Why I am not a libertarian

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I understand and agreed with the first part. Its the whole liberty means having the right to do away with liberty part that I disagree with.

Please don't misunderstand. It's not something I'm advocating. Though I believe there is room for the religious in government, I'd never support, say the Presbytarian Church of Indiana. But having all rights retained by the states and the people means they may agree to unburden themselves..to the degree they desire...as originally written.

And as time's gone by more and more, as feared, people have elected to trade liberty for security (physical, indiviual responsibility, financial, etc.).

 

[poptab]

And your catchy phrase does not distinguish the difference between local, state, and federal levels. It also ignores the point I've made several times (though not as catchy as you): all government, at all levels, imposes a peoples' will on each person being governed.

Additionally, the constitution prohibits congress from establishing a religion...etc. it does not prohibit religion in government.

I dont think he was claiming to be a moral relativist here which is what you seem to imply. I dont think any libertarian thinks that their shouldn't be any rules.

Everything that is illegal should be immoral. However, everything that is immoral SHOULD NOT be illegal. Where is the line in what the government 'imposes on each person'? Shall we imprison you for looking at your neighbor's wife lustfully? How far are you willing go? Libertarians argue that the line should be drawn at other people's rights (the non aggression principle).

 

[88GT]

If the context is of the Libertarian party, and not just libertarian philosophy. There are many who subscribe to libertarian philosophies who don't consider themselves "Libertarians."

Having a MAJORITY of Libertarians in congress would probably STOP and likely REVERSE freedom erosion!

Bolded is a key aspect that is often forgotten or ignored. I am extremely libertarian in many areas. Less so in others. But in none of them do I condone the coercion of behavior by threat of force except what is necessary to protect the rights of others. But unlike some of our resident purists, I'm also a realist. And as GFGT as alluded below, there is no less coercion in preventing people from self-government than in forcing them to behave in ways that run counter to their self-interest.

I hope you're not assuming I don't find fault with the constitution.

And what if your neighborhood decides that you're now under sharia law?

Couple of points.

1. You have the freedom and the ability to move. (As you've made clear to us time and again.)

2. Like it or not, majority still rules. And you would be the ultimate hypocrite if you denied people the right to determine their own future achieved through democratic means.

You are the epitome of not seeing the forest for the trees in this regard. You like to harp on the tyranny of local municipalities, but forget or disregard that it was the will of the people that enabled it.

I said as it may do so except where the constitution says it is out of bounds. If you understand the constitution, you have to recognize that it allows for (at least it originally did) the states (groups of people) to construct their own localized (I don't necessarily mean down to the neighborhood) means of governance.

And as such, the constitution allows (limited) local governments to impose the will of the governed onto the individual.

+1

No, sir. Barron v. Baltimore is no longer good law.

It's not longer the prevailing interpretation. But it never stopped being "good" law.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I will translate this article:

"I did not understand the book Human Action or libertarian philosophies"

 

[hornadylnl]

You can call it self government all you want but it doesn't make it so. I don't know a single person who wants to ban gay marriage because they're afraid they themselves will end up in a gay marriage. People who want laws against tall grass don't have tall grass. They want the laws to prevent others from having tall grass.

People determining the laws for themselves at local levels are almost entirely about controlling the acts of others. You don't need law to enforce your own moral convictions on yourself but you need law to enforce your moral convictions on others.

 

[jsgolfman]

Remind me again why the state is necessary?

 

[hornadylnl]

Remind me again why the state is necessary?

How else would one enforce their morality on others?

 

[poptab]

Bolded is a key aspect that is often forgotten or ignored. I am extremely libertarian in many areas. Less so in others. But in none of them do I condone the coercion of behavior by threat of force except what is necessary to protect the rights of others. But unlike some of our resident purists, I'm also a realist. And as GFGT as alluded below, there is no less coercion in preventing people from self-government than in forcing them to behave in ways that run counter to their self-interest.

Couple of points.

1. You have the freedom and the ability to move. (As you've made clear to us time and again.)

2. Like it or not, majority still rules. And you would be the ultimate hypocrite if you denied people the right to determine their own future achieved through democratic means.

You are the epitome of not seeing the forest for the trees in this regard. You like to harp on the tyranny of local municipalities, but forget or disregard that it was the will of the people that enabled it.

Democracy is a terrible form of government. Majority rule is just another form of tyranny. So what your saying here is that you would be a hypocrite to deny the soon to be 51% (47% now) the right to determine their own future achieved through democratic means? You can not use the majority rules argument to justify arbitrary laws. You are the epitome of not seeing the forest for the trees in this regard.

 

[Trooper]

How else would one enforce their morality on others?

lynch mobs?????

 

[hornadylnl]

lynch mobs?????

That's your preferred solution.

 

[jsgolfman]

How else would one enforce their morality on others?

Ah, yes, I remember now.
I think I'll continue to pursue this anarchist thingie for a bit longer, I kinda like the idea of liberty. Too bad you don't see it much these days.

 

[Truckerman79]

I don't know if this video has already been posted on this thread (didn't read through all 10 pages), but Tom Woods offered this response shortly after the article was published.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=eZGtcNcyyTI&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DeZGtcNcyyTI

 

[John James]

I have zero problems squaring libertarianism with Christianity.

I can rule my daughter with the strictest moral code and an iron fist. I can force her to verbalize prayers, go to church once on Wednesdays and twice on Sundays. I can make her attend every youth group function within a 50 mile radius. What I cannot do is make her a Christian.

I as the king of Hornistan, a land of a million people, can declare my kingdom a Christian nation. I can execute those who refuse to submit. But I cannot make them Christians.

Christianity is about a personal free choice between an individual and God. I, as an individual can share my beliefs with others and encourage them to adopt them. If they choose not to accept, using the force of government through laws and regulations will have no more power over the hearts and minds of the individuals than my example to others.

My moral code trumps my sinful desires when it comes to choosing to spend my $100. I may not give it to Mother Theresa but I'm not going to spend it on hookers, booze and blow. My moral code is not separated from what makes me happy.

Well said.

Christ was all about individual liberty and the individual consequences that accompanies it.

 

[beararms1776]

Democracy is a terrible form of government. Majority rule is just another form of tyranny. So what your saying here is that you would be a hypocrite to deny the soon to be 51% (47% now) the right to determine their own future achieved through democratic means? You can not use the majority rules argument to justify arbitrary laws. You are the epitome of not seeing the forest for the trees in this regard.

Sing it brother!

 

[John James]

Democracy is a terrible form of government. Majority rule is just another form of tyranny. So what your saying here is that you would be a hypocrite to deny the soon to be 51% (47% now) the right to determine their own future achieved through democratic means? You can not use the majority rules argument to justify arbitrary laws. You are the epitome of not seeing the forest for the trees in this regard.

Keep kicking that ass!