Had to laugh at this passage in this WashPost story about the Ron Paul phenomenon, which was brought to my attention by an e-mail from a libertarian organization:
More than at any other time over the past two decades, Americans are
hungering for the politics and freewheeling fun of libertarianism…
It really said that. Go look. "Freewheeling fun." Maybe that’s why I don’t get libertarianism. I look at it and see a gray, dull, monotonous, seething, dispiriting resentment. Gripe, bitch, moan, especially about taxes — that’s libertarianism to me. That is, if you don’t mind my using the "b-word" in its verb form.
I don’t go to politics looking for a good time, but if I did, I’d probably pick the liberal Democrats. If I were looking to start a business, I’d hang with the Republicans. If I were looking to be an ideologically rigid, antisocial grouch who constantly told the rest of the world to go (expletive) itself, I’d be a libertarian. Not to cast aspersions or anything, or deal in flat stereotypes. I’m sure there’s much more to libertarians than that, just as there is to everyone. But "freewheeling fun?" That cracked me up.
Related Posts
How is your complaining about the healthcare system any different than us Libertarians complaining about the intrusive and inefficient government
“If I were looking to be an ideologically rigid, antisocial grouch who constantly told the rest of the world to go (expletive) itself, I’d be a libertarian”
Sheesh….isn’t that what you just did?
Get over the anger!
“Gripe, bitch, moan, especially about taxes.”
When 2.3 trillion dollars spent by the military cannot be accounted for, I complain.
After reading David Walker, there is no doubt in my mind why people are unsatisfied.
David M. Walker
Comptroller General
http://www.gao.gov/cghome.htm
Poor job of not dealing in flat stereotypes. Actually theres nothing else is in this posting.
What a waste of letters and bits.
Even as a Ron Paul supporter, that’s actually quite funny. Good catch.
The liberal Dems can keep the “fun”. I’ll just settle for the individual freedoms that a Ron Paul presidency will bring. Oh yeah, I’ll have more $$$ to have fun with too … buh-bye IRS.
I’ll leave you with a quote from Mark Twain.
“Do not fear the enemy, for your enemy can only take your life. It is far better that you fear the media, for they will steal your HONOR. That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse.”
What does this even mean? What is wild and crazy fun guy mean, and what is a libertarian?
“Gripe, bitch, moan, especially about taxes — that’s libertarianism to me.”
As opposed to being a complacent sheep.
What’s fun about Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani? Ron Paul is attracting the votes of fun-loving, liberty-loving, patriotic young Americans. The theme of his campaign is “Hope for America.”
Young people want hope, and a life filled with fun and possibilities — not a future stunted by an overgrown government.
What’s fun about the Democrats? The ones in Congress are afraid of their own shadow, and a 27%-popular President. They’ve done nothing to end the war or protect our basic freedoms.
What’s fun about the Republicans? How could anyone turn to them who wants to start a business? They’ve grown the intrusive and expensive government faster than the Democrats did.
The free-wheeling fun of libertarianism? — that pretty much nails it.
I don’t understand how a blogger can be taken seriously if he calls someone else dull and anti-social. A blogger is not exactly the image of a freewheeling, exciting, social butterfly. Sounds like there’s some projection going on.
Such pithy statements you make. It must be cool to be the lucky guy who gets to assign groups of people polarizing labels. Why stop there? Why not Democrats, Muslims, or Blacks.
Unless your attempt here is to pacify said dispirited resenters? Call me crazy but I don’t think your doing a good job of it.
However, if your intention was to somehow ostracize liberals, why do a half baked job of it? Why don’t you just paint degrading symbols on door fronts or pass out literature with overblown liberal cartoon people griping and complaining and being nuisances.
Oh, but you say I am making fun. Well I guess liberals can have fun then!!!
Actually I am long time Republican, who owns a business, who takes offense to pompous blow hards such as yourself.
My suggestion is to somehow get yourself some good old fashioned self respect so you won’t feel the need to try and bring others down a few notches.
Well, as I sit here in my pajamas, consuming coffee and Skittles — actually, I just had a beer, and am contemplating having another, but I am, as it happens, in my PJs (a special flannel Valentine’s Day pair, with hearts and pictures of Homer Simpson on them) — I have to say that only Tim_Ohio (if that is indeed your name, sir) gets it. (And I love it that you quote Twain, but did they really use the term “media” in his day? Best double-check that provenance.)
As I’ve had to say here before, lighten up, folks. It was just a phrase that struck me as funny, and I was riffing on it. OK, I’ll explain the joke to the irony-deprived among you (a group that I suspect is legion among Paul supporters, if you’ll allow me a wee bit more fun at your expense). My references to stereotyping are quite deliberate, and intended to let you know that I realize what I’m doing, which is having fun with words. Seriously, think about it — even if you believe that Ron Paul is the savior of the country, if you were to paint an overly simplistic, shorthand description of your movement, would “freewheeling fun” be the words you would choose? Doesn’t it possess a tad more gravity than that?
I mean, with libertarians we’re talking about people who look about them and see the big, bad authoritarian Mean Daddy world closing in on them! They’re always going on about how their constitutional rights are being taken away — although I have yet to meet a single one who has a convincing tale to tell of his own rights being trampled upon. If you are going to try to capture it in a word or two, it seems that “Chicken Little cult” would come closer than “freewheeling fun.” (Not that “Chicken Little cult” would be fair either; I was being ironic again there — using one absurd proposition to set off the absurdity of another.)
And I realize some of you are very young, so I’ll provide a link for the “wild and crazy guy” phrase. In fact, here’s some actual video. And here’s some more. Or go look at the nice sunset. Because here at Brad Warthen’s Blog, we are all about freewheeling fun.
So, lets get this straight…this is a blog post about another post in regards to an article somewhere else?
Why did this come up when I did a Google search for news about Ron Paul?
I cannot believe I wasted my time reading it, much last actually posting a comment. I am about ready to stop using Google at all.
I wonder if this guy paid as much as “the spoof” does to get into those searches?
I dunno…these look kind of fun…
http://youtube.com/watch?v=udzKtJjF5Ys
Oh well, half the time we libertarians are accused of being utopians. Go figure.
haha excellent blog
Let me illuminate the inexplicable phrase “freewheeling fun” as it relates to libertarianism: libertarians are universally for legalizing drugs, prostitution, and gambling; they are universally against high taxes, welfarism, miltarism,and speech restrictions. In short they love freedom and are “freewheeling” in their tolerance of pot smokers and prostitutes. If you think liberal democrats are freewheeling how do you explain their support of the war on drugs, smut, gambling, and prostitution – that’s hardly freewheeling and seems puritanical to me.
Those DO look kind of fun there, Kevin.
But jerry raises a good point (and I won’t even go into how cruising Google for "Ron Paul" references is the ultimate stereotypical behavior for a Ron Paul supporter) — now that this has happened to me twice, you’d think I would remember that putting "Ron Paul" into a headline is an awfully cheap way to drive new traffic to a site. Like luring unsuspecting children with candy.
It’s as lame as Will’s pictures of ingenues. I will hang my head and resolve to go back to earnest, sober treatment of, oh I don’t know, Mitt Romney’s constant protestations that he is TOO a real conservative or some such, first thing tomorrow.
Well here is some real Ron Paul news since there wasn’t any in the original post.
I attended Ron Paul’s speech tonight in Charleston South Carolina. There were hundreds in attendance and the speech was fantastic.
Before Ron Paul came out , the speaker let the crowd know they were all crazy and a bunch of kooks – they had to be to be supporters of Ron Paul. The crowd loved it. Then he told us about Sean Hannity telling everyone how we need to go bomb Iran – right away – the sooner the better-
It turns out the kooks- the crazies- are running the White House – ruining our once great nation.
Dr. Paul gave an excellent speech which was loved by the large enthusiastic crowd – I took my two older sons to see the great Statesman and to let them get educated on the meaning of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Ron Paul signs are everywhere in the Charleston area . Pro more war is going to be a tough sell come primary time .
Go Ron Paul
Libertarians are loving the piggy back ride on this campaign. I haven’t decided yet if they help or hurt it.
But Libertarianism can be free wheelin’ fun. Prostitution, Marijuana decriminalization, and legalized gambling.
Sounds like a good time to me.
Brad –
You really need to get out more. You’ve had the opportunity to see first hand how much fun Ron Paul’s supporters are over the past two days. The State again has failed to mention Ron Paul’s visits to South Carolina, so I can see how you could miss them. Here are some links to coverage of the events.
http://www.wcbd.com/midatlantic/cbd/news.apx.-content-articles-CBD-2007-11-27-0012.html
http://www.abcnews4.com/news/stories/1107/475839.html
http://news.ccpblogs.com/2007/11/26/ron-paul-gives-students-alternative-to-afternoon-soap-operas-judge-shows/
If McClatchey is so bad off that you can’t get gas money to go, drop me a line and we can carpool next time!
Steve
If you are going to try to capture it in a word or two, it seems that “Chicken Little cult” would come closer than “freewheeling fun.”
-Brad
This from someone who actually believes all this crap about the terrorists coming to get us? Really Brad, until you can see how you’ve been suckered into believing our occupation of Iraq is based entirely on fear you have no business accussing anyone else of “chicken little” behavior.
Brad, I am sorry you had to explain yourself. Some of my fellow Ron Paul supporters have been responding to so many attacks on us and our candidate and smear jobs, sometimes the humor is missed. I got it. Some others did, too.
On the other hand, I still can’t figure out why so many people on the left and right criticize libertarians. How can anyone criticize liberty? It is the purpose and reason for the existence of our country. Republicans and Democrats alike seem to only want freedom for their own thoughts and plans but no one else’s. Libertarians want everyone to be free and all that means is to do as we please as long as we don’t infringe upon the rights of others. If you disagree, then on some level you are OK with oppression.
You asked for someone who has actually had their rights being trampled on. Well, we all have because we could all be labeled as enemy combatants at the whim of the President simply for speaking out against him. Read the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act. Everyone is a suspect and can be searched without cause, imprisoned without trial or representation (you’ve heard Habeas Corpus was suspended, right?), and never heard from again. This isn’t just about brown people locked up in Gitmo, this is about all of us and our government’s willingness to change the rules to make things easier for them. They are weak. Anyone who blindly follows them is also weak. Are you weak? Or, are you willing to defend yourself?
Nothing like a post on Ron Paul to bring out the crazies. It’s like baiting a World of Warcraft nerd with a Hershey bar.
bud, I need to come back to the point you raise in a separate post. It’s something that interests me; I just haven’t figured out how to approach the topic. Here’s the idea, as far as it goes: It interests me that people who oppose the aggressive pursuit of this war constantly talk about “fear.” And it always strikes me as odd, because fear is not a thing I have ever felt with regard to these issues. And I can’t think of when I’ve noticed anyone who advocates policies from the same perspective I do (that would be someone like Tom Friedman, for instance) who advocates those policies on the basis of fear. Certain policies simply seem wise under certain circumstances.
Part of it might be that I don’t approach issues in a personal way. If I were feeling an emotion so powerful as fear, I would be inclined not to address the topic, because I would not trust my responses. I look at national security issues in terms of what seems the wisest policy to follow for the sake of the nation, or of the collective security of all nations. I don’t think, “What will make ME feel better, or allay some uneasiness in MY mind.” If I did, I would not trust my conclusions.
My health care column was a rare departure from that course, but a departure I thought was necessary. Because I am very different from the picture people have in their minds when you say “health care crisis” — they tend to picture uninsured people going to emergency rooms for primary care — I thought I had to get personal to make my point. I hoped to encourage more people who are among the six out of seven WITH insurance to step forward with their stories as well, and then maybe we can start changing this debate. But believe me, I was highly uncomfortable with doing that. It’s much easier to write thoughtfully and dispassionately about the things that don’t concern you intimately — and of course, that’s the orthodox journalistic approach.
Thanks, Nick. And I’ll try to explain. Some of us love liberty dearly, and know that we enjoy more of it than any large group of people in human history. We see ourselves blessed by liberty, and don’t see it endangered — or perhaps I should say (what with the need for eternal vigilance, etc.) that the endangerment of liberty is very far down on the list of things we need to be worrying about as a society.
Many of the solutions that we nonlibertarians come up with to deal with the ACTUAL threats that we see get nixed, time and again, by libertarians. And to some extent, you’re playing a valuable role. We should always consider the burden that a new tax places on the public, no matter how good the use of that revenue might be.
But Nick, sometime back in about the 1980s we encountered a tipping point in this country, a point at which libertarianism became so dominant that it started preventing any solutions to anything. Particularly from the perspective of someone who lives in and cares about the state of South Carolina, libertarianism is an extremely destructive force. We have so many basic, fundamental elements of public infrastructure that are essential to what most of us consider a healthy civilization that have always been neglected and underfunded in this state. From crumbling highways to enforcing highway safety, from maintaining prisons to protecting public health, to the biggie that holds South Carolina back the most — an inadequately trained work force — there is a crying need to roll up our sleeves and solve some problems, working TOGETHER, and libertarianism militates very successfully against getting anything done.
You have to see it to believe it — all these allegedly “conservative” lawmakers who are actually libertarians, walking around the State House moaning about the burden of high taxes and excessive spending and “growing government,” when they have presided over an unprecedented dismantling and crumbling of what social infrastructure our state DID once have, and there hasn’t been a general tax increase in the state since 1987.
Oh, wait, excuse me — this past year they did increase the sales tax to pay for eliminating ALL of the property taxes that pay for school operation. And how did they do it? Did they then adopt a school funding mechanism that would eliminate the gap between rich and poor district, which would be the ONLY rational reason to shift from a local tax on property to a state sales tax? Of course not. And so now we have an overstrained, TOO-HIGH, increasingly unstable sales tax funding probably the most important function the state has.
And why? Because despite the powerful strain of libertarianism in the state’s electorate, the sales tax is not hated as much as the property tax. And why is that? Because property owners actually believe the preposterous proposition that THOSE PEOPLE out there who don’t own property (and we know who is meant by THOSE PEOPLE, don’t we?) don’t pay taxes at all unless you stick them with a higher sales tax, which of course takes a higher portion of the income of the poor since they have to all of their income to survive. This, amazingly, ignores the clear, obvious fact that the property tax on rental property has ALWAYS been higher than on owner-occupied property — and of course that is passed on in the form of higher rent, making it harder for renters ever to become homeowners. And NOW, with this latest tax shift, the poor are trebly screwed, because there was no relief given to the property tax on rental property, while the entire burden of school operations was removed from owner-occupied property.
All of this, each step of the way, is driven by a politics of “what is good for ME” — from the property owner to the politician — rather than what would be good for the state as a whole. It’s driven by “I’ve got MINE and I’m not sharing it with YOU” rather than by asking what we need to do to catch up to the prosperity and overall well-being of other states in the union. In other words, it is driven by libertarianism.
It’s always I-me-mine, and never ever WE — and a healthy society has a balance between the two, so that individuals can prosper in prosperous communities. The balance went out of our politics a long time ago.
When I hear libertarians, I hear people who want to make the imbalance worse, not better.
And Nick, when you say “we all have” had rights trampled on, I have to say you’re wrong. The danger you speak of is simply not a danger. You are far more likely to be struck by lightning — twice, probably — than to be labeled an “enemy combatant.” That is, unless there are some things about you that you’re not sharing. If you’ve spent half of the past year in a radical Islamist madrassah somewhere between London and Kabul being taught the finer points of IED manufacture, then I stand corrected. You might be in danger of being detained. Otherwise, I sincerely and very strongly doubt it.
One example:
Since the jury found that the Branch Davidians and Randy Weaver fired back at the FBI in self-defense, why do you not consider their rights to have been trampled, and their liberty threatened?
Since you seem to be totally unaware of the history of libertarianism and why it came to the forefront in 1980, I will explain it to you sometime, if you care to listen. I was there, as the party chairman, in the 1970s.
Mr. Wharten:
“From crumbling highways to enforcing highway safety, from maintaining prisons to protecting public health, to the biggie that holds South Carolina back the most — an inadequately trained work force — there is a crying need to roll up our sleeves and solve some problems, working TOGETHER, and libertarianism militates very successfully against getting anything done.”
Correction, if I may: libertarianism militates against any of that stuff done via government appropriation of money taken from other people in a way that is an inherently inefficient use of that money.
Libertarians don’t just say “we don’t want that, wah.” They say, rather, that governments are inherently inefficient and coercive and enemies of liberty (the fact that we have a country which, compared to most in history, is fairly free is great and all. But how fast can it crumble? We nibble a little liberty off here, a little more there. But just like with personal finances, a bunch of little bad decisions add up to a real mess in a hurry.) They say, further, that any time you interfere in the voluntary mutual interactions of the market you create inefficiencies and distortions, and these things lead to further suffering (usually among the poorer members of society).
If it is really so important to have roads that are not crumbling, for instance, and I’m not disagreeing with you there, then allow people who think they can turn a profit to buy the roads and operate them. They will be responsible for their upkeep, and they will have a responsibilty to maintain them to the expectations of their customers (the people who drive on them), whatever those expectations might be.
This is one of the ‘crazy’ ideas of libertarians, privatization of roads, but I’m using it to show that even here libertarians aren’t just saying “no” to some great noble goal that liberals have. They are saying “not in the way that you want to do it, b/c that way comes with too much baggage, at too high a price to other things.” Libertarians may be wrong about this, but they are not simply ‘putting their foot down’ for no good reason.
Finally, in response to your non-conern about having rights trampled, where you say:
“You are far more likely to be struck by lightning — twice, probably — than to be labeled an “enemy combatant.””
Well, but you are also more likely to be struck by lightning than to be blown up by an islamofascist jihadist. Yet we are invading countries that could never overpower us b/c we are…you don’t want to call it afraid, so let’s just call it ‘wisely concerned’…over this remote possibility. Some airports had bad security policies on 9/11/01, and so now we must overthrow some governments, spend trillions of dollars, and kill hundreds of thousands of people. Where is the wisdom in this, exactly?
Brad, your blog didn’t come up in a Google search. Gail Jarvis did you the favor of linking in an article here
http://www.lewrockwell.com/jarvis/jarvis107.html
and naturally I came to check it out. Actually, we libertarians don’t want to tell the rest of the world to (expletive) itself. Liberty means that:
1. Each one of us has sole ownership of our own person (slavery or draft is illegal)
2. Each person individually has sole ownership of property as legitamately created or aquired (taxation = theft)
3. Each person has the right to defend person and property against any and all.
What this means is that neither I as an individual nor as part of a group (e.g. Congress) has any legitimate claim over your person or property.
We reject the myth of “public goods” or “public property” because it has no basis in sound ethical thinking. We understand the reality of “the tragedy of the commons” and we understand the basis for most of the worlds ills: greed.
On your last post, if you don’t see suspension of habeus corpus, illegal wiretapping, concentration of power in the executive, the assumption of the right to torture, presumption of guilt until proven innocent, and other violations to numerous to list here as erosions of liberty, well, you obviously have a vastly different definition of the word “liberty” than I do.
Another point about your 4:07 post. The only libertarian lawmaker that I’m aware of, even though he wears the Republican label, IS Dr. Paul. Can you point out, in South Carolina, ANY lawmaker who votes CONSISTENTLY against taxing South Carolina citizens, spending more money, imposing more regulations OR votes FOR rolling back taxes, cutting overall spending (not simply shifting from one favored crony to another), rolling back bad laws (95%?) or otherwise getting government off people’s backs? Just curious.
And Nick, when you say “we all have” had rights trampled on, I have to say you’re wrong. -Brad
This is like shooting fish in a barrel. Among the rights we don’t have:
1. I can’t smoke marijuana, even if it would be for medicinal purposes.
2. I can’t protest against our president unless it’s in a government dictated “free-speech” zone.
3. I can’t enjoy a game of video-poker.
4. I can’t buy beer on Sunday.
5. I’m forced, by law, to support financially a failed military occupation of a non-threatening country.
6. I can’t have a private conversation with someone abroad without fear of government eavesdropping.
I am not young, nor am I responsive to fear-mongers, so Chicken Little I am not.
It is fine to say that the government hasn’t come after me, but, just to give one example, they have come after a millions of people in the “war on drugs” who are now sitting in prison.
If the time has not come for us to stand upon principle, the time will never come. And I have come to believe that Ron Paul is the only candidate who is standing on principle. I don’t agree with him about everything, but at least I know where he stands on the issues and I can live with the stuff with which I disagree.
After all, I have lived with the Bush administration for seven years. Honestly, could a Paul presidency ever even aspire to do the damage the Bush administration has done to this country? I think not.
It’s spelled "habeas," not "habeus." It’s a verb, not a second-declension noun. It’s "habeas corpus," meaning "you have the body," to be read in this usage as "(We command that) you have the body."
Two years of high school Latin. Public school, mind you, and I don’t mean "public school" in the British sense.
The main thing most people don’t understand about libertarians is that libertarians are concerned with the entire spectrum of individual rights and liberty, because they are all connected. Libertarians take an objective view of the world. Socialists, moderates and most others take a narrow, egocentric view of the world.
Most people are never concerned about “other people’s” rights, only their own. The less individual initiative they take, the fewer rights they need to excercise. The more a person takes risks, does creative things, engages in trade, and tries to save money, the more rights he needs to use, and the more aware he becomes of how many people are trying to control him for their own selfish gain, or just for the thrill of power.
Hey, bud, here’s another infringement: The big ol’ mean gummint won’t let me smack somebody up ‘side the head except in self defense. Not that I want to. But if I DID, even I would agree that it would be a GOOD thing that that’s against the rules.
And if you think you can’t play video poker, maybe I should leave up some of the spam comments I get, inviting you to do just that.
Facetiousness aside, the place where our communication breaks down is here: "I can’t have a private conversation with someone abroad without fear of government eavesdropping."
It’s that FEAR thing. You fear something that I don’t. I know that I am free to talk to anyone at any time, and I don’t really give a damn if the gummint is listening. Couldn’t care less.
It’s that fear that speaks to the darkness that I see in libertarianism — the feeling that libertarians always seem to have of being PUT UPON by something bigger and more powerful than themselves. I don’t feel that. I don’t feel a bit by working with my neighbors to solve problems, whether it’s to build a park or run a school in my neighborhood, or to screen electronic communications looking for patterns that could point to terror cells. None of that makes me feel like the world is closing in on me or anything like that. And to hear them speak, such things DO make libertarians feel that way.
Just type in “drug busts gone wrong” in Google and you’ll get dozens of hits about police falsely entering non-offending residences trying to bust someone for drug laws that should not exist in the first place. These highly intrusive government sanctioned raids result in the lost freedom of thousands of otherwise harmless people every year, including many who never possessed drugs to begin with. Clearly we have a government going far beyond what we need it to do in the 21st century, very much to the detriment of the people. So why do people like Brad want it to be ever MORE intrusive? That makes no sense.
You have no right to smack someone upside the head whether there is a government or not. The victim of aggression has the natural right to defend himself appropriately.
The government derives its powers from the people. We empower it to protect our rights, to act as our surrogates, and protect everyone equally. When it does anything else, it is acting outside the legal definition of what a government is – it becomes the tool of thugs.
Dang it, Lee, you’re spoiling all my freewheelin’ fun.
Let me put it in libertarian terms — say I’m minding my own business, smoking some weed while playing video poker, and I’m really trying to concentrate on whether to bet that I’ll draw to an inside straight (mind you, I’m pretending that I’m dumb enough to be playing a fixed game to begin with), and some busybody just keeps yammering in my ear about something I don’t wanna hear…
… and you’re telling me I don’t have the RIGHT to smack him upside the head?
No wonder libertarians are so bummed out.
You may not care whether the government is listening – now. All you’d need to do is tick off one person – the wrong person – and you’re level of concern could rise drastically. The scope of Federal law today is so immense that any single one of the nearly 300 million subjects living under our Levithian could be prosecuted for SOMETHING. I guarantee that you are breaking some law, somewhere, at one time or another. And you probably wouldn’t even know it.
Brad,
Can you provide evidence that renters pay higher property taxes than home owners?
For example, how about finding a 100 unit apartment complex and compare that to a 100 home development of median priced dwellings. Are you saying that the property taxes paid by the owner of the apartment complex will exceed the sum of the property taxes paid by 100 homeowners?
I’ll put a large bet on that not being true.
Give us some real numbers… and while you’re at, explain why property taxes should be tied to property value. Do I get more services for my additional taxes than someone who pays half or less than I do?
A sales tax is a fair tax. A property tax is a Robin Hood strategy.
And thanks for catching my typo, but why did you focus on that, rather than the core issue? That evasion is typical of those who have no answers for the issue at hand. Are you one of those?
Libertarians are willing to tolerate all shades of human behavior that are not violent or fraudulent, while liberals tirelessly work to pass laws to squelch unapproved actions (e.g., smoking, eating trans fats, sexist speech) and remake human nature. If your fun consists of trying to control others, then liberalism is your dream philosophy. If you think diversity in thought and behavior are fun, libertarianism is for you.
And I’ll echo one comment bud made… next time President Bush comes to town, try and walk anywhere within a mile of him with a sign that says “I don’t support the President”… We can start collecting the bail money for you now if you’d like.
Hard to keep up here … uh, Carter, several comments back there… “tick off one person?”
What do you think I do all day?
Doug, it’s just not a fair argument to use the name of that louse, Robin Hood. Who in his right mind would want to be like him? OK, all together now, let’s have a cheer for the Sheriff of Nottingham! Hip-hip-hooray!
… which (for the irony-deprived) is my roundabout way of saying that only a libertarian could have things so bollixed up that he sees “Robin Hood” as something negative…
As for your question, Doug, I didn’t get it. What’s so hard to understand about a) the fact that rental property is taxed at a higher rate; and b) homeowners now pay zero, zip, nada toward school operations, but that tax is still levied on the commercial property — to say it all again…
Brad:
So, do you support the Patriot Act, the war in Iraq, and the war on drugs? Or do you only back Democrats who are willing to ride opposition to those things into office so they can enact universal healthcare?
Listen, most people, including a very large portion of the folks that identify with libertarianism, have no problem with government performing its legitimate functions effectively with a minimum amount of corruption or waste. The problem is that the left does not have that agenda. Ever since the New Deal and particularly since the Great Society, the left has been utterly disinterested in good government and instead interested only in A) government for government’s sake and B) social agendas. Look at our public schools. Look at our major cities! For both, all but a tiny minority of the left demands large increases in funding with nothing resembling accountability or expectation of performance in return.
If the left wants to kill off libertarianism or even build more support for liberalism, they need to show that they can run a city or a school system first. Better yet, they need to show that they actually believe that effectively running a city or a school system is important, or whether just giving them more money on a massive scale whether it actually benefits anyone or not is some inherent moral imperative.
“liberals tirelessly work to pass laws to squelch unapproved actions (e.g., smoking, eating trans fats, sexist speech)”
-Nicolas Martin
We liberals don’t care if you smoke, eat unhealthy food or use sexist language. We just don’t want you forcing these things on us. In fact we’re ok with legalized pot, gambling, prostitution, pornography, and a host of other activities that so-called conservatives want outlawed.
Still avoiding the issue, Brad…
Tell me how much of the $1000 rent on a typical 3 bedroom apartment in Columbia goes toward property taxes. Do you have any actual numbers? Then tell me how much the owner of a $125,000 3 bedroom home in Columbia pays in property taxes. You are trying to imply that the apartment renter pays more than the homeowner. I say prove it. That’s all I’m asking. If you want me to find out the numbers for you, I will.
Rates are meaningless. Total taxes per dwelling is the only meaningful statistic.
The apartment renter with 3 kids in public school is getting the same services as the 3 bedroom homeowner. So they should be paying the same amount of taxes, right? Again, if you don’t think they should pay the same amount, please explain why. If there’s a crime, the same police come. If there’s a fire, the same fire department comes. They check out the books at the same library and have their kids playing soccer on the same recreation park fields.
What’s the difference? Give me a logical explanation for why those who have more should pay more for the same thing…
And to get back to one of your other big government mantras – the infrastructure we have is the infrastructure we want. Our elected officials (many long time incumbents whom The State endorses) created the environment that says we need to spend tax dollars on The Hunley and the Okra Strut while the bridges collapse. All the money necessary to fix the roads is there already… every dime we need. If the bridges needed repair, surely we wouldn’t have money available to spend on a 120 year old tin can? Right? This is YOUR Republican and Democrat government… embrace it. We Libertarians have nothing to do with the state of the state.
Brad, I may have misunderstood your reply to Doug, but it sounds like an endorsement of Robin Hood, or the common perception of robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Was endorsing that ethic your intent? If we look at the “victims” of Robin Hood’s tactics as having used the state to garner taxes from “the poor” to begin with, then recovering those stolen funds and returning them to their rightful owners would be fully justifiable. Good point.
“The government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.” – George Bernard Shaw
This is an example of what libertarianism means to this 60-year old professional classical musician: Just as I can say that I consider the idea silly that I and my fellow classical musicians have a right to ask for government support for our endeavors, I think that it is not only equally silly, but frightening (oops, more libertarian fear!) that there are adults who think it is right to force others to pay for an undeclared war in Iraq, and are willing to give no credit to anyone who is worried about the erosion of civil rights here at home that goes along with it.