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

As may the poor man.
Yours,
Issodhos

Um, not to quibble, Issodhos, but the poor man may do as he can afford. In theory and given a certain attitude, those things may be the same - but I think just as often, they are different.

Issodhos, after all the verbal gamesmanship and word twisting and bloviating("to speak pompously and excessively") which you will, of course, deny but which is also totally beside the point because I'm here for the same reason. I feel you have finally come to a point, actually several. Libertarians are not necessarily members of the Libertarian Party. The LP is possibly best know for (a)not wanting to pay taxes (b)not wanting their tax dollars spent to help anyone (c)de-regulating all business (d)Removal of the (gun, bayonet, machine gun etc.)coercion by government to force them to do anything they don't want to do. (e) remarkable resemblance to neocons (f)denial that they are right, left, or center.
Now that you've made it clear that these are not your goals, and never were, then much of what you say begins to make an admirable sort of sense. Utopian, perhaps, but no less admirable. and phrased differently it might agree with all our Utopian hopes and dreams. It includes virtually unlimited freedom to do whatever you want whenever you want with whomever you want as long as you don't step on anybodies toes. Central Government would not require a King, Dictator, or President. A Prime Minister of indeterminate term and not a great deal of power might be appropriate. National government would be in charge of national infrastructure and defense, I deem environmental regulation a part of national infrastructure. Most "federal laws" would be out the window as any individual behavior and rule breaking would be handled at a local level. For instance, the chap who ran his big boat into the bridge would be punished in some form for his mistake which greatly infringed an a lot of peoples natural rights. The corporation involved would pay an enormous sum to make things right. Everyone would pitch in to help clean up the mess even to the point of cutting off their hair to make more hair mats.
I may have made some mistakes in this "rant" and I beg you not to be too fussy since you have a playful way of twisting our words back on us. I'm simply trying to view this "Brave New World" as it could be and should be. Forget Huxley, my friend, this is indeed brave and new.

Greger, one of the major problems with environmental degradation is that the corporate entities usually responsible are powerful enough to get their pocketed politicians to lighten up on the civil damages side, and clean-up responsibilities. Many politicians have attempted to severely limit individuals' use of civil courts. They are in effect defaming Juries' comprised of free-humans, and dismissing out of hand, their decisions of fact. Hardly an advancement of liberty.

Pundits and politicians decry bad jury decisions, yet if you queried these profane pontificators regarding their own personal histories of jury service, you'd find many of them felt is was too big of a personal burden to attend. In locales where the courts have taken a very aggressive view about jury service, punitive damage awards have been on the decrease. There are changes that need be made to Tort law, but to use this as an excuse for curtailing access to courtrooms is to advance tyranny, not liberty.

There was once a time when most libertarians believed that the citizenry's access to the civil courtrooms should be greatly expanded. Most environmental harm would be harmful to neighboring properties. It is a theft of liberty to force someone to breathe and/or ingest dangerous substances which were a byproduct of irresponsible manufacturing. It is extremely hard for victims of large scale corporate malfeasance to seek and obtain just redress for public corporations' civil wrongs. The class action suit is more of a boon to Large Civil Litigation Firms, than it is to victims. Law should be simplified so that an average person could use its methods without the aid of another who was well-trained in an arcane art.

In the case of the Exxon Valdez; if anyone who suffered provable harm from the spill had been allowed to file damage claims individually, it would have caused Exxon great pain as it was forced to expel liquid assets as in damage awards.

There have been many examples of how ranchers and large farmers (private, not corporate) have been the best environmental stewards of their land, and they should, it is theirs.There has been decent attempts to harvest sustainable resources from environmentally sensitive areas of the world. Some have not been the most effective, but given time, adjustments would be made. Especially if individuals were the land owners and not a public for profit fictional entity, or a government bureaucracy controlled shared asset of all people.

A while back, I posted some links to libertarian green solutions. that many who claim to be libertarians presently do not understand is a function of astroturfing policy orgs that falsely claim to be libertarians, and the general right-siding of libertarian theory.

In re: Issodhos' reading recommendations, I am in general agreement with it, but would add a bit of caution when reading any of the Contemporary Mises institute authorship. They have some very adamant Christian Reconstructionists, who believe that anarcho-capitalism is the proper means for them to eventually tear down secular society, and install their own hell on earth.

So when you're done or tired reading Issodhos' list, here are some links regarding Christian Reconstructionism and the Libertarian Party, from a diverse range of sources:

Libertarian Doubts

• JeffersonParty Blog: Conservative Libertarians
• Jefferson Party Blog
• Walter Olson, "Invitation to a Stoning - Getting Cozy With Theocrats", Reason Magazine, November 1998
• "Rothbardian Christian Anarchist Postmillennialism", Decentralist blog, March 23, 2007

• 
  
  Liberal/Progressive Criticisms and Analysis
  • John Sugg, "A Nation Under God", Mother Jones. December/January 2006 Issue
  • The Public Eye
  • Michael J. McVicar, "The Libertarian Theocrats: The Long...ushdoony and Christian Reconstructionism", The Public Eye, Fall 2007, Vol. 22, No. 3
  • 2004 Series: Theocratic Dominionism Gains Influence
  • Frederick Clarkson, "Part 1: Overview and Roots", The Public Eye, March/June 1994
  • Frederick Clarkson, "Part 2: A Generation of Reconstructionist", The Public Eye, March/June 1994
  • Frederick Clarkson, "Part 3: No Longer Without Sheep", The Public Eye, March/June 1994
  • Frederick Clarkson, "Part 4: A Covert Kingdom", The Public Eye, March/June 1994
• 
  
  Some of Them
  • 
    Christopher J. Ortiz, "Kingdom Now, But Theocracy, Not Yet", The Chalcedon Foundation, July/August 2006 issue
    Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam - Catholicity, Orthodoxy, and Lordship Blog
    Gary North, "When It’s Time to Leave, Leave", Christian Reconstruction; Vol. XXI, No. 4, July/August 1997

As may the wealthy man.
Yours,
Issodhos

Then neither rich nor poor may do whatever they like. And we agree again? (I like it when we agree.)

Both are constrained by what they are able, willing, and capable of doing while also being restrained from doing that which would infringe on the natural Rights of another. That has been and remains the constant when discussing a libertarian-oriented society. If that is what you meant, then we do indeed agree.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

That's what the nuns always said. But they are also financially restrained. Whether that fits into "able and willing" is more than this thread has room for.

But in essence, yes.

Did I forget to mention a wall of separation between the state and education? Until that happens, the mass of students will continue to have their minds poisoned with a state-sanctioned, pedagogically perverse numbing down of their ability to function at more than a semi-literate level.
Yours,
Issodhos
p.s. I am using "literate" in its higher sense -- not simply the ability to read words and scratch them onto paper.:-)

p.p.s. The "de-regulating of business" is assumed under the separation of commerce and state, an involuntary transfer of wealth from one person to another is a violation of property rights, and the current tax system is a de-frauding of the taxpayer for the purpose of obtaining increased government power by re-distributing the loot to interests that will gladly reward the political 'robin hoods' come election time.:-)

So true! If a child's parents are either unwilling or unable to finance the education of their children, all the better: we still need hamburger flippers and people to mow lawns. For these people, the lack of an education is a blessing. For the vast majority of people, they should be able to learn all they'll ever need to know in the home -- where education should begin and end.