Ross Williams wants me to stand still and be categorized. by Larry Warrick
(libertarian)
Thursday, January 14, 2010
In a posted reply to my article on Florida District 19 Congressional candidate Curt Price, Ross Williams was incredulous:
"Larry, I find it difficult to believe you answered the questions honestly in getting your star at the top-most point of the chart." He goes on "Libertarianism only requires following the philosophical guidelines set down legitimizing the form of government being used ... and following them rather strictly."
To use his own word: "BZZZZZZZZT!"
The non-sequitur in this opening statement was so jaw-dropping that I felt the need to use it as a template for a complete article. Libertarian philosophy has no basis in any form of government, wherever it is applied, and certainly does not require anyone to follow any philosophical guidelines set down by anyone, anywhere. There is no 'compliance clause' in libertarian thought. Perhaps Ross finds it difficult to comprehend my libertarianism because he has little or no idea of the true, or more accurately, real meaning of what it is to be a libertarian. In his introduction to Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty - The Libertarian Manifesto' (try it, it's free), the great libertarian thinker and activist, Lew Rockwell said: "Libertarianism is the radical alternative that says state power is unworkable and immoral." That, Ross, is what a libertarian thinks. I suspect you may have spent too much time getting your definitions from other, less reliable sources.
Then comes the full broadside: ""Libertarianism" which idolizes a vague and undefined "liberty" is indifferentiable (sic) from anarchy." Yikes!
Again: "BZZZZZZZZT!"
The liberty' defined in libertarianism is not only clearly defined; it is such a basic concept that your average 5 year old will have no trouble grasping its concept. In grown up words, liberty is the unalienable right to life. Without the right to life, there can be no liberty. To say that libertarianism is undifferentiated (original meaning assumed) from anarchy is yet another argument based on false premises relating back to the original non-sequitur about preset libertarian philosophical guidelines. The contradiction in terms is, literally, jaw-dropping in its logical defiance.
"You read, above, like some sort of schizophrenic" Thank you for your professional opinion. Well, I have been working pretty hard lately, what with a career and trying to educate the masses on libertarianism and how to apply it to our current situations. Then there's opposing all the egregious legislation our non-representatives seem determined to cram down our throats; just keeping up with current events and developments can be a challenge. Maybe I should take a long vacation in Hawaii and release vague statements about how screwed up our government is. That seems to work for others. We can pick up again when I get back, right?
"[N]or does the Constitution define when life begins. Ergo, your backhanded slap at abortion rights ["murder of the unborn"] is insupportable apologism for tyrannyfrom someone who goes to great lengths to whine about how the Constitution ought to be adhered to (sic)". Another argument based on a false premise. Abraham Baldwin, a signer of the U.S. Constitution proclaimed "It should therefore be among the first objects of those who wish well to the national prosperity to encourage and support the principles of religion and morality. " In essence, abortion is not a right, it is an abomination visited upon us by those who would destroy the moral and religious fabric of our republic and replace it with a Godless oligarchy based on eugenics and elitism. To a moral and religious people, the constitution has no need to define the moment life is begun.
""Policing the world" is not contrary to the Constitution." On the contrary, it is. Without the unconstitutional institutions of fiat money, central banking and graduated income taxes, there would be no possibility of the United States engaging in anything other than the humble foreign policy recommended by the framers. If 'we the people' should find our constitution not to our liking, there is nothing standing in the way of us replacing it with one that allows for such meddling in foreign affairs. I look forward to sitting in on that conversation. As you probably know, anarchy is a transitional state between one system of government and another. It is not able to sustain a population for any extended period of time and is usually replaced by oligarchy. Well educated libertarians recognize this fact and thus advocate the most limited, smallest, least intrusive government possible whilst still maintaining each individual's right to life. Ergo, Constitutional Republic. The rule of law, but only the most basic of laws. For many libertarians, a strict adherence to the US Constitution fits this requirement.
"Other gangs deal in trafficking of [untaxed but legal] cigarettes; control of [legal] gambling; control of [untaxed but legal] alcohol (sic)." OK, name one. I can name plenty of gangs spawned by our ridiculous 'war on drugs', as can anyone else who doesn't live under a rock.
Again, I strongly recommend 'For a New Liberty' to all our readers, regardless of age, sex, political denomination, or any other demographic. After all, the right to life knows no boundaries.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Larry Warrick only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Larry Warrick is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Valentine Smith
Date: 2010-01-14 17:10:36
What total confusion.
The libertarian idea is the only one that does have a moral and philisophical basis. The only legit role of government is to enforce negative rights. There are varying ways to do this, but to bring in Lew Rockwell, who is no libertarian he is an anarchist as he shows in the quote you added - shows you really need to do some readin'
Thank you, Valentine. I agree that the libertarian movement is based on the moral philosophical principle of the right to life.
I disagree that Lew Rockwell may be fairly described as an anarchist. The quote from Lew came directly from his introduction to the founding document of modern libertarian political thinking, 'For a New Liberty' by Murray Rothbard.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2010-01-15 07:10:43
Libertarianism is a tool for rationalizing the illogic of trying to use precise definitions and faith-based notions about rights to eliminate (seek "freedom from") the possibility that any two or more individuals may choose to exercise their right to form a community (State). This homogenization from the bottom up is just as abhorrent to the spirit of individual liberty as is the top-down homogenization pushed by the progressive empire builders from the right and from the left. Both of these utopian homogenous visions are only possible through the continuous application of overwhelming force. The progressives and empire builders readily acknowledge this but libertarians and anarchists remain oblivious to the force-implications of their utopian visions.
This is a product of navel-gazing academics (Randroids, Rothbots and now...Rockwelliliputians) who fail to recognize the distinction between the mass delusion (faith) of "having rights" and the real-world where rights only exist while they are being exercised.
I love the LRC writers when they stick to economics. When they go off on tangents about philosophy and rights it is plain to see they are a closed guild with no relevance in the real world; lulled into a comfort zone only possible in their ivory towers. They do a great disservice to the struggle for the defense of liberty by convincing the weak there exists a way to achieve freedom from the struggle.
The Rothbard worshippers almost distort history as badly as he did. Rothbard was not the founder of the modern libertarian movement. It existed before him. His best ideas were borrowed from Mises, Rand and Spooner. All of whom said their ideas better than Rothbard did later.
"“Mr. Libertarian,” Murray N. Rothbard was called, and “The State’s Greatest Living Enemy.” He remains so. Yes, he had many predecessors from whom he drew: the whole of the classical-liberal tradition, the Austrian economists, the American antiwar tradition, and the natural-rights tradition. But it was he who put all these pieces together into a unified system that seems implausible at first but inevitable once it has been defined and defended by Rothbard. The individual pieces of the system are straightforward (self-ownership, strict property rights, free markets, antistate in every conceivable respect) but the implications are earthshaking."
Libertarianism is not anarchism. There actually is a real, working government in a libertarian legal system. The rules are few and succinct, but they are serious and enforceable.
Libertarianism is not a free-for-all, almost but not quite. As one commenter here said, the libertarian government is tasked with affirmative enforcement and protection of negative rights.
A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.
Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim. — L. Neil Smith
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
