Missouri and Libertarians ? What is the connection here ?

harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Missouri and Libertarians ? What is the connection here ?

 www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28779376

(It seems that a certain faction of Libertarians are vocalizing the problem of Big Government and other issues as a result of the shooting in Missouri. Thoughts on this one ? )

Is Ferguson the start of a 'libertarian moment'

Much of the commentary on the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, following the shooting death of Michael Brown by a police officer has been dominated by liberal outrage over what some see as racial injustice.

There is, however, a growing chorus from the conservative movement's libertarian wing that connects the perceived overreaction by a militarised local law enforcement to their critique of the heavy-handed power of government.

"The state is big and powerful and violent and can hurt you, whether it's the FDA, the state prosecutor or the local police force," writes Hot Air blog's Mary Katharine Ham, concisely summarising the gist of this libertarian argument.

Breitbart's John Nolte puts it a bit more sharply: "The media hate police but without them, who will ultimately force us to buy ObamaCare and confiscate our guns?"

On Wednesday night Congressman Justin Amash, a libertarian-leaning Republican embraced by the grass-roots Tea Party movement, tweetedthat the news from Ferguson was "frightening", asking: "Is this a war zone or a US city? Gov't escalates tensions w/military equipment & tactics."

One of the leading figures in today's libertarian movement, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, offers his take in an opinion piece for Time magazine on Thursday afternoon:

"When you couple this militarisation of law enforcement with an erosion of civil liberties and due process that allows the police to become judge and jury - national security letters, no-knock searches, broad general warrants, pre-conviction forfeiture - we begin to have a very serious problem on our hands…

"Americans must never sacrifice their liberty for an illusive and dangerous, or false, security. This has been a cause I have championed for years, and one that is at a near-crisis point in our country."

Reason magazine's Ed Krayewski builds on this theme of a militarised police force as the spear-point of an intrusive government, causing more harm than good:

"What's happening in Ferguson certainly looks like a counter-insurgency," he writes. "If cops keep it up long enough, some residents might respond with an insurgency. Around the world, insurgencies are fueled by unemployed young men with few prospects. It's the way things like this tend to work, actions and reactions, supply meeting demand, in this case residents filling roles cops seem to be waiting to have filled."

He continues by noting that much of the criticism of law enforcement abuses are instigated by laws that intrude on individual rights.

"Whether they look like it or not, cops will be an occupying force seeking compliance from local residents on behalf of democratically elected central authorities," he writes.

Comments like these mark a sharp break from the previous conservative embrace of government authority when it comes to public safety issues.

"The modern GOP, the one that elected Richard Nixon and built its base in the South and the suburbs, established early on that it was the 'law and order' party," writes Slate's David Weigel. "Only recently, as violent crime rates have tumbled, has the libertarian tendency of the GOP reasserted itself."

In Sunday's New York Times magazine cover story, Robert Draper asks: "Has the 'libertarian moment' finally arrived?" He cited poll data showing young people embracing smaller, less intrusive government and concluded that the once sidelined ideology could be poised to take control of the Republican Party.

The piece started a debate over libertarianism's current influence within the conservative movement and was criticised from both the right andthe left for being an "unsophisticated, laughable fantasy".

That was before Ferguson exploded, night after shocking night. Now, with a few exceptions, law-and-order conservatives are silent (look, for instance, at the front page of the conservative commentary site Town Hall, where Iraq and Hillary Clinton continue to dominate the conversation).

Perhaps the libertarian moment has arrived after all, borne in the ashes and smoke of Missouri riots.

 

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
I am not so sure

 I am not so sure that this is simply another editorial  opinion piece to keep the confrontational stuff going if you ask me. I do not have any real background on the actual Libertarian party's stance or the Tea Party stance on this. Truth to be told, ask five different Liberatarian types that I know the same question and one is likely to get five different answers. 

I am sure that information could be found in this regard, but am too busy at the moment to try and find it. 

I guess will have to wait and see what happens next with this thing. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Truth

harleysportster wrote:

Truth to be told, ask five different Liberatarian types that I know the same question and one is likely to get five different answers. 

Hence the problem with trying to organize the Libertarian party. It is a lot like herding cats because the philosophy inherently accepts a wide range of particular views. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Hence

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Hence the problem with trying to organize the Libertarian party. It is a lot like herding cats because the philosophy inherently accepts a wide range of particular views. 

To be honest (although when people start out a sentence with that they are usually lying, haha) the first time I ever got introduced to the idea of it, was because I wanted drugs and prostitution to be legal and accessible for everyone and never really progressed too much further than that. Base as that sounds, it is simply true. 

I have really not ever grasped the ins and outs of politics completely. I am pretty much in a political purgatory from whence there is no escape. Dramatic right ? As I have said before, if I say one thing, the conservatives, tea partiers and such totally hate me while the left pretends to love me. BUT in the same sentence, I can say something that makes the left despise me and wish to bring out torches while the right gets a turn at pretending to like me. 

The same actually could be said for Libetarian spokesmen. 

Here is a comical thing, I have had people stubbornly insist on which one of them is a "true" libertarian. I have met libertarians that HATE Glenn Beck or like him, and the same could be said for Stossel, Penn Jillette, Maher and many others. I have no idea as I do not really just LIKE any of them. Smiling 

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Drug legalization is

 Drug legalization is actually probably the issue I have struggled with the most and has undergone the largest transformation for me. I lost a friend to heroin when I was younger and I became almost militantly anti-drug. It became an emotional position that I couldn't fit into the rest of my devoloping political philosophy. I was becoming anti-government involvement on everything "except". It wasn't until I started seeing the effects of the "War on Drugs" and that criminalization has done nothing to actually help the victims of drugs, that I was able to align my emotional reaction to the issue with my rational opinion. I think that similar internal conflicts are a lot of reasons why you see people who lean libertarian and accept libertarian on a principle level, but have a few issues that are exceptions, or similarly lean libertarian on issues that have an immediate effect on them, but don't carry out the idea of allowing people the freedom to do what they want into other issues. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4052
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I think

Beyond Saving wrote:

I think that similar internal conflicts are a lot of reasons why you see people who lean libertarian and accept libertarian on a principle level, but have a few issues that are exceptions, or similarly lean libertarian on issues that have an immediate effect on them, but don't carry out the idea of allowing people the freedom to do what they want into other issues. 

    I am not entirely consistent in my political views even though I identify as a conservative libertarian.   When I used to hang out with a lot of actual Libertarian Party members there was never an absolute concensus among us but our views were still much more compatible with each other than with your average, so-called right wing Republican.   I especially can't stand Evangelical conservatives, I like my right-wing politics with out the Jesus...


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Drug

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Drug legalization is actually probably the issue I have struggled with the most and has undergone the largest transformation for me. I lost a friend to heroin when I was younger and I became almost militantly anti-drug. It became an emotional position that I couldn't fit into the rest of my devoloping political philosophy. I was becoming anti-government involvement on everything "except". It wasn't until I started seeing the effects of the "War on Drugs" and that criminalization has done nothing to actually help the victims of drugs, that I was able to align my emotional reaction to the issue with my rational opinion. I think that similar internal conflicts are a lot of reasons why you see people who lean libertarian and accept libertarian on a principle level, but have a few issues that are exceptions, or similarly lean libertarian on issues that have an immediate effect on them, but don't carry out the idea of allowing people the freedom to do what they want into other issues. 

I know what you mean there and am guilty about of such things. There have beem certain matters where I actually thought the government should have a hand in it (can't name a specific off of the top of my head) but ultimately found said issues to have some sort of emotional attachment to them. Plus, in a lot of cases where I have wanted to support certain things, the ultimate factor of deciding not to was as mentioned. The government involvement on said issue had not helped things in the slightest. 

Probably one of my hardest learning curves when I was younger was the fact that a lot of things in government proposals, SOUND really good on paper. Problem is , they are just that, on paper. When implemented, it can become a whole new ball game. 

I am really not that big of an expert on politics in general and show I usually reserve an opinion on something until I know a little bit more about it. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

    I am not entirely consistent in my political views even though I identify as a conservative libertarian.   When I used to hang out with a lot of actual Libertarian Party members there was never an absolute concensus among us but our views were still much more compatible with each other than with your average, so-called right wing Republican.   I especially can't stand Evangelical conservatives, I like my right-wing politics with out the Jesus...

I have indeed met some real life ones in all of my riding that range from gun toting dudes with bibles, to those that are more into the freedom to smoke pot and such. 

Looks can actually be totally deceiving in the motorcycle world. I have met the guys that look like total criminals that think Reagan was some sort of hero, to hard line almost skinhead looking types that are total liberals and supported Obama. 

But then again, the biker world is mainly a lot of people that simply wish to be left alone to do their thing like myself. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Now the KKK is getting

Now the KKK is getting involved...surely no good can come from this.  

http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/08/kkk-disowns-kkk-fundraiser-for-darren-wilson/378689/

 

The Traditionalist American Knights, headquarted in Missouri, claim to have received requests from store owners for protection from looters, and that they already have members patrolling neighborhoods.  The New Empire Knights of South Carolina is raising funds for Darren Wilson, the officer who shot Michael Brown.

Klansmen, Black Panthers and militarized police meeting in one place should make for an interesting scene...and not in the good sense.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††