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

I can think of no better exposition of the concept presented here than that articulated by our colleague issodhos:
To me, that encapsulates the Libertarian Creed. It is a refutation of every step that humanity has taken in the direction of what is commonly perceived as "progress" in the realm of what is commonly perceived as "humanitarianism".

Another way of viewing this attitude, IMHO, is

I don't understand why everyone is giving all the credit to Issodhos, since my defense of Libertarianism was at least as accurate and supportive. Steve nailed it as well in his posting immediately preceding this one, but his gratuitous judgment was not only unnecessary, it was inaccurate.
Had Henry Ford been a humanitarian, we would still be riding horses. Had Edison had a different view of himself and the world, we'd be in the dark.
The point is that it is individuals who make the good differences, not groups of jackals pestering the lions to steal the hunters' hard earned meal.

I see your alternate history crystal balls are revolving at the required pace. funny hting about them balls, usually the result is well ... balls (or whatever slang word you would like to insert)

An instinctual repulsion to collectivist entities coercing behaviour in society is not of and by itself a bad thing. The problem with many modern American libertarians is that they arrogantly refuse to apply the concept equally to all of society's collectives, ignoring, and often even deifying the fictional business constructs of collectivism; and their elevation in our society to the status of "person". Also, libertarians should not be opposed to collectives, per se; the opposition is to acts which are forced upon others by them. Liberty implies a freedom of association with others, but not a right to enslave them. To castrate the state, while leaving the corporation intact, would be to ensure not a future of liberty, but of neofeudalism:

You do not even begin to portray what is wrong with Ron Paul. I feel defamed with association anytime he is referenced as a libertarian. He does not stand for personal liberty, nor would his vision lead to a smaller, less intrusive state. Paul is a radical fiscal and social conservative, who also happens to be anti-Iraq war.

In 2007 Ron Paul proposed H.J.RES.46: an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.

As written, it would be a violation of an unanamended part of the United States Constitution, because it is a Bill of Attainder, which works a Corruption of Blood upon humans born within United Stated Territory. This is not defense of liberty, nor is it a return to original Constitutional Understanding. Have Americans now become such quivering cowards that they would acquiesce to punishing children for their parents' crimes? This is an obscene concept.

This is just one example of the many hypocrisies of Ron Paul.

Well said, my friend.

I have been scoffed at on occasion when I have espoused my general belief in libertarian values, as I also support a robust government. I do not see these values as mutually exclusive. But like a knight, and by implication Schlack in his original post, the current version of "Libertarianism" does not much resemble what I originally expected of the name. As a knight points out, property is a creation of the State, and it is incongruent that that particular interest should be elevated by modern "Libertarians" over all others, as the others have been described as "natural rights" by early libertarian thinkers (such as Thomas Jefferson).

To me, libertarianism has always been about individual interests, as expounded and defended by the ACLU. Civil rights, if you will. (A corollary being the "absence of interference" with those interests.) The fundamental interests are those of freedom, and property is only an ancillary interest. Freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, from government coercion - these are the primaries. Where I think the thread derived, and where the Libertarians have gone horribly wrong, is equating the "State" with "Evil." It is the conflation of these concepts that pulled them first into alliance with and then into the maw of the Grandiose Old Party (e.g., Ron Paul). They forgot that government is, or at least should be, the guarantor of those freedoms, and forgetting that primary point has led to the corruption and eventual dissipation of the entire concept of libertarianism. Now they are aligned with the party that is of the greatest threat to individual interests and represents the most coercive use of governmental authority and economic power, yet they proclaim that it is most protective of "liberty." What a crock.

And here is an opportunity for me to agree with something Issodhos has said, and that is such a rarity I need to point it out. While we often disagree on other points of libertarianism, on these two points we are in complete accord.

Well said, my friend. This is one of the nonsensicalities I am constantly confronted with. I am, I suppose, an anti-corporatist. Even more than with other forms of property, corporations are explicitly a creation of the state, and beholden to it. The "personhood" concept is anathema to me, and should be to any true libertarian, but I am constantly astounded that corporations are defended as the virtual deification of "lassez-faire" economics. It is not that I disagree with corporations, per se, but they should not be put in a superior position to the individual, which they are in our current construction - economically, politically, and socially. Any "rights" that corporations possess are not collective, but the interests of the individuals who own and operate the corporation. Of itself the corporation possesses nothing, nor should it.

It is a distortion of libertarianism by the Austrians that cleaves to this. Maybe an analogy would be appropriate here.

Martin Luther's idea that Faith Alone is cause for salvation is a concept widely embraced within Protestantism, along with another idea: that God helps those who help themselves. When taken to extremes, these ideas have been used as rationalisations for many who claim Christian faith as they turn a blind eye to human misery and suffering amongst them.

Yet does not true faith compel one to act? To ignore a human who the vicissitudes of life has thrown face down in the dirt, does not in any way advance liberty, nor is is a Christian deed.

On January 5, 2007, Ron Paul introduced on the House floor his proposed H.R.300: To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.

It would prevent the Federal Courts from hearing appeals of redress for wrongs, based upon the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment for any claims:

• involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
• based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction;
• based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation

It is a selectively targeted attack upon the Powers of the Judiciary in an attempt by Paul to force his view of morality upon the country. It should be considered unconstitutional for at least two reasons:

• it negates part of the 14th amendment's application by simple legislation and not the amendment Process
• because of its specificity, it is not an equal application of the law

I think Schlack is asking about libertarian thought and philosophy, a knight, not the political party of the same name.

You and I apparently disagree on property because I see it as a most natural Right. Indeed, I thnk that your argument above is a bit self-contradictory concerning property in that there can be no more profound property Right than the Right to ownership by one of one's person, which would be the rational basis for an individual being able to invoke habeas corpus in the first place.

I do make a distinction between personal property (up to and including structures) vs land. I mentioned this to you in a thread a while back but I do not know if you saw it.

It is also my conviction that there is no more reality-based school of economic thought than that of the Austrian School. Indeed, I know of no other school of economic thought that is so closely tied to the actual and intimate day to day life of people, or as capable of providing an understanding into what von Mises called "human action" while lending it self robustly to the concept of individual liberty.
Yours,
Issodhos