[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.

Tenn. AG reveals ICE released thousands of ‘murderers and rapists’ from detention centers into US streets

Kamala Harris Touts Mass Amnesty Offering Fast-Tracked Citizenship to Nearly Every Illegal Alien in U.S.

Migration Crisis Fueled Rise in Tuberculosis Cases Study Finds

"They’re Going to Try to Kill Trump Again"

"Dems' Attempts at Power Grab Losing Their Grip"

"Restoring a ‘Great Moderation’ in Fiscal Policy"

"As attacks intensify, Trump becomes more popular"

Posting Articles Now Working Here

Another Test

Testing

Kamala Harris, reparations, and guaranteed income

Did Mudboy Slim finally kill this place?

"Why Young Americans Are Not Taught about Evil"

"New Rules For Radicals — How To Reinvent Kamala Harris"

"Harris’ problem: She’s a complete phony"

Hurricane Beryl strikes Bay City (TX)

Who Is ‘Destroying Democracy In Darkness?’

‘Kamalanomics’ is just ‘Bidenomics’ but dumber

Even The Washington Post Says Kamala's 'Price Control' Plan is 'Communist'

Arthur Ray Hines, "Sneakypete", has passed away.

No righT ... for me To hear --- whaT you say !

"Walz’s Fellow Guardsmen Set the Record Straight on Veep Candidate’s Military Career: ‘He Bailed Out’ "

"Kamala Harris Selects Progressive Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as Running Mate"

"The Teleprompter Campaign"

Good Riddance to Ismail Haniyeh

"Pagans in Paris"

"Liberal groupthink makes American life creepy and could cost Democrats the election".


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles

Title: The Passing of the Libertarian Moment
Source: theatlantic.com/
URL Source: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/04/defused/556934/
Published: Apr 2, 2018
Author: KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON
Post Date: 2018-07-05 21:45:54 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 18065
Comments: 110

The end of the Cold War and the rise of Donald Trump have left classical liberals without a political home.

Senator Rand Paul is a man out of time. It was only a few years ago that the editors of Reason magazine held him up as the personification of what they imagined to be a “libertarian moment,” a term that enjoyed some momentary cachet in the pages of The New York Times, The Atlantic, Politico (where I offered a skeptical assessment), and elsewhere. But rather than embodying the future of the Republican Party, Paul embodies its past, the postwar conservative era when Ronald Reagan could proclaim that “the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism,” when National Review founder William F. Buckley Jr. could publish a conspectus of his later work under the subtitle “Reflections of a Libertarian Journalist,” and young blue- blazered Republicans of the Alex P. Keaton variety wore out their copies of Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose.

The view from 2018 is rather different. The GOP finds itself in the throes of a populist convulsion, an ironic product of the fact that the party that long banqueted on resentment of the media now is utterly dominated by the alternative media constructed by its own most dedicated partisans. It is Sean Hannity’s party now.

The GOP’s political situation is absurd: Having rallied to the banner of an erratic and authoritarian game-show host, evangelical leaders such as Jerry Falwell Jr. are reduced to comparing Donald Trump to King David as they try to explain away his entanglement with pornographic performer Stormy Daniels. Those who celebrated Trump the businessman clutch their heads as his preposterous economic policies produce terror in the stock markets and chaos for the blue-collar workers in construction firms and manufacturers scrambling to stay ahead of the coming tariffs on steel and aluminum. The Chinese retaliation is sure to fall hardest on the heartland farmers who were among Trump’s most dedicated supporters.

On the libertarian side of the Republican coalition, the situation is even more depressing: Republicans such as former Texas Governor Rick Perry, who once offered important support for criminal- justice reform, are lined up behind the atavistic drug-war policies of the president and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, whose big idea on opiate abuse is more death sentences for drug traffickers. Deficits are moving in the wrong direction. And, in spite of the best hopes of the “America First” gang, Trump’s foreign policy has not moved in the direction of Rand Paul’s mild non-interventionism or the more uncompromising non-interventionism of his father, Ron Paul. Instead, the current GOP foreign-policy position combines the self-assured assertiveness of the George W. Bush administration (and many familiar faces and mustaches from that administration) with the indiscipline and amateurism characteristic of Trump.

Some libertarian moment.

Postwar conservatism, under the intellectual leadership of Buckley, Frank Meyer, and their allies, was, famously, a “fusion”—an alliance between social and religious traditionalists, anti-Communists and national-security hawks, and libertarians ranging from ideologues and idealists such as Henry Hazlitt and Ludwig von Mises to Chamber of Commerce types with their more prosaic concerns about taxes and regulation. The libertarians have always been a junior partner in that alliance, but for many years they punched above their weight. Partly that is because libertarianism is an intellectual tendency rather than a cultural instinct, one that benefited from the rigor and prestige of the economists who have long been its most effective advocates. And libertarianism has benefited from the fact that American elites are notably more libertarian in their views than is the median American voter. That dynamic was explored by the economist Bryan Caplan under a typically bold title (“Why Is Democracy Tolerable?”) with a typically needling conclusion: “Democracies listen to the relatively libertarian rich far more than they listen to the absolutely statist non-rich … Democracy as we know it is bad enough. Democracy that really listened to all the people would be an authoritarian nightmare.”

But if libertarianism benefited from its rich friends, it surely benefited even more from its impoverished rivals: the Soviet Union, Castro’s Cuba, North Korea, Mao’s China, and other practitioners of robust étatism. Despite the best hopes of the postwar conservative fusionists, libertarianism has always been more effective in opposition than in government. President Reagan may have called himself a libertarian from time to time, but he also enacted protectionist tariffs, radically expanded the military and the federal police powers, and failed to exhibit a great deal of energy in resisting the deficit-swelling spending bills sent to his desk by Tip O’Neill. The libertarian tendency mainly provided a useful ideological foil, not only to the totalitarian socialist projects of the time but also to more liberal efforts to expand the welfare states in the Western democracies. If you are not moving in the direction of Milton Friedman, the argument went, then you are moving in the direction of Leonid Brezhnev—it’s Chairman Greenspan or Chairman Mao.

That was an effective rhetorical strategy while the Soviet Union was a going concern and while the Cold War remained fresh in the national memory. And it was enough to keep the right-wing coalition together. But as the memory of the USSR came to be replaced by the reality of NAFTA, WTO, ASEAN, etc., the fruits of globalism—everyday low prices at Walmart—turned out to be uninspiring to great masses of voters to whom those benefits are invisible for the same reason that water is invisible to fish. Ancient prejudices, including the prejudices against social relations with foreigners, began to reassert themselves, as did the expectation that government should take a paternal interest in the people rather than a merely administrative one. Libertarianism, with its emphasis on free trade, its deference to the market, and its hostility toward social-welfare programs, went quickly out of fashion. How quickly? Last week, my former National Review colleague Victor Davis Hanson published an essay calling for a stronger regulatory hand over high-tech companies, fondly recalling the “cultural revolution of muckraking and trust-busting” of the 19th century, and ending with a plea for “some sort of bipartisan national commission that might dispassionately and in disinterested fashion offer guidelines to legislators” about more tightly regulating these companies, perhaps on the public- utility model.

That from a magazine whose founders once dreamed of overturning the New Deal.

Libertarian attitudes enjoy some political support: Nick Gillespie, a true-believing libertarian, insists even in the teeth of the current authoritarian ascendancy that we still are experiencing a national— yes!—“libertarian moment,” based on Gallup polling data finding more support for broadly libertarian political sensibilities (27 percent) than for any other single group: conservative, liberal, or populist. But “libertarian” often means little more than “a person with right-leaning sensibilities who is embarrassed to be associated with the Republican Party.” (Hardly, these days, an indefensible position.) Libertarian sensibilities are popular because they enable the posture of above-it-all nonpartisanship, but libertarian policies, as Caplan and others have noted at length, are not very popular at all. Americans broadly and strongly support a rising minimum wage and oppose entitlement reform with at least equal commitment, and they are far from reliable supporters of free speech and free association or enforcing limits on police powers. Hence the peculiar fact that 2016 polling of Republican primary voters found self-identified libertarians backing the authoritarian Trump in remarkable numbers—59 percent in South Carolina—over more libertarian-leaning candidates such as Ted Cruz (17 percent in the same poll) or Marco Rubio (0 percent—ouch). By way of comparison, only 39 percent of self- identified independents backed Trump in that same South Carolina poll, 37 percent of self-identified Tea Party adherents, and 40 percent of voters in the oldest bracket (56-61). Self-described libertarians were not less likely to line up behind the authoritarian demagogue, but half-again as likely to do so. Self-professed libertarian voices such as Larry Elder have become abject Trumpists.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-57) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#58. To: Deckard (#55)

Nothing you said here excuses your stupidity.

Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-07   0:19:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: buckeroo, A K A Stone (#57)

amoral libertarians

What in the world are you talking about?

Why Do People Think Libertarians Are Amoral?

Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-07   0:27:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: buckeroo (#54)

Obviously, TRUTH bothers you greatly.

Learn to live with it.

Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-07   0:46:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: buckeroo (#50)

GOOD....I pissed you off. I’m GLAD!!!

Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-07   0:49:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: Gatlin (#52)

And since he couldn’t get but ONE bill to sell a house passed in Congress, it’s ABSOLUTE PROOF of Ron Paul's long record of glorious failures in congress!!!

Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul!

RP is living in your head, rent-free. LOL

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-07-07   1:03:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: GrandIsland (#41)

GI, you have all of the intellect, maturity and communication capability of a sophomore high school student who has just discovered the estasy of employing vulgarity outside of earshot of his parents. When you rise above that, maybe we can have an adult conversation about adult topics.

Pinguinite  posted on  2018-07-07   1:05:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: buckeroo (#49)

If Ron couldn't ensure passage of many of his pro-American bills,

I would point out the stupidity of measuring the soundness of one's political ideology by the number of laws that he pushes through congress. If that's the standard, GI should probably be a cheerleading democrat.

Pinguinite  posted on  2018-07-07   1:09:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: buckeroo (#57)

You think heroin should be legal and cocaine. That is one of many examples.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-07-07   6:52:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: A K A Stone (#65)

You think heroin should be legal and cocaine.

While you "push" your claim upon me, you neglect the offense of government meddling in "morality." It is a very interesting balance act you wield so that you can claim, "government is good."

buckeroo  posted on  2018-07-07   8:08:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: Pinguinite, GrandIsland (#64)

I would point out the stupidity of measuring the soundness of one's political ideology by the number of laws that he pushes through congress. If that's the standard, GI should probably be a cheerleading democrat.

He claims to be a cop. This means that the more laws are on the books, the more citations he can write and the more bucks he can milk off the government for doing nothing worthwhile in life. He needs justification for his mere existence.

buckeroo  posted on  2018-07-07   8:21:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: buckeroo, A K A Stone (#66)

... amoral libertarians ...

While you "push" your claim upon me, you neglect the offense of government meddling in "morality." It is a very interesting balance act you wield so that you can claim, "government is good."

Uh, at this time in the exchange you really need to show that libertarians are not amoral instead of attempting to deflect Stone’s point and change the conversation over to government. Deflection is a fallacious debating tactic you libertarians TRY to use far too often.

Picking up on Stone’s point, a recap of the findings from Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Dispositions of Self-Identified Libertarians shows that:

Compared to self-identified liberals and conservatives, libertarians showed 1) stronger endorsement of individual liberty as their foremost guiding principle, and weaker endorsement of all other moral principles; 2) a relatively cerebral as opposed to emotional cognitive style; and 3) lower interdependence and social relatedness. As predicted by intuitionist theories concerning the origins of moral reasoning, libertarian values showed convergent relationships with libertarian emotional dispositions and social preferences.
It is abundantly clear the ONLY thing that matters to libertarians is freedom.

Freedom Uber Alles!

Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-07   8:53:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: Gatlin (#68)

... at this time in the exchange you really need to show that libertarians are not amoral ...

Actually, all the other idiots running the country have PROVEN their deceit about the nation. The idea of 21 TRILLION in federal debt [alone] proves the point.

instead of attempting to deflect Stone’s point and change the conversation over to government.

I didn't, A K A Stone performed the deed but you were high on the hookah obviously enamored with his post.

Deflection is a fallacious debating tactic you libertarians TRY to use far too often.

That is a rhetorical remarck and has no significance to anything.

buckeroo  posted on  2018-07-07   9:04:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: Pinguinite, THE ACLU-COMMIE FASCIST (#1)

And so the obsession continues.

Like a child who can't stop tossing cake at all the other kids at another kid's birthday party.

Old ACLU-Commie Authoritarians HATE any part or parcel of libertarianism. They are rigidly militaristic and inflexible in all ways. Thus, Gatlin is only comfortable as a fascist (who also dislikes Trump -- don't be fooled.)

It's cool that you're bringing so much attention libertarianism, even if in attempts to cast it in an unfavorable light. It's not going to go away, in spite of whatever direction the current political winds are blowing.

Yes, and isn't also odd that Gatlin has simultaneously been touting the ACLU, the hood ornament and legal-wing of MARXISM?? The ONLY way libertarianism (as intended by the Founders) will go away (as he wishes) will be via the rigid Dem-Commie authoritarianism Gatlin espouses through his fascist ACLU lens.

(As also discussed, libertarianism AT ITS LIMITS IS ANARCHY, and frankly just as dangerous as Gatlin's Commie-Authoritarianism. It should be noted that BOTH SIDES OF THIS SAME COIN OPPOSE DONALD TRUMP.)

That said, arguably ALL of our Founders favored a balance of libertarianism to some degree or another, which is the basis for our individual liberties and foundations of our Republic.

Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   9:39:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: hondo68 (#2)

Let me tell you right now, up front; YOU are not a "Libertarian"; You are an ANARCHIST. Rand Paul? He wouldn't give you the time of day.

That's rich -- YOU mentioning Mao. Castro. The ACLU.

YOUR kind of Anarcho-"Libertarianism" can only result in utter chaos. And then the strong-arm OF a Castro, a Mao, a Stalin to usher in "ORDER".

Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   9:43:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: nolu chan (#4)

If the Libertarians could not obtain any traction against a GOP ticket of McCain/Palin, it seems their moment passed some time ago.

They just don't get it; "Libertarianism" is woven in the fabric of Constitutionalism. (The conservative wing)

Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   9:44:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: A K A Stone (#13)

Amoral libertarians don't have much support. That is and was always my problem with libertarians. They equate moral things with immoral things. Do what thou wilt just like the satanic so called Bible.

Yup.

At its limits, "Libertarianism" = Total Anarchy. Moral (and otherwise) Laws unto themselves.

Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   9:46:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: GrandIsland (#15)

The best and most viable libertarian minded candidate, EVER, is Rand Paul... and the bulk of the rabid 6%, aka, RON PAULTARDS, turned your backs on Rand... because Rand doesn’t run on anarchy.

Absolutely RIGHT.

Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   9:47:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: Pinguinite, GrandIsland (#17)

Gatlin gave you a big AMEN on that.

The Old Commie is just stroking for allies.

Frankly, I believe Gatlin is the type of rigid Major Burns-like AK-ing AH that GI saw over and over for 20 years at his dept...and despised their hypocrisy and select rigidity. JMO.

Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   9:50:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: Gatlin, Pinguinite (#21)

Now you've done it, Ping...

"Father" Major Burn is again at his fake pulpit, stealing the scripture he *thinks* will support his fake piety.

His YUGE Pope's Hat is dyed Castro-military green.

Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   9:54:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: Pinguinite, Gatlin (#24)

I infer from your response that you purport to be an enlightened Christian saint. That's wonderful...even though it seems you've yet to learn not to be so condescending toward others, but all things in time.

OUCH.

Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   9:56:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: Liberator (#73) (Edited)

At its limits, "Libertarianism" = Total Anarchy. Moral (and otherwise) Laws unto themselves.

OK.

Take a lookie-loo at the GOP-DEM federal debt; ever consider that topic as ANARCHIST?

NAW, its just a cool 21,000,000,000,000 bucks, so it is under control and non-anarchist?

buckeroo  posted on  2018-07-07   9:59:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: tpaine (#30)

This antilibertarian obsession is akin to the antiTrump one. --- Both types should be pitied for their fanaticism.

You're HALF right.

The Libertarians who we've been witnessing running for office are far more supportive of ANARCHY. It is NOT the Founder's intent and the direct opposite side of the Authoritarian coin.

Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   10:01:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: buckeroo (#78) (Edited)

Take a lookie-loo at the GOP-DEM federal debt; ever consider that topic as ANARCHIST?

NAW, its just a cool 21,000,000,000 bucks, so it is under control and non-anarchist?

A whole different subject to address.

The Feral Deficit is the fault of printing-pre$$ SOCIALIST-Dems and GLOBALIST Pubbies -- neither who are Constititutionalist or America-Firsters.

And btw -- No pure Libertarian Gummint would ever be able to collect a penny for taxes.

Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   10:04:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: Liberator, gatlin (#80)

Differentiate the idea that "libertarians" caused the current government fiasco. Your love of the two party system is what brought the USA to its knees.

buckeroo  posted on  2018-07-07   10:09:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: Liberator (#73)

At its limits, "Libertarianism" = Total Anarchy. Moral (and otherwise) Laws unto themselves.

A common misconception is that libertarians want to abolish government. But that is the anarchist, not libertarian philosophy. Libertarians recognize the need for government, but that it should be much smaller than it is today in the USA.

Pinguinite  posted on  2018-07-07   10:11:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: buckeroo (#69)

Deflection is a fallacious debating tactic you libertarians TRY to use far too often.

That is a rhetorical remarck and has no significance to anything.

It has GREAT significance since it APPLIES directly to you.

Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-07   10:13:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#84. To: Gatlin (#83)

GO FUCK YOURSELF.

buckeroo  posted on  2018-07-07   10:16:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: buckeroo (#84)

Now I have REALLY pissed you off....I am even happier about that.

Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-07   10:20:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#86. To: Liberator (#80)

And btw -- No pure Libertarian Gummint would ever be able to collect a penny for taxes.

Given the philosophy of some libertarians, I could see that argument being made as a valid criticism of libertarianism. I myself disagree with one major plank of the L party having to do with open borders. I do understand the philosophical argument in favor of open borders, but in practice it falls short due to differing rules of alternate governments of foreign countries.

The fed gov got by almost exclusively on import duties for the first 100 years or so, if I'm not mistaken.

Humorously, I've speculated on the idea of a "citizenship exchange program" where if you want to emigrate to another country, all you need to do is find someone from that country that wants to come to the USA, and you trade citizenship and both move at the same time. It's a net zero gain in both residency and citizenship for both countries so neither government can claim to be adversely harmed. Sounds like it could be a good libertarian compromise!!

Pinguinite  posted on  2018-07-07   10:26:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#87. To: Gatlin (#85)

If you are so happy, why do you want to "piss me off?" Is it because you are deranged and out of YOUR FUCKIN' MIND?

buckeroo  posted on  2018-07-07   10:27:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: buckeroo (#81)

Differentiate the idea that "libertarians" caused the current government fiasco.

I just gave you an answer to what "caused the current government fiasco".

I also added that a Libertarian Gummint wouldn't have the will or inclination to collect necessary (YES, NECESSARY) taxes to run any gummint agencies for 300m people.

And btw -- Trump was ostensibly a THIRD PARTY who BEAT both the establishment Parties. IF you paid a whit of attention. It's why both Party leadership hate him. HULLO.

Libertarianism: Exactly what IS you "platform" should you actually win any election at all?

Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   10:42:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: Pinguinite (#82)

A common misconception is that libertarians want to abolish government. But that is the anarchist, not libertarian philosophy. Libertarians recognize the need for government, but that it should be much smaller than it is today in the USA.

I understand that concept...

The problem is that Libertarian activism is led by its extremist strain. *They* support a radical reduction in common sense laws while lacking solutions for contemporary problems.

We can certainly quibble over the definition of "Libertarian" and to what extent or size and scope of gummint a Libertarian-controlled machination would run things...

In my opinion the radical elements would win that day, which is fundamentally anarchist. Ideally it wouldn't be.

Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   10:49:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: buckeroo (#87)

No.

Gatlin  posted on  2018-07-07   10:51:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#91. To: Chairman Gatlin, buckeroo, A K A Stone (#68)

It is abundantly clear the ONLY thing that matters to libertarians is freedom.

Oh the irony...

MEANWHILE at the OTHER end of the spectrum is your uber-militaristic ANTI-FREEDOM strain of rigid Authoritarianism, supported by Castro, Mao, and the Stalinist-supported ACLU.

Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   10:53:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#92. To: buckeroo (#87)

YES.

Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   10:53:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#93. To: Liberator (#88)

... a Libertarian Gummint wouldn't have the will or inclination to collect necessary (YES, NECESSARY) taxes to run any gummint agencies for 300m people.

Under current government regulations, you are correct. But why is a free and sovereign state giving away its own wealth to every other nation? It doesn't make any sense when coupled withe FACT, that the USA permits illegals over our sovereign borders by the MILLIONS, does it?

Nope, the US Government has gone MAD under the DEM/GOP largess.

buckeroo  posted on  2018-07-07   10:54:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: buckeroo, Tater, Luberator, anarchist revolutionaries, community agitators (#87)

If you are so happy, why do you want to "piss me off?"

Tater is a phony anarchist leading from the rear, like Luberator. They're hoping to incite some minor infractions of the "rules" so they can crack down on the dissidents with an iron fist.

Wannabe Tyrants gonna tyrant.

Hondo68  posted on  2018-07-07   11:16:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#95. To: Pinguinite (#86)

I myself disagree with one major plank of the L party having to do with open borders.

Right, and you must; Open Borders is anathema to sovereignty. But to radical Libertarian (who are now actually allying with Antifa and Commie elements), "freedom" at its extreme promotes exactly that kind of anarchy.

I do understand the philosophical argument in favor of open borders, but in practice it falls short due to differing rules of alternate governments of foreign countries.

At no level or degree can I understand any basic argument in favor of Open Borders in this day and age. (of *your* understanding, what would it be?)

The fed gov got by almost exclusively on import duties for the first 100 years or so, if I'm not mistaken.

Pretty much I believe...And at that, it seems law & order at most levels of gummint were maintained. Sure -- out west there were some problems with law enforcement, but gummint by and large was lean and mean.

Might we consider THE USA as pretty much "libertarian" but blended with Protestant ethics and morals? The formula worked and worked well. And THEN came Wilson's Feral Taxation and the backdoor confiscation of wealth (AND political POWER) by Internationalists. But I digress...

There IS something to be said about noting an America that was mostly self-moderating and self-policing to a great degree. That reason was found in the faith of a nation that still relied on common sense and virtue espoused in The Good Book. Even though we had a "Constitution" and laws on the books, citizenry wisdom and respect of and for personal, community, and national sovereignty was pretty much...expected.

Humorously, I've speculated on the idea of a "citizenship exchange program" where if you want to emigrate to another country, all you need to do is find someone from that country that wants to come to the USA, and you trade citizenship and both move at the same time. It's a net zero gain in both residency and citizenship for both countries so neither government can claim to be adversely harmed. Sounds like it could be a good libertarian compromise!!

Heh...like baseball team trades.

"Here's our poison. It can't kill you any more than yours." ;-)

(Imagine this kind of arrangement at the local level?)

I prefer the "Life Exchange" program where the "mutual trade compromise" is made by and with "Nature". How about the "net zero gain" of EXPORTING the criminally insane/Democrats in exchange with...say penguins at the South Pole?

Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   11:26:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#96. To: Liberator (#89)

The problem is that Libertarian activism is led by its extremist strain. *They* support a radical reduction in common sense laws while lacking solutions for contemporary problems.

Liberator, I always appreciate our ability to discuss issues amicably and constructive even if they often result in animosity with others. It speaks well for both of us!

Yes, the problem is that unlike the R & D platforms where the various planks are generally have little to no direct relation to one another (i.e. the R platform has both a strong military and is pro life), the Libertarian party is based on a philosophy where the various planks ARE much more related to one another. That relation is freedom. Everything is based on the concept that each person's circle of freedom should be expanded as much as possible, limited only when it begins to overlap another person's like circle of freedom. It's as simple as that.

In practice, yes, there are areas where the philosophy isn't workable, open borders being, IMO, one big one. Communal sharing of expenses, such as military defense & infrastructure is another. True libertarianism is NOT about getting a free ride, of course. The problem is only in how to fairly charge each member for a true cost of the benefit they receive. On roads, in theory, every road would be a toll road so everyone using a road would pay for its maintenance, while those not using it would not pay. Some libertarians argue that all taxation is theft, yet those same libertarians would not have any problem with toll roads to cover needed maintenance. It comes down to the semantics of the difference between a tax and a "use fee".

Pinguinite  posted on  2018-07-07   11:29:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#97. To: buckeroo (#93)

But why is a free and sovereign state giving away its own wealth to every other nation? It doesn't make any sense when coupled withe FACT, that the USA permits illegals over our sovereign borders by the MILLIONS, does it?

I agree, you agree, and tens of millions of common sense Americans agree with all that.

The Uni-Party Globalist Firsters hijacked BOTH parties, printed up a gazillion fiat dollars, gladly flung open the border to 40 million Illegals thru the Mexican border, THEN made you and I subsidize our own national suicide.

Donald Trump is trying the remediate this Uni-Party Establishment-created & maintained destruction and sabotage of our liberties, sovereignty and wealth. And because he IS, the Uni-Party Globalists and Deep State mobsters have been trying like mad to oust HIM as well as everyone associated with him.

Nope, the US Government has gone MAD under the DEM/GOP largess.

Agreed.

Liberator  posted on  2018-07-07   11:34:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (98 - 110) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com