Comments on: The President Wimps Out http://www.byron-harvey.com/2005/10/the-president-wimps-out/ refusing to drink the kool-aid for anyone Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:35:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Byron http://www.byron-harvey.com/2005/10/the-president-wimps-out/comment-page-1/#comment-3060 Byron Thu, 06 Oct 2005 00:44:53 +0000 http://www.byron-harvey.com/?p=482#comment-3060 OK, I'm certainly not the best guy to represent what Libs believe/stand for, but I'm going to give this a shot from my understanding (which certainly could be wrong!): As I understand it, Libertarians believe that liberty should be maximized, but do not deny the need for law. Laws that keep my liberty from infringing upon yours are necessary. If that's where they come from, I agree with that premise. There is a difference, then, in libertarianism and libertinism; a libertine would effectively define freedom as the ability to do what one pleases, whereas a libertarian would place limits at the infringement upon the rights of others. Libertarians do not believe in coercion of belief or practice by the government in moral arenas; if you want to do it, and you are a grownup, and it doesn't negatively impact someone else, go ahead; if it shoves its way onto someone else's freedom, though, then there's a problem. I think that the Libs would be strong supporters of the Constitution, which does place certain, limited powers in the hands of the federal government, and which allows state and local governments their place as well. Just because it isn't the place of the federal government to do something, doesn't mean that there's no place for it to be done. It's ridiculous, for instance, that there exists a Department of Education; education should not be the province of the federal government. It's perfectly fine, though, for there to be local school boards and the like. How do you understand libertarianism to be bound to this deficient understanding of human nature? Again, perhaps you, Matt, understand it better than do I, but I'm not sure that that is true. OK, I’m certainly not the best guy to represent what Libs believe/stand for, but I’m going to give this a shot from my understanding (which certainly could be wrong!):

As I understand it, Libertarians believe that liberty should be maximized, but do not deny the need for law. Laws that keep my liberty from infringing upon yours are necessary. If that’s where they come from, I agree with that premise. There is a difference, then, in libertarianism and libertinism; a libertine would effectively define freedom as the ability to do what one pleases, whereas a libertarian would place limits at the infringement upon the rights of others. Libertarians do not believe in coercion of belief or practice by the government in moral arenas; if you want to do it, and you are a grownup, and it doesn’t negatively impact someone else, go ahead; if it shoves its way onto someone else’s freedom, though, then there’s a problem.

I think that the Libs would be strong supporters of the Constitution, which does place certain, limited powers in the hands of the federal government, and which allows state and local governments their place as well. Just because it isn’t the place of the federal government to do something, doesn’t mean that there’s no place for it to be done. It’s ridiculous, for instance, that there exists a Department of Education; education should not be the province of the federal government. It’s perfectly fine, though, for there to be local school boards and the like.

How do you understand libertarianism to be bound to this deficient understanding of human nature? Again, perhaps you, Matt, understand it better than do I, but I’m not sure that that is true.

]]> By: matt h. http://www.byron-harvey.com/2005/10/the-president-wimps-out/comment-page-1/#comment-3058 matt h. Tue, 04 Oct 2005 20:24:04 +0000 http://www.byron-harvey.com/?p=482#comment-3058 OK - I'll dig a little more. Does a libertarian philosophy (whick cannot ultimately end at the federal level - for the sake of consistency it seems to have to extend to the state and local government) shirk the biblical view of the role of government? I would be the first to argue that the biblical view is a limited one, but it is a role that remains nonetheless. I guess I am hesitant to buy into libertarianism as it seems bound to a terribly deficient understanding of human nature. OK – I’ll dig a little more. Does a libertarian philosophy (whick cannot ultimately end at the federal level – for the sake of consistency it seems to have to extend to the state and local government) shirk the biblical view of the role of government? I would be the first to argue that the biblical view is a limited one, but it is a role that remains nonetheless. I guess I am hesitant to buy into libertarianism as it seems bound to a terribly deficient understanding of human nature.

]]> By: Mark Merritt http://www.byron-harvey.com/2005/10/the-president-wimps-out/comment-page-1/#comment-3054 Mark Merritt Tue, 04 Oct 2005 15:47:56 +0000 http://www.byron-harvey.com/?p=482#comment-3054 I think the 'sacrificial lamb' idea is plausible, but only for those who want to believe that Bush Jr. has someone better in mind. As for silent black helicopters, well, you can't see or hear them at night, correct? They're every where, man! I think the ‘sacrificial lamb’ idea is plausible, but only for those who want to believe that Bush Jr. has someone better in mind. As for silent black helicopters, well, you can’t see or hear them at night, correct? They’re every where, man!

]]> By: Byron http://www.byron-harvey.com/2005/10/the-president-wimps-out/comment-page-1/#comment-3052 Byron Mon, 03 Oct 2005 19:37:13 +0000 http://www.byron-harvey.com/?p=482#comment-3052 Electable? Not for a long time. Viable? Depends on your definition. There are many, many Libertarians who advocate positions that are personally repulsive to me. At the same time, if I understand Libertarian Party philosophy correctly, they have a much stronger belief in the Constitution than does the Republican party. For instance (indulge me in a moment's fantasy here): given the choice of what we have now, or a pro-CHOICE Libertarian prez/Congress, which would seem more likely to overturn Roe? The Libertarians, of course, provided they stick to their principles, because libertarians would interpret Roe as being flawed constitutionally. They understand, I think, that issues such as abortion are, constitutionally, supposed to be decided on a state-by-state basis. Would a Libertarian ever be elected President? Well, that's a whole 'notha question... Electable? Not for a long time. Viable? Depends on your definition. There are many, many Libertarians who advocate positions that are personally repulsive to me. At the same time, if I understand Libertarian Party philosophy correctly, they have a much stronger belief in the Constitution than does the Republican party. For instance (indulge me in a moment’s fantasy here): given the choice of what we have now, or a pro-CHOICE Libertarian prez/Congress, which would seem more likely to overturn Roe? The Libertarians, of course, provided they stick to their principles, because libertarians would interpret Roe as being flawed constitutionally. They understand, I think, that issues such as abortion are, constitutionally, supposed to be decided on a state-by-state basis.

Would a Libertarian ever be elected President? Well, that’s a whole ‘notha question…

]]> By: matt h. http://www.byron-harvey.com/2005/10/the-president-wimps-out/comment-page-1/#comment-3051 matt h. Mon, 03 Oct 2005 19:24:59 +0000 http://www.byron-harvey.com/?p=482#comment-3051 But are the Libertarians really a viable option? But are the Libertarians really a viable option?

]]>