Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General libertarians = right wing anarchists

Well, not really, a knight. I will write again what I have written before. I view property rights as being natural, but land I hold separate and distinct from all other property. My reasoning for this is that land was not created by man, cannot be created by man, it is immovable, and life is dependent upon it.

Because of these characteristics, I view the ownership of land as really an owning of a bundle of rights concerning the use of the land and who gets to have the exclusive use of it. Ownership, in this case, is not absolute. Thus, the manner in which it is used is, in my opinion, of rightful concern to members of the community at large and, within reason, can be subjected to land use provisions through, for example, zoning.

What I do not adher to is the idea that natural Rights in anyway derive from or gain authority through the Constitution.
Yours,
Issodhos

As a supporter of limited government, Senator Hatrack, I have found it more useful to refer to a government limited in its power to intrude into our lives, which means a government limited in and to its constitutionally granted authority and powers. This, after all is what they were shooting for in 1789, wasn't it? It is not only more accurate than writing of "small" government, but this also avoids having to deal with "robust" government supporters playing a disengenuous numbers game based on size.

Unfortunately, the Constitution is a flawed document (it required men and women of integrity and honesty) that was easily subverted and circumvented and now is mostly ignored by interests that found/find it useful to do so. As a result, we have a leviathan that we would not have had under limited government, resulting in excuses, rationalization, and just plain old spin from those who are enthusiasts of the state (you know -- progressives, Democrats, Republicans, socialists, new left liberals, modern conservatives -- the usual suspects). You've heard their rationalizations. "The debt is only x percent of GDP". "The budget is only X dollars per capita". "We spend more today because there are more of us today". Yada, yada, yada.
Yours,
Issohdos

Amen!

What you define as curious, I see as a failure in the present-day Libertarian Party, in which many claim there is no room for persons who arrived from the left-side of the Political BiPolarity. These are also often the equivocators who complain the the LP need temper its more 'radical' propositions in order to achieve broader appear. The problem being that their idea of what is radical is always of the social side of the coin, never the economic.

This is how Bob Barr and Ron Paul get away with being defined as libertarian even though they both believe the government has the right to restrict persons of the same sex to enter into voluntary contracts of domestic partnership. It is how Paul gets away with proposing a constitutional amendment that would define a fetus at conception as a human, but the way he can subsequently claim to be a 'small government' proponent after that with a straight face is a very good place to show he is not being honest when he speaks; he is just another long-term politicians.

This should not be viewed from a pro and anti abortion perspective; it should be viewed from what would be new necessary and proper functions of the government. What should be noted is that if a fetus is a human at conception, then any conceived within the US are also citizens. This would be the largest single entitlement of US Citizenry ever enacted by one piece of legislation.

Another concern is that along with EVERY miscarriage, would come a state duty to investigate it as a potential homicide, and there would be vast new uncharted acts of criminality which any pregnant woman could step into unknowingly. Intent would not be a necessary element of a crime either, as it would still be well within manslaughter laws to be charged even without intent.

It could be possible to prove that a regular exercise routine increased the probability of a miscarriage, other possibilities include, a regular work schedule, becoming argumentative for any reason, taking elective trips which exposed a women to higher risks of accident while being pregnant. The list continues on almost infinitely, and this is not an exaggeration. If a fetus is a US citizen at conception, then the state actors must investigate any "deaths" which happened during gestation for possible unnatural causes, or they would be derelict in the performance of their duties. It called equal application of the law and the reach of the government would have been enacted into a extremely long and intrusive extension.

How many more government enforcement agents would be required? How many new prosecutors, judges and jails?

This is a right-siding and pollution of libertarian ideals, and it is why the left is no longer interested in becoming libertarians. There was a time when I could effectively argue with left-siders that personal liberty had to be both economic and social; that to claim a right to one, was to imply what lay on the flip side came along with it, but far too many persons swollen up with their own Per.Versions of a rightful society must be, believe they possess a divine right to coerce their world view upon others, and to directly impair their liberty.

Maybe the prescription to balance it out again is to start citing Paine as a fount of original intent. There are certainly sections of his work which if embraced would help to deflect the charge that libertarians are just greed heads:

Without private property there is no liberty.

Without private property there is no theft.

Yes the first thing that is stolen is liberty.

Not so. A person can own nothing and be free as a bird. It may be less convenient, but just as a homeless person if he or she is free. Most will say yes and insist on keeping that freedom even in the face of an offer of assistance.

Silly Libertarian, Liberty cannot be stolen because liberty cannot be owned. Liberty is an inherent quality that cannot be ended without destroying the container of it. At that point Liberty has not been stolen, Liberty has been murdered.

Have you never seen the movie, "The Gods Must be Crazy" ? In dramatized fashion of course, it shows what impact the idea of private property can have on a society that lacks it.

Liberty is protected by the right to own property. In totalitarian states where there isn't a right to own property everyone is homeless, the state owns everything, and no one is free. One does not need to own something to be free but when the right to own property doesn't exist no one can be free.