"American Thinker" article attempts to make a case against Libertarianism

[rambone]

I found this article wholly disgusting. I think Liberty/Libertarianism stands tall on its own merits. How many things did that article advocate banning? Obscenity, pornography, bedroom activities, hate speech... And the author actually thinks he is criticizing "the Nanny State...," when he seems extremely eager to grant the government more power to arrest people for non-violent behavior.

There are a lot of problems with this country, but having too much freedom is not one of them. That kind of total government control over our personal decisions scares me as much as it does when the Government wastes money on wars and health care. Shrink government, don't give it more reasons to terrorize us.

American Thinker: Libertarianism's Folly: When 'Live and Let Live' Fails

 

[88GT]

I think it bespeaks of a gross misunderstanding of what libertarianism really is.

I think he's technically correct that completely ignoring the societal standards and dissociating them from politics completely can be as dangerous to society's longevity as the most tyrannical government. But I don't agree with the idea that government is the answer to holding that delicate balance in place. Government is one side of the scale. It can't possibly be the finger helping to balance it.

 

[dross]

He's a little muddled in his thinking, but he makes one good point. Libertarians often don't recognize that using persuasion, boycott, public shunning, and a variety of other voluntary tactics in advancement of what is right is not suspect, but part of having an effective free society. Libertarianism isn't cultural isolationism.

For instance, I think an employer should be able to discriminate on the basis of race. I don't think it's right, but it shouldn't be legislated. Here's the catch - I have to live up to my responsibility and despise an employer who chooses to behave in such a way. Using race as a discriminator is morally repugnant, and it is the job of a free society to encourage what is right, not through force, but through voluntary action.

 

[mrjarrell]

The author is just another nanny stater disguised under a patriot label. He as much as admits it when he admits he was a conservative, (a much maligned and distorted word these days).They're all over the place, these days. He'd like nothing better than to have government enforcing morality, when that's clearly the job of the individual. If you don't like porn...don't look at it. Don't like adultery? Don't cheat. It's really easy. If it screws up someone else's life then that's their problem, not mine or governments. I've noticed this theme at American Thinker before. They're confused and would like nothing better than to foist more government on the people in this country. Libertarians want less government and more self regulation. The way it's supposed to be.

 

[rambone]

He's a little muddled in his thinking, but he makes one good point. Libertarians often don't recognize that using persuasion, boycott, public shunning, and a variety of other voluntary tactics in advancement of what is right is not suspect, but part of having an effective free society. Libertarianism isn't cultural isolationism.

For instance, I think an employer should be able to discriminate on the basis of race. I don't think it's right, but it shouldn't be legislated. Here's the catch - I have to live up to my responsibility and despise an employer who chooses to behave in such a way. Using race as a discriminator is morally repugnant, and it is the job of a free society to encourage what is right, not through force, but through voluntary action.

Could you clarify what was the one good point the author made?

I agree with what you were saying, but it felt like you were talking about the opponents of Libertarians, not recognizing the tools of a healthy free market.

 

[Rebecca Sink-Burris]

He's a little muddled in his thinking, but he makes one good point. Libertarians often don't recognize that using persuasion, boycott, public shunning, and a variety of other voluntary tactics in advancement of what is right is not suspect, but part of having an effective free society. Libertarianism isn't cultural isolationism.

Well said, I have been speaking on this issue as I have been campaigning. If we don't agree with something that is not a transgression of rights, then we need to make our disagreement known through peaceful, persuasive means that also do not transgress on rights. This is part of the responsibility of liberty. Civil society is vital to a free society.

 

[Expat]

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798 John Adams

“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech by Benjamin Franklin
“ We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia] James Madison

It seems to me the point of the article was one acknowledged by the Founders. That without a moral if not religious people, this country will fail.

 

[HICKMAN]

lol, fav libertarian t-shirt

 

[HICKMAN]

Look in the blogosphere for "libertarian island"

 

[Keith_Indy]

It seems to me the point of the article was one acknowledged by the Founders. That without a moral if not religious people, this country will fail.

I don't need the government enforcing what it thinks is moral on me, neither should any right thinking adult.

 

[Expat]

I don't need the government enforcing what it thinks is moral on me, neither should any right thinking adult.

In our society in general, how's that working for us. Are we, as a society, more independent now than we were 50 years ago, 100, 150? Or are we becoming more and more of a nanny state with much of our citizenry approving of it?

 

[HICKMAN]

In our society in general, how's that working for us. Are we, as a society, more independent now than we were 50 years ago, 100, 150? Or are we becoming more and more of a nanny state with much of our citizenry approving of it?

Problem is, much of our citizenry doesn't care about the Constitution and thinks they are owed something. How much longer before they outnumber the rest of us and use the vote to end the Republic?

 

[Expat]

Problem is, much of our citizenry doesn't care about the Constitution and thinks they are owed something. How much longer before they outnumber the rest of us and use the vote to end the Republic?

Personally I think we have already just about reached that tipping point. How else do you explain Obama's 45% approval rating.

 

[rambone]

It seems to me the point of the article was one acknowledged by the Founders. That without a moral if not religious people, this country will fail.

Morality and spirituality are well and good. Growing the government will not help promote that. If you want to create an even more immoral society, get the Government to create a "War on Obscenity." Then the perceived problem can grow and continue forever, just like with the "War on Poverty," "War on Crime," "War on Obesity," "War on Drugs," "War on Guns," "War on Terror," etc.

I am a religious person and I vehemently oppose everything that author advocates banning. I don't want to look over my shoulder for the Thought Police when I say a naughty word, or look at a naughty picture. I value freedom more than trying to help the Government create a utopian Nanny State. I view it as immoral to control people by force with government. It is patently evil to promote Government tyranny. Jesus was a big fan of freedom of speech, just ask the Government who killed him for saying the wrong things.

lol, fav libertarian t-shirt

Wow, how insightful. Somolia is totally a Constitutional Republic with limited government. Brilliant.

In our society in general, how's that working for us. Are we, as a society, more independent now than we were 50 years ago, 100, 150? Or are we becoming more and more of a nanny state with much of our citizenry approving of it?

Glad you brought that up. Unquestionably our country had more freedoms in the past. And the more laws that are created, the more tightly controlled we all are under our Nanny State government... the more society rebels.

So to point out the obvious, you can't fight the Nanny State by controlling people with more Nanny State laws.

 

[HICKMAN]

Wow, how insightful. Somolia is totally a Constitutional Republic with limited government. Brilliant.

yeah, funny they sell it with all other Libertarian shirts eh? Guess you can't even joke amongst yourselves....

 

[Keith_Indy]

This sums my feelings up quite will...

Morality must always be a matter of choice, not mandate.

 

[Keith_Indy]

Even better...

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis

 

[dross]

I'd rep some of these posts, but I'm in some sort of no rep vortex for days now. Everyone I try to rep gets slapped down because it says I have to spread rep around before I give it to them. Apparently I rep the same people over and over. I wonder why that is....?

So do I have to rep people I don't agree with, or rep mediocre posts in order to again be able to rep according to merit?

Just an example of how rules and regs can have their unintended consequences.

 

[rambone]

So do I have to rep people I don't agree with, or rep mediocre posts in order to again be able to rep according to merit?

Nobody said it had to be positive rep,

 

[ATOMonkey]

Laws won't make people moral. It will just force them to find new and inventive ways to be immoral.