Situational libertarianism


PDA






Mr. James
August 12, 2005, 04:41 PM
Not quite sure what to make of this one...


Charles Krauthammer
August 12, 2005


WASHINGTON -- In 1977, when a bunch of neo-Nazis decided to march through Skokie, a suburb of Chicago heavily populated with Holocaust survivors, there was controversy as to whether they should be allowed. I thought they should. Why? Because neo-Nazis are utterly powerless.

Had they not been -- had they been a party on the rise, as in late-1920s Germany -- I would have been for not only banning the march, but for practically every measure of harassment and persecution from deportation to imprisonment. A tolerant society has an obligation to be tolerant. Except to those so intolerant that they themselves would abolish tolerance.

Call it situational libertarianism: Liberties should be as unlimited as possible -- unless and until there arises a real threat to the open society. Neo-Nazis are pathetic losers. Why curtail civil liberties to stop them? But when a real threat -- such as jihadism -- arises, a liberal democratic society must deploy every resource, including the repressive powers of the state, to deter and defeat those who would abolish liberal democracy.

Civil libertarians go crazy when you make this argument. Beware the slippery slope, they warn. You start with a snoop in a library, and you end up with Big Brother in your living room.

The problem with this argument is that it is refuted by American history. There is no slippery slope, only a shifting line between liberty and security that responds to existential threats.

During the Civil War, Lincoln went so far as to suspend habeas corpus. When the war ended, America returned to its previous openness. During World War II, Roosevelt interned an entire ethnic group. His policies were soon rescinded (later apologized for) and shortly afterward America embarked on a period of unprecedented expansion of civil rights. Similarly, the Vietnam-era abuses of presidential power were later exposed and undone by Congress.

Our history is clear. We have not slid inexorably toward police power. We have fluctuated between more and less openness depending on need and threat. And after the 9/11 mass murders, America awoke to the need for a limited and temporary shrinkage of civil liberties to prevent more such atrocities.

Britain is just now waking up, post-7/7. Well, at least its prime minister is. His dramatic announcement that Britain will curtail its pathological openness to those who would destroy it -- by outlawing the fostering of hatred and incitement of violence and expelling those engaged in such offenses -- was not universally welcomed.

His own wife had made a speech a week after the second London bombings loftily warning against restricting civil liberties. ``It is all too easy to respond in a way that undermines commitment to our most deeply held values and convictions and cheapens our right to call ourselves a civilized nation,'' declared Cherie Blair. You need only read Tony Blair's 12-point program to appreciate how absurd was his wife's defense of Britain's pre-7/7 civil liberties status quo.

For example, point 3: ``Anyone who has participated in terrorism, or has anything to do with it anywhere will be automatically refused asylum in our country.'' What sane country grants asylum to terrorists in the first place?

Point 5, my favorite, declared ``unacceptable'' the remarkable fact that a man accused of the 1995 Paris metro bombing has successfully resisted extradition across the Channel for 10 years.

Blair's proposals are progress, albeit from a very low baseline -- so low a baseline that the mere announcement of his intent to crack down had immediate effect. Within three days, the notorious Sheikh Omar Bakri, a Syrian-born cleric who has been openly preaching jihad for 19 years, skipped the country and absconded to Beirut.

Not only had Bakri been allowed to run free the whole time, but he had collected more than 300,000 pounds in welfare, plus a 31,000-pound gift from the infidel taxpayers: a Ford Galaxy (because of a childhood leg injury).

It took 52 dead for at least the prime minister to adopt situational libertarianism. Or as Blair put it, ``The rules of the game are changing,'' declaring his readiness, finally, to alter the status quo in the name of elementary self-defense.

Before departing Britain, Bakri complained that it would be unfair to have him deported from the country he reviled: ``I have wives, children, sons-in-law, daughters-in-law. It would be hard on my family if I was deported.''

Wives, no less. Point 10 of Blair's plan would establish a commission to try to get immigrants to adopt more of the local mores.

2005 Washington Post Writers Group

If you enjoyed reading about "Situational libertarianism" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Zak Smith
August 12, 2005, 04:57 PM
His argument begs its own question, and is not principle-based.

A libertarian does not initiate violence. Krauthammer advocates doing so. He's a tyrant is different clothing.

DirksterG30
August 12, 2005, 05:08 PM
"Our history is clear. We have not slid inexorably toward police power. We have fluctuated between more and less openness depending on need and threat. And after the 9/11 mass murders, America awoke to the need for a limited and temporary shrinkage of civil liberties to prevent more such atrocities." - This is what troubles me about Krauthammer's editorial. Just because we regained lost freedoms in the past doesn't mean we will this time. Government's nature is to grow and consolidate more power, and is loathe to give up that power.

I usually agree with Krauthammer, but I think he missed the boat on this one (his views on the 2nd Amendment aren't too hot either.)

XLMiguel
August 12, 2005, 05:09 PM
Interesting. It seems the Brits are starting to discover the downside of 'multiculturalism'. It remains to be seen if they will actually do something about it.

Henry Bowman
August 12, 2005, 05:09 PM
The problem with this argument is that it is refuted by American history. There is no slippery slope, only a shifting line between liberty and security that responds to existential threats. History, however, shows that the line has gradually shifted in only one direction. A longer look at history shows that the shifts back usually happen more quickly and are associated with (usually violent) revolt or collapse.

Rebar
August 12, 2005, 06:55 PM
His point, that we should be tolerant only to the point where further tolerance will destroy us, is a point worth discussing.

R.H. Lee
August 12, 2005, 06:58 PM
Right. Libertarians and liberals both need to learn how to put common sense ahead of ideology.

grampster
August 12, 2005, 07:08 PM
I agree with Rebar's comment. Those who wrap themselves in American freedom and tolerance and have the power to destroy and have shown the will to do so should be thrown under a jail. Freedom of speech only goes so far; that is an American principal. When it has graduated to the point being able to bring down our way of life, I draw the line.

rock jock
August 12, 2005, 07:24 PM
All in all, an excellent article. I agree with the premise, that extreme situations demand an extreme response. I would also say that some of the so-called liberties that the Brits are proposing to restrict are debatable as to whether they fall within the context of "rights." Free speech, IMO, was never designed to allow the kind of jihad message that the Islamofacists are preaching. I certainly don't believe that it falls within the definition of free speech as envisioned by our own Founding Fathers.

History, however, shows that the line has gradually shifted in only one direction.I disagree, and the author points out some very real examples of why this has not been the case in the U.S. Perhaps the most striking example regarding firearms in recent history has been the explosion of states with "shall-issue" laws. Twenty years ago it was unthinkable to legally carry a gun in Texas w/o knowing the local fatcat politicos. Today it is commonplace.

Chris Rhines
August 12, 2005, 07:33 PM
Zak Smith said all that need be said on this subject - although he was nicer than I would have been.

If you're going to abandon your principles when the going gets tough, then why bother having principles at all?

- Chris

R.H. Lee
August 12, 2005, 07:36 PM
Why do you libertarians even bother carrying firearms? Don't your 'principles' preclude their preemptive use in self defense? :rolleyes:

KriegHund
August 12, 2005, 07:37 PM
America awoke to the need for a limited and temporary shrinkage of civil liberties to prevent more such atrocities.

Uh huh. Sure.

That thinking is a major step towards losing all your libertys. Similar to gun registration, really.

"Temporarly shrink" them enough, and soon it wont be so temporary- new 'threats' wil always come about and the authorities will demand more "Temporary measures to insure your safety as a peas- er, citizen"

Chris Rhines
August 12, 2005, 08:04 PM
Sigh.

As usual, Riley, you have no idea what you are talking about.

- Chris

Flyboy
August 12, 2005, 08:12 PM
Free speech, IMO, was never designed to allow the kind of jihad message that the Islamofacists are preaching. I certainly don't believe that it falls within the definition of free speech as envisioned by our own Founding Fathers.
Yes. The Founding Fathers would never have argued that people needed needed to be executed to change a political system, and they certainly wouldn't have appealed to a Supreme Being--a Creator, if you will--for their moral authority.

Nope, that doesn't sound like them at all.

KriegHund
August 12, 2005, 08:17 PM
Meh, many of us will always have double standards when it comes to "Rights"

But, but, they message is wrong! Wrong i tell you! It MUST BE BANNED AT ALL COSTS! MY message is the right one!!!

WHen it comes to rights (not privaleges) its all for all or none for none. Privalages are when its all for one and none for many, or all for many and none for one.

Justin
August 12, 2005, 08:24 PM
I had no idea that Krauthammer was writing satire these days.

Jeff
August 13, 2005, 10:16 AM
If we had leaders and judges whom we could trust with making the right decisions, that is, using fair and moral discretion and judgment, then we all might not be so worried to compromise an absolute principle here or there, in the name of "common sense."

But we don't have leaders and judges we can trust-- how much more evidence do people need-- but instead have a bunch of corrupt, immoral, and greedy tyrants we call Democrats and Republicans.

Art Eatman
August 13, 2005, 01:48 PM
I see lots of argument favoring continuation of rights and not allowing any abrogation thereof. Fine. What I don't see is any sort of alternative solution insofar as stopping the preaching of jihad, stopping the swaying of minds which creates "disciples of death".

When clever people use Rights as a shield during their efforts to destroy us, what, then, should we do?

Art

longeyes
August 13, 2005, 02:04 PM
When did the Founding Fathers ever warn us against common sense??? They were practical men as well as idealists.

You don't embosom those who wish your own destruction and the destruction of the enlightened principles on which your society rests.

Not to grasp this obvious fact is the ne plus ultra of neurosis.

Moondoggie
August 13, 2005, 02:33 PM
The Jihadists have demonstrated both a willingess and the ability to commit mass murder in our country, besides causing damage to our economy. They promise to repeat incidents of mass murder with the goal of imposing their extremist religious facism on the entire world, besides exercising control over the actions of western governments in the meantime.

For the sake of discussion, let's substitute pacifism for libertarinism.....is anybody here who is an avowed pacifist really gonna just stand still and let an aggressor slap you to death??? After all, each blow is ONLY a slap in the chops...not worthy of violating your principles by striking back in defense. Where are you going to decide that if you just stand there and continue to take it you're gonna get slapped to death? 10th slap? 50th slap? Are you willing forfeit your life because you will not act to defend yourself? Consider that if you don't stop this attack, when he's done with you he's moving on to your wife, kids, neighbors. IMHO, that's the big picture.

(BTW, I'm NOT inferring that libertarians are pacifists/cowards.)

The Jihadists know that they are using our own principles against us.

During WWII the Gov't imposed strict rationing of food, gasoline, tires, and most any consumer good that was considered "War Materials". As soon as the war ended, rationing disappeared. "Consumerism" grew by leaps and bounds in the postwar boom.

I support specific actions to counter this threat, but I also believe that we must be vigilant to ensure that when the threat eases, the counter measures also abate.

If we keep the gloves on, these bums are gonna clean our clock!

MechAg94
August 13, 2005, 02:44 PM
Jeff makes a good point. If we had someone we could trust to make the right decisions, we could make him King and that would solve all our problems. But, can you trust the next guy that comes along?

Jihadists being investigated, watched, and arrested for advocating the death of others and planning the overthrow of our govt does not violate my free speach principles. If they were just peacefully advocating a religion, I can live with that. However, that is not what they are doing.

Chris Rhines
August 13, 2005, 05:51 PM
Sometimes I don't know whether to laugh or cry - so I'll do both.

First, the generalities. Principles are beliefs that you simply don't violate, no matter what. If one of your principles is absolute non-violence, then yes, you let the aggressor slap you to death. If one of your principles is the rejection of private property, then you get to use that communal toothbrush. If you don't, then you are nothing but a worthless hypocrite.

I've lately come to the conclusion that the vast majority of people have no principles beyond their own continued comfort.

Second, the specifics. If you truly believe that state-sponsored Islamic terrorism presents a signifigant threat to secular western society, then you are living in a (rather dark and gloomy) fantasy world. There is not a single modern terrorist organization that has ever achieved its goals, and a handful of psychopathic jihadists are not going to change that record. It is silly to throw away your liberty in a futile attempt to prevent what is never going to happen anyway. It is downright evil to throw away MINE.

Before we start talking about solutions, let's make sure that we understand the problem.

- Chris

artherd
August 13, 2005, 05:54 PM
The problem with this argument is that it is refuted by American history. There is no slippery slope, only a shifting line between liberty and security that responds to existential threats.

Benjamin Franklin would have something to say about this guy.

Look, if we have a truely free society, there WILL BE those who try to take advantage of it! PEOPLE WILL DIE! Get used to that, it's part of life.

The idea being, a few people get killed but the rest of us are still free and alive.

As opposed to say: we start hunting down all brown-skinned muslims, and you know what? Those pesky white people who gay-marry, and come to think of it, now while we're at it, anyone not of Ayrian descent and even those who harbor any 'undesireables'. And their famalies. It's really for the greater good and for 'security'.


This guy advocates 'drawing a line' where tyranny meets tyrany in responce. I say there is a good fnicking reason we do not give our government permission to draw such a line as they please!!!

Byron Quick
August 13, 2005, 06:18 PM
When clever people use Rights as a shield during their efforts to destroy us, what, then, should we do?

Depends. Personally, I believe that a law enforcement approach that involves abrogation of traditional rights and liberties is a danger to us all.

On the other hand, I believe that the threat, over time, is greater than what Chris has stated.

I believe that it is primarily a military and intelligence problem: identify the enemy's assets and when those assets are confirmed...initiate military action to destroy, not arrest, those people. Take surrender, if offered, but try to avoid the necessity. This will, of course, depend on a dramatic increase in our intelligence capabilities. Mainly human intelligence and more analysts. I know American citizens who are fluent in Middle Eastern languages who have volunteered and been ignored. I have a friend who's mother is Turkish and his father was Air Force. Born in Turkey. Raised and educated in the US and Turkey. Raised going to mosques and Christian churches. Raised speaking Turkish and English. Speaks Arabic fluently with a Turkish accent. The Army refused him enlistment due to orthopedic plates in his arm back in the nineties. Post 9/11 the Army took him. Granted him an age waiver for Special Forces. He successfully completed the training in 2003. He's still twiddling his thumbs in the USA. Major asset. Beyond acting as a language and cultural instructor...completely unused.

Moondoggie
August 13, 2005, 07:03 PM
OK Chris & Artherd..here's what I percieve as flaws in your arguments:

First of all, I never mentioned "State sponsored"...I'm more concerned about a grassroots radical movement that's fomented in Mosques and Medrassa's all over the Middle East. And, obviously, in Europe and America.

Chris believes that state sponsored terrorism cannot achieve it's goals. The tactics of the Zionists in Israel circa 1948 were definately terrorist in nature. They succeded in driving out a first world military occupation force (The British). The PLO & Hamas have also employed such tactics to good effect..kindly note the present withdrawal of Israeli settlements from the occupied territories. As far as that goes, many of the tactics employed during our revolution against the British were considered "guerilla" tactics and would have been called terrorism if the lexicon of the time included the term. We would not have prevailed if we would have stood on line and fought the British volley for volley. Fighting for "Principles" that we now revere included any and all methods necessary to ensure victory. Including an alliance with France who was the hated enemy (French & Indian Wars anybody?) when we were still a part of Great Britain. Care to research the confiscation without renumeration of Tory properties...so much for the property rights of folks who didn't share the views of the founder's.

Artherd's argument has a fatal flaw...when he talks about the idea being that a few get killed "but the rest of us are still free and alive" his syntax assumes that HE is one of the survivors, so it matters not that others suffer. A smidgen self-centered. A sheeple mentality of the first slippery slope order; as long as nothing happens to ME, I'm not willing to compromise MY freedoms to protect the group as a whole. No offense intended. I'm addressing your argument, not you personally.

The world is not static. Principles and values must sometimes be modified to meet real challenges. For better or worse, we have elected representatives that we placed in authority to deal with our collective security. If we disagree with their actions there are avenues provided in our system of government to provide for their replacement. Our system of checks and balances will work for the benefit and preservation of the majority.

Things that cannot adapt perish.

R.H. Lee
August 14, 2005, 01:06 AM
I agree with Charles Krauthammer. And to those blustering about lack of 'principles' allow me to point out that survival is the primary principle; any other concerns are moot after you're dead.

I don't know whether Islamic terrorism is a 'significant threat' to 'western secular society' or not, and neither do you. But to write off any threat as 'fantasy' is to completely disregard recent events. There are people in the U.S. Israel, Spain, England, Bali, and a dozen other places who will disagree with you, having been devastated by Islamic terrorism.

Perhaps the fantasy you perceive is the abstract lala land of libertarianism. Libertarians seemingly have no connection with society at all. They want to drive on roads and highways (without a license), but don't want to pay taxes to fund them. They want to legalize any and all mind affecting mood altering chemicals while denying any consequences of such an action. They don't believe in sovereign nations or borders, just one big happy blissninny world where everyone seeks to satisfy only their own desires. The only 'principle' to be found in libertarianism is the principle of selfishness. Gimme what I want when I want it and everybody else be damned.

Initiation of force? I submit that a bunch of Islamofascists in public shouting 'death to the west' and 'death to infidels' have initiated force, no less than the mugger who walks up to you on the street and demands your wallet. (The mugger will leave after he gets your money. The Islamic radical will not leave until he gets your life). To assert that such rantings are subject to 'free speech' protections is insane. The society they threaten and would destroy has every right, every obligation, to expel or kill them.

Zak Smith
August 14, 2005, 01:35 AM
Look up "Straw Man" fallacy, and what constitutes "force."

jdberger
August 14, 2005, 04:18 AM
There is not a single modern terrorist organization that has ever achieved its goals, and a handful of psychopathic jihadists are not going to change that record. Define "Modern".?

Ever heard of Zimbabwe?
How about Israel?
The Palestinian Authority?
Ireland?
Lebanon?

All of these states exist due to the action of a few focused and determined indivuduals.

As far as a "significant threat to Western society" I guess it depends on how long term you want to think. In the beginning, Rome wasn't terribly worried about the spread of Christianity...

artherd
August 15, 2005, 03:22 AM
Artherd's argument has a fatal flaw...when he talks about the idea being that a few get killed "but the rest of us are still free and alive" his syntax assumes that HE is one of the survivors, so it matters not that others suffer. A smidgen self-centered. A sheeple mentality of the first slippery slope order; as long as nothing happens to ME, I'm not willing to compromise MY freedoms to protect the group as a whole. No offense intended. I'm addressing your argument, not you personally.


I guess I may be in the minority nowadays, and that is a shocking thought.

But as you say: "as long as nothing happens to ME, I'm not willing to compromise MY freedoms to protect the group as a whole." Hardly, I am fully prepared to be one of the 'unlucky ones' in a free society, rather than eventually *GUARENTEED* to be one of the *SLAUGHTERED* ones in a totalitarian society. Yes I do see it just about that black and white.

Not to berate a point, but, Give me liberty or give me death? :uhoh:

RaggedClaws
August 15, 2005, 12:12 PM
Our history is clear. We have not slid inexorably toward police power. We have fluctuated between more and less openness depending on need and threat.

And in the late 1930's when the international threat of narcotics trafficking arose to challenge the American way of life, we gladly gave up some of our freedoms from unreasonable search and seizure and our right to due process, but now that the threat has passed... uhhhh... wait...


When clever people use Rights as a shield during their efforts to destroy us, what, then, should we do?

Well, we shouldn't take shields away from everyone just because some evil clever people found a use for them. I prefer a society filled with shields, even if the shields are sometimes used to cover criminals and terrorists. Same for swords.

pax
August 15, 2005, 12:39 PM
When clever people use Rights as a shield during their efforts to destroy us, what, then, should we do?
The Founders' solution to that question was the 2nd Amendment.

In other words, rather than limiting the liberty of ordinary citizens in response to a physical threat, they urged that ordinary citizens should have more liberty. And they noted that that increased liberty would limit the threat commensurately.

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

What it meant to the Founders was that able-bodied citizens, who are able to fight and who know how to use their weapons well, are absolutely essential to the safety of the entire society. Because of this fact, the government must not limit the right of individuals to own, carry, or learn how to use powerful weapons.

And this goes back to what Art asked. What do you do when some scurrilous individuals abuse human rights, to endanger the rest of society? I'll tell you what you don't do. You don't disarm the folks who aren't the problem. You don't limit liberty when you are trying to establish safety, because then you won't achieve either.

To limit human freedom is to limit human safety. The two are inextricably linked.

pax

If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual. -- Frank Herbert

dustind
August 20, 2005, 11:54 PM
Some people have been here for three years and still do not know the first thing about the people they are trying to debate against. :banghead:

grimjaw
August 21, 2005, 09:42 AM
Libertarians and liberals both need to learn how to put common sense ahead of ideology.

Conservatives are exempt from this argument, of course.

jmm

Art Eatman
August 21, 2005, 10:00 AM
I agree with pax, of course.

Given our government's behavior toward us, the arrogance and the contempt for the idea that the citizenry has any competence at self-protection, still, the real-world question exists: How do we guard against the hidden bomb?

Sure, Byron's comment about Intel is appropriate. What I see as a problem is how do we gain the Intel within the country, yet not abrogate citizen's rights?

The only way I see that Krauthammer could be correct as to temporary losses of rights would be sunset provisions in any enabling laws. We've already seen Congress' view of sunset provisions in their giving permanency to the Patriot Act.

Art

Byron Quick
August 21, 2005, 10:19 AM
Why do you libertarians even bother carrying firearms? Don't your 'principles' preclude their preemptive use in self defense?

Riley,

There is nothing in libertarian principles that preclude self-defense.

I don't know where you are getting your information about libertarianism from but it's certainly not from the same sources that I get mine from.

And your diatribe that included the road thing? Libertarians believe that roads should be privately owned and maintained. The people who use them would then pay a toll. If you don't use a road, then you don't pay for it. That, my friend, is quite a difference from the pipe dream you were going on about. As far as consequences of drug use go...libertarians do not deny that there are consequences for drug use...they just say that saving us from ourselves isn't a proper function of government. Nor is using government force to make you pay for my wants. Not wanting to tax you to finance my retirement is very selfish of me, now isn't it?

You need to do two things about your knowledge base regarding libertarians: 1)Forget everything you think you know about the subject. 2) Find a real, reliable source of information. What you're claiming sounds ridiculous and is a poor reflection.

Art Eatman
August 21, 2005, 10:37 AM
Riley, any political philosphy has adherents with differing views. It's probably better to say, "They all do." No different from the divisions within religions. No one person defines the philosophy of any group, although many try...

It seems to me the simplest way to look at Libertarianism is to consider it as wanting the minimum of government interference in daily life. Government has no duty to act as "Big Nanny", to act in loco parentis if I have that phrase correct. And, many of today's functions that have been taken over by government would be more appropriate to the private sector.

(Realize I'm generalising, not being specific in definition.)

:), Art

dzimmerm
August 22, 2005, 12:58 AM
If you want to know about libertarianism as it is being used by people who consider themsevles libertarians then it would be best to go to this website.

http://www.lp.org/

That is the website for the political party in the USA that is trying to get folks elected who are libertarians.

I have looked over that website in the past and they had pretty clear platform statements.

I like the definition of libertarianism as being the opposite of authoritarianism. This is outside of liberalism and conservatism. The Republican and Democratic political parties are both authoritarian in their desire for more government control of peoples lives. I used to think the Republicans were not authoritarian but I stopped listening to what they are saying and instead looked at what they are doing. The Democrats at least say and do the same thing. Democrats are definately authoritarian in their veiwpoints.

My sister who is a die hard Democrat does not agree with me. She sees the local democratic party and it's local effects and uses that as her basis for believing that the democratic party is not authoritarian. She is convinced that the gun debate is a smokescreen the republicans use to keep the focus off of more important issues. She kept saying, "The government is not going to take your guns". "Gun issues are non issues and we should look at important issues and not waste time on gun issues" , was another thing she said more than once. I do not debate with her anymore as I found that statistics and other facts are not very important to her. I tried once to show her my copy of the constitution and the declaration of independence, and she was not interested in even looking at them! I pretty much gave up on using rational arguments with her at that point.

I was a republican back when they were trying to get 100 new republicans in office. They had their "100 Day plan" to start limiting government once they were elected to office. I helped get them elected and then I watched as they grew the government rather than limited it's growth. It was at that point that I knew I could not support the republican party.

I was left with looking for a party that had simular viewpoints as I did. The only party that came close was the libertarian one.

Republicans say, "Don't waste your vote, you can't win."
Democrats say, "Don't waste your vote, you can't win"

Libertarians say, "Don't waste your vote, it is one of the most effective ways of telling your representives what your political needs are."

If you vote democratic or republican you are categorized as supporting that parties goals. If you vote libetarian you are categorized as supporting that parties goals. Why would you send the wrong message to your representative?

Do you expect for things to change if you keep voting the way you always have? Do you think the green party and the EPA might be a sign of a cause and effect? There are not many if any green party represenatives in congress yet the EPA has enormous powers. If those people who are voting members of the green party believed the lie that "You waste your vote by voting for a third party" do you think there would be an EPA with the power that it now wields?

The "You waste your vote" argument is on par with other great advertising campaigns that have been successful. I would liken it to the Fritos Corn Chip campaign. "Munch, munch, munchy munchy munch munch, Fritos, corn chips". Do you want to use your vote based on an effective advertising campaign or do you want to use your vote based on your true poltical needs?

dzimmerm

dzimmerm
August 22, 2005, 01:13 AM
If you are looking for a statement of the libetarian parties platform on issues, includuing gun issues please look here.

http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml

You might be pleasantly surprised to see their views on crime and gun ownership. Keep in mind, this is the parties view. Not some piecemeal explanation that you see in the Republican and Democratic parties. I don't think either major party has the guts to actually say where they stand. They prefer to allow individual office holders to have whatever opinion they choose on the subject.

Taft in Ohio is a good example of a Republican who has bent the gun owners of the state over a bench and said spreadim. I live in Ohio and I am not pleased with Mr. Taft's performance.

dzimmerm

griz
August 22, 2005, 08:55 PM
For those who agree with Mr. Krauthammer:

What rights do you propose to limit?
It is already illegal to physically attack America, are you saying those who verbally disagree with American policy (however you want to define that) should be arrested? That's the idea I am hearing from you. If so, do you really think that controling what a terrorist says in public will stop terrorism? I don't. I would rather the real problem people be as vocal as possible. It's like a big red flag saying "keep an eye on me".

I'm all for going after people who attack, or plan to attack, this country. But to merely shut them up will only drive local terrorist deeper under ground.

If you enjoyed reading about "Situational libertarianism" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!