Freethought & Rationalism Archive

elwoodblues · 12-18-2002, 10:24 PM

Ah, I see. Definitely not a majority opinion, except among the most hard-core, revolutionary libertarians.

August Spies · 12-18-2002, 10:40 PM

two things:

first you have had this argument over objective morality with lots of people on this board, not just me. You have not once been able to express yourself coherently.

secondly, how are capitalist property rights fundamental to goverment? goverments have different types of property rights, clearly not one set is the true fundamental unless you are claiming non-capitalist goverments were not really goverments.

99Percent · 12-18-2002, 10:47 PM

[quote]Originally posted by August Spies:
how are capitalist property rights fundamental to goverment? goverments have different types of property rights, clearly not one set is the true fundamental unless you are claiming non-capitalist goverments were not really goverments.[/quote>

What do you mean by different "types" of property rights? There is only one property right, namely the right to individual property.

theyeti · 12-18-2002, 10:51 PM

It's late where I live, but I'll try to address a few of your points before bed.

[quote]Originally posted by 99Percent:
Ideally everyone in such a society would simply respect everyone's right of property and no government would be needed. Fact remains that we have a violent nature and there must exist a government that has a monopoly in power that is above any individual or group intention to power.[/blockquote]

Agreed so far.

Quote:

Its not true that libertarians won't pay to protect their property, in fact even the police could be privatized and such a police would become paid to become guardians of private property, with those having more property or are more paranoid about their protecty more willing to pay for such a service.

What happens to the indigent? Do they get no police protection? And like I said, this raises the frightening possiblity that the police and/or military will merely become the tools of wealthy individuals and corporations who pay them the most. A similar thing happened in ancient Rome, and it led to a dictatorial state with very little freedom.

Quote:

But this police would be constitutionally prohibited from become mercenaries free to invade and initiate violence upon others.

And who's going to enfore that? In a libertarian society, it won't be the voting public, because they won't control the police.

Quote:

This is why the government grants property rights.

No, the government doesn't grant any rights. The rights are individual and are already there before government is even institutionalized. These rights are derived from objective morality if you want to explore that more deeply.

No thanks.

Like I said, this comes down to the notion of "natural rights" or a related concept. Personally, I don't consider rights to exist unless they're granted by the group that has the monopoly on force, as you put it. The idea that they have some sort of objective existance outside of our minds strikes me as an odd thing to believe, but the important point here is that the govenement protects our property rights. It can't do that without taxation, and as long as libertarians continue to insist that taxation is theft, they have a hard time allowing the most fundamental aspect of government to function.

Quote:

...and protects them with the police, the military, and the courts (among other institutions).

The government protects right through simply a piece of paper called the constitution. This piece of paper is basically useless unless everyone in a society recognizes it as such. The whole military could in theory take over the U.S. government and maybe the whole world but its kept in check and enforced by the sheer symbolism of a piece of paper that is recognized as fundamental to society by almost everyone in the U.S.

No, the government protects rights through the will of the voters, which creates the necessary governmental apparatus. Even the Constitution can be scrapped if enough of the voting public wishes it. This is of fundamental importance, because libertarianism removes as much as possible any ability for the voters to have a say by eliminating goverment involvement. In a strictly libertarian society, the voters would have no ability to control the military or the police (in addition to many other things) as they do now. This would allow the police to trample your rights and you would have no recourse whatsoever, unless you had the money to buy them off.

Quote:

2. The libertarian solution to every problem is simply to privatize everything. But this simply can't be done with many resources that we use, such as the air we breath, sunshine, the oceans, the noises that we her, Earth's climate, and so on.

They can't be privatized because they seem to be limitless. For example how do you propose that the sunshine or the air we breath, or the oceans could ever be consumed?

They don't need to be consumed, they just have to have their quality diminshed. Clean air and sunshine can indeed by destroyed by the actions of others (the sunlight can be blocked by smog, for instance). The reason why these things can't be privatized has to do with their ubiquitious distribution and fundamental necessity for life. It's not completely impossible to privatize these things, it's just not feasible. No one would want to live in a world where you would have to pay someone for the right to breath, or else die. That would not be a world with much liberty at all.

Quote:

In doomsday scenarios sure, but I we are atleast centuries if not millenias away from such a scenario, and even so, its not our responsibility to care for future generations as I have argued countless of times here.

Any pollution of the air or water can be considered "consuming" these non-private resources. They're affecting us now, even if you don't care about your grandkids. There doesn't have to be a doomsday scenario, but doomsday scenarios really illustrate why libertarianism won't work.

Quote:

Non private property is subject to what is known as the "tragedy of the commons"; individuals have no reason to limit their use or abuse of a resource, because if they do, someone else will just come along and use it to get a comparative advantage.

And precisely the reason resources must be privatized as much as possible. The "public interest" is too neboulous to be objectively considered, and its simply a catchphrase for politicians to make themselves feel useful.

I don't agree. What the tradgedy of the commons shows us is that unregulated public ownership, like that of the atomsphere, is bad. Sometimes the answer is privitization, but sometimes government regulation is better, as it certainly is with the atmosphere.

Quote:

This is especially true when it comes to things like pollution, where the costs are spread out amongst everyone, yet the direct benefits only accrue to a small portion of people. Anyone who stops polluting will give an advantage those who don't, so there's a strong incentive not to stop.

Again, indepedent non governmental watchdogs can and would arise if there was a genuine public interest. These watchdogs would "certify" companies that make produce at the expense of the environment so any company who wishes to gain the "seal of approval" of such a watchdog and therefore be more "consumer friendly" would pay or sponsor the watchdogs. These in turn would gain the public trust and their reputations by being truthful in their certifications. No government is required.

The whole point of the tradegy of the commons is that this won't work. People do not volutariliy pay extra for products that are less damaging to the environment when no one else is required to do so. All you do is put yourself at a competitive disadvantage without really helping the environment, because no one else follows suit. (And yes, some people will pay more for environmentally friendly products, but only a small percentage of those who claim to care.) If this kind of scheme could actually work, it would be working now. Instead we have people who buy SUVs and eat food from factory farms even if they object to the conditions there. All this really does is try to shift the burden of responsibility from the producer to the consumer. I see no reason to believe that consumers will make choices that benefit the public over themselves when producers have falied to do so. Neither party will consistently volunteer to make sacrifices unless everyone else is being required to.

I can think of a few other problems too. There is no way to make sure that any certification is truthful. Any group could make its own certification at any time that was meaningless yet sounded impressive. No factory in a libertarian society would need to be honest to a potential certifier about what pollution it was causing. A company that sells its products only to other companies (like mining companies do) would not have this apply, and so on.

Quote:

Precisely because there is no objectively defined way to see how a "harm" is actually being done to a society or to the environment it is why libertarians are against a governmental regulation of such "resources".

Huh? I think it's pretty easy to objectively define the harm being done to the environment. Air pollution can be measured in increased sick days and premature deaths, which can be given a dollar estimate. Of course there will be different interpretations, but it is very easy to reach consensus on the effects of various pollutants like CFCs, which the government had the good sense to phase-out.

Quote:

The government could in fact invent any pretext to abuse its power to protect this nebolous "public" good.

That's why we vote. We get to decide what's good for the public, which is ourselves.

Quote:

For example that global warming even is a fact is extremely debatable and if it were it true, there is no objective way to measure its impact or an objective way to see if any diminishing of any human activities are actually diminishing it, and by how much.

We've been over this before, and your opinion about global warming is not shared by the vast majority of scientists who study the phenomenon. No one thinks it's a 100% certainty, but it's highly likely and there will almost certainly be harmful effects. The idea is that it's better to be safe than sorry.

So tell me, assuming global warming is a real threat, how would a libertarian society deal with it? (I realize that you gave your "certification" response above, but I'm looking for something less debateable.) I never received a satisfactory response last time I asked this.

Quote:

A related issue is that of natural monopolies. Things like the roads, power lines, and water and sewer can only exist one at a time (or at least it only makes sense to do so), so it's not feasible to have competing groups providing these services. These need to be publicly run or heavily regulated as well.

Thats highly debatable. They are called "natural" monopolies because they seem to be absolute necessities that benefit everyone.

No, they're called natural monopolies because due to their natural habitat only one can exist. Food is also an absolute necessity that benefits everyone, but it's not a natural monopoly, because many food producers can exist side by side. The important thing with natural monopolies is that it wouldn't be feasible to have competing groups providing a choice in the market place. There's only room for one road to attach to my house, for example. If it were privately owned, the owner could charge me whatever he wanted because I would have no other choices. No one will build an additional set of roads just for me, and even if they would, it would be extremely wasteful. It makes more sense for the government to own or regulate these things.

theyeti
[size=small]Edited to correct bad formatting from UBB import -99Percent[/size]

Ut · 12-19-2002, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by **makTHRAX**:

Bah...go to <a href="http://www.cato.org" target="_blank">www.cato.org</a> and see who their 'mascot' is, I'll give you a clue, its the 3rd President of the United States

And go to <a href="http://www.cc.org" target="_blank">www.cc.org</a> and see who their 'mascot' is, I'll give you a clue, it's the 16th President of the United States.

Crow · 12-19-2002, 06:05 AM

I am a Libertarian. Specifically, I consider myself a Jeffersonian Libertarian as my views on the role of government more closely follows the minarchist concept as opposed to some anarchist's manifesto. After reading this thread, I felt I should speak to some of the points raised. Not specifically to defend Libertarianism, but to help others understand the Libertarian POV, or at least my flavor of Libertarianism. I qualify that since it is important to understand that Libertarians are as diverse as any group of people. I would say that the only point that Libertarians agree upon is that government should be less intrusive. But the spectrum of beliefs as to how much government is necessary ranges from pure anarchists to those who realize that government is necessary but should be limited in its power. From what I have read so far, that understanding seems to be lacking from some of the posters in this thread.

Does this mean that Libertarians are in-cohesive and do nothing more than "post on message boards"? No more so than non-theists, who may range from complete atheists to agnostics, some of whom sue to protect their rights and others merely post on this forum. However, I personally doubt that Libertarians would be able to pull 3500 folks together for a march on Washington. But this is more due to the fact that while there many folks who agree with Libertarian philosophies they are members of other political parties so as to be able to meaningfully participate in elections. I am an example of that. Barry Goldwater was a Libertarian, but also a Republican. Gov. Ventura's views are certainly in line with Libertarianism. And there are a host of other Libertarians who do more than post on message boards...John Stossle regularly does ABC news bits that share his Libertarian views. P.J. O'Rourke and Dave Barry work Libertarianism into their columns also.

Someone commented on the possible inappropriateness of "claiming" Jefferson as a Libertarian. It is certainly true that Jefferson would probably not completely agree with all variations of Libertarianism today. But I do think there are probably more points of agreement between Jefferson's government philosophies and Libertarianism than disagreement. For example, Jefferson believed in a limited government and minimal government.

By limited government, I mean one limited in power by the Constitution. In fact his views were perhaps overly extreme in that he would have required a constitutional amendment for government activities not specifically mentioned in the current Constitution. He states:

"Redemption [of the public debts] once effected, the revenue thereby liberated may, by a just repartition among the states and a corresponding amendment of the Constitution, be applied in time of peace to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each state." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural, 1805.

Jefferson was deeply concerned that our government could be corrupted and manipulated to the detriment of the people. He states:

"Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction." --Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803.

I would suggest that Jefferson's quote regarding the country heading "toward a single and splendid government of an aristocracy founded on banking institution and moneyed incorporations" is a response to that concern and not a call for regulation in particular. To quote Coates, "corruption of government does not occur as a willful act of a whole people, but as the result of their failure to remain vigilant, allowing interested forces to have their way and pervert the government to despotic ends." Jefferson realizes the danger of this abdication by the people and states:

"No other depositories of power [but the people themselves] have ever yet been found, which did not end in converting to their own profit the earnings of those committed to their charge." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

He also believed in a minimal government, which implies efficiency rather than one where all possible services are provided by the private sector (although that may be one possible alternative to achieve efficiency). He states:

"I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple, applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt; and not for a multiplication of officers and salaries merely to make partisans, and for increasing by every device the public debt on the principle of its being a public blessing." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799.

This is why many Libertarians take Jefferson as their own. However, it is true that while he identified our inalienable rights, he also made comments indicating that the majority can rightfully tread upon the minority, which rankles many Libertarian noses, including mine. He states:

"If the measures which have been pursued are approved by the majority, it is the duty of the minority to acquiesce and conform." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1811

Someone mentioned that a Libertarian philosophy does not provide a way to protect individual rights as everyone has the freedom to do as they please, including infringing on another's rights. In an anarchy that would be correct. However, most Libertarians are not anarchist. The protection of individual rights is paramount to most Libertarians, and your individual rights extend up to the infringement upon another. Unfortunately, many Libertarians do not understand the concept of externalities and espouse that their individual rights are unjustly curbed by government when in fact it is the case that government is protecting the rights of others. This is an especially pernicious problem when discussing environmentalism and property rights with some Libertarians. But not all Libertarians are as short sighted.

Someone mentioned that Libertarians want to eliminate taxes and replace all services normally provided by government with private sector service providers. Actually, most Libertarians are minarchist who recognize that government is necessary but should be limited in power and should not extend its power outside of its role to protect the rights of its citizens, reduce transaction costs, and provide for the common defense of the nation.

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Crow ]

Radcliffe Emerson · 12-19-2002, 06:26 AM

So, you favor government meddling in our lives and controlling what we do, where we go, etc?
Because that's both the Democrats and Republicans now. There are more to Libertarians than just Atlas Shrugged.
We favor the liberty the Founding Fathers originally wanted us to have that is being taken away from us now.

Gurdur · 12-19-2002, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 99Percent:
....
No, the government doesn't grant any rights. The rights are individual and are already there before government is even institutionalized. These rights are derived from objective morality if you want to explore that more deeply ....

*sigh*
Please show us where this "objective morality" of yours exists independent of human imagination.

Theyeti was quite correct; human imagination also encompasses governments that grant or rcognise rights; you cannot simply tell him he was wrong and then say rights are "derived" from objective morality.
You may imagine a privileged process of derivation; but it's only true for those who agree with you.
As has been pointed out time and time again, the number of people agreeing with you is a very small minority.

Objective = existing independently of human perception

Subjective = based on individual human perception

Intersubjective = based on group human perception (consensus)

*yawn*

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]

Gurdur · 12-19-2002, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson:
....
We favor the liberty the Founding Fathers originally wanted us to have that is being taken away from us now.

Didn't the Founding Fathers legalize slavery ? Deny black people the vote ? Or women ?
Just interested if you think that giving blacks or women the vote is somehow "taking away your liberty".

Radcliffe Emerson · 12-19-2002, 08:08 AM

No it isn't. I hate that stuff and am against any slavery, or other racial hatred.
But, even if I despise the guy next door to me because he has horrible racist opinions, or hates the government, or whatever, I have no right to force him to shut up unless he acts on his opinions to do injury to anyone else. I can ask him to shut up, but I have no right to force him. Freedom of speech is being taken away in this country gradually.
A man recently was arrested in California for photographing Dick Cheney's hotel from the outside. The guy didn't even know he was there, he just liked to take pictures. Now all of a sudden taking pictures is illegal?
If I own my property, I should have the right to do whatever the hell I want with it, I shouldn't have to obey socialist neighborhood laws. Granted, people that live in communities that have rules know that going in, but those rules also get enforced on non-socialist neighborhoods.
Here in Indianapolis recently, a man who had several tv antennas on his property was ordered to remove them because they were eyesores.
He did not live in a ruled community, he had his own house on his own land, and in my opinion they had no right whatsoever to tell him to remove them.
His neighbors have the right to not like it, and to bug him about it, but their rights to his property end there.

Also, anyone in this nation, regardless of race, beliefs, sexual preference, should be able to pursue any career, or avenue of happiness they want.
But they should earn it on their merits, not have it given to them on a platter.

I know the political system is terribly complicated, and there are no easy answers to anything, as everyone unfortunately has their own prejudices. But to just make a general comment about the Founding Fathers on that one aspect belittles the other aspects to the liberty they envisioned, in my opinion.
Heck, the Republicans were originally the ones on the side of civil rights, and the Democrats on the other side, tending to be from the South. Look how that changed around!
I honestly don't see big differences in either of the main 2 parties today, and I think the Libertarian party is the best alternative.

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]

[ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]

12-19-2002, 06:05 AM	#86
Crow Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 28	I am a Libertarian. Specifically, I consider myself a Jeffersonian Libertarian as my views on the role of government more closely follows the minarchist concept as opposed to some anarchist's manifesto. After reading this thread, I felt I should speak to some of the points raised. Not specifically to defend Libertarianism, but to help others understand the Libertarian POV, or at least my flavor of Libertarianism. I qualify that since it is important to understand that Libertarians are as diverse as any group of people. I would say that the only point that Libertarians agree upon is that government should be less intrusive. But the spectrum of beliefs as to how much government is necessary ranges from pure anarchists to those who realize that government is necessary but should be limited in its power. From what I have read so far, that understanding seems to be lacking from some of the posters in this thread. Does this mean that Libertarians are in-cohesive and do nothing more than "post on message boards"? No more so than non-theists, who may range from complete atheists to agnostics, some of whom sue to protect their rights and others merely post on this forum. However, I personally doubt that Libertarians would be able to pull 3500 folks together for a march on Washington. But this is more due to the fact that while there many folks who agree with Libertarian philosophies they are members of other political parties so as to be able to meaningfully participate in elections. I am an example of that. Barry Goldwater was a Libertarian, but also a Republican. Gov. Ventura's views are certainly in line with Libertarianism. And there are a host of other Libertarians who do more than post on message boards...John Stossle regularly does ABC news bits that share his Libertarian views. P.J. O'Rourke and Dave Barry work Libertarianism into their columns also. Someone commented on the possible inappropriateness of "claiming" Jefferson as a Libertarian. It is certainly true that Jefferson would probably not completely agree with all variations of Libertarianism today. But I do think there are probably more points of agreement between Jefferson's government philosophies and Libertarianism than disagreement. For example, Jefferson believed in a limited government and minimal government. By limited government, I mean one limited in power by the Constitution. In fact his views were perhaps overly extreme in that he would have required a constitutional amendment for government activities not specifically mentioned in the current Constitution. He states: "Redemption [of the public debts] once effected, the revenue thereby liberated may, by a just repartition among the states and a corresponding amendment of the Constitution, be applied in time of peace to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each state." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural, 1805. Jefferson was deeply concerned that our government could be corrupted and manipulated to the detriment of the people. He states: "Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction." --Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. I would suggest that Jefferson's quote regarding the country heading "toward a single and splendid government of an aristocracy founded on banking institution and moneyed incorporations" is a response to that concern and not a call for regulation in particular. To quote Coates, "corruption of government does not occur as a willful act of a whole people, but as the result of their failure to remain vigilant, allowing interested forces to have their way and pervert the government to despotic ends." Jefferson realizes the danger of this abdication by the people and states: "No other depositories of power [but the people themselves] have ever yet been found, which did not end in converting to their own profit the earnings of those committed to their charge." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. He also believed in a minimal government, which implies efficiency rather than one where all possible services are provided by the private sector (although that may be one possible alternative to achieve efficiency). He states: "I am for a government rigorously frugal and simple, applying all the possible savings of the public revenue to the discharge of the national debt; and not for a multiplication of officers and salaries merely to make partisans, and for increasing by every device the public debt on the principle of its being a public blessing." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. This is why many Libertarians take Jefferson as their own. However, it is true that while he identified our inalienable rights, he also made comments indicating that the majority can rightfully tread upon the minority, which rankles many Libertarian noses, including mine. He states: "If the measures which have been pursued are approved by the majority, it is the duty of the minority to acquiesce and conform." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1811 Someone mentioned that a Libertarian philosophy does not provide a way to protect individual rights as everyone has the freedom to do as they please, including infringing on another's rights. In an anarchy that would be correct. However, most Libertarians are not anarchist. The protection of individual rights is paramount to most Libertarians, and your individual rights extend up to the infringement upon another. Unfortunately, many Libertarians do not understand the concept of externalities and espouse that their individual rights are unjustly curbed by government when in fact it is the case that government is protecting the rights of others. This is an especially pernicious problem when discussing environmentalism and property rights with some Libertarians. But not all Libertarians are as short sighted. Someone mentioned that Libertarians want to eliminate taxes and replace all services normally provided by government with private sector service providers. Actually, most Libertarians are minarchist who recognize that government is necessary but should be limited in power and should not extend its power outside of its role to protect the rights of its citizens, reduce transaction costs, and provide for the common defense of the nation. [ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Crow ]</p>

12-19-2002, 08:08 AM	#90
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	No it isn't. I hate that stuff and am against any slavery, or other racial hatred. But, even if I despise the guy next door to me because he has horrible racist opinions, or hates the government, or whatever, I have no right to force him to shut up unless he acts on his opinions to do injury to anyone else. I can ask him to shut up, but I have no right to force him. Freedom of speech is being taken away in this country gradually. A man recently was arrested in California for photographing Dick Cheney's hotel from the outside. The guy didn't even know he was there, he just liked to take pictures. Now all of a sudden taking pictures is illegal? If I own my property, I should have the right to do whatever the hell I want with it, I shouldn't have to obey socialist neighborhood laws. Granted, people that live in communities that have rules know that going in, but those rules also get enforced on non-socialist neighborhoods. Here in Indianapolis recently, a man who had several tv antennas on his property was ordered to remove them because they were eyesores. He did not live in a ruled community, he had his own house on his own land, and in my opinion they had no right whatsoever to tell him to remove them. His neighbors have the right to not like it, and to bug him about it, but their rights to his property end there. Also, anyone in this nation, regardless of race, beliefs, sexual preference, should be able to pursue any career, or avenue of happiness they want. But they should earn it on their merits, not have it given to them on a platter. I know the political system is terribly complicated, and there are no easy answers to anything, as everyone unfortunately has their own prejudices. But to just make a general comment about the Founding Fathers on that one aspect belittles the other aspects to the liberty they envisioned, in my opinion. Heck, the Republicans were originally the ones on the side of civil rights, and the Democrats on the other side, tending to be from the South. Look how that changed around! I honestly don't see big differences in either of the main 2 parties today, and I think the Libertarian party is the best alternative. [ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ] [ December 19, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-18-2002, 10:24 PM	#81
elwoodblues Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Dunmanifestin, Discworld Posts: 4,836	Ah, I see. Definitely not a majority opinion, except among the most hard-core, revolutionary libertarians.

12-18-2002, 10:40 PM	#82
August Spies Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Vine Posts: 12,950	two things: first you have had this argument over objective morality with lots of people on this board, not just me. You have not once been able to express yourself coherently. secondly, how are capitalist property rights fundamental to goverment? goverments have different types of property rights, clearly not one set is the true fundamental unless you are claiming non-capitalist goverments were not really goverments.

12-18-2002, 10:47 PM	#83
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	[quote]Originally posted by August Spies: how are capitalist property rights fundamental to goverment? goverments have different types of property rights, clearly not one set is the true fundamental unless you are claiming non-capitalist goverments were not really goverments.[/quote> What do you mean by different "types" of property rights? There is only one property right, namely the right to individual property.

12-19-2002, 06:26 AM	#87
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	So, you favor government meddling in our lives and controlling what we do, where we go, etc? Because that's both the Democrats and Republicans now. There are more to Libertarians than just Atlas Shrugged. We favor the liberty the Founding Fathers originally wanted us to have that is being taken away from us now.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.