I recently read a piece titled "why I am not a libertarian". It was brought to my attention by James Daniel Ross, a man I respect greatly and whose reply to said piece I have posted here. There were many faults of logic and reason in this piece, and there were many replies in support of and a few against his assumptions. I just felt the need to voice my own now here for all of you in a manner which even we feebleminded libertarians can understand.
Here is a link to the offending article for you all to read... http://weeklysift.com/2011/08/22/why-i-am-not-a-libertarian/
And now to my somewhat simple minded reply:
I am a Libertarian, because the idea of individual Liberty is the only one which will allow people such as our friend here to make such statements about other's ideas without being imprisoned or even killed for doing so. Individual Liberty is that core idea which this nation was founded upon, that no one man can be oppressed by another group. I know we have had a rather difficult time with living up to that ideal, that we have actually failed in doing so, but it is the striving to attain that which makes this nation great.
That the star trek axiom trotted out so often by the left of the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" which we as a nation hold as anathema. But rather that the rights of the individual are what is truly important, for only in defending the individual can we assure the rights of the whole of society.
Collectivism as espoused in the article in question is nothing more than a pretty face placed upon slavery. An inducement for those to strive mightily to reach the middle... er.. rather be born to the middle, and locked into it.
If you have Liberty, you can gather a group of your like minded brethren and create a commune, a socialist oasis where you can practice what you preach. If you wish to have socialized medicine, you may create and build your own socialized medical care center, you may donate as much of your money as you so choose because you have the freedom to do so. You may even choose not to do so as you also have that freedom as well, but you may not coerce or otherwise force others to act as you wish in regards to their property. The American axion of "your rights end at my nose" apply.
I believe it comes down to that particular issue, the one of "property". Under Libertarianism, property and the rights to such exist and are protected, whereas in this offending article the assumption is no such thing as property, nor the right to own it, exist.
It is also quite obvious that despite his claims to the contrary, he has zero understanding of Libertarian principles and ideas. Mr. Muder equates Libertarianism with total anarchy, which nothing could be further from the truth. Libertarians recognize the need for government, and for a certain amount of "collectivism" such as people to collect the trash, police the streets, teach our children, but we also recognize the need to limit it's powers and control it tightly. Two things which have not been occurring for quite some time now.
So, I'm assuming that my taking his wallet and raiding his fridge for my lunch... wait, our wallet, and our fridge... what was I thinking?, would be just A-OK by him.