<< GLASGOW ATTACKED ~ MAIN ~ GORE EFFECT CHILLS CHILE >>
LIBERTARIANS DEFINED
Remind me again why they’re considered the intellectuals of the Right ... Libertarians are basically just liberals with slightly larger vocabularies and even larger (and frequently less excusable) chips on their shoulders.
(Via Mark Steyn)
my experience with “libertarians” is that most of them are waffling bullshitters, which is why I ignore them
here are some anagrams of “murray rothbard”. i particularly like “drab tarry humor”
Posted by benson swears a lot on 2007 06 30 at 03:56 PM • permalink“Some Reason readers apparently believe that a) the Soviet Union wasn’t really that bad, b) AIDS is caused primarily by something other than sexual promiscuity and/or IV drug use, and c) global warming really exists”
Wow. Reason must have stopped being a libertarian magazine. a) Libertarians hate government, and a one party, in control of everything government is the worst. b) AIDS is caused by (as best we understand it) the HIV virus. c) I can concede the warming of the earth—as we are coming out of The Little Ice Age; being caused by humans, the science is still not there.
Plus, when somebody shoots at them, they run and hide like pussies.
Posted by Jim Treacher on 2007 06 30 at 04:03 PM • permalink“Libertarians are basically just liberals”
I get called a lot of things, but I don’t often get called a liberal.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 06 30 at 04:24 PM • permalinkIntellectual until the legalization of recreational pharmaceuticals became their raison d’être. Now the intellectuals have given way to the stoners.
Posted by nofixedabode on 2007 06 30 at 04:49 PM • permalinkAs a conservative with libertarian leanings (or maybe vice versa), I am often conflicted in these debates.
Posted by AlburyShifton on 2007 06 30 at 05:02 PM • permalinkWell, I think I’m libertarian. Never hung out at a libertarian blog, though, so don’t know if what this Kathy Shaidy’s on about holds water or not. Just Googled “Rothbard” and found out he’s not the evil magician in Swan Lake. Don’t agree with the line “all taxation is theft” but please don’t ask me to debate it right now (still on my first cup of coffee).
Maybe I’m just me.
What? How does an Aussie blog host a barfight betwixt the American Right? Personally, I’ve always thought of myself as more of Heinlein libertarian than a Reason libertarian, but I won’t join the L Party b/c I refuse to rub elbows w/ unreconciled Rand cultists and white Rastafarians. So, yeah. The American Libertarian movement is basically a bunch of self-identified nutters outside of Texas, where they are (often) anti-Establishment Republicans and folk-singers-turned-mystery-writers.
I’m a libertarian, but I gotta say that on the whole we haven’t acquitted ourselves very well in the past few years. Prior to 911 it was standard fare for us to say that we didn’t like foreign military adventures, that the military was to defend against those that attack us. Then all sorts of libertarian journals, think tanks, etc. opposed going after Osama and the Taliban.
I became very skeptical after that.
Posted by Jeffersonian on 2007 06 30 at 06:12 PM • permalinkMy education (well lack of it actually)shines through sometimes.
I don’t recall any mention of Rothbard at Ulladulla High School ...unless maybe he was the Nowra High inside centre and I wasn’t listening to the coach at the time.
The thing is after having read the Wikipedia piece on him after Googling , I am STILL none the wiser. I have rarely read a piece that left me as much in the dark at the end as in the start…. but that one did.
Any “Rothbardians” (or haters of said individual),out there in cyberland who can translate in a few sentences wtf the bloke was on about to a bloke who thought a libertarian was some sheila (or slightly sheilaish bloke ), with glasses who says shhhh all the time in a library ?
I have gathered enough to know civil libertarians give me the irrits….but this seems to be some sort of intellectual cousin of that branch of the libertarian family.
Libertarians are basically just liberals with slightly larger vocabularies and even larger (and frequently less excusable) chips on their shoulders.
And conservatives are basically just John Birchers with much smaller vocabularies and Jesus on their shoulders telling them, “You didn’t come from no monkey, Jim Bob.”
Was my ignorant analysis as stupid as Kathy’s?
“Was my ignorant analysis as stupid as Kathy’s?”
Yup.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 06 30 at 06:49 PM • permalink#17 brett_l
Heinlein, yep. I’m too lazy to qualify as a Randite, no matter how much I value her books.
Modern, bestselling author Terry Goodkind was virtually quoting Rand by book six of his Sword of Truth series. Such thinking might have been evident in the earlier books, but was much less obvious. Still don’t know what happened. Did he suddenly read, for the first time, Ayn Rand after book five, or had he simply built up his popularity enough to “come out”, as it were?
Anyone know of other authors or celebrities that seemingly came out of the libertarian (or just plain conservative) closet at some point during their careers?
And, as I recall (I wasn’t actually there) I think that President Jefferson was the first president to attack the muslims. “From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripolli” He didn’t see that he had much choice after his conversation with the muslim representative he met in France. Jefferson was about as liberal as they came… in his time.
Someone might check me on that… the memory starts to fade after the first 150 years.
“Jefferson was about as liberal as they came”
He was a slaveowner, so I guess I can’t argue with one.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 06 30 at 07:03 PM • permalink‘Don’t agree with the line “all taxation is theft”’
Yeah? If you don’t feel like paying your taxes, then the government will take the money by force. If that ain’t stealing, I don’t know what is.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2007 06 30 at 07:11 PM • permalinkAhh, it seems like only yesterday. When we good on the ship to sail to Tripolli, I was assigned a hammock next to this Scot. He was a baggage handler in his civilian life. We no more than got off the boat than we saw these two guys in robes pull their one camel cart up in front of the harbor gates and light the cart on fire. Not being too bright, they lite themselves on fire too. They egressed the cart and proceeded to attack the guards at the gate, and the whole thing went bits after that. Ah yes… it was a fun time. The Scot always told the story better than I can. But when he told it we were usually quaffing mead or some such. (That was the only time that I could understand him.)
Reason seems to have changed hands or Kathie Shadie should try a different brand of tobacco (Camel unfiltered anyone?). If you want peace, freedom and prosperity then a mix of libertarianism with classical liberalism and cultural conservatism is the way to go. Every group has some nutters and nobody has all the answers, so chill out all you anti libertarians! Otherwise Jason Soon and the gang from Catallaxy will come over and set you on fire (but only to keep you warm!).
Way back in the mists of Internet time (5 or 6 years ago), I took issue with the Libertarians at Samizdata over a number of Libertarian issues, especially privacy.
I maintained privacy (support for) was directly contrary to the core Libertarian position of liberty of the individual. My main argument was along the lines of, less privacy = more security = more freedom.
Which goes to prove, that Libertarians can be as irrational as everybody else (myself included).
Having said that, I’d hardly call them Liberals in the American sense of the term. Although they are Liberals in the British/Australian 19th Century meaning of the term.
#28 Dave Surls
(Takes deep breath, first sip from second cup of coffee).
I know, I know. I’ve thought exactly that, many times. It practical terms, though, we live as a society, in groups, and a democratically elected government is necessary for its long-term stability - to protect the rights of its citizens. What those rights are, exactly, is what all the fuss is about, but for libertarians they are simply life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To enable this, we need protection - in the form of our armed services and customs - from external threats. Likewise, for internal threats, a police force and courts. With a sound and sensible Constitution, that should be about it. I’ll pay taxes for the upkeep of those.
The thing is, of course, that it ain’t gonna happen, anyway. I therefore find myself, these days, thinking somewhat more pragmatically. Hey, for all I know there may be a number of politicians out there thinking similarly. Introducing libertarian values to the current political sphere, however, must be like administering medication to a baby: you use a dropper, and when baby opens its mouth to cry, squirt in a drop or two, then patiently wait for your next opportunity.
Problem is, the PROMINENT libertarians are, alas, idiots (Just as many prominent conservatives and liberals are). The small-L libertarians, however, are quite sane… and dare I say, hawkish. Myself, for instance (OK, perhaps I’m not the best example ;^)).
Christ was a libertarian, in the usual anti-legalistic way, FWIW. Paul even moreso. Peter? He was what Jonah calls “a wild-eyed libertarian” by all Biblical accounts.
I’m proud to be a libertarian, but the “famous” ““libertarians”“? Eh. Not so proud of them.
Kathy thinks all libertarians have something to do with Reason Magazine. Which makes sense, considering all libertarians are Bolsheviks, which is just Russian for “promiscuous, HIV-infected, IV drug usin’, global warmin’, libertarian”.
We all love the Soviet Union. I believe Ayn Rand was its biggest fan.
Now, if you would excuse me, I need to prepare my heroin shots. Breakfast is the most important meal of the day.
All too often, Libertarians can be thought of as the polar opposite of Communists. Collective vs. individual, State vs. anarchy, and so on. They suffer from the same problems, viz., that they end up insisting on a reductio ad absurdum of what are in the main workable notions if taken in moderation. That being said, an analysis using Libertarian concepts is much more likely to be useful—explanatory and predictive—than one based on Socialist theory.
The Libertarian Party in the U.S. is the personification of an oxymoron, a bunch of nutcases as deranged as anyone at Democratic Underground. Don’t take the obvious nuttery of “prominent libertarians” as having anything to do with the actual folks who hold the ideals, though. Libertarian thought threatens lots of rice bowls, and it’s very much in the interest of our self-appointed betters to emphasize the zaniness in order to discourage the analysis.
Regards,
RicThe fact is that there is a large base of people in America who, if you press them on their political leanings, will describe themselves as “libertarian.”
Oh, they don’t vote libertarian (or at least most don’t), and they don’t hang around libertarian chat rooms or meeting places. These people are usually hawkish (in comparison to the official - textbook- libertarian position of isolationism.
These people are often a blend of libertarianism and, as noted earlier, classical liberalism.Posted by daddy dave on 2007 06 30 at 10:09 PM • permalinkIf you want peace, freedom and prosperity then a mix of libertarianism with classical liberalism and cultural conservatism is the way to go.
Yup, libertarians and cultural conservatives go together just like gasoline and fire. (The classical libertarians are like the hapless slow bystander who gets killed in the resulting explosion.)
Here’s my definition of libertarians: a group of people who refuse to accept any other member of the group as being “real” libertarians. They’re kind of like Protestants.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2007 06 30 at 10:16 PM • permalink#38 Grimmy:
No, she’s talking more about the Libertarian Party. The part about it being the “People Who Hate People” party is closer.What you’re thinking of is those of us who think that a government is a necessary evil outweighed by its ability to protect private property. So things like limiting (or outlawing) eminent domain, the right to keep and bear arms, and NOT giving the gummint 40% of your paycheck would seem to descend from that pretty readily. Many of us also are strongly in favor of traditional sovereignty, you know borders and what not. Some of us small “l” folks even believe that if people are gonna try to blow us up, we might as well go out and kill them first.
But, yeah, the American Libertarian Party are people who either think Dick Cheney is a damn hippy or Dennis Kucinich is a Neo-Nazi or hold both opinions simultaneously.
Ah, here it is. I thought I’d seen it in that admirable lexicon of cynicism, The Devil’s Dictionary, by Ambrose Bierce.
Conservative n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as opposed to a Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
Also amusing, when viewed in their intended political context:
Representative n: In national politics, a member of the Lower House in this world, and without discernible hope of promotion in the next.
Honorable adj: Afflicted with an impediment in one’s reach. In legislative bodies it is customary to mention all members as honorable; as, “the honorable gentleman is a scurvy cur.”
The biggest assault on liberty was that mounted by the USSR. It was checked by government, big government and even bigger government spending. While men like Ronald Reagan and John Paul II were doing the hard yards for liberty, “libertarians” were probably having one of their pillow-fights about the meaning of some obscure hadith in the Constitution of Liberty. For the record, Ron Paul opposed the awarding of Congressional Gold Medals to Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan for their services to the maintenance of freedom unless everyone on the Hill paid their share of minting the actual medallions. Tosser.
As a libertarian, all I can say is that all of libertarianism can be reduced to four words—“get off my land”
Also, we are all angry that we were not the secretly the love child of Ayn Rand and Robert Heinlein, and we have decided to make the rest of you pay.
(Much as I would like to admit that I invented that, the joke is really that of writer John Scalzi)
...libertarianism can be reduced to four words —“get off my land”
Reminds me of David Koresh. Interestingly, the Washington Post reported last year that Ron Paul once said he feared being “bombed by the federal government at another Waco.” Paul last week voted with Dennis Kucinich in Congress against sanctions for Iran. Apparently, Tehran’s intentions to bomb people aren’t so credible to this sanctimonious nutball.
>Reminds me of David Koresh.
Well, the government screwed up on that.
>Paul last week voted with Dennis Kucinich in Congress against sanctions for Iran. Apparently, Tehran’s intentions to bomb people aren’t so credible to this sanctimonious nutball.
Actually, I have a better idea. Iran has a severe lack of oil refining capacity and in order to budsidize gasoline, they have been IMPORTING US $5B of gasoline a year. Attempts to instill rationing have lead to riots.
I say, buy up all the spare gas in the region and wherever Iran is getting theres. That may start more riots in Iran. US$5B is a lot cheaper than a war
For me, a libertarian is a person who is willing to pay a small amount (taxes) to be mostly left the hell alone by government and other people. They recognize government as (given human nature and culture) a necessary evil, to be constrained and kept as small as possible.
They believe in voluntary interactions wherever possible and that coerced behavior inevitably leads to tyranny. To quote Lincoln, “as I would be no man’s slave, neither would I be any man’s master.” That’s the core of real libertarianism, to my mind.
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2007 07 01 at 12:06 AM • permalinkOh, and most Rothbardians apparently believe that Lincoln was a dictator and that the Civil was illegal, immoral, and just plain wrong. Go figure.
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2007 07 01 at 12:08 AM • permalink#55—Which is true. Most libertarians believe in limited government (“minarchism”—basically viewing government’s main job to guard the coasts). Rothbard was an “anarcho capitalist”—it was unworkable. At one point he tried to infiltrate the radical movement in the late 1960s early 1970s figuring that most of the kids out protesting had no real beliefs. Which was true, but Rothbard wanted to use them for his own revolution.
In short, Rothbard was a nut and frankly has little influence on the modern libertarian movement in the United States. Here, it is MILTON FRIEDMAN (in big capital letters), then Ayn Rand, then Hayek, then Mises.
This is from the ‘Our Beliefs’ page of the Liberal Party site:
—————————————-
What does the Liberal Party stand for ?
We are the party of initiative and enterprise.We believe in the inalienable rights and freedoms of all peoples; and we work towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives; and maximises individual and private sector initiative.
We believe in government that nurtures and encourages its citizens through incentive, rather than putting limits on people through the punishing disincentives of burdensome taxes and the stifling structures of Labor’s corporate state and bureaucratic red tape.
We believe in those most basic freedoms of parliamentary democracy - the freedom of thought, worship, speech and association.
We believe in a just and humane society in which the importance of the family and the role of law and justice is maintained.
We believe in equal opportunity for all Australians; and the encouragement and facilitation of wealth so that all may enjoy the highest possible standards of living, health, education and social justice.
We believe that, wherever possible, government should not compete with an efficient private sector; and that businesses and individuals - not government - are the true creators of wealth and employment.
We believe in preserving Australia’s natural beauty and the environment for future generations.
We believe that our nation has a constructive role to play in maintaining world peace and democracy through alliance with other free nations.
In short, we simply believe in individual freedom and free enterprise; and if you share this belief, then ours is the Party for you.
————————————————
Sounds to me like a libertarian manifesto with a dash of cultural conservatism. Smells deliciously like a recipe for a free and progressive society!
Who said ‘libertarians and cultural conservatives go together just like gasoline and fire’?
Posted by Mick Sutcliffe on 2007 07 01 at 12:46 AM • permalink#59: I’d describe that as ‘libertarian rationalist’ in the sense our US cousins are talking, and note that this accords both with Jorg at #54 and DMinor at #33.
I’d describe myself in this way (as a libertarian rationalist) and note that I fully support the belief system described by MIke Sutcliffe above: it sometimes confuses our US cousins to know that the Liberal party here in Australia is the conservative party.
However, I am not at all sure that the concept of being a ‘libertarian rationalist’ flavoured conservative is fully explainable to people used to libertarians such as those described, who quite frankly seem to me to be closer to nihilists or even anarchists.
Of course, I may be using the wrong terminology!
MarkL
Canberra#59- Unfortunately the Liberal party is big on talk about clasic liberal philosophy, but very small on implemetation- Federally they’re just another tax and spend pack of social democrats, and despite having control of both houses of parliament have done fuck all to reform welfare, taxation or the frivilous expenditure of public money on all manner of bollocks.
I’ve referred to them in the past as “labor lite”, a fairly accurate description and the only reason they’re still electable, as the alternative would be worse; still they’re intrusive and committed to swiping great wads of dosh to piss up a rope- I consider myself an economic conservative and social liberal so I certainly qualify as a libertarian in some ways, but I’m very hawkish in regard to both foreign policy and criminal law enforcement. I think governments only real role is defense, both civil and external, and accept that this is costly and don’t mind kicking in- other expenditure is discretionary and usually unnecessary, and is often enforced altruism; I don’t mind kicking into charities that I support but it sticks in my craw to be forced to fund things I not only don’t avail myself of but moreso things I’m utterly opposed to, such as the yartz, the ABC and industry featherbedding/monoplies.
Can’t disagree with any of that, Habib. The Liberals talk the talk, but they don’t walk the walk.
Posted by Mick Sutcliffe on 2007 07 01 at 04:32 AM • permalink#64- Seems to be a world-wide phenomena- just look at some of the British Conservative Party’s policies, particularly the environment and other luvvie-vital issues; wouldn’t be out of place on Bob Brown’s platform.
If Baroness Thatcher were expired she’d be doing about 3,000 rpm in her coffin as a result of these peanuts. Why is it when societies become more conservative, “conservative” politicians become more “progressive”?
Habib:
Part if it is the process by which representatives are picked in republics such as the US or parliamentary systems as the other democracies use.
Glad handers, pathological liars, smiling johns, and such are what make it through the competition to the big shows.I was once told, and have yet to see a reason to disbelieve, that any person who makes it above community rep level is no longer in full possession of his own soul.
#68: “corrupt” is the wrong concept. Using it to inform the measures you take makes the problem worse.
Every human being has a mix of multiple drives and ambitions. When one of those drives takes over and becomes absolutely controlling to the exception of the others, the person is insane.
One of those ambitions is to be The Leader, because The Leader gets all kinds of bennies, most especially including sex. Since there can be only one Leader the competition is fierce, and anything the wannabee Leader can do to handicap competitors is worth doing. If the ambition has reached the point of insanity such handicaps can also apply to the wannabee, because he will simply ignore them or strive to comply. Eventually, as more and more such handicapping measures are put into place, nobody who isn’t insane is willing to put up with them in order to become The Leader.
We have long since passed that point. The American Founders visualized a system in which public service was an obligation recognized by all members of society, who more or less took turns discharging it. Is there anyone posting here insane enough in that way to put up with the hoops you’d have to jump through to become President or PM? I thought not… But the others in the game are delighted to add further requirements and restrictions, because they’re insane and therefore willing to do literally anything to satisfy their ambitions.
There doesn’t appear to be anything that can be done to keep the mechanism from working. If you require a demonstration of sanity, well, that’s just another hoop, and a position on the Board of Sanity Examiners becomes irresistably attractive to the insane Leader wannabees. About all I can think of to slow the process down is to have a periodic dice toss, or other random mechanism with about a 1:20 chance of coming up—and, if it does, declare everybody currently holding office to be discharged with prejudice, i.e. not permitted to hold any office whatever in future. (Simpler to just shoot them, of course.) It would toss out some babies with the bath water, sure, but we have large enough populations to have a reasonable number of replacements, so it wouldn’t be crippling.
Regards,
RicI was once told, and have yet to see a reason to disbelieve, that any person who makes it above community rep level is no longer in full possession of his own soul.
Grimmy, I’d qualify that by saying “above small community rep”; there appears to be a direct correlation between the size of the tax base and the level of corruption and/or idiocy in modern democracies.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 07 01 at 09:51 AM • permalinkRic, corruption <”lack of integrity or honesty (especially susceptibility to bribery); use of a position of trust for dishonest gain”> is the best term available. What you describe is the motivation for corruption, which the Founding Fathers attempted to circumvent by making public service both a virtue and a duty.
However idealistic they may have been, the Founding Fathers were no fools; they fully understood the foibles of people. That’s why the US Constitution has so many checks and balances built into it. We’ve had corruption in the US since day one, but it’s always been considered a bad thing.
The current state of affairs is largely due to corruption becoming acceptable, even desirable, by the leadership. At least on a “Do as I say, not as I do” level. To paraphrase Heinlein, democracies go downhill when the people find out that they can vote themselves bread and circuses.
(BTW, I disagree with the characterization of Heinlein as a libertarian; he may have libertarian values, but I suspect he was closer to a rational anarchist <a > than a libertarian. If you can deal with pop ups, here is a decent article describing “rational anarchy”.)
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 07 01 at 10:13 AM • permalinkNo No NO!
Liberaarians are not liberls - gthat is the modern, lefty, wimpy, stupid version.
We are raging rigth wingers who regard government as a necessary evil.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 07 01 at 10:14 AM • permalinkIn short, Rothbard was a nut and frankly has little influence on the modern libertarian movement in the United States.
Exactly, and not just in the US. A professor of mine who harbors some sympathies for the anarcho-libertarian mindset (but realizes its utopian nature) once told us that “all the European Rothbardians could fit into this lecture hall [maybe 100-150 people]; in fact, I probably know most of them personally.”
Now, I’m used to people bringing up all kinds of strawmen when talking about libertarians, but using Rothbardians as representative of the current libertarian mindset has to be one of the sillier ones.
Being Canada Day, a little history:
After being told by dinner guests to put up or shut up ranting on about politics and doing nothing, I joined both the “Progressive” Conservative Party and the Alliance Party, with the specific objective of uniting them and getting them into power.
Success on one and a half counts so far. They are in power but with a minority and looking suspiciously like the old “Liberals” in taxing and spending. They get the benefit of doubt until a majority, then they’d better change.
But I digress. During the “uniting” period, I spent a lot of time helping libertarians and traditionalists to get on. So I’m not going to say anything more on this issue I know I’m right :-)
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 07 01 at 10:30 AM • permalink#70 Brett, Your problem is the following:
With anarchy comes the rule of the thug bandit, leading to slavery, destruction and oprression and all other forms of barbary. Once this situation arises, then only a strong despot can thrive.
This is why Libertarians are smart to see that government is a necessary evil, to keep the barbarians at the gate.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 07 01 at 10:38 AM • permalinkNo, JeffS, you’re falling into the terminology trap. The inevitable result is that you will collude with the nutcases to increase the height of the jumps and therefore the power of the filter that passes only the insane.
Consider the concept of “conflict of interest”. It’s soooo plausible: people who have a direct financial interest in the subject are likely to be come “corrupt”, that is, to misuse the office to increase their return. Therefore they should be prevented from holding office, or at least held in great suspicion if they gain office, right?
But—in both the American and Australian economies, anybody who knows shit from Shinola about almost any subject—and particularly subjects where a lot of money is involved—can get a highly remunerative job dealing with that subject. People who are real experts, who genuinely know the ins and outs of the subject in exhaustive detail, can literally write their own invoices, and the merely knowledgeable are avidly sought out by the companies and people dealing with the subject and offered big buck$ to help out.
So the net effect of “conflict of interest” rules is to declare that anybody who actually knows anything about the subject is totally disqualified from policy input on that subject. By focusing on “preventing corruption” we have allowed the insane to put up a barrier that screens out the sane and knowledgeable, but passes nutcases with essentially no restrictions. It makes the problem worse, not better.
Regards,
RicMick Sutcliffe: I can’t see anything in that manifesto you quoted that has anything to do with any social conservative belief. There is more to conservatism than politics and economics.
This is the problem with too many libertarians. You try to talk about morality and they start squeaking about taxes and roads. To find out what libertarians really think about social conservatives, ask them what they think about preteen girls dressed like whores, “fuck” and “shit” on prime-time tv, the glorification of the thug lifestyle (prison haircuts, carefully cultivated five o’clock shadows, that pre-evolutionary ape-walk for men; for women, the above-mentioned hooker-wear, a gaggle of children by different men, vocal tones set permanently on “screeching bitch”; and for both sexes, ass-revealing pants and tattoos), and the generally complete breakdown of civilized behavior just about everywhere, and you get back quotes from Heinlein (though nothing about the wonders of orgiastic sex as are found in his Lazarus Long books among others), statements about “as long as your fist doesn’t hit my nose” or whatever it is, and complaints about prudes wanting to stop all the fun and make everyone sit in dark Baptist churches all day with some fat Southern man yelling at you.
Just because libertarians happen to share some political and economic ideas with conservatives doesn’t mean they are therefore conservative. I share the same liking of a Vente Vanilla Latte at Starbucks with many liberals, that doesn’t mean I am one.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2007 07 01 at 11:53 AM • permalinkNo, JeffS, you’re falling into the terminology trap. The inevitable result is that you will collude with the nutcases to increase the height of the jumps and therefore the power of the filter that passes only the insane.
Methinks that you are falling into the terminology trap, Ric. You define “corruption” as some sort of character flaw, and then enable the insane Leaders by saying it’s natural.
No, you don’t use the term “natural”, but when you say this:
Every human being has a mix of multiple drives and ambitions. When one of those drives takes over and becomes absolutely controlling to the exception of the others, the person is insane.
you are describing what amounts to a “bug” in humans, i.e., a “natural” feature.
But, whether we label them insane or sane, what this describes is a person who is focused on themselves first, and not on their society or nation.
In short, the “insane” person does not share the values (or even) priorities that you or I might. If you like, it’s not a matter of “definitions”, it’s a matter of values, whatever the motivation.
The problem is that values are not consistent across humanity. Bribery is not legal in the United States, but bakeesh is expected in the Middle East. Who is “insane”, the American politician that refuses a bribe, or the Arab minister that demands one? Thus, your comment:
Consider the concept of “conflict of interest”. It’s soooo plausible: people who have a direct financial interest in the subject are likely to be come “corrupt”, that is, to misuse the office to increase their return. Therefore they should be prevented from holding office, or at least held in great suspicion if they gain office, right?
is valid only if you deem a “conflict of interest” as acceptable. Do I tolerate conflicts of interest? Doesn’t matter; in my profession, I am required to accept it, as a condition of employment. Because a conflict of interest is usually not acceptable in the United States.
(BTW, your statement is also misleading; in point of fact, all an American politician need do is divest themselves of any financial interests before assuming office. Ask Dick Cheney about his former ties to Halliburton. Or maybe Paul Kruger about his Enron connection. I can’t say about other countries, but in the US of A, “conflict of interest” is more than a little gray. But bona fide experts can hold office. It’s just that they are not supposed to be financially motivated to do so. Is that insane? Or sane?)
Where this all goes sour is when people flout the laws, placing themselves above them, and disregard the original values. That’s “corruption” in its base form, regardless of the definition (mine just used bribery as a primary example).
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 07 01 at 12:15 PM • permalinkLibertarians, feh. Anarchists with neckties.
“Libertarian: an Iowa Republican who’s thinking of taking up sodomy.”—R. Fiore, The Comics Journal
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 07 01 at 12:18 PM • permalinkI must be an anarchist, richard, ‘cuz I loath neckties. ;-P
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 07 01 at 12:32 PM • permalinkI dont trust libertarianism because all too often I have seen L-people fall on the side of Leftist arguments - all for the sake of being ‘anti’ government and anti-control, and then call THAT conservativism. Too often I have seen libertarianism hijack conservative ideals and turn them on their heads. Also, too often I have seen libertarians join the Left in mocking/castigating/rejecting the conservatives who have religious/spiritual principles to back their stance. I.E. the gay marriage debate. All too often I have seen libertarians espouse a ‘let them have their fun’ approach and belittle those who have been married for protesting - even going so far as to AGREE with the Left that GOVERNMENT should put the Christian Conservatives in their place and be MADE to accept gay marriage through enforcement of laws. After all of that, I tend to view Libertarians as just the wild card bunch of the Left. You never know what side they’re going to fall on and just because they are as right as clocks twice a day, that makes them ‘conservative.’ Sorry. I will continue watching what they advocate.
Posted by Sharon_Ferguson on 2007 07 01 at 01:06 PM • permalinkI have just used a necktie, cut across to make a short loop, to fasten the free end of a dog collar so it doesn’t flop around. That’s the first time I’ve touched a necktie in 20 years. My closet is full of them. Several match the dog collar color pretty well. Also I have some suit jackets in there, some from 1961. They still fit, owing to a crash diet about five years ago, so I’m set if I ever need to wear one again. I’m sure I can bring the style back.
I dont trust libertarianism because all too often I have seen L-people fall on the side of Leftist arguments - all for the sake of being ‘anti’ government and anti-control, and then call THAT conservativism. Too often I have seen libertarianism hijack conservative ideals and turn them on their heads. Also, too often I have seen libertarians join the Left in mocking/castigating/rejecting the conservatives who have religious/spiritual principles to back their stance. I.E. the gay marriage debate. All too often I have seen libertarians espouse a ‘let them have their fun’ approach and belittle those who have been married for protesting - even going so far as to AGREE with the Left that GOVERNMENT should put the Christian Conservatives in their place and be MADE to accept gay marriage through enforcement of laws.
The thing is, American libertarians are somewhat caught between the front lines on many issues. If I may digress to Germany for a second:
Both abortion and gay “marriage” have been much smaller issues here, and likewise in most of Europe, I believe. While legal abortion was a fairly contentious issue when the current rules were drawn up in the early 1990s (legal during the first trimester, after a mandatory consultation with certified organizations), everybody started much closer to the middle ground. On the other hand, in the US you’ve got strong anti-abortion groups that want to outlaw any abortion, and in response you get pro-abortion groups that go equally overboard and demand things like partial birth abortion after 6 months or whatever, which even here in Europe almost nobody would support.
Same thing about gay marriage…I don’t think championing gay partnerships was much of an election winner even here, but again it was a much less contentious issue right out of the gate, and partnership rules (that do not put them equal to marriage) have subsequently been drawn up without much of an outcry. In the US, you get plenty of (usually religious) people who want to see bans on the recognition of any type of homosexual partnership, and as pushback you get insane gay-advocacy groups demanding the right for gays to be married in churches - again an idea that nobody here in Germany would argue for, even with our significantly weakened religious connections.
In other words, it’s somewhat easier to be libertarian over here, no matter if you’re more socially liberal or more socially conservative. Of course, let’s not talk about economic libertarianism, because that would just get too depressing.
Anyway, please excuse American libertarians for occasionally siding with the liberals on social issues…it’s not that they’re enthusiastically taking up that position, it’s just that sometimes the insane liberal position is still slightly less insane than the insane conservative position.
#92 Yes, I have a pic of the necktie and collar on the memory stick. Notice how sharp the Doberman looks. Tie is wrapped around the collar just above the buckle. The color match is remarkable.
(2nd try at posting. I wonder if the hour-ago original will appear suddenly and make me look like an idiot.)
#79 Wimpy Canadian, I wouldn’t be so quick to assume that it requires government to provide law enforcement (or anything else) just because it has done so in the past.
There is a whole list of things that government used to be sole provider for that are now supplied by the market. Security is one of those things that could be in a transitional stage at the moment. Look at the state of local policing in the UK. Ugh.
Actually, the way I heard it, a libertarian is a conservative guy who is hitting on a liberal chick.
My quick test for a politician: is he likely to stay out of my hair for his term of office? If so, he is probably my choice. Politicians who promise to do wonderful things for me, or on my behalf, or for my own good, whether I like it or not, give me a rash and stomach cramps.
I liked Reagan. He took a lot of naps. You can’t cause much trouble while napping, as long as you are alone and not driving a car.
Libertarian means never having to say you’re sorry.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 07 02 at 12:51 AM • permalink#98 There was a Libertarian Party guy who ran for insurance commissioner in Calif. In his statement, he said he would do all he could to abolish his own position. He got my vote, but very few others. (Damn California.)
Posted by dean martin on 2007 07 02 at 12:59 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Who the hell is Rothbard?