But it does! A Libertarian must believe in the principles of Anarchism - that is the absence of a state.
A mini-statist can never be a libertarian. Yes, libertarianism is a broad movement, but so is existentialism. Was Isaac Newton an existentialist? Was Benito Mussolini a libertarian?
According to this arbitrary distinction of broad applications, YES!
I don’t know what the plan is, but if it is merely to legislate a formal language for official business, I don’t see a huge problem. Otherwise you will only end up with larger government. For example Finland is officially bi-lingual. Everything is supposed to be in two languages (Finnish and Swedish), one is supposed to receive service in either language, there is a state-run TV channel for the population speaking Swedish (or a rather mangled dialect of it, to be more precise) and on top of this, every student is supposed to learn both languages. And those speaking Swedish is only around 4-5% of the population. So the costs in government expenditures are huge when compared to the size of the population.
I suspect it is a political compromise. The Republicans can’t seem to tolerate anyone who is for open borders. In the end it is a minor concession and in some ways the correct one (until the welfare state is eliminated/scaled back).
Quite honestly, I don’t understand the feverish calls for ideological purity. Less state is always better than more, even if that lesser amount is not ideal.
Hmmm… just playing advocatus diaboli here: what if these are just preventive measures to prevent pressure groups from demanding - what they surely will in the future - that every government document to be translated to Spanish etc. which would cost a lot?
No they don’t! A libertarian believes in individual liberty and, yes, some libertarians believe the existence of the state is possible so long as they aren’t violating the individual liberty. There are a whole host of anarchist philosophers that concur that Jefferson, Locke, Mises, Hayak, etc., etc. were libertarians in the broad sense that they promoted individual liberty over state interference in our lives. I don’t know anything about existentialism so I can’t comment on Newton but how in the hell could you even jokingly claim Mussolini was libertarian? I know why you said it but it’s quite a ridiculous statement since Mussolini was completely and utterly against the individual liberty! Get a grip man.
I agree. The state is already stealing enough money from us. If they can cut down on cost by printing in only one language I see no problem with that.
I am totally against open borders right now. But that is only because of the current welfare state that exist in America right now. Too many illegals are using more and more of the welfare system (schools, food stamps, housing, etc) and are costing the taxpayer more and more. If we didn’t have the welfare system we do today I’d favor free and open borders. I just can’t do it right now.
Seems like a good time to reiterate - keep the libertarian movement the HELL away from State and national politics. Libertarian magistrates, chiefs of police, and mayors - that’s possible, but still suspect. But it is It is impossible for a libertarian to remain a libertarian whilst acting as the “representative” (not to mention the ruler) of millions of people.
I don’t think that’s true. You can be a libertarian “representative” if you are actually fighting for the ideas encompassed by libertarian thought. Tax cuts, promotion of individual liberty, limited government (or even better, no government). There is nothing wrong with libertarians working to take over the state apparatus that is currently oppressing the people to either change or abolish it. I see the fight for liberty as a two front war. One, changing the minds of the people to adopt liberty and libertarian thought and working within the state apparatus to continue to promote these causes.
George Bush is for open borders, as is John McCain. So is the Wall Street Journal and the AEI.
I think if you pushed either Sabrin or Paul to the mat on this, they’d tell you that maintaining the nation’s territorial and political integrity is about the only legitimate function of a federal government. I’d speculate further that if you really nailed them down, they’d say if the federal government is not going to do even that, then there really isn’t any justification for the Union.
As a matter of policy, I see nothing wrong with requiring that the language of government be English. This encourages assimilation into a commercial republic under the rule of law, rather than perpetuating the role of government as arbiter of redistributive justice between various ethnic voting blocs.
Of course, we’re a long way over the cliff at this point.
True, but that seems to have more to do with the way the media portraits them. Or in this case, leaves out. Republican’s wouldn’t vote for McCain and probably wouldn’t have voted for Bush if their ‘open border’ views were more public knowledge and more often repeated.
I disagree with that statement. I do not consider so-called “libertarian communists” at all a part of the liberty movement. I think a better definition of a libertarian would be, “as long as they defend property rights under all circumstances, they’re libertarians.” People who reject property rights are no libertarians, as far as I’m concerned. Replacing the State with a new anti-property regime is no victory for liberty.
It depends on whether they are willing to use violence against property rights or not (quite a few are) not whether they prefer to live on a commune.
No politician is for genuine “open borders”. All politicians support the existance of the political borders to begin with. This includes so-called “open borders” politicians who actually support “limited border enforcement” at best. George Bush and John McCaine do not support abolition of political borders. Only anarchists truly support open borders, or to use a more accurate term “no political borders”. Political borders has nothing to do with the cause of individual liberty.
There’s isn’t any justification for “the union”, nor “the states” or any of the city or county governments.
Exactly.
How in the hell could you claim people that desire an extortionist, a murderer, and a rapist to have a monopoly on force are any type of libertarian? No. I’m sorry, but if you want a state, you are not a libertarian. You can call yourself a “conservative” or perhaps a “classical liberal,” but a libertarian, never!
Stuff and nonsense! If libertarian = anarchist, why have two words? All you’re trying to do is justify your position by redefining words. Words have meanings determined by consensus, not by your prejudice. You can call red “blue” all you want, but that doesn’t make it so. You may not consider Ron Paul a libertarian. Fine. You’re just at variance from almost everyone else.
I think all that having English as an official language would do is that they stop giving out government forms (of which there should be far, far fewer) in any language other than English. It would be vastly more efficient that way.
Nothing wrong with requiring the language of government - supposedly one that is supposed to defend the property rights of people that may not even speak the English language - to be in English?
Ok. Well, I guess my grandfather is going to have to guess at what the government is trying to take from him next.
A libertarian advocates non-initiation of force.
The state is insitututionalized aggression.
Therefore, a libertarian does not advocate for the state.
A person can be “libertarian” as an adjective on some things and not on others, but a person cannot objectively be a libertarian and a statist. That is impossible.
The general public views anyone who wants extremely low/no taxes and all, or even most, victimless crimes legalized, as a libertarian. You may not like it, but that be how it is. I mean, you do whatever makes you feel better, but to anyone not on this forum you’re just going to sound like a snob (“I’m the REEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAL libertarian here!”). Minarchists are part of the libertarian movement whether you want us or not.
What I or anyone “wants” is irrelevant. Libertarians are advocates of non-aggression, in fact. Not as a matter of opinion. If you do not advocate non-aggression, you are not, in fact, a libertarian. A statist cannot, in fact, be an advocate of non-aggression, and hence is not a libertarian. QED.
That does not mean that one cannot adjectively be “libertarian”. It does mean that they cannot objectively be a libertarian.
Like most words in your precious, English language, two words can (and do) mean the same thing.
For example, mad and angry, soldier and warrior, contentious and hostile, etc. They’re called synonyms.
If you think that libertarians can advocate the state, then you ruin the definition of libertarian. Sure, go ahead, define it in these broad spectrums of “protecting property rights.” Mussolini will say that this is what he’s doing by ordering the Tuscan dialect to be the only Italian spoken. Stalin will profess, his gulags were only for the violators of the people’s property. Yes, Pinochet will agree, he was only considering the protection of military property rights. Taxes are surely necessary to protect those, at least if you decide that arbitrary distinctions and wishful thinking are useful.
Words are not determined by consensus, by the way, words are conceived by consensus, but defined by consistency. For example, the word ironic is thrown around, given meanings that are not consistent with its original usage. Is it still ironic when a man gets a sex change? Of course you wouldn’t expect it!
And neglectful - not to mention harmful - for those few that do not speak English, but own property that will be raped thanks to your ethnocentric laws.
My grandfather, for example, who speaks very little English, but receives tax forms in Italian or Spanish (a language he spoke previously to moving to America).