Randy Inman
Kim K.
I'm a heartless libertarian- are you?
July 2nd 2008 14:44
I am feeling a bit alone on orble. I have seen many righty rights and many lefty lefts, but noone who appears to have my belief system.
Friends always ask me what it means to be a libertarian. The party has a reputation for being full of crazies and throws around lots of nice terms like "freedom," "liberty," and "principle." These are things every American wants. The difference is in the intensity in which you want those things. Some want freedom as long as it means their interests or morals are attended to. Some want freedom if it means the government takes care of everyone. Libertarians are seen as crazy because of the passion with which they seek for freedom in its truest form - both personally and financially.
In a perfect world, the federal governement would be there to do what it was intended- protect the people while allowing them to live in real freedom, not take care of them while limiting freedoms. There is a difference. We often are told how heartless we are because in this process some will fall by the wayside. With federal government programs slowly phased out of existence, welfare and such programs would end. Which of course means there would be no more poor people because the rich would eat them.
What it really comes down to is whether you believe that people are inhenently good or inherently bad. Those who believe people are bad will say that without government assistance people will die. Those who believe that man is good will say that without government assistance, people will learn new ways to adapt, whether it is through personal struggles or through a philanthropist organization. Most libertarians accept that there would still be taxation on a state level and that some assistance programs would fall under a pared down state government. With states each having their own set of rules and government, Americans would have more choice. If you didn't like the way things were run in New Hampshire, you could move to New York. States would eventually meld into like-minded people living in them (although in some ways that is already true with our established red states and blue states).
Perhaps I give more credit to man than I should, but my natural inclination is to trust that he would do the right thing given the opportunity.
Friends always ask me what it means to be a libertarian. The party has a reputation for being full of crazies and throws around lots of nice terms like "freedom," "liberty," and "principle." These are things every American wants. The difference is in the intensity in which you want those things. Some want freedom as long as it means their interests or morals are attended to. Some want freedom if it means the government takes care of everyone. Libertarians are seen as crazy because of the passion with which they seek for freedom in its truest form - both personally and financially.
buy this cool t-shirt at www.lpstuff.com
In a perfect world, the federal governement would be there to do what it was intended- protect the people while allowing them to live in real freedom, not take care of them while limiting freedoms. There is a difference. We often are told how heartless we are because in this process some will fall by the wayside. With federal government programs slowly phased out of existence, welfare and such programs would end. Which of course means there would be no more poor people because the rich would eat them.
What it really comes down to is whether you believe that people are inhenently good or inherently bad. Those who believe people are bad will say that without government assistance people will die. Those who believe that man is good will say that without government assistance, people will learn new ways to adapt, whether it is through personal struggles or through a philanthropist organization. Most libertarians accept that there would still be taxation on a state level and that some assistance programs would fall under a pared down state government. With states each having their own set of rules and government, Americans would have more choice. If you didn't like the way things were run in New Hampshire, you could move to New York. States would eventually meld into like-minded people living in them (although in some ways that is already true with our established red states and blue states).
Perhaps I give more credit to man than I should, but my natural inclination is to trust that he would do the right thing given the opportunity.
| 104 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Triple B
SPL Focus
Black Books
I truly wish human nature allowed a perfectly free society, but unfortunately I just don't think we're designed for it. Throw 2 siamese fighting fish in the same tank and their nature takes over... same with us unfortunately
Comment by Josie
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
However, I'm not sure I have enough confidence in my fellow man, or in the private sector, to assure that the needs of all are met. Without oversight, who's to say what private sector institutions are allowed to charge for services currently provided for by government taxation? If it could be demonstrated to me that by turning things over to private industry or to state government, I could come out ahead in what I'd save on federal taxes and still get all the services I expect, that would be great. But until that time I'm a bit leery of the idea.
Another question to ponder is, in the absence of a strong central government, would the individual states move away from each other so much as to risk fracturing the union? I don't mean to suggest that a civil war could result, that's a bit extreme, but it certainly could make interstate relations pretty dicey.......
This is a very good topic, and the discussion of the pros and cons could go for hours!
Comment by Josie
Comment by Smooth Political
Comment by Josie
Comment by Unpretentious Diva
But I am not heartless[
Obviously, heart is a main and major human body organ, i would need artificial blood pumping system if I become heartless...
P.S-just on light note.
Anyways, thanks for your appreciating remarks at my siteblog. But after visiting yours, I found it much better and elaborative on political front.
I wonder if you commented about the recent US High Court decision about Gun Owning Rights and license...
heres the yahoo news link bout it..
Really Long Link
Comment by Market Newbie
Gizmo Peek
Stock Market Punk
Many of the poor and uneducated have no qualms about killing for food, and many of the man of letters and great wealth are tirelessly scheming for more of what they already have. I have seen kindness extended countless times, but they are few and far in between when compared to the number of people who are taking advantage of others. And many times, the acts of kindness are not done out of a good heart but out of ill motives, like future opportunistic possibilities.
Like you, I would like to believe in the loving and caring nature of man. Unfortunately, I think, that is not universally applied. Yes, people can adapt. But given too much freedom, I have serious doubts on which direction they are going to take that.
Sorry, but I think, an ideal government has to be a little stricter than God.
Comment by Louie
Climate Red
randomthoughts
Phil's Wellness Tips
Comment by Josie
Louie- Thanks for commenting! Good point. I have noticed a lot of aggressive commenting elsewhere and not as much logical discussion as you would imagine would happen in a place of discourse. I hope that my blog can remain as civil as it has been!
Comment by Triple B
SPL Focus
Black Books
Comment by Josie
I already see the USA as divided in many ways. We have our "blue states" like the New England ones, and our "red states" like the South. Usually the like-minded group into particular areas together and you find that certain states are already very much different than others. For example, gay marriage will fly in California, but try to take it to Nebraska and you will find a different story. The potential problems I could admit to would be in our "swing states" like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida which usually end up deciding elections.
Comment by Rick B _ Georgia
I am one of those folks that feel the worst thing that can happen to this country is for Mr. Obama to get elected this fall. Unfortunately, I feel the second worst thing that can happen to this country is for Mr. McCain to get elected this fall. I feel that because of the extreme left and and extreme right, the heart of America is again being denied an opportunity to vote for a qualified candidate ... we are stuck again with the "lesser of two evils" choice (I really do not mean to indicate that either candidate really "evil", just capturing the emotion of the phrase).
It looks to me that 545 people (out of 300 million) in this country are the ones that make all the decisions about how things are run. They have done poorly, at least as a group, and maybe it is time to fire them all and start all over again.
Keep up the good work Josie ... I just stumbled across your blog and did enjoy it and the comments that followed.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Science News
Deep Pencil
Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
personally i think welfare prevents crime and reduces financial desperation, im also a strong supporter of public transport and public health etc
but on quite a few things i think the state interferes too much, i dont think it should cost $1000 to register a car, i dont think we should be fined for not wearing seatbelts and things that dont affect other people, i dont think we need licenses and tolls and fees for everything we do, i dont think we need to tax smoking and drinking and gambling so highly
there is an important distinction between helping people and just revenue raising for the purposes of employing more redundant public servants