Kevin Colby wants us to know that he’s a pro-death Libertarian. In reality, he’s not much of a Libertarian at all, violates the Libertarian Party pledge against advocating the initiation of force and needs a remedial course in English grammar! But what irked me the most was his use of the Libertarian Party logo on a document whose policy positions are not entirely Libertarian.
Marriage and Adoption are Private Matters
I support gay marriages and adoption.
A Libertarian should be asking why marriage and adoption are the business of the state. These are, in fact, private matters and as such should not be political. So wouldn’t a true Libertarian position require the government to get out of the business of marriage contracts and adoption?
Libertarian Support of Abortion is Based on Liberty, Not Population Control
I support abortion rights: It’s a nice population controller, plus, I feel that teenagers have no business having babies due to maturity reasons.
The Libertarian Party is about liberty; NOT population control. Valuing personal liberty means valuing a person’s right to do as they choose (with their body) as long as they don’t infringe on others’ rights. This is the Libertarian basis for supporting a woman’s freedom to have an abortion.
Abortion is abominable. But I respect a woman’s right to do with her body as she pleases.
Private Medical Research Good, Public Bad
I am not much of a supporter on medical research on finding cures with cancer, AIDS and etc. … But, I feel that we need disease as a population controller. I consider my self “pro-death”.
A Libertarian needs to distinguish between publicly-funded and privately-funded medical research. The former is inappropriate, to say the least, but there is nothing wrong with the latter. In fact, I imagine most Libertarians value their own lives highly, and thus privately support medical research.
Replace the IRS with Nothing
I support to abolish the IRS for a simpler tax system. … Say for instance we had a 23% tax on goods and services. Well, wealthy people buy more and expensive items, so they will be the ones that get hurt the most in paying the tax. Also, we have approximately 12 million illegal immigrants who live here in the U.S. and do not pay tax. Well, they will have no choice in paying tax now since it will be on consumables.
We don’t need to replace the IRS with anything. Revenues from the income tax are small, and the various governments would get along just fine without it.
A 23% sales tax is outrageous. Don’t forget to add state and local sales taxes to that. In some places that will bring you up to 33%. Imagine buying a $6 ham sandwich and paying $2 of tax on it. If you thought the war on drugs was bad, wait till you see the black markets this creates.
What’s more, Mr Colby’s pragmatic argument is wrong. The rich have all the options in the world for where they buy their luxury items. To escape a 23% tax they will just fly over to gay Paris and buy their loot there. No tax paid. In fact, they’ll come out ahead.
But everybody else, the working poor, the middle class, etc., who actually spend most of their income on non-discretionary items, will find themselves unable to make ends meet. When the value of the dollar is declining and salaries are static or delining, few can afford a cost of living increase of 23%.
And the illegal immigrants are already skilled in creating their own free, “black” markets. To those they will simply add another. Easy, peasy.
Government-Managed Education Choice is an Illusion
I support education vouchers for our children. Our kids should have the choice of what school they want to attend. This should not be handled by the federal government. This should be handled by state and local governments.
We do need more choice, but vouchers are not the solution. We need to get government out of the business of education, period. This would remove any need for the arbitrary property taxes we see in many parts of the country.
Government-managed and -funded choice is an illusion. Only you the individual can possess or exercise free choice. Don’t settle for half-measures.
Force Sex Workers to Take Health Tests?
I support legalizing prostitution. You make them take a test for disease every week and you make them pay income tax. If we had the fair tax, then it would be alot easier to collect taxes from them.
This is absolutely outrageous. The Libertarian Party’s base principle is the abstention from advocating the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals. Making sex workers take a health test is an initiation of force.
You, sir, took this pledge when you joined the Libertarian Party:
“I certify that I do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.”
Force People to Save for Retirement?
I support privatizing Social Security. … The way that private Social Security would work is that the Government would force employers to offer basically almost a 401k type plan where you are forced to put a certain percentage of income into this retirement account …
More force being advocated by Mr Colby! He fails to explain why the government should even be involved in retirement financing. Americans are a self-reliant people fully capable of planning for their own retirements if only the government would stop taxing us so heavily and making impossible promises in return.
What About War, Civil Liberties, The Fed and The National Debt?
If Mr Colby is a Libertarian, why doesn’t he have anything to say about the Iraq War, the potential conflict with Iran, the increasing encroachments on our civil liberties, our growing national debt or the recent actions of the Federal Reserve that devalue our dollars?
These are the most pressing matters of our time, representing the failure of our national defense, war (and its attendant evils), a police state, bankruptcy and hyperinflation. These are issues that touch every American. We who call ourselves Libertarians need to make these issues a priority, for the others won’t much matter if these go the wrong way.
Photo by rick. Some rights reserved.
8 replies on “A Pro-Death Libertarian? Not Me.”
just so you know, The Bill of Rights is a set of government laws. It explains your freedoms. So in my little blog I was explaining what I supported freedom wise you ignorant SOB!
Supporting any initiation of force is the opposite of supporting freedom. Thus the pledge that one must make before joining the Libertarian Party.
‘pro-death libertarian’?
‘Population control’?
What the hell are you talking about? You’re not a libertarian, you’re a misanthrope, cloaking the fact that you don’t give a damn for other people. Your wonderful ‘war on terror’ claimed the lives of 40 Afghans on their way to a wedding the other day. I suppose you’ll celebrate that, being pro-death.
Trooper, I suspect you misunderstood. I was quoting someone else on population control and being “pro-death”. I am not interested in population control, in fact, I think it’s a dumb idea, to say the least.
If you follow the first link in this article it will take you to the person who claims to be a Libertarian and “pro-death”.
Actually, I do care about others. My evidence for this is my strong desire for freedom for all, so that each person can make his or her own decisions about their own lives, without interference from the government. I don’t pretend to know what’s best for others.
I am most definitely against the war on terror.
I do thank you for commenting, though. :)
Sorry George, I should have made it clear that my comments were directed to Kevin, in the event that he happens past again.
George, you are a very busy guy. I have utmost respect for you. You seem like an incredibly positive guy (I never hear you talking shit, except for a tiny little bit on Freekeene.com of what I believe are Konkin’s bad / negative / counterproductive ideas being rehashed). Not that I believe Konkin is bad, he has a lot of good points, but I think his idea of fighting the LP is terrible, because of the way most people view society.
I am writing a book that synthesizes Rothbard’s views with Konkin’s and Molyneux’s in the chapter on social ostracism, and building a culture of freedom. Hopefully, you will join the discussion forum at http://www.freedomainradio.com if you are not already on there.
The book is my contribution to addressing divergent strategies within the LP. Not to lead people to the one I think is right, but to show people their options, and encourage them to take one option that suits them, and prioritize it.
Too often in my travels, most people are only aware of one or two strategies, and woefully incompletely aware of which one they are closest to pursuing, and what wheels they are in the process of reinventing.
Peace,
-Jake
Also, this guy Kevin is at a lower level than you. He may well appeal to others in his peer group. I think duly chastizing him is a waste of your time and intellect. LOL.
He may well be a death metal fan, or simply think it’s cool or funny to have an “over the top” public persona. He also may be close to snapping, and enacting violent retribution on the state, a la “Unintended Consequences”. After having met a man whose child was murdered by the FDA (they denied his kid an exemption for an experimental treatment that was later found to work), I never argue with violent-type libertarians.
1) It’s not likely to raise them to your level.
2) They might secretly know the higher moral ground, but have simply become so scarred, they are vocally opposing the system, like any “Black Flag” punk rocker might.
3) They might actually have snapped. We need a few modern Timothy Murphys, in my opinion. You never know when and where the next Waco (or Battle of Saratoga) might erupt. As Ice-T said: “The Government is fucked. Sure to bring us down. The media incites civil unrest. Hatred can bring you down. ..I don’t want your war.” …But he also wrote “cop killer”, because he recognized that retaliatory force was justified (if not likely to succeed).
Ayn Rand often contradicted herself on the same subject, except that she was consistent within each individual work. (Funny. She was more consistent than most people are.)
Heinlain was more realistic though, in “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” People simply don’t know how correct he was, until it’s late.
…maybe too late.
So those are my .02 on openly-stated violent anarcho-libertarianism.
Sure, it’s a black eye to the public respectability of the L-word (no, not “lesbian” as cable might have you believe), but it’s not worth me or you typing a whole page to dilligently address. LOL…
Hey Jake, yes I listen to FDR but am not on the forums much. Frankly the rules you have to agree to before registering are extremely off-putting. I understand why he does it, it just killed my enthusiasm for participating in the discussion.
Besides the fact that the LP is going backwards and I was unable to find more than a couple people interested in doing anything about that, I think it’s inconsistent to simultaneously believe the state is evil and participate in making decisions about who will direct the use of the state’s force.
re/ the “Pro-Death Libertarian” what I most objected to at the time was that people could, from his article, get the wrong idea about libertarians. I think correcting wrong ideas is important. Also, if it’s true that he’s at a “lower level” than me (not agreeing with that), then a good refutation of his points may help him reconsider some of his less libertarian ideas. Yes, I could have been more diplomatic. :)
Thanks for commenting!