The Great Libertarian Majority

I thought all you Libertarians were planning to move to one state to demonstrate to the rest of the country the consequences of a government based on your core values. I suspect it would end up looking a lot like Amsterdam. It would be better to isolate your ideas than dragging the whole country down with you.

Can I assume then, that you prefer higher taxes, larger government and less personal freedom? If so, you have certainly been effective in your mission.

I hope you are right Dan.

I am a libertarian but voted democratic in the last election. Bush and Co had to be stopped.

If the Dems don’t realize what they were put into the majority for, then I won’t vote for them again.

If the Dems don’t impeach and remove Bush from office, I hope that the traditional democratic voters judge whether or not the congressional demoncrats did what they needed to do and if not, I hope those voters will vote libertarian in the next election.

I think that most people in this country are starting to realize that the traditional parties in this country no longer represent the common man, just the wealthy, and the interests of the wealthy seem to always be contraire to what the common man wants and needs.

Go Libertarians!

Compared to what? Look at what personal freedoms did in NYC, and what Guliani had to do to personal freedom to stop the blight and make the city a place people can live. Why do people build suburb communities, around every big city, with walls, security guards, and lots of rules to keep out all the people who have too many personal freedoms? I don’t like bigger governmnet; I like stronger government.

Just a small point of clarification:
There is no such thing as a Libertarian. I thought at one time I was one, but found I didn’t exist. Functionally libertarians define themselves as “less gov’t” but are unable to say when “less” is enough. Some Libertarians suggest a state of near anarchy and others so self proclaimed as Libertarians sound like communists. Less govt is undefineable because each person sees the beneficial aspects of gov’t redefined as nongovernmental action nominally overseen by gov’t. One persons “less” is not another persons “less”. This is why there never has been a so called self sustaining Libertarian gov’t and this is why there never will be. Waste your time spinning your wheels on fine philosophic points of political order if you must but people dont in general organize under the leadership of “less” of anything for themselves.

Libertarianism is NOT traditional Burkean conservatism.

“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion
as their love of justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of naves.

Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there
must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge
their fetters.”

– Edmund Burke, Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791)

I couldnta said it myself any better, Ed.

Libertarians, as such, do not exist anyway. Those who call themselves “libertarians” are really just San Francisco Democrats — or maybe 1968 Chicago Democrats. Their platform is “sex, drugs, and rock & roll” without cost or consequence. Libertarianism is a synonym for licentiousness without cost or consequence.

****15% of voters are Libertarians.****

Given that Libertarians try to play the role of Santa Claus, it’s amazing that 100% of voters are not — unless they smell something fishy.

****44% of voters are not opposed to the label Libertarian.****

In other words, 56% are opposed or have no opinion on the label.

****59% of voters hold at least some Libertarian views.****

A similar percentage of voters probably share SOME views in common with parties on the extreme left and right fringes.

Far from being ready to emerge as a strong and independent party, the Libertarians are destined to go the way of the dodo and the Reform Party.

At least YOU get it right. They only want the claims of following the dictates of a higher, supreme authority, but actually seek to demonstrate this allegiance with debauchery and irresponsibility under cover of following the constitution to the letter to keep their self esteem intact. I think the cult of Baccus sufficed as such an excuse in earlier times and would admirably serve again in this manner.

As many have already said in so many words, it’s hard to find true libertarians. I, personally, have never met one. Instead, while some wear the badge of libertarianism proudly, you’ll find that they don’t have a clue as to what the word means. As soon as you get into an area that involves a pet peeve of theirs, they’re anxious for government involvement geared toward imposing the values they hold dear.

More ridiculous still, you’ll find that many who claim libertarian pedigree are just liberals who have deceived themselves into believing that they treasure liberty above all else. In reality, they want freedom in the areas of sexuality and drug use, but not in too many others. They just love welfare, food stamps, the EEOC, Title IX, OSHA, etc., etc., etc. . . . .

EXACTLY, Torquemada. Libertarians certainly don’t believe in freedom of speech. They certainly would not allow others the freedom to oppose libertarianism, for example.

Libertarians tend to be also members of the multicultural/diversity crowd, and that is a crowd that believes in careful regulation of speech for the sake of “tolerance”.

Ask a typical libertarian what he thinks of Democrats and he might shrug his shoulders and complain about oppressive taxation.

Then ask the same libertarian what he thinks about the Republicans and his eyes will roll; his mouth will foam; and he’ll complain that he’s not getting all of the sex and drugs that he wants (and he’s expected to actually take RESPONSIBILITY for the consequences of what he DOES receive) — and it’s all the GOP’s fault.

You get the idea that economic liberty isn’t really a high priority of the typical libertarian. Indeed, it’s not a priority at all. Paying lip service to that concept is just a fig leaf to disguise his garden variety 60’s leftism – sex, drugs, and rock & roll.

That’s why self-styled “libertarians”, such as NationalVoice, inevitably find themselves allied with statist Democrats.

A typical libertarian is a 19 year old kid with long hair and sloppy personal habits — still living with his parents and playing heavy metal or hip-hop music on his stereo loud enough to bust out the eardrums of everyone within range, including his own.

His idea of “oppression” is being asked or required to turn down the stereo out of consideration for others. “Freedom” for him means freedom to do whatever he wants — it doesn’t mean that others should have the right to be “free” from his intrusive activity.

But Libertarian philosophy allows such an individual the comfort of having a philosophy to justify his self-centeredness.

Where do you get this false impression that Libertarians are “liberals in disguise”? Let’s make sure you’re not confusing Libertarian with LIBERAL.

How many LIBERALS have you seen standing up against Eminent Domain Abuse? The Libertarian Party of Kansas sponsored a rally in Topeka in January 05, that helped save several local businesses from an eminent domain threat by a private contractor.

How many LIBERALS do you EVER see standing up for Fathers’ Rights, or warning the public that proposed changes in child $upport and welfare reform will actually HURT more people than it helps?

For that matter, how many CONSERVATIVES do you see standing up for small businesses or people’s rights, vs. big government?

Most Libertarian ideals are closer to real conservatives (not you fake “neo-cons”) than they are to liberal.

Heck, there are more LIBERAL Republicans than there are registered Libertarians. Or are you just trying to conveniently forget your MODERATE section pretty much dominates your Republican party…

Instead of blindly trashing the LP and throwing around ignorant allegations (that you heard from some moron at work), why don’t you take a few minutes and EDUCATE yourself about what the Libertarians are about.
* http://www.LP.org and http://www.LPKS.org

Thomas Lessman,
. http://www.ThomasLessman.com
. http://www.ACFC-KS.org
Email: talessman@yis.us

grizzlie, I agree, but I think something should be emphasized. These people aren’t really libertarians — they’re people who CLAIM to be libertarians. The truth is that being a true libertarian is so contrary to the statist norm of today that only a true radical could manage it. The people we’re talking about are just immature leftists who think it sounds a lot “cooler” proclaim oneself a libertarian. And, as you said, it’s also a handy justification.

I want to point out that I’m not a libertarian. It’s just that I happen to know what one is — that’s why I know that no one else is either.

Million, I can only take your word for it, but I stand by what I said. I have never met a real libertarian.

Of course, you might be an exception. But if you’re like most “libertarians,” when one scratches the surface he’ll find that you dispense with the ideology’s principles when your strongest desires conflict with them.

Torquemada said, “Of course, you might be an exception. But if you’re like most “libertarians,” when one scratches the surface he’ll find that you dispense with the ideology’s principles when your strongest desires conflict with them.”

And DO tell, how are most “Republicans” or most “Liberals” any better?

MOST Libertarians that I’ve met (and I’ve met a few because I AM one) are good people, very intelligent, and doing their best to bring about changes that will protect your freedom and mine, by restricting the ability of the Government to abuse our rights.

Republicans have been in power for over 6 years now. How friendly have they REALLY been for fathers and families? How many abusive laws have they repealed? (No, I said repealed, not PASSED).

HOW has our situation improved since Republicans gained power?

What really ticks me off about people who are stupid enough to blast the Libertarians, is that for several years, the LP fought to HELP fathers and families by working to eliminate the welfare and family law agencies that are screwing up our lives.

Instead of thanking the Libertarians (much less offering to help them help us), most of the moron fathers around here decided to vote Republican because, hey, their daddy always voted Republican, and if their daddy can be so incredibly stupid, so can they…

Jeesus people. Use your brains. Or quit crying about your personal problems because you’re too stupid to help the people who are TRYING to help you.

Sincerely,

Thomas Lessman
. http://www.ThomasLessman.com
Blog: http://www.talessman.blogspot.com
Email: talessman@yis.us

**** Where do you get this false impression that Libertarians are “liberals in disguise”?****

It’s not a false impression.

**** Let’s make sure you’re not confusing Libertarian with LIBERAL.****

If I’d done that, I wouldn’t have intimated that Libertarians are liberals in disguise.

**** How many LIBERALS have you seen standing up against Eminent Domain Abuse? The Libertarian Party of Kansas sponsored a rally in Topeka in January 05, that helped save several local businesses from an eminent domain threat by a private contractor.****

Then they celebrated by having a pot party. Or maybe by having a meth party, given that meth is the designer drug of choice these days.

**** How many LIBERALS do you EVER see standing up for Fathers’ Rights, or warning the public that proposed changes in child $upport and welfare reform will actually HURT more people than it helps?****

You don’t see any libertarians standing up for father’s rights either. Libertarians have been captured by the feminist wing. Wendy McElroy wants to shoot all men in the name of liberty.

A libertarian society could not possibly be a society in which “father’s rights” would be respected because in a libertarian society, because this would require both parents to take responsibility for their progeny and responsibility is a concept that libertarians hate even more than they hate the idea of hygiene.

**** For that matter, how many CONSERVATIVES do you see standing up for small businesses or people’s rights, vs. big government?

Most Libertarian ideals are closer to real conservatives (not you fake “neo-cons”) than they are to liberal.****

No, they’re not. Libertarians are hedonistic liberals who want to impose their version of Woodstock America on everyone.

**** Heck, there are more LIBERAL Republicans than there are registered Libertarians.****

If Libertarians are that small in number, then there’s no danger that Dan Rode’s prediction of a Libertarian uprising will come true.

**** Or are you just trying to conveniently forget your MODERATE section pretty much dominates your Republican party…****

It’s not really my Republican Party, anymore, that’s true. But a libertarian world would be no more acceptable than a communist one.

**** Instead of blindly trashing the LP and throwing around ignorant allegations (that you heard from some moron at work), why don’t you take a few minutes and EDUCATE yourself about what the Libertarians are about.****

I have done so. Libertarians are about amorality, hedonism, and irresponsibility uniting under an umbrella that they call “Freedom”.

**** MOST Libertarians that I’ve met (and I’ve met a few because I AM one) are good people, very intelligent, and doing their best to bring about changes that will protect your freedom and mine****

Libertarians are NOT working to protect the liberty of non-libertarians. Libertarians are working to empower themselves at the expense of non-libertarians — this is the same thing that any other political movement does.

And I don’t want your freedom protected, Thomas Lessman, because I think that you’re dangerous. I want your freedom restricted. I’d accept limitations on my own freedoms to ensure that there were limitations on yours.

Torquemada, I apologize if my last post seemed to be directed towards you. I disagree with your opinion, but most of my post was directed towards the complete lack of knowledge most of the posters here have of Libertarians.

As for Grizzlie, sure guy. Way to prove a point. But… I don’t get it. Could you explain it to me again?

Thomas

You heard me loud and clear the first time. I don’t want you hippies and deviates distributing needles to kids and recruiting them into illicit sex acts and then saying that it’s all about “freedom”. I don’t appreciate your dignifiying your degeneracy by calling it a “philosophy”.

Most of the discussion on this board is intelligent and high quality.

Many of the posts above are utterly ignorant and mean spirited.

Our founding fathers were essentially libertarian. The libertarian philosophy is held in good faith by well meaning people. There is no connection between libertarianism and druggies, etc. That is just slanderous nonsense.

Libertarian states have and do exist. Government’s role is to protect freedoms not to abridge them. Libertarianism does not mean no government. It means properly focused government. Specifically, government should protect freedoms and it should not interfere with individual choices except in the instance of one individual abridging the rights of another.

Of course, there are matters of degree and definition and choice. That does not mean you just throw up your hands and say government can do whatever the hell it wants which is pretty much where we are at right now.

Countries that lean towards libertarianism have always thrived including this country which for most of its existence has been essentially libertarian certainly in theory and even largely in practice. The English common law is largely libertarian in philosophy. That is why England and the English common wealth associated countries including this Country have done so well in recent history. As people are freed, countries thrive. Government control does not bring out the human spirit and energy and productiveness like free does.

Anybody who thinks government solves problems hasn’t observed recent history. Nearly every major government program has created more problems than it has solved (and created huge amounts of waste). This country works as well as it does despite not because of these government programs. Countries that allow substantial economic and social freedom have thrived even in the absence of natural resources. Consider how “countries” like Singapore, Hong Kong, and now Dubai thrive. People are now flocking to Dubai in mass. I cannot claim to be an expert on Dubai but my impression is that it leaves people alone pretty much and it is thriving as a result.

I consider myself a libertarian and I take pride. My philosophical heritage includes the like of Thomas Jefferson. I am a real libertarian. I am not a druggie. I am not an anarchist. I am a realist. You people don’t know what you are talking about. Your grandchildren will grow up not understanding or enjoying meaningful freedom if the likes of you continue to dominate.

Is it all about being more like Amsterdam?

As a recent convert from the Republican Party to the Libertarian Party I’m not so steeped in Libertarian history as some of my colleagues here are.

The Libertarian Party was commonly known as the “Pot Party,” a derisive moniker to accentuate the Libertarian Party’s stance on marijuana. It had another purpose of turning people away from the party despite its other positions on librerty. The plan is to silence its other message. Its called a “cheap shot.”

My involvement with the Libertarian Party came about based on several criteria. The personal freedom advocated by the Libertarians was my biggest draw. That is the kernal of the liberty espoused by the founders. Government’s purpose as defined by the founders was to protect liberty not legislate and control it toward the collective’s good, what ever that is.

I am not anti-government. As a Christian my first loyalty is to a King. My King says to obey the human government with which I find mself in. As Augustine of Hippo said, “Bad government, God forbid, is better than no government, God forbid.” Anarchy is nothing I want to see as it is the antithesis of society.

People will always form together into societies for mutual protection sake. If mutual protection and equitable redress from injustice are unavailable society disintegrates.

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Anarchist only see the “to abolish it” clause whereas I see the “to alter” clause. I regard the phenomenom of the career politican to be the heart of the problem in our government. That is why I am a strong supporter of term limits for House and Senate.

In regards to drug use and the drug problem I see the problem to be public schools. Firstly that forced integration requires forced association. Secondly, as a government program, the least-common-denominator is forced upon children.

There is such a thing as “good government.” Drug use in this country is controlled according to the current public sentiment of what is a harmful drug. Tobacco and alcohol are drugs, but they are generally socially acceptable drugs except the declining popularity of cigarettes. But it is still legal to own and smoke tobacco.

The problem of drug users is not the user but government pandering to them. I am a cigarette smoker. I don’t expect anybody to ever pay one red-cent to alleviate any problems that may arrise that are related to my choice of chemical entertainment. If smoking takes me down then I am content to just die. So what?! I enjoy my tasty tobacco treats. Governmetn controlled healthcare is tyranny because it forces others to pay for my health choices.

I do regard marijuana as a mislabled drug. I know of people who have smoked marijuana who could probably work most others I know into the dirt. The argument of marijuana making people lazy just doesn’t wash. I’ve seen too much evidence to the contrary. Albeit, I have met lazy people who smoked marijuana. I have also met lazy people who didn’t do any king of chemical entertainment, marijuana, tobacco or alcohol.

But the underlying argument is that marijuana makes people lazy, therefore they don’t produce as much and so they hurt us all by their lack of productivity. Let revisit personal freedom – since when did somebody’s personal productivity become public property? Isn’t our personal efforts for our person and our own pursuit of happiness? Maybe somebody’s pursuit leads them to marijuana. Why is that our concern? So long as it does not deprive us of life, liberty or our own pursuit then who cares? That’s their decision.

Drugs like meth and LSD do impact us on a public level and therefore they can rightly be legislated. The danger of a meth lab, even a small time personal operation, poses a public threat.

The problem of communism is not a problem except when they storm stages at universities and disrupt lawful gatherings without repercussion. When communism is the only idea allowed to be espoused then it is a problem. But that is the nature of communism – control of public dialog in the marketplace of ideas.

It is true that their are many Libertarians who are Democrats in Libertarian clothing. Here in Colorado we had a Libertarian candidate for governor which I could not vote for. I have a problem with a pro-abortion Libertarian. To me such an one is an oxymoron. Abortion is anti-Libertarian. Abortion is the handing over of the decision of one’s life continuance to another. That is about as anti-Libertarian as one could get.

“Big” government is not going to be a problem in people’s eyes until they understand that “big” government is a problem.

As one commentor said “one person’s less government is not another’s.” The problem this illuminates is that people look to government to solve problems. And as another said these beauracracies create more problems than they solve. Good government is a government that gets out of the way for people to solve their own problems and create communities that have a self-imposd civil order. People who aren’t taught to desire good civil order will not pursue it. That is why one of our founders said that personal virtue was necessary for our form of government. That is why they supported personal exercise of religion even while performing public service. It is through religion that people learn virtue.

The attack on Christianity in this country is self-destructive. Christianity teaches expression of personal virtue especially the kind that is expressed when no one is applauding your display of virtue. Christianity has ben hijacked by many as a means for public notoriety. This is anti-thetical to Christianity.

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.” The Gospel of Matthew, Ch. 6 vss. 1 to 6.

This is the virtue of personal integrity. Yet these teachings are derided. Personal integrity is the one thing I think we can all agree is severely lacking in our elected officials.

If the pool is polluted then the ladel of water you draw from it is going to be polluted – no matter from what side of the pool you draw from.

Ideas have consequences and if your ideas are that our happiness is effected by more control by government then it will eventually come home to roost at your front door.

Most people are all for control of others.

Did you hear beef-jerky is the gateway drug to becoming redneck? What I am trying to get is a more concrete answer, like Snootfish tried to do, listing cities he thinks are Libertarian. I understand, and have heard many times, the idealism you want more of this, and less of that. But my question is more concrete. Are Libertarians trying to be more like Amsterdam?

If you want to understand what the Libertarians are all about, just read and understand the Constitution.

As for the drug issues that have been raised, pay attention to whether or not the Federal Government has the power to declare drug use illegal. Ah, I’ll save you the effort, it is not one of the enumerated powers that were granted to the Federal government. The States reserved that right to themselves by it NOT being in Constitution. If your State makes it illegal, they have that right and vice versa. The Federal government is involved in many, many areas that are not enumerated in the Constitution and are subsequently illegal.

If everyone understood and abided by the Constitution, then we would all be libertarians. Not war mongering republicans hoping to make a buck off the misery of others or, free riding democrats who want others to do their work for them. But, at least the republicans believe in working…even if their objective is start wars. The demoncrats think that they should be free to do anything that they want just so long as you and I are footing the bill (slavery) for their pleasures. Both parties must be infiltrated by satan in order to be so evil…

Yes, READ your Constitution. It is a contract between YOU, The People. and US, The Individual. If you can’t honor this contract, AS IT IS WRITTEN, you have no business being an MRA, or an American for that matter. It is the attitude that The Constitution is a guide for daily living that allows for crap like ’seperation of church and state” and gun laws to exist. Seperation of church and state does not exist in the Constitution, nor are gun laws permitted as they INFRINGE on that right. The Constitution is not a buffet where you get to pick and choose your favorite items. Let Liberty flourish, the chips fall where they may.

OT: Hi Thomas Lessman. Haven’t seen you since the Wilbur Street memorial in Jersey. I was the guy with the dogs.

Rest of you people want to sit around on your asses bitching; Mr. Lessman fights for what he believes in. He has run for office several times in his state. The Libertarian Party, through advocating Rights enumerated in the Constitution, fights for parents’ rights, for men’s rights, for EVERYONE’s rights.
Anyone that feels they can give up rights, buffet style, deserves no rights whatsoever. America is not their country. They would be better served in a nice cozy, safe dictatorship, instead of bypassing our Constitution and making America into a Land of Democratic Despots.

BTW, do you know what is the difference between a Republic and a Democracy?

There are 10 key differences and they are affiliated with the Constitution. Since Democracy doesn’t have these 10 key differences, Democracy is the same as a dictatorship.

All of the “socialistic” countries keep saying that they are a democracy, and they are…

Would you want to live in China, Cuba or North Korea?

When Bush says that we are spreading democracy, it is an insult to all of us. He might as well be saying communism. But, if he used that word, well, people just might take offense at our troops being used to spread communism. I know I do.

Maybe I can lend this some perspective. As I said before, I know what a true libertarian is, it’s just that I have never met one. This doesn’t mean they don’t exist — it just means they’re so rare that they’re hard to come by.

The posters are right when they say that something approximating libertarianism was the dominant political philosophy at the time of the Founding Fathers. At the time, however, it was just known as “liberalism,” and it later came to be called “Classical Liberalism” so as to distinguish it from the new, socialist variety.

But there’s a big difference between those “libertarians” and most of today’s. At the time of the founding people were quite Christian in nature, which means they were self-governing. One of our founders said, “If men are not governed from the inside by Jesus Christ, they will be governed from the outside by totalitarianism.” In contrast, today’s libertarians tend to be secular (although there are exceptions), which means that their priorities and behavior are quite different. And, as many have pointed out already, libertarianism has become a flag that many liberals wrap themselves in to gain credibility and make themselves feel noble.

Perhaps a real life example will serve best. Bill Maher, the comedian, claimed he was a libertarian. So, one day many years ago I watched him on “Politically Incorrect.” They were talking about the fact that certain pharmacies refused to sell contraception because it was contrary to their owners’ religious beliefs. Well, Maher was taken aback and opined that such a thing shouldn’t be allowed. Do I have to explain what’s wrong with this picture?

But Maher is a good example of many who CLAIM to be libertarians. He’s immature and dull — a complete political moron who doesn’t even understand his own professed beliefs. So I have some advice for authentic libertarians, if you want to gain credibility, stop expending political capital on issues like the legalization of marijuana. I understand that drugs were legal for much of American history and that this position is in step with libertarianism, but with government as big as can be imagined, this isn’t something you should be going to the mat for. Words to the wise.

It is so sad that so many people think that the Libertarian party promotes the legalization of drugs. The actual point that they have been trying to make is that the Federal government can’t make drugs illegal. They don’t have that power as it is not granted to them in the Constitution. It is just an example of the how the Federal government has run amok.

State governments each have their own constitution. If a certain state says that drugs are illegal, and the power to do so has been granted to them by their constituents, then, the people in that state are bound by their decision.

To many people seem to believe that the Federal government has power over the states and they do. Those powers that were specifically granted to the Feds via the Constitution. And nothing else.

In essence, a libertarian believes that state government is the place where the people have elected to be their main source of governance.

The Federal government only exists to serve as an interface between the state governments.

The liberals claim to believe in “diversity”. Prove it by recognizing each states right to make their own laws whether you agree with their laws or not!

The only condition is that the states cannot violate the inalianable rights of the people enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

It would be nice if people had a choice as to what laws they want to abide by exercised via moving to the state whose laws most closely match their own beliefs.

BTW, how did the Federal government get so powerfull? See the 16th amendment to the Constitution and then research as to whether or not that amendment was lawfully passed….and then research why the 16th amendment had to be implemented….and why it is bankrupting our country today.

Is the Libertarian position about legalizing prostitution?

What is the Libertarian position about legalizing prostitution?

During both of my campaigns, I didn’t have a position on legalized prostitution. Still don’t have one; got more important things to worry about than what 2 consenting adults are doing.

With fathers around the nation losing their families (and often their own lives) over this BS “Family Law System”, some of you here would rather waste time worrying about prostitution.

Do you really have THAT much free time Chas?

Thomas Lessman

Notice how cowardly Thomas Lessman is.

He doesn’t have the guts to say that he favors legalized prostitution in so many words.

Instead he says: “During both of my campaigns, I didn’t have a position on legalized prostitution. Still don’t have one; got more important things to worry about than what 2 consenting adults are doing.”

In other words, he favors legalized prostitution. Legalized prostitution is a libertarian position. But he senses that this would confirm people’s impression that libertarianism means nothing more than pot, pussy & acid.

So instead of saying outright that he and other libertarians favor legalized prostitution, he gives a weasel answer.

Oh, so the libertarians favor the U.S. Constitution, do they? That’s another weasel response.

Do libertarians also favor motherhood and apple pie? And being kind to stray dogs?

And what about the Republicans? And the Democrats (who, of course, are the guiding force behind the supposedly independent libertarian politics)? They both say that they favor the U.S. Constitution also and can cite chapter and verse for examples that make this point to their own satisfaction.

So does every U.S. political party pay lip service to the Constitution.

The fact is, of course, that libertarians do not favor the U.S. Constitution and can often be heard speaking out against it when they are not running for office.

The Constitution prescribes limits on everyone, and libertarians do not believe in limits — at least not on libertarians.

In the criminal court system, I deal with people who have already tasted the benefits of libertarianism. They abuse drugs because some libertarian told them that the right to abuse drugs is a birth right.

They have kids out of wedlock and often abuse or abandon those kids — because some libertarian told them that their rights to pleasure and self-fulfillment, as well as their reproductive rights were sacrosanct.

They engage in antisocial behavior which often breaks the law because some libertarian told them that the laws are unjust and that no one had the right to impose his ideas of morality upon them.

The Federalists, who were largely responsible for the U.S. Constitution, were NOT libertarians. They passed the Alien & Sedition Acts during the Adams administration. To the extent that those laws are still in force, they should be enforced against libertarians.

I think we are mature enough that we wouldn’t have a problem with Libertarians saying “We like Amsterdam with the freer attitudes toward recreational drugs and prostitution and we want to try to make America more like that, vote for us.”

****
chas said,

I think we are mature enough that we wouldn’t have a problem with Libertarians saying “We like Amsterdam with the freer attitudes toward recreational drugs and prostitution and we want to try to make America more like that, vote for us.”
****

As I indicated before, there are large segments of America ALREADY like that. I see them in the court system every day.

I would give the Libertarians a few points for HONESTY, if nothing else, if they were forthright enough to admit that this is what they want.

Instead, notice how the Libertarians in this blog are skirting the issue of what life would be like in a Libertarian society and instead wrapping themselves in the flag

Thomas, I have a quick hypothetical question. Let’s say you had to appoint one of the two major parties to rule the country. Which one would you choose, the Republicans or the Democrats?

If people like Amsterdam so much, is it because the drugs are legal, or the legalised prostitution – ie the legalised ripping off of men because of the sexual drive discrepency – or the influx of Mulslims, or the subjugation of the State to the EU commissioners, or…. what?

grizzlieantagonist said:
“Notice how cowardly Thomas Lessman is.

He doesn’t have the guts to say that he favors legalized prostitution in so many words”

This is the difference between Libertarians and the others. Any act of Liberty is allowed, even prostitution, ESPECIALLY when we ourselves don’t favor these acts. It’s called LIBERTY. Liberty for everyone is accomplished when all citizens are FREE to do as they please as long as the Rights of other citizens ar not violated.

grizzlieantagonist, your use of words like cowardly, and weasel indicates you’re here to pick a fight. What you have to say isn’t worth any further effort to counter it.

chas said,

“I think we are mature enough that we wouldn’t have a problem with Libertarians saying “We like Amsterdam with the freer attitudes toward recreational drugs and prostitution and we want to try to make America more like that, vote for us.”

As stated before, these acts are covered under States Rights in the Constitution. Whether these acts are legal or not is up to state legislatures, not the Federal butt-wipes in DC. As for favor or not favor, that’s not the point. Look at the record. Look at the war on drugs. It has made criminals out of honest citizens, ruined lives and destroyed families. I would go so far as to say the war on drugs has destroyed more lives and families than the drugs themselves ever could have. How about prostitution? Here, an act that is perfectly legal as long as no cash or material thing changes hands and is suddenly illegal because cash is introduced into the equation.

All Libertarians believe first in the Constitution and States’ Rights. After that it is up to the individual to lobby his/her state legislature.

The existing Federal gov’t, while not entirely illegal, is repugnant to the Constitution and is held together by usurption of powers, thinly veiled loopholes, and a system of debt that is legal only as long as we remain in a constant state of emergency, giving the President special powers over the economy such as removing us from the gold standard. The Constitution requires that gold and silver are to be the only money used by The People. The American people are living a lie and I’m sure it will be the downfall of the greatest Constitutional Republic in history. Sieg Heil das Amerikan Federal gov’t.

I find it interesting that there are those on the list that are really vehement when it comes to libertarians. You seize on the fact that real freedom does allow people to make choices, even bad ones.

To legislate morality in our country is no different than Islam. I’d rather go to hell than have someone else decide what is right and wrong for me based on their personal beliefs. With over 900 religions in the world, why should I believe that they have somehow seized on the correct one?

I’ve never seen the Repusicans and Democrats so scared.

You’re afraid that your power over We the People is going to be broken in the next election aren’t you?

Please, bad mouth us all you want, even bad publicity is better than no publicity.

We want people to know that we exist and that they do have other choices besides the Gay Old Pedophile party and the Demoncrats.

And, you can’t fool all of the people all of the time. Hopefully, these two corrupt parties will end up in the dustbin of history and We the People will once again be free.

Let the Sunshine in!

All power to the Pipples!
The peasants are revolting.
D’uh!

*****This is the difference between Libertarians and the others. Any act of Liberty is allowed, even prostitution, ESPECIALLY when we ourselves don’t favor these acts. It’s called LIBERTY. Liberty for everyone is accomplished when all citizens are FREE to do as they please as long as the Rights of other citizens ar not violated.*****

Do you or do you not favor legalized prostitution? Yes or no? In one breath, you say that “we” allow it and “we” don’t favor it.

Is a Libertarian society one in which prostitution is allowed to take place? Do you favor its legalization? Yes or no? Stop running from the question! Obviously, Libertarians do not have even the saving grace of integrity and answer questions like any politician would.

***** Liberty for everyone is accomplished when all citizens are FREE to do as they please as long as the Rights of other citizens ar not violated.*****

There is no such animal. That is Yippie Party barnyard residue. A society in which citizens are FREE to engage in prostitution is a society in which other citizens are victimized by the prevalence of prostitution in their neighborhoods.

Libertarianism is moral socialism, benefitting the morally unfit at the expense of the morally fit.

**** I find it interesting that there are those on the list that are really vehement when it comes to libertarians. You seize on the fact that real freedom does allow people to make choices, even bad ones. ****

1) There is no inherent right to make bad choices.
2) Some are forced to live with the bad choices made by others. So those some have no “real freedom”. Libertarianism is about the enslavement of non-libertarians for the benefit of libertarian.

***** To legislate morality in our country *****

Congratulations! You’ve just defined what “law” is. Criminalizing thievery is a legislation of morality. And law is obviously something that you’re allergic to, though thievery may not be.

*****is no different than Islam. I’d rather go to hell *****

Don’t toy with me.

***** With over 900 religions in the world, why should I believe that they have somehow seized on the correct one? *****

With thousands of political parties in the world, why should anyone believe that Libertarians represent the correct one?

***** You’re afraid that your power over We the People is going to be broken in the next election aren’t you?*****

Libertarians, as I have mentioned before, have done a pretty good job of corrupting the morals of several generations without the advantage of formal political power.

But as for a formal auto-de-fe involving the enshrinement of the Libertarian Party as the ruling party, that will happen on the day that Liechtenstein invades China.

***** Please, bad mouth us all you want, even bad publicity is better than no publicity. *****

Yeah, and those are the two choices that you’re left with. An odd attitude coming from someone who expects to be anointed king at the end of the next cycle.

The problem with Libertarians (of which I am one-but with a small “l”) is that they preach a set of values but do not preach an effective means to implement these values. It is important to identify sources of what is wrong (and not only the “wrong” itself)). And too many of them want to spend endless hours arguing about who is the “purer libertarian”. Wherever feminism (the “source”)has taken hold it has resulted in (what is “wrong”): 1.) bigger government, 2.) higher taxes, 3.) less freedom. I would think you Libertarians could see the real threat out there (e.g., feminism), speak out loudly about this threat (such as by exposing it to the masses), and proposing an alternate reality that resonates with the public. It is afterall, among the greatest of sources for the loss of freedom, growth of government, and growth of taxes.

Bigger government necessitates higher taxes. When government became The Big Mommy, or usually, when it replaces fathers in families: The Big Daddy, it took over roles and responsibilities left to the individual/family. Everyone ends up paying for someone else’s Big Mommy or Big Daddy. The government grabs more power, extracts more taxes and consequently takes more and more freedom. The politicians see the advantages in doing this (for themselves that is) and are forever finding new ways to grow government and extract taxes. I am not suggesting to you that it ALL boils down to feminism-I’ll agree there are other areas where government power has grown, taxes have gone up-and not in response to feminism. But I will propose that feminism is among the greatest of sources of the government’s increase in size, increase in intruding on private matters, increase in taxation, and the taking of individual rights/ freedoms (primarily men’s)over the past 40 years.