I just read this comment off a Google+ entry by Tim O'Reilly (who was arguing against SOPA). The comment seems to elaborate on the concept of libertarianism:
"The most fundamental principle of libertarianism is that we all have a right to life, liberty, and property. But second to that principle is that -- as Jefferson said -- to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.
"If you actually listen to libertarians, the one thing almost all of them have in common, that they think government should do, is protect our rights. And in order to do that, we need to set up our laws and treat them as a contract with the people, and then follow those laws.
"To say libertarianism is anti-rule-of-law ... that's 180 degrees opposite of the truth.
"Indeed, I'd point out that modern liberalism is significantly closer to Somalian "no rule of law" than libertarianism is, in that modern liberalism eschews the rule of law, though in a different way.
"Rather than asserting that there is no law as in Somalia, the modern left says there is a law, but it means whatever we want it to mean at the moment, which means that while there is law, there is no rule of law, but, rather, rule of men. Liberalism believes in practical principles, that can change as they see fit, not in a rule that must be followed (e.g., the Constitution).
"For example, the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, but we'll ban them anyway; the 14th amendment guarantees those gun rights -- as "privileges and immunities" of U.S. citizens -- in the states, but we'll pretend the clear language doesn't mean that; the 10th amendment says Congress can only do what the Constitution says it can do, but it's OK to do what we want regardless.
"If you want to talk rule of law, the modern left will come out looking pretty terrible."
Tim O'Reilly's Google+ entry: https://plus.google.com/u/0/107033731246200681024/posts/5Xd3VjFR8gx
The BuShA owns all!
