Actually, as the communists proved in 1917, the Nazis proved in 1933, Europeans prove with hate-speech laws and Islamists prove the world over – and as history has consistently taught – ideological conquest is, has been and always will be the case. The story of man is one of spiritual, cultural, political and physical warfare, and each chapter has victory and vanquishment. Zoroastrianism was extinguished by Islam, the Ainus have largely been subsumed by the Japanese, and the Maldives’ native Giraavaru culture is now only a memory. Just like animals, countless languages, cultures, beliefs and peoples have become extinct, often the victims of invasive entities that, through superior morality or might, won that inevitable battle.
And that is the battle for civilization. It may sound very noble to say, “. . . believe what you want to believe – I’m ok with that. After all, I am a Libertarian,” but when enough people believe the wrong things, you will not be OK with it. You will be living under a regime that enshrines those things in law – you’ll be living in tyranny.
Like it or not, imposing values is what arranging civilization is all about. And like it or not, you’re part of this process. The only difference among any of us is in what and how much we impose – and in that some of us actually understand this is precisely what we’re doing.
nothing to say very well written and very well worded !!
I have an athiest co-worker and wow coincidentally he is a libertairian full on does not beleive in any law’s except “natural law”
I try to articulate for him why i agree with some thing’s like protecting your property ie. family,land,home,posessions with any means nececassary to do so like if a guy break in while your sleeping i beleive you have every right to defend your property as you see fit ..do i agree with killing someone no but if it is in defending your home property or family yes i do.
Anyway as a christian i struggle alot with the seatbelt law simply because it is really only to do with yourself except where your dead limp body becomes a projectile
otherwise i don’t see any reason to make it a ticketable offence ,same with bike helmet’s again the only thing i can argue for mandatory bike helemet’s is where being a role madel for your children and others is invovled but there again everyone knows that seat belt’s and bike helemt’s DO save lives but to force people to wear them or else they will have to pay some stupid monetary penalty is rediculous to me .
now dinking and riving and speed limit’s like he stated i agree with as all of a sudden you are no longer affecting your own life you now end up affecting other lives .
My buddy is exactly to a tee described by american thinker he think’s the best way for a free society to live is that truley free no laws no rules and very small govornemnt yadda yadda but what he doesn’t realize is that when you do not force moral law’s by default you will be enforcing immoral law’s ….in a few words like a fish swimming up a rigourus stream if it stop’s swimming it will by default get pushed back down the stream no matter what .
Anyway that is how i look at it . i do beelive that there arwe several laws in canada that are “immoral” to stay with the topic .
If we take libertarianism as defined by the dictionary and in this piece, than I do not know if I know any “libertarians”. I personally confess to be half conservative and half libertarian, and this is so based on my Christian values.
I believe God gave me free will, but he also gave me accountability. I have the freedoms to make any decision I please but ultimately I will pay the consequences, and this is how I believe governing should be. Instead we have an insurgence of laws created to “protect” society, and at the same time it punishes those who haven’t done any wrong. Hand gun laws in Canada, and the right to carry I believe are a good example of this.
Libertarians can only operate in a Judeo-Christian country. Otherwise they get chewed up by the locals who DO care what other people are doing.
Today’s example of why, the Gay Pride parade in Belgrade was besieged by hundreds of punks looking for a nice punch-up.
http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE6990SJ20101010
Libertarians don’t create safe, tolerant environments, conservatives do. Then Libertarians live in them.
A small government is different than -no- government.
I love the quote of Reverand Lovejoy from the Simpsons in regards to legalized gambling, “Once the government passes it as law, it is no longer immoral”.
Which line is moving, morality or freedoms?
There are limits to libertarianism. If only libertarians would realise it. No one can drive drunk or steal from the payroll. These might sound like extreme examples, I realise, but that is the point. If there were no boundaries at all, not even the libertarians would be safe.
I don’t think the government or a special-interest group should tell me what to do but I also don’t think we should live in a vacuum.
Just my quick thoughts.
I think many of you have misunderstood libertarianism.
My definition (invented just now): “You can do whatever you want as long as you respect my right to do the same, AND while respecting my right to life and property, as well as our mutually agreed contracts.”
Thus libertarians (at least most of us) recognizes the need for a government to enforce these principles (police, defense, legal system).
Libertarians are very tolerant, except of the intolerant.
Johan your definition is how I generally viewed it, but I believe the author is writing in accordance to those who live it to the literal sense as defined by the dictionary.
Geez, do any of you people have a clue about what being libertarian means?!
Try this: Libertarians believe that individuals can do as they please so long as they do not bring active harm to other individuals.
Do you get that? ACTIVE HARM. The fatuous blowhard at the “American Non-thinker” apparently thinks murder and rape are not actively harmful. Every – EVERY – Libertarian thinks murder, rape, arson, theft, and etc. are wrong. On the other hand, if you want to smoke crack or shoot heroin, that’s your business. If you have to break into my car to steal my radio to support your habit, then you’ve made it my business. It’s really not that difficult to comprehend.
Does this mean every decision is easy for Libertarians (“L”‘s for short)? I don’t think so. Let’s look at a couple – abortion and second-hand smoke.
Abortion: Some L’s think abortion, since it only concerns the woman’s body, is her decision alone. Other L’s think it concerns two bodies – hers, and the child’s. And since terminating the pregnancy brings the ultimate “active harm” to the child, there are some L’s who are adamantly opposed to abortion.
Second-hand smoke: Some L’s believe that there is real physical harm done to others if they are put into situations where they must breathe second hand smoke. Other L’s believe that people choose to be put in those situations and thus they are responsible for what ever happens.
Do any of you get this? It’s not black and white. It’s not easy. There is no official Libertarian manual that says “You must think thus and so”. Our standard is “do no active harm”, and that obviously has some room for interpretation.
I rent a room from a guy who has a medical marijuana certificate. In the five years I’ve known him, he’s kept the same job (and he gets up at 6 am every weekday), pays his bills, and is in every way an upright citizen. Two or three times a month, he smokes a joint to quell anxiety (I can smell it). But for that certificate, and if the twisted morality of busy-bodies held sway, he would be a criminal. I ask you: why? Who is he hurting? Who is he bringing active harm to? Answer: No one.
A friend of mine once put the L philosophy quite succinctly:
MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS
Always interesting to watch Conservatives and Libertarians snipe at each other. We’re on the same side on 90% of the issues, and have much bigger fish to fry now days people.
I think drug use like smoking crack should not be illegal, but I’m sure as hell not going to refrain from criticizing or judging the morons who go ahead and do it — or those who defend them.
The purpose of government is to protect individual rights. It has a monopoly on coercion to enable the individual’s right to use force on others in self-defense. Police, military, courts.
The American Thinker articles were certainly thought provoking. They have less to do with Libertarianism than the problems one gets with democracy, the rise of a dependent class, and uncontrolled abuse of power.
One of the tenets of Libertarianism is responsibility for ones actions. There is also no disagreement among libertarians about a minimal set of laws which should be in place; there would be little support for repealing laws regarding murder and theft. Also, people have a right to security which means that they can use lethal force to respond to an attack on their person and for a citizen to be armed should be a right.
The US constitution and Bill of Rights are a bedrock set of principles which should serve to maintain a free society. The problem with the US founding fathers is that they didn’t go far enough to limit the effect of perversions of power.
Democracy is a terrible system of government and, in its worst form, is analogous to two wolves and a sheep voting on what tonights dinner will be. The way around this dilemma is to have an unalterable bill of rights to deal with this situation. Also, making the legislative system as byzantine and complicated as possible will make it very difficult to pass any legislation thus limiting the powers of government to the bare essentials.
Where Libertarians and Conservatives agree is in the areas of limiting power of government, economic freedom and individual responsibility. It seems the easiest way of determining whether a person is Libertarian or Conservative is by asking them what they think of legalizing currently illegal drugs. Libertarians don’t believe that what a person choses to put into their own body should be any business of government. Under the doctrine of personal responsibility, a person who drives while drunk and causes an accident is fully responsible and subject to legal sanctions.
Societies function much better when people share common values and the ones which should be instilled into young people are those of responsibility and liberty. We have a society where people are insulated from the results of their mistakes and it should be made very clear to children that doing certain stupid things will kill them and I would rather have a society where freedom takes priority over enforced safety even if it means that more people will die.
One of the tendencies of human organizations is growth and, in the case of government, this will ultimately be fatal to a society. What the founders of the US form of government neglected to add was a branch of government which has as its sole function the destruction of various government departments and reduction of their budgets. Controlling the size of this destructive agency will be an interesting problem and one way would be to have an expiration date on any subagency that is created.
The creation of dependent classes has perverted democracy as this creates a positive feedback loop of individuals voting for more benefits for themselves and this is unsustainable. There are some forms of government benefits that are required; eg compensation to soldiers maimed in conflicts in which they were acting on orders from the government. Welfare should be abolished and all charity should be through private agencies. The other option would be to only allow non-dependent individuals to vote in elections.
The perversion of power is something that has not been sufficiently looked into. There appears to be an innate human need to control ones environment which is most pronounced in males. Positive control of environment occurs in occupations such as engineers or builders and a perversion of this need to control occurs primarily in politicians, bureaucratic petty tyrants and statist police who abuse this innate drive to control people, usually just because they can do so.
It’s no coincidence that the same attributes occur over and over throughout human history of what constitutes virtuous behavior — self control, honesty, self-reliance and readiness to fight to protect members of ones social group. Libertarianism is not the problem; rather the problem is not recognizing human frailties and an idiotic assumption that more government is the solution to every problem.
Loki and KevinB well said.
“Imposing morality” has another name, which is instilling civil behaviour in the very young, so that it becomes a habit.
It’s what every good parent does — and has done since time immemorial. If parents either refuse, or don’t know how to teach their children civilized behaviour (because they haven’t been taught themselves in their homes ) the result is societal chaos, which is pretty much what we’ve got now — and in the Western world, of all places, where we used to put a high premium on civilized behaviour and pretty much created the prototype.
Now, whereas parental guidance and weekly attendance at church used to instill into children moral values and the attitude of “love your neighbour as yourself,” we have the government trying to legislate self control, honesty, self-reliance and readiness to fight to protect members of ones social group. Whereas parents and church used to instill these values for free, to ensure a harmonious society, governments now exact increasing amounts of our tax dollars and our obeisance to their dictates.
Virtuous behaviour cannot be legislated or bought. It is instilled in our young by loving and concerned benefactors, be they parents, guardians, teachers, clergy, etc. Now that we’ve trashed the idea of the nuclear mother/father family, which is proven to be the best family configuration for the safety, health, and well-being of children, now that we’ve relegated the church to the basement, and now that we’ve turned teachers into leftist, secular human agents of the state, it’s little wonder our children are turning to barbarism. They don’t know any better — and big government isn’t going to turn them around.
Try this: Libertarians believe that individuals can do as they please so long as they do not bring active harm to other individuals.
I think the wiccans already took that, “an it harm none, do what ye will”.
So long as we have tax-payer funded healthcare, libertarians impose their behaviour on my pocketbook (STDs, drug-related health issues, obesity-related health issues, no-seat-belt-wearing-or-bike-helmet-wearing related health issues . . .)
If society has to foot the bill, then society is allowed to impose a few rules, no?
“Libertarians believe that individuals can do as they please so long as they do not bring active harm to other individuals.”
Why is it that Libertarians who smoke, who do drugs, who are sexually promiscuous, and live life the way they darned well please (ann comments on some of these things above) seem to think they’re not doing “active harm” to anyone else?
That’s the thinking of an adolescent — or a toddler: If I can’t see the damage, it’s obvious there isn’t any. Right?
No. Wrong. Smoking, doing drugs, getting STDs and abortions, etc. take a huge toll on not only the individuals involved but on their families, their communities, their societies.
Of course, if you can’t see further than the end of your own nose — a trait of toddlers, adolescents, and libertarians — you won’t have any concept that your personal peccadilloes and, yes, sins affect others: No man is an island, said a very wise poet and priest a long time ago.
He knew what he was talking about.
ann, batb:
Did you even bother to read my comment?
I said – and here it is bold, italics since you apparently missed it – LIBERTARIANS DISAGREE ABOUT SMOKING AND ABORTION. There are legitimate disagreements about second hand smoke and abortion among L’s, which I explicitly mentioned.
“drug-related health issues, obesity-related health issues, no-seat-belt-wearing-or-bike-helmet-wearing related health issues .”
AAAAHHHHHHH! Ann, are you terminally stupid or just incapable of thought? NO LIBERTARIAN AGREES WITH ANY OF THESE LAWS!!! Why would you ascribe these to L’s thoughts? You are a fool, a moron, an idiot, and I would go on, but I’m tired.
Langmann, Loki, thank you for your comments and support.
In the five years I’ve known him, he’s kept the same job (and he gets up at 6 am every weekday), pays his bills, and is in every way an upright citizen. Two or three times a month, he smokes a joint to quell anxiety (I can smell it). But for that certificate, and if the twisted morality of busy-bodies held sway, he would be a criminal. I ask you: why? Who is he hurting? Who is he bringing active harm to? Answer: No one.
Well, other than the harm he might cause through being drug addled…driving, machinery, general job performance…
What is it about the ignorance of some people about cannabis (fiddle’s comment in particular). As Paul in Calgary noted, the individual in question has a medicinal marijuana exemption which requires a GP and a specialist to concur that this is the most appropriate treatment to be used.
The comment about being “drug addled” is analogous to comparing someone having a couple of beers in the evening to a skid-row alcoholic.
Like it or not, cannabinoids have significant therapeutic applications. Cannabinoids are very effective in the treatment of chronic neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, post-traumatic stress disorder and may also function as mood stabilizers in bipolar disorder. The most common cannabinoid receptor agonist that people might have been exposed to is clove-oil which reduces toothache pain by acting on cannabinoid receptors. (No you can’t get high on smoking cloves).
The only legal semi-synthetic cannabinoid is nabilone which is a great drug, but it also costs $6/capsule. Most patients find it cheaper to buy cannabis from their local dealer or save even more money if they grow their own. Cannabinoids are very effective drugs for a number of conditions and, just like a very large number of other drugs, they can be abused by people.
For people with chronic neuropathic pain, their job performance improves with cannabinoids since they no longer feel the pain. Tolerance to cannabinoids psychoactive effects is fairly rapid whereas the pain-relieving and anxiety-reducing effects seem to persist indefinitely. Such patients look and act totally normally and can’t be considered to be “impaired”.
Such patients look and act totally normally and can’t be considered to be “impaired”.
Yes, no doubt why companies pay for drug testing employees, because they’re not impaired. They actually like wasting money.
ann @ 2:11 p.m.: “If society has to foot the bill, then society is allowed to impose a few rules, no?”
No. The correct solution is to stop “society” footing the bill.
batb @ 5:04 p.m.: “Smoking, doing drugs, getting STDs and abortions, etc. take a huge toll on not only the individuals involved but on their families, their communities, their societies.”
Just because a family constantly gets all worried about their black sheep doesn’t mean these activities should be made illegal.
I can understand the viewpoint of those who think drug use and abortion should be illegal, but — smoking? Promiscuity?
@ Paul in Calgary:
“i struggle alot with the seatbelt law simply because it is really only to do with yourself except where your dead limp body becomes a projectile”
Actually, in a welfare state (i.e., pretty much every modern state) not fastening your seatbelt does affect everyone else, since if you don’t buckle your seatbelt and then become a quadriplegic, the government forces the rest of us to pay for you.
So in theory you would be right … so long as we just repeal that itty bitty little welfare state thing first.
Kevin B, you missed my point entirely. Typical of angry people with issues to push. Have you stopped breathing through your mouth enough to chill a little?
Take a valium. And don’t charge the health-care system for it.
@Loki: “Also, making the legislative system as byzantine and complicated as possible will make it very difficult to pass any legislation thus limiting the powers of government to the bare essentials. … What the founders of the US form of government neglected to add was a branch of government which has as its sole function the destruction of various government departments and reduction of their budgets. Controlling the size of this destructive agency will be an interesting problem and one way would be to have an expiration date on any subagency that is created.”
You’re right, but there’s an easier way: Constitutional amendment that says all statutes 1) require a super-majority for enactment, but only a simple majority for repeal, 2) expire in twelve years if not re-enacted, 3) a vote in favor of a statute is an implicit oath that the elected official so voting has read and understood the statute, subject to perjury and other penalties, similar to Sarbanes-Oxley requirements for private corporate officials.
Delegating legislative authority to unelected parties (“subagencies” in your terms) used to be unconstitutional (in the unwritten, English sense). Like most protections from abusive government, this prohibition was cast aside by the New Dealers. Solution? Constitutional Amendment making delegation of legislative authority Unconstitutional (in the written, American sense).
@Loki: “The creation of dependent classes has perverted democracy as this creates a positive feedback loop of individuals voting for more benefits for themselves and this is unsustainable. There are some forms of government benefits that are required; eg compensation to soldiers maimed in conflicts in which they were acting on orders from the government. … only allow non-dependent individuals to vote in elections.”
It actually used to be the case in many US states that those on public welfare could not vote, for exactly the reason you describe. Unfortunately, the sweeping language of the Fifteenth Amendment did away with that. Solution? Constitutional Amendment: “Those on public welfare cannot vote.” Might also be helpful to end corporate welfare. Imagine if your employment at a bailout-receiving firm disqualified you from voting. You’d be imagining a future with fewer bailouts. And far fewer votes for politicians tempted by bailouts.
Incidentally, do you like the Second Amendment? It used to be the case in some US states that voting citizens not only had gun rights, they were REQUIRED to own firearms, and to participate in the local militia.
Today we live on the same soil that those truly free people did. Today we live under governments that bear the same names as what governed those truly free people. Can we not have the same freedom they did?
Well said MollyBrazen and KevinB. Take away the welfare and make this a free society where people are responsible for their own lives and livelihood. Stupid unenforceable laws (like bike helmets and anti smoking) just waste money. Silly servants could be working and producing for themselves. Sad to see infantile seniors looking for a ‘rule book’ from the stupid crowd to guide them in their day to day activities.