A classic liberal is more like a libertarian. I'm sorry. Classic liberal, actually, from the 1800s has a totally different meaning than a liberal who is [modern] classic.
By going on the defensive. . . libertarians are, inadvertently, conceding that speech should be policed for propriety, and that those who violate standards set by the PC set are somehow defective on those grounds alone and deserve to be purged from "polite" company.
I hear Republicans and Libertarians and so forth talking about property rights, but they stop talking about property rights as soon as the subject of American Indians comes up, because they know fully well, perhaps not in a fully articulated, conscious form, but they know fully well that the basis for the very system of endeavor and enterprise and profitability to which they are committed and devoted accrues on the basis of theft of the resources of someone else. They are in possession of stolen property. They know it. They all know it. It's a dishonest endeavor from day one.
To demonize state authoritarianism while ignoring identical albeit contract-consecrated subservient arrangements in the large-scale corporations which control the world economy is fetishism at its worst.
If we have learned anything in the past quarter century, it is that we cannot Federalize Virtue.
There can be no freedom without freedom to fail.
. . . the next revolution. . . will be when those who work refuse to support those who don't.
The media has created this environment that is okay to say almost anything about somebody who is, you know, right of Jane Fonda. You know, if you are slightly conservative or even libertarian points of view, especially if you are persuasive and charismatic and funny and effective, you will get called the most appalling things.
There's nothing that does so much harm as good intentions.
The greatest productive force is human selfishness.
After the Volcker Fund collapsed, I got another grant from the Lilly Endowment to do a history of the U. S. , which I worked on from 1962-66. The original idea was to take the regular facts and put a libertarian assessment on everything.
We own ourselves. This is the core of a libertarian theory of rights. But on this theory, while we are at liberty to kill ourselves (regardless of the consequences of others), we are not allowed to kill others, not even if this means that there we be fewer murders in the future, totally speaking.
There are libertarian values which say private property is the overarching value, the sanctity thereof, and there are egalitarians who say health care should be shared and so on. That's fair enough.
The plans differ; the planners are all alike.
The Free Market is Mother Nature's way of organizing economic activity.
Formerly an anti-Semite was somebody who hated Jews because they were Jews and had a Jewish soul. But nowadays an anti-Semite is somebody who is hated by Jews.
Tea Party to establishment from social conservative to libertarian, we all - what people want more than anything is they don't just want a fighter. They want someone who fights and wins.
I never thought I was a libertarian until I picked up Reason magazine and realized I agree with everything they had printed.
I can spend your money better than you can.
I'm not a knee-jerk conservative. I passionately believe in free markets and less government, but not to the point of being a libertarian.