by jlw61 » Sat 19 Apr 2008, 09:49:40
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jlw61', 'F')or a better understanding of Libertarianism, I would suggest visiting
The Advocates website.
The main problem with government--ANY GOVERNMENT--is that its ultimate objective is to protect its power and expand its scope. Show me any government in history that has not sought to do this, no matter what the political leaders said they were trying to do.
I wonder if any libertarian government, however small it was to start with, could stay small.
Have you read "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World" by Harry Browne? Good book.
Tex,
Once again you hit the nail on the head! While some may have a clue as to what they speak, you always seem to come up with a great question or point!
In any society, unless the people are continually educated and reminded that their role is to limit government, then the answer is a resounding NO! If the people do not take an active role, every day, in limiting government, they will see government take over their lives.
As for the book, it's on the to-do list.
Now please indulge me while I answer questions from other posts.
Libertarian thought is a modern philosophy which has yet to be fully vetted in the field. The US came pretty close to starting a true Libertarian state in its founding documents, but the people were allowed to forget their role in the system. Since the people forgot that their role was to limit the scope and size of government, we have what we have here in the US.
In other news, I've been reading a lot on this site deriding Libertarians as being intolerant, a front for fascism, etc. These poster fail to understand a number of salient points.
The extreme end of the Libertarian spectrum leads to anarchy and anarchy is bad since the strong rule the weak.
Any extreme on the political scale is going to lead to something really bad. The extreme of liberalism is socialism. The extreme of conservatism is fascism. The extreme of statism is totalitarianism. In these philosophies, only one leads to lack of government which is easier to correct than the ever powerful state.
For those who meet Libertarians who are intolerant, they are Anarchists if they object to your right to speak. A normal Libertarian understands you have a right to speak, but you do not have the right to force someone to listen. You have a right to disagree, but you do not have the right to make someone agree. You have a right to post, but readers have a right to ignore and ridicule you.
I now ask that if you are one of the people who were run out of a Libertarian forum (which I doubt Tex would ever have as a problem with any forum of emotionally secure posters), was it because they prevented you from coming back or was it simply because you could not raise an argument they could not refute with logic and biting humor?
Unlike Tex, many of you simply throw out comments with no supportive facts expecting people to award you points for what you perceive as a brilliant in-your-face post. If you want to persuade someone, try using facts and a respectful tone, it works.
Finally, the main reason I post is not to try to persuade the person I'm disagreeing with, but to persuade the thousands of lurkers. When they see insults or faulty reasoning responded with a respectful tone and logic, they have a choice to make; I like to think they will tend to side with clarity and reason. So in parting, I say that you should try to do what I attempt (with some limited success) and that is to try to make a difference rather than a point.
PS Tex, I liked your old avatar better
When somebody makes a statement you don't understand, don't tell him he's crazy. Ask him what he means. -- Otto Harkaman, Space Viking
