Ancalagon the Black Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 In my opinion, this treats the libertarian ideology with a bit of common sense. _______________ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content//article/2008/01/11/AR2008011101859.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 Those Wacky LibertariansWhat's wrong with libertarianism? By Michael Kinsley Saturday, January 12, 2008; 12:00 AM Libertarians get patronized a lot. Chipmunky and earnest, always pursuing logical consistency down wacky paths, they pose no real threat to the established order. But the modest success of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas in the presidential campaign entitles them to some answers to the questions they raise. They say: People should be free to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't hurt other people. If you agree, how do you justify (let's pick just two): 1) laws that forbid private behavior, such as recreational drugs; 2) government programs that redistribute one person's money to someone else? The libertarian perspective is useful, and undervalued. Why does the government pay farmers not to grow food? Why are medications for fatal diseases sometimes held off the market in case they aren't safe? (Compared to death?) Legislators and regulators should ask themselves far more often than they do whether some government activity or other expands freedom or contracts it. Furthermore, democracy and majority rule are no answers. Tyranny of the majority is a constant danger. How would you like a law requiring that people with odd Social Security numbers have to give $1,000 to people with even Social Security numbers? To libertarians, much of what the government does is essentially like that. So what is wrong with the libertarian case for extremely limited government? Economics 101 teaches some of the basic justifications for government interference in the economy. Some things, such as the cost of national defense, are "public goods." We can't each decide for ourselves how much defense we want. We have to decide that together. Then there are "externalities," which are costs (or, sometimes, benefits) that your decisions impose on me. Pollution is the classic example. Without government involvement of some sort to override our individual judgments, we will produce more pollution than most of us want. There are "market-oriented" solutions to this problem, but there is a difference --often forgotten, especially by Republicans -- between using market forces and leaving something to the market. The point of principle is whether the government should intervene at all. How it chooses to intervene is purely pragmatic. Article continues at link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 Nice read, and all the time I just thought: Libertarians = Republicans that smoke pot :jk: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLockesGhost Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 Nice read, and all the time I just thought:Libertarians = Republicans that smoke pot Maybe back in the Reagan years, this could be considered correct. Essentially libertarianism is just anti-authoritarianism and one could make a case that Bush (despite some of his rhetoric) has been among one of the most authoritarian presidents in U.S. history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted January 13, 2008 Author Share Posted January 13, 2008 Essentially libertarianism is just anti-authoritarianism and one could make a case that Bush (despite some of his rhetoric) has been among one of the most authoritarian presidents in U.S. history. It's tough to find someone nondelusional who would take issue with that. A lot of Bush supporters are avowed authoritarians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
footballhenry Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 Great read, thanks for sharing it. Its good to see the libertarian viewpoint getting some respect it deserves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 Thank you, I enjoyed that read. To me, the best part about RP's candidacy and it's grassroots popularity (though it seems not general public popularity....yet), is that questions are being asked in the public eye that most politicians dont have the courage to ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 Good piece. He might not agree, but he's respectful of libertarianism. And I like the last part: Libertarians ask: By what justification does the government concern itself with inequality -- financial or otherwise -- in the first place? They are nearly alone in asking this question. Even conservatives claim a great concern for equality of opportunity, while opposing opportunity of result. And the reasons seem obvious: some degree of material equality as a necessary basis for political equality; the huge role of luck in getting each of us to our relative stations in life; etc. But nothing like this is obvious to libertarians. They force us to think it all through from scratch. Good for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 I think some of you are missing the point of the story. Yes, it's good to ask questions, but libertarians DO NOT HAVE THE ANSWERS. There is nothing wrong with applying some of the principles of libertarianism WITHIN REASON. The problem lies with Libertarians who would toss reason out the window for the sake of ideological dogma. For my money, the most important line from this story is this: Llibertarians are quick to see hidden costs of ignoring libertarian principles and slow to see such costs in adhering to them. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 It's too bad thier foreign policy, trade policy and "If it feels good do it" mantra are so distasteful. Otherwise I could get on board with a lot of the other parts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 I think some of you are missing the point of the story. Yes, it's good to ask questions, but libertarians DO NOT HAVE THE ANSWERS. I think it's as obvious as the sky is blue that neither of our two ruling parties have any answers either. In fact, their entire motivation seems to be to not find any answers at all, merely to blame the other party for the problems. And as long as we the people continue to buy into their crap, then we'll stay here spinning our wheels. There's one word in our Pledge that everyone forgot. "Indivisible" ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isle-hawg Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 I think it's as obvious as the sky is blue that neither of our two ruling parties have any answers either.In fact, their entire motivation seems to be to not find any answers at all, merely to blame the other party for the problems. And as long as we the people continue to buy into their crap, then we'll stay here spinning our wheels. There's one word in our Pledge that everyone forgot. "Indivisible" ~Bang Well said my friend!:applause::applause::applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFanAnt Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 The entire point of the Republican and Democratic parties is to create division. A divided people are easy to conquer and that's exactly what the corporate elite, the UAE, and the neo-fascist masons want. Nothing will change as long as they rule through their lobbies and as long as normal Americans are willing to bow to their rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 The entire point of the Republican party is to create division. A divided people are easy to conquer and that's exactly what the corporate elite, the UAE, and the neo-fascists want. Nothing will change as long as they rule through their lobbies and as long as normal Americans are willing to bow to their rule. There, fixed it for ya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 I think some of you are missing the point of the story. Yes, it's good to ask questions, but libertarians DO NOT HAVE THE ANSWERS. I think it would be more accurate to say "the Libertarians believe that government isn't the answer". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 I think it would be more accurate to say "the Libertarians believe that government isn't the answer". Why thank you kind sir! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 It's too bad thier foreign policy, trade policy and "If it feels good do it" mantra are so distasteful. Otherwise I could get on board with a lot of the other parts Translation for newbies: "If it feels good do it" is Sarge-speak for "Mind your own business". :halo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Actually, Sarge is taking a certain GOP Presidential candidates platform and mistaking it for the Libertarian platform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Translation for newbies: "If it feels good do it" is Sarge-speak for "Mind your own business". :halo: And it's funny how voluntary trade between people (free trade) is bad, but bombing the hell out of everyone is just fine and dandy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 And it's funny how voluntary trade between people (free trade) is bad, but bombing the hell out of everyone is just fine and dandy Actually, one of the comments I've heard attributed to Carlin is: Selling is legal. Screwing is legal. How come selling screwing isn't legal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Actually, one of the comments I've heard attributed to Carlin is: Selling is legal. Screwing is legal. How come selling screwing isn't legal? :laugh: because it's funny, :doh:because it's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.