Why I AM a Libertarian

D Roberson

New member
Picking up the few worthwhile remnants of the anti-Libertarian thread that our moderator put out of its misery...

I am a Libertarian for one main reason: Freedom of choice. The freedom to own firearms if I want to do so. The freedom to read, write, and say what I want. The freedom to make my own decisions. I am willing to accept the responsibility for my actions, and I recognize that my freedoms do not extend to the point where they infringe on those same freedoms for others. Similarly, I recognize that others are free to make their own choices and decisions up to the point where they would infringe on my freedoms.

Also, as a Libertarian, I agree not to _initiate_ the use of violence as a means of solving problems. I do, however, have the right to respond as violently as possible to those who initiate violence against me.

Gentlemen, start your flamethrowers.
 
Agreed. It is funny how some conservatives claim freedom of religion, speech etc. *until* they encounter someone they very much disagree with. Then they use the same language that the anti-gunners use: your behavior and your likes, even when you don't infringe on other's rights, cause everything that's wrong with society. Substitute "porn" with "guns", and you could put it on the HCI web page. It's like saying you agree with the right to free speech, unless you determine that your opponent's speech is offensive and goes against your values. You can't have it both ways...claim all the freedoms for yourself and deny the same to others.

Freedom of speech must be extended *especially* to those who have extreme opinions, otherwise it's not worth anything. Don't come and claim "moral corruption" of our society when somebody exercises their right to speak their mind about abortion, or their right to look at porn, or the Communist Manifesto. Morality can't be legislated...that's where the Republicans have it wrong. On the other hand, common sense and tolerance can't be legislated either...that's where the Democrats have it wrong.


[This message has been edited by lendringser (edited February 11, 2000).]
 
The thing I like about the Libertarian party is that it seems to be the party of personal responsibility. With freedom comes responsibility. Don't go asking the government to solve your problems for you, solve them yourself.
 
Because I'm sick and tired of being the frog in the pot of water that keeps getting warmer and warmer.

------------------
"Gun Control Only Protects Those in Power"
 
Well, this thread is just to much in agreement so far. I guess that I will just have to stir it up a little and hopefully get a good debate going.

It is stated that with freedom comes responsibilities. This is true and these responsibilities are instituted in the form of laws and regulations. Absolute freedom without any limitations is anarchy.

Our Constitution was written to limit the infringement of the freedoms of the people by the government. The very nature of the Constitution does allow the government to limit and restrict the freedoms of the citizens in many areas. Few freedoms are absolute. Our Constitution was written based upon Judeo-Christian principles. Many of our Republics initial laws have clear Biblical foundations and many still do today.

I doubt that many of us would choose to live in a society with absolute freedoms. This would result in the law of the jungle, the strong ruling over the weak by intimidation and violence.

The Constitution also allows the States to pass laws restricting the actions of its citizens as long as they do not violate the Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. What limitations have been put in place in law are meant to protect the citizens from the actions of others.

Freedom of speech has many limitations, including the limits on libel, slander and child pornography. The RKBA has restrictions as to possession by criminals and others deemed to be a danger to others. Laws restricting property rights by the government have also been upheld as Constitutional when a pressing public need is shown.

The old saying of "you can't legislate morality" is plainly false. We legislate morality every time we pass a law. The laws against rape, murder, theft and others as minor as public drunkenness are clearly based upon moral judgements and the Judeo-Christian principles of respect for others.

America, while being a nation founded upon Biblical values, is not a theocracy, nor should it ever be. Biblical law is best left up to the enforcement of the all mighty.

As a conservative, I believe in the freedoms given by our Constitution. I also believe that these rights can not be removed pre-emptively such as many anti-gun laws seek to do. However, once a person has shown that they can not follow the laws of this nation, those rights no longer exist.

Many of the laws that people like to state are un-Constitutional are not. They are a-Constitutional, not being mentioned in the Constitution. An example of such a law would be a firearm waiting period. Since it is generally recognized that certain individuals, such as criminals, have no right to posess a firearm, a law attempting to identify such an individual would not be un-Constitutional since it does not infringe upon the right of a law abiding citizen to keep and bears arms. It is un-Constitutional, however, for the federal government to require states to institute these backround checks and waiting periods.

Personally, I am opposed to waiting periods. In this day and age, a backround check can be done within 15 minutes and a waiting period is simply punitive.

As a conservative who attempts to be consistant with my views, I am in general agreement with libertarians regarding the federal government. I prefer the weak federal government, strong state government form that was in place prior to the War Between the States. The federal government should be limited to what the states are unable to do, not what they are unwilling to do, such as national defence, interstate commerce, international treaties and others.

The states, however, should be allowed to govern as they choose.

To me, the difference between a libertarian state and a conservative state is represented by Nevada and Utah. I would much prefer to live in Utah over Nevada as I'm sure others would prefer the opposite. Either of these states would be preferable to a liberal state such as New York.
 
Sorry to ad to the agreement, but...here here!

For those that are reading this and wondering, I suggest you read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, or at least get it on tape for about $30.

www.lp.org



------------------
Check Your Premise
 
Originally posted by Cactus:
"Our Constitution was written to limit the infringement of the freedoms of the people by the government. The very nature of the Constitution does allow the government to limit and restrict the freedoms of the citizens in many areas. Few freedoms are absolute."

All this is correct. The question is WHEN should government limit and restrict the freedoms of citizens. Libertarians believe government should limit freedoms as I mentioned in my previous post: At the point where one person's freedoms infringe on another's. Thus, in the view of libertarians, the proper role of government is to safeguard the rights of citizens.

"I doubt that many of us would choose to live in a society with absolute freedoms. This would result in the law of the jungle, the strong ruling over the weak by intimidation and violence."

Again, this is the very reason that libertarians believe an individual's freedoms do not extend to the point of infringing on another's freedoms, and why libertarians do not believe in the initiation of force.

"What limitations have been put in place in law are meant to protect the citizens from the actions of others."

If this were true, libertarians would have no problem with our government as currently constituted. The sad fact is that a great many, perhaps the majority ,of our laws are not meant to protect citizens from the _actions_ of others. Case in point: Why is it illegal for me to have a shotgun with a 12-inch barrel? Is my onwership of such a gun a threat to anyone? Certainly not. Using that weapon against someone who hadn't attacked me, or threatening to use it, would be a different matter.

"Laws restricting property rights by the government have also been upheld as Constitutional when a pressing public need is shown."

And libertarians agree that these and other freedoms can and should be limited, but only when the infringe on the freedoms of others.

"The old saying of "you can't legislate morality" is plainly false. We legislate morality every time we pass a law."

You misunderstand the saying. "You can't legislate morality" means that you cannot pass laws that make people moral. You can pass laws that prescribe penalities for people who behave in immoral ways, such as by murdering or raping or stealing. Moral people will not violate those laws because they are moral people. When immoral people follow those laws, it is from fear of penalities they would incur if they were caught. But that doesn't make them moral people.

"As a conservative, I believe in the freedoms given by our Constitution. I also believe that these rights can not be removed pre-emptively such as many anti-gun laws seek to do. However, once a person has shown that they can not follow the laws of this nation, those rights no longer exist."

Rights still exist even though some people break the law. And that's where the role of government come in. The government should step in to protect citizens when their rights are violated.

"Many of the laws that people like to state are un-Constitutional are not. They are a-Constitutional, not being mentioned in the Constitution."

A point that is taken into consideration by the Tenth Amendment, which says 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' This means that if a right isn't mentioned in the Constitution, the federal goverment has no authority over it.

"An example of such a law would be a firearm waiting period. Since it is generally recognized that certain individuals, such as criminals, have no right to posess a firearm, a law attempting to identify such an individual would not be un-Constitutional since it does not infringe upon the right of a law abiding citizen to keep and bears arms. It is un-Constitutional, however, for the federal government to require states to institute these backround checks and waiting periods."

Martin Luther King understood this point better than you do. As he said, "A right delayed is a right denied."
 
Cactus said "I believe in the freedoms given by our Constitution"

Our constitution does not give us our freedoms, it merely recognizes them. "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"--Declaration of Independence. Just who or what you think the "Creator" is, is your business, my point is that our rights come from a higher power not from men or from a piece of paper.
 
Russell, rights may come from a higher power, but in practice on this world, rights are usually won by decades if not centuries of suffering followed by a few years of free flowing blood. That's what is so sad about what is happening in this country today...rights suffered and bled for by our ancestors are being sacrificed in the name of public safety.
 
Back
Top