When Conservatives Converse ~ Peeling the Libertarian Onion Layer by Layer

"When you can find a self-described Libertarian advocating legislative measures in the spirit of 'social justice', then I will accept the proposition that 'Libertarians are Socialists'. Of course, the irony of Libertarianism is that it would only properly manifest itself under an authoritarian regime. At this point, it should be clear enough that at least a modicum of market regulation is necessary in order to moderate our inherently cyclic economy. That is to say, pure laissez-faire capitalism is only attractive to those who don't mind a civilization-altering 'correction' now and again. As for the social/moral side of the equation: I interpret the socially permissive political climate as indicative of a broad realization that this country needs to find some fiscally responsible footing. History is not likely to remember fondly the inherent moral 'goodness' of a nation that willfully spent itself into oblivion."

"Succinctly summarized long-time friend! "History is not likely to remember fondly the inherent moral 'goodness' of a nation that willfully spent itself into oblivion." You, my friend, are a Tea-Partier! We firmly believe that the moniker: "Too big to fail" is not only a misnomer; it's a sin against humanity. Let them ALL fail! In their wake, and upon their ashes, the wise, efficiently-minded, ingenious, practical, spirited, able-bodied, patriotic, enterprising, self-reliant entrepreneurs will rise to again lead this nation as in its beginning. As Sarah Palin states, the small-business owners are the future of this country, it is they that have employed the masses, driven the economy and suffered the brunt of this current administration. We WILL rise again to lead this nation forward. And by God we will NOT allow for thieves masquerading as Moderates to usurp the White House ever again due to American laziness; or the feigned blindness to a politician's past cloaking the masses' responsibilities for fear of reprisals because of the color of man's skin. Nor shall we fail to peel back every layer of any other politician with want for the Oval Office based on ignorance of a political platform's moniker originally found in a circa 1970s pamphlet ~ now conveniently plugged into an internet web-site; no more applicable today than such propagandistic literature that once spawned a nation to elect the Bolsheviks. Left, Right, Libertarian/Socialists be damned! We know who you are and we will NOT go quietly into the night as you seek to rob us once more of this land that belongs to our children and their progeny to come!"

"Interesting request you've laid before the court. Social justice and Socialism are as interwoven as prostitution and Women's Rights; Lenin and Stalin had no more interest in social justice than Obama does. Let us see if perhaps we can tackle this from another perspective. Let us consider Classical Liberalism, as the Founding Fathers embraced it. By 1975, when Reagan, disenfranchised from the Democrats ~ 'I have not left them, it is they that have abandoned me' ~ was continuing his search for a new party, he coined the phrase "libertarian-conservative". Please review the 7-page interview within my article for further details. Certainly we realize that if by 1975 the Libertarians had morphed beyond those recognized traits shared by the Founding Fathers, today's Libertarians bear absolutely ZERO relative resemblance to those from the Constitutional era. One interview with a Libertarian of today's ilk (a task I've personally performed) or a cursory page turning of "The Revolution" cements the claim that Libertarians of the 21st century are NOT Classical by any stretch of the imagination. Extrapolating from there requires delving into research on as many individual modern-day candidates possible whom staple the Libertarian moniker to their chests. Americans foolishly voted for a "Moderate" in 2008 and woke up the first of 2009 to witness a Marxist in the Oval Office returning the bust of Winston Churchill to the Brits. So, then, who are these modern Libertarians? And, are they, indeed, socialists? Ron Paul (crack-pot) ~ believes that the Constitution requires the U.S. to practice non-interventionism (see page 10 "The Revolution"). He attributes this position to a quote from Washington's Farewell Address: "Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest..." Problem is with that line of serpentinous thinking that "liberal intercourse with all nations" is the antithesis of non-interventionism; to be liberal with someone is to engage them greatly, being tolerant of change. Non-interventionism holds that nations avoid all ties with other countries, remaining polite, only engaging in battles when attacked. That theory, a non-interventionist one is precisely the theory that led to the death of Trotsky after the installation of Stalin. Trotsky, an orthodox-Marxist/Socialist, built the RSDLP as the author of their socialist newsletters ~ a characteristic that later gained him his position at Pravda. This "one-nation socialism" (non-interventionist to its core) was flatly rejected by Stalin who then formed a triumvirate to guarantee Trotsky never succeeded Lenin. Non-interventionism as a form of nation building is socialism; it leads to the inevitable requirement of the installation of a proletariat-type of society. When a nation (one state after another) relies solely upon itself for all of its necessities, having elected politicians based on promises of non-interventionism ~ which is far worse than isolationism; at least isolationists will go to war ~ and then that elected government turns on the working class (having force-fed the populace a bill of sale based on said government's twisted interpretation of the Constitution), well, what then? Today's Libertarians will have society believe that the Founding Fathers desired absolutely no government involvement in the people's lives. Today's Libertarians would convince "We the People" that the Constitution calls for returning land to the Islamic nations based on "Liberal intercourse with all nations" ~ a line from a Farewell Address 20 years removed from the signing of the Constitution and woefully subjected to the warped interpretation of a man who once wrote newsletters in a white supremacy tone. Today's Libertarians advocate political measures that parallel those adopted by Trotsky. Today's Libertarians are Socialists."

"Thanks for the response, Christopher. I would agree that strict isolationism leads to demonstrably sub-optimal foreign policies. However, it seems to me the overriding issue here is one of taxonomy. Generally, the term Socialism implies: 'a political theory advocating state ownership of industry' combined with 'an indifference, and often enough an antipathy, to private ownership' (Revisionist Liberalism) Libertarianism, on the other hand, 'is the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.' So in a purely logical sense, Libertarians cannot be Socialists*, even if both political philosophies permit a national policy of isolationism (with the consequences you describe). By way of analogy, consider the distinction between genotype and phenotype. Specifically, 'phenotypic uniformity cannot be taken as a demonstration of relevant genotypic uniformity.'[4] Just my .02 USD. * I assume the term 'socialist' is not being used as a generic pejorative; that use might be valid in the current political context."

"Looks like we have the makings of another article here! One has to wonder if the encyclopedic definition of Socialism offered could be any more sanitized ~ invariably conjured by elitists generations removed from Marxism (the preceding in no way indicative of ill feelings towards you, to be certain). Stalin murdered millions of his own countrymen in the name of Socialism; born from his interpretation of Marxism. Through the acquiescence of the marginalization of ~ let me not hasten my belief in Judeo- Christianity here, lest the elitists become bored ~ morally-based studies in our universities, Socialism / Marxism / Stalinism and other such demonic, reprehensible, anti-deity courses have flourished. And they have flourished to the point that definitions, such as these now deposited here, are considered apropos when attempting to define Socialists ~ when readers seek to define such political parties. Socialism is the end game for Marxists. Simply stated, clinically phrased, there is a three-pronged approach wherein Socialism becomes defined. I've penned thousands of words, hundreds having been published on this subject (I would have thought you'd reference MY works by this point ~ C'est la vie ~), but I'll attempt brevity in this case. Socialism is more correctly viewed historically, in its stages, then: first, social upheaval; second, the implosion of capitalism; finally, the installation of Socialism. Indeed state "ownership" ~ perhaps "control" is a more apt descriptor ~ of EVERYTHING is a subset of Socialism; Socialism as Marx envisioned it to be installed "through any means possible". So while we may appropriate the austere definition as found in modern elitist's tomes, said denotations require additional spirit if they are to communicate Socialism in all its ingloriousness. Addressing Libertarians now, as one reader quite properly pointed out earlier, "Libertarians ... feel that everything that does not harm someone else is permissible." Simply stated, this runs contrary to yet another elitist's definition offered within your respectable summation. (Do understand that the use of the term elitist is relegated to Liberal university folk; specifically those I elected to disavow, never studied with, and whom Dennis Prager would devour.) Classical Libertarians (for the sake of this example referring to the peoples of the 18th century), Libertarians as Reagan knew them in the 1970s, and modern Libertarians embody the same philosophies similarly as The American Socialists of the turn of the century through the 1920s, the Liberal Party members as guided by Norman Matoon Thomas, and the Neoconservatives of the WWII era express ideals consistent with one another. In short, my how times have changed! Focusing on the election cycle today ~ one that will include the single most important vote Americans shall cast in the history of this nation come 2012 ~ let us turn the magnifying lens, then, over our modern Libertarians. Considering his visibility, stature, and assumed position as the face and voice of modern Libertarians, let us peel back the layers of that most viable one, Ron Paul. Considering this discussion has resulted in the selection of one particular individual as the face of Socialism, after all, it should be deemed proper that we study likewise as it pertains to the Libertarians. A few words from today's leading Libertarian "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided." "Martin Luther King Jr. [was] "a world-class adulterer" who "seduced underage girls and boys" and "replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."" "[He] ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" would be better alternatives–and says, "Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house."" Today's Libertarian ~ and through affiliation the members of his party as well as those who purport to support him ~ has no moral compass; therefore, the diluted definition (out-dated, without consideration for generational changes, and categorically biased) offered by Chelsea Clinton's chosen university ~ for what that's worth ~ must not be applied. Today's Libertarian, more succinctly, would no more engage morality towards achieving his end goals than would Stalin have. Now placing man beside man, candidate to candidate if we may, perhaps society better understands the platform showcased. "By any means possible". That is the Socialist's creed. Stalin personified it; anarchy followed. Paul too personifies it; should he be elected, anarchy will follow. THIS Libertarian ~ and all who blindly follow ~ IS a Socialist."

Support Canada Free Press

VIEW Comments