A very interesting article written by a Libertarian

uscitizen said:
Who appears to be a true llibertarian. Not just a republican apologist.

http://www.nopc.info/opinions/libvrep.htm
Click to expand...

I think his own Bastiat quote could be easily used against him. I would argue that by wallowing in the obscurity of Third Party Politics when he could be engaging others about his views and issues in the political mainstream is an inept defense of his ideas.

He owes it to his ideas to find out how to make them a reality and not just a philosophical fantasy to argue with his friends about. It is entirely unrealistic to assume he alone can get everything he wants.

No one can get everything they want in a free society. We know in this country especially that it is only in crisis when a large portion of our institutions undergo fundamental change.

If he wants to end the War on Drugs, he should be doing something--anything--to reform the system that allows it to continue.

It might take a hundred years and many will suffer before the policy fades away, but it might otherwise never happen if the only solutions people have to choose from is either the status quo (which most people believe to be fine for themselves) or a 180-degree turn as many Big-L Libertarians would advocate (which many people believe would be a detriment to themselves, their communities and families).

So, he doesn't need to apologize for undesired aspects of the GOP, or the Democratic Party for that matter, to acknowledge that one of the two vehicles will offer him a much better opportunity to make a difference that will move his community, state, country, etc. toward the kinds of views he holds.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
I think his own Bastiat quote could be easily used against him. I would argue that by wallowing in the obscurity of Third Party Politics when he could be engaging others about his views and issues in the political mainstream is an inept defense of his ideas.

He owes it to his ideas to find out how to make them a reality and not just a philosophical fantasy to argue with his friends about. It is entirely unrealistic to assume he alone can get everything he wants.

No one can get everything they want in a free society. We know in this country especially that it is only in crisis when a large portion of our institutions undergo fundamental change.

If he wants to end the War on Drugs, he should be doing something--anything--to reform the system that allows it to continue.

It might take a hundred years and many will suffer before the policy fades away, but it might otherwise never happen if the only solutions people have to choose from is either the status quo (which most people believe to be fine for themselves) or a 180-degree turn as many Big-L Libertarians would advocate (which many people believe would be a detriment to themselves, their communities and families).

So, he doesn't need to apologize for undesired aspects of the GOP, or the Democratic Party for that matter, to acknowledge that one of the two vehicles will offer him a much better opportunity to make a difference that will move his community, state, country, etc. toward the kinds of views he holds.
Click to expand...

You jew globalist zionists always hate third parties, because you don't control them.

So. You're advice is actually bad. This is also why Medved (M.E.D.V. as in vagina E.D.) hates third parties.
 
The main problem I see with Libertarianism is their inability to develop as an affective coalition within either major political party. They seem to have a rigid idealism that causes them to strike out on their own which most often ends up as a party where no one shows up.

Libertarianism has many failings as a political ideology. Libertarians are primarily rights theorist who oppose the initiation of force or fraud against those who have not initiated force, a threat of force or fraud. This is where Libertarians are perceived, rightly or wrongly, as anarchist.

Libertarians do not believe that government has a legitimate role in maintaining social order or morality. This is a preposterous notion as almost all laws have a moral or ethical basis. Libertarians axiomatic belief in liberty and a pragmatic belief that uses the practical outcome of capitalism is not a sustainable philosophy. Abstract concepts, such as liberty, cannot exist in a vacuum. Ideas such as liberty, need to be constantly validated by a process of reason with an underlying philosophy of rational self interest, critical thinking and objectivity. In this context libertarianism falls well short of being a viable political philosophy.

Nor is libertarians belief in lassiez-faire capitalism defensible. Markets are by their nature unstable with their unpredictable cycles of boom and bust. These factors alone argue in favor of limited government intervention and lack of intervention leads to monopolies and stiffled innovation. This belief in lassies-faire capitalism is based on people making rational economic decisions when it's rather obvious to point out that people are not always rational in their decisions. If you want a sure recipe for destabilizing an economy, libertarianism is certainly the way to go.

Libertarians hostility towards the central government also tends to suffer from the law on unintended consequences. Their limiting the size and scope of the central government tends to create an increase parochialism at a local level that most often ends up sacrificing the needs of the whole nation leading to inefficiency, corruption and loss of freedom. The best example of this I can use is when libertarian ideology was used to limit federal powers in order to defend segregation.
 
Still a very interesting article Adam.

Libertarians are even more difficult to have a cohesive force in their party than Demoncrats.
Just one of the aspects of true libertarianism when dealing with the realities of humans and the world we live in.
 
uscitizen said:
Who appears to be a true llibertarian. Not just a republican apologist.

http://www.nopc.info/opinions/libvrep.htm
Click to expand...

From the article:

I support the words of Ayn Rand when she wrote:

"The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence....The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, and to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law."

STY says the police don't have to protect you from criminals.
 
christiefan915 said:
From the article:

I support the words of Ayn Rand when she wrote:

"The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence....The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, and to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law."

STY says the police don't have to protect you from criminals.
Click to expand...
Actually the SCOTUS said that the police do not have to protect you from criminals.
 
christiefan915 said:
From the article:

I support the words of Ayn Rand when she wrote:

"The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence....The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, and to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law."

STY says the police don't have to protect you from criminals.
Click to expand...

The reference was to a Supreme Court descision that you shouldn't expect the Police to be able to protect you, all the time.

Are you really so stupid that you didn't know the exact ruling??
 
christiefan915 said:
From the article:

I support the words of Ayn Rand when she wrote:

"The only proper purpose of a government is to protect man's rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence....The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, and to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law."

STY says the police don't have to protect you from criminals.
Click to expand...

the one fricking time lefties want to preach ayn rand and you use something like this? where did that come from anyway?

and Damo has it right, numerous times that the USSC (United States Supreme Court) has stated very explicitly that no individual has a RIGHT to police protection unless that person is in actual custody. Otherwise, the police are only obligated to provide general protection to the public.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top