The Shotgun Blog
« Could Canada have prevented the recent North Korea debacle? | Main | Lower, simpler, flatter: The CTF approach to taxes »
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
The case for a socially conservative culture in the libertarian movement
The Libertarian Party of Canada has announced today that it has confirmed author Dr. Michael Wagner to speak at the Freedom Fair in Edmonton on May 17, 2008.
Dr. Wagner will be speaking on a panel from 11:00 AM – 11:45 AM on “The case for a socially conservative culture in the libertarian movement.” Wagner will look at the Canadian Christian right in the context of Lew Rockwell's famous 1990 article, "The case for paleolibertarianism."
Wagner is the author of Standing on Guard for Thee: The Past, Present, and Future of Canada’s Christian Right. He is a freelance writer and homeschooling father with a BA (Honours) and MA in Political Science from the University of Calgary, and a PhD in Political Science from the University of Alberta. He lives in Edmonton with his wife and nine children.
The Freedom Fair is a public event being held at the Holiday Inn Express in Edmonton on 10010 – 104 Street. The event will include presentations throughout the day from prominent academics, journalists and authors from 11:00 AM – 5:00 PM.
Admission for non-Libertarian Party members is $10 and tickets can be purchased at the door.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on April 29, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5521a82708834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The case for a socially conservative culture in the libertarian movement:
Comments
...is it me, or the Libertarian logo and Font look like a combo of NDP and those other guys...?
Posted by: tomax7 | 2008-04-29 3:23:35 PM
The Libertarian movement is a fringe movement which is fundamentally unserious.
(witness the need to take over a Conservative Blog rather than start a Libertarian Blog from scratch, and then allowing previously banned Trolls like ROGER and Karolak to run amok)
There will always be a place for Libertarians among Conservatives but the same cannot be said of Libertarians having a place for Conservatives.
(witness comments from the Ronulan invasion, lack of respect for Judeo-Christian religion, and contributors like the egotistical Marc Emery who hates Conservatives)
National Defence and National Sovereignty are core issues of disagreement between Conservatives and Libertarians that cannot be bridged.
It would be better if someone were to start a CANS party.(Canadian Absolutely NOT Socialist party)
Posted by: Speller | 2008-04-29 4:09:29 PM
lack of respect for Judeo-Christian religion
Posted by: Speller | 29-Apr-08 4:09:29 PM
You seem to have a rather narrow definition of what a conservative is. One does not need to be a bible thumber to be a conservative, much less does one need to be an atheist to be a liberitarian.
BTW, "former conservative blog"? When exactly was there ever conservatism on this blog? I have seen lots of "conservatism" though.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-04-29 4:26:24 PM
Speller: You should spend the $10 and attend the convention. You don't seem to have an accurate understanding of what a libertarian is.
Your CANS party would hate the Conservatives. They've grown the gov't by 14%. There's no place for libertarians in the Conservative party, mostly because there are no conservatives. Just plain old socialists.
We're proud to be principled which puts us on the fringe. Especially being that it is not a sign of good health to be well adjusted to a sick society. Krishnamurti
A freedom movement in the old Soviet empire would also be on the fringe. And its participants should be proud.
You could learn that there are two types of movements:
#1 - Advocates for big gov't; and
#2 - Advocates for freedom.
You should consider getting on the right side of the arguement. Also, the WS was originally set up as both a libertarian and conservative site. was
Posted by: abc | 2008-04-29 5:03:33 PM
>"Your CANS party would hate the Conservatives. They've grown the gov't by 14%.
abc | 29-Apr-08 5:03:33 PM
They aren't Conservatives and I didn't vote for them because I knew that then and if you would go back to that election period and read this blog you would see that.
Snowrunner, atheism is a basic tenet of Communism.
Atheists aren't Conservatives and YES, I do have a narrow definition of Conservatism and that's a good thing.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-04-29 5:18:39 PM
Speller
actually a couple of basic tenets of Communism are:
adherence to a central dogma, regardless of new discoveries, and
an unswerving faith in the correctness of the figurehead.
mmm sounds familiar to other irrational beliefs like...?
Posted by: harebell | 2008-04-29 6:06:25 PM
Hi, Speller. Dr. Wagner is not a critic of social conservatism; he's an advocate. He's a Christian conservative. I would have thought a discussion that advocates uniting free market conservatives (libertarians) and social conservatives under a single movement would appeal to you. This is not a partisan discussion, but a discussion about the kind of culture the freedom movement should actively cultivate for both moral and practical reasons.
As for your other comments, they are not accurate.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-04-29 6:27:43 PM
Snowrunner, atheism is a basic tenet of Communism.
Atheists aren't Conservatives and YES, I do have a narrow definition of Conservatism and that's a good thing.
Posted by: Speller | 29-Apr-08 5:18:39 PM
Atheism has zero to do with Communism, just because Stalin didn't want religion in his state to challenge his power doesn't mean that Atheism == Communism.
I know I know, hard for you to understand after all how could an atheist have any moral fibre if he wouldn't be threatened by an almighty God to be cast into the fires of Hell if he doesn't behave?
My answer: some people don't need to be threatened with punishment to behave.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-04-30 1:20:14 AM
>" I would have thought a discussion that advocates uniting free market conservatives (libertarians) and social conservatives under a single movement would appeal to you."
Matthew Johnston | 29-Apr-08 6:27:43 PM
It does appeal to me.
But the banner they unite under should be Conservative not Libertarian.
Libertarians have neither the unity of belief nor maturity nor willingness to sacrifice their own individual peculiarities to be trusted to drive the bus rather than simply be passengers.
And Snowrunner, having once been an atheist I understand all too well that being your own little god, being the source of your own morality, being an abject materialist, makes a person's moral fibre flexible and principles subjective to their immediate interest.
Having never been a Christian, you are the one who is deficient in knowledge, not I.
I know both paradigms, you know only one.
harebell,
I don't subscribe to dogma, I'm not a Catholic.
You are confused by your own ignorance.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-04-30 6:43:23 AM
>"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
~Vladimir Lenin
>"There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel."
~Vladimir Lenin
>"Without a revolutionary theory there cannot be a revolutionary movement."
~Vladimir Lenin
(Ron Paul Revolution anyone?)
>"While the State exists there can be no freedom; when there is freedom there will be no State."
~Vladimir Lenin
This guy sounds like a Libertarian, no?
>"As for your other comments, they are not accurate."
Matthew Johnston Tuesday, April 29, 2008 at 06:27 PM
Which comments would those be Mr. Johnston, and in what way are they inaccurate?
>"Dr. Wagner is not a critic of social conservatism; he's an advocate. He's a Christian conservative."
I myself am a Conservative/Libertarian.
That's Conservative first, Libertarian second.
Libertarian theory has plenty of energy and especially impulsiveness, but lacks coherence and real national vision.
Libertarians put themselves first and a coherent National vision a distant second.
That is why most Libertarians are against the war, for open immigration, and support trade with our enemies.
That is also why Conservatives shouldn't support a Libertarian party but rather Libertarians should support real Conservatism.
If Dr. Wagner were to speak at a Conservative function and Libertarians were invited with $10 going to a Conservative party it would be more substantive and productive.
Why should Conservatives support the Libertarians and help them deal with the Libertines, which clearly comprise most of the Libertarian movement, when Libertarians have to be the people who purge their own movement of the Libertines.
(and good luck with that job if they don't have an objective moral authority to appeal to rather than a nebulous subjective individual "moral" standard which atheists subscribe to)
It would be better if the "non-Libertine" Libertarians joined the Conservative sphere where Libertines are discouraged outright.
ps
-"fiscal" conservatives or "small 'c' conservatives are nothing more than Liberals with a stock portfolio-
Posted by: Speller | 2008-04-30 7:41:37 AM
Well even though this Freedom Fair is being hosted by the Libertarian Party, the speakers are not their to push the party, or even the party's platform. In fact, very few speakers are party members.
Dr. Wagner is not proposing that people rally behind the Libertarian party. He's proposing that the libertarian movement should adopt a socially conservative culture and bring that culture to whatever political party(ies) or organization(s) in which it is involved.
Who knows? Maybe the libertarian movement will continue to migrate toward the Conservative party, but that seems unlikely going forward given the party's lack of commitment to a limited government agenda.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-04-30 9:07:41 AM
Given its minority position in Parliament, the Conservative Party's strategy to squeeze every opposition party further to the left seems to be working.
Having said that, this Freedom Fair is something I would definitely be interested in attending.
Could you please post a reminder closer to the date of the event?
Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-30 9:59:21 AM
Speller: You just plain don't make sense.
You suggest that libertarians work within a Conservative party, but you go on to say that that they aren't real conservatives. So why would we join a phony organization.
Your view of libertarianism is so skewed, it is laughable. Were the founding fathers, who were libertarians, libertine? No, they were strong people of sound moral character. Good role models.
Posted by: abc | 2008-04-30 10:10:26 AM
>"Maybe the libertarian movement will continue to migrate toward the Conservative party, but that seems unlikely going forward given the party's lack of commitment to a limited government agenda."
Matthew Johnston | 30-Apr-08 9:07:41 AM
I would like to see a solid respect for limited government among Conservatives which is something I believe most true Conservatives already want.
Stephen Harper used to be a supporter of limited government.
He also promised, at one time, not to merge the Reform Party with the Progressive conservative party.
Now the CPC is full of Progressives and that is the source of expanding government and social programs.
If both Libertarians and Conservatives would stop confusing Progressives with Conservatives we would all be a lot happier.
The Progressives should grasp the idea that their stock portfolios would benefit if they rejected their addiction to socialism or, better yet, get out of the Conservative party and agitate for their fiscal conservatism from inside the Liberal party.
True fiscal conservative policy flows naturally from a Social Conservative approach.
It doesn't have to be worked at.
Fiscal conservatism alone isn't Conservatism at all, it's just being practical.
You could hire a company of whores to manage government fiscal responsibilities because they know enough to only take cash up front, don't do freebies for anyone, and know they exact real market value of even rare esoteric things.
And would the whores be SoCons?
No.
There is your "fiscal" conservative or even your run of the mill Libertarian.
Progressive social policy generates ramping costs and eats up fiscal conservatism.
If Liberals adopt a fiscally conservative agenda, as Paul Martin attempted to do before desperately trying to buy an election with a spending spree, the Progressives would vote Liberal and leave the CPC in the lurch.
Stephen Harper's CPC is merely "Liberal Lite" with a comparatively more honest approach minus the America bashing.
By following a progressive path, the CPC must naturally expand government services and eat away at it's principles along with fiscal conservative policy.
The only way to push the Liberals further to the Left is to become the moderate Left.
Is being the moderate fiscally conservative Left being a Conservative?
No.
Does it win elections?
Yes.
But it also disenfranchises Conservatives and makes them stay home instead of voting.
The right thing for Mr. Harper to have done was to have allowed the Progressive Conservative party, which was up to it's teeth in debt and almost reduced to unofficial party status because of low seat count, die a natural death instead of uniting with it and becoming infected with it's progressive socialist cancer.
That's water under the bridge now.
The least Prime Minister Harper can do is stop growing the government and promoting new Leftist initiatives like the incandescent light bulb ban.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-04-30 10:18:38 AM
Exactly, Speller: So why would a principled libertarian join that cabal?
Posted by: abc | 2008-04-30 10:28:37 AM
>"You suggest that libertarians work within a Conservative party, but you go on to say that that they aren't real conservatives. So why would we join a phony organization.
Your view of libertarianism is so skewed, it is laughable. Were the founding fathers, who were libertarians, libertine? No, they were strong people of sound moral character. Good role models.
abc | 30-Apr-08 10:10:26 AM
To say they should work with "a" Conservative party isn't the same as saying Libertarians should work within the CPC as it now exists.
Of course reading into my comments your own skewed preconceptions isn't going to make sense within the context of my statements, abc, as you aren't trying to understand my meaning in the first place.
What "founding fathers" are you talking about and on what basis do you believe they were Libertarians when the first known use of a term that has been translated as "libertarian" in a political sense was by anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque in 1857?
If you are referring to the American Founding Fathers as "Libertarians", abc, you are simply claiming them through your own twisted ideas of revisionist history because they founded the United States in the 18th century not the later half of the 19th.
You are correct that they were "strong people of sound moral character. Good role models." because almost every single one of them were professing Christians.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-04-30 10:38:32 AM
>"So why would a principled libertarian join that cabal?"
abc | 30-Apr-08 10:28:37 AM
I think a new party should be created, like the Reform Party was, but first the word has to get out to Conservatives that the CPC is really just the resurrected PROGRESSIVE conservative party just masquerading as Conservatives again.
It really needs to be recognized, though, that it has to be a party with Conservatives, without the Progressives, and Libertarians, without the Libertines.
That is why I suggest a CANS-(Canadian ABSOLUTELY NOT Socialist)-party or movement.
It would exclude Progressive/Socialists and prepare an alternative for Canadians when they finally awaken to the utter bankruptcy and parasitic nature of socialism.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-04-30 10:58:48 AM
Oh, I see. It's religion in politics that turns your crank. You must love the Taliban. They have a strict morality.
That isn't what I like about the FF. I like that they wanted gov't out of their lives until a crime against people or property becomes an issue.
Posted by: abc | 2008-04-30 11:02:16 AM
Oh I see, abc, it's general stupidity that wanks your crank.
Typical Leftist moral equivalence on your part and nicely underlining the immature and licentious amoral approach to politics I've stated above as being typical of Libertarians unless they have a distinct axe to grind or chance of personal material gain.
I hope your illusions about the basis of the Founding Father's principles, which were God granted rights based on their understanding of the Biblical God, keep you warm at night if "Libertarians" all split from Conservatism and the Liberals regain power later imposing Global Warming legislation on us all.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-04-30 11:32:45 AM
Uh, Speller, I guess you haven't noticed that the Conservatives are the enacters of Chretiens policies. Giving the boot to Harper is the same as ousting Dion or even Layton for that matter. They all believe in a giant nanny state.
Posted by: abc | 2008-04-30 12:30:30 PM
Not to defend the CPC here, and not to belabour the point that I already said they aren't Conservatives, but simply because you are so slow on the uptake, abc, but the CPC is a minority government and has no choice but to follow Chretiens and Martin's policies.
Where I really take issue is the CPC creating 2 new Crown Corporations and enacting Statist legislation like the incandescent light bulb ban, which is intrusive on a household level and oversteps the Federal Government's authority in the area of private property.
And there is a difference between Mr. Harper and those other Leftists you mentioned, abc.
Both of them would raid Alberta's energy sector and Mr. Harper couldn't do that because he'd torch his political base if he did so, as difficult as it is for you to understand, abc, the CPC is the lesser of those evils because Alberta is Canada's economic engine right now.
You better grow up and learn which hills are worth dieing on and which aren't.
Oh, and those "Founding Fathers"?
Not only were they NOT Libertarians, as your crude fantasies depict them, they specifically enacted laws against many things that Libertarians today think should be legal like homosexuality, witchcraft, prostitution, and public drunkenness to name but a few.
So NO "they DIDN'T JUST want gov't out of their lives until a crime against people or property becomes an issue."
That's just another historical revisionist illusion that Libertine twits like your use to short stroke your own vanity over.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-04-30 12:58:26 PM
abc:
In case you hadn't noticed, it's a minority Parliament.
Also, in case you hadn't noticed, all the opposition parties now occupy the left side of the spectrum.
In case you hadn't listened in question period, whenever the opposition parties ask economic questions, it's along the lines of ‘the government should do something about this.'
And, in case you haven't listened to the answers, the Conservative Party lists off the cuts to the GST rate and personal income taxes.
That is the distinction.
The Conservative Party believes in the individual's ability to choose how to spend his hard-earned money.
All the opposition parties believe it is the role of the wise bureauracy to figure out how to spend everybody else's hard-earned money.
Capiche?
Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-30 1:00:55 PM
SYF: Thanks for the phoney enlightenment. I know the CPC bullshit ideals that they never follow. Let us spend our own money? Is that a joke? Have you seen the tax rate? You sound like you fell for a sound bite and you can't see the practice. They are all the same big nanny state in practice.
Speller/Jesus: Harper has raided the enegy sector you bovine dead head. Have you heard of the energy trusts that Trudeau light (Harper) lied about? Have you heard of Stelmach running Petro-Can out of Canada and into Libya?
I didn't know that you and your buddy Jesus voted for lesser evils. That would mean that you vote for evil. Go back to newsworld and ingest all the diatribe and slogans. I wouldn't expect a simpleton like you to see the actions that are the reality. Maybe your plastic virgin Mary is blocking your view.
Posted by: abc | 2008-04-30 1:30:55 PM
"That is why most Libertarians are against the war, for open immigration, and support trade with our enemies."
Speller, which war are you talking about when you say "the war"? While we're on the topic, why don't you get a bit more specific about who these enemies are so that we're on the same page.
Posted by: Kalim Kassam | 2008-04-30 2:01:36 PM
abc:
Try to deal with the facts. The CPC did lower the GST rate and the CPC did raise personal exemptions on income tax.
If you're proposing an anger-based Libertarian Party (I base this on your uncalled for attack against speller's religious beliefs), just think Wild Rose Party.
An anger-based federal party will elect exactly the same number of MP's as the anger-based provincial party did in Alberta. Does the number zero sound familiar, angry man?
Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-30 2:08:28 PM
SYF: Don't be myopic. The CPC have grown gov't which is an expense to YOU. They've also printed $billions, which is a tricky way to devalue your bank accout without raising taxes.
Anger based? Have you read the "Christian's" (haha) posts? He doesn't sound like a friend of Jesus to me. Is his religion anger based?
Posted by: abc | 2008-04-30 2:29:09 PM
abc,
No, Harper has not raided the energy sector.
I am a PR accounting consultant in Calgary, have worked for energy trusts, and guess what, they still exist.
Not only do they still exist but, like always, they don't do exploration or development, they simply acquire and manage depleted operations that were found and developed by other energy companies.
PetroCan is privately owned and has been for a long time now.
I already said I didn't vote for Stephen Harper because he isn't advancing Conservative principles and it was clear long before the election.
I don't have a plastic virgin Mary because I'm not Catholic.
Snarking and showcasing your ignorance, especially about things that have already been stated up above is going to look bad on the political position your claim to espouse.
It's bad enough that you are ignorant of history in general but far worse that you are wallowing in error about the current state of Alberta's energy sector and contemporary politics.
So you've been caught nurturing fantasies about Libertarianism, get over it, grow wise, and move on.
Get some legitimacy of your own and for your own movement instead of trying to wheeze on the earned respectability of the American Founding Fathers by mislabelling them Libertarians as if by putting a false claim on them and false attributes you and your ilk are the only ones who want and understand liberty.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-04-30 2:33:11 PM
abc:
Speller has shown a better grasp of the facts on the origins of the American experiment, whose principles recognize humanity's God-given free will.
It is through this free will that individual's abilities flow. Without underlying Judeo/Christian principles on which laws were based, what type of freedom exists and where does it flow from?
Freedom from responsibility is not a freedom, rather it is an path toward enslavement.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-30 2:46:46 PM
abc:
There's another misunderstanding I detect in your snide characterization of speller.
The separation of church and state seems to be a concept you need to brush up on.
America's original settlers, despite the impressions of the ‘progressive' moulders of the future, did not arrive on its shores because of a potential to create superior social programs.
In fact, a large factor in their arrival on the North American continent was as chance to practise their religion without seeking sanction from the state they arrived from.
See, the way it was in Europe, the state had official religions and compelled its citizens to practise that religion.
So, the original settlers were not seeking to escape religion, rather they were human beings whose religious beliefs were under attack from state authorities.
That's the nature of separation of church and state.
Under the America constitution, all were are entitled to seek God in their own way without direction from the state.
Period.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-04-30 3:14:33 PM
Sure SYF, everything is fine in the energy sector. Wake up, man!! Are you two dolts one in the same or are you just dating?
Speller grasps nothing, then becomes snarky and spews ignorance. Then he accuses everyone of doing what he does. Oh, so crafty.
Posted by: abc | 2008-04-30 3:42:40 PM
>"Under the America constitution, all were are entitled to seek God in their own way without direction from the state.
Period."
set you free | 30-Apr-08 3:14:33 PM
That's not entirely true, set you free.
As I noted above, witchcraft was illegal.
What the Constitution said was:
1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
But the fact that all states had witchcraft prohibitions shows that by "Religion" they meant any religion based on the Holy Bible.
The Framers, or what our ignorant little Libertine calls "the Founding Fathers" couldn't even imagine America would sink so low as to have any other kind of religion than Christianity.
Not only that but the 1st Amendment refers only to Congress, not any other level of government.
That States themselves could pass anti-witchcraft laws or any other religious prohibitions is a given.
The 1st Amendment was simply to prevent the Republic from being captured by papists which is what the aim of the religion clause in the 1st Amendment was all about.
From the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This not only demonstrates that the Founding Fathers believed that their rights or LIBERTIES were "endowed by their CREATOR" but that any religion that doesn't recognize that among them are "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", and I'm thinking about a specific religion here, wasn't though of by these men as a "protected" religion.
Oh, and abc, if you or any other atheist thinks they have rights that are merely privileged to you by men in the absence of a CREATOR God, you better be prepared to lose those privileges at the whim of men too.
>"Sure SYF, everything is fine in the energy sector. Wake up, man!!"
abc April 30, 2008 at 03:42 PM
So you're going from "Harper has raided the enegy sector" with "energy trusts" which are less than 1% of the energy sector to, remember these income trust only buy depleted properties that have been drained before they were sold to the energy trust, CLAIMING the sky is falling.
Listen, bozo, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Yes, Mr. Stelmach, you know the guy you claim, abc, should run the privately owned company PetroCan out of Alberta, Stelmach who caused a pinch in field operations by queering the investment environment by tearing up agreements on Royalty structure isn't killing the energy sector so badly as even I thought it would be hurt.
House prices are stable and the energy sector in Saskatchewan is booming.
That isn't "Harper has raided the enegy sector" or his popularity in Alberta would be in free fall.
It isn't that syf and I are mistaken along with the majority of Albertans.
It's YOU, abc, who is hysterical and running around with your hair on fire.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-04-30 4:04:26 PM
Sure, my hair is on fire, but your ass seems to be on fire for SYF. So, I'm the lucky one.
Harper is growing the gov't and printing money. Get it bozo? Jack Layton/Dion/Harper are all the same entity. But, you and your boyfriend are gullible enough to buy Harper as a "lesser evil."
Posted by: abc | 2008-04-30 4:57:24 PM
libertarianism's a bit of a balance, like for instance you can't pretend there isn't a right to Life, since it comes before you can have Liberty and then Property.
Everyone has a right to their own life, can you stop that.
Can you deny the science of physical opposites in the marital debate. No need to bring up a specific religious practice like this guest is doing at the fair. But God as a generic concept.
It's balance of some reasonable fiscal and social vews from either side. Mostly getting to not permitting the attack of one or many on another.
Best
Gölök Zoltán Leenderdt Franco-Assisi Buday
A: Yes, yes. There is a natural law, and it does not consist either in doing harm to others or in rejoicing thereat. -- [FMA] Voltaire; Phil. Dict. -- Natural Law.
Posted by: Gölök | 2008-04-30 5:26:45 PM
>"Jack Layton/Dion/Harper are all the same entity."
abc | 30-Apr-08 4:57:24 PM
Really, they aren't.
I've seen them in the same place at the same time.
They are 3 separate men and even look and sound quite different from one another.
The only thing you've said today that wasn't completely wrong was the Founding Fathers-"were strong people of sound moral character. Good role models." but that was before you were informed that they were professing Christians so technically you got that wrong too.
No cookies for you.
Its like you've only got one really short synapses, with your 2 brains cells shivering together in the dark and hallucinating their own private facts that just aren't so.
Can't you lay out any facts?
Is all you've got just straw man arguments, revisionist history, and ad hominem attacks?
Don't you have any ability to articulate a defense of your political beliefs other than rote Ronulan idiocies like, "Harper is growing the gov't and printing money."
Can you even explain why printing money is a bad thing?
I bet you can't.
You're just a Libertine who has latched onto Libertarianism because you want to be irresponsible, not because you understand that true liberty comes with responsibility and depends on an educated mind to be realised.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-04-30 5:39:07 PM
...gosh, all I asked was if it was just me...
;-)
Posted by: tomax7 | 2008-04-30 7:42:01 PM
This thread has taken a turn for the worse. Let me try to bring it back on topic. Lew Rockwell, who coined the term paleolibertarian and who advocates a socially conservative culture in the libertarian movement, wrote:
“What's more, paleolibertarianism distinguishes itself from left-libertarianism because it has made its peace with religion as the bedrock of liberty, property, and the natural order.”
He also wrote:
“The only way to sever libertarianism’s link with libertinism is with a cleansing debate.”
“...hatred of western culture....pornographic photography, ‘free’-thinking, chaotic painting, atonal music, deconstructionist literature, Bauhaus architecture, and modernist films have nothing in common with the libertarian political agenda - no matter how much individual libertarians may revel in them....we obey, and we ought to obey, traditions of manners and taste.”
I’m looking forward to Dr. Wagner’s presentation. It will challenge a good number of libertarians to make peace with religion and social conservatism -- and perhaps give them a better understanding of the role of family, church and community in a free society.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-04-30 8:56:39 PM
Yeah, thanks Matthew.
I read that before I made my first comment yesterday afternoon.
It makes a lot of sense.
It also makes sense that Libertarianism can only exist within a wider politcal sphere like Conservatism and not as a stand alone political movement.
Dr. Wagner better be a top gun with a silver bullet as a speaker to convince Libertarians that their movement needs to be purged of Libertines.
From what I've read on this blog, the Libertarian movement is rife with conspiracy theorists and Ronulan know-nothings who think they have the market cornered on the love and understanding of liberty.
These people better take pause and ponder that their numbers are small, which should indicate to them that they aren't going to beat the collectist big state Communist mindset by rejecting real history and forgetting where liberty as we know it today really comes from.
(hint it isn't from the atheists that only got their first governments to control in the 20th century where those same atheist governments, rank materialists that they were, managed to kill 100+ million of their own citizens while claiming the slogans that I qouted at 30-Apr-08 7:41:37 AM)
Libertine has come to mean one devoid of any restraints, especially one who ignores or even spurns religious norms, accepted morals, and forms of behaviour sanctioned by the larger society.
FROM>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertine
Posted by: Speller | 2008-04-30 11:11:35 PM
You gotta love Wikipedia.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-04-30 11:37:51 PM
If anarcho-capitalist libertarianism is the model then the whole discusson of inclusion is reversed. If property is privately owned and property rights are enforced, then property owners and indeed groups of property owners may exclude or include whatever elements they desire.
"...the owner may be bound by contractual limitations on what he can do with his property (voluntary zoning), which might include residential vs. commercial use, no buildings more than four stories high, no sale or rent to Jews, Germans, Catholics, homosexuals, Haitians, families with or without children, or smokers, for example."
It fundamentally exists on a de facto basis in the Muslim Peace Village community in Vaughan, north of Toronto. There are no Protestants, Jews, Germans, Catholics, homosexuals, atheists or Haitians. Not because of property right exclusion but because none of the aforementioned want to live in a Muslim community. The school is dominated by Muslims and so reflects their needs, however, if the schools and hospitals were privately owned, exclusion would be de jure.
Posted by: DJ | 2008-05-01 12:07:57 AM
The fact is speller, I don't have a lot of time to be on here. And, you don't understand what is being said anyway, so why waste me time on an air head?
You assume for some reason that I'm a libertine. I assume you are a phoney christian and probably an angry homosexual who needs to come clean with his friends and family. Do it man, and get on with life. How's that for an attack. It sounds like you doesn't it?
What's wrong with printing money? This illustrates what a moron you are. When money is printed, it devalues your savings. Clued in people know that it's stealing, without taxing. Very sly and way over your pea brained head.
Posted by: abc | 2008-05-01 9:08:53 AM
abc,
You do not have the basic mental tools to even have a conversation with me, especially about currency.
You are so ignorant about what currency is, why it has value, and why it gains or loses value, that educating you about it would be impossible.
The value of your savings has NOTHING to do with how much currency is printed.
The value of your savings has to do with the buying power of the dollar versus inflation plus confidence in the government and productivity of the nation.
The fact that most of your savings and everyone else's are nothing more than electronic bytes on a computer hard drive or that of all the currency that is printed only a fraction of it is even in circulation or that truckloads of older bills are BURNED on a daily basis and the meaning of it all is too far above your pedestrian low watt mind to even begin to comprehend.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-05-01 9:24:31 AM
abc:
I'm guessing that speller has likely forgotten more than you'll ever know.
Having been on this site for some time know, I can vouch that speller is a totally sincere Christian.
His intellectual ability to understand the freedom from reponsibility crowd is something else than libertarian.
It would do you credibility good if you could control your homoerotic fantasies and actually gain an understanding about what the original post was all about.
All you have offered so far is ignorance of historical fact.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-05-01 9:32:21 AM
Really SYF: Why can't Speller define libertarianism? I'm sure he could provide a link to wikapedia, but that and google are what he's all about. I wonder what comes up when you google "Money printing"?
You see, anything that can't really be googled leaves him in a lurch doesn't it?
Posted by: abc | 2008-05-01 12:59:57 PM
Geeze abc you sound just like another idiot that used to go by the nic veteran.
You have never asked me to define Libertarianism but that was the last thing "veteran" did, several times, before running away.
I could easily define Libertarianism but what would be the point?
It's a minor political underculture that simply deludes itself into believing it is an entire movement that can coherently produce policy on every issue and arrogantly imagines it alone cares about liberty.
It's also full of Leftist nutters and Libertines like you.
Veteran also had issues with googling.
I could google "money printing" but as only Libertarian nutters think it's an issue I would certainly only get google hits linking me to those Libertarian nutters.
I've already explained that the value of money has nothing to do with either the amount in circulation nor the material the currency is fabricated from.
Why don't you google currency valuation or currency circulation, abc?
I've debated you on every topical point you've raised and you've run from or ignored mine.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-05-01 1:17:41 PM
Thank you Speller:
"The value of money has nothing to do with the amount printed."
Thank you for illustrating what a mindless idiot you are. The reason I don't go into deeper discussion with someone who can't even understand the above is best put by Napoleon:
"That which much be made explicit to the idiot is not worthy of my care."
You don't even understand children's economics.
Posted by: abc | 2008-05-01 4:25:07 PM
The value of money has nothing to do with the amount printed.
That's absolutely true. The value of money is directly related to the number of units needed to purchase a good or service.
Money is just a medium of exchange.
It need not have any intrinsic value at all, and if you have a debt or credit card it literally doesn't have any intrinsic value but, and here is the really neat part, you can still buy that good or service.
You can't eat money.
Money isn't shelter or clothing or entertainment.
But you can purchase all of those things with money.
Are you really so stupid to you think that if you have $1000 credited to your chequeing account that withdrawing $600 of it in paper currency it devalues the other $400 still in the account?
Well over 90% of value anywhere is in fixed assets and digitally recorded credits in Bank computer memories and only a fraction of a nations wealth is in printed or minted form.
There are other mediums of exchange such as cheques and bearer bonds that are printed by private entities like you and me and that doesn't devalue the national currency.
Even of the existing printed national currency there is only a fraction actually being spent or stached in wallets and purses.
A lot of the currency is in bank vaults or being transported to be incinerated and replace with new bills.
But most of the currency is simply in electromagnetically recorded digital bytes in bank accounts.
Does that devalue the currency?
No.
It doesn't matter how much is printed or minted, it only matters how much each unit will purchase.
You, abc, don't have the faintest notion of what currency is.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-05-01 4:50:11 PM
What a bunch of bullshit!! The amount of M1, M2 and M3 in existence is directly related to its value, dumbass.
Your example of withdrawing $600 isn't even related to the issue.
"It only matters how much of each unit it will purchase." No shit. And why does the unit devalue and it costs more of each unit to buy any given thing?.....Because printing money causes inflation.
A Ronulan knows that. An idiot doesn't
Posted by: abc | 2008-05-01 4:58:28 PM
But just to keep your hilarious point going. Why don't we just print trillions of dollars and hand it out to everyone? Everyone would be rich, right Speller?
No, the extra money would just cause inflation and devalue the currency. There, you didn't have to think
Posted by: abc | 2008-05-01 5:03:54 PM
...i'm sure it must be just me...
Posted by: tomax7 | 2008-05-01 9:12:38 PM
I see Speller ran away after his embarrassing statement. Good call.
Posted by: abc | 2008-05-02 9:51:23 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.