Situational libertarianism

[R.H. Lee]

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]

Look up "Straw Man" fallacy, and what constitutes "force."

 

[jdberger]

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]

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?

 

[RaggedClaws]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Data is available

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]

Position and Issues

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]

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.