-
Competing at The Cliburn
April 22, 2013 | 3 comments
-
They’ve Got Mail
April 8, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Nailing French Jell-O to the Wall
October 16, 2012 | 6 comments
-
Were You Thinking What I Was Thinking?
August 17, 2012 | 43 comments
-
Mike Wallace: Cheesy or Riveting or Both?
April 16, 2012 | 68 comments
Eminentoes
The Delightful Voltaire
An anti-statist for all time.
(Page 3 of 3)
It was here that he experienced a creative burst, writing another tragedy for the theater, a series of poems, and publishing Candide. He said later that Geneva pleased him because “the language is French but the thinking is English.” He moved across the border in 1759 after strains with Geneva’s administrators, ending his days Ferney, France, now renamed “Ferney Voltaire” in his honor.
To be sure, Voltaire has always had his detractors, but in today’s open society his anti-clerical polemics cause less distress. Nevertheless, his ridiculing of French national heroine Joan of Arc has kept a debate going in France about his influence for good or evil. “Voltaire divides, but Joan unites,” wrote Jean-Marie Goulemot and Eric Walter in a widely read essay in 1997.
And in the modern Anglo-Saxon world, some right-leaning academics have written recently of Voltaire as the embodiment of the liberal consensus they oppose. Voltaire — the arch libertarian — would be amused at the redefinition of labels.
Mme. Mervaud told me she sees Voltaire’s thought as eternally relevant. His principal lesson, she says, is “Dare to think for yourself, outside of conformity and orthodoxy.” In effect, she added, “Voltaire teaches us we are born with this ability and it would be a shame not to use it.”
The libertarians of today would approve.
JimH| 8.13.10 @ 8:02AM
I imagine that Voltaire being not only anti-state but anti-church will not be popular with all readers of this site.
Tom| 8.13.10 @ 8:23AM
Jim,
All readers?
Tom
Bilwick| 8.13.10 @ 9:05AM
He might be popular with the Protestants, since he stood up for the Huguenots against the French-Catholic theocracy.
JimH| 8.13.10 @ 11:38AM
Sorry, meant some readers.
Ryan| 8.13.10 @ 10:08AM
Better Voltaire than Rousseau. Ugh.
Alan Brooks| 8.13.10 @ 4:06PM
Libertarians are so carnivorous they can scarcely get elected to public offices!
John II| 8.13.10 @ 11:19PM
" Better Voltaire than Rousseau. Ugh."
Yes--that's it in a nutshell. Voltaire would have cringed at such a cliche. Not Rousseau.
William Blake| 8.14.10 @ 12:53AM
"Mock on, mock on Voltaire, Rousseau.
Mock on, mock on; 'tis all in vain!
You throw the sand into the wind
And the wind blows it back again."
John II| 8.14.10 @ 9:02PM
Point taken. Billy Blake was a little flaky too, though. Strange.
Alan Brooks| 8.13.10 @ 3:40PM
Libertarianism is an outmoded ideology. And they are fratridal, too; they tear each other down before they even get to the starting line. You'll never get anywhere with it, Johnson-- ep. if your living in statist France.
Nice puff piece on Voltaire, though. Voltaire is a good way to trick gullible people into being roped in by libertopians
Alan Brooks| 8.13.10 @ 3:41PM
fratricidal, not fratridal. But whatever libertarianism might be, it is rope-a-dope.
Tim*| 8.14.10 @ 7:31AM
Brooks is trying hard to justify his irrelevance .
eagles4ever| 8.14.10 @ 5:13PM
Thank you, Tim*bulb, for your profound contribution to this discussion.
Your repetitively inane comments are a constant proof of your irrelevance.
Tim*| 8.14.10 @ 6:15PM
You're so very welcome , Engle For Ever .
NEGRO X| 8.15.10 @ 5:44PM
eagles4ever, Tims should also apply his post to you, you seem to be a professional moron.
mike ames| 8.13.10 @ 10:06AM
He rejected the pivital reality of human nature, that we are full of original sin leading to the need to protect ourselves from each other. Denial of this central reality allows for the kind of licence he wanted to practice. He stands in stark oposisiton to a Constitutionally Limited Republic that keeps as its goal both freedom and responsibility, checks and balances, encouraging free thought but smothering licence.
Citizen Jerry| 8.13.10 @ 10:14AM
Good point, but how many people today can still tell the difference between liberty and license?
Margie| 8.13.10 @ 1:08PM
I don't think a lot of people realize what lies beneath the Libertarian mind. AmSpec's posters are mostly, it seems, Libertarian. Not surprising, as some of its authors are as well.
Here's one man's perspective:
Financial Times
England
May 3, 1994
Understanding the Libertarian Mind
by Michael Prowse
"The other evening I attended a meeting of the Vienna Coffee Club [The Future of Freedom Foundation's supper club]— that is Vienna in the state of Virginia. The guest of honour, Mrs. Bettina Greaves, spoke about Ludwig von Mises, the late "Austrian" economist whose work she has lovingly catalogued. I thought how strange it was that Mises, an economist almost unknown in his native Austria, remains a source of inspiration for many U.S. libertarians.
I suppose Americans, for historical reasons, are naturally more sympathetic to free-market ideas than Europeans. The newly-formed Vienna Coffee Club is typical of scores of discussion groups and think-tanks scattered across the U.S. What they share is a dislike of government and a burning commitment to economic and personal liberty. Some, such as the Cato Institute in Washington DC, exert considerable influence.
Cynics tend to dismiss libertarians as either cranks or rightwing reactionaries. They say the high-flown rhetoric about "freedom" is a smoke screen. Rich entrepreneurs support such groups, the argument runs, for selfish reasons: to garner political support for lower taxes, a policy from which they stand to benefit.
Perhaps some backers of libertarian groups do have dubious motives. But this is not an argument against libertarianism: Adam Smith noted, self-serving behavior often promotes public welfare more effectively than altruism. Motives in any case have no bearing on the validity of political arguments. While libertarians sometimes welcome support from traditional right-wingers, the philosophy espoused by true believers would make most conservatives cringe.
Libertarians believe in one fundamental principle: individuals should be free to pursue their own goals unmolested provided they do not harm the person or property of others. All the consenting acts between adults that do not damage third parties should be permitted. Libertarians are thus highly critical of conservatives for disregarding civil and personal liberties and for imposing their moral codes on the entire community.
They reject military conscription (even in wartime) as a wholly unacceptable infringement of personal liberty; they oppose all forms of censorship, including restrictions on pornography; and they strongly advocate equal legal treatment of all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation, race or gender. A libertarian could have no principled objection to homosexual marriage, or to adult prostitution, which is a service in obvious demand.
In these respects libertarians are firmly "left of centre". But they part company with social democrats on economics. They do not believe personal and economic freedoms can be disentangled. As Mr. Murray Rothbard, a prominent American libertarian, has often argued, civil liberties are rooted in economic freedoms. Why? Because we cannot do anything without control of physical objects and ultimately, we cannot control what we do not own. Liberty is thus a myth unless individuals can own and transfer assets without interference.
The axiom that interactions between people should not be interfered with unless they damage third parties thus logically extends from free speech and sexual conduct to the exchange of goods and services. Yet when government imposes taxes or regulations, it forcibly interferes with these voluntary economic exchanges. Taxation, for example, means that employees often receive two thirds or less of the monetary value of their output. Extreme libertarians, such as Rothbard, reject all taxation as "theft"; moderate libertarians accept the need for some taxation, but oppose progressive taxes — proportionately higher taxes on the wealthy.
Western-style democracy (one person one vote) is often regarded as an automatic guarantee of personal freedom. Libertarians agree that the alternatives are worse, but they regard government of any sort as potentially despotic. The problem is that the right to vote once every few years gives the individual little control over the actions of government. It exerts no effective restraint on the capricious will of the majority, which is often strongly influenced by special interest groups.
Libertarians fear individual rights are being crushed even in such supposedly individualistic societies as the U.S. For a catalogue of recent abuses, see Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty (St Martin's Press, New York), a new book by libertarian author James Bovard. He worries about tax regulations that are forcing the self-employed into bankruptcy, "asset forfeiture" laws that permit officials to seize property almost at will, security forces which search homes and persons merely on suspicion of drug abuse, and a mind boggling array of arbitrary rules stemming from some 1,200 separate federal programmes.
Bovard complains that most Americans have a romantic view of government: they judge politicians not by their record but, naively, by what they say they will do for voters. He favours rolling back government to its 1910 boundaries — before income tax.
Since libertarians believe in low, flat taxes and a minimal government (for such functions as defence and law and order), they are often perceived as "uncaring". This is somewhat unfair. People's ethics are best judged by their private actions — not by their politics. The proportion of income that individuals freely give to charity is surely a far better gauge of their sympathy for their less fortunate fellows than the shrillness of their calls for higher taxes on the rich and more public spending, much of which only induces dependency in recipients thus further eroding their life chances. The libertarian voice deserves to be heard."
~That was written in 1994. I'd like to find out if he still thinks their voice deserves to be heard. If anarchy is the bottom line belief of the Libertarian, I say no, it doesn't. If anti-semitism is another bottom line, I say no it doesn't. If the lawlessness they want for this country is still what they want for this country, then I say NO, it doesn't.
Len| 8.13.10 @ 3:29PM
First off, these article makes very weak connections to Voltaire's thoughts and libertarianism.
Anyway, on what basis would you or anyone have a right to interfere between two people in what they willingly consent to? If I choose to engage in trade with someone, do you have a right to impose yourself? No. Government exists here so that when there is dispute or fraud, or some harm to person or property, there can be an impartial settler so that justice may be achieved.
This likewise applies to any other interaction between consenting people, no one has the right to impose themselves on those people to force them to conform to their desires, else a form of slavery is occurring as those people then may only engage in actions at the leave of others. If this is what you desire, then you desire the use of violence to bring about your so called moral goals. You then have appointed yourself as God in this world to rule over others, however the scriptures make it clear that those who represent Him in this world are those who are preaching the gospel, ministering to the sick and needy, even hanging out with those "wretched" sinners, just like Christ did. Just like He says take up His cross and follow after me. Unfortunately Pharisees who invoke Christ ignore His commands and rather than following the scriptures which say to use spiritual weapons, they want to use physical force to bring about pharisaical outward conformity.
To say "leave me alone" when I do no harm is not lawlessness. Lawlessness would be to do harm to others and get away with it. Certainly the law is not to be used against people in their freedom, but to protect people from having their freedom, person or property harmed. Or shall we have inquisitions which force people to submit by force? This is not godliness, and certainly no scriptures justify this perverted morality. Indeed Jesus gave the greatest rebukes to those who sought to lay great burdens on people rather than lifting them, and NOWHERE did He tell his followers to use man's laws and mans government to bring about His kingdom.
Alan Brooks| 8.13.10 @ 3:47PM
But he said He had come to fulfill the Law-- you can't wriggle out of that one.
There is no way libertopianism is compatible with Christ. Libertarianism will fail, as all ideologies have failed and will fail, guaranteed.
Len| 8.13.10 @ 4:07PM
His fulfilling the law was a reference to the law given to Israel and that law within the hearts of all mankind,and made clear that He was the one answering to God for man's sins, to somehow say that He speaking of any law anywhere would be absurd. Would that then include laws like protecting abortion which clearly violates God's law to not murder?
Yes all ideologies will fail as they are based on something other than complete submission to God, but in the meantime the closest we can get to God's intent for government is to protect man, to be an instrument of justice, not one of tyranny, or presuming to act on His behalf as if commissioned from Him, when only once did this happen, and that was Israel.
Since Christ has indeed fulfilled the law, we have moved from where Israel had as a people submitted to God, and were to be a light on a hill to where those who are His in this world are to preach the gospel, AGAIN not to rule over people, but as the apostles so demonstrated to serve. Note,..even Israel which was chosen by God was commanded to be an example, not go about bringing God's judgement into the world, so how then do so-called Christians who are to take up the cross claim some divine authority to use force for moral judgement. The scriptures are very clear on what God wants government to do, and that is protect it's people, and bring about justice. The pharisaical "christians", though refuse to submit to God, same as the Pharisees of Christ's time and pronounce blessings on outwards acts. Looking at Paul and Peter though we see they fasted and prayed and wept and used other spiritual weapons to change men. Even further, if in the church itself God did not authorize the use of force when there was unrighteousness, how then can a secular government be allowed to go further than the church?
Margie| 8.13.10 @ 4:18PM
I am in agreement with the republican form of government that the founders had in mind. I agree with them. I am not in agreement with anarchy in any way, shape or form. Lawlessness=chaos.
Len| 8.13.10 @ 4:38PM
Again, freedom where there is no harm is not anarchy. The laws are to protect people, not dictate to them. Libertarianism is not people running amok on the streets doing whatever they so desire, though there are fringes that may hold such thoughts. In fact libertarianism would bring about greater order than we have now as people would not be free to do what they want if that desire butts up against someone else's rights. For instance in private one may have a right to be lewd, but in public being lewd would be forcing oneself on someone else when they have not consented to such.
Libertarianism also takes things like gay marriage out of the equation as marriage is not something that government is given authority over.
The republican form of government you speak of leaves it to the states to decide moral issues, and republicanism is also supposed to prevent a majority from ruling over a minority, other than in purely fiscal or utilitarian issues such as roads. This is what the Declaration of Independence states...That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. Things like conscience are to be a matter between man and God and not to be forced on others. Will you favor bringing back things like state churches which are constitutional but force people like say Baptists to then tithe to the state church which may be Catholic, or vice -versa?
Margie| 8.13.10 @ 4:48PM
Len,
State churches? You've got to be kidding me? If that's what you think I'd go for you have me all wrong. I'm not for Communism.
When you quote from the Declaration and say that conscience is a matter between God and man, well of course but the Constitution is a body of laws. You can't have order without laws. And God did not mean us to be without laws.
Len| 8.13.10 @ 5:06PM
Laws are meant to protect person and property, so I'm all for laws.
The constitution is not a body of laws, but an instrument delegating authority for specific purposes, and the crafting of laws is done under that authority. Nowhere in the constitution is there authority to make moral laws, as the tenth amendment reminds us that was left to the states.
You want laws that make homosexuality a crime, show me the victim? I'm not advocating homosexuality as that destroys man and God will judge it, but man has not been given the authority for this. If we go down that path, then we will go back to such things as the Salem with trials where the unfavored were targeted, and such things would mean people's property would not be their own as only by invading people's domiciles could such crimes be discovered. We already have such morality crimes where people's children have been taken from them merely on hearsay and more often than not proven to be false and a result of vindictiveness. Margie you place way too much trust in people and seem to unaware of the many acts of injustice that have been waged against people by the government. Plain and simple, if the people are bad the government will be bad, and if the people are good the government will be good. As made clear by the failure of Israel to be made righteous by laws DIRECT FROM GOD, man made laws will certainly not bring about an end to these immoralities you are so concerned about.
BTW an easy read to see how government abuses it's authority is The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
Margie| 8.13.10 @ 5:26PM
"The constitution is not a body of laws, but an instrument delegating authority for specific purposes, and the crafting of laws is done under that authority. Nowhere in the constitution is there authority to make moral laws, as the tenth amendment reminds us that was left to the states."
Well said! I should have said a basis for laws perhaps but I agree with you.
And no, certainly we cannot be made righteous by the law, as God Himself knew when He created us. Amazingly, He knew that He would have to send His only begotten Son to be the expiation for our sins, once for all. (John 3:16). The only righteousness we can possibly obtain is our justification by faith. Praise God for that!
I do not mean to say that all Libertarians WANT Homosexuality or "gay" Marriage, but that because of the philosophy and mindset think it ought to be legal, along with other things. God doesn't condone it, nor should man. Our laws are based on His laws. And yes you're right~ an immoral people will have an immoral government. Just look at what we have now. The Founders knew this as well. I marvel at their wisdom!
I am quite aware and not naive as you think I am with regards to the horrible injustices that are done in the name of the law by some government officials, and their day will come too. Maybe not in this life but in eternity and I wouldn't want to be them.
So~ no I do not wish to force my beliefs on anyone, no more than God does. He lets us go our way and only wants those who love Him to do so of their own "free will." (I put that in quotes only because some of us have been drawn to Him by the cords of compassion and seemingly had no control of it ourselves.)
So, once again it comes down to a specific philosophy. One that seems to divide us (and other conservatives)~ on the issue of law and lawlessness. There are other issues that pertain to this separation, including the issue of war, and the issue of Israel.
Len| 8.13.10 @ 5:59PM
Margie, government is force, so it's contradictory to say you don't want to force your believes on anyone, and at the same time say you want government to do so.
Please show me where Jesus or any of the apostles wet about telling the churches to push for laws against unrighteousness. No, when they went to some place and the unrighteousness was bad, did they appeal to the people to make better laws or did they rather gather together in prayer and fasting SO THAT THOSE PEOPLE WOULD KNOW GOD!!! God's problem with sin is twofold; one) it harms other people, but not all sin such as anger or envy which are directly doing harm to other people can be matters for justice, two) sin keeps people apart from God which is why he hates it. Then there is the pharisaical hatred of sin, which judges matters only externally and thus you can have a pharisee tithing and praying, but using this "morality" as evidence of godliness. True hatred of sin weeps over what it does to the sinner, not seeks to punish that person, since one knows that person will be judged later for it, this is what Jesus spoke against when He said "judge not lest ye be judged". He is talking about those who condemn people for their sin rather than seek to free them from it, and attempting to use the force of government to punish sin is clearly the condemnation of sin and using carnal weapons rather than spiritual weapons. The one who truly hates sin does not survey an unrighteous society and say let's make more laws, but like Paul and the other apostles shut themselves in and pray.
Margie| 8.13.10 @ 6:47PM
"Margie, government is force, so it's contradictory to say you don't want to force your believes on anyone, and at the same time say you want government to do so."
Yikes. Well that about sums it up. The mind of the Libertarian. You just proved that you believe that government itself is~ force! It's how you look at it. You believe that there's no such thing as a moral law. Laws are based on morality. This is what Libertarians refuse to acknowledge, as do Liberals, and anarchists! And "moderates." As does anyone else who refuses to believe that God gave us laws. What do you think He gave to Moses? A menu from the Chinese restaurant down the street?
Your first paparagragh is a bunch of baloney. You have ignored everything I've said in order to come up with this convoluted conclusion. Never did I say about making more and more laws.
Now if you want to have a discussion as to whether we have too many laws, that's legitimate and I believe I've said as much!
Len| 8.13.10 @ 8:40PM
Margie, the "law" that Moses brought to Israel was to a people who had as one submitted themselves to God. They had sacrifices to cover their sins, they had experienced as a people God's power to deliver them and provide for them, and they were given feasts to remind them of God, so any attempt to apply what was a unique one time only creation of a nation is absurd.
Further, in the New Testament Paul speaks of those who bear the sword, so that government is force is a scriptural concept.
Margie| 8.13.10 @ 9:18PM
Well Len, God gave the Law (the ten commandments) to Israel not because they were an obedient people but because they were disobedient.
And Jesus came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.
"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them." Mt. 5:17.
So, sorry~ His commandments are still applicable to us. Though they are impossible to keep without the power of the Holy Spirit, as you have mentioned. This is why we all need Him. We're all sinners and lost apart from Him.
"But to all who received Him, who believed in His Name, He gave power to become children of God;
who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." Jn. 1:12 & 13.
As to your statement that government is force as Scriptural~ ok, which Scripture is that?
It seems that you think that government is force and that is why you don't want us to have one. Because that would interfere with your "free will." And if you don't like government then you can't find anything positive about the Founding Fathers because they went to great lengths to create this government.
JoshINHB| 8.14.10 @ 11:27AM
Margie,
What laws are libertarians opposed to that you think prooves the immorality of that ideology?
Margie| 8.14.10 @ 6:25PM
As I've explained, it's the philosophy. There's no debating you guys. Like one of my "dearest friends" says~ I'm a bore and so at the risk of being all the more boring to you all, I'm "splitting the scene" now. No more baiting, thanks.
Len| 8.13.10 @ 4:20PM
Nowhere in the above was anarchy posited, rather a minimum of laws that protect people from harm or fraud.
Also, do you then support asset forfeiture laws? Do you understand what these are and how they are used? Do you understand that these allow people's property to be taken without due process and that many found innocent of any wrongdoing are nonetheless ruined financially due to the long courts battles fought and immunity for government officials such as prosecutors, and the police who have been found to withhold evidence of harass known innocent people because they don't want to admit their mistakes? I suggest you google asset forfeiture sometime and compare these laws to God's commands to not oppress the poor or to judge the rich and the poor alike, as even wealthy people have been targeted because of envy.
Margie| 8.13.10 @ 4:38PM
Len,
We won't be able to agree on Libertarianism. When you start talking about rejecting laws having to do with things like prostitution, drugs, homosexual "Marriage", sodomy, which used to be illegal, sex slave trafficking, and so forth~ the Libertarian believes these things ought to be legal. It's a philosophy I'll never be able to agree with. You can. I say it's a philosophy of anything goes. And it goes into the gutter.
No, I hate that our government and the Left have worked for decades to tear down sensible laws and turn everything upside down with politically correct garbage and regulations. I HATE it! But to the other extreme I think is the relaxing and indeed seeming doing away with all together of laws that keep immorality in check. Like the ones I mentioned. That's why I said anarchy.
Len| 8.13.10 @ 4:47PM
Margie, the scriptures say immorality is kept in check by the Holy Spirit and this is evidenced by the times of revival where many would come under the influence of God and as a result stolen property would be returned and bars emptied.
Paul was attacked for bringing about revival once because the silversmiths were losing business when their idols were not being purchased.
Did prohibition end drinking? Not even close, worse yet it gave rise to more violent organized crime syndicates and all were worse off for it.
It is a mistake to say Libertarians want homosexual "marriage", as we don't believe government should have say in such. As for sex slave trafficking that is absurd, as Libertarians believe that no one person can own another and certainly not to force them to use their bodies for others profit(s). This would be a clear example of the proper use of force by government to free someone and restore that person's liberty and enact justice for the harm done.
Margie| 8.13.10 @ 5:06PM
Len,
The Bible speaks of government too and that as Christians we should obey the "governing authorities put there by Him." Romans 13:1. He has always been for law and order. :^)
So, morality is actually kept in check not only by the Holy Spirit, but by laws.
So~ what is the nature of the disagreement then? If you think we ought to have certain laws, as I do? I think it's in the philosophy, once again.
Len| 8.13.10 @ 5:10PM
Margie, you are misusing scripture as that was spoken to believers, not unbelievers. You cannot taken scriptures addressed to those who are already submitted to God to somehow justify the making of laws to bring about righteousness. The passage given does not say that.
Margie| 8.13.10 @ 5:30PM
Len,
I said it was to Christians. The Bible was written to Christians and I am well aware of it. And I do not claim that we can be made righteous by the law.. see my above post.
Having said that though~ the laws of our land are made to be followed by all.
Margie| 8.13.10 @ 5:33PM
"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." Romans 13:1.
I believe when it says every person, it means every person.
Len| 8.13.10 @ 6:01PM
Does that include China, Cuba, how about Germany where people were supposed to turn in Jews who were hiding?
Margie| 8.13.10 @ 6:56PM
Have you no common sense? Grasping for straws.
Len| 8.13.10 @ 7:11PM
So then there are laws that we do not have to obey? There is authority that God did not grant?
Margie| 8.13.10 @ 9:49PM
If you obey God you are following the Law.
"Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God." Gal. 6:16.
Len| 8.13.10 @ 6:08PM
Margie, as I said about the earlier passage and now this one, nothing in either speaks of righteousness being brought about by outlawing sin. If one is already inclined to obey God then certainly a law is not needed to make them do right, and inversely those already inclined to do wrong will pay no heed to such a command from God. If you know your church history, Paul was speaking to some who were saying that as they were subject to God, they no longer needed to obey man's laws.
Alan Brooks| 8.13.10 @ 6:41PM
"If you know your church history, Paul was speaking to some who were saying that as they were subject to God, they no longer needed to obey man's laws."
That's academic sophistry, how many intellectuals can dance on the head of a pin. In this case we are evading the issue of libertarians. Nothing wrong with libertarians studying the great works of free market thinkers. But they shouldn't take it so seriously.
We haven't nearly reached the stage in our evolution where we can be free.
You shouldn't believe everything you read. If Roman Polanski writes a 'Libertarian Hot-tub Manifesto', you need not accept it as a treatise.
Len| 8.13.10 @ 7:07PM
Right, I believe almost nothing you say. Only God can grant one man authority over another, unless that man himself delegates such authority, so it's rather foolish to bring evolution into the debate as that takes God out of the equation and we then only have man justifying his ruling over others using that old sophistry you mentioned.
For if there is no God there is no source of authority, authority then is merely one group of people saying you will submit to us because we say so, no matter how you dress the argument up. Will you say then that the rulers are the ones most worthy, most capable of ruling, then that means that there is a universal standard that the "rubes" must be aware of, which then means that the universe itself is sentient and has installed a means of bringing the most able to rule, and that this universe(not God of course) knows the end from the beginning and was able to write rules into itself to bring the desired outcome about. It also means that we are the property of the universe and not ourselves, and that these rulers are indeed the elite predestined to rule us. NONSENSE!!
If then God is the source of authority, and men are allowed to govern other men's choices, then whereby will man have the freedom of conscience? Where also then did He instruct men to make laws regarding conscience, particularly when the scriptures (Paul especially) make it clear that a man is to determine for himself what his conscience says.
A third possibility being that there is no God, and that the universe is not sentient, then we are all the owners of ourselves and for others to say that they have a right to tell us how to live(apart from doing direct harm to others), is absurd as those people have no standard by which to determine what laws are needed for, indeed such things as racism and slavery could be justified under such elitism, as those calling themselves the "elite", or more evolved must then have inferiors or else we are equal and no man has a right to tell others how to live.
Rube, restrain yourself, your nonsense is unbecoming.
Margie| 8.13.10 @ 7:04PM
Len, again~ no one said anything about "outlawing sin." Laws are not meant to do that nor did the Founders think anything of the sort, nor do I!
And yeah, Paul saying that to those Christians who thought they no longer needed to follow the laws of man~ right. So? Your point is? He told them they should.
Len| 8.13.10 @ 7:09PM
Margie, why then do you bring up homosexuality or pornography, or the like? If these are consensual and people want to do these things,what other basis is there for outlawing such things, than to say they are immoral?
Margie| 8.13.10 @ 9:32PM
You said "outlawing sin." That is impossible to do. Only God can and will get rid of Sin. When Christ returns. Sin dwells in our members.
"While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death." Rms. 7:5.
But God's Law was still written for our good. It's meant to keep us from killing ourselves, so to speak. And from killing others. Man's laws are for the same purpose~ for our good and the good of others. You can't have a people dwelling in utter chaos. Which is what it would be like without law and order.
Alan Brooks| 8.13.10 @ 10:45PM
Libertarianism is a 22nd century ideal-- at best. But let me refer to one small discrete topic; Len writes "why then do you bring up homosexuality or pornography?"
Homosexuality can't be 'legislated'. But porn is legislated every day in every community, in every nation; mainly because no one knows how far to go in being permissive. From which neighborhoods should porn sales be nixed? do you want it being sold next door to a nursery school? Many other dilemmas.
Libertarians are falsely modest when they say they don't know but perhaps others smarter [or trickier] might know what to do.
"Might know. Others. In the future. That's not my specialty. Do your own research!..."
Tim*| 8.14.10 @ 7:50AM
There are , something like ten types of " Libertarians " .
Tim*| 8.14.10 @ 10:53AM
Neolibertarianism:
Neolibertarians are fiscal libertarians who support a strong military, and believe that the U.S. government should use that military to overthrow dangerous and oppressive regimes. It is their emphasis on military intervention that distinguishes them from paleolibertarians , and gives them reason to make common cause with neoconservatives.
Margie| 8.14.10 @ 6:32PM
I suppose if all of these "denominations" can come together and get "ecumenical" and vote for the best conservative Republicans that run for office we could get out of the horrible mess we are in.
I just wish there wasn't so much hatred, but I don't see it changing much, do you?
Tim*| 8.15.10 @ 9:28AM
God knows .
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates .
Real Tea Party Change In November .
David| 8.17.10 @ 12:16PM
So you are against the free flow of thoughts and ideas. In effect you are against free speach? The tighter you clench you fist the more star systems will escape your grasp lord Vader.
Bilwick| 8.13.10 @ 10:47AM
"He rejected the pivital reality of human nature, that we are full of original sin . . ."
Apparently in "mike ames'" lexicon, "reality" means "stuff the clergy told me I should believe, and do."
Bilwick| 8.13.10 @ 10:48AM
Oh, yeah, and "license" means "freedom when people don't behave the way I want them to."
Alan Brooks| 8.13.10 @ 3:51PM
"Oh, yeah, and "license" means "freedom when people don't behave the way I want them to."
Yes. If you want to protect your family, you will do the same; you will advocate laws that protect your family.
So libertarianism will fail, and libertarians who think they have wasted others' time will find they have merely wasted their own time and no one else's
Ryan| 8.13.10 @ 12:22PM
From a Biblical perspective, it more or less makes sense.
I agree with the license aspect as well. How many libertarians are willing to live with the consequences of drug habits?
Alan Brooks| 8.13.10 @ 3:53PM
Libertarians will someday regret they wasted their time.
Alan Brooks| 8.13.10 @ 11:42PM
"Only God can grant one man authority over another, unless that man himself delegates such authority, so it's rather foolish to bring evolution into the debate as that takes God out of the equation and we then only have man justifying his ruling over others using that old sophistry you mentioned.
For if there is no God there is no source of authority, authority then is merely one group of people saying you will submit to us because we say so, no matter how you dress the argument up. Will you say then that the rulers are the ones most worthy, most capable of ruling, then that means that there is a universal standard that the "rubes" must be aware of, which then means that the universe itself is sentient and has installed a means of bringing the most able to rule, and that this universe(not God of course) knows the end from the beginning and was able to write rules into itself to bring the desired outcome about. It also means that we are the property of the universe and not ourselves, and that these rulers are indeed the elite predestined to rule us. NONSENSE!!
If then God is the source of authority, and men are allowed to govern other men's choices, then whereby will man have the freedom of conscience? Where also then did He instruct men to make laws regarding conscience, particularly when the scriptures (Paul especially) make it clear that a man is to determine for himself what his conscience says.
A third possibility being that there is no God, and that the universe is not sentient, then we are all the owners of ourselves and for others to say that they have a right to tell us how to live(apart from doing direct harm to others), is absurd as those people have no standard by which to determine what laws are needed for, indeed such things as racism and slavery could be justified under such elitism, as those calling themselves the "elite", or more evolved must then have inferiors or else we are equal and no man has a right to tell others how to live."
It is a moral default position, Len. Since we live in no genuine civilization (we live in a state of controlled barbarism) slightly-- few would say they Ubermensch-- more enlightened and experienced thinkers and doers such as Buckley, Goldwater, Reagan, Geo. F. Will, are necessary to
1) give us advice
2) help pass statutes.
Dave Williams| 8.13.10 @ 11:31AM
"no one wrote more or better for the theater than Voltaire"...As for "more," well, Euripides with his 80+ plays, Sophocles with his 120+, and Lope de Vega, with his 400+, might beg to differ. Regarding quality, Candide apart (and even that needed some tweaking by moderns), his plays are the frigid, mannered leftovers of neoclassicism, popular only in France and not always there. He was a stand-up guy for a lot of the right causes, no question, but a great playwright...not so much.
fabrizio| 8.13.10 @ 11:52AM
Voltaire is one of the fathers of modern totalitarianism, I can't believe anyone would praise him here, of all places! If Europe has been so different from America in the last 200 years, that depends on the French revolution which Napoleon - XVIII century's Hitler - imposed on the European mind. Voltaire is one of the fathers of the dystopian and blood-dripping revolution which E. Burke so well described in its ideological roots and its foreseeable consequences. Anti-semitism, statism, concentration camps. There is not one horror of the French revolution and the totoaliatarian horrors from Robespierre to Che Guevara and Mao Voltaire hadn't theorized already. All mass murderers of the last XX century have held Voltaire and the French beheaders he helped form in great esteem.
Alan Brooks| 8.13.10 @ 3:56PM
Agreed, completely.
To this day the French honor the opportunist butcher Napoleon, who fought wars from Spain to Moscow.
Alan Brooks| 8.13.10 @ 3:59PM
Napoleon's goal wasn't to 'liberate',
his goal was to place his relatives and descendants on the thrones of Europe.
This guy Johnson is high on too much Bordeaux.
Alan Brooks| 8.13.10 @ 10:53PM
"This guy Johnson is high on too much Bordeaux."
PPS,
No, that wasn't to say Johnson has ever written anything substantial on Napoleon. Yet Voltaire influenced Napoleon as everyone here knows... Johnson is not overstating Voltaire's influence, however he is overstating Voltaire's value.
FeralCat| 8.13.10 @ 1:50PM
In France school teaches are advised not to cover Voltaire as he offends Muslims.
I hate women because they always know where things are.
- Voltaire
In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other.
- Voltaire
scott| 8.17.10 @ 8:41AM
Voltaire isn't anti-semitic as much as the Old Testament hides much hateful ideology. There is no more repugnant work in all of religious literature than the Book of Joshua. This "book" celebrates the genocide of a dozen cities, murder of every man, woman, child and their cattle; theft of their wealth all through deceit.
There is nothing on par with this in the Quran. Even Mohammed when asked to execute the Jews of Mecca (according to their own law and the covert treason they supported) the Prophet dissents and seeks to avoid this role. Joshua shows not an inkling of doubt about murdering all the men, women and children of a dozen cities.
Now, Voltaire raises this, not as an affront just to Jews but the Judeo-Christian tradition. See how Candide shows the then widely feared "Turks" as the wisest of characters. The "Turks" ruled the Mediterranean in Voltaire's day. The US's first war was against these Corsairs. We lost that war, even committing our own suicidal acts of terror.
Voltaire's most poignant work on this front is his "Essay on Tolerance" wherein he implores us all to come together over a dinner of "hen and rice" provided the Jews don't take up Joshua's deceitful role, that Christians don't engage in a Crusade against the other. He defends the Muslim for giving alms 5 times a day, committing themselves to charity (someone's metric for good) and humility. Islam allows free exchange of ideas, there is no Muslim suspicion of science as Christians have. In fact the first orthodox use of atheistic analysis comes from a Muslim, Ibn Rush'd--not the Brits, who were the great skeptics of Europe.
The great philosopher Spinoza who renounced Judaism was more closely linked to Muslim Spain than any other tradition. It was Muslim Spain centered in Cordova that brought the enlightenment to Europe. The Catholic Church had purged all Greek and Roman work from their control, it was Muslims which returned these works to Europeans.
This history has been occluded from the West due to nothing but rank propaganda. Do some research.
As to your "Christian argument" Jesus rejected the legalism of the Pharisees and pushed the principle of the Golden Rule--pointing to a Goy Arab as the best example of his principle. Paul returned to legalism and the law, "[this is better than that.]"
Voltaire offers a window to this hidden history. At least for those who seek truth, not an affirmation of their own biases and prejudices.
Purple Lips| 8.13.10 @ 2:00PM
I always thought Voltaire was a supreme oppurtunist. He loved freedom alight -his freedom. In that case, he was a Libertairian as much as he was a Libertine. Voltaire detested the Ancien Regime in the same way our Post Modern Progressives detest Amerika, but find nothing wrong with Cuba or Iran. Voltaire was a welcome guest at Sans Souci in Postdam. He tutored the future Fredrich the Great. They future King of Prussia was then a shy senstive and most likely homosexual. Voltaire imbued his learning with iconclastic attacks on the Monarchy, aristocratic society, and the court. He also taught Fredrich to speak flawless French (the language of choice for Fredrich his entire adult life), play the flute, and enjoy poetry and art.
It didn't take the Prussian King long to figure out what Voltaire was up to. The French philospher and man of letters flew the coop before he could be goaled. However, his young subject absorbed his own cynicism to the maximum. When Fredrich assumed the thrown, he quickly disposed of his "more humaine" learning and began a series of conquest that would weaken both the Austrians and French thrones.. The Hapsburgs survived, but not the French.
Voltaire, it could be said was the father of the Revolution. Yes, he was very witty; he was also a fantastic writer and self promoter. But I would never consider him anything more than cheerleader for Enlightenment. But, he was no fan of Liberty. Not ordered Liberty, anyway. If he wasn't kicked out of Prussia, he more than likely would have retired there. Like Progressives today, Voltaire enjoyed the good life and preferred to be around those who held power.
Akaky| 8.13.10 @ 2:41PM
I'm sure that Voltaire would be pleased knowing that centuries after his death he is still controversial.
Eric Giunta | 8.13.10 @ 3:39PM
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Voltaire a proponent of "enlightened absolutism"?!
This is compatible with libertarianism HOW, exactly?!
JR| 8.13.10 @ 3:55PM
Voltaire was a progessive elitist in the mold of today's liberal elite. He believed the people were basically rubes and that what was needed was an enlightened despot. He thought he found one in Frederick the Great but eventually turned on him during the wars the plagued the mid-18th century. But Voltaire a libertarian? Ha ha. Hardly.
Alan Brooks| 8.13.10 @ 4:02PM
People ARE rubes, that's why they need Buckleys, Goldwaters, and other educated people to guide them, and help pass laws to rein in their animal behaviors.
Len| 8.13.10 @ 6:04PM
Since you are a rube, I am telling you to rein yourself in and shut up.
Alan Brooks| 8.13.10 @ 6:49PM
Do as thou wilt, Len.
Margie| 8.13.10 @ 6:54PM
Len,
Wanna make that into a law?
Alan Brooks| 8.13.10 @ 11:00PM
"Since you are a rube, I am telling you to rein yourself in and shut up."
I don't want you to shut up at all, Len; you are fascinating: a religious libertarian is a very interesting specimen-- in his trying to square a circle.
It would be even more fascinating to read, (just for starters) a full length article on how you can, say, relate abortion and porn to a spiritual interpretation of libertarianism.
It would be very ambitious of you.
JoshINHB| 8.14.10 @ 12:12PM
You are being willfully obtuse in refusing to admit that a person can be against a behavior and not want the government to enforce a prohibition of that behavior.
In doing so you are becoming a caricature of a proto-fascist conservative.
Alan Brooks| 8.15.10 @ 10:37PM
"willfully obtuse in refusing to admit that a person can be against a behavior and not want the government to enforce a prohibition of that behavior. "
This is too airy fairy for politics-- it is philosophy and nothing whatsover more (you may have noticed AS is a political blog). As Len, you are being a hyperintellectual attempting to discern how many libertarians can dance on the head of a pin.
There are NOT enough responsible people at this time, Josh. Fascism?
Goldwater as an example was no fascist, in fact he bent over backward to be as unfascist as possible.
Goldwater didn't particularly like the idea of gays in the military-- but he felt he had to compromise.
To a lesser extent WFB was the same. The two were in effect-- standing back to look at their sums--probably the diametric opposite of fascists.
Allan Bloom, as well.
aware| 8.16.10 @ 6:21AM
"People ARE rubes"
The pigs are just more equal than the other animals.
Who's the fascist now? The "elites" are sure doing a bang-up job of "guiding" aren't they?
Alan Brooks| 8.13.10 @ 6:48PM
So do what you want, don't feel conservatives are forcing you. We need Buckleys, Goldwaters, and other educated people, to guide us, and help pass laws to rein in our animal behaviors.
However if you are gay, Len, you can marry if you really want to, it is legal in Iowa, Mass, one or two other states.
aware| 8.16.10 @ 6:15AM
Yeah, more LAWS! That'll do it!
"We are only interested in those who have broken the rules laid down for your behavior."
Dai Alanye | 8.13.10 @ 7:16PM
I never cease to be amazed that conservatives give credence to this fraudster Voltaire, and to his more recent analog H L Mencken. They each would have reigned, had they been able, as tyrants over the rest of humanity, most of who they despised.
Alan Brooks| 8.13.10 @ 11:24PM
"Where will the line be drawn? Shall we break into people's homes to ensure they are not watching shows with foul language."
This is slippery-slope thinking, Len, you are a rightwing paranoid if you would really think anyone here would suggest such a thing.
Or very inexperienced. You are young, Len, it is right you should be idealistic, however though a young man who is too idealistic has a good heart, an old man who is too idealistic has a bad brain.
Libertarianism is way off in the future; I honestly don't think you will live long enough to live in a genuinely free world-- unless you are a teenager now, Len.
And you surely aren't
JoshINHB| 8.14.10 @ 12:17PM
Where will the line be drawn? Shall we break into people's homes to ensure they are not watching shows with foul language.
I know that you support no such thing.
But your refusal to acknowledge a difference between immoral and illegal, which seems to be the basis of your oppossition to libertarian ideas, gives leftwingers the ammunition to characterize you and all conservatives that way.
It is incoherent to believe in limited government except in one or two areas that you have an irrational fear of.
Alan Brooks| 8.15.10 @ 10:46PM
We have not evolved to where we can adequately, fully, discuss these topics. You and Len belong at a philosophy blog-- AS is more about practice than theory. AS is a quote Conservative magazine unquote, not Libertarian Philosophy Professors Magazine. Nothing wrong with you two:
Wrong Blog.
"Shall we break into people's homes to ensure they are not watching shows with foul language" was so insipid it was entertaining; today if anything, they would more inclined to prosecute you for interfering with the transmission of foul language on the tube.
Alan Brooks| 8.15.10 @ 11:03PM
...today you get a Grammy Award for foul language, and if you plagiarize the obscenity, a Hollywood attorney sends you a harsh letter. It is safe to say that we are no longer in danger of censorship.
"Shall we break into people's homes to ensure they are not watching shows with foul language?"
A gutbuster, Len, a kneeslapper.
Alan Brooks| 8.15.10 @ 11:05PM
or is it Emmy Award?
So WHATEVER the trinket might be that these people award each other with.
Len| 8.13.10 @ 7:24PM
Animal behavior such as using force to compel others to do as you say when you don't like their choices? Animal behavior such as locking men up and torturing them, merely on hearsay without an opportunity for due process? Where will the line be drawn? Shall we break into people's homes to ensure they are not watching shows with foul language. Shall we use force to have others convert from unrighteousness/animal behavior? Animal behavior like shooting or imprisoning people who will not kill other people for you? Animal behavior like shutting down newspapers who take a differing view. Animal behavior like speaking condescendingly of others? Animal behavior like putting others down, rather than raising them up?
"Animal behavior", so funny, yet so sad, that the animal behavior is on your part to force others into line with your desired "behavior". You are certainly not evolved enough yourself as there are those who rather than use force merely speaks words and change multitudes of lives, why don't you go find these people and submit yourself to them?
MoeBlotz| 8.13.10 @ 8:26PM
Depends on what the meaning of Liberterian is.
Alan Brooks| 8.13.10 @ 11:15PM
Len,
No one here would say we will ever know a decent world, one that could effectively legislate morality;
but you still want the state to protect YOUR family. So right there libertarianism founders.
Libertarianism can only succeed in guiding economists, not in guiding anyone else-- except as a secular version of a religion. Libertarians are amazingly thickheaded when it comes to discussing such. If you don't want to rein anyone's appetites in, then why consider yourself a conservative libertarian in any way? You would have to admit you are a libertarian only, sans the conservatism, or perhaps you are a radical conservative-- and a radical conservative libertarian would be too unpredictable to communicate with, IMO naturally.
aware| 8.14.10 @ 1:25PM
Sheer incoherence. Why economists and no one else? It is easy to see why you have no coherent understanding of "libertarianism", you don't have any better grasp of liberty.
Did a mean libertarian run over your dog or something? I see no rational reason for your seeing libertarianism as some great enemy.
Libertarians aren't driving any of the steamrollers running over you, in case you haven't noticed.
Margie| 8.14.10 @ 6:42PM
But aware, you've said it yourself that you're an anarchist so can you really pull that off? Anarchy isn't conservative and it isn't right.
Now before you go insulting my intelligence again, well, please don't bother. I'm making an observation and stating a fact.
Good evening.
aware| 8.15.10 @ 7:52AM
I compliment you on your exchange in this, as you have been reasonable and rational and have not indulged in name calling.
Remember when you defend "government" you are defending ALL of it. The bankers, corrupt politicians, perversion of the law, organized theft, violence against dissenters, commie presidents, cronyism, abortion on demand, brain washing your kids in public schools, and a whole lot more.
I'm only an "anarchist" because I can't defend these and a lot more. The State is a gang of elites whose sole purpose is to exploit, steal wealth, and ensure that only "they" have control. Remember they(government) now make twice as much as those of us in the "private" sector, and we have to pay that. Does this sound like "public service" to you?
We are not as far apart as you would like to think.
Margie| 8.15.10 @ 10:51AM
Well let's just say we agree when I say, "Down with the corruptocrats!"
I was thinking about this last night for hours, as I usually do after commenting here. I take it so seriously that it troubles me. I think that's another thing we share is that it is all so troublesome. The huge mess we're in in this country. But here's what I thought~ that if Libertarians are as troubled about things as conservatives (I guess you'd call us Neo-conservatives), and if we supposedly have in common the same enemy which is the Left and currently that's the Obamanation~ then why is the effort put towards "hating on" the Republicans and seemingly wanting to do away with the party rather than rebuilding it and wanting to unite in said cause?
THAT'S the issue. I am for a republican form of government as the Founders formed. And I get castigated by the Libertarians for it. If Libertarians have at their base anarchy~ of course they or you wouldn't want to see the Republican party win. And thus~ you'd really be siding with the Left.
The Left~ who really shares the anti-war, anti-Israel and a lawless society!
All in all though, if Libertarians are willing to vote for conservative Republicans I welcome it. Like Tim* said if there are like 10 types of Libertarianism. But if anarchy is what is desired and a sort of infiltration into the party to place anti-war et al candidates is the goal~ then I say "Down with Libertarians!"
aware| 8.15.10 @ 12:40PM
I agree with your thrust, and do not advocate "lawlessness". To me it is impossible for a government to be this big, this powerful, this all-encompassing and ever be anything other than what it is, corruption itself. It won't matter how many of "the right people" are elected because of the nature of power. When has there ever been ANY retreat, regardless of who "wins"?
The first time I voted was in '76. I supported Reagan but saw him high-hatted by the Republican insiders at the convention. They hated him even when he was president and did all they could to hamstring him, especially his vice president.
Down with the corruptcrats. I agree but many of them are Republicans who masquerade behind what they do not believe to get elected(Gingrich is a prime example). While I have never voted for Democrats, I have never been "disappointed" by them. They do what commies do and I never expect anything else.
That said, I have 3 major disappointments with Republicans, Reagan where government got bigger, Republican take over in '94 where government got bigger, and W where government got bigger than ever(till now, that is). This is why they are and continue to be the Stupid Party.
Where I am I never wanted to be but now I feel the ground rumbling under my feet like a freight train coming. Both parties have played a part in bringing on the catastrophe that I believe is impossible to avert now. A very important milestone was just passed on our road to serfdom, openly admitting we are buying our own debt. This has been done secretly for 2 years while they swore they weren't. The day of reckoning is coming soon. Look at history and tell me if you can find just 1 example where this turned out good.
It is the government that is dragging us to anarchy not humble carpenters like me. I still maintain that "libertarians" don't run anything and never have. The driver's seat of the bus that hits you is ALWAYS occupied by either Democrats or Republicans but NEVER by libertarians. When did the "libertarians" ever pass any law and what part did they ever play in this road to serfdom and tyranny? Absolutely none.
If I am now an"outsider" it is because of the "insiders". I voted for small government for over 30 years and yet look what that got me. So have a little sympathy with my extreme frustration. Now I just want them ALL guillotined. Or hanged. I would want the same thing for any band of bandits that prey on honest people like you.
Margie| 8.15.10 @ 2:03PM
Wow. Great post. You reminded me of this~ It was actually as I was googling the subject of Libertarianism. Have you seen this tape? The whole thing's great but starting in the 8th minute Sarah comments on whether or not she's a Libertarian to the Judge. She says exactly where I stand, too. I'm sticking with voting Republican and not giving up in the same exact manor.
http://texas4palin.blogspot.co.....arian.html
I feel the ground rumbling beneath me too, but let's not give up. Yeah there are too many establishment types in the party but it's up to us to vote in conservatives, then. Can't give up. Get angry~stay angry~but VOTE the Communists out. And the ONLY way to do it is by voting 'R.' Then keep an eye on them. If they don't do their job, vote them out.
Honestly, what other choice do we have? Submission? Not voting? Not me! That said~ if and when the Communists truly do subvert our form of government and it comes to that of a civil war~ I'm pretty sure I know who's side I'd be on.
aware| 8.15.10 @ 3:56PM
Napolitano is a great "libertarian" and fully understands individual liberty. My jury is still out on Palin, but I do like the kind of enemies she makes, if you know what I mean.
I admire your optimism and can remember when I too was that way('90s).
An honest look at what our "system" has become shows that it is impossible to hold or cut spending. It is by law skewed to not only spend but to increase spending. This is where the seeds of doom are. It is a perpetual motion machine with the switch rusted in the "on" position.
I don't see how even a Republican super majority would have the guts to touch entitlements, even the ones they don't like. Mises said the crash that follows the bubble cannot be avoided and that you have only 2 choices, voluntarily abandon the ponzi and take your medicine or continue to keep it going and have total collapse. Entitlements are a ponzi bubble like any other, only infinitely BIGGER! He will be proved right again on that.
I don't see many willing to take the medicine cause it will hurt, like amputating a leg. I don't believe any elections will change what has been building for a long time. Our citizens have been seduced by the morphine of government and to take it away will result in some very mad addicts.
However, I will say this, if you can succeed in making the Republican party into a true opposition to statism, I'll be right there with you. I tried, hope you do better.
And I am sure that if the grits hit the fan(That's what we say down here) we'll both be on the same side. Cause I hate the commies too. I just also hate central governments, central banks, and people in the center just as much. Think of me as a radicalized version of you. It can happen to you too. I once sneered at what I now am.
I just give you one thought to hang on to in your fight, never defend a politician, no matter the party, they always make you sorry you did.
Margie| 8.15.10 @ 5:40PM
aware,
You see~ we aren't really enemies. The enemy is the Left. Re Sarah. Yeah, what's that saying that it shows who you are by the enemies you have? Sarah's a uniter. She knows what's at stake and that's our freedoms. She knows that in order to defeat the Left we have to vote them out and that has to be done, at least right now at this period in time, by voting for CR's. Conservative Repubs. She's real and down to earth and smart as a whip. Hearing her speak encourages me greatly and her optimism rubs off on me. I think it rubs off on a lot of people and that's why she is able to help so many candidates win. The establishment types aren't used to her manner of speaking, it's a personality thing or she doesn't fit their intellectual pointy headedness, but in fact she's actually smarter than them because not only does she say what's right but she actually does it and she's fearless. That's another reason they can't stand her~she makes them look bad because she is as sharp as a two edged sword as far as knowing right from wrong with no wavering. Americans LOVE this! Maybe I should say sane Americans do, or real Americans. How about just plain old conservative Americans.
The issue is that some Libertarians are so anti-government, so anti-Israel and so anti-war that they see me, and conservatives like me as the enemy. Because I don't renounce government utterly, because I am for a strong Military defense, and pro-Israel (I don't view them as an enemy but as an ally)~ some Libertarians try to define me as an "Israel-firster", betrayer, etc. etc. This is where we part company. That kind of vitriol disgusts me. And it is a commonly shared belief "system" with Obama and the Left.
As for me defending politicians, I will defend them if they are telling the truth because I am defending the truth, no matter who the person may be, but of course politicians let us down. No one is perfect and isn't it the rare person who keeps a promise, whether politician or not? It's the Truth I defend, let the chips fall where they may. That's what's great about this country, we get to vote the bums out.
Remember when Obama said something about that he thought we should be thanking him? Well he can be thanked for one thing and one thing only~ for helping conservatives like me to do the work of waking people up to the reality of what the Democrat party is really about. They are waking up by the millions and are going to be fighting against the Leftist Socialist Communist agenda at the ballot box! So, thanks much, Obama!
And I don't want to have to be alone in winning against the Left~we need your vote. If you've been giving up~ stop! There's always hope. And even if they win in this life they will lose in eternity. God hates Sin. Those who work to take away our freedoms will pay a heavy price unless they repent. Repent means to have a change of mind. That's all they have to do.
So I'll be on the side of freedom till I die. Even if I die getting there.
Tim*| 8.15.10 @ 3:54PM
" In the 1950s in the United States many with classical liberal beliefs began to describe themselves as "libertarian."
Classical Liberalism:
Classical liberals agree with the words of the Declaration of Independence: That all people have basic human rights, and that the sole legitimate function of government is to protect those rights. Most of the Founding Fathers, and most of the European philosophers who influenced them, were classical liberals."
Alan Brooks| 8.15.10 @ 11:11PM
"aware| 8.15.10 @ 7:52AM
I compliment you on your exchange in this, as you have been reasonable and rational and have not indulged in name calling."
Now look who is being ingratiating, a libertopian. How very sweet of you, AW, you are so... kind... so altruistic. how dare anyone call "aware" names-- gee willikers.
What is the world coming to when people in America call other people names? how un-nice it is to insult a libertarian; why, it should almost be against the law. It is positively uncivilized-- and we shall not tolerate it.
Boo hoo.
Alan Brooks| 8.15.10 @ 11:22PM
"The State is a gang of elites whose sole purpose is to exploit, steal wealth, and ensure that only "they" have control."
Libertarian hyperbole.
There are many good people in the govt; remember Ike, Reagan, a few hundred thousand others since 1776?
aware| 8.16.10 @ 5:56AM
Name one now.
Nick| 8.16.10 @ 9:02AM
Aware,
James Inhofe, Tom Coburn, Mike Pence, John Shadegg, Marsha Blackburn, Michele Bachmann, Chris Christie, to name but a few.
Not perfect, mind you, as none of us are. But, they are good people, doing good things.
The power still resides with the people. It is our fault, as a country, that there are so many crooked politicians in elective office. It is our duty, as Americans, to vote them out of office.
The Tea Partiers have been a lot more successful at this than have the libertarians. (Or the anarcho-capitalists!)
aware| 8.16.10 @ 10:33AM
I'll go with Christie. The rest, while not the commie scum hogging the spotlight currently, have been where they are for a long time and haven't done much to stop the rush to tyranny except talk. Never heard one of them support abolition of the Federal Reserve which is the driving force for unlimited government.
As far as the Tea Party goes, good luck(and I mean that) but we'll see after they get in. They helped put Brown in and the early results there don't look promising.
Remember all the heady talk from Gingrich and Co. in the '90s about abolishing various departments? Even the IRS? How much of that happened? And they had a clear mandate.
Last leg down doubled the ranks of we anachros and the next one will triple it. Not bad for fringe elements with absolutely NO mainstream assistance. Its because we are the only ones that really understand why the mess and where its going and are willing to say so.
Once we were told the kings were gods, then we were told the kings were appointed by God, now they tell us We the People are kings. None of this is true but it keeps us hoping, voting and docile doesn't it.
Alan Brooks| 8.15.10 @ 11:45PM
"Libertarians aren't driving any of the steamrollers running over you, in case you haven't noticed."
Yes, because they are too cannibalistic to gain public office in substantial numbers. Their little male egos are so bloated it exacerbates the pre-existing differences between them at their Kangaroo cour, ...er I... mean, conventions. So they can't get elected to do anything of substance.
Aware, Len,
I am thankful for small favors, keep up the internecine libertarian fighting forever, you are doing us a favor-- thanks ever so much. Godspeed in the hopelessness of your outmoded causes.
aware| 8.16.10 @ 5:54AM
Let me try to bring you up to speed, I'm not a libertarian but an anarcho-capitalist. Go look that up in your junior high library.
You must enjoy having what little you have taken by the State and handed to their bankster cronies, union thugs, welfare breeder cows, and foreign dictators in the name of "fairness". Nice little conformist, thinking what you're supposed to. Keep your place in the sheering line, sheep critter.
aware| 8.16.10 @ 6:01AM
"...your outmoded causes."
Yeah, you got that right at least, liberty is "an outmoded cause" now.
Xanthippus| 8.14.10 @ 12:42AM
I'm afraid this "hommage" to Voltaire is quite misdirected. Like Plato before him and Rousseau after him, Voltaire was one of the original "political pilgrims" in search of the philosopher-king that would be under his tutelage. Voltaire believed he had found his, in the person of Frederick the Great of Prussia. Alas, Frederick's devotion to the exigencies of realpolitik trumped any genuine attachment to Voltaire's ideas of philosophie. He was one of the "useful idiots" of his day, shilling for Central European despots the way Thomas Friedman does for the contemporary Chinese Communist regime.
Voltaire's devotion to free speech could be characterized as "liberty for me, not for thee". When he and his acolytes gained the ascendency in the 1770's, he thought nothing of depriving the freedom of speech to his adversaries that he claimed had been denied to him in the past.
Also like his contemporaries, Voltaire made a very nice living from criticizing the ancien regime that made it all possible – another example of biting the hand that feeds you. From his estate in Switzerland, safely beyond the reach of royal authorities, he launched withering fusillades against the Catholic Church – “Ecrasez l’infame!” Yet he wished his servants and tenants to be pratiquants, since this provided a solid support to their honesty and probity. When the time came for him to leave this vale of tears, he didn’t resist the summoning of a priest to administer the viaticum.
If we must seek a beau ideal in 18th century France, I would suggest Montesquieu. It is his notions concerning the separation of powers and limited government that informed the Founders’ ideas enshrined in our Constitution.
Voltaire was a very humorous gadfly, as anyone who has read Candide, can attest. But just a gadfly.
JCA | 8.14.10 @ 12:08PM
Barruel (see my comment below) demonstrates that when Voltaire says “écrasez l'infame” is not limited exclusively to the Catholic Church, but Christianity in general, and Jesuschrist specifically. This is demonstrated with many examples in his letters—he was of the opinion that all other Christian denominations (Huguenots, Jansenists, Calvinists...) was mad among the mad ones.
scott| 8.17.10 @ 8:53AM
Voltaire's devotion to free speech could be characterized as "liberty for me, not for thee".
That is an utter corruption of Votaire's maxim, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
The ignorance here is alarming. Voltaire was, as evidenced in Candide very skeptical of these philosophical theories. The whole of Candide can be viewed as a reductio ad absurdum against any philosophical position. Voltaire was a skeptic, not a statist.
JCA | 8.14.10 @ 11:47AM
This article is a complete nonsense: extols one of the greatest wicked and ungodly philosophers, for his talent, which the History had given, and the main cause for the spread and success of their sophistry and slander, corruption of morals and great horror that was the French Revolution, the anticipation of what was then the Russian Revolution.
I am publishing in my web page the very recommendable 1827 Spanish edition of the first tome of Barruel's “Memoirs, Illustrating the History of Jacobinism”, beggining in:
http://javcus.es/infokratia/44.....ntra-altar
but I think is easy to find the English version in Internet. It is a well documented book which bases its information on Voltaire's private letters to everyone who contributed to the creation and dissemination of the Encyclopedia, and is clearly seen that their methods of poisoning and sedition are the same as the Communists have used and the Liberals use today in the XX and XXI centuries.
Mike| 8.15.10 @ 8:46AM
Marge and Len,
I have enjoyed immensely your debate.
Two points to Marge: First, the record of Israel's obedience to God is spotted at best. How many prophets did God send to Israel before sending his son? Second, in mentioning sex trafficking in an earlier post you either inadvertently or intentionally miss a major point that Len makes: sex trafficking is illegal and should be prosecuted by the state because it is not a free exchange between two people.
Margie| 8.15.10 @ 1:33PM
Thanks Mike. I admire Len's admiration and knowledge and study of the Constitution.
Concerning Israel. God's love and mercy are unending toward them as it is toward all of us rebels. ("For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life." Jn. 3:16.) In His absolutely amazing and awesome and impossible to understand wisdom, ("O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!" Rms. 11:33.) He knew that He created an entire people who would rebel. It was an entire plan in order to show His mercy. ("For He has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of His will, according to His purpose which He set forth in Christ as a plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in Him, things in Heaven and things on Earth." Eph. 1:9 & 10.) I've been reading the Bible since I was just about 20 and each time I read it I still marvel. The whole Bible is God declaring the end from the beginning, ("..declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all My purpose,'" Is. 46:10.) And there isn't one thing that He hasn't planned in this entire thing we call time.
Salvation is for everyone, the Jew first, ("For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for Salvation to every one who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.." Rms. 1:16.) And in fact in God's plan if it weren't for the Jews' rebellion there would be no Salvation. ("Just as you were once disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may receive mercy." Rms. 11:30 & 31.)
" For lo, He who forms the mountains, and creates the wind, and declares to man what is His thought; who makes the morning darkness, and treads on the heights of the earth--the LORD, the God of hosts, is His Name!" Amos 4:13.
We're all rebels and we all need to be saved.
"But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his Grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by His blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in His divine forbearance He had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that He himself is righteous and that He justifies him who has faith in Jesus." Rms. 3:21-26.
"For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one; and He will justify the circumcised on the ground of their faith and the uncircumcised through their faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law." Rms. 3: 28-31.
Of course, that is more than some would say is necessary to say, but my heart wanted you to "hear" it.
Margie| 8.15.10 @ 5:52PM
p.s. to Mike~ well then abortion may be a "free exchange" to the Libertarian, in his or her mind because it is their "choice" since it is their bodies. Yet it is the blatant murder of an unborn child.
It's the philosophy that I detest. It is one shared by the Left. "As long as I ain't hurtin' nobody else.."
It's like the old hippie adage~ "If it feels good, do it."
In the words of Ed Koch, Mayor for life: "Wrong!"
Vic | 8.15.10 @ 10:32PM
I don't know many libertarians who would go along with abortion myself. Not the ones who promote natural law philosophy anyway. The taking of life, the chief of human rights, without due process of law, should be forbidden by any just government.
Which it is by ours, if it weren't lawless already.
"to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our POSTERITY".
Is this not where the legal document declares WHO it applies to?
Future Americans would be legally protected by the government if the constitution really was adhered to. But that document was discarded a long time ago by selfish, unthinking people. Just as Madison, Franklin, and Jefferson, feared it would be.
Alan Brooks| 8.15.10 @ 11:35PM
But libertarianism (or if you don't like that handle, call it minarchism ot whatever you like) is an outmoded 20th memeplex.
Aware wrote: "I still maintain that 'libertarians' don't run anything and never have."
Thank God for that, let's keep it that way: encourage libertarian alpha males to shred each others' oversized egos.
Robert of Ottawa| 8.15.10 @ 10:04PM
Two things:
1) You must read Voltaire's "Letters from London", where he remained in exile for some years.
2) Plato was a statist, not a libertarian.
Alan Brooks| 8.15.10 @ 11:18PM
Libertarianism is as foolish as Marxism. Why would anyone waste time with it in the year 2010.
You libertarians are harder on yourselves than the state.
And Rand;
Palin makes better reading than Ayn Rand.
JR| 8.17.10 @ 12:24PM
Alan Brooks = Troll. Don't pay toll to the troll. I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time. Thus, the government that governs best is that which governs least. Especially at the federal level. If local governments, e.g., cities, counties, want to vote themselves into subservience, I have far less of a problem because the local politicians are more easily held accountable. Plus, you can always move. Who holds the federal bureaucracy to account? How do you get away from an oppressive central government. Nobody since Andrew Jackson.
PS - Troll, please explain how our current plan of centralized economic planning will work. Give examples.
JR| 8.17.10 @ 12:30PM
And as for libertarianism and abortion, if one believes that life begins at conception, then an act by another that terminates the life of that individual is an act of violence against another, which is totally inconsistent with libertarianism.