Ron Paul’s Solution to the Debt Ceiling Impasse

[KSG_Standard]

correct me if I'm wrong, but that means as I have heard some Libertarians spout, the legalization of all narcotics.....

Which extracts a specific toll on society, specifically with violent crime.

I believe that we should decriminalize most drugs and spend some of the money wasted on the war on drugs on education and treatment instead. I don't think the gov't should be telling a free people what they can or can't do with their own bodies. Alcohol and tobacco extract a toll on society too, yet they're legal. Pornography extracts a toll on society too, but most liberals would be outraged at the thought of the gov't deciding what we can see or read. Welfare and entitlement programs extract a toll on society too, but liberals and progressives overlook the downside to these programs and demand their existence.

A free society will have things that not all of us like or want to participate in, but freedom is better than gov't control, isn't it?

 

[geochem1st]

perfect. quite a difference from an anarchist.

What about this?


David Miller, Janet Coleman, William Connolly, Alan Ryan, ed (2000). "Libertarianism". The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought. Oxford, United Kingdom; Massachusetts, [state], USA: Blackwell Publishers. ISBN 0-631-14011-5.

"There are two main branches of libertarianism and each has a radical answer to the query. One group, the anarchists…holds that all government is illegitimate. The other group, generally called minarchists, maintains that government may appropriately engage in police protection, enforcement of contracts, and national defense, but that is all.…[Murray N.] Rothbard himself is on the anarchist wing of the movement. Both by his writings and by personal influence, Rothbard is the principal founder of modern libertarianism."

So are they wrong?

 

[KSG_Standard]

There are different degrees of Liberalism, Progressivism and Conservatism...which flavor is correct?

 

[PraXis]

Heroin will still cost money. Junkies tend to not have money, when in need they will resort to crime to feed the addiction, since as a libertarian, there will be no social welfare programs as a safety net.

It goes back to states' rights and property rights. If you want to establish a country-wide program via Constitutional amendment to deal with it, then good luck.

If homeless things want to flock to San Francisco because of the weather, and perhaps access state-run hand-outs good for them...OTOH if these same addicts come to my [insert state/city with a Castle Doctrine] and decide to trespass on my property, they're getting a bullet between the eyes and I will NOT think twice...at all. It's my ****ing property and you (generally speaking) have no right to trespass onto my land. If you do, BOOM HEADSHOT.

That's a deterrent.

BTW, congrats to PA for finally enacting the Castle Doctrine today... I'll be there soon enough.

 

[River]

There are different degrees of Liberalism, Progressivism and Conservatism...which flavor is correct?

The ones that don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

Libertarians railing against anarchists, trying to distance themselves because of some lame, uneducated public perceptions are kidding themselves. They're "this" close, and denying it makes them seem disingenuous.

 

[geochem1st]

There are different degrees of Liberalism, Progressivism and Conservatism...which flavor is correct?

You quote Mises.org for articles all the time, so I imagine that Mises.org represents quite a large portion of the Libertarian movement.

Here is an excerpt from Mise.org:

"In an effort to widen the influence of libertarian thought in the academic world, Rothbard founded the Journal of Libertarian Studies in 1977. The journal began auspiciously with a symposium on Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Down to the present, it has remained the most important journal hospitable to libertarian ideas."
Biography of Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) - David Gordon - Mises Institute

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

What about this?


David Miller, Janet Coleman, William Connolly, Alan Ryan, ed (2000). "Libertarianism". The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought. Oxford, United Kingdom; Massachusetts, [state], USA: Blackwell Publishers. ISBN 0-631-14011-5.

"There are two main branches of libertarianism and each has a radical answer to the query. One group, the anarchists…holds that all government is illegitimate. The other group, generally called minarchists, maintains that government may appropriately engage in police protection, enforcement of contracts, and national defense, but that is all.…[Murray N.] Rothbard himself is on the anarchist wing of the movement. Both by his writings and by personal influence, Rothbard is the principal founder of modern libertarianism."

So are they wrong?

So what, who cares what he says? This isn't a religion. I'd be willing to bet that libertarians are more likely to question pronouncements from on high than either of the mainstream parties in America today.

 

[geochem1st]

So what, who cares what he says? This isn't a religion. I'd be willing to bet that libertarians are more likely to question pronouncements from on high than either of the mainstream parties in America today.

I care.

I am not a lover of Communism nor Anarchism. The leaders of the movement do indeed matter.

 

[KSG_Standard]

The ones that don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

Libertarians railing against anarchists, trying to distance themselves because of some lame, uneducated public perceptions are kidding themselves. They're "this" close, and denying it makes them seem disingenuous.

All due respect, that's nonsense.

A limited Federal gov't, restrained by the Constitution, sharing it's powers with the States and the people is not anarchy or anything close to it. The Articles of Confederation were too close to anarchy, that's why we got a Constitution instead.

I want to be free...I want you to be free. I want to enjoy the fruits of my labor...I want you to be able to do the same. I want the law, as written by the elected representatives, to be enforced and I agree to be bound by it, and I demand that you are too. That's not anarchy.

 

[PraXis]

Let's abolish the Federal Reserve (tar and feather the cvnts) and back our currency with bacon for the next decade.

You're welcome, America!

 

[geochem1st]

All due respect, that's nonsense.

A limited Federal gov't, restrained by the Constitution, sharing it's powers with the States and the people is not anarchy or anything close to it. The Articles of Confederation were too close to anarchy, that's why we got a Constitution instead.

I want to be free...I want you to be free. I want to enjoy the fruits of my labor...I want you to be able to do the same. I want the law, as written by the elected representatives, to be enforced and I agree to be bound by it, and I demand that you are too. That's not anarchy.

"Rothbard ranged far beyond economics in his historical work. In a four-volume series, Conceived in Liberty (1975-1979), he presented a detailed account of American colonial history that stressed the libertarian antecedents of the American Revolution. As usual, he challenged mainstream opinion. He had little use for New England Puritanism, and the virtues and military leadership of George Washington did not impress him. For Rothbard, the Articles of Confederation were not an overly weak arrangement that needed to be replaced by the more centrally focused Constitution. Quite the contrary, the Articles themselves allowed too much central control."
Biography of Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) - David Gordon - Mises Institute

So it seems we have two main flavors of Libertarians.

Anarchists and Minarchists.... with the Minarchists who want absolute minimal central control, trying to distance themselves from the Anarchist group... but there is very little separating them upon inspection.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I care.

I am not a lover of Communism nor Anarchism. The leaders of the movement do indeed matter.

... only when the followers are sheep. Considering that Libertarians tend to be individualists, I think your concern is a bit overweening, and would be better directed at the leaders of the parties in power.

Libertarianism is much like modern atheism in that the "herding cats" simile is very appropriate. Indeed, that is likely what keeps us (I consider myself a neo-libertarian, one of the offshoots of it) from mounting a serious challenge to power.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The ones that don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

Libertarians railing against anarchists, trying to distance themselves because of some lame, uneducated public perceptions are kidding themselves. They're "this" close, and denying it makes them seem disingenuous.

There are some of us who realized that pure libertarianism isn't going to work, and understand that political tenets aren't dogma to be handed down from Mount Sinai, but rational responses to changing realities.

If that looks disingenuous to you, well, I don't know what to say, except that that would seem to indicate that hopes for compromise should be reined in.

 

[geochem1st]

... only when the followers are sheep. Considering that Libertarians tend to be individualists, I think your concern is a bit overweening, and would be better directed at the leaders of the parties in power.

Libertarianism is much like modern atheism in that the "herding cats" simile is very appropriate. Indeed, that is likely what keeps us (I consider myself a neo-libertarian, on of the offshoots of it) from mounting a serious challenge to power.

Only when the followers are sheep? Have you not noticed the voting records of the populace for the past two decades?

Have you not seen the market dynamics of Wall Street? Largest group of sheep in the world. We are full of sheep.

This is why Libertarianism will never be widely accepted. It is a fringe philosophy, that is only gaining popular momentum with people who 'dabble' in it for they like some aspect of the philosophy (sounds empowering) and call themselves such because they are disenchanted with our current political system.... and rightly so, but this philosophy is extremist by any measure used.... both flavors of it.

 

[bildozr]

If you have 2 libertarians in a room, you have 3 opinions on the same topic.

As a Libertarian (not my registered party), I'd minimize government in whatever way possible. By that I mean cut the fat out, and rebuild the skeleton.

As far as government programs go, if I had A and I want it to reach C, B would have the least number of steps possible to accomplish it.

But that's just me. We're a fun bunch.

 

[KSG_Standard]

I'm a fan of Ayn Rand, Thomas Jefferson, Ludwig von Mises, Ron Paul, F.A. Hayek and many others...but I'm not a blind follower of any of them. I don't agree with everything they wrote, said or stood for, but much of what they express/expressed is far closer to my personal philosophy than what TR, FDR, Keynes, Obama or Marx express/expressed.

I think that people can govern themselves. I think that, provided a level playing field and fairly enforced laws that protect our freedom (including our economic freedom) anybody can reach their fullest potential. That doesn't mean that everybody will, but not everybody will under the umbrella of an all powerful gov't either. I'd rather the gov't be constrained than the people.

I'm willing to take the chance and stand on my own...and I trust you to be able to stand on your own too. If that makes me an anarchist in someone's eyes, then so be it.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Only when the followers are sheep? Have you not noticed the voting records of the populace for the past two decades?

Yes. The two major parties have captured a whole bunch of sheep for their herds, agreed.

Have you not seen the market dynamics of Wall Street? Largest group of sheep in the world. We are full of sheep.

There's plenty of conformists, true.

This is why Libertarianism will never be widely accepted. It is a fringe philosophy, that is only gaining popular momentum with people who 'dabble' in it for they like some aspect of the philosophy (sounds empowering) and call themselves such because they are disenchanted with our current political system.... and rightly so, but this philosophy is extremist by any measure used.... both flavors of it.

Perhaps you're right. Then again, perhaps you're wrong. Of course, this paragraph here doesn't really clarify anything, being (as it is) an ad hom attack rather than a reasoned critique. If you wish to think of this as me "dabbling" so as to feel "empowered", then that's your prerogative. Just don't fool yourself into thinking you know me, or many other who share my views. You don't.

There are many cross-currents and much foment going on in libertarian circles. To dismiss them peremptorily may feel good, but it doesn't strike me as a good way to understand what's going on inside those currents.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think that people can govern themselves. I think that, provided a level playing field and fairly enforced laws that protect our freedom (including our economic freedom) anybody can reach their fullest potential. That doesn't mean that everybody will, but not everybody will under the umbrella of an all powerful gov't either. I'd rather the gov't be constrained than the people.

I'm willing to take the chance and stand on my own...and I trust you to be able to stand on your own too. If that makes me an anarchist in someone's eyes, then so be it.

This is a perfect example, Geo, of the diversity of libertatian thought. KSG and I have had some pretty heated discussions about the scope and role of government. We share many similar outlooks, though, and on the whole, I prefer his views to those of, say, either senator from California where I live.

 

[bildozr]

This is why Libertarianism will never be widely accepted. It is a fringe philosophy, that is only gaining popular momentum with people who 'dabble' in it for they like some aspect of the philosophy (sounds empowering) and call themselves such because they are disenchanted with our current political system.... and rightly so, but this philosophy is extremist by any measure used.... both flavors of it.

I more or so dabble in it, I'm "spiritually" Libertarian. I'm a republican, but I disagree on a lot of issues within the party.

I like the ideas behind a lot of programs and I would follow them more.

Honestly I think we could do a ton of programs that are "too expensive" if we get on a real budget and really designed efficient programs.

I hate having the social pressure to pick one or the other.

 

[River]

There are some of us who realized that pure libertarianism isn't going to work, and understand that political tenets aren't dogma to be handed down from Mount Sinai, but rational responses to changing realities.

If that looks disingenuous to you, well, I don't know what to say, except that that would seem to indicate that hopes for compromise should be reined in.

What looks that way is what I said looks that way. Libertarians advocating anarchy while distancing themselves from anarchism. I know who I think they are, and they know who they are.