IPFS
Theft is still theft, even by Government.
Barry Hess
More About: Philosophy: LibertarianismArizona Libertarian Party Refutes Liberal Republican 'Hack' Job on Ron Paul and Libertarian
Arizona Libertarian Party Refutes Liberal Republican 'Hack' Job on Ron Paul and Libertarian Values
RE: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ron-pauls-land-of-second-rate-values/2011/05/09/AFD8B2bG_story.html
Ron Paul’s land of second-rate values
Contact: Barry Hess
Minister of Propaganda, Arizona Libertarian Party
(602) 843-3827
Michael Gerson's recent attempt to taint the untaint-able philosophy that gave birth to this incredible nation, along with his complete misunderstanding and miss-characterization of the implications of Republican Presidential Front-runner, Dr. Ron Paul, M.D.'s, positions, gave rise to this letter. While we appreciate humor, whether intended or not, we are not amused by Mr. Gerson's rather sloppy miss-portrayal of the principles of the libertarian philosophy.Gerson begins his shallow review by misleading the reader into thinking Dr. Paul actually 'encourages' or 'condones' recreational drug use--when nothing could be further from the truth...or from the subject he was addressing in debate. While Mr. Gerson fixated on "which drugs" to legalize, Dr. Paul sailed right past Michael's intellectual capacity by making his point; that when individuals are free to make decisions based on their own best interests, it is usually in the individual's best interest to shoulder their social responsibilities that come with their liberty.
Dr. Paul was right, and it was a very libertarian response, but he could have shortened his answer by simply stating that libertarians aren't "pro" drugs, we're anti-prohibition. We aren't "pro" anything save individual liberty. No one, neither group nor individual can ever hold moral or legitimate authority to dictate what anyone else may do to, or put into their own body. "Our" government was designed to be our janitor, and not our jailer, but that is Mr. Gerson's only offering.
Politically involved Libertarians, and philosophical libertarians can easily point out specific distinctions where Dr. Paul's ideas vary to some degree from their own, but on the whole most of us are very proud that he carried our standard onto the presidential political battlefield in 1988. It is always 'the message', and never the 'man'.
The fundamental principle of liberty ('freedom', to the unwashed) on which all others rest is that each and every individual is born with an absolute right; to be left absolutely alone--unless or until they should harm another (specific) individual's person, property or rights. Does he really have a problem with that? One would hope that this simple concept was irrefutable, but Mr. Gerson seems to cognitively disconnect from it simply because 'he' doesn't want it that way.
He seems to think Every (free) American must be 'under' control--or they are 'out' of control. Libertarians believe in the inherent 'goodness' in people, Mr. Gerson, and people of his ilk, seem to so distrust themselves that they project their evil on everyone else. Libertarians believe people are free to enter the marketplace--to see what good they can bring and to take the risk(s) of failure. Mr. Gerson's social/political club (the republican/democrat/conservative/liberal/TeaParty--it's all one) believes that some governmonkey needs to decide 'who' can participate in the market at all, hence the economy-killing regulations and 'laws' are "necessary".
His 'Chicken Little' description of the "Mad Max" scenerio in D.C. is hilarious, but completely opposite the facts. The idea that laws stop anything is sheer fantasy. Does he really believe those age-old laws against theft, drugs, prostitution, rape and even murder have been preventing those things from happening since their enactments...uh, huh.
Gerson doesn't offer up any law, or any government program, that is effective at ‘pulling the plug’ on the propensities that turn the afflicted into addicts. Why? Because no such program exists. Legislation can never change certain individuals’ self-destructive capacities (it can only make it 'illegal'), and imagining this to be a ‘simple answer’ would be an intellectual mistake. Gerson just continues the "Repeat the ridiculous idea enough, and people will believe it" world of yesteryear's political marketers.
Paul's ideas don't "condemn" addicts 'to' anything. In fact, just the opposite. He's a medical doctor who has personally delivered over 4,000 babies into this world. He actually cares about people. He's done all the studies and witnessed first-hand that which Michael fails to grasp. Gerson should have noted that drugs became "de facto" legal in DC--because drug laws make them so profitable. The problems were in DC before the 'easing up' in enforcement. It wasn't an experiment, drug use was going way up, because of the laws. To infer law enforcement "eased up" in D.C.(as if it had a choice in the matter) is a gross misrepresentation. The 'authorities' didn't "ease up"--they were overwhelmed...precisely because of the prohibitive laws Gerson advocates for.
In our opinion, he's just another liberal squealing like he got his tail caught in the door. He fears the light of day and the ring of truth in Paul's positions. Good.
To top off thoughtless pablum, Michael had to get in the obligatory plug for the last Bush (hi singular claim to 'fame')...geeesh! By his twisted logic, given his attempt to extol the virtues of affinity with drug addicts--we need to put a crack head in the White House to end it's use in the streets. Mission accomplished!
This is the same G. W. who exchanged alcohol addiction for unfettered powers of the executive, government secrecy, overseas renditions, torture, three simultaneous foreign wars and a trillion dollar deficit, right?
We simply don't agree.
Persons interested in what Libertarianism really is, Gerson’s mischaracterizations aside, are graciously invited to explore our party platform, candidates, position statements, events and membership at www.lp.org (national), or www.azlp.org (Arizona).
This message is the fruit of collaboration among the entire State Committee of the Arizona Libertarian Party.
Sincerely,
Warren Severin, Chair Michael Kielsky, Vice Chair
Joe Cobb, Treasurer Emily Goldberg, Secretary
(The writers are officers of the Arizona Libertarian Party).
Watch Streaming Broadcast Live:
LRN.fm
DLive
Telegram
4 Comments in Response to Arizona Libertarian Party Refutes Liberal Republican 'Hack' Job on Ron Paul and Libertarian
Somebody who has my phone number called me immediately as soon as he read the comment I posted below. He was asking what I mean when I said we are not Medieval France where the Siege of Bastille is taking place.
My parting words for the gist or summary of my comment below [I hope critics would not accuse me of misusing the word "parting" – as farting --] are as follows: I said that today the Siege of Bastile is … not here, and we could never be there in Medieval France in spite of our travails.
I made it a point for REVOLUTIONARIES to understand that we could not compare the Fall of Washington if it falls at all, to the 1789 Fall of Bastille. Washington will never fall, will always stand up and stand out in American politics till hell freezes over!
Besides, King Obama of the United States and King Louis XVI of France can never be the same, although they are perceived to be similar in terms of how they treat the governed. Louis has an exploitative royal blood while Barack has a manipulative bourgeoisie Muslim Kenyan blood. Their DNAs do not match to give birth to one and the same person, although the question of Obama’s birth continues to snowball in the coldest winter of our lives.
The gist or summary of my comment below: Do we need to overthrow a government that oppressed the people like what the Crown of England did to Americans living in this country before? Yes. However, as what happened to Medieval France the Siege of Bastille is nowhere … it is not here. Even if certain events or happenings indicate that we "tend" to go there, we are not there … We could never be there. Only the Left and their bucket-kicking look-a-likes here are there. Their call to arms only filters through the left – not the right – ear of the American people.
Do we need to recreate this country to one without a government or regulatory power where individuals live in liberty and freedom to harm others? Absolutely not!
As a Libertarian of Reason, I admit that since 911 Libertarianism poses a big problem, especially [1] when it is carried too far to the Left, and [2] when it is so grossly misunderstood by an array of Libertarians.
A Libertarian-Republican presidential candidate blaming the American people – not Al Qaeda -- for the most notorious 911 infamy in American history, is actually publicly mouthing the radical agenda of the Left … and that is to distrust authority, to revolt and topple down the government.
Similarly, I am a Libertarian of Reason as against the rest of many-hued revolutionary Libertarians whose libertarianism in extremis in the violent [advocated call to arms] struggle for liberty and freedom is locked in towards recreating America as a nation without a Government, changing this largest economy of the world to one without a Central Bank and without an IRS or income tax , the mightiest nation on the planet that abdicates its global economic and political responsibility and leadership with a hermit-like anti-UN stay-home foreign policy – all coming from the make-belief world of Disney Land.
I like what this article stated for the understanding of the principles of Libertarianism:
"The fundamental principle of liberty ('freedom', to the unwashed) on which all others rest is that each and every individual is born with an absolute right; to be left absolutely alone--unless or until they should harm another (specific) individual's person, property or rights."
I like this portion which says: "… each and every individual is born with an absolute right; to be left absolutely alone--unless or until they should harm another (specific) individual's person, property or rights."
What worries me is this part that says "unless or until they should harm another (specific) individual's person, property or rights." People ALWAYS "harm another" wittingly or unwittingly, "[specific] individual’s person, property or rights …"
To access my thinking on what I have just said, do a reality check on we, the people, and find out how they live in today’s society [you will know among others the reason why the nation’s court dockets are clogged, and why cases of killings, robbery, rape and murders among others, are real in a spate of these ever growing numbers of individuals damaging, injuring or harming others].
If they don’t harm others individually, they do it by forming a group or society so that they are stronger than the weak they oppressed and "harm". Ergo, we absolutely need a "counter-force" stronger than "them" … to control or regulate so that the weak can live and enjoy the same liberty and freedom they have. Basically this is the concept of what a Libertarian of Reason is all about. It is more Egalitarian than Fascist-Like.
So we go back to the wisdom of our great forebears why they created a government of the people, for the people and by the people. Reason tells me that I could never be this other kind of Libertarians whose fixation is to recreate the United States of America, without a Government – among others.
Perhaps Mr, Gerson thinks it's ok for the government to commit murder by denying drugs to those in pain or dying...