July 2007

Omigosh! They're Trying to Be Us!!

By Robert Stephens

Search for more articles by or about this columnist

Last week a friend handed me a magazine, saying, "his sounds like you." I'm always a bit leery of comments like that since my libertarian leanings are well-known among my friends and associates. However, I found myself holding the summer issue of Rising Tide, billed as "The magazine of the Republican National Committee."

On the cover were the phrases: Individual Responsibility, Limited Government,

Lower Taxes, and Strong National Defense. I was stunned. I thought they had plagiarized the Cato Institute website, but it turned out that they were claiming that these were the new Republican principles.

Actually, they were claiming that these were the old, long-standing Republican principles, but that those principles had gotten lost in the rise of big government conservatism, led by the Neo-cons. In fact, the author, Senator Mel Martinez of Florida, actually stated, "There is only one way to regain the spirit of reform: by returning to our long-standing principles-principles like lower taxes, limited government, individual responsibility, and freedom at home and abroad."

NOW they were returning to these principles after seeing the light. I took this to mean after -- of course -- they had had their asses handed to them in the last elections.

I mentioned in my last column that most American voters are somewhere between the absolutes of left and right; liberal and conservative. If they haven't been completely brainwashed by the media and liberal professors, there should be a glimmering that "live and let live" is a pretty good philosophy.

Just look at the sections of the Libertarian Platform outlined on our national party's website. We proudly put it out there for everyone.

In one section it states, "Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make." I am frequently criticized when I argue that folks on motorcycles, scooters, and bicycles should have the right to decide for themselves whether to wear helmets or not. Ditto cars and seatbelts. My point is not that helmets or seatbelts don't do any good -- I think they do sometimes -- it's just that making it a "crime" to not wear one is something I don't want the government to be involved in. Furthermore, I am always careful to add that -- along with the freedom to choose not to wear one, the rider/driver/passenger should also have the responsibility to not go feed at the governmental trough of medical coverage and disability if they suffer massive and long-lasting head wounds.

Eminent domain is another hot item these days. It seems now that certain local, county, or borough governments have been declaring residential areas "blighted" and ordered them cleared through the principle of eminent domain and then sold to developers because the resulting commercial areas would bring in more tax dollars. Our position as Libertarians: "Only individuals and private entities have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes on the valid rights of others." In other words, governments should keep their mitts off private property unless that property owner can be shown to be a risk and hazard to the community. And then, I feel, it should be the responsibility of the neighboring citizens to deal with the issue through legal means, rather than running to a "nanny" government for help.

Senator Martinez sums things up pretty well in one spot where he says, "The American Dream, that belief in endless opportunities, in the power of freedom and individual achievement, is what our party is all about." Unfortunately, he simply framed the issue incorrectly.

Hey, Senator Martinez, come on over. We're already where you want to be.