The American Spectator : Utopia Revisited

Text Size

Utopia Revisited

Some billionaire intellectuals never learn.

Today’s libertarians are metaphysically mad, argued conservative guru Russell Kirk nearly two decades ago. Libertarians so disgusted Kirk he would have gladly herded them onto an ice flow and set them adrift in the middle of the Pacific.

Sounds like a great idea, says libertarian billionaire Peter Thiel.

Like Kirk, Thiel is also disgusted. Not with libertarians, but with Americans in general. In fact, he’s so disenchanted he wants to build a floating island 200 miles off California’s coast. (Though, technically, if it’s floating it’s not really an island. More like a raft.) Thiel’s new start-up country (naming rights available) would have a minimal form of government as befits a colony of libertarians. In fact, the government’s only function would be the defense of the maritime city-state from those roving pirates from Waterworld, and breaking up shrill disputes between minarchists and anarcho-capitalists.

Libertarians call this form of government a Night Watchman State, which is reminiscent of old guys walking around town making sure the barber shops are locked up at night. Libertarians believe this is all the government a society needs, because without government everyone will behave like the Brady Bunch. Somalia is a case in point. The main thing is, nobody will be able to force you to wear a seatbelt when you drive your car. Assuming you need a car on a raft.

These fantasy islanders, or “seasteaders,” who include Milton Friedman’s grandson Patri Friedman, strike some as nursing a bad case of sour grapes. They seem resentful that libertarian ideas and candidates haven’t caught on. In fact, they’re so bitter what they’d really like to do is start a colony on the moon or Mars, maybe. However, even with all their billions in Facebook shares, that’s not likely to happen soon.

Thiel says he would like to build his aquatic utopia’s government from scratch, much like America’s founding fathers. According to Friedman, the ultimate goal “is to open a frontier for experimenting with new ideas for government.” The problem is they don’t really have any new ideas. The Harm Principle was formulated by J.S. Mill circa 1859. Even the idea of founding a country on a deserted island was taken up by Sir Francis Bacon in New Atlantis back in 1624. Besides, anyone not educated in our public schools knows the U.S. wasn’t invented out of whole cloth; the founders were influenced by thousands of years of Western civilization going back to the Ancient Greeks. No matter, Thiel has something Madison, Adams, et al. didn’t have: billions of dollars earned doing business in the country he can’t wait to leave.

I CAN FORESEE several problems with this utopian scheme:

First, it’s a utopian scheme, so it’s bound to fail like all utopian schemes.

Second, giant squid.

Third, there’s the issue of a moral order. American society at least has a few vestiges of morality remaining, which keeps people like me from stealing my neighbor’s wife. But MacTopia, or whatever the new island nation is called, will have no moral order, because traditional morals are considered intolerable curbs on one’s liberty. In fact, you’ll be able to stop by the store, buy an assault rifle, a rock of crack and a hooker, and then walk next door and pickup your child from his private elementary school, since there will be no pesky vice laws or zoning ordinances. Convenient as hell. Literally.

Fourth, one good tsunami could wipe out the whole venture.

Most important, Thiel and Friedman are forgetting about human nature. At least a few of the islanders will bear children, and those children will inevitably rebel and become Marxist-Leninists, or at least liberals, if only out of boredom. By the time Thiel is packed off to the Alzheimer’s unit, MacTopia (now renamed Che Guevara Island) will be no different from Berkeley, California, with super high taxes, abortion on demand, generous welfare benefits, and homeless people blocking every street corner begging for handouts. Then come the riots.

Despite this certain doom, the idea of seasteading is catching fire (also a distinct possibility), and not just with rich libertarians. Some of these floating island nations will be socialist in nature. No doubt there will be fundamentalist Christian, fundamentalist Islamic, even anarcho-transhumanism colonies too. Consumers will be able to island hop till they find a form of government that suits them just right. Though, in the end, they will all suffer the same ill fate as every other utopian colony.

If the giant squid doesn’t get them first.

About the Author

Christopher Orlet writes from St. Louis.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (76) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Chef Schnauzer| 9.1.11 @ 6:31AM

C Orlet is probably 100% correct regarding his projections of MacTopia.... in the quiet moments of summers evening while nursing my bottle of San Pellegrino I dream about the possibilities but save my efforts for Heaven.

Margie| 9.1.11 @ 2:01PM

I like that, Chef. Me too.

Dan Mathewson| 9.1.11 @ 5:43PM

Ditto.

Chalkdust| 9.1.11 @ 6:53AM

If you have unbridled freedom on your island/float, how would you keep the democrats and ACLU rats out who would soon smother out freedom of choice in exchange for government control? On the other hand, if you design rules/laws to keep them out, you set yourself on a glide-path to diminished freedom. Riddle me that.

Shamus| 9.1.11 @ 7:32AM

What to do with rats and lawyers? Throw them overboard!

daddio| 9.1.11 @ 12:13PM

can't, they swim too well!

chuck| 9.1.11 @ 7:05AM

Call it Paulistan, populated with people like Clint. What a joy it would be to live there!
The real world steps on Clint's face.

Wipe your feet!

Whatever that means.

Occam's Tool| 9.1.11 @ 1:27PM

Review Brave New World, and the society composed entirely of Alphas. Huxley had a good point.

Somewhere along the line, someone said something about Government and Men not being Angels. Hold on, it will come to me---oh, yeah. JEFFERSON.

Occam's Tool| 9.1.11 @ 1:29PM

I thought it was "spread your cheeks?"

Clint| 9.5.11 @ 3:16PM

More Queer Talk From American Spectator's Resident Nut Bag Israel Firster Neo-Chickenhawk, Tool Job.

You're Afraid of The Tea Party.

Occam's Tool| 9.5.11 @ 6:41PM

Another one of Clint's best friends bite the dust, killing children:

(Telegraph) — An al-Qaeda militant has been killed together with his two children when a car bomb he was making at his home exploded near the northern Iraq city of Kirkuk, police said.

“An al-Qaeda terrorist, Mohammed Nussayef Jasim al-Hamdani, was killed while trying to fit a bomb inside a vehicle at his home,” a police official in Kirkuk said today.

“His two children, aged 10 and 11, also were killed, part of his house was destroyed, and 20 of his neighbours were wounded,” he added, saying the incident occurred before midnight yesterday west of Kirkuk city.

Hamdani had been in detention on suspicion of terrorism, but was recently released due to “insufficient evidence against him,” the official said.

He asked not to be named because he is not authorised to speak to the media.

On Sunday, an anti-terrorism official said that Iraqi security forces had smashed an al-Qaeda network allegedly responsible for more than 100 killings in Baghdad.

ZIP | Tuesday, July 26, 2011 @ 12:31 pm

My condolences on the death of a Paulbot, Clint.

Clint| 9.5.11 @ 3:14PM

We Tea Party Patriots Are America Firsters, Israel Firster AgendaBoy, Chuckie.

You're Afraid of The Tea Party.

Ivan Ivanovich| 9.1.11 @ 7:06AM

Mr. Orlet
Why so much negativity?
And BTW a tsunami would not affect a floating island much

Patrick| 9.2.11 @ 5:46AM

Because, while all societies fail in time, utopian ones fail quickly and epically.

Of course, I'm just too busy thinking about Snowcrash parallels to consider much else right now.

garth| 9.2.11 @ 3:54PM

You can use the word utopian, but it isn't a socialist utopia. THE PLACE OF GOVERNMENT IS ONLY TO UPHOLD THE RULE OF LAW. Read "The Law"- Bastiat. This libertarian island isn't utopian in the negative connotation you are attempting to place it.
It is creepy how party line republicans foam at the mouth at libertarians. Creepy because you wreak of from the intellectual decay the left suffers from. So many names, so condescending, the rage is apparent.
The same reason you feel you don’t need the left, is the same reason we don’t need you. We will stand with you in order to remove economic statism.
Your sycophantic do good nature does good for no one. You criminalize people who are not criminals, you ruin people’s lives based on what you think is right for them, it makes me sick, no more and no less than when the left demands control over the fruit of my own labor.

Margie| 9.2.11 @ 4:08PM

It's Libertarianism I reject, not libertarians. The Libertarian platform in which they believe is warped.
Individuals who profess that they're libertarians at heart are wanting the same freedom we want.

Such as like when Reagan made the comment (that good old Clint always posts here), that he thinks libertarians are in agreement.. but it's the Libertarian party~ not so much.

He got it like we get it.

Clint| 9.5.11 @ 3:20PM

Ronald Reagan,
" If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Rise Up In Rebellion.

Jack Olson| 9.1.11 @ 7:22AM

A tsunami at sea is barely noticeable. It only does its terrible damage when all the kinetic energy piles up on a shoreline.

Pecos Pete| 9.1.11 @ 7:52AM

On my island:

Rule #1 is ... I am the boss, the law, the man.

Rule #2 is ... See rule #1.

Gee, sounds like Libya.

JP| 9.1.11 @ 8:11AM

Of course, Mr Thiel could start a new society the old fashion way - invade another country.

Petronius| 9.1.11 @ 8:50AM

Utopia has never been, nor can it be. Fuggettaboutit. Let Us Just retreat to the time when the three types of behavior which afflict honest people are proscribed and enforced. Eliminate predators: and banish the perverts and parasites.

Patrick| 9.2.11 @ 5:47AM

Here here!

JimH| 9.1.11 @ 8:54AM

It’s easy to win an argument when you can set up a straw man opponent and put words in his mouth. Libertarians and most Conservatives agree on the goal of having the least amount of government necessary to insure national security and defend the life and property of its people. Where that point is, is a subject of debate among all the liberty valuing Right. Libertarians, like Conservatives are not utopians. They see man as flawed and in need of restraint. Since the State is a powerful weapon which can be used by some people against others, the Libertarian approach is to keep it as small and weak as possible and reject notions that it can also be used as a force for good. They support gun ownership and the right to personal and privately hired defense. The Night Watchman state or even no state (Anarcho-Capitalism) is an extreme end of the libertarian spectrum and not representative of all who consider themselves libertarians.

Have you considered| 9.1.11 @ 10:57AM

Jim H, agree with your post.

I see no reason to abhor or fear the experiment.

If they fund it, build it, and populate it with volunteers, where is the harm?

I lean libertarian, and I believe in the US Constitution as it was originally intended, not how it is construed and used today.

I believe the state's policing powers should basically be confined to proscribing the two "Fs" Force and Fraud and some public safety issues such as traffic control.

I do not believe that anarchy and "might equals right" is a goal of the libertarians.

Quartermaster| 9.1.11 @ 4:55PM

I think you mean misconstrued. It certainly isn't properly construed by either party these days.

Rev. Jim Whittle| 9.1.11 @ 8:56AM

We already have this system of government - it's called state's rights. The Founders believed the states would each turn out different. They did, and eventually we fought a Civil War over this issue and began our slow march toward centralist government.

USSAlabama| 9.1.11 @ 10:19AM

Summed up well . . . The Libertarian Credo:
Fiscal Conservatives : Moral Hellions.

Eddie| 9.1.11 @ 10:26AM

Hilarious!! I was laughing my a** off AND so true. Another billionaire with TOO much money, too much time and too much stupidity to realize that there will never be a utopia(s). Hey, all he needs to do is look at those wondeful utopias of: Russia, Cuba, North Korea, China, Venezuela, etc..Spend your money in better things like - helping your neighbor (displaced, lost things due to natural disasters) , donating to cancer causes or, here's an idea, helping bring down the the national or your state's debt. Rich idiot.

skedaddle| 9.1.11 @ 10:54AM

Thiel shouldn't let the lack of a floating "island" stop him. He should buy an island, preferably one with some fresh water and food sources. Then he and his buddies can all go play Lord of the Flies or prove us all wrong and make a great, free island paradise. Go for it, buddy! I'm eager to hear how it turns out.

Simon Templar| 9.1.11 @ 12:25PM

Mr. Orlet..excellent article. You have eloquently summed up exactly what big L, Libertatianism is today.

Slacker| 9.1.11 @ 12:38PM

They will just be another type of expatriate, only they chose an oil rig. Their utopian optimism is stupid. Their disenchantment with Americans in general is seems spot on to me.

Simon Templar| 9.1.11 @ 12:48PM

Libertarianism. It really is an almagamation of ill fitting, self centered and delusional utopian ideas. None of these ideas are new. It is a classic political trojan horse.

It wraps itself in a false history and pretense of standing for freedom and liberty but is nothing more than grandiose ideas of social and political anarchy and completely unrealistic and untempered foreign policy.

The sad thing is that we are indeed living in times where small l libertarianism is needed badly and a review of our fiscal, military, and public governing institutions and policy is sorely in order. I am afraid this small 'l' libertarianism is being compromised by these neo-Liberaltarians that have distorted the classic libertarianism of our founding fathers.

Occam's Tool| 9.1.11 @ 1:28PM

Simon, can I go live where you are President?

You know, I have never seen a poorly reasoned post from you. Ever.

Al Adab| 9.1.11 @ 4:50PM

Count me in, but who sets your immigration policy?

Occam's Tool| 9.5.11 @ 6:43PM

I think he's my Pal. I'll rely on cronyism. Everyone needs a Health Minister to set appropriate screens.

Trinacria| 9.1.11 @ 1:39PM

The good Mr. Olsen appears to have confused libertarians with anarchists, which is rather like confusing agnostics with atheists. The former is characterized by a healthy skepticism, the latter by a complete rejection.

Francis W. Porretto | 9.1.11 @ 1:57PM

Essays such as Mr. Orlet's are why I refuse to subscribe or donate to The American Spectator. A commentator unwilling to grapple with an idea seriously, with due attention to its logic, its antecedents, and the concrete consequences its thinkers forecast, is left with nothing but strawmen and derision.

Essays such as this are a bad sign for American conservatism.

Slacker| 9.1.11 @ 3:26PM

Wholeheartedly agree.

Quartermaster| 9.1.11 @ 4:58PM

Don't forget Jeff Lord's smear machine. And Phil Klein and his immigration idiocy.

Drunken Sailor| 9.1.11 @ 2:00PM

Let them build and populate it. Afterall Giant Squid need to eat too and just think of the fresh "B" movies ideas it would generate.

Al Adab| 9.1.11 @ 4:51PM

DS:
You and I could form the import company and bring the scotch.

Drunken Sailor| 9.1.11 @ 8:07PM

Calamari and Scotch. Not sure if they go together but after 2 or 3 drinks does it really matter? Sounds good to me.

Al Adab| 9.1.11 @ 8:54PM

Not a very attractive combo is it? Maybe after the pasta? Still, if we own the franchise, who cares?

Margie| 9.1.11 @ 2:15PM

Pretty funny, Mr. Orlet. I must say I enjoyed it thoroughly. It's the only way to deal with Libertarianism~ laugh at it, because it's a joke. The Libertarian anarcho-what-evers aren't really too funny though~ they're a pestilence, just like the hippie-freaks of the 60's. They're main thing is~ "we're so good, we know so much better and so much more than you do, you're all so stupid and moronic (moron being one of their favorite words), just get out of our way because we're taking over your party and your country.."

Like the old hippie-freaks in their day who tried presenting themselves as "for peace", these are some of the worst, most pathetic anti-American, anti-war America haters I've ever come across.

I say, let them go build they're new island~ all of them. Good riddance. But don't ask us for any help when your Utopia fails. You should have learned from the Marxists of old.

Slacker| 9.1.11 @ 4:23PM

Wow, you dislike libertarians! Do you have a daughter cohabitating with one or something? Geez.

If they are a pestilence they sure are the tiniest more inconsequential pestilence of all time. There aren’t nearly enough libertarians to hijack your beloved party, and trust me, they don't want it.

What must you deride people who agree with you on most issues? Can’t you allow people to be right for the wrong reasons? If someone agrees with you on an issue, who cares what ideology led them there?

Half the time I wish the cultural conservatives would go pack sand. I still respect and defend them -and there are no shortage of opportunities to do so -because we agree enough to be allied.

Pure ideologies attract no oustide allies so good luck selling your niche brand.

Margie| 9.1.11 @ 9:57PM

Sorry, free country. Don't like it? Hop the next train with the Liberalterriors.

They're the ones who don't like this country~ not me. I love it and want to keep it. I'm sick of their bilge, so I will be more than happy to kiss them goodbye if they want to leave~ isn't that what the article was about??

And nice try at trying to paint me into a box~typical Liberal tactic.
But I don't have one~ I'm a conservative who welcomes anyone's vote for the best conservative candidate running in our party.

You're a tool yourself in reality~ you're calling me what the Liberalterriors actually are~ they're the ultimate purists who won't vote for anyone but their own.

They're the ones who helped elect Obama because of the purism~ and they're going to do it again.

So, please, spare me with your hypocrisy and phony judging. okeedokee?

Clint| 9.5.11 @ 3:25PM

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Carpe Diem.

Occam's Tool| 9.5.11 @ 6:52PM

Carpe Phallus, Clint. My condolences on another close friend's death:

KABUL (AFP) — A suspected suicide bomber driving an explosives-laden vehicle detonated Sunday while driving towards Afghanistan’s biggest US-run military base, authorities said.

The explosion appeared to have happened prematurely on a road about five minutes’ drive from Bagram Air Field, 50 kilometres (31 miles) north of the capital Kabul, the interior ministry said.

“Again the enemies of Afghanistan failed to achieve their goal. A suicide bomber with his bomb-filled car detonated before reaching his target,” the statement said.

ZIP | Monday, August 29, 2011 @ 11:19 am

As we are to blame for all the problems in the ME according to the sacred Paul, I know this death must have hit particularly hard.

Occam's Tool| 9.5.11 @ 6:45PM

Slacker---read Clint's posts. Then you'll understand why Paulbots (he was the Libertarian Candidate for Pres at one time) suck. And why they annoy so much. And what pisses off Margie, who is one of the sweetest people on this green planet, unless you twist her tail Real, Real, hard.

Margie| 9.1.11 @ 2:36PM

Ugh. The they're s/b their, above.

JimH| 9.1.11 @ 2:43PM

Libertarianism is not a unitary credo. Its basic principles are quite simple. A person’s life belongs to himself, as are the fruits of his labor. All exchanges ought to be voluntary. I will not get into the philosophical underpinnings here which will vary depending on whether one subscribes to a religious, natural law or some other grounding of these rights. Suffice that this viewpoint can be traced to Adam Smith, Locke and others. If the State has any legitimate role, and I will agree that this point is disputed by some libertarians, but is by no means inherent in the philosophy, it is solely to defend the right of life and property. Libertarian advocacy of drug legalization should not be confused with supporting the use of them. It is a logical consequence of the principle of self ownership. The libertarian does not recognize the State as having any right to speak for society as a whole. Here libertarians and conservatives differ. A conservative is willing to grant the State this authority, trusting to tradition, common sense or some political process to keep Leviathan within limits. Libertarians would rather not take the chance. Libertarianism does not prescribe how a person ought to live. Its principles merely define the limits of the rights of individuals in their dealings with each other.

Trinacria| 9.1.11 @ 4:56PM

Well stated, Jim. I'm somewhat perplexed by the intellectually lazy assumption that a libertarian must, by definition, advocate anarchy. One cannot simultaneously declare sacred the rights of life and property and oppose the rule of law. A sacred right, by definition, is inviolable, which implies a need to provide a means of protecting it (if it cannot be protected, it is no longer inviolable).

Simon Templar| 9.1.11 @ 7:07PM

And this is exactly where you go wrong...
"It is a logical consequence of the principle of self ownership. The libertarian does not recognize the State as having any right to speak for society as a whole. "

Our founding fathers were true libertarians that surely believed that the individual had inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This the core belief of classical libertarian thought.

They also believed in the concept of a Republic, a We, the people, of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union. That union, being Republican government, to indeed speak for society as a whole and establish the laws that the society as a whole has deemed necessary to meet the needs of that society.

As for your first statement about the self ownership, you seem to think that individuals live in some kind of vacuum.

The legalization of drugs is a good example. People do not have a right to do anything with their bodies as they wish. Why? Because many of these unhealthy acts directly impact others in both concrete and practical matters that impinge on others liberties and freedoms. Now, we may agree that drug use should be decriminalized and seen as a health issue and treated as such but the abuse of these substances and the damaging consequences of use of this substance abuse should be prosecuted.

The selling of this poison, however, should not be tolerated and the legalization should never be supported or sanctioned. The damage that substance abuse and the production and sales of drugs does to a community and a nation is costly and directly impacts my liberty and my pursuit of happiness. A society or a republic has every right to defend itself against this through the use of its laws and government.

This a crucial point I am trying to make here and one that many so-called libertarians do not seem to understand. With all liberty comes responsibility..it is not free. Unrestricted individual liberty is not only an impractical utopian idea but undesirable.

Conservatives do not want to implictly allow or trust statist to determine social policy and law without the people consent nor act in a manner that is against their consent. As individuals we will reason together as a community and as a nation what we deem acceptable, lawful and what is not only according to our traditions, values, and common sense, but also from what we know is practical and experential.

skip| 9.1.11 @ 9:36PM

My understanding is the Founding Fathers established crime to be an act that harms an individual's person or property, and an individual may not be charged with a crime unless the individual has actually, not potentially, harmed another individual's person or property.

As such, breathalyzers violate an individual's fifth amendment right, unless the individual has harmed another individual's person or property.

Likewise, individuals under various influences, who do not harm another individual's person or property, have not committed a crime.

Should an individual harm another individual while driving a vehicle under the adverse influence of a substance, then and only then has the individual committed a crime. An appropriate penalty for the conviction of such a crime that is severe enough will act as a deterrent to other individuals to avoid such behavior.

Also, what an individual does on their own property, that does not harm another individual's person or property, cannot be a crime.

Individual liberty is violated when an individual can be charged with a crime for an act that has just the potential to harm another individual's person or property without actually doing so. Such an argument is the basis for liberal attempts to restrict freedom of speech, freedom of religion, bearing arms, and other acts of tyranny.

Simon Templar| 9.2.11 @ 12:35AM

Where to begin? Ok. Let us take your breath test for DUI. It is my understanding that police must have cause to pull you over, look you over, ask questions, ask you to get out of the car and walk, and then request you take the breath test.

Can not say I have seen many roadblocks where police are stopping everyone and demanding breath test. I do believe it is common knowledge and experience that a procedure must be followed.

It is not a inalienable right to drive a car drunk on a public road. You must pass exams and must pass physical requirements, and one of those is sobriety. Sorry, but bad example, try another. No one's rights are being violated.

skip| 9.2.11 @ 3:22PM

I stand by the Constitution and those who established it. I stand by the Bible and He who established it.

An individual accused of a criminal act for the potential to harm an individual's person or property, instead of for the actual harm to an individual's person or property, will inevitably lead to tyranny for every individual.

or what it is worth I have never read any comment from you I've disagreed with, unless this current misunderstanding is resolved.

Punish convicted drunk drivers who kill another with an automatic death penalty. Punish convicted drunk drivers who harm another individual's property with the confiscation of property appropriate to repair the harm. Incarcerate those convicted without appropriate property to repair the harm and enforce labor from them until the value of the enforced labor is appropriate to repair the harm. The deterrent of the knowledge of these penalties consistently applied will make the roads safer for everybody than they will ever be currently. The penalties will represent true justice. No one's right's will be violated constitutionally. No one's rights will be violated according to God's natural laws. No one's liberty will be violated by any theoretical temporary safety. No one's freedom will be violated by any other men.

Demand personal accountability from every individual without exception. The Constitution does. God does. The Constitution has established that every individual is equal under the law. God, through the Bible, has established that every individual is equal under the law.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature"

These are Ben Franklin's words, the polymath known as 'The First American'.

skip| 9.2.11 @ 7:54PM

Oops. Third paragraph should state:

For what it is worth I have never read any comment from you I've disagreed with, unless this current misunderstanding isn't resolved.

Margie| 9.1.11 @ 10:03PM

Simon~

Right on, sir. You GET IT!!
Excellent, most excellent comments. Thank you.

JimH| 9.1.11 @ 2:55PM

What I wrote above was getting rather long but I did want to say something about libertarianism and religion. They are quite compatible. In a libertarian society anyone is free to practice any religion that does not impose itself on others. You don’t hear much about them, but I’ve known quite a few Christian libertarians. They believe that a free society is the safest place to practice their beliefs. And only in a free society where one can choose to do otherwise can one truly decide to act morally.

Simon Templar| 9.1.11 @ 7:15PM

Jim, you are onto something!

Libertarianism owes its existence to Christianity.
Christ was the first to preach that ALL men were equal in the eyes of God and endowed with certain inalienable rights. This is where the idea originated.

Occam's Tool| 9.5.11 @ 6:50PM

Yes, JimH, but too many Libertarians I know have not read Carl, and confuse him with Karl. Von Clausewitz is FUNDAMENTAL.

Quartermaster| 9.1.11 @ 5:41PM

The founders could be called libertarians with morals. They did not deny human nature. It was one one of the founders that said that men are not angels, therefore we have government. Man must be governed, either by himself, which the founders expected, by tyrants. This country is on the verge of tyranny, because the population has become degraded and increasingly do not govern themselves.

dufas| 9.1.11 @ 5:51PM

If you get 50 people together and ask what is Utopia, you'll get 49 different answers....

My brother kept joining different 'live-together-in-freedom' groups and every one of them failed within 6 months.

As is now displayed in the US, freedom means you have to put up with/accept other people's freedom but, as usual, there is going to be someone that wants to form a group to control the other people.

People cannot get it through their heads that freedom is not just their freedom, it means everybody's freedom...

skip| 9.1.11 @ 6:50PM

It just might be an idea worthy of consideration, provided three guarantees:

1) Kraken repellent, in abundance

2) The Macallan, in abundance

3) Young and beautiful twenty something nurses seeking real love, in abundance

Al Adab| 9.1.11 @ 7:04PM

Actually Skip I prefer Laguvulin or Laphroigh, but we might make do. Lets get the import franchise.

skip| 9.1.11 @ 8:43PM

Single malt import franchise for each of us, both Macallan and your choice. Might as well include one for the repellent too.

With the considerable guarantee of an intellectually honest individual for thought-provoking conversation and enjoyable camaraderie.

A worthy idea, indeed.

Occam's Tool| 9.5.11 @ 6:49PM

Al, Laphroigh I can sometimes get! (On metformin, I cannot drink, but I enjoy watching other men enjoy vices. I think that was from The Big Sleep.)

By the way, I like the logic thread.

shipley130| 9.1.11 @ 8:47PM

As long as American tax payer money is never used for their endeavour, who cares. The problem is, it's out in the ocean and they will be calling for the coast guard. Utopia will NEVER exist when human beings are within rock throwing distance.

PCP Smoker| 9.1.11 @ 8:58PM

Call Eric Holder and get some long guns and a shitload of ammo. I love the idea, but I love it more with an M-16 and a box of grenades.
Don't forget the marijuana bong too. That's a must for all libertarians.

Mike| 9.1.11 @ 9:52PM

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Today, that would be libertarians, Tea Party grandees, Emmett Tyrrell (among others) and fundamentalist of any religion.

Dacron Mather| 9.2.11 @ 1:51AM

On behalf of my late host, and guest, Russell Kirk, I can but lament Ortlet's breathtaking impudence and mendacity.

Moe Blotz| 9.2.11 @ 4:40AM

Oy Mr.Orlet,when aryiz going to continue your series of scribbling about bars?

garth| 9.2.11 @ 3:55PM

Margie| 9.2.11 @ 4:04PM

"Your sycophantic do good nature does good for no one."

Even Jesus says no one is good but God:

"And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but God alone." Lk. 18:19.

But what's wrong with wanting to be on His side??

Kenneth Olsen | 9.6.11 @ 1:16AM

Orlet joins the swelling ranks of those at AmSpec who misrepresent libertarianism in order to demean it. His facile asides about sex, drugs and guns expose the author's unwillingness to account for the libertarian's insistence on individual responsibility. Not for nothing, but Obamacare and the entire therapeutic state rests firmly on the foundation of the "war on drugs." Aside from Bowman's fine writing, this magazine seems intent on providing less and less that's worth reading. Sex, drugs, and guns are far better alternatives to this pompous, preposterous article.

Rich Birkett | 9.14.11 @ 11:07PM

"The problem is they don't really have any new ideas." First, old ideas were once new, and new ideas will become old. Truly original ideas are rare. Second, I heard a similar quote by someone I don't recall. It goes something like this: "It's not about old ideas versus new ideas. It's about good ideas versus bad ideas."

Latest Headlines

We Will Remember

Roger Kaplan|26 comments

Real Immigration Reform Requires Free Markets

Ross Kaminsky|80 comments

Enough With the Bipartisanship

Matt Purple|45 comments

The United States of El Norte

Larry Thornberry|60 comments

Vodka = Vodka = Vodka

Daniel J. Flynn|94 comments

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer

Tornado Chasers

Claire Healey|35 comments

The Chinese Waltz

George H. Wittman|2 comments

The Spectacle Blog

The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case

Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13

Jimmy Wray, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.25.13

The Spectator’s Spectacular: May 18-May 25

Patrick Ryan | 5.25.13

Updated: NBC News: Holder Personally Approved Fox Reporter Warrant

Ross Kaminsky | 5.24.13

Felonious Attorney General?

Kaylin Bugos | 5.24.13

Did the Boy Scouts Cave to Pressure?

Claire Healey | 5.24.13

BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity

Aaron Goldstein | 5.24.13

Obamacare is a Big and Growing Problem for Democrats