pretty good essay from Lew IMHO

[billydkid]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/which-way.html

One line I have a little trouble with is where he asks how did conservative intellectuals go from hating big government in the 1990's to loving it now. Actually, he goes on to suggest, and libertarians have to be careful about this, that conservatives have always had a taste for power worship (something we already know), just like their statist breathren on the left. There are at least a couple of different camps of libertarians in the USA, so you can't really lump us all in together.

I happen to believe there is only one true libertarian inclination (though, there are certainly difficult issues whatever your political approach - no, libertarianism is not utopian, but the examples often given to demonstrate its weaknesses are actually dealt with even more poorly by every other approach.) I'm am digressing a lot, but I see libertarianism consistently misportrayed in here a lot. Unfortunately, I do not have the intellectual ammo to effectively rebut a lot of it.

I will say that this emphasis on "heartless libertarianism" completely doesn't get it. It is fundamental to libertarianism that personal liberty is inseparable from economic liberty and if you go to the trouble to understand the principles in their full implications you will see that it would be, in fact, the most humane of all real world approaches. Anyway, read this Lew Rockwell essay and tell me you don't agree with most of it. Thanks and all my best, BDK

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

One line I have a little trouble with is where he asks how did conservative intellectuals go from hating big government in the 1990's to loving it now. Actually, he goes on to suggest, and libertarians have to be careful about this, that conservatives have always had a taste for power worship (something we already know), just like their statist breathren on the left.

It is worth remembering that if Libertarians could actually win an election (LOL!), they would behave exactly the same way.

 

[Snide]

Re: Re: pretty good essay from Lew IMHO

It is worth remembering that if Libertarians could actually win an election (LOL!), they would behave exactly the same way.

Then why not vote them in? Worst case scenario is no change. Best case scenario is that you are "misunderestimating" them. Even if you're only close to being correct, maybe that's not so bad.

 

[crimresearch]

Because when they become absolutely corrupted by power, they will go overboard with libertarian goals...which still subordinate individual rights to the 'greater good'.

 

[Kerberos]

Re: Re: Re: pretty good essay from Lew IMHO

Then why not vote them in? Worst case scenario is no change. Best case scenario is that you are "misunderestimating" them. Even if you're only close to being correct, maybe that's not so bad.

Actually them behaving like everybody else would be the best case scenario.

 

[Kerberos]

Because when they become absolutely corrupted by power, they will go overboard with libertarian goals...which still subordinate individual rights to the 'greater good'.

Hmm, let's look at how Libertarians behave now: Badnarik has already announced that he intends to prosecute leading IRS employees "in the event that evidence proves that they knew that no statute exists that requires Americans to fill out a 1040 form". I wonder who is going to evaluate the evidence.

He also thinks that he can ignore any laws he doesn't like. Including encroaching on Congress constitutionally enshrined power over currency. Shanek BTW insist that a President violating the Constitution isn't an impeachable offence.

He also thinks that he can not only force Congress to listen to him blather on about his interpretation of the constitution, but also force them to reswear their oaths and tape them for use in future trials "should they ever vote to violate the rights of Americans again."

link

So there's going to be trials against those who “knew” that their Anti-libertarian activities were illegal, and members of Congress will be tried if they pass anti-libertarian laws. Also the inviolable property rights that Libertarianism is built on, doesn't apply to enemies of the people (like the UN) link. Hiel Führer Badnarik!

So how do you think it's going to look like once Badnarik has been corrupted by power?

 

[billydkid]

Why do you do that?

Because when they become absolutely corrupted by power, they will go overboard with libertarian goals...which still subordinate individual rights to the 'greater good'.

Why do you do that? You know full well that the entire basis for the the libertarian movement is the protection of individual right and yet you feel compelled to deliberately misrepresent their position as exactly its opposite. I just don't have a clue what your deal is. You have some serious issues.

 

[Skeptic]

Re: Why do you do that?

Why do you do that? You know full well that the entire basis for the the libertarian movement is the protection of individual right

Only in the same way that the basis for communism is the protection of the workers' rights from opression. In reality, they are both utopistic movements, with the usual situation once they get in power: persecution of "enemies of freedom" under "special" and "temporary" laws that suspend the alleged enemies' rights and freedoms becomes the reality, while the promised "protection of individual rights" or "paradise of the workers" never materializes.

 

[crimresearch]

"...You have some serious issues."

Is that supposed to be your attempt at critical thinking?

The Democratic party power mongers when corrupted by power abandoned their ideals, the Republican party power mongers likewise, and you have no evidence of any kind to support the notion that power mongers with a Libertarian Party bumper sticker will be any different under the same circumstances.

They will by and large, as their predecessors, become seduced by money, re-election pressures, and ego. It is in the nature of the political process, and millions of examples throughout history provide no evidence to the contrary.

And once in power, it is the power mongers who decide what is meant by nebulous and idealistic phrases like 'the protection of individual rights'.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Re: Why do you do that?

Why do you do that? You know full well that the entire basis for the the libertarian movement is the protection of individual right and yet you feel compelled to deliberately misrepresent their position as exactly its opposite. I just don't have a clue what your deal is. You have some serious issues.

What's funny is that most people complain when they are misquoted. Libertarians complain when they aren't.

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: Why do you do that?

In reality, they are both utopistic movements...

No more utopian than the conservative movement, the liberal movement, the democratic movement, the civil rights movement, the anti-racism movement ect... All "movements" have a vision of a perfect world based on their values.

 

[billydkid]

Let me get this straight

Just so I understand - you are opposed to a political philosophy, the founding principle of which is the premise that the role of government should be limited to protecting the rights of the individual, on the basis that it will take away individual rights? And you base this opinion on demonstrated failure of political systems in which the rights of individuals are specifically subordinated to the interests state? Using that logic one would have to wonder what political philosophy would be supportable. I suppose one would have to choose one that expressly intends to curtail individual rights, suppress dissent and oppress its citizens. Oh, gosh, I think we have had those sorts of systems all over the world from time immemorial. Yeah, you are right, why try anything different.

 

[crimresearch]

Re: Let me get this straight

Just so I understand - you are opposed to a political philosophy, the founding principle of which is the premise that the role of government should be limited to protecting the rights of the individual, on the basis that it will take away individual rights? And you base this opinion on demonstrated failure of political systems in which the rights of individuals are specifically subordinated to the interests state? Using that logic one would have to wonder what political philosophy would be supportable. I suppose one would have to choose one that expressly intends to curtail individual rights, suppress dissent and oppress its citizens. Oh, gosh, I think we have had those sorts of systems all over the world from time immemorial. Yeah, you are right, why try anything different.

Really? I am? And here all this time I never knew that I thought that.

Do me a favor wiill you, and link to the posts where I actually said those things?

 

[crimresearch]

Well, since BillyD seems to be having an awfully hard time linking to those non-existent quotes, I'll fill in the awkward silence with some reality about what I think.

In reality:

I am not particularly opposed to the political philosophy known as small 'l' libertarianism.

I *do* think that small 'l' libertarianism and the current Libertarian Party in America, are two different things, much as I think the political philosophy known as democracy is a different entity from the Democratic Party in America today.

I think that there is a great deal of empirical evidence backed by research in the fields of organizational behavior, organizational psychology, political science, management science, sociology, criminology, etc. to support the idea that power and the political process, and the nature of political organizations, combine to corrupt even highly idealistic individuals....
and that those who aren't corrupted rarely get elected to positions of great power, and even more rarely re-elected.

I think that there are exceptions, but that they are very rare, and not enough to effect any practical change in 'business as usual'.

And I think that no one here has presented any convincing evidence to support the notion that career politicians in the Libertarian Party are in any way, shape, or form, specially immune to the effects of power and the political process that influence everyone else.

Therefor, until such time as someone presents different evidence and research, I will maintain my belief that the LP is probably not *currently* a viable solution to political problems on a state, national, or global level, and I'm not so sure that they can even function realistically at the local level.

Got it?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

bump


So we can laugh at Libertarians some more!

 

[Skeptic]

Re: Re: Re: Why do you do that?

All "movements" have a vision of a perfect world based on their values.

Absolutely false. Conservatism never thought the world based on their views would be perfect--or anything near perfect. It merely considered it the case that preserving tradition is worthwhile since experience of ages shows older systems that survived are usually better-NOT perfect. Read Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France", for instance.

Martin Luther King Jr. never considered the world where people "will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" to be a perfect one. He never said (and probably never imagined) that such a world would be without injustice or perfect in any way. He merely wanted to correct THIS injustice--Racism--for the benefit of all.

For Martin Luther King, for this and other reasons, racists and even the KKK were wrong, but were never evil inherently. He famously refused to hate them. They were not evil monsters whose racism is the one thing that stops the world from achieving perfection.

Compare this to both Stalin and Banawhatshisname, the Libertarian "presidential candidate". Both have a list of "enemies" (capitalists, the federal government, the IRS...) whose "removal" is of extreme importance as they stand in the way of the socialist (or libertarian) utopia. THAT sort of thinking leads to gulags--which Banawhatever was already planning for IRS workers.

 

[clk]

bump


So we can laugh at Libertarians some more!

Shut up, you! Maybe you laugh now, but one day the libertarians will rule the world. And then we will have a true utopia, where anyone can get high on cocaine and then walk into their local Wal-Mart and buy a small nuclear weapon. Or an AK-47 with uranium tipped armor piercing bullets.
We should have a right to do these types of things, it says so in the Constitution!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Shut up, you! Maybe you laugh now, but one day the libertarians will rule the world. And then we will have a true utopia, where anyone can get high on cocaine and then walk into their local Wal-Mart and buy a small nuclear weapon. Or an AK-47 with uranium tipped armor piercing bullets.
We should have a right to do these types of things, I mean, it says so in the Constitution!

You're right. I was wrong to bump it. But I had been drinking!

I hope President Badnarik ( ) doesn't see this in a few years.

I'm sorry President Badnarik ( )!!! Don't put me in concentration camp for disagreeing with you, like you did with those IRS workers.

 

[billydkid]

Whatever

Couldn't even be bothered with reading LR's editorial to see if there were any interesting points or even anything worth disagreeing with? I don't really care if you two asses aren't interested in having anything like an honest discussion about any of this stuff. In fact, I think you should start your own thread dedicated just to making fun of libertarians if that is the thing that does it for you or you can make it a thread dedicated to making fun of me personally or Shane - I'm sure he won't care all that much. But, do you really have to ruin every thread I start that has anything to do with libertarians?

You guys are looking like nothing but trolls and if you continue to do nothing but troll anything and everything I post I'm going to start complaining about it. If you want to have an honest debate fine. If you want to flame, then go to the flame wars forum. We all already know that you have a particular thing against libertarian ideas - that's your cross to bear. But, if you keep kicking over sand castles for the soul purpose of being pricks I'm going to put a stop to it. It's obvious you have no agenda except to ruin my posts because I talk about libertarianism and it is going to stop. If you want to debate libertarian principles, fine. I suspect you don't really because it is tough to attack the principle of live and let live. It seems clear that letting live is not something you are altogether comfortable with.

 

[Kerberos]

Don't put me in concentration camp for disagreeing with you, like you did with those IRS workers.

What do you mean by "concentration camp" there are no concentrations camps in Libertopia. The IRS employees were simply sentenced to a special prison, after a fair trial by a jury specially appointed by Badnarik. To counter any unfair accusations about the fairness of the trial, they were even tried in the new and superior system of justice installed by Badnarik. The fact that the laws passed with wide majorities in both champers should be proof that the claim of Libertarian kangaroo courts are unfounded. Speculation that this was due to the guards Badnarik had placed to insure that Congress was not disturbed or the lengthy vacations of Congress members, who have voted against his previous legislation, are of course without any basis in fact. I truly don't understand what could cause you to level such accusations against our dear leader, except perhaps.. Hmmm.. Are you an enemy of Freedom?