The word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means, Tony...

    Platitude:
    1. a trite, dull, or obvious remark or statement; a commonplace
    2. staleness or insipidity of thought or language; triteness

    Now, please explain why the above quotes are trite, banal or insipid. As far as I can tell, they're quite relevant - the Friedman one being a fairly astute observation of general human behavior and the Thomas Jefferson one being a well-formed syllogism.

    You also REALLY need to fucking learn that the government isn't "you". And it sure as hell isn't more accountable then acting within a market.

    The government monopolizes VIOLENCE - if I don't like what they do, I have NO CHOICE but to wait for what, 2? 4? Even 8 years before ANYTHING changes... If I don't like Wal-Mart, I don't set foot in the place today. And even if I vote out some big-name politician, getting the actual policy repealed is still a long shot... See: Patriot Act.

    Libertarians, especially the economists amongst us, are actually far more clear thinking on people being power-hungry and how to provide a check on that power... In fact, so was Thomas Jefferson - which is precisely what the "platitude" you dismissed was about.

    Oh yeah, one more thing... You're a fucking retard, Tony.

  • ||

    Exactly. To him those are platitudes and he doesn't in the least agree with them. Which was why I made those quotes demonstrate this.

    You just don't admit that in your setup there'd be people just as power-hungry, except they'd be less constrained and less accountable.

    Not at all. There will always be those. It's just that you insist on empowering them with the force of an army and police.

    How has it worked for you? You progressive tools have been at it actively for over a century.

    Just a little bit more government, surely that is the answer. Surely this time it will work. Surely taking a little more from the workers will be justified in the greater cause. Surely just a few more freedoms abrogated will bring about utopia.

  • ||

    I'm not sure what you mean by "Since when is buying something nonlibertarian?" I can provide examples: purchasing a service from a thug to kill someone, purchasing a law (via campaign contributions) that gives me a monopoly for my product, or how about the Oil Pollution Act which limits the liability for an oil spill to $75 million? All are purchasing the use of force against others, which is not libertarian.

  • Beezard||

    As you engage in intellectual dishonesty using Rand Paul’s silly comments on the 1964 Civil Rights Act to misrepresent libertarianism

    Realpolitk-wise, Rand Paul naively stepped in a big stinky pile of it. That said, I think it's important for libertarians not to mess themselves and throw anyone near them under the bus the second they've awoken the churlish fury great liberal media giant.

    Principles-wise, I think we all know and pretty much agree with what Paul said. At some point, we must learn to no longer fear the Racism-jacket, so that progressives will be forced to move on to the inevitable last line of defense : Libertarians are all child molesters.

  • Beezard||

    churlish fury of the great liberal media giant

  • ||

    Rand Paul's problem was that he spelled out libertarian philosophy a little too well.

    That being that the right to discriminate is more important than the right to be treated fairly.

    I'm guessing this is why libertarians can't get elected.

  • Beezard||

    That being that the right to discriminate is more important than the right to be treated fairly.

    There is no right to be treated fairly on someone else's property.

    I'm guessing this is why libertarians can't get elected.

    I think you're spot on here. Hard truth is unsellable.

  • ||

    There is no right to be treated fairly on someone else's property.

    Sure there is - just because I'm standing on your property doesn't mean you can do anything you want to me.

  • Beezard||

    I can ask you to leave. which is pretty much all Whitey McWhiterson and his All White diner would have the power to do if that heartless Rand Paul would have his way.

  • ||

    I ate breakfast there once. They wouldn't do an egg white omelet for me.

  • Beezard||

    They do have some strange theories on ova-miscegenation down at Whitey McWhiterson's...

  • ||

    Performing this Saturday at Whitey's:

    Atavistic Mustache

  • ||

    This is the typical premise missed by liberals. They see their well-intentioned policies and frame the argument on the most superficial level possible. They try to decide between conflicting "rights." The truth is that no true right of man can conflict with another.

    In this altruistic sense the Left is trying to do the same thing the Right tries with morality. Conservatives seek to control personal behavior that isn't their business, and liberals/progressives seek to control personal behavior when it interferes with their altruistic goals.

    Bottom line you are talking about using force to tell an individual what he can and can't do on his own property. To justify this you invent a "right" to not be discriminated against.

    For most liberals you cannot really say they are evil. Most don't have diabolical schemes in mind. They simply have these notions about how the world should be, and they do not think about the means they use to enact them: the threat of violence.

  • ||

    "That being that the right to discriminate is more important than the right to be treated fairly."

    Actually, people have neither a right to discriminate nor a right to be treated fairly. Rather, they are both actions which the federal government was not empowered to regulate.

  • ||

    The right to discriminate applies to property rights, association, and speech. There can be no right to access another's property because that would be a forcible transfer of the property from the rightful owner and deprive them of the right.

  • ||

    The right to discriminate was replaced with the government power to enforce discrimination.

  • ||

    Hmm, so a woman shouldn't be able to turn anyone down? It would be unfair to discriminate based on her own tastes and dislikes. I think I might like this idea . . .

  • ||

    @ Dan T. and Beezard...I agree with you 100 percent Dan T....I'm still waiting to see if Rand Paul knows about the NAACP's head Ben Jealous' challenge to a debate. I can't imagine what it would be like if a travelling negro family ran out of gas on the highway where the only gas station nearby is the white supremacist owned and operated one, 'no people of color served' sign up and all. It is true that you can not legislate morality, can not force a brotherhood of love. The sections of the Civil Rights Act that forbid privately owned businesses from discrimination are, I think, a basic calling to heed our higher nature. Libertarians make a huge error thinking that social ostracism, boycotting, will weed out racial preference, and make it socially impossible for racists to be racist. That may work in some larger metropolitan areas where there are huge melting pots of races (but only to a limited extent). But in places like Wisconsin or other 'backwards' places, that it total bullshit. And if the police are called to arrest above said family for trespassing (because they need gas, and they are protesting the very racist policy), happen to be rasist too, that would be a huge nightmare situation that shouldn't have to happen.
    My response to Beezard is that, if that section of the CRA that forbids private business to racially discriminate, a million Jim Crows decked out in their Klansman regalia will rise up once again, and it will be impossible to live a peaceful existence in huge portions of this country without severe race based riot tensions. If it were up to me to repeal those sections of the CRA, as libertarian as my ethics are, I wouldn't think twice about it...I'd say 'NO FREEKIN' WAY'. For when you are a hardcore racist, the chance for repentance is highly unlikely, even with the possible loss of money and reputation...have you ever heard of a repentant and reformed racist? I only wish I did...but racism is crusty and hard...it's immutable. I totally support the existance of the CRA...it keeps the peace. It may be an uneasy peace for some, but it's better than nothing. The fact is that Jim Crow never died, and if you allow him, he will come back! This, like WWII, should never happen again!

  • ||

    "can not" => "cannot". It's one word, my brother.

  • ||

    that has nothing to do with the argument..but thanks anyway!

  • ||

    You live in a country that elected a black man with the middle name of Hussein president. I think you are overestimating the racist zeal that supposedly permeates the U.S. In the end, this debate is settled. The progressives won, because they have all the guns and are willing to point them at people who don't play nice. The progressives won, because they have no faith in humanity despite what they say and for them, the ends justify the means. If they could achieve a virtual paradise by murdering all of the racists they would do it in a heartbeat. Case closed.

    Now a little thought experiment: I wonder how many people are still bitter assholes about race, not because of any personal irrational issues with blacks/latinos/etc., but because they resent that the government has the power to tell them who to work for (in essence). For dumbasses who didn't graduate high school that anger toward authority could easily manifest as racial hatred thus creating a gas station owner in the middle of nowhere unwilling to sell to those he once perceived as the benefactors of government sponsored violence.

    Oh and Jim Crow was a set of LAWS sponsored by state GOVERNMENTS that violated INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Jim Crow is an example of what happens when people respect the so-called infallible concept of democracy more than the albatross of individual rights. Why should people be able to vote for policies that enforce laws that limit freedoms of people of every color? Why do governments (at any level) have the power to violate the tenets of liberty for a reason justified by the majority of the people? Oh that’s right, assholes like you gave it to them.

  • ||

    The right to be treated fairly? Seriously, are you a child who always got picked last for gym class sports?

  • ||

    "so that progressives will be forced to move on to the inevitable last line of defense : Libertarians are all child molesters"

    LOL, listen to this - skip to about 2/3's of the way in:
    http://c4.libsyn.com/editions/.....65ae374d9e

  • ||

    Right. You use Bibles to belt people who fail to adhere to your loving Christian worldview.

  • ||

    While largely in agreement with the Libertarians, I left them as I began to learn the Law of the Land, and wondered why they keep trying to re-ratify the Consitution. Study the three areas of law covered by the Constitution - Common Law, Equity (business) Law, and Maritime Law. The chains to tie down our Leviathan Gov't lie within.

  • Barry Loberfeld||

    From "Liberalism: History and Future":

    To be capitalist or to be socialist? -- that is the question. Precisely what is the mix of the mixed economy? When is it capitalist and when is it socialist? When does it protect property and when does it confiscate it? When does it leave people alone and when does it coerce them? When does it adhere to the ethics of individualism and when does it obey the code of collectivism? And just which is the metaphysical primary -- the individual or the collective (e.g., the nation, the race, the class)? The fundamental truth about the mixed economy is that mixed practices imply mixed principles, which in turn imply mixed premises -- i.e., an incoherent grasp of reality. With socialism, the chaos was economic; with "social democracy," it's epistemological. Ultimately, the latter can no more generate rational policies than the former could generate rational prices. The mixed economy doesn't present us with a mosaic portrait of the just society, but with a jigsaw of pieces taken from different puzzles.

  • ||

    The word "progressive," in the political sense, goes back way farther than the Reagan-era. You can go all the way back to that wimpy-mushy Theodore Roosevelt, who founded the Progressive Party in 1912 on the platform: "To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day."

    The problem with Libertarianism today is that its critique of corruption too often focuses soley on politicians without acknowledging that businesses are just as corrupt. Thomas Jefferson acknowledged this; so did Adam Smith, and even Ron Paul. It is a much more recent development that to criticize business is something taboo and "un-American."

    Was Jefferson being un-American when he said, "I hope [that] we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength and [to] bid defiance to the laws of our country."??

  • ||

    Sweet jeebus, Fact Check. Everyone knows that the unholy alliance between corrupt business and politics started with Reagan, and reached its nadir under Bush II's criminal deregulation.

    Please stop getting your history in the way of our narrative.

  • ||

    The solution is a government with nothing to offer that would corrupt. The reason to limit government is to limit the corrupting influence of money.

    The reason the government is rogue is because enterprises wanted a government to give them market advantage by force. It is called the 'progressive era'.

    People like you believe that government, if just empowered enough it will act for the little guy. This has never happened in the history of the world. This delusional belief has caused untold misery.

    You just make government a more attractive target for government.

    Please stop trying this.

  • ||

    should read "target for corruption"

  • ||

    That is why Jefferson wanted a 30-year license for corporations.

    After 30 years, they would be dissolved and proceeds returned to stockholders.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Also, no one seems to want to put that Jefferson quote into the Mercantilist context under which it was spoken.

    He wasn't "anti-business" as many liberals try to claim with that quote (a few did so to me just a few days ago) - he was against exactly the kind of monstrous intermingling of government & business that produced the East India Trading Company and barred American entrepreneurs from competing... That's the same monstrous intermingling of government & business that we have today.

  • ||

    Corporations do in one way, by their current nature, impose an externality on the public. Criminal liability. I'm not sure the best answer to that. That said this is rarely an issue, tort avoidance is usually enough to keep them in line.

    Barring that there is no legitimate complaint about them that can't be aimed at government trebly.

    Like government that give liability caps to corporations.

    Corporations must compete. With each other for our money.

    Until progressive tools like Tony gives the government power to 'regulate' them into cartels and monopolies.

  • ||

    Terry: One simple correction but it's huge. These lefties are not Liberals, they are Progressives. They are the most narrow-minded statist bigots on the planet. They are not and should not be called Liberals. Progressives want to do away with classical liberalism... hence the perfect label.

  • ||

    They are the most narrow-minded statist bigots on the planet.

    Hey!

  • Beezard||

    The problem with Libertarianism today is that its critique of corruption too often focuses soley on politicians without acknowledging that businesses are just as corrupt.

    Generally speaking, this is because government actually has the police power to kick in our doors and take our shit. That and the long term observation that when corporations are "corrupt" it tends to be those laws supposedly aimed at restraining them (and the corrupt politicians who benefit directly) that are the actual danger to our rights.

  • Beezard||

    On second reading, this whole article's a bit limp and, well, factually speaking wrong a lot...which is why it'll probably end up single-handedly turning the political reality of the country...right now as we speak it's being spread to the freedom hungry masses who just needed a leader and the new revolution is taking shape just beneath the quiet facade of our fat cat corporatist regime...

    I want a beer.

  • ||

    "And now, please have enough intellectual honesty—which Rand Paul had to a fault—to call yourselves liberals, instead of hiding behind that bullshit progressive euphemism!"

    So, you want them to call themselves liberals? There's nothing liberal about them. Progressive or socialist fits them better because everyone knows they are full of shit.

  • ||

    libertarianism was rendered moot by the SCOTUS RR decision of 1882 wherein corporations gained the rights of citizens. this decision transformed our form of govt into a corporate republic wherein "what God gaveth, SCOTUS gaveth away".

  • ||

    Did SCOTUS grant them the right to vote?

  • ||

    And how does this render libertarianism moot?

  • ||

    So you hate Incorporated-Americans? Racists!

  • ||

    Sort of off-topic... but who the heck is Rand running against? I know his name, but have not seen (let alone read) one headline for the guy.

  • ||

    Trey Conway or something.

  • ||

    He is the Attorney General of KY. I would tell you something else about him, but I dont think there is anything else. After law school he started running for office and finally won something last time around.

    Oh, and he has executive hair.

  • ||

    Rand could easily win the race by pointing out that Conway is a Duke alum. However....

    Gah, it almost makes me want to vote LP as usual.

  • ||

    That would be a positive, since he probably hates the Socialist People's University in Chapel Hill.

  • ||

    When the earth changes hit, centralized authority will die out, and we will have small local groups pretty much on our own. The population of the world will be about what it was when the U.S. was founded.

    Here are messages from the Blessed Virgin to Pedro Regis in Brazil. She twice predicted the Chile Quake, and also death and destruction in The Gulf. She has other hits as well.
    The first destruction will be Japan, then earth movement along the New Madrid Fault line the the U.S. Then the West Coast last.

    “…..Behold the difficult times for humanity. Great suffering will come for the inhabitants of Chile. Similar suffering also will come for those who dwell in Lisbon.”

    On February 25, 2010, She told him:

    “A great scandal will shake the faith of the people and the church will lose much.”

    On March 9, 2010 She told him:

    “…..From the depths of the earth will come immense rivers of fire. Many regions will be completely devastated and the destruction will cross over many countries.”

    On March 6, 2010, She told him:

    “….Those who dwell in a great city in Brazil will live moments of great tribulations. Scientists will give the warning and everybody will flee. The Discovery of a great gap will get the attention of the whole world…”

    On February 3, 2010, She told him:

    “…..You will yet see horrors on earth. Entire nations will disappear and humanity will drink a bitter cup of pain. I suffer because of what is waiting for you...”

    On February 27, 2010, She told him:

    “…The times I announced in the past have come. Be strong. Death will pass through Spain. Costa Rica will live moments of anguish. A sleeping giant will bring suffering and death to África…”

    On February 20, 2010, She told him:

    “ ….A frightening event will happen in Spain and will spread to various countries of Europe. France will drink a cup bitter with pain which I announced in the past….”

    On April 20, 2010, She told him:

    “…A sleeping giant will arise in Indonésia and My poor children will drink the bitter cup of pain. No greater tragedy existed. Be strong and firm in faith. I will always be with you. A great destruction will be seen in Japan…”

    On April 13, 2010, She told him:

    Those who live in the land of riches will experience a heavy cross. The earth will shake and death will be present. The will drink the bitter cup of sorrow. In the west, near the Pacific, shouts and wailing will be heard

    On January 18, 2007, She told him:

    “….The day will come when the earth loses its natural movement; the sun will become dark and nothing will be like it was before…”

    On January 26, 2007, She told him:

    “…..Sons and Daughters, humanity will carry a heavy cross. The moving of the poles will change life on earth and My poor children will live moments of anguish. The day will come when the sophisticated means of communication will fail….”

    On January 7, 2009, She told him:

    “….The earth will be shaken, and mountains will come down in many places.”

  • ||

    the Good Book says "no man knowth the future, not even the Son, only the Father". >or ask Pedro to find out what tomorrow's lottery numbers are...

  • ||

    Ba-zing

  • ||

    On January 18, 2007, She told him:

    “….The remake of Clash of the Titans will be made even worse by a slap dash conversion to 3D and fanboys will drink the bitter cup of sorrow. In the West there will be wailing and despair…”

  • ||

    "...plus, the Robin Hood remake will also suck. Iron Man 2 will be pretty good."

  • ||

    I ignore any prophecy not presented in the form of a quatrain.

  • ||

    Is anyone familiar with Paul Simon land? Its full of filthy disgusting hippies.

  • Beezard||

    Boy in the Bubble's a pretty good song, though...

  • ||

    If I may:

    In the mid 1700's the ideas of Locke and Jefferson, most Americans fighting in the Revolutionary War for that matter, were deemed "liberal" because they were against conventional governance of their time. Thus the US Constitution was borne of "liberal" ideaology.

    Fast forward to today - most of us want to return to and adhere to the US Constitution. To us, it's not a "liberal" document - it's the document we've all grown up with.

    Today's supposed "liberals/progressives/leftists" - whatever they want to be called - get physically ill at the thought of the individual freedom/power protected by the US Constitution and loathe the limited gov't it defines. They want a bigger more powerful government at the expense of the individual, laws they make or advocate suggest such. They seemingly want to do away with the Constitution which ironically would do away with their positions of power.

    So if today's liberals are moving away from the Constitution and most of us want ot adhere to the document which pre-dates anyone alive today - wouldn't that make anyone who supports the Constitution a "conservative"? Isn't that what libertarians want to do is conserve the ideas that founded this country?

    Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying libertarians would support the perversions of the US Constitution that continue to this day. But if the ideas of Jefferson and Locke are our foundation which we long to adhere to - doesn't that mean we want to conserve those ideas? In doing so that makes libertarians, well, conservative?

    So wouldn't libertarians be much more compatible with conservative Republicans? Unless I'm missing something or maybe I misread the article - wouldn't it be more likely for libertarians to embrace being linked to or labeled as "conservatives"? Or at the very least not take offense to such as it seems this author has?

  • ||

    Conservatives despise the idea of personal/sexual freedom and civil liberties.

  • ||

    That's complete BS :
    Lay off the kool-aide a bit kid.

    -civil liberties : Republicans ended slavery and pushed more civil rights reforms to advance minorities than democrats/liberals ever have. In fact, Democrats and liberals are the ones who fought AGAINST ending slavery and even the 1964 Civil Rights Act (yes more Dems voted against it than for it – not true for Republicans). Republicans sent a black man to the US Senate as early as 1870! Democrats were running around the south with bed-sheets on their heads terrorizing and killing blacks while enforcing Jim Crow laws. So tell me exactly how "conservatives" are against civil liberties!

    Most conservatives have a "live and let live" attitude regarding personal/sexual freedom. You want gov't to force businesses to grant services to every couple no matter their composition? That seems to fly against the libertarian ideas. Most marriages are performed by churches – so you’d have gov’t force churches to marry same-sex couples? Very libertarian. As far as gov’t recognition of same-sex union – why not simply call them “civil unions” rather than redefine a term that has been around for decades – possibly centuries? So you want the gov’t to select small groups of people and hold them above/different than everyone else? What happened to we are all equal? Establishing laws based on certain groups of people violate that very idea.

    Don’t confuse political conservatives with religious conservatives – but if you do you’ll find that Islam which is supported more by progressives if far less accommodating personal/sexual freedoms than is Christianity.

  • ||

    Don’t confuse political conservatives with religious conservatives

    Beginning with Reagan the two have been woven together here in the US.

    Mandatory school prayer, abstinence education, prohibition of contraception/abortion, etc.

    Your slavish conservatism is apparent.

  • las vegas plumbing||

    muy bueno argumento por favor jajaja

  • ||

    You incomprehensible moron, please educate yourself on the regional makeup of the Republican and Democratic parties as they evolved through the 19th and 20th centuries.

    Liberals have not always been Democrats, and racists and conservatives have not always been Republicans. That's just how it is today.

  • ||

    again - BS.

    Name 1 racist conservative/republican please.

    Btw, Sen. Byrd is still an active Dem - and guess what other club he belonged to?

    Racists such as neo-nazi's have more in common with the left than the right. NAZI's themselves were socialists which is exactly what the left are. So again - explain to this moron how I have the parties wrong now or in the past.

  • ||

    And the Peoples REPUBLIC of China are Republicans, Chuck.

    You're a fucking moron.

  • ||

    Are you really that idiotic?

    USSR = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and
    People's Republic of China are COMMUNIST - not republics! You can call shit a rose - but it doesn't make it smell better.

    A true republican form of government is a limited gov't with limited power with the majority of power wielded by the people. Such a comment shows just how clueless you are!

  • ||

    KABOOM!! Bullseye....

  • ||

    Hit up FreeRepublic and see how many conservatives fit your model, Chuck.

  • ||

    And the Establishment Clause would never get past a Republican filibuster today.

    The Constitution is still very "liberal".

  • ||

    Did you eat paint chips as a baby?

    What do you think "environmentalism" is? It's a religion that is being forced on the entire population - by government. The direct violation of the 1st Amendment! The Establishment Clause was created to protect religion from gov't and from gov't forcing religion on the people. It was established by persons much more religious than any conservative could think to be these days - yet you think they would have not adopted it? That's a stretch.

  • ||

    It was established by persons much more religious than any conservative could think to be these days

    Not that you had any credibility anyway - but you certainly do not now.

  • ||

    Because you don't know US history - I have no credibility? Not that I need such recognition from you.

  • ||

    Jefferson and Madison were deists who denied Christianity as divine or truthful.

    Adams - a Unitarian, ran against Jefferson as a non-believer.

    Your knowledge of history is tainted by your conservatism.

  • ||

    once again - you are WRONG regarding Jefferson and Madison.

    In the Federalist Papers Madison clearly lays out his belief, support, and influence by and of Christianity.

    Jefferson wrote that of all religions he had studied the teachings of Christ were the most sublime ideas bestowed upon man.

    Studying multiple religions and holding the belief that no one should be forced to believe in any religion don't qualify as being deist. That's simply another leftist ploy to twist/distort history.

    Coming to belief in GOD through reasoning rather than blind faith doesn't make you any less a Christian. I've done the same myself.

  • ||

    Jefferson rewrote the New Testament to remove the bullshit miracles and resurrection. Madison was in full lockstep with him. Thomas Paine influenced them in the 'Age of Reason'...

    "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

    Paine.

  • ||

    Answer - you're kidding right? I think you're failing to grasp the full picture of their positions on religion. They were critical of it, yes, but they were religious and spiritual men who believed all the powers vested in the Constitution flowed from God.

    It was very clear where they stood on religion and God.

  • ||

    It's one thing to say that they were deeply religious men, but it's quite another to say that they were Christians. It is clear when one looks at the history that Answer is right. They may have believed in God, but they were not fond of organized religion, which is in lockstep with libertarian/liberal philosophy.

  • ||

    Tell me are these the words of a man who doesn't believe in Christianity? :

    "12. Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of Levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of Truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it with a wall of defence against the encroachments of error."

    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu.....ons43.html

    Madison went on at great length to express his outrage that Virginia was going to tarnish the Christian faith with forcing a tax on citizens to support the church - the act of which he declares is a direct opposition to the "light" of the faith. Tell me the last time that someone opposing a religion referred to it as the "light" in an approving tone?

  • ||

    That's one person. Answer gave you numerous quotes showing antagonism towards Christianity. You can't pick and choose. It is more accurate to say that the founders were Deists, Christians, Atheists, etc., but it is inaccurate to paint a picture of them as only Christian.

    Besides, what point does it serve when they separate church from state? What are you trying to claim? That forcing individuals who voluntarily and privately associate not to is what they intended? That they would approve of social conservatism's invasion of the bedroom? You might believe that those are legitimate provinces of gov't, but libertarians do not. Please, do not mix the two philosophies. Conservatives have already done enough damage to libertarians' image.

  • ||

    Environmentalism is a religion?! hahaha So does that mean I pray every time I recycle. hahaha What a fucking joke.

  • ||

    no, more like tithing. or making an offering.

    Several environmentalists, including Greenpeace, have even gone as far as referring to Earth as Gaia or Mother Earth which then personifies the Earth into something watching over us and providing for us. Hell Gaia is out rightly an ancient Greek deity name for Earth - yet I'm going to have to surmise that you still don't get it? How about Earth=sacred and man=sinner - get the correlation? Our "salvation" is "going green". Guess who the messiah is?

    It's a religious movement - any way you break it down. You have a group of people with a belief that they constantly attempt to convince others to believe in - sound familiar?

    Hell even atheists who outwardly seek to find other atheists or convince others to become atheists are themselves practicing what they despise - religion or is that too over your head as well?

    What is a religious group if not a group with a particular idea who want to convince others of that same idea?

    Science = a religion. Most of science is composed of theories which require faith to believe. Evolution - not proven as fact yet many try convincing others to believe in it.

    All of these different aspects of society bear resemblance to that of religion. But I digress – just because I draw the lines doesn’t make it so, but nor does your dismissal prove otherwise

  • ||

    "Science = a religion. Most of science is composed of theories which require faith to believe. Evolution - not proven as fact yet many try convincing others to believe in it."
    Bullshit, science =/= religion. Science is a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories. While religion is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship.

  • ||

    Scientific theories require the same leap of faith for "believers/followers" as those of religion do.

    Tell me now is the THEORY of evolution any more real than the THEORY of creation?

  • ||

    "Scientific theories require the same leap of faith for "believers/followers" as those of religion do"
    No, no they do not. They are based upon testing and observation, but more importantly, unlike religion, scientific knowledge is subject to change as we learn more about how the world works.
    "Tell me now is the THEORY of evolution any more real than the Biblical story of creation?" FTFY
    Because the theory of evolution via natural selection is falsifiable, any theory that requires a supernatural agent is not.

  • ||

    Yes it is very liberal. It is, however, far from "progressive". It gives the government very little power, either over our money or our private lives.

  • ||

    It doesn't pander to special interest groups. It's an anti-pandering clause.

  • ||

    But if the ideas of Jefferson and Locke are our foundation which we long to adhere to - doesn't that mean we want to conserve those ideas? In doing so that makes libertarians, well, conservative?

    No. Both progressives and conservatives are working for particular political/social arrangements. Progressives want an egalitarian utopia, while conservatives want things to stay as they are or go back to the good ol' days.

    libertarianism is a political philosophy whose only content regards the proper role of government and the strict limits that should be placed on it. Though the US Constitution is probably the most libertarian constitution currently in force, there are still many possible critiques of it from a libertarian perspective.

    libertarians qua libertarians are not trying to build an ideal society. We are trying to limit the presence of coercive force in the way the society is built.

  • ||

    Those "good ole'days" would be during the practice of limited gov't - adhereing to the Constitution. So again - isn't that more in line with libertarianism? Not perfect libertarianism because we well know there were ideals that were omitted but for the most part it fits - doesn't it?

    Those wanting things to stay as they are are called "statists" because we're in fact in a form of statism currently - is that not correct?

  • ||

    Don't kid yourself Chuck. Every President and every Congress has done their best to expand the scope and power of government, right from the beginning.

    libertarians don't want things the way they used to be, because that brings with it a host of undesirable consequences, including slavery, Jim Crow, institutional disenfranchisement, the military-industrial complex, corporatism, etc.

  • ||

    come on - no one said anything about repealing any amendments. That's just assinine to throw in the argument.

    Yes gov't went off-track from the start - because the people were relatively uneducated on what was happening. News traveled slowly. And education was sparse. So they did get away with a lot. But going back and using the Constitution to reel in the overgrown gov't and put the monster back in it's cage isn't the goal here?

  • ||

    Not necessarily. Slavery was an idea that this country was founded on. The Constitution was (as great as it is) as series of compromises to preserve the union. Libertarians from a perspective of purity should have difficulty finding any of the founding fathers as beacons of libertarianism, maybe Thomas Paine aside. George Washington had the Whiskey Rebellion, Thomas Jefferson outlawed black people from carrying the mail, etc. etc. While in most ways the views on the limited role of government were better back then, in other ways we are a freer society now than we were 250 years ago. Most conservatives are not interested in returning to a classical liberal form of government because they fully support gargantuan and invasive immigration enforcement, drug enforcement and national security bureaucracies with manufactured powers not in the Constitution. Anyone proposing cuts to the military-industrial complex is considered anti-military, and conservatives are often not interested in equal protection under the law, seeking to regulate, for instance, marital contracts between homosexuals or to discriminate against homosexuals in the military. Both parties, in different ways, kowtow to corporations that were able to attain girth and power via taxpayer-funded subsidies and protections from taking individual responsibility for violating the law. While some of us are conservative libertarians, many of us are not conservatives - in fact, some of us consider ourselves on the Left (I do) because I disagree with the privatization of land, the corporate entity, the regressive impacts of Leftist gov't policies on the poor and minorities, etc.

  • ||

    That's all quite contrived. I'd no more classify you as libertarian than I would Obama - far from it.

  • ||

    Contrived in what way? Do you deny anything he has said? If so, you deny reality.

  • ||

    Society and gov't are 2 completely different and distinct entities. We need to focus on gov't, not society. Using gov't to coerce or force society standards is completely against any libertarian ideas that I've read.

    Gov't needs to stay out of society - short of administering laws prohibiting murder, rape, stealing, and such to protect the individual and the individual's rights. Gov't has no business dictating behavior or targeting small groups for special laws either to help or hinder them. Gov't is simply to protect our rights and make sure everyone is treated equally but not at the risk of growing gov't to dictate behavior.

    It's bad to own your own land? That at anytime the gov't or simply someone with a bigger gun can push you out of your house and take over because you don't actually own it? - that's more in line with communism

  • ||

    I NEVER said you don't own your house. Things you create or purchase with voluntary labor inputs are your rightful property. Land is generally not something created by labor inputs and as it is a zero sum game where scarcity and inefficiency are the only means of profit (as opposed to improvements on that land), government granted land monopolies are in essence redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. I think land rent to the government should ideally be the only form of taxation, and as renters, all people would have contractual protections from government inteference (or from other actors), in the same way that a landlord can't decide to knock down the house you rent while under contract or a random person can't walk onto my rental property. When the property on the land is purchased, the land rent is transferred to the next person but I make no money on the land (as I don't own it), only on the structures and improvements. There's nothing fundamentally unlibertarian about this - in fact being able to codify your rights to use land in contract with the government would be MORE likely to protect you from eminent domain abuse.

  • ||

    You cannot own a home without the land on which it is erected - try again.

  • ||

    You can't own a home built on rented land? I guess people who live in trailer parks don't own their trailers?

    It's very simple. Today when you buy a home you purchase the property beneath it. You can sell a percentage of that land at a profit. Under a geolibertarian system, you purchase the house and improvements (for instance, a swimming pool), the land is sublet to you and you pay land rent to the government instead of taxes. If you don't want to pay as much land rent you don't have to use all the land, you can renegotiate the contract and let the land go fallow until someone else purchases the rental rights and gets full use of that land. Of course, everyone would lease enough to cover at least the square footage of their property and a path out of that property. But if I want to give up my rights to my backyard and front yard because I don't need them, someone else can potentially build a house on each and I pay much less land rent. Or if I want more privacy and space, I can pay more land rent. Land not rented goes fallow, thus becomes public use. Won't always be pretty but there's nothing unlibertarian about this system, just a different view on whether a limited natural resource requiring zero labor and inefficient markets to make a profit from qualifies as "property."

  • ||

    now you are splitting hairs - if the land is being rented then it is already owned by someone. Same concept = you cannot own a home without owning the land it's on!

    Property taxes are totally different - gov't should not tax you for owning property. (be it land or other items)

  • ||

    I think either you don't understand or don't care to understand the concept - land is owned by everyone (thus fallow land is public use), but the government can administer usage rights via contract. As a renter you have the sole right to use the land. You can give up that right by letting the land go fallow and paying less land rent, which consequentially means anyone can use or reside upon the land until someone else establishes a rental contract. If you build a house upon rented land, there is nothing at all stopping you from moving your house and improvements off the land and onto whatever your next residency is. That's your property. The land is not. Originally that land belonged to nature, and people roamed freely upon it at the expense of no one else's rights. Granting monopoly ownership rights to land was a reverse government redistribution of very limited wealth to the elite, be they economic or racial. Land speculators make money not by being productive but by being unproductive - they profit simply because their government-granted monopoly rights lead to limitations on free land, thus driving up the price of land for everyone else.

    Henry George was the most famous proponent of the land value tax, but Adam Smith strongly advocated for it as did most of the Founding Fathers which you so admire. The single land value tax and opposition to corporations WERE classical liberal ideas.

  • ||

    I should have prefaced by saying that I do not agree with Hobo's final points about why he feels he's Libertarian-Left.

    I don't see how you can much argue with his initial points, though. Do you deny that conservatives, in general, get in a hissy-fit when talks of cutting back military spending, the drug war, overreaches due to immigration and "national security," and a real social hodge-podge, gay marriage and gay rights, comes up?

    While I may agree with everything you said, you cannot honestly deny that the conservatives, and especially social conservatives, want to dictate your life as much as liberals do.

  • ||

    I was referring to his accussations and opinions - not the documented historical events.

    Drug war - I see that being both liberal and conservative enforced. Liberals will not give up gov't control over anything any sooner than conservatives will let go of "protecting their children" Both are misguided but for different reasons.

    Immigration - I don't see any conservatives lashing out about immigration. Only illegal immigration. Libertarian or not, if a law exists then breaking it is a criminal offense. There is no problems with going through the proper channels to migrate to the US - sneaking in and abusing handouts and/or seeking to harm US citizens or national sovereignty are things we need to gov't to participate in preventing.

    I don't see gay- anything as a problem for conservatives. I do agree with them in that I don't want alternative lifestyles in our faces 24/7. What people do in their own bedrooms is their own business. But if you start having parades in which people are rubbing it in others faces by dressing obscenely, being naked, and/or performing live or simulated sexual acts then you need to take that to a privately owned area instead of having it on public streets. We still need to behave in a civilized manor - not like sex craved lunatics.

  • ||

    So if you break the law against medical marijuana, you deserve the full force of the government's wrath because you knew it was illegal? Illegal immigration is a victimless crime. The existence of the welfare state and it's availability to illegal immigrants is the fault of the citizens, not the illegal immigrants. By the way, the US is probably the last country that has any right to talk about "abuse of national sovereignty." The 99% of people who come here to work peacefully and make their lives better are not imposing upon my rights.

  • ||

    If it's against the law - yes it's a crime.

    State law so long as it does not trample on the US Constitution should trump federal law. If your state declares drugs for any sort of legalized usage then the federal gov't has no business doing anything about it.

    And no illegal immigration is not victimless - and even if it were breaking a law is still enough to label someone criminal. Going through the proper channels ensures you get treated fairly. If you don't go through those channels then you have no rights and certainly no right to complain that you are not treated fairly!

  • ||

    "illegal immigration is not victimless"

    Who is the victim? There are some illegal immigrants that come here with the intention of doing harm to other people - but that is not a result of their immigration status or lack thereof. Most illegal immigrants just want to work and have a better life for themselves, the same as all of us would do in their shoes. The fact that crossing an artificial line in the sand is illegal is not going to keep them from trying to escape from a life of poverty and violence to someplace better. By doing so they don't hurt anyone, and for 90% of them there is no legal apparatus available to them - between quotas, lack of employment prior to entry, requirements on the amount of money they need to have in a bank account, etc. There is no way most of them would be processed through the "proper channels" under the current structure.

    If your argument is that they are stealing taxpayer money, think of it this way: illegal immigrants still pay property taxes and sales taxes; many pay Social Security and Medicare taxes when they will not qualify for these programs; and if they paid income taxes (which many do) most of them would get tax credits, thus costing us even more money. We need to figure out a solution to, without expanding the welfare state, make it easier to immigrate here and get work visas - while cracking down on violent criminals.

  • ||

    "if you start having parades in which people are rubbing it in others faces by dressing obscenely, being naked, and/or performing live or simulated sexual acts then you need to take that to a privately owned area instead of having it on public streets. We still need to behave in a civilized manor - not like sex craved lunatics."

    Please stay far away from New Orleans and let us enjoy our parades, debauchery, and freedom to enjoy any beverage we please out-of-doors and in our automobiles.

  • ||

    please be sure not to expose your kids to such lewd acts.

    Regardless of how much freedom an individual wields there is still a valid concept of age-appropriate content and conduct. Exposing young children to explicit sexual behavior is highly inappropriate even if there weren't laws already restricting such.

  • ||

    "a valid concept of age-appropriate content and conduct"
    No, not so much. That is to say, one's idea of what constitutes a valid concept depends entirely upon one's mores, ethics, background, and historical era/geolocation in which one lives. What may be acceptable content and conduct to you, might not be to your grandparents, probably was not to your great-grandparents, and will likely seem outdated and prudish to your grandchildren. I would posit permitting one's children to witness acts of violence and cruelty is much more damaging to their development than witnessing the raunchy parades at Carnival or Southern Decadence.

  • ||

    Children aren't harmed by viewing nudity. That's a function of our social conditioning to think that the body is something dirty and needs to be covered up. Requirements that people need to remain clothed are simply collectivist restrictions on our freedoms of expression. If you don't want your kid to see nudity, as a parent it's your prerogative not to take your kids to New Orleans or Brazil, to not let them see TV and to shelter them so they can't be corrupted. But the fact that people have kids doesn't give the government the right to tell other people how they must or must not express themselves.

  • ||

    You don't have the right to be naked in public, it's as simple as that

    The fact that you're arguing against anti-nudity laws should make you think twice about your so called "philosophy". But nom you're a moron who wants a simple answer to eveything, so you stick with the stupid.

  • ||

    Very well stated, Chuck.....

  • ||

    No, it's not very well stated at all. It's the exact same "It'z for deh childrenz" bullshit that collectivists and statists of all stripes pull out of their asses whenever they want to get involved in someone else's affairs.

  • ||

    +1

  • ||

    What if the law of the land violates liberty? Immigration not only does that, but it destroys free trade. As far as gays are concerned, if you're not gay, don't sleep with guys. The gov't has no business there. You think it does, which makes you a big-gov't conservative, forcing your social view upon society through the coercive violence of the state.

    I'm not a minarchist like a lot of people around here. I'm an anarcho-capitalist, so I have problems with the Constitution as well, since it was also forced upon us and is in many ways an illiberal document. However, it does remain the best document on the earth. Still, even it couldn't restrain the growth of gov't, and no constitution ever could.

  • ||

    "I don't see gay- anything as a problem for conservatives. I do agree with them in that I don't want alternative lifestyles in our faces 24/7. What people do in their own bedrooms is their own business. But if you start having parades in which people are rubbing it in others faces by dressing obscenely, being naked, and/or performing live or simulated sexual acts then you need to take that to a privately owned area instead of having it on public streets. We still need to behave in a civilized manor - not like sex craved lunatics."

    That is what I said about gays. What does on in the "bedroom" should stay in the "bedroom". It should be of no consequence to the government one way or the other what your preference is. Using force to dictate acceptance never accomplishes the goal - it makes the situation worse. People will adapt over time without gov't interference. And no - we don't need public sex acts be they hetero- or homo- sexual.

  • ||

    dah- *goes on (not "does on"

  • ||

    Then the solution is less public areas and more private ones. I think you're a libertarian who doesn't realize it yet. You still need more disappointment from your leaders before you realize it, though.

  • ||

    "Using force to dictate acceptance never accomplishes the goal - it makes the situation worse. People will adapt over time without gov't interference."
    Tell that to all those folks that seem to think Title II of the CRA was needed.

  • ||

    Why exactly?

    - Land was not created by human beings, but people profit off of the scarcity of it solely by being granted a government monopoly. Historically this monopoly was only granted to white people.

    - The corporate entity is a fake legal status, not a creature of a free market. In a free market, people would form a proprietorship or partnership and purchase liability insurance to protect the personal wealth of the owners. The bigger they get or, the riskier their business is, or the worse their business practices are, or less safe the working conditions are, etc. they would pay a higher cost for this insurance. A corporation gets this protection provided for them for little more than the cost of incorporation, and giving a wide berth to the individual actors in the corporation to where they can make enormous profits off of violation of property, fraud etc.

    ...if those are what you are referring to. In fact, I'd argue my position is more libertarian because I'm opposing government-granted monopolies and entities that are not natural to the truly free market.

  • ||

    Then I would argue you would fit more accurately under a communist label than libertarian. Is it not a natural law for man to own the land on which he lives/works without fear of being removed by gov't or another individual?

    "The same principle of appropriation by the investment of labor can be extended to control over the surface of the earth as well, on Locke's view. Individuals who pour themselves into the land—improving its productivity by spending their own time and effort on its cultivation—acquire a property interest in the result. (2nd Treatise §32) The plowed field is worth more than the virgin prairie precisely because I have invested my labor in plowing it; so even if the prairie was held in common by all, the plowed field is mine. This personal appropriation of natural resources can continue indefinitely, Locke held, so long as there is "enough, and as good" left for others with the gumption to do the same. (2nd Treatise §33)"

    http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4n.htm

    I do not believe the gov't should own land or require property taxes - that's clearly a departure from libertarian ideas.

  • ||

    I guess I'm a communist, like Adam Smith, Henry George, Thomas Paine, etc.

    Also, I never advocated property taxes. I advocated land rent. There's a difference which seems beyond your ability to comprehend. The government doesn't "own" the land, it just administers the rights to it as the protector of that land. The land is "owned" by everyone, and the single land tax goes to pay for the basic government services like building roads and the legal system to defend rights, enforce contracts and protect property.

  • ||

    But how do you prove it's your land without a independent 3rd party to validate that claim?

  • ||

    I take very much offense to the term "conservative republican." Just because they preach the word "liberty" more, doesn't mean they actually follow through with it.

  • ||

    I would concur that the so-called "conservatives" elected to office have not been on the side of liberty. Being so they've been outed as RINO's because they have abandoned the conservative principles of liberty - small gov't and big individual.

    The populus "conservatives" seem to want just that - true liberty.

  • ||

    'Populist' or us 'conservative' type of libertarians, BIG YES....

  • ||

    "wouldn't it be more likely for libertarians to embrace being linked to or labeled as "conservatives"? "

    I think that you have a reasonable point. However, a huge chunk of liberterians are opposed to pre-emptive war, like the bullshit war in Iraq. It seems that most conservatives were wildly in favor of this, save Pat Buchanan et al.

    The other topic that seems to divide liberterians from conservatives is the issue of gay marriage. Is it not a conservative goal to get an amendment banning this practice? Surely you realize that such a law is not a liberterian interest.

  • ||

    Neither progressive nor conservative fit exactly into a libertarian mold - but policy-by-policy aren't conservative more representative of libertarian ideas?

    I don't understand libertarians willingness to embrace progressives that want to expand gov't and federal deficits as fast and far as possible. They support ideas that hinder minorities rather than help. They want to destroy growth and the standard of living so that everyone is equal. Why not raise the standard of living for everyone instead of tearing others down? The list of progressive ideas that are in opposition to libertarian beliefs is nearly endless.

  • ||

    Thank you for skirting around the points I made and dodging discussion. I take your post to mean that the Iraq war and banning gay marriage are issues that liberterians should embrace?

    "I don't understand libertarians willingness to embrace progressives that want to expand gov't and federal deficits as fast and far as possible. "

    That's funny, I don't understand conservatives that want to expand gov't and federal deficits as fast as possible by invading countries that never attacked us and posed no threat to us. Do you have any idea how much money we wasted in Iraq? I would assume that being a 'fiscally responsible' citizen you'd know the answer to this.

    It's this kind of hypocrisy that drives many liberterians away from conservatives.

  • ||

    I think it's more fair to say real conservatives are libertarians but don't know it. But the same can be said of many liberals. Most people understand freedom and don't much differentiate between types of freedom.

    It's the government and the parties that paint up statism as 'left' or 'right' and make excuses for taking away just a few freedoms, and from 'those other guys'. Those other guys being the rich or the deadbeats or whatever, someone that's not you.

    That said I do think conservatives tend to be more receptive to embracing more freedom than liberals.

  • Robert||

    Conservatism is defined by its opposition to whatever is the major change movement (sometimes, but not commonly, to more than one change movement co-existing) of its place and time. Because "change" can be perceived on different time bases, and the isms take time to catch up, it is sometimes a little confusing as to which side the conservatives are on. Conservatives often don't like to admit their oppositional nature, but they wouldn't use the word if it weren't appropriate.

    Because the "change" side may have been making progress for some time, it's not always the case that conservatives are for conserving all that is, but they tend to not be too reactionary (that's why that's a separate word), and often are for conserving some of the changes their opposition initiated a long enough time back.

    However, it can become the case after a long time that the major opposition to the conservatives start defining themselves as well in terms of opposition, and then it just becomes a silly, often culturally-based theater of team red vs. team green or whatever. They become spite-o-crats. I think with "liberals" in some countries we're well into that stage. I think it's that way on issues of tobacco smoking, or tobacco products in general, as well as on destruction of wealth.

  • ||

    I don't think that's a valid definition in any respect. Any nomenclature for a political movement has to be accepted for what it is.

    'Conservatives' are not distinctly about conserving anything and 'liberals' are decidedly illiberal if you use the literal meaning.

    They may have had a meaning closer to the original words at some point, but as you note, by now it's just red team statism vs blue team statism.

  • ||

    I see it that way. And to the guy "answer" below. You're wrong.

  • ||

    By "below" I didn't mean "Matthew" but the first comment by "answer" above. Sorry.

  • ||

    I'm all in favor of writing openly to left-liberals in an attempt to persuade them after the Rand/CRA debacle, but for heaven's sake, not with this opening:

    "As you engage in intellectual dishonesty using Rand Paul’s silly comments on the 1964 Civil Rights Act to misrepresent libertarianism...."

    Terry Michaels needs to learn a thing or two about the art of persuasion.

  • ||

    What's more troubling is that it would seem something that didn't actually happen is still being believed as true. Rand didn't say what is suggested in this article or the many others about the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which was opposed by a higher percentage of Dems than Repubs).

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26.....w#37285934

  • ||

    Progressive - advocating reform
    Conservative - in favor of preserving existing conditions

    If you are a progressive and you get your way and inact your norms, you then become a conservative. Like wise, a formerly labeled "conservative" that wants to change the newly minted norms would become "progressive". They just flip-flop; been going on for years.

  • ||

    So welfare reform was advocated by progressives and opposed by conservatives?

    Just kidding, I know your point. Leftists will be "conservative" towards policies enacted under leftist regimes, and vice versa.

  • ||

    So it's all about the name huh? That's what's important, what you call yourself?

  • ||

    "Of course, Rand Paul was ridiculous questioning four-decade-old settled law that recognized slavery and segregation as conditions justifying the coercive power of the state to prohibit discrimination."

    Why stop with abridging freedom of association? Why not freedom of speech, prohibiting racist books? What about freedom of religion? Doesn't the Bible give explicit sanction to slavery?

    What a ridiculous position Paul has, thinking that we should protect rights by protecting rights, instead of violating them.

  • Steve V||

    Rand Paul’s silly comments?

    There was nothing silly about them. He was right on.

    Those who disagree with Rand Paul & holding private property & personal choice sacred (even if we don't agree with those choices)... are not true Libertarians.

  • ||

    the key word being "sacred". The rest of us are more realistic, and we know that after 200 years of oppression, especially with every piece of land going only to whites, and a deeply ingrained racism in a large majority, enforced by more than just laws (see: the klan, corrupt officials), and most of the capital in the economy belonging to whites, in a world which WAS NOT libertopia, where the government and the economy FREQUENTLY intermingle, writing laws that ban only government discrimination WAS NEVER GOING TO EVER REALLY CREATE EQUAL FREEDOM FOR BLACKS. The only "equality under the law" would only be on paper. The day-to-day reality would still be an unfree world for blacks, hence title 2 of the Civil Rights Act.

  • ||

    and how are your comments not racist?

  • ||

    I disagree. The societal trends against racism were well underway. Government used the cause du jour to expand power, just as they have done day-in and day-out for decades.

    Whatever news has people talking, it is a GREAT reason to expand government authority over our lives and control ever-widening rivers of money. This is SOP for republicans and democrats. They use it to generate lobbyist money for their perpetual re-elections.

  • ||

    Article started off good, but had no real meat. How about ticking off how all the liberal policies to help people actually hurt them (ie welfare keeps them in poverty etc)

  • ||

    How exactly is it intellectual dishonesty? If a politician doesn't have the sense to say he would have voted for the Civil rights act, it's a serious issue.

    On this site, multiple times I've seen people call Lincoln a tyrant. One commenter referred to blacks as "jungle b's" in another of the Rand Paul articles. For years Ron Paul's staff guy or whatever was writing racist shit for Lew Rockwell.

    There's clearly a racist faction of libertarians - who aren't really libertarians, they just want to discriminate against black people again (i.e. if these same people could, they would reinstate Jim Crow - libertarianism is only currently useful to them as a way to explain their racist sentiments)

    That libertarians keep denying it, instead of pointing out the stupidity of such things, and making a point of saying they don't agree with those kinds of libertarians, might be even worse.

  • ||

    He simply didn't say what is being sold here:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26.....w#37285934

  • ||

    Your third paragraph is a perfect example of begging the question. You offer no evidence that there are libertarians interested in reinstating Jim Crow laws. Libertarians would never have enacted the Jim Crow laws to begin with. Those were created by the Democratic party.

  • ||

    And do I need to remind everyone that according to libertarian dogma, the SOuth's "separate but equal" policy didn't violate anyone's rights - that the supreme court had no right to forcibly integrate the school systems, they only could have told the South to restructure the black schools and put more money into them to actually make them equal. It should in theory be completely possible to have separate school systems that are of equal quality. The only rights-violation in such a system would be if it cost more, and there were a few non-racists who didn't want that extra cost imposed on them. But the school system itself wouldn't be a violation of rights.

    But that's not what the Supreme Court said. They said that "Separate but equal is not equal." Does anybody understand WHY they said that? Anybody here understand what was meant by that?

  • ||

    'And do I need to remind everyone that according to libertarian dogma, the SOuth's "separate but equal" policy didn't violate anyone's rights'

    What libertarian dogma would that be?

    I have yet to hear a libertarian say that racial discrimination in any area paid for by taxpayers is anything but illegal, immoral and abhorrent. Libertarian dogma is pro-gay-marriage, too, and not because being gay is hip. It's because ANY government discrimination is wrong by libertarian standards, and if gays want to be married, we have no business using government to stop them. This is even true among libertarians who have mixed personal feelings about homosexual relationships.

  • ||

    I reject all government-recognized marriage benefits as discrimination against single people.

  • ||

    but "separate but equal" wouldn't be discrimination. In theory, you could have separate school systems for blacks and whites that are just as good as each other.

    But the supreme court said otherwise. They didn't just say that the blacks' school system had to be fixed, they said that "separate but equal is not equal" and forced integration. Why did they say that? What does that mean?

    in case you can't tell, I'm going somewhere with this

  • ||

    So - to be clear - are you saying you believe segregated schools can be equal or are you attempting to imply that libertarians would support segregated schools? If it's the latter, libertarians would oppose excluding taxpaying blacks from the access to the white school, and vice versa. If it's the former, are you advocating for bringing back segregation, as you'd be saying the Supreme Court's interpretation is wrong?

  • ||

    I'm asking you why the court didn't just declare that the two school systems weren't equal and the blacks' system needed more funding, but instead broadly declared that separate but equal was not ever going to be equal and forced segregation. Why did they do that? What did they mean?

  • ||

    * I mean forced integration

  • ||

    Edwin, I haven't been around long enough to remember you when you were on here, but I've heard enough stories to know you're a fuckface.

  • ||

    ah, avoiding the issue. The most classic big-L Libertarian response.

  • ||

    Just commenting in general, Edwin... while it's still legal. Hint hint.

  • ||

    We're working on that!

  • ||

    You avoided the issue by not answering my question. Do you support publicly encoded segregation? If so, you are not a libertarian.

  • ||

    stop trying to turn this around and answer my question you fucking fuck fuck of a fuck

    why do you think the Supreme Court broadly declared that separate but equal was not ever going to be equal and forced segregation. Why did they do that? What did they mean by that?

  • ||

    Answer Chang's question, coward.

  • ||

    That's easy, childish troll-man. Because every piece of evidence beyond the anecdotal indicated that neither the opportunities nor the outcomes were equal, and the social and legal structures would remain unequal perpetually unless whites and blacks began sharing experiences from an early age. You can call it social engineering if you want, but it did in fact move us closer to a meritocracy where we judge people for their qualifications more than their race and where we are more likely to believe that all individuals' rights should be protected regardless of race. Whites would not have cared as much about black peoples' rights if we never mixed with them - and vice versa, so the end justifies the means in this case.

  • ||

    Hobo Chang Ba, you're retarded - Everything you just said is exactly what I've been saying - try READING people's comments

    that's exactly right - because separate but equal, IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SOUTH IN THE 1950's and 60's, was NOT equal. It never COULD be equal. Even if the whites had a separate school system for blacks, it was and was always going to be crappy, because the white majority didn't give a shit about blacks.

    In the same vein, you can talk about blacks and whites having "equal rights" if they are both allowed to discriminate in economic matters, but again, it would be a false "equal". White people had all the power back then, economic power, too. So as much as you say that they would be equal under the law if discrimination were allowed, they in actuality would NOT be.

  • ||

    So I'm "retarded" for agreeing with you? Nice.

    Equal access to public services paid for by mandatory taxes from everyone is different from the right of an individual to be on the property of someone who doesn't want them there, however horrific their reasoning. Now the Civil Rights Act probably did improve race relations by banning private discrimination, and that's a net good for society but libertarians would still say it was a violation of property rights even if they are personally pleased about the improved social outcome.

    Where Rand Paul's remark was tone-deaf was when he stated that he didn't see any business that wants to re-discriminate. As a society, part of the reason we have reached that point is because of the ban on private discrimination that has conditioned us to see everyone as equal on the basis of race. Without the CRA, there would (and still might) be pockets of the country where discrimination is common. That's not really a compelling argument for changing the law.

  • ||

    So I'm "retarded" for agreeing with you? Nice.

    Equal access to public services paid for by mandatory taxes from everyone is different from the right of an individual to be on the property of someone who doesn't want them there, however horrific their reasoning. Now the Civil Rights Act probably did improve race relations by banning private discrimination, and that's a net good for society but libertarians would still say it was a violation of property rights even if they are personally pleased about the improved social outcome.

    Where Rand Paul's remark was tone-deaf was when he stated that he didn't see any business that wants to re-discriminate. As a society, part of the reason we have reached that point is because of the ban on private discrimination that has conditioned us to see everyone as equal on the basis of race. Without the CRA, there would (and still might) be pockets of the country where discrimination is common. That's not really a compelling argument for changing the law.

  • ||

    When your party redistributes all the property to make us all equal, it should make us live together because if not how could we really be equal?

    The democratic party created the Jim Crow laws and libertarians would not have. It only took you 100 years to discover they were wrong. So you can step down from your lectern, professor. Libertarians don't favor segregation, nor do we favor the use of government force to control private relationships. Frankly, most libertarians consider people of different races or different economic means as individuals and often as our social equals. Unlike democrats who want to take from those most productive to help those poor, downtrodden people - but by assuming that protector relationship democrats assert a tangible superiority over the object of their noblese oblige. A superiority that smacks of the very racism and intolerance that they direct against others through accusation. Guilty conscience?

  • ||

    +10

  • Robert||

    Most radical libertarians I know don't waste much effort trying to decide which of two gov't-run schools -- one integrated, one segregated -- a child should have to go to.

  • ||

    you know you guys don't even read the comments you respond to.

    Read a post thoroughly, understand it, THEN respond, and you won't look like such an idiot.

  • ||

    You should follow your own advice.

  • ||

    Let's recap: a libertarian would support state-enforced discrimination? Did you even think about this before you wrote it? These are the same libertarians that support gay marriage as a private contract. The difference between liberals and libertarians is that liberals are willing to use the violence of the state to force their moral views upon society. A libertarian rejects using the state, believing that the state has no right to interfere positively or negatively.

    When Rand Paul opposed the gov't interfering in private business, this is what he was saying. It is perfectly okay, as long as we have a state, to ban it from discriminating, but it is much different to ban private individuals from discriminating on their own property. I doubt you understand this distinction, but it was worth a try.

  • ||

    "Let's recap: a libertarian would support state-enforced discrimination? Did you even think about this before you wrote it?"

    How about you READ what I actually said.

  • ||

    I read it again, and it still seems to be dripping with misunderstanding. If a school-system discriminates and it is a school-system enforced by the state, then there is no way a libertarian would support that. If it is a private school that chooses to discriminate, such as an all-black or all-white school, then it is a different matter, based entirely on private contracts and association.

    The Supreme Court decisions is criticized by liberal and conservative law professors alike. Ultimately, both sides agree with the outcome but disagree with the legal reasoning. Libertarians agree with the state-enforced racism, but disagree with its effect on private business. I find racism morally repugnant, but I find the violence of the state even more so. Private markets, if not forced by state law to discriminate, correct this error by rooting out discriminatory businesses. They go broke in the long-run vs. those who do not discriminate, which is exactly why racist business owners and unions asked for state-enforced laws.

  • ||

    *Libertarians agree with the state-enforced racism part of the decision*

  • ||

    I had to plough my way through the most solipsistic, whiny, self satisfied and incoherent blather to get to this....

    ***If you want a short explanation of a what a libertarian really is, here’s one from a self-described “libertarian Democrat” who used to be one of you: Get the government out of my bank account, out of my bedroom, away from my body, and out of the backyards of the rest of the world (we should lead by example, not military force.)***

    That’s it! Jefferson stood for that? Are you quite sure??
    ...All that waffle and then ... NOTHING!... not a serious and intellectually coherent definition that one can critique or even agree with... we have instead a big fat NOTHING. You accuse Eugene Robinson of misrepresenting you but you can’t even tell us what it is he is meant to be misrepresenting. Even worse than the incoherent waffle that preceded our non-definition is the disgracefully dishonest tactic of labelling others dishonest whilst engaging in fallacious and brain dead disputation.... here’s the introduction:

    ****To my left-liberal Democrat friends:
    As you engage in intellectual dishonesty using Rand Paul’s silly comments on the 1964 Civil Rights Act to misrepresent libertarianism, perhaps you might want to consider a little history of the political philosophy of the founder of our party, Thomas Jefferson, the original libertarian. Let me help you escape your ignorance about libertarianism without a capitalL, a political philosophy far from conservatism.*****

    How can you accuse anyone of misrepresenting something that you cannot define! Get out of your bedroom... Are you serious?? Who exactly is it that is banging on the door of your bedroom? Rachel Maddow?? Gene Robinson??? Do they want your body too??!! Or is it that illegitimate Kenyan President in the White House??? Crazy.. Obama has cut taxes for most of the middle class and you’re yelling about your bank account.... and yet you want to be taken seriously? Here’s a hint; write a serious article and then they’ll have no choice but to take you seriously.

    What ails the libertarians, if I may be so bold to make a diagonsis, is that you’re peeved that too many people on the left laugh at you so-called libertarians (small “L”, big “L”, no “L”... it doesn’t seem to make much of a difference) and your faux intellectual doodlings (for want of a more accurate description of the generally clownish nature of your contributions).. be serious and give us a libertarian solution to any of the following...
    a) The oil spill in the Gulf. What is the libertarian take on it? Is just one of those things or is their any room for government oversight.
    b) Declining oil resources and need for energy diversity. I know that most you don’t live in the real world but the fact that we are having to drill ever deeper and in the last pristine places on Earth suggests that we are now in a period of tough oil. What is libertarian suggestion... What would a Libertarian do??
    c) Global warming... what is the libertarian response to Climate Change... even if you don’t believe in Climate Change why not consider it a ‘thought experiment’ and offer up a solution to global problem from a libertarian perspective. I don’t expect any answers.... except more shouts of get out of my bed! Jeez...

  • ||

    johnny - your defense of the
    'illegitimate Kenyan in office' is vaunted and admirable but as far as the tax issue goes - nice li'l nugget for the proletariat class but if Obama and his cohorts in his administration and in the "Massa-chicag-frisco" cabal had their way we would be taxed to the gills in order to fund the 1 and a half TRILLION dollar budget deficits as far out as the eye can see and also user fees and sur-charges would be the order of the day in the Cap-and-Scam scheme lurking in the halls of the congress. So the 'cutting taxes' bit from Obama is just a disengenuous tiny carrot nugget because though Obama's handlers and brian-trust are clever - they know the vast majority of the public have no stomach for highers taxes and more job-killing legislation. Otherwise there would be a huge uprising against this President and all of the Garafalo-esque reasoning for why people are alarmed would fall on deafened and white-hot angry ears. I will agree that some government intervention is necessary - but it should be kept to a minimum, as it was, IMO, originally intended from the founding.

  • ||

    a) Strict liability. BP has to pay for every penny of damage. Provides both an incentive to avoid accidents like this, and a damn good reason to clean up. BP has the resources to do this, or it can hire them.

    b) Same thing as wood, coal, peat, whale oil, petroleum... As energy resources decline, prices rise, incentive is for new sources to be developed. Get rich: find new sources of energy. So far, this has worked to solve problems like this, so seemlessly that people like you don't even think about it. Or do you still use your whale oil lamp?
    c) If fossil fuel supplies are really declining, then who cares? Does it occur to any of the trendy idiots out there crowing about peak oil and global warming that, if we can extract less oil, we will automatically burn less? And that the replacements for petroleum-based energy will slowly take over the mass market without feeding government kleptocrats and corporatist CEOs ever more of our tax dollars?

  • ||

    The other hilarious thing about libertarians is they way they spout what can only be described as "articles of faith" as if they have the force of scientifically proven hypothesis. For example they claim to hold private property, free choice and free markets sacred. What makes these things sacred, exactly??? If you believe in them do you go to heaven???

    These guys are not serious... if deregulation is always right and a command economy always wrong how the hell did China happen?!!! Even worse is that the Soviet union split up and Boris Yeltsin deregulated like crazy... and Russia ended up a feeble basket case till Putin turned up. Can we have a libertarian explanation of that 'anomaly' too? Fat chance. Who needs the real world when you have faith...

  • ||

    Are you trying to make a point, or did you just run out of your meds?

  • ||

    China adopted a capitalist economy to prosper - even the Dhali Llama (sp? but I don't care) admitted that just a week or 2 ago. China was crumbling, still is to a degree socially, but it's economy was dead until it followed capitalist ideas. No that doesn't mean they approve of individual freedoms - just economic.

  • ||

    China adopted a capitalist fascist economy to prosper.

    Fixed.

  • ||

    You are right, comerade! Who needs private property, free choice, or free markets! My island is a testament to socialist superiority.

  • TruthOffering.com||

    I love the summary of what it means to be a Libertarian at the end. Pithy and true. Aside from the gross misrepresentation of how free we all are, as propagandized by our government and media, the worst crime being committed is by our military industrial complex. We continue to ravage other countries, killing innocent people in their own countries.

    Worst of all is that we tax payers -- the one who fund this nonsense -- will end up in dire straits when the MIC turns on us. Why else would they seek to acquire such tremendous means of force? They want to control people. Isn't it safe to say that one day, we Americans may not be behaving in the way the government would like? What then?

    Check out this article I found about the potential fire we're playing with, with regard to the Military Industrial Complex:

    http://www.truthoffering.com/c.....mplex.html

  • ||

    That's it? Keep the government out of my bank account? That's supposed to convert those nasty progressives? That's some weak-ass %$#@. First of all, it demonstrates the crassness of the philosophy. To think it is all about individualism and money. O.k., I'll give you individualism for the sake of argument but to assume the money that found its way to your bank account did so in a just manner is unfounded and just plain wrong. Humans set up the economy and with all the levers, buttons and dials of the economy the rules are set up to allow money to flow in whatever direction the rules allow. Individual effort, creativity, innovation, etc. are only some of the variables that influence your ban account.Libertarians assume they are the SOLE variables and so get mad when anything the govt. does threatens their cherished dollars. Progressives recognize that the economic game is rigged and they recognize that it is a human creation. Starting with that assumption they see the imperative to try to find the right set of economic rules that create social justice. You see, low taxation, minimal govt., etc. while appealing to some means that it gives some more power to exploit others. Sure, libertarians dream of a justice system that will cause corporations to absorb negative externalities. If that were possible libertarianism might work. But watch the BP disaster. In a real libertarian world that company would be sunk and the shareholders would loose everything and the execs would have to hawk their yachts in auctions just to pay for damages. But will that happen? Are libertarians willing to call on BP execs to start eating at Wendys instead of 5 star restaurants? I doubt it.

  • ||

    ****a) Strict liability. BP has to pay for every penny of damage. Provides both an incentive to avoid accidents like this, and a damn good reason to clean up. BP has the resources to do this, or it can hire them.*****

    Even if what you say is correct and BP can pay for the destruction it has wrought... what happens when an oil company that can’t meet the liability of it’s spill has a rig blow up? Or are you willing to interfere in the free market and allow only the very biggest oil companies in the world to drill out at sea? Whither competition?? That’s one contradiction for you.
    And even then there is no way that you or anyone else can be sure that BP can meet its liabilities... we are talking about enormous plumes of oil underwater, we are talking of wildlife being harmed for generations. How much is that worth exactly? As usual the Libertarian position is shallow and ill thought out... and what if BP refuses to pay and shifts its assets elsewhere or goes to court and drags out the case... what then?
    Most sane people would suggest that the risk of drilling for oil offshore is getting close to outweighing any conceivable benefit... most Americans and definitely most of those in the states affected would say “enough already”... if not now then very soon. You know why? Because most sane people understand that markets are here to serve us not the other way round. Most sane people... not libertarians though. Drill baby drill!! Wasn’t that the libertarians?

    ***b) Same thing as wood, coal, peat, whale oil, petroleum... As energy resources decline, prices rise, incentive is for new sources to be developed. Get rich: find new sources of energy. So far, this has worked to solve problems like this, so seemlessly that people like you don't even think about it. Or do you still use your whale oil lamp?***

    Like wood, eh? Ever heard of deforestation?... Another blasé and unserious libertarian response. The United states has 4 percent of the world’s population and consumes 25% of the planet’s resources... if Brazil, China and India were to match the consumption of the USA there won’t be a planet left for any of us. Think.... and when Bangladesh sinks into the sea would you be willing to welcome them to America, Arizona, perhaps?

    ****c) If fossil fuel supplies are really declining, then who cares? Does it occur to any of the trendy idiots out there crowing about peak oil and global warming that, if we can extract less oil, we will automatically burn less? And that the replacements for petroleum-based energy will slowly take over the mass market without feeding government kleptocrats and corporatist CEOs ever more of our tax dollars?*****


    No Barry... I think that the idiots are those who underestimate the scale of upheaval that a change of the magnitude that we are talking about will bring.... How many green jobs has America got... how many of the cutting edge green technologies does America possess? Railing against government kleptocrats and fat cat CEOs is not an answer.... what would you do apart from nothing because nothing ain’t gonna cut it... I happen to agree with Hayek when he talks about the limits of mans knowledge and reason... but the idea of a totally free market is a problem, in this case particularly, not a solution. And that is a serious problem for Libertarians. In the face of serious problems teenage foot stamping isn't really a solution...

  • ||

    It's okay when we liberals do the teenage foot stamping, though.

  • ||

    Those green Jobs really worked out well for Spain. What was it, 2.4 jobs lost for every job created? Moreover, if you are going to cry about US energy usage, how about turning off your computer and living with zero impact, because otherwise you are a hypocrite.

  • ||

    most sane people understand that markets are here to serve us not the other way round.

    This is identical to saying "other people are here to serve me".

    Market's are just aggregate effects of individual free choices. They aren't mysterious disembodied entities. Controlling the market means controlling PEOPLE.

  • ||

    Even if what you say is correct and BP can pay for the destruction it has wrought... what happens when an oil company that can’t meet the liability of it’s spill has a rig blow up?

    They go out of business after being sued into oblivion. Their assets are liquidated. We laugh and drink the tears of their idiocy to comfort us from the abject waste of their malinvestments/screw-ups.

    Or are you willing to interfere in the free market and allow only the very biggest oil companies in the world to drill out at sea? Whither competition?? That’s one contradiction for you.

    It’s a risky business building an expensive piece of machinery in the middle of deep water to extract a potentially volatile, poisonous substance from below a mile of water and earth and it should not be taken lightly. If, in theory, the potential risks outweighed the benefits without the holy protection of the government, then there would not be an oil platform built by BP currently destroying the Gulf. Moreover, for those who demonize large companies, a larger company should be able to take on the risk, while a smaller company has more to lose if something goes kablooey.

    And even then there is no way that you or anyone else can be sure that BP can meet its liabilities... we are talking about enormous plumes of oil underwater, we are talking of wildlife being harmed for generations. How much is that worth exactly? As usual the Libertarian position is shallow and ill thought out... and what if BP refuses to pay and shifts its assets elsewhere or goes to court and drags out the case... what then?

    It’s hard to escape evidence of property damage especially when it’s widely publicized that BP probably boned this whole disaster up and at the least, destroyed plenty of PRIVATE property for which it should be held accountable. Unlike others, I honestly do not think BP has enough money to sate the home and business owners harmed by this fuck up, but it has a lot, and when your life it destroyed, a check for 50K is better than nothing. Apparently if you support the government’s line in this disaster, you think BP is only responsible for $75 million (or maybe $10 billion if they jack up the liability cap post-disaster) which is far (FAR) below what they would owe otherwise. Moreover, a competent enough lawyer could make an argument that livelihoods have been drastically affected, if not eradicated, by this, thus providing another route to exact righteous vengeance for stupidity. But we can’t do that, because morons like you, who believe in the god-like Federal government, have shielded BP from its responsibility. By extension then, this is the government’s responsibility. I wonder if we can sue the government.

    Now a note on the environment. You demonize private businesses all you want when it comes to their (potential?) impact on the environment (methinks you have seen too many Steven Segal movies), but you conveniently ignore the effect that GOVERNMENTS have on the environment. China’s state-controlled economy combined with the multitudes of dump sites that contain rotting CRT televisions, poisoning the rivers, animals, and people is hardly the fault of money-grubbing robber barons. Nobody forced China to dispose of hazardous waste in populated areas. Maybe if they respected property rights a little more, that environmental rape could have been avoided. The U.S.S.R. and now Russia, has fields of desiccated land, ruined by improperly managed industrial/radioactive waste, disposed of like so-much shit-filled diapers. The U.S. government tested nuclear weapons within the atmosphere, under water, and at the edge of space. Worldwide rates of cancer have since gone up in-line with the added radiation currently destroying my testicles. What is our recourse? Can we sue? Can we do anything? At least BP, however short-sighted/stupid/moronic, was trying to produce something that helps people, instead of testing weapons that could wipe people off the face of the planet (for some reason I don’t think that would bother you).

    Most sane people would suggest that the risk of drilling for oil offshore is getting close to outweighing any conceivable benefit... most Americans and definitely most of those in the states affected would say “enough already”... if not now then very soon. You know why? Because most sane people understand that markets are here to serve us not the other way round. Most sane people... not libertarians though. Drill baby drill!! Wasn’t that the libertarians?

    I reiterate the point about drilling for oil, and how potentially destroying the property and livelihoods of thousands (millions?) of people is a risky business. If it is deemed risky enough, very few if any would take the risk in the first place. As a society, we might be poorer. We might have more expensive gasoline, less cars, less roads, etc but we wouldn’t have an oil company, shielded by incompetent short-sighted bureaucrats in the government, that has inadvertently ravaged lives, businesses, and your precious environment with much less accountability.

    If “Drill Baby Drill” was anybody, it was the dumb fuck Neo-Cons who are anything but libertarian. Hell, everyone in Alaska gets money from the government simply for being surrounded by Oil drilling. Blaming Libertarians for the policies of Neo-Cons is like blaming rape victims for the murders perpetrated by others who sort-of but aren’t really against rape.

  • ||

    It's always disorienting when someone writes a soapbox piece for your political philosophy and you find yourself shaking your head "no" at what's being said.

    So, it's wrong to question the impact the Civil Rights Act had on the foundation of private property because it's a 40 year old precedent, but it's okay to decry the even older precedent of income taxes? Why?

    Ascribing libertarianism with this buzz-term of "ideological purity" is a bunch of horseshit. Functional principles are important. That's why we have a constitution. Believing in a set of principles is not necessarily the same thing as being dogmatic and impractical. Forgive the far more rigid analogy--but it simply can never be impractical to point out that 2+2 does not equal 5.

    Rand Paul's comments were not "silly". They were the opposite of "silly"; they were too high-brow for the PC-indoctrinated masses to understand.

    I don't think watering down honest talk for the sake of a culture that isn't ready to hear it is a worthy pursuit. If libertarians need anything, they need more people to come out of the thinktank and start putting their ideas into the mainstream. Stop being so afraid of the Left and throwing bones to them just because they scream the loudest. It just makes libertarians look like political cowards.

  • ||

    Sorry for double-posting, but what's this "small l", "big L" distinction? It's just something people say. It's a silly label. It's not surprising that the Left doesn't know what this means, because I'm not sure if I know what it means either.

  • ||

    "They were the opposite of "silly"; they were too high-brow for the PC-indoctrinated masses to understand"

    Or maybe dogmatic idiots like Rand Paul are so enthralled with the idea of a supposedly perfect philosophy that they deliberately turn off their bullshit-o-meters when they hear the supposedly "libertarian" proposition of not barring discrimination in private economic matters. In other words, libertarians are blinded by rigid ideology, like any hardline religious conservative.

    Whereas the general populace right off the bat hears the libertarian proposition and right off the bat are extremely skeptical. Then they think a little bit, and realize that after 200 years of government favoritism and capital and land accumulation by only the white majority, that allowing discrimination would afford "equal rights" to blacks only on paper, and only with the silly, strict libertarian definition of rights. The day-to-day reality would not be a free world for blacks.

  • ||

    White people suck, unless they're Democrats.

  • ||

    you're such an idiot, that you would assume I'm a Democrat, just because I acknowledge the realities of the 1960's South, and thus support a policy that MOST OF THE PEOPLE SUPPORT.

    Are you saying only Democrats support the civil rights act?

  • ||

    My dick & IQ are so small that I keep posting "____, simplified" as my moniker to try and argue with people. Hopefully I'll get another 100 posts in before people notice how old it is.

  • ||

    You're not a Democrat?

  • ||

    Sure sounds like one.

  • ||

    Apparently, some here think in order to be a libertarian, one has to think like a Democrat.

  • ||

    Fuck that. I gave up on liberalism twenty-odd years ago, and the GOP after that. I'm my own person, not the property of the state... much to Edwin's chagrin, I'm sure.

  • ||

    No, you're not. You're the property of the state, all right, and your job - no, your DUTY - is to work so some of your pay can be siphoned off to pay for people who can work, but refuse to do so... among other things.

    It's the Age of Obama, dude. Give up that individualist bullshit, and start conforming.

    /sarcasm

  • ||

    WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU???!!1/

    So because I don't disagree with the CIVIL RIGHTS act, it must mean I believe everybody is property of the state? Do you fucking idiots fucking lsiten to yourselves? Why the fuck does everything have to be all one way or the other with you psychos? Why do you have to be so god damned fucking opinionated and self-righteous, deliberately refusing to see any gray areas in ANYTHING?

  • ||

    If I were you, Edwin, I wouldn't be casting stones about being opinionated and self-righteous.

    Just sayin'.

    As for why I brought up ownership of the individual... liberals want to tell us how much salt we can eat, where we can/can't smoke in privately-owned buildings, and some liberals even cheerlead for putting people in jail for having a little marijuana after a long day of work.

    And we're STILL at war.

    But, hey, Obama's workin' on it, right?

  • ||

    I forgot to include "my paycheck" as what is seen as a liberal's property, Edwin. You fuckers hold out your hands for bits of it, every payday, when I could spend it on my family and myself so much better.

    But, hey, I'll be dead long before I hit Social Security age. Wasn't that nice of me, to provide a monthly pittance check for a total stranger?

  • ||

    I DON'T FUCKING LIKE OBAMA YOU DUMB PIECE OF SHIT. STOP MAKING DUMB ASS ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT EVERYTHING AND BEING A PSYCHO EXTREMIST AND LISTEN TO PEOPLE EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE.

    READ my larger comment above. READING COMPREHENSION, you ever tried it? Getting rid of discrimination only in the public sector, but still allowing it in the private sector wouldn't have done shit. That would NOT have effectively freed blacks. They would have been "free" and "equal" ONLY ON PAPER, only according to a strict libertarian definition. In REALITY, they would NOT have been free and equal, because for the past 200 years, every piece of land surveyed went only to whites, and all the capital in general belonged to whites, and blacks had to start from scratch just 100 years before then. And no matter what you wish, the economy and the government were and are very intertwined. You can't apply strict libertarian principles in an un-libertarian world and expect to get libertarian results all the time - specifically with some social issues like this.

    So seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you that you have to keep assuming that I'm a democrat? Did it ever occur to you that if your political philosophy only involves trying to read secret motives into other people's claims, that you haven't got much of a philosophy at all?

  • ||

    Um... your disdain for wealth, and white people, kinda give it away, Edwin.

    I am enjoying your Nostradamus schtick, though... it's amazing how you can predict what would have happened in the past, with such clarity and preciseness.

  • ||

    He probably hates Obama so much, because he voted for Cynthia McKinney and was upset when she didn't win because of all the sexist, racist white men who voted for Obama.

  • ||

    "Um... your disdain for wealth, and white people, kinda give it away, Edwin"

    WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!!!??? What the fuck is wrong in your brain? When the fuck did I ever say I disdain wealth? Or white people? You're deliuberately not litsening to what I and fucking like 70% of the country are telling you, andf instead deflecting and hearing only the stupid shit that your brain is stuck on.

    It isn't a fucking prediction, it's a fucking FACT OF LIFE. From day 1, every damn piece of property that was surveyed in this entire country, the South included, went to white peoples, not blacks. Blacks had only been freed from slavery 100 years before, and the entire time since then they had been oppressed by Jim Crow. These are not libertarian things. Ergo, when you try to apply your stupid version of libertarianism to it, you wouldn't get a libertarian result - blacks would be only slightly less fucked than they were before. Oh, so blacks could also start stores that discriminate again whites? Well that doesn't mean shit when BARELY ANY BLACK PEOPLE OWN ANYTHING, ya dumbshit. You see how that works? The world is a complex and brutal place, and a stupid, simplistic, ham-handed application of libertarian principles is just going to bring retarded results.

  • ||

    You guys are fucking stupid, you know that? I hate liberals more than conservatives. Frankly, I just hate liberals, to me libertarianism is just one end of a scale between libertarianism-conservatism - a la what Chuck has been saying. I'm the kind of guy who calls liberals hippies - they piss me off.

    But I can't ignore a basic reality of life. Might be easy for you idiots, but I actually thoroughly think about my positions. And the fact of the matter is not-having title 2 in the CRA probably would not have done much to create and equal and free world for blacks, given the history and the situation at the time. Again, see my examples. This is why people are so surprised when Rand Paul can't even muster a "yes" as to whether he would have voted for the civil rights act. Do liberals use it to try to pait the tea parties as racist? Yeah. But you'll find plenty of people in general, if not most of the populace feeling the same way about the CRA. Numerous libertarian writers have written about how Rand Paul is wrong on this issue.

    Try fucking listening to people you narrow minded douche.

    Oh and don't try to flip it around "no YOU listen to the libertarian side." Yeah I tried that - then I eventually grew up. You've got to graduate from college some time, kids. Sometimes things don't fit into simple answers or philosophies. Sometimes you just have to deal with what the world gave you, instead of making policy as though you had a blank-slate world.

  • ||

    Actually, it is by compromising principle that we ended up with Democrats and Republicans.

    Democrats want to help people. That's great, I am all for personally helping others. But... well... they decided they needed more resources, so they specialized in forcibly taking from one group to give to their favored groups. All in the name of beneficence, of course. The little moral issue of forcibly taking someone's earned property was easily overlooked, after all we live in a world of gray shades..

    Many republicans are just as bad. "We believe in freedom!" they cry as they restrict rights, stem cell research, scientific progress that contradicts Scripture, and lifestyles that are non-Puritanical. "We love small government!" they claim and proceed to balloon deficits and crony up with big business.

    Edwin, do you remember that movie "Wargames"? The computer observes that the only way to win at global thermonuclear warfare is "not to play." The only way to win with the federal government is to defund, descipline, and shrink it. It is very tempting to look at the good that can be accomplished with the limitless money and resources of the federal government and say, hey, we need to encourage this. The problem is that the solution is often eventually worse than the cure. Right now, you are right - the solution of Title II has been "good" for America. It helped redress residual racism. But if it becomes acceptable for the government to control private relationships more and more, suddenly we live in an authoritarian country where ALL of our rights are infringed upon. And the blessing turns into a curse. Libertarians are skeptical of federal solutions, and require assurances that those solutions will be fiscally sound and will not turn poisonous to freedom.

  • ||

    Thank you SB240 - this is the most sensible presentation of the libertarian perspective I've read.

  • ||

    That's valid reasoning and easy to understand - but having no means of warding off would-be invaders and conquerors who would end the sovereignty of the nation and the freedom of it's people isn't very wise. There has to be a balance struck in which we support enough military so that no other nation would give thought at snatching our freedom (or lives) away while at the same time not driving ourselves broke or neglecting other needs that would benefit the nation as a whole. Currently that balance doesn't exist, but in defence of such we are currently involved in a global conflict. Whether we like it or not - there are those who want to kill Americans (civilians because they are the easiest targets) simply because we are Americans and the ideas of freedom we stand for. Some, not all, of those wackos are upset with our global presence - not all of them though. Should we let them continue their campaign to kill American civilians - I'm thinking it's best to go after them and end it. That by no means suggests that I feel we are handling the war on terror properly. We could me far more effective and efficient, but politicians keep hamstringing resources and combat policies.

  • ||

    -if you do learn one thing from me: PROOFREAD!! When multitasking it's the first thing I neglect to lighten the load.

  • ||

    "after 200 years of government favoritism and capital and land accumulation by only the white majority"

    This is the kind of crap one can hear on MSNBC. Is it any wonder why one might question your motives, Edwin?

    Jim Crow is dead and buried. Yes, one racist is one too many, but there are racists - unfortunately - in EVERY race. And having Rand Paul in the Senate is not going to bring back "whites only" anything. Period.

  • ||

    "This is the kind of crap one can hear on MSNBC"
    OK, but how is it wrong?

    Real estate is one of the most important resources in any economy. No matter what you do, you have to do it on land, except for fishing. Basically every economic activity involves real estate in some way. And even with fishing you're sometimes on someone's real property. For 100 years, blacks could not gain any land whatsoever, since they were slaves. Then for the next 100 years, it was pretty much the same because of Jim Crow. Because of UNlibertarian policies, we started off with a highly skewed world when the CRA was passed. Don't you think that might have something to do with why they put in Title 2 into it? How about that in general, blacks had to start from square one economically just 100 years before then when they were freed, and then from then any large numbers of blacks gaining any significant amount of wealth was made impossible by Jim Crow laws? Everything that was owned, everything that you can discriminate WITH, belonged to whites. So you say that while whites could discriminate blacks without title 2, blacks could discriminate against whites. Well that's fine except that blacks didn't HAVE ANYTHING with which they could discriminate. You look at all the things you have to do on a daily basis - all the stores you have to visit: Supermarket, laundromat, mechanic's shop - as you went about your day and did all these things, all the places you went to were for the most part owned by whites. Not to mention your job. You're telling me that blacks would have a free and equal world if discrimination were allowed, but that's just ridiculous given these facts.

  • ||

    Um... your disdain for wealth, and white people, kinda give it away, Edwin.

    LOL the true mark of a fucking idiot. When you can't argue against your opponent, you cry that they are prejudiced.

  • ||

    "Why do you have to be so god damned fucking opinionated and self-righteous, deliberately refusing to see any gray areas in ANYTHING?"

    Pot/kettle.

  • ||

    We use laws to define the foundation of our society. If you create a body of law that promotes segregation and racism, it shouldn't be surprising if society follows suit. You believe that vice-versa is the case; that unless government intervenes upon private property that people will privately engage in racism to such a degree that progress will be impossible. I don't agree. I think you're putting the cart in front of the horse.

  • ||

    We use laws to define the foundation of our society. If you create a body of law that promotes segregation and racism, it shouldn't be surprising if society follows suit. You believe that vice-versa is the case; that unless government intervenes upon private property that people will privately engage in racism to such a degree that progress will be impossible. I don't agree. I think you're putting the cart in front of the horse.

  • ||

    We use laws to define the foundation of our society. If you create a body of law that promotes segregation and racism, it shouldn't be surprising if society follows suit. You believe that vice-versa is the case; that unless government intervenes upon private property that people will privately engage in racism to such a degree that progress will be impossible. I don't agree. I think you're putting the cart in front of the horse.

  • ||

    A libertarian is one who ascribes to the principles of libertarianism, while a Libertarian is one who is a member of the Libertarian Party. A Libertarian is, almost always, a libertarian but a libertarian is often not a Libertarian. Just as one may advocate for democratic ideals but not be a member of the Democratic Party, or enjoy living in a republic without joining the Republican Party.

  • ||

    A libertarian is a Republican who smokes pot.

  • ||

    Or a liberal with money and common sense

  • ||

    A more apt description Mallorie, if I may, would be a libertarian (small 'l') was a Democrat who got mugged, then became a republican. Then got mugged by the by the government/corporate hydra - hence the new and improved metamorphosis. :-)

  • ||

    Nice description, l0b0t...

  • ||

    Err... lObOt

  • ||

    The libertarian movement need to rid itself of the leaches that are attaching itself to it and claiming to be part of it. Social cons oozed their way into the GOP and turned that once-proud party into the radical insanity it is today. The LP has been infiltrated by the same trash and hardly looks like anything libertarian anymore. Now we see right-wingers creeping into the movement and representing themselves as libertarians. They're not. Fascists are not libertarians and they need to be shunned. If there's a sure-fire way to destroy the movement, it's to let wild-eyed empty-headed conservatives call themselves libertarians.

  • ||

    Or maybe your problem is that you call anyone who disagrees with you a fascist and refuse to tolerate people disagreeing with you on even the smallest point, like a child.

  • ||

    Gee, let's see here. A conservative supports corporate rights and wants government to make sure that people behave. I think that's fascism. If you don't think so, condolences. You see, I didn't make the terminology, I just call fascism what it is. Show me a so-called conservative (by today's standards) that also supports civil rights and individual freedom and I'll cut them some slack. I don't have to cut much slack.

  • ||

    Liberals want government to make sure people behave, also. In some ways, they're just as bad as conservatives.

  • ||

    Say that again and the smartgrid will turn off your dishwasher for a week!

  • ||

    Bring it. I don't HAVE a dishwasher! Nyah!

    Hey, wait... why is my cable off all of a sudden?

  • ||

    point wholeheartedly conceded.

  • Thomas O.||

    "Gee, let's see here. A conservative supports corporate rights and wants government to make sure that people behave. I think that's fascism."

    Wouldn't fascists want to control the corporations too?

  • ||

    The closest example of fascism we've had in the world was Italy when it allied itself with Germany. Mussolini touted his gov't as "corporate fascism". What did Italy and Germany of the 1930's have in common - they were socialist nations! I don't recall any conservative in American pushing socialist ideas - look on the opposite side of the spectrum and you'll find the source of socialism and thusly fascism.

  • ||

    +1000

    Amen brother.

    BTW I took this to mean you're referring to the Tea partiers?

  • ||

    You should "take this to mean" what it says. I didn't say a word about Tea partiers, did I?

  • ||

    Hey, chill out. That's just what I thought you meant when you talked about the 'trash' infiltrating the libertarian movement.

    I am in agreement with your original post.

  • ||

    The bottom line is: If you can't support both the economic AND the cultural side of libertarianism, you're not a libertarian.

  • ||

    Please elaborate on the meaning of the cultural side of libertarianism?

  • ||

    Police power, gay rights issues, abortion, free speech - practically anything that doesn't directly involve money or property.

  • Thomas O.||

    You mean "police" in the verb form (instead of the noun form), right? :)

  • ||

    yes, of course. Synonamous with "exercise of pyhsical force"

  • ||

    Ok but the libertarian party makes exceptions for abortion. Ron Paul is pro-life and so is his son. Soo are they not libertarians?

  • ||

    Correct.

  • ||

    ***Rand Paul's comments were not "silly". They were the opposite of "silly"; they were too high-brow for the PC-indoctrinated masses to understand.***

    Too high brow for a PC world? NO.
    Rand Paul’s comments were (and still remain) as silly and unsupportable as ever. His comments only make sense to someone whose conception of humanity, in particular, and the world, in general, is fantastically simple. Stupidly simple. Rand Paul’s nonsense can only be defended by someone who is incapable of understanding the concept of “complementarity”... the notion that some ideas only make sense in combination with other interlocking ideas. Freedoms and responsibilities exist as a duality... the two are inseparable for any practical or meaningful purpose. The individual and society exist in tension as a duality.... the notion of “self” and the notion of “others” exist together. The idea of ownership contains within it both the notion of privilege and the concept of responsibility. That’s the real world.
    It’s because most people instinctively understand that owning a business confers both privileges and responsibilities that they find the argument Rand Paul made in favour of Racist business owners utterly unconvincing, and why he wouldn’t give voice to its logical conclusion when Rachel Maddow pressed him to do so on her show. A simple thought experiment will suffice. When a man pays for a dog and takes the dog back to his privately owned home only an idiot will suggest that the concept of his ownership of the dog confers on the man the right to have sex with the said animal. No sane society will condone such an outrage on the grounds of the Sanctity of Private property.

    Yet Paul is arguing that the protection that natural common sense insists we extend to a dog ought not to be available to African Americans. Because it is the same notion of society demanding responsibility as well as conferring privileges that undergirds both situations.
    The libertarian argument that posits that the CRA and other human rights legislation invaribly leads to a slippery slope is a stupid fallacy. Societies at all times decide what they will tolerate for the greater good of all that live in it and we all accept the limits that are set by laws and social convention because we appreciate that, on the whole, we all benefit from the ensuing order and peace... but the boundary between what we tolerate and what we don’t allow is always fluid _ boundaries are not sacrosanct.
    Homosexuality was once considered an abomination, Women once had cicumscribed and limited roles, the concept of what a child was and what society could do with children is radically different than it was even half a century ago.... and we all know of the ugly and terrifying power of racism and xenophobia. We are all aware of it poisonous ability to warp a society’s values... and the nation stood up and said No to racism in the public sphere. It is that simple. And there is no REAL slippery slope involved in banning racism by business owners... not unless there’s real slope involved in banning bestiality or not allowing a man to blow up a historic house he may own ... or kill off the rare animals on an Island he owns... or cut down every tree in a forest he bought without regard to its impact on the landscape... etc, etc. Simply put there isn’t civilisation that allows ownership privileges while ignoring it responsibilities.
    And notion that African Americans should have waited for the Market to wear away the nexus of private behaviour public laws that constituted the Jim Crow is a monstrous idea. No grown up ideology in 2010 can expect to be taken seriously whilst holding onto such a stupid notion. Not least because no one , libertarian or not, can show an empirical case in history of people giving up a privilege they enjoyed over another people or sex or class without being forced to do so. The more interesting question is understanding the psychology that lies behind these so-called libertarian idiocies such as those that Rand Paul spews.... there’s nothing high brow about idiocy.

  • ||

    I disagree.

  • ||

    One point I'll add...Thomas Jefferson wasn't the original libertarian...you can't be a libertarian...and a slave owner. You can argue all he want about 'he was nice to his slaves'. A Is A...and a slave owner is a slave owner. No wonder Thomas Jefferson had crisis' of concience....how can one advocate individual rights and own slaves. When in practice you are a slave owner, it ruins your whole theory. So No!!! Thomas Jefferson was far from being a libertarian, no matter the words he used in the direction of 'freedom', for in the end, actions speak louder than words, and nothing in Jeffersons life screams louder than his ownership of people of color. No apologies Terry, you most cherished beliefs have been demolished. They are as full of shit as 'CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS DISCOVERED AMERICA AND PAVED THE WAY TO A BRIGHTER FUTURE FOR ALL OF US'...it may sound great in a public school history textbook, but A is A...and bullshit is bullshit!

  • ||

    see sock puppets }:>

  • ||

    Bravo! I'm a "reformed liberal" as well, and I absolutely agree with everything you said.

    I think we really need to let the Rand Paul thing go, though. He's made his viewpoints on that whole issue perfectly clear, and it's just silly to keep talking about it. Maybe next we should focus on what he thinks of the Mann Act???

  • ||

    I stopped reading at Jefferson as libertarian. Right. The man took the position that those folk not earning enough income weren't to be taxed at all, and from there on up the tax rates were to be geometrically progressive. He understood, as do I, that the greater the concentration of wealth, the shakier the foundation of any Republic.

    Next thing I know you'll be telling me that Tom Paine was libertarian as well, and never mind his inheritance and value-added taxes that would have funded a pension (social security) starting at age 50, and every American at age 21 getting a one-time payment as compensation for loss of real property (from common human ownership to individual ownership of real property). I imagine that you're one of those who doesn't know what Paine meant by his, possession is 9/10ths of the law. Means that the rest of us have a claim to your real property, our 1/10th, so pay your 1/10th tithe into the common fund.

    And Lincoln described both of the Pauls rather precisely:

    That perfect liberty they sigh for — the liberty of making slaves of other people.

    Libertarians were wrong about slavery then and they're still wrong about slavery today. Plus ca change, plus c'est le meme chose.

    Truly lastly, no one in their right mind wants libertarianism. That was Russia post-USSR and what the world saw was a bunch of libertarian scumbags rape and pillage the nation. And as one could reasonably expect, the pendulum swung the other way, and so now they've the authoritarian Mr. Putin in charge. And, yes, you are a selfish son of an unwed mother, as it were. Or as Tom Paine so aptly put the matter:

    The contrast of affluence and wretchedness continually meeting and offending the eye, is like dead and living bodies chained together...I care not how affluent some may be, provided that none be miserable in consequence of it. But it is impossible to enjoy affluence with the felicity it is capable of being enjoyed, while so much misery is mingled in the scene...[W]ith respect to justice, it ought not to be left to the choice of detached individuals whether they will do justice or not.
    It is only by organising civilization upon such principles as to act like a system of pulleys, that the whole weight of misery can be removed."

    So have with the Pauls, while the rest of understand Jefferson and Paine for who they were. Progressive, inheritance, and value-added tax men, desirous of a safety net lest the unwashed masses say, enough is enough, and sweep our Republic away. In other words, in addition to any compassion, they also saw the matter as one of self-preservation. That you don't says infinitely more about your innate now fully developed greed than you could ever say by latching onto Jefferson without reciting that he opposed everything you stand for.

  • ||

    ...instead of hiding behind that bullshit progressive euphemism!

    I hate exclamation points. That darned symbol keeps showing up in the emails I get from my network bosses wondering how I'm keeping up with *their* schedule. It's a little red letter to left of the email's subject line they send me. Heck, I don't even know how to read emails, but I know when something, however small, can set my eyebrows ablaze. Just because an exclamation point is black doesn't mean its safe. It could still have a burning ember inside. Now FDR gave his Fireside chats by a fireplace, but I only listened to those chats on a radio - the fire was confined to the White House. FDR had some civility. FDR didn't try to set the world on fire with exclamation points. FDR didn't need even need an explanation point to get the US involved in World War II. We can learn a lot from FDR.

  • ||

    Wow, I guess the chaos that enveloped Russia had nothing to do with a long-term highly authoritarian regime suddenly collapsing and leaving a power vacuum. It was those pesky Soviet Libertarians who caused the problems! Now we all know.

    I think many here are happy to acknowledge that on the subject of slavery, Jefferson did not live the example of the principle that he espoused. Jefferson's failure was in not recognizing slaves as men. A failure of many in his day, and we can only wonder what social constructs that we view as so enlightened will be viewed with head-shaking 230 years from now.

    When modern libertarians state a belief in personal freedom so long as it does not impinge on the rights or property of another, we consider slavery to by a pretty big impingement on the right to "life, liberty, ..." In fact, I can almost guarantee that libertarians go more batshit at the idea of slavery than you do. For you to say that libertarians are just racists looking to reinstate slavery is the exact opposite of the truth. It is like saying that liberals want to nuke poor countries and set the atmosphere on fire, and conservatives want to have gay sex with baboons during the Macy's thanksgiving day parade. It is the opposite of the truth, and the rhetorical gyrations you go through to arrive at your conclusions (?) are dubious.

  • ||

    he never said anything like that'

    you schmucks refuse to actually listen to what anyone is actually saying

  • ||

    what?

  • ||

    "Wow, I guess the chaos that enveloped Russia had nothing to do with a long-term highly authoritarian regime suddenly collapsing and leaving a power vacuum."

    Thanks for proving my point. If
    "personal freedom" is all that, then why should a "power vacuum" be a problem? Shouldn't Russia have tended towards your libertarian utopia and not a 50% slide in GDP over 5 years? And I hope that libertarian you isn't promising us a 2,250% inflation as was the circumstance in Russia in 1992.

    Again, thanks for proving that we do in fact need a govt to regulate your personal freedom, lest a "power vacuum" result, the GDP slide by 50%, the rate of inflation reach 2,250%, and our nation be raped and pillaged by those having their own differing vision of "personal freedom".

  • ||

    If you so desperately want a communist government - try Cuba or China and get back to us so we can all learn how wonderful and free you are under their regimes - k?

  • ||

    Your history of Russia is completely wrong. They still had a gov't, and it wasn't libertarians raping and pillaging. In fact, there wasn't really any raping and pillaging. Perhaps, you were just engaging in hyperbole. Russia - a place where I have lived for two years and speak the language - was robbed by former apparatchiks and the resulting gov't. That is far from libertarianism. The law of the land under Communism - black market and corruption - continued well after the fall. Still, the very existence of a crony-capitalist gov't is more proof of the absence of libertarianism. Besides, even in those rough times, citizens' standards of living went up. If you don't believe me, stand in a supermarket in Moscow today vs. one in the past. Wait, they didn't have those.

  • ||

    It's a moot point really. If you have a nearly-worthless ruble and have nothing to buy are you worse or better off if you have a completely worthless ruble and can't afford anything?

  • ||

    True, one more reason central banks are unnecessary. Most Russians keep their money in dollars and euros, not that that's much better.

  • ||

    For those who have idiotically characterized conservatives and/or republicans as the racists - please use historical facts when researching, well history.

    http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/

    Quite informative historically factual timeline that cannot be disputed - you can continue to lie or fool yourself into thinking you are libertarian, but the facts stand against your characterization of conservatives as racist. And if you actually read that information there is link to smite all your misconceptions or outright lies about "dixicrats".

  • ||

    If conservatives are so right, and so destined to take power because they are so right, and us liberals are destined for the Camps, why do y'all continually feel the need for public whining?

  • ||

    Liberal? Hardly!

    It is time we called them what they are! Marxists!

    Scratch a liberal and under his thin skin is a socilist. Dig a little deeper and you will soon find the Marxist nuclear fuel rod that drives everything he says and does!

  • ||

    I'm willing to bet that you have no idea what a Marxist even is.

  • ||

    This is an exceptionally foolish article. Your "defense" of libertarianism sounds more like pandering to the left to assure them that "real libertarians are nothing like these tea party rabble".
    The meticulous division of the citizens of this country into ever smaller and smaller groups who insist their view is the "pure" one has created the problems we face today.

    Indeed, the constant recent attacks on Rand Paul and Libertarianism are intended to spark exactly the kind of response they have, which is basically to send libertarians scurrying to deny "racism" and separate themselves from Paul, when he is clearly their best chance of winning a prominent victory for limited government, and creating momentum against the current establishment.

    They do the same thing when they denigrate the Tea Party. This article buys into that separation whole heartedly, as has Reason, by and large, regularly using such terms as populist to denigrate and separate their "pure" libertarian ideas from the riff-raff.

    I have news for you. If you want to actually accomplish any of your goals, you will have to hold your nose and jump in with the populace, even if it gets our stink on your fine ideals. We can all work on the ideas we agree on, small government and fiscal responsibility. Or you can keep falling into the trap of separating yourselves so that the supporters of tax and spend can keep winning at divide and conquer.

  • ||

    *****If you so desperately want a communist government - try Cuba or China and get back to us so we can all learn how wonderful and free you are under their regimes - k?****

    It has to be the case that only fools embrace libertarianism.... Your argument is just silly because at no point does he say that China is better than the USA... he merely points out that China, with a centrally controlled system of Government and a centrally planned economy, for the most part, has still managed to VASTLY outperform a Russia who followed a neo-liberal/ Libertarian path, under Yeltsin, which almost led to its ruin. Someone points out that there is no empirical evidence to back up the libertarian hypothesis that less central authority and planning is INVARIABLY a good thing. And all you can muster as an answer is "go and live in Cuba or China". That is not an argument, it explains nothing, adds nothing to what any of us know about libertarianism. In fact all it does is confirm the suspicions that most people have that Libertarians ain't all the big on either thinking or basic intelligence.

    When someone gives you a set of indisputable and empirically proven facts that appear to refute a set of beliefs that you spout as part of your ideology... you can either concede that your argument about the invariable superiority of "smaller government" is not always (or even mostly) right or you come up with a counter argument. You cannot say go and live in China _ especially where it is you and you fellow libertarian travellers who are bitching about the USA as it is today. Most intelligent people understand that "small" government isn't necessarily better and neither is larger Government invariably always worse because most smart people appreciate that complexand advanced economies need fairly large governments (people, right now, are asking the federal Government to tackle the oil spill, they are not relying on a free market or waiting for the invisible hand to scoop the oil)... what most citizens of the world want is effective Governments that can promote social justice, guarantee freedoms and reasonably improve prosperity without degrading the environment for the future generations. The totally free market cannot accomplish any of that neither can the selfish, ill-defined and totally stupid notion of "self ownership".

    That's why it would be a far more logical retort to your position, given what you claim to believe, to say to you... Go and live in Somalia if you think our government is too big!

  • ||

    "what most citizens of the world want is effective Governments that can promote social justice, guarantee freedoms and reasonably improve prosperity without degrading the environment for the future generations."

    Can you cite a source for this claim or are you just projecting your own worldview onto 6 billion other humans?

  • ||

    You want to dispute whether it is true that most people on planet Earth want Social justice? Do you even watch the News? Are you saying that there are places on Earth where a set of people are advocating for less freedom for themselves? If so where are these people?? Or are you suggesting that there are parts of the world where people are clamouring for their environment to be degraded? If so show me these people.

    What I wrote, in the bit you quote, is utterly uncontroversial but it is a measure of how unhinged libertarian ideology appears to be that you are offended by an assertion that humanity wants justice, freedom, prosperity and security... and that most people don't much care about the size of government that can deliver these basic things for themselves and their families.

    The problem with libertarian ideologues is that they have no conception of just how diverse the world they live in is in reality. It must be a product of the implicit selfishness of libertarianism... the truth is that there are places (like Scandinavia) where what you'd call large governments are working and are supported whole heartedly by the people... incidentally Scandinavians also come out as some the happiest people on Earth in most studies (google it). That doesn't mean at all that a Scandinavian solution will work in the USA... what the Scandinavian experience does show though is the falsity of your libertarian nonsense.

  • ||

    I am not saying your claim is untrue, just that if you are making a claim that 6+ billion people all feel a certain way, I would like to see the empirical evidence that leads you to that blanket assertion before I believe it. Especially as it directly contradicts your later assertion that libertarians are the folks with "no conception of just how diverse the world they live in is in reality" and that Scandinavia is a happy place where the people do advocate less freedom for themselves.

  • ||

    The Scandinavian part of Europe is also one of the least 'socially diverse' areas of the world, as well. Very prone to 'group-think'.

  • ||

    Rand Paul has shown everyone three very important reasons why the American public will never embrace libertarian ideology.

    1. Private Business should have the right to discriminate, just like they did before the Civil Rights Act.

    2. Criticizing a foreign owned private business, for one of the most gigantic environmental disasters, is "Un-American"

    3. We should change the constitution to not grant people born in the country citizenship.

    He's only saying what libertarians really think. He just made the mistake of saying these things out in the open, in front of cameras and microphones.

    Good luck.

  • ||

    This is the problem I have with taking the whole libertarian thing with any seriousness_ there’s just a lack of depth and rigour to the way you all think... how can you say something like this in all seriousness. Here’s the quote
    “Especially as it directly contradicts your later assertion that libertarians are the folks with "no conception of just how diverse the world they live in is in reality" and that Scandinavia is a happy place where the people do advocate LESS FREEDOM for themselves.”

    Are you seriously suggesting that people who vote for Social Democratic parties in all corners of the world are voting for less Freedom... seriously? So tell me what is your definition of Freedom? Have you ever come across Isaiah Berlin for instance? Tell me this: is an alcoholic who is drinking himself/ herself to death free just because he can get alcohol, can afford it and no one can stop him? Is that freedom? Define your meaning of freedom because your answer to my post just seems quite palpably absurd. Tell me, what are the freedoms you have that you imagine a Scandinavian in Finland or Denmark lacks? Tell me...
    Your thing about empirical evidence for humans desiring the things that make them happy and content is even more absurd than your freedom thing and I honestly wouldn’t have thought that possible....there may be 6 billion people on Earth but how many do you think want their enviroment degraded? Give me a guesstimate. How many do you think want less social justice? And do you not understand that it is social justice that leads to REAL freedom?
    If you libertarians actually understood freedom and what it meant you’d know that proposing and supporting a solution that would have effectively denied African Americans the right to shop where the majority population shops, school were the majority population schools, eat where the majority population eats, etc... is a denial of their freedoms and an impediment to their self actualisation. No person who is genuinely interested in freedom wants a society where only SOME are free. Makes one wonder about Libertarians

  • Sean W. Malone||

    So... Rigorous thinking about the world includes massive amounts of strawmen, red herrings and hyperbole?

    Check.

  • ||

    What straw men and what red herrings?

  • ||

    "Your thing about empirical evidence ... is even more absurd than your freedom thing."

    That sir, says all one needs to know about your collectivist worldview and why folks that believe thusly have no business making decisions for the rest of us. It is also rather hypocritical, as earlier in this thread you were calling libertarians to task for not responding to a call for empirical evidence. Seriously dude, you're all over the map here. First you ask "Are you saying that there are places on Earth where a set of people are advocating for less freedom for themselves? If so where are these people??" Then you proceed to answer your own question by asserting "...there are places (like Scandinavia) where what you'd call large governments are working and are supported whole heartedly by the people... incidentally Scandinavians also come out as some the happiest people on Earth". I would add there a quite a few nations where people do advocate less freedom for themselves, the Islamic world comes to mind. Or how about France & Switzerland, infringing upon one's freedom to dress as a ninja or build pointy towers?
    **"Are you seriously suggesting that people who vote for Social Democratic parties in all corners of the world are voting for less Freedom...seriously?"**
    Yes.

    **"So tell me what is your definition of Freedom?"**
    Do what thou will, but harm no other shall be the whole of the law.

    **"Have you ever come across Isaiah Berlin for instance?"**
    Never met the guy, but any friend of yours... ;)

    **"Tell me this: is an alcoholic who is drinking himself/ herself to death free just because he can get alcohol, can afford it and no one can stop him? Is that freedom?"**
    No and no.

    **"Define your meaning of freedom because your answer to my post just seems quite palpably absurd."**
    Asked & answered.

    **"Tell me, what are the freedoms you have that you imagine a Scandinavian in Finland or Denmark lacks?"**
    Having never been to those places (they tend to look down upon dusky hued individuals like me), I'm merely guessing: the freedom to carry a concealed weapon, the freedom to drink booze outside or in my car, the freedom to not have to support the lazy & shiftless to such a degree, the freedom to not register my children with the nation state at birth, guarantees on freedom of speech, association, & religion, there are probably quite a few more.

    **"If you libertarians actually understood freedom and what it meant you’d know that proposing and supporting a solution that would have effectively denied African Americans the right to shop where the majority population shops, school were the majority population schools, eat where the majority population eats, etc... is a denial of their freedoms and an impediment to their self actualisation."**
    Here, I must admit, I have no clue what you are talking about. I don't recall libertarians being the ones who instituted Jim Crow laws.

    Your turn. Enlighten us peasants. What is the difference between "self ownership" (which you describe as "...selfish, ill-defined and totally stupid...") and "self actualisation" (which you claim libertarians are trying to deny and impede)? Also, define "social justice".

  • ||

    Or, to summarize: bleh!

  • ||

    I’m sorry to say that you are making no sense at all.... The French majority are not advocating less freedom for themselves they are trying to deny Moslem women, in their midst, the right to choose how they dress... what’s your point? As for the Swiss, they have a system of government that is more akin to what you libertarians believe is best... Switzerland has a very Federal system of government where a lot of power rests with the Cantons and they’ve chosen to pass a xenophobic law.. Again what’s your point?
    I said effectively that most (if not all) of humanity want Social justice, Freedom and prosperity without Environmental degradation... and you want empirical evidence to support the idea that most humanity want to be happy? That is your position? Seriously??? Puhlezze. Where’s your evidence to the contrary?
    The idea that the members of the Islamic world are advocating less freedom for themselves is a typical hidebound comment which is all too common from far too may posters on this forum. Have you heard of the Green revolution in Iran per chance? What about Malaysia or Egypt where El Baradei is being urged to run against Mubarak? Have you heard of the rumblings in Morrocco and Algeria? How about Turkey? Did you listen to your own President’s speech in Cairo? Are you even interested in anywhere else outside the US... much less the Islamic world or are you only interested in lazy stereotypes?

    And please stop confusing yourself... there isn’t any contradiction between wanting more freedom for oneself and and voting for a social democratic party or government in fact for a lot of people the two things are entirely complimentary..

    on these you are just plain wrong
    ***Having never been to those places (they tend to look down upon dusky hued individuals like me)***
    ... Your fellow citizens, a lot of whom post on these forums share this particular attitude you ascribe to people you’ve never met or places you’ve never been. What’s your point? Don’t libertarians believe in the freedom to discriminate on racial grounds? What’s the problem for you?? For your information these places are very welcoming, for the most part. And I ought to know.
    *** I'm merely guessing: the freedom to carry a concealed weapon***
    You have the freedom to carry a concealed in every State of the Union?? Really? Why would you want to carry a concealed weapon any way? What is that about? In what way does the ability to carry a conceal weapon improve a society?
    *** the freedom to drink booze outside or in my car***
    That’s a killer... you have the freedom to drink and drive? And the pedestrians have the choice of being killed by you drunk at the wheel or shot by your concealed weapon. Some freedom!
    ***** the freedom to not have to support the lazy & shiftless to such a degree*****
    What degree would that be? The freedom to be as selfish as you wish, as ignorant as you please and as ill informed as you want. Right on brother!
    *** the freedom to not register my children with the nation state at birth****
    Yep. That will be the freedom from offering up information that can help the medical & welfare services to know where Children are and even if they are being abused (not that I’m suggesting that you’d abuse your children) Why would anyone refuse to register their children’s birth? What is that about? Paranoia??
    **** guarantees on freedom of speech, association, & religion, there are probably quite a few more.****
    Do try and keep up. There’s a Europe wide human rights act that includes all that and more.
    The problem with all this though is that it essentially misses the point. There’s nothing morally superior about small government, there’s nothing that makes it economically more productive, there’s nothing that guarantees better outcomes in terms of social justice or overall happiness and there’s nothing that says that the tax payer won’t get lumbered with even more bills to clean up after industry. In fact there’s nothing to back up anything that you libertarians claim for small government and free markets.
    No one wants large governments for its own sake... what is needed is effective government irrespective of size.

    What I was talking about in the quote you didn’t understand is very simple... if you say that you’re against the CRA and that you would have been happy to allow businesses to continue to discriminate against people on the basis of skin colour... then you can’t possibly claim to understand freedom. Libertarians are all too willing to allow discrimination on the basis of race as some of your writers have made clear. They are willing to allow discrimination on the basis of the sanctity of property rights. Is that not so?

  • ||

    For you from Wikipedia

    ****Self-actualization is a term that has been used in various psychology theories, often in slightly different ways (e.g., Goldstein, Maslow, Rogers). The term was originally introduced by the organismic theorist Kurt Goldstein for the motive to realize all of one's potentialities. In his view, it is the master motive—indeed, the only real motive a person has, all others being merely manifestations of it. However, the concept was brought to prominence in Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory as the final level of psychological development that can be achieved when all basic and mental needs are fulfilled and the "actualisation" of the full personal potential takes place.****

    and please pay particular attention to this part of the quote.... ****the final level of psychological development that can be achieved when all basic and mental needs are fulfilled**** so bear in mind that refusing to allow a minority the opportunity to be fully integrated into a society means that you are basically denying them the opportunity to reach their full potential.

    Self ownership, which is apparently the idea that underpins libertarianism, is something that no one can offer a serious definition for... I'm not a libertarian so I don't know why you expect me to define it for YOU

    ******Social justice is the application of the concept of justice on a social scale. The term appeared before the 1800s,[1] including in the Federalist Papers (#7, referring only to State laws that caused breach of private contracts between private parties amongst said States [2] ) and Edward Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire‎. The idea was elaborated by the moral theologian John A. Ryan, who initiated the concept of a living wage. Father Coughlin also used the term in his publications in the 1930s and the 1940s. The concept was further expanded upon by John Rawls beginning in the 1960s. It is a part of Catholic social teaching, Social Gospel from Episcopalians and is one of the Four Pillars of the Green Party upheld by green parties worldwide. Some tenets of social justice have been adopted by those on the left of the political spectrum.
    Social justice is also a concept that some use to describe the movement towards a socially just world. In this context, social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution. These policies aim to achieve what developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity than may currently exist in some societies, and to manufacture equality of outcome in cases where incidental inequalities appear in a procedurally just system.*****

    That is a definition of social justice... no need to thank me, you could have just googled it all if you were really interested

    So given your rather trite definition of freedom you ought to be able to wholly embrace the concept of social justice... it's got biblical roots.. Allelujah! Give me an Amen!

  • Sean W. Malone||

    That's funny, Johnny John John... Wiki gives a perfectly adequate definition of self-ownership as well, which they define as:

    "the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to be the exclusive controller of her or his own body and life."


    As it turns out, the definition is really fucking simple.

    Every individual is the exclusive arbiter of what they do with their life and their property. "Ownership" in this case is sort of a metaphorical construct more than anything. The point is that you, and no one else gets to tell you how to run your life.

    A lot of important conclusions flow from this concept...

    Murder & slavery are the first order wrongs that are obvious conclusions from the basic axiom of self ownership. Freedom of speech & association are the next obvious conclusions though... And association is where this all comes to a head.

    If you dictate from above who people must, or must not, associate with - for any reason (sex, business, soccer games, education, medical care, etc.) - then you are violating their basic right to be the "exclusive controller" of their decisions.

    Now, this gets "tricky" because sometimes... Hell, a lot of times people behave in ways that you aren't going to like. Discrimination on completely superficial things happen every single day!

    Men reject fat girls at the bar, hot girls reject the bald guys, people judge each other on race, sex, culture... You name it. Happens constantly...

    HOWEVER... Since everyone gets the right to decide for themselves who they spend time with, then there's not much you can do about it except talk to them and try to explain why they're being morons.

    Until they physically harm someone else, then there's no cause for intervention - no matter how repulsive their ideas, or how little we care for their behavior. As long as it hasn't crossed the line into violence and aggression against other people - then they are free to be jackasses. And you are not free to set one damn foot on their property if they don't want you there, no matter the reason.

    However...... I'm free to call them jackasses. I'm free to boycott their businesses, post websites & signs, take out ads in the newspaper exposing them as jackasses... AND, if we're talking about businesses, I'm free (and so are you Johnny!) to compete against those jackasses by starting your own, non-jackass business offering the same product or service.

    The especially cool thing is that when you compete against the racist jackasses... You get a customer base that is only limited by those who want your product, not by silly things like skin color. If the racist asshole doesn't want to serve blacks at his B&B, well by all means - you can!

    You can even make it a part of your ad campaign!

    But you can't force the guy to allow people he doesn't want onto his property... Once you do that, then you are in fact the aggressor, not the racist jackass. You prevent them from murdering people, stealing from them, vandalizing their property, harassing them and violating their rights, but two wrongs don't make a right Johnny Boy... You don't protect liberty by violating the liberty of the people we don't like.

    That argument holds no water with the Patriot Act, and it holds no water with Title II.

    But what I really don't get about your arguments above, especially the social justice ones is that you've skipped all the logical first steps!

    If you think something is an atrocity; if you think that people aren't being properly served by racist businesses, then why don't you just start your own? Why don't you convince others to do the same?

    That should be the first step!

    Not only do you get to feel great about yourself, and provide a service to people who - if you're correct - need your products and aren't being served by the market currently, you also get to become rich in the process... And once you've done that, then you can use all of your money to promote new businesses with the same mission and/or involve yourself in charities championing your beliefs... It's a win for the people who were under-served, it's a win for you, and it's a win for the future... AND IT'S ALL 100% VOLUNTARY!

    But no... instead, you skip that step and go with forcing people to behave how you want. And you do so without remotely considering the secondary effects or the long-term consequences of a government that can overrule individual's decisions with their own property.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Additionally, I should note that real rights don't come from government and they don't come into conflict. Ever.

    The right to property requires the right to liberty which requires the right to life. To claim one right doesn't violate another one - they are not contradictory.

    I don't have to spend time "balancing" those rights... They are each absolute. And they don't come from government or from any charter. I have the right to life because I am a fucking human being. All other human beings on the planet have exactly the same right... They have the unequivocal right to defend themselves, their freedom & their property and if you decide to attempt to abridge against those freedoms - by murdering someone, enslaving them, stealing from them, or otherwise using violence against them, you should prepare yourself for the consequences.

    Unfortunately, what some people label as "rights", are - in fact - more aptly described as "privileges".

    These include all of the so-called "positive" liberties - the "self-actualization" "rights". Privileges to food, shelter, clothing, medical care, the privilege to sue people for insulting your religion or anything else, the privilege to a job, and even as the UN claims - "to rest and leisure" - ALL contradict with the fundamental liberties to life, liberty & property.

    And each one of those things requires the initiation of force to accomplish. If I say that I have a "right" to food, regardless of my ability to pay for it, then what I'm really saying is I have the "right" to take the product of the farmer's hard work without his consent and without compensation.

    Under ANY other circumstances, that would be rightly considered theft.

    But folks like Johnny are happy to dress it up as self-actualization. Awesome. Having a government take from some people and give to others by force isn't the reflection of "rights". It's a reflection of privilege... And the instant the government goes away, those privileges disappear.

    Alternatively, the minute government goes away, I still have the right - and probably even better opportunity - to speak whatever I want, associate with whom I want, own property & defend my life.

    What Johnny wants aren't additional rights... He wants free shit stolen from the producers and the ability to sue the crap out of people who make fun of him or believe things he doesn't believe. Not awesome.

  • ||

    And the Winner is Johnny! Good job bitch slapping them with knowledge. Personally, I think all libertarians should not be allowed to benefit from the laws they hate so much, which means as far as environmental regulations go-- have fun with some dirty water. :)

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Yes Mallorie... *yawn*... because there is absolutely no incentive for anyone to produce clean water without government or ways of purifying it.

    I'm prettttty sure there was clean water in the US looooong before 1970. Last I checked, my parents, grandparents, and great grandparents all did pretty well without all those "environmental regulations", which I apparently hate so much...

    At least I've figured out why you're excited about Johnny's posts... You're an fucking idiot.

  • ||

    Yes. I am an Idiot. You obviously have no idea about water pollution or permits or discharge of chemicals or case law about toxins in water. Ah yes, but I do because I'm a fucking lawyer. It's hard to take you seriously. You really think the problems or systems before 1970 are equivalent to what is needed now. Your grandparents and great grandparents and even your parents, did not have to deal with industrial wastes like we do. So yes, please drink your dirty water laced with chemicals. On that note, don't drive on the streets or use any public benefits please. Thanks.

  • ||

    One big mistake there, johnny. Just because 'organized religion' teaches it, does not mean it is based in Scripture.... ;-)

  • ||

    If a minority store owner threw out a bunch of skinheads, the left would surely appluad him for courageously standing up to racism, or something to that effect. But if a racist store owner refused to serve minorities, then the liberals will cry foul.

    So you can see the break between the left and the libertarians even on issues they seemingly agree on. Libertarians (John Stossel comes to mind) don't seem to make a distinction between the two situations above. They would argue that all private businesses should be free to to "discriminate" without government intervention, and accept the consequences of the free market for your bigoted choice. I'm not sure I agree, but it's an argument worth debating on.

    Predictably most liberals won't even entertain the thought. I'm sure some of them see Rand Paul and his tea party backers as unhooded KKK members. At the end of the end, the left is up for the government institutionlizing "diversity" or "tolerance". That a university, sports team, or a business lacks a certain amount of women, minorities, or disabled could just be a reflection of interests or achievements (or lack thereof) among different groups of people. That the Al Sharpton crowd treats left leaning institutions like UCLA as some insidious white establishment that filters out blacks in admission is just comical to me.

  • ||

    ****That's funny, Johnny John John... Wiki gives a perfectly adequate definition of self-ownership as well, which they define as:
    "the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to be the exclusive controller of her or his own body and life."*****

    As I have pointed out before the definition you offer is utterly devoid of any philosphical grounding... what is the process the which a “self” comes to wholly “own” its own self? There has to be a process of some sort, because a baby is born dependent, it grows up in a community, it is supported by its parents, it is educated by teachers and helped by relatives, strangers and friends as it grows up.... by what means then would you say that a person comes to have total sovereignity over his own “self”....
    What happens between the “self” that you’ve defined for us and other “selves” that it comes into contact with?... are there any limits at on this self? Because if you accept that there are limits then your talk of one being the “EXCLUSIVE CONTROLLER OF ONE’S OWN BODY AND LIFE” is just so much hogwash.
    There’s no serious philosophical tradition that posits that a person has exclusive control over his life... to claim such a thing would be to say to the strongest amongst us that they can do whatever they want if they view any limits that may exist as impediments in their own mind... there’s nothing in the definition you offered to stop the strongest_whether they be the wealthiest, most physically strong or plain old most psychopathic from doing as they please, given your definition.
    Does a child have any recognisable call on his father’s attention, time or resources? Does a wife have any legitimate demands on a husband? Does the community have any demands on the individual that libertarians recognise... if so how does any of that fit into your silly definiton?
    Everyone knows that the “self” of any individual exists in dynamic tension with others... we define ourselves by others, we differentiate ourselves from others.... there is a symbiotic relation between any individual and the community in which he or she finds themselves.... the real question is what is the ideal relationship and what are proper limits of the call that a community or society can make on an individual and vice versa? The issue is not (and has never been) the infantile talk of a theoretical exclusivity that no one recognises.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Could you please type your inane responses in something more readable than large blocks of text, jackass?

    Thanks. On to your stupidity:

    1. "what is the process the which a “self” comes to wholly “own” its own self?"...

    ..."There’s no serious philosophical tradition that posits that a person has exclusive control over his life..."

    The Age of Enlightenment lasted roughly 150 years. You may want to look into a few philosophers:

    John Locke
    Montesquieu
    Voltaire
    Thomas Paine
    Adam Smith
    Ben Franklin
    David Hume
    Thomas Jefferson

    Beyond that, of course, if you are not responsible for your own life and actions... who is?? Human beings aren't actually capable of being psychic, Johnny - as a result, there is no legitimate argument to be made for some humans overruling the *peaceful* and *voluntary* decisions of other humans. You don't know what I value, what I am good at, what my goals are or really anything about me at all... I reject utterly any assertion you might make assuming some kind of decision-making authority over me.

    2. "to claim such a thing would be to say to the strongest amongst us that they can do whatever they want if they view any limits that may exist as impediments in their own mind... there’s nothing in the definition you offered to stop the strongest_whether they be the wealthiest, most physically strong or plain old most psychopathic from doing as they please, given your definition."

    Here's where the utter failures begin on your part Little John.

    Either you're completely and utterly devoid of reading comprehension or you are willfully producing a misrepresentation of the arguments posted above.

    As far as I can tell the only thing backing your view is precisely the force you claim is inherent in what I'm talking about.

    Who has bigger guns, who has imprisoned and enslaved more people, who has proven to be more capable of remorseless, even "psychopathic" violence than government? Are you even vaguely familiar with world history? Are you vaguely familiar with the history of the 20th Century where some 262,000,000 people were murdered by their own governments around the world - not including casualties of war??

    The libertarian view, by contrast is precisely that the only role for government is preventing violations of natural rights to life, liberty & property... So built right in there is exactly the thing - in the libertarian view - that can help prevent the kind of might makes right outcome you claim is inevitable.

    The WHOLE point of documents like the Bill of Rights is explicitly to protect those who are not the most powerful from abuses and violations of their liberty. I doubt you'll find a libertarian anywhere who has any disagreements with the Bill of Rights.

    Additionally, you have the right to protect yourself! Essentially, the anarchist point of view on that would be that we all have the right to self-defense, and so instead of having a government do it via taxation - individuals and groups get together and supply their own protection. That would work too. It certainly works fine for the vast majority of banks, casinos & rich neighborhoods.

    The only "limit" to self-ownership is that you don't violate anyone else's right to the same... Someone above already said this, but this is essentially: Do whatever the hell you want without harming anyone else.

    That's not really that difficult or complex an idea - and it is largely the basis for criminal law.

    3. "Does a child have any recognisable call on his father’s attention, time or resources? Does a wife have any legitimate demands on a husband? Does the community have any demands on the individual that libertarians recognise... if so how does any of that fit into your silly definiton?"

    Children are dependent on parents, but they absolutely have nearly all the same rights as human beings... The only issue is that before we consider someone an adult fully capable of taking on adult responsibilities they have to be capable of recognizing rights in others which young children aren't really able to do. This is a long and complicated subject that is kind of beside the main point. Once a child's sense of self is established and they are capable of making decisions and signing contracts, then as far as I'm concerned their adults...

    Marital relationships are purely contractual arrangements between two people. Those two people can make whatever arrangements they want and provided it doesn't effect me, I have no business preventing them. Whatever the contract, verbal or written - that's the extent to which a wife can make demands of the husband.

    And lastly... The "community", like "society" is purely the label we use to describe a grouping of individual human beings living within some proximity to each other.

    The "community" doesn't have a brain, it doesn't make decisions and it cannot make demands on anyone. Only individuals can make demands of other individuals... Because only individuals act.

    You are distorting reality by presuming otherwise... So no, the "community" can't make demands on individuals. The only thing I think anyone has a right to expect from other humans living in their area is the mutual respect for natural rights. I get to run my life, you get to run yours - however you want - and if I want to be free to do what I want, then I have to respect your right to be free to do what you want. If our goals align, then by all means, let's get together and do something mutually beneficial - if they don't... Well, as long as you're not initiating violence against anyone else... What do I care? Enjoy your life.

    That's pretty much the ideal.

    The trick, historically - is getting people to agree to an equal protection and respect for the rights of others. Far too often, it's "freedom for me, not for thee"... As they say.

  • ||

    ****As it turns out, the definition is really fucking simple.
    Every individual is the exclusive arbiter of what they do with their life and their property. "Ownership" in this case is sort of a metaphorical construct more than anything. The point is that you, and no one else gets to tell you how to run your life.....******

    What a load of rubbish. If no one else can tell you what to do with your own property then it must be OK for a man to have sex with his dog. Is there any logical imperative in any thing you say to stop a man having sex with a dog he owns? The dog is his property and no one can tell the man what to do with his own property according to you, right? Ergo it must alright for the man to do what he wants with a dog he owns... he can torture it and he can have sex with it... is that not so? But we all know that no sane society would accept a logical outcome of the things you claim.
    The reality of course is that your property rights accord you certain specific privileges and those privilege are balanced out by a set of responsibilities... THAT IS HOW THE REAL WORLD WORKS. So you cannot be the sole EXCLUSIVE arbiter of what you do with your own property in reality because Society, in its ancient wisdom, says that your property rights are accompanied by real and actual responsibilities that you bound to meet or the rights can be withdrawn.... So once again your infantile philosophy comes up short when it hits reality.

    ****A lot of important conclusions flow from this concept...
    Murder & slavery are the first order wrongs that are obvious conclusions from the basic axiom of self ownership. Freedom of speech & association are the next obvious conclusions though... And association is where this all comes to a head.*****

    I’m sorry but nothing flows from your nonsense but more nonsense. Slaves during the slave trade where defined by even the Catholic Church as 3/5th human. It was an economic imperative that produced the slave trade... people where bought and sold and were considered other peoples property. And all of this was underpinned by laws...There’s no internal logical argument within Libertarianism that is obvious to me that one can use to oppose the slave trade. Libertarianism as you defined it has definition of “self”... it arrogates ceratin privileges (no responsibilities) to a presumed self but it doesn’t tell us what that self actually consists of or how that self is measured... if it does it would have to consider, as a matter of course, the consciousness of not just human beings but also of higher mammals at the very least.
    But the “self” you talk about is undefined... so what argument would you have had to confront the slave trade... most people accepted a definition that rendered Black people as less than human, it was a free market entered into by both black and whites (libertarianism holds the market to be almost sacrosanct) and the people bought and sold were “legitmately” bought and sold at the time... SO WHAT COULD YOU POSSIBLY OBJECT TO IN SLAVERY AND THE SLAVE TRADE? If a man as intelligent as Jefferson felt OK owning slaves... what makes you think that the ship of foolish that libertarianism represent wopuld have made different choices? It’s all very well saying that you’re against slavery now but at the time most of the arguments being made by confederacy for the retention of slavery were quite, quite libertarian in tone... the libertarian argument lay much more with confederacy.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    4. "Is there any logical imperative in any thing you say to stop a man having sex with a dog he owns? The dog is his property and no one can tell the man what to do with his own property according to you, right? Ergo it must alright for the man to do what he wants with a dog he owns... he can torture it and he can have sex with it... is that not so? But we all know that no sane society would accept a logical outcome of the things you claim."

    So, you accuse me of slippery slope arguments and you're main point with property rights is someone having sex with dogs??

    Awesome.

    Naturally, I take you completely seriously... But fine, I'll bite - You've wandered into a legitimate "gray" area, getting into the question of ownership of living things.

    The VAST majority of ownership involves non-living things - which don't remotely come with the hyperbolic problem you've chosen, but in the case of farms & pets and things humans do actually own animals and there are a lot of ways to think about that.

    Rights are the underpinning of human interaction... Not human-dog interaction. By the very nature of animal ownership, the majority of the world is explicitly considering pets, etc. as not having the same rights as humans... My personal view is that natural rights apply only to those creatures capable of asserting them and recognizing them in others. This includes humans... It might also include other some animals (bonobos? chimpanzees? gorillas?), but it's pretty unlikely it includes dogs. Regardless, there's a fine argument to make against mistreating animals under your charge, but that argument doesn't come from any definition of legal or moral rights. At least not for the dog.

    A world in which animals actually had the same rights as humans would also be a world in which close to 100% of those animals would be in jail for murder, theft and some really gross types of vandalism.

    5. "There’s no internal logical argument within Libertarianism that is obvious to me that one can use to oppose the slave trade."

    Please tell me you are not actually this incredibly retarded.

    If everyone is a self-owner, then no one can own another human being!!

    That's RIGHT ON THE FUCKING SURFACE, Johnny!!

    It's a first order principle! If A then A.

    If I "own" me, you "own" you, and everyone else owns themselves, then we can't very well own each other can we? And since the basic libertarian morality starts with self-ownership, and the non-aggression axiom, then by the simplest deduction of ALL FUCKING TIME, libertarianism is completely incompatible with slavery.

    I can't own you, if I understand that you rightfully own yourself.

    Holy christ man... The immorality of slavery, along with murder and theft, is basically a foundational principle of libertarianism.

    And by the way, "self" is clearly defined as an individual human being's differentiation from other human beings.

    IF you are (a normal) HUMAN, then you have developed an identity and you have a "self". Since you get to decide what you want to do with your body & mind as an autonomous person under the libertarian philosophy - slavery is utterly contradictory to that.

    What in the fuck is remotely hard to understand about that concept???

    If the rights to life, liberty & property come from being a human being - as I certainly believe, and which is a basic tenet of libertarianism overall - then it follows that slavery is an abominable violation of the basic, natural rights of man.

    AND GUESS WHAT! A ton of Enlightenment Era philosophers were perfectly clear on that point, and it's funny that you mention Jefferson, because even though he was a hypocrite on the issue - he even recognized the contradiction in writing about liberty and having slaves. However, he was also a product of his time, and like most people during the 1700s, he was pretty damn racist.

    That sucks, but it has absolutely no relevance to the arguments I've just made.

    6. " what makes you think that the ship of foolish that libertarianism represent wopuld have made different choices?"

    The fact that libertarians/classical liberals during the Civil War era WERE opposed to slavery? Does the name Lysander Spooner ring a freakin' bell?

    Are you also aware that Voltaire, Locke, Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, John Adams and dozens of other prominent figures of the Enlightenment opposed slavery?

    Are you also aware, that in spite of his slave ownership - which is a more complex discussion in and of itself that I'm sure you don't have the brain capacity to have - that Jefferson recognized slavery as an evil? And that in his earlier years, promised to do everything he could to find a way to abolish the slave trade (though not slavery itself immediately)? Historian David Brion Davis - who is a world-authority on slavery - once wrote that had Jefferson died in the 1780s, Jefferson would have been remembered as "one of the first statesmen anywhere to advocate concrete measures for eradicating slavery."

    So perhaps... Just maybe his views were more complicated than you understand or care to think about.

    Yep, Jefferson was a racist hypocrite. That's not cool... He was also kind of a shitty President. So what?

    I'm not arguing for you to believe 100% of what Thomas Jefferson believed. So, there again is what's called a "straw man", and really a red herring at the same time. Thanks for that distraction.

    Now as far as I'm concerned at this point you've got exactly 0 credibility.

    NO ONE can be as ignorant as you while spending so much time at this particular blog without sticking your head so far up your own ass, all you can see is intestine.

  • ||

    *****If you dictate from above who people must, or must not, associate with - for any reason (sex, business, soccer games, education, medical care, etc.) - then you are violating their basic right to be the "exclusive controller" of their decisions.
    Now, this gets "tricky" because sometimes... Hell, a lot of times people behave in ways that you aren't going to like. Discrimination on completely superficial things happen every single day!
    Men reject fat girls at the bar, hot girls reject the bald guys, people judge each other on race, sex, culture... You name it. Happens constantly...
    HOWEVER... Since everyone gets the right to decide for themselves who they spend time with, then there's not much you can do about it except talk to them and try to explain why they're being morons.*****

    You make no sense. At all. A business is not about just one- to-one interactions in the private sphere... it has simply never been the case so your examples are just daft and show a simply pathetic grasp of the issue at hand.
    A business benefits from tax breaks, zoning laws, public facilities and whatever else there might be in any given place. Those are privileges that the society offers to businesses through the government in return for the positive contribution they make in providing services for us all. It is entirely within the rights of a society to say that racism IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE, (and privately owned businesses are part of a public realm as no one believes that walking into a shop is the same as walking into a home) is unacceptable and as such it is within the rights of that society to use sanctions to produce an outcome that benefits the vast majority of the population. Especially since the so-called imposition on racist shop owners were minor in comparison to the historic wrong that needed to be righted. if you establish a business you are entitled to all kinds of specific privileges but as usual you have responsibilities too. It really is that simple..
    The mistake you people make is to confuse simplism with profundity... the complexity of the human condition means that there are always tensions between different competeing claims... and it is entirely correct for a society through its elected government to choose and establish boundaries of acceptable behaviour in the public realm .. That’s all the CRA did. Your slippery slope thing is a fallacy, pure and simple.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    7. "A business benefits from tax breaks, zoning laws, public facilities and whatever else there might be in any given place."

    Actually, only a small fraction of businesses "benefit" from any of those things. Typically tax breaks, zoning laws and "whatever else there might be" are used as a blunt tool which well-connected, large corporations use to bludgeon their smaller, less well-connected competitors, but whatever...

    And a more important point is, I - and many other "libertarians" - have repeatedly argued against all such things.

    And for good reason...

    But you seem to forget that businesses - or more accurately business owners, investors and customers PAY for all of the public services they use just like everybody else.

    Unfortunately now your argument has flopped over to one where by very nature of a business being under the domain of a government, the people who own that business give up their property rights?

    That, my friend, is question-begging at it's finest.

    The government obviously claims authority over 100% of it's land, and through taxation, it forces everyone to be complicit in said laws... So we all actually have no choice but to use the government monopoly provided public services. No one is allowed to build highways, power systems, water systems, etc. EXCEPT the government (or those licensed exclusively by them to do the jobs they have to outsource).

    So... The fact that a business "benefits" from the stuff that their owners are forced to pay for seems to be remarkably irrelevant.

    According to that line of reasoning there is absolutely no distinction between private & public.

    Anything that touches anything "public" can apparently be controlled by government... This argument would also, ostensibly, apply to residences... Everyone's home is connected to the municipal power grid, to the sewer system... So the government should then be able to tell you who you must allow in your home too.

    It's an identical argument... You "benefit" from public services too, right? So I guess they can tell you how to live.. I mean... You're part of the public water system right? You probably took some tax-deductions last year... Ergo, "society" has some say on your behavior inside your home just like they have some say on behavior inside someone's business... Know what's even crazier? Sometimes (like for me) someone's business is also their home!! *Gasp!* Now what?

    And since we're talking about "society" making the decisions through their elected government, then hey - I guess wire tapping is ok, I guess laws against homosexuality are fine... The elected government created the laws, so obviously they are legitimate.

    Right?

    This idea is dangerous for all sorts of reasons, and don't give me shit about "slippery slopes", everything anyone has discussed as a long-term consequence of Title II fucking happened already!

    The interstate commerce clause, and essentially your very argument above has been used to force people to do all manner of things! And none of that should have the power to trump the protection of liberties that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution was supposed to provide.

    The rest of the CRA I have absolutely 0 problem with. I'm 100% in favor of using the Federal government in repealing illiberal laws which violate people's liberty at a state & local level. It is possible, however, if you're willing to give this concept a try... to realize that even though 95% of a given piece of legislation could be good, 5% might not be.

    Doesn't mean anyone anywhere is suggesting repealing it... Just means that maybe, just perhaps it's worth recognizing that there are legitimate criticisms.

    Meh.

  • ||

    ***The Age of Enlightenment lasted roughly 150 years. You may want to look into a few philosophers:****

    Let's look at some of the names on your list and what they actually said...

    John Locke: “ The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom”.

    Do you understand what Locke is saying there? He says that it laws that makes us free, it is society being organised along the correct line that gives us our freedom. It is just laws that enable us to achieve freedom. How does that square with Libertarianism that is willing to all allow the unconscionable act of discrimination on the grounds of Race to continue in the name of the sanctity of property?

    ... “The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property”.

    From the quotes it is clear that John Locke has no truck with your simplism. There’s is nothing in John Locke’s philosophy that supports your daft definition. It is clear that if men enter into society for the protection of their property, as Locke says, then it is implicit that we pool our rights... that entails a trade off which, in its turn, means that any question of complete and total sovereignity over ourselves and our property is utterly moot. If you want total and unconstrained “exclusivity” become a hermit.

    Here’s Montesquieu on liberty and society: “ Liberty is the right to do whatever the law permits”... “Society is the union of men and not the men themselves”

    Do you understand that? Society is the UNION of men not the individual men. Society does not consist of atomised human beings doing whatever they want... it is a balance between the individual and the larger group. That's common sense.


    Now we come to Thomas Paine:
    “ He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”

    How does this quote square with the willingness of Libertarians to allow racial discrimination to continue in the name of the sanctity of property? Tell me that....

    Here’s another quote.... “I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy”

    And another..... “If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately.” So which bit of Paine’s thought supports the idiocy of libertarianism? Even more importantly here’s an elaboration of Paine’s view on property...

    Possession is Nine-Tenths of the Law
    “To Paine we owe this saying, but it is often incorrectly quoted. He is not defending the possessor of land, but rather convicting him. The fraction is to draw attention to the debt (the one-tenth, or a normal Church ‘tithe’) that the possessor in fact owes to those who are dispossessed, and society in general. However, Paine, like John Locke before him, does recognize worked land as having an increasing value owing to its occupier. ‘The value of the improvement [through cultivation] so far exceeded the value of the natural earth, … , as to absorb it; till, in the end, the common right of all became confounded into the cultivated right of the individual.’”

    Your stuff is so weak it’s not even funny. Only the most cock-eyed reading of the people you list , from Adam Smith, to Ben Franklin, to David Hume can begin to justify your rubbish. As for Jefferson I can only assume that you have no idea what he stood for.... do some reading. You’ve got nothing.

  • ||

    ****Rights are the underpinning of human interaction... Not human-dog interaction. By the very nature of animal ownership, the majority of the world is explicitly considering pets, etc. as not having the same rights as humans... My personal view is that natural rights apply only to those creatures capable of asserting them and recognizing them in others. This includes humans... It might also include other some animals (bonobos? chimpanzees? gorillas?), but it's pretty unlikely it includes dogs. Regardless, there's a fine argument to make against mistreating animals under your charge, but that argument doesn't come from any definition of legal or moral rights. At least not for the dog.****

    I’m sorry but this does not even begin to address the question. And I’m not talking about a slippery slope at all... the logical conclusion of a law that was enacted today, which allowed total sovereignty over one’s property, would result in the situation I point out involving the dog. And the question has nothing to do with animal rights per se... It is simply a question relating to responsibilities and rights as a duality. And your problem is that you only ever talk of rights without any mention of responsibilities. Your argument here is, to be frank, utter rubbish. You can’t concede that your idea of unrestrained rights to property is a fiction because to concede the point will be to bury your argument.
    And that makes me wonder if you’ve heard of the principle of ADVERSE POSSESSION. I repeat, do some real reading.

  • ||

    ***If everyone is a self-owner, then no one can own another human being!!
    That's RIGHT ON THE FUCKING SURFACE, Johnny!!
    It's a first order principle! If A then A.
    If I "own" me, you "own" you, and everyone else owns themselves, then we can't very well own each other can we?****

    Sorry but swearing won’t solve your problem here and it is a real problem that you’ve got.... self ownership refers to only the “self” in question nothing else. It makes no explicit or implicit connections to anyone else... the only way you can begin to make that connection is by admitting there is such a thing as society.... secondly self ownership has nothing to say about the self’s place in the world or any relationship to the rest of creation and this is a very important omission.. the principle you’ve enunciated doesn’t tell us anything about the individual’s place within the universe in which it finds itself... Something cannot be a first principle merely because you scream FIRST PRINCIPLE!

    The connection you seek to make involves a philosophical leap. Here’s why... If I choose to sell myself, since you claim I wholly own myself, cannot another person buy me? What internal logical imperative within Libertarianism stops me from selling myself or stops some other “self owning” entity from buying me? If that is the case what stops some “self owning” entity from going around and buying up any other self owning entities... pretty soon you end up with a market in, um, what’s it called again?... SLAVES.... That’s it. Your stuff is invalid. Sorry.

    As for the non-aggression axiom..... As I have told you before there is no question of anything flowing from a nonsensical proposition.
    Even if we concede your other points and give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you’re just misguided, you are still left with huge contradiction when it comes to your non-aggression thingy. Tell me, how can you possibly allow the aggressive act of denying a person to opportunity to engage in a commercial transaction on the basis of the colour of their skin when you claim that you have a non-aggression axiom? Is not the very act of a racist refusing a person the opportunity to avail themselves of a service they can afford and need merely on the basis of their race an aggressive act?? You need to do some serious thinking.

  • ||

    What Johnny is really saying is that slavery and forced labor are okay as long as he is in power and has the right intentions. He is smart enough to decide what relationships people in society can have.

    Johnny would probably ban nature and gravity if given the chance, because, you know, laws are the only thing preventing us from flying.

    He sounds exactly like these idiotic social democrats here in Germany that are bankrupting the country, destroying the economy, and blaming Eastern Europeans in the process, all in the name of social justice.

    Probably the most idiotic thing he has said is that larger societies need larger governments. Not according to the Nobel committee that gave Friedrich Hayek the prize for economics. It doesn't matter how large a government is, it still cannot properly regulate the market. No human or group of humans could possibly do it, because perfect knowledge is required to even attempt it. When billions of interactions occur every second, only a naive fool would believe he could regulate that without negative consequences. Even if a group of people could do this, it would still be immoral, because it would be based on the violence of the state. It would also still destroy wealth, because the bureaucrats still have to be funded by private money stolen from the markets.

  • ||

    ‘Top Kill’ Fail ,s oil gushing
    OBAMA,O MY GOD WHAT HAVE WE DONE,THE END OF DAYS,GOD HELP US. INPEACH OBAMA THE COMMUNIST ,GOD OPEN YOUR EYES.///For us there are only two possiblities: either we remain american or we come under the thumb of the communist Mmslim Barack Hussein OBAMA. This latter must not occur.TO THE WEAK-KNEED REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRAT .THE COMMANDER REPOST THIS IF YOU AGREE

  • ||

    Johnny is a child, throwing a little tantrum.

  • ||

    At first, I thought this article was written to liberals. Then I read the first few lines and your sarcastic tone showed me that it was written for conservatives to hear what you want to say to liberals. If that was not your real goal, you did a poor job.

  • ||

    I'm just wondering if Johnny is intentionally ignorant of history and economics or if he's just pretending.

    If there is no self-ownership, then your standard can only be the law of society, as you put it. So, according to your theory of society, as arbitrary and idiotic as it is, how is slavery wrong if it's the law of the land? How is segregation wrong if it's the law of the land? Limitations on abortion are justified under your conception of society. Limitations on homosexual marriage are justified. How is anything the beneficent people above enact against social justice if our only standard is law? You sound like a rule-of-law conservative.

    Social justice is an emotive concept that no one on the planet is against. It's like saying I'm for breathing.

    Nazism was also what society voted for and was the law of the land. How exactly do you overturn these things without the concept of self-ownership and nonaggression?

  • Cheap Christian Louboutin ||

  • ||

    ***What Johnny is really saying is that slavery and forced labor are okay as long as he is in power and has the right intentions. He is smart enough to decide what relationships people in society can have.****

    Total red herring. I have never said or implied any such thing. You may be just a dishonest libertarian or you may have serious problems with comprehension.

    ****Johnny would probably ban nature and gravity if given the chance, because, you know, laws are the only thing preventing us from flying.****

    And your point is what??


    ****He sounds exactly like these idiotic social democrats here in Germany that are bankrupting the country, destroying the economy, and blaming Eastern Europeans in the process, all in the name of social justice.*****

    Angela Merkel is a Social Democrat? Has anyone told her??


    *****Probably the most idiotic thing he has said is that larger societies need larger governments. Not according to the Nobel committee that gave Friedrich Hayek the prize for economics. It doesn't matter how large a government is, it still cannot properly regulate the market. No human or group of humans could possibly do it, because perfect knowledge is required to even attempt it. When billions of interactions occur every second, only a naive fool would believe he could regulate that without negative consequences. Even if a group of people could do this, it would still be immoral, because it would be based on the violence of the state. It would also still destroy wealth, because the bureaucrats still have to be funded by private money stolen from the markets.****

    I‘m sorry but the more complicated and complex a sociey is the bigger the bureaucracy it needs to make things operate. It is just a fact. And the more advanced a country is the complicated its legal framework becomes, the more rules it needs, the more regulators it needs and the more it needs to worry about disparaties in wealth, etc. It’s just a fact.

    Freidrich Hayek had some absolutely great points of criticism for the command economies of the old communist block and he also made some very valid criticisms with regard to the idea of central planning in West but some his other ideas can justly be said to have precipitated the recent crash and the bank bail-outs that had to follow. Hayek is not God. His ideas offer us no clues in how to face problems we have today.. Global warming for one cannot be solved by the market alone... in fact a completely free market will most probably destroy the planet. If you disagree lets hear your view...

    The idea that we should just sit back and do absolutely nothing when we are being told that we have a catastrophic change in the weather ahead of us is just too silly for words. We may never be able to know everything but we cannot let the market destroy our planet in the name of some dystopian ideology that posits that man is not master of his own destiny and therefore we should do nothing. Do you think that the USA would have been founded if Jefferson, Madison and co thought like that?... neither should we allow a regression to a state where it becomes a dog eat dog world and we watch the less fortunate die.

    In any event Hayek would probably have laughed at the idiocy that passes for libertarianism in America today.... And given that he labelled himself a “Burkean Whig” and had nothing but contempt for what he called the “Scientism” of the kind of easy, glib, straight-line thinking exhibited on here... I don’t think that he would be on your side as much as you'd like think. Neither would Karl Popper for that matter.

  • ||

    Good job guys, stringing Johnny along like that. Superb effort.

    Remember, every minute he spends here typing his long, poorly formatted responses is one less minute he's out trying to ban bacon, or metal scissors, or whatever our betters have a bug up their ass about this week.

  • ||

    Self ownership is just a silly idea and I don’t think it gets you very far either as a philosphical or political concept. It is extremely unsubtle and exraordinarily shallow. Except you guys are not explaining properly.

    You ask how you can oppose slavery, Nazism, Bolshevism and all the other idiotic ideas we’ve been lumbered with down the centuries... how about the ideas in Rousseau’s Social Contract, which incidentally helped inspire the American Revolution...

    “Each of us places his person and authority under the supreme direction of the general will, and the group receives each individual as an indivisible part of the whole...”

    Or how about someone on the opposite side to Rousseau like Edmund Burke

    “Society is indeed a contract. It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection. As the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.”

    In my opinion we always need to balance the need of the individual against those of the community... it’s the acknowlegment of the creative tension between the two that creates the best results.Unsophisticated and simplistic ideas may have their attraction but they offer no real answers. There can be no utopia on planet Earth... certainly not with humans. But that is no reason to stop trying either.
    There are no perfect answers to the human condition I’m afraid and there’s no pure self ownership possible. Self ownership as an idea is truly infantile IMHO.

  • ||

    "Total red herring. I have never said or implied any such thing. You may be just a dishonest libertarian or you may have serious problems with comprehension."

    Oh, I understand and understood you all too well. When you say that gov't should have the right to regulate private businesses, telling them who they can and cannot serve, then you accept forced labor.

    "And your point is what??"

    That you want to regulate away nature: scarcity, time, space.

    "Angela Merkel is a Social Democrat? Has anyone told her??"

    It's unsurprising that you are unfamiliar with German politics, but I'll cut you some slack, because you don't live under this regime. In Germany, every party is left of center, all accepting the massive social state and its entitlements. There is no party representing free markets