Is Libertarian the new Conservative?
I was reading the news last night, when this headline caught my eye:
As Republican Hypocrisy Party Tanks, Conservatives Lean Libertarian
Yesterday, MSNBC news network, Chris Mattews introduced a daily newspaper editor from one of the “most conservative papers in America.” She corrected him, saying their editorial page was conservative, and then corrected herself, saying “more Libertarian, really.” It’s another sign of the descent of the Republican party, when a staunch conservative paper disavows a connection to the party.
As the Republican party faces an almost daily onslaught of breaking news portraying its leaders as unethical, scandalous and incompetent, more and more Republicans and their supporters in the media– anchors, pundits, commentators, even whole newspaper editorial departments, are characterizing themselves as Libertarian, as opposed to Republican.
It gets me thinking a bit, I am not sure how I feel about this group taking on the libertarian label as an effort to move away from the neo-conservatives recent bad publicity. Now I will be the first to admit that a staunch libertarian certainly shares some beliefs with a true conservative; smaller government, lower taxes, and support for state rights. However, the the conservative opinions around family values, defense spending and taking to the fight on the war on terror outside the territorial US differ significantly from my positions.
With Sleaze, Corruption and Scandal clouding the Republican party’s image in america, this is bad news for the Christian right. Hypocrisy almost seems to be the mainstay of republican leaders.
It seems that in America, people are a lot more tolerant of one’s sexual pecadillos than they are of hypocrisy. They’ll tolerate a gay congressman, at least in and from some states, but not one who votes against gay rights while engaging in homosexual acts. Hypocrisy doesn’t cut it.
It is also interesting as I have written in the past about the potential demise of the democratic party, becaues of their lack of organization perhaps we are actually watching the death of the GOP (which is an ironic name Grand Old Pary, since they have been around since 1856, while the Democrats essentially date back to the founding fathers). Perhaps all the work that Karl Rove has done to build the Republican party for the next 30 years, could ultimately wind up being the same thing that kills the entire party as they have lost touch with their base. I have always thought that the time was right for a 3rd party, perhaps I just had the wrong party going away.
I am salivating at the thought.
Last December, former Republican congressman and current critic of the Bush admin, Bob Barr became a Libertarian. On TV, we have Bill Maher, Lou Dobbs, TUcker Carlson, who have declared themselves not republican or democrat. I won’t be surprised to see Joe Scarborough, who’s been moving to the center on many issues, embracing Libertarianism… same with Chris Matthews.
It will be harder for already elected members of congress. But there could be a good that comes out of this. As more and more right wingers distance themselves from the current hypocrisy and scandal ridden current incarnation of the Republican party, they may find themselves unhappy with the current two party election system. If some influential pundits and politicians finally wake up and realize that the election system is broken and two party elections are a big part of the problem, then maybe instant run-off voting and equal treatment for third parties will become major issues that the most disliked congress in recent history will have to face.
Meanwhile, the Republican hypocrisy machine churns on. The dump Larry Craig in the flash of an eye, because a Republican Governor in Idaho can replace him with a Republican Senator. But David Vitter, caught in a relationship with a whore house gets a pass because he’s in a state with a Democratic Governor. Now that Larry Craig has been pushed off the ledge by his party, the lamestream media should be boosting the Republican hypocrisy story on Vitter to their highest rotation. Why do they give him a pass. Tne news anchors should be asking all the Republcan leaders this question. We’ll see, in a few hours, this Sunday morning, whether any of the sunday political shows do their jobs or prove they are part of the problem of the mainstream media.
A place where I can rant about anything under the sun, leave a legacy for my children to read about my political beliefs when they are older & wiser and kindly request that you comment on what you read then provide me with your own take or opinion of the subject at hand. Your feedback is greatly appreciated. | More from Jeff Herz
Stumble It!
September 3rd, 2007 at 1:13 pm
***** However, the the conservative opinions around family values, defense spending and taking to the fight on the war on terror outside the territorial US differ significantly from my positions. *****
Boy, I’ll bet!
Libertarians are dirty filthy long-haired unhygienic dope-smoking meth-snorting pigs who (paradoxically) want to use the long arm of the state of to impose libertarianism on everyone.
Libertarians want to make sexual deviance mandatory in the name of sexual freedom. Libertarians want open borders to enable the Mexicans to come across and camp out in your neighborhood because an impoverished Third Worlder is even dirtier and less hygienic than a home-grown libertarian.
Libertarians believe that men in uniform are “fash-sh-sh-sh-sh-sh-shists” (that word has be pronounced through the nose with one’s head bobbing up and down to some heavy metal tune in order to attain the proper dope-smoking libertarian brogue) so it’s not quite clear who they call upon when they become victims of crime.
But libertarians want to do away with “fascistic” men in uniform in order to allow privately-organized and operated libertarian thugs at home and abroad to terrorize the public in the name of freedom.
Libertarians are far-left hippies masquerading vaguely as free enterpriseans. This enables them to serve the double purpose of siphoning votes from Republicans while actually spreading leftist values.
So yeah, I would say that there are some differences between libertarianism and conservatism — at least according to the traditional meaning of that last word.
There might be some Republican leaders who have fallen short of conservative ideals in their politics and in their private lives — but libertarians live up to their ideals all too well. That’s why libertarianism is a cancer that needs to be cut out of the body politic.
September 3rd, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Grizzlie, thou art a bit narrowminded about the Libertarians.
Mike Badnarik did in fact declare that the Child Support Crusade violated the Antipeonage Act and the 13th Amendment when he ran for President in 2004.
Us non-custodials can forgive a little dope smoking.
It is like when Nixon got us out of Nam before my high school class reached draft age. We can forgive Watergate! Drafted vets a little older than me cannot forgive Nixon. He didn’t get us out of Nam fast enough!
I predict that an influx of disgruntled consevatives and divorced fathers from the Republican Party can transform the Libertarian Party and move it away from some of its distateful roots.
Most of us don’t like massive immigration and the free trade without planetary minimum wage policies the two big Parties seem to favor.
For the very simple and practical reason that competition with cheap labor reduces the ability of Americans to support their families and our present family law insanity destroys our reason (and ability) to.
Something similar is happening with the British National Party. It used to be a rather nasty group of bigots who expressed Jew-hate. But because it, along with the reasonable UKIP, “gets it” about mass immigration of MUSLIMS, who clearly intend to take over Britain and impose sharia law upon the native white British, the BNP is presently the fastest growing political party in Britain.
A BNP controlled Parliament and Prime Minister is quite possible.
As for its anti-Jew bigorty? That seems to have been jettisoned. The BNP came out in support of Israel during its summer 2006 war with Hesballah and it is now actively recruiting Jews along with non-Muslim Asians and white British.
The United Kingdom Independence Party? Check them out! They make us wish we had a United States Independence Party! They favor getting Britian out of the European Union, keeping the pound sterling and not adopting the Euro, and allowing the British to continue to use the native British weights and measures.
Perhaps we should not be too disdainful of the Libertarians. They can prove quite useful in either getting true conservatives into government, or forcing the Republicans to clean up their act and knock off the RINOism, and we get true conservatives into government through a properly re-motivated Republican Party.
September 3rd, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Grizzlie, there’s multiple filthy disgusting words for anyone that thinks that way of Libertarians; but I’ll cut ya some slack. I don’t cut on mental deficients.
You and whatever wienie party you belong to can just go on being Repugmocrats: we don’t need ya, and I don’t think we want to be associated with hypocrites.
Long live the Libertarian Party, and long live the Constitution!
September 3rd, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Grizzlie, I want to apologize for that previous comment. I was high while screwing my favorite prostitute im my meth lab. You said we, “want to use the long arm of the state of to impose libertarianism on everyone.” Dooood! How do you IMPOSE Liberty on anyone? “Hey, you! Joe Six-Pack, this is the police! If you’re not exercising your Constitutional freedoms in there, we’re gonna have to take you in!” LOL
You said: “Libertarians want to make sexual deviance mandatory in the name of sexual freedom. Libertarians want open borders to enable the Mexicans to come across and camp out in your neighborhood because an impoverished Third Worlder is even dirtier and less hygienic than a home-grown libertarian”
I say, No Libertarian says sexual deviancy is mandatory. Only sexual freedom is mandatory, AS LONG AS the rightsa of other, modest citizens are not DIRECTLY violated. Do you live in a mud-patch? You seem to have dirty and filthy on your mind a lot. Is that what you really think of Mexicans? Gotta throw a “Bigot!” at cha on that one.
You lied and said: “Libertarians believe that men in uniform are “fash-sh-sh-sh-sh-sh-shists” (that word has be pronounced through the nose with one’s head bobbing up and down to some heavy metal tune in order to attain the proper dope-smoking libertarian brogue) so it’s not quite clear who they call upon when they become victims of crime.” Where in the hell did you get this idea? Dog Patch?
I could go on, but I just realized, your post was a joke. You were trolling. Good one, ya got me.
For anyone else that wants to check out what the LP really stands for, see http://www.lp.org/
That Grizzlie! I’ll tell ya, yer a killer! ROFL!
September 3rd, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Roger and Tony – agreed. Grizzlie has definitely missed the point with Libertarianism. Admittedly, ideological Libertarians (such as those who bent over backward defending Michael Vick’s depravities) can be a thick headed bunch. But, simplified, Libertarianism rightly acknowledges the individual’s human right to act according to their own conscience in a free society – provided no genuine harm is caused by their actions.
In particular, Grizzlie’s mindless bashing of “dope-smoking” is in no way a defense of this country’s outrageous, socialistic, ineffective, and incoherent drug enforcement bureaucracy. And it’s also entirely hypocritical to applaud the excesses of the DEA without once calling for a return to alcohol prohibition. (Allowing alcohol consumption while disallowing pot smoking is the very definition of HYPOCRISY.)
Modern “Conservatives”, by the way, are not worthy of the name. They, like their fitted bookends, the Liberals, have lost all credibility for me. Both of these groups (and the parties that represent them) seem drunk on government spending and population control… and each appear equally contemptuous of the simple concept of human Liberty.
September 3rd, 2007 at 8:25 pm
***** don’t think we want to be associated with hypocrites.*****
Well, let’s just say that you have your hands full dealing with your own hypocrisy.
***** Long live the Libertarian Party, and long live the Constitution!*****
A Constitution, interpreted by a libertarian, would be an interesting thing to behold.
I suppose that if a Libertarian ever made it to the White House, his list of potential Supreme Court nominees would comprise of the staff at MTV.
September 3rd, 2007 at 8:40 pm
***** Grizzlie, I want to apologize for that previous comment. I was high while screwing my favorite prostitute *****
Most ten-year old girls don’t have to go to such extreme lengths to get daddy to give them their weekly allowance.
***** im my meth lab. You said we, “want to use the long arm of the state of to impose libertarianism on everyone.” Dooood! *****
Very good, sprout. You just addressed me as “dude’. Or rather as “Doooood”. You fit the shaggy airplane-glue-sniffing MTV stereotype of a libertarian perfectly.
If you didn’t exist, I’d have to invent you.
***** How do you IMPOSE Liberty on anyone? *****
Ah, that’s the question, isn’t it?
Just as Marxists used to struggle with the failure of the Soviet state to “wither away”, libertarians have been struggling with that contradiction for as long as they have been around.
Libertarians are control-freaks who SAY that they believe in liberty. But upon closer inspection, libertarians turn out to believe in liberty only for other libertarians and servitude for everyone else.
The end result is that the libertarian version of liberty is just another form of tyranny, which requires extensive controls on others.
***** You said: “Libertarians want to make sexual deviance mandatory in the name of sexual freedom. Libertarians want open borders to enable the Mexicans to come across and camp out in your neighborhood because an impoverished Third Worlder is even dirtier and less hygienic than a home-grown libertarian”
I say, No Libertarian says sexual deviancy is mandatory.*****
Yes, all of you do.
***** You seem to have dirty and filthy on your mind a lot. Is that what you really think of Mexicans? *****
It’s what I really think of libertarians.
***** Gotta throw a “Bigot!” at cha on that one. *****
“Gotta”. “At cha”
Keep sniffing that airplane glue, kid. You’re obviously being raised by overly-tolerant parents, and that’s where your trouble lies.
***** You lied and said: “Libertarians believe that men in uniform are “fash-sh-sh-sh-sh-sh-shists” (that word has be pronounced through the nose with one’s head bobbing up and down to some heavy metal tune in order to attain the proper dope-smoking libertarian brogue) so it’s not quite clear who they call upon when they become victims of crime.” Where in the hell did you get this idea? *****
From the fact that it’s true.
September 3rd, 2007 at 9:02 pm
***** But, simplified, Libertarianism rightly acknowledges the individual’s human right to act according to their own conscience in a free society – provided no genuine harm is caused by their actions. *****
It would be interesting to learn what is your definition of “genuine harm”.
***** In particular, Grizzlie’s mindless bashing of “dope-smoking” is in no way a defense of this country’s outrageous, socialistic, ineffective, and incoherent drug enforcement bureaucracy.*****
It certainly isn’t. I’m not defending our drug laws.
***** And it’s also entirely hypocritical to applaud the excesses of the DEA without once calling for a return to alcohol prohibition. (Allowing alcohol consumption while disallowing pot smoking is the very definition of HYPOCRISY.) *****
Alcohol has long been mainstream. Marijuana is a product of the destructive 1960’s counterculture and is more objectionable than alcohol for that reason.
HOWEVER, I’m not defending the laws prohibiting marijuana either. I would repeal all of our drug laws, to the extent that they penalize personal use by an adult in private in a manner that does not endanger others.
BUT I would do so on the utilitarian ground that the efforts to eliminate drug trafficking and usage have proven themselves futile and not worth the expense and effort and — yes — deprivation of liberty that they have cost.
But there is NO inherent a priori right to “do” drugs. By contrast, a LIBERTARIAN would claim some sort of inalienable right to destroy his own life and to disrupt the lives of others around him with hippie drugs. Libertarians have no philosophy more comprehensive than whatever it is that gratifies the passion of the day.
***** Modern “Conservatives”, by the way, are not worthy of the name. *****
Neither are modern libertarians. That’s my point. I have never met a libertarian who believed in liberty for anyone else.
***** They, like their fitted bookends, the Liberals, have lost all credibility for me. Both of these groups (and the parties that represent them) seem drunk on government spending and population control… and each appear equally contemptuous of the simple concept of human Liberty. *****
“Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it?
Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom?
Material abundance without character is the path of destruction.”
– Thomas Jefferson
People today in Western society are spoiled by the opulence that they enjoy now. The “poor” among us have access to material benefits that 18th century aristocrats could never even have dreamed of.
And yet, our character continues to grow more ruinous. People are proving themselves to be unworthy of “human liberty”, and libertarian philosophy only throws gasoline onto the flames.
Libertarian philosophy is profoundly un-Jeffersonian. Libertarian philosophy stands for enjoyment of material abundance WITHOUT character. Libertarians regard the idea of “character” as someone else’s attempt to make them behave like adults.
September 4th, 2007 at 2:04 am
Mike, thanks for the vote of confidence.
There is one Republican I am thinking of supporting, Ron Paul.
The caveat is that I disagree with him as to our foreign entanglements. The Jihad really does exist, and Paul seems to think our problems with the Muslims is because our policies “provoke” them. While there is some truth to that theory, there is also a tradition in Islam that Islam should rule the entire Planet Earth. This conquest can be by Dawa, the mass immigration of Muslims into the infidel lands followed by mass breeding to take over, and by violence to force the infidels to either convert to Islam or acqueisce to dhimmitude. This Islamist motivation exists independent of anything we, Israel, Europe or anyone else does. We will have to fight them, sooner or later, unfortunately.
Other than that, I like the rest of Ron Paul’s program.
One reason is that I believe that the spending spending spending we seem to have in our federal government is what truly makes our leaders so cravenly beholded to the House of Saud. While we import about half of our petroleum, it comes from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. It is to Europe, China, and Japan that the Middle East oil goes. What the Saudis do with much of the money is buy US Treasury bills.
Methinks the Iraq War is a mercenary operation.
It is also the mechanism by which we get Europeans, Chinese, India, etc. to pay for some of our federal spending.
Why do you think we have not opened the ANWR to drilling and continue to prohibit new oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico while Mexico continues to explore? Why do you think we stopped building our nuclear plants? If the elites of our nation wanted them built, they would have been built. 1000, not 120. Why do you think the 100 Saudi Arabian equivalents in oil shale in Colorado and Wyoming go completely unexploited? Estonia has been burning oil shale in a power plant since the 1880’s and selling the electricity surplus to its needs to Russia. So oil shale can be used, and with economies of scale and engineering advances could be refined into kerosene for jet airplanes, gasoline, and diesel fuel for a price competitive with such fuels made from liquid petroleum.
And if we did so we would solve our energy crisis for next thousand years. We could export the fuels and allow the world to tell the Arabs, “Keep it in the ground, boys, we will be back when we need it!”
A thousand years from now.
Now if Ron Paul would LOUDLY get on board our issues with family law and the Child Support Crusade, then we will have REASON to support him!
And hope that if he wins the White House, he will realize that Islamic supremacy is a motivation that exists independent of anything we do.
September 4th, 2007 at 3:30 am
Ron Paul is a nobody unless he comes out against feminism and the VAWA and IMBRA. He needs to talk about the Internet regulation laws that are already on the books.
Even discussing COPA could get tens of millions of male votes. Porn is a $3Billion business so who out there thinks the customers of that don’t vote? It is high time that the majority of non-politically correct Americans had a political party that says politically incorrect things they agree with like “get rid of the feminists in DC and get rid of the religious holy rollers in DC, all of whom want to ban and regulate what most of the rest of Americans want”.
September 4th, 2007 at 3:48 am
Perhaps we should not be too disdainful of the Libertarians.
When so-called Libertarians realize there are nuts the world over who want us dead (for no other reason than we live in freedom and worship God in our own way) I might just temper my disgust with them.
There’s a reason many of us use the “conservative” label. We got tired of saying we’re “small-l” libertarians. You guys have done to the libertarian label what the liberals did to theirs (made the very word distasteful). Maybe you could come up with another label like they did. Hey, maybe you could just call yourselves “small-p” progressives.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:57 am
Much can be said about repugmocrats who have landed us where we are topday. Comments on our military overseas? We have no legal right to be outside of our own borders. If corporations need protection outside of our borders, let THEM organize and pay their own mercenaries. If the NUTS of the world come here, then we will deal with them.
Ron Paul may not stand a chance of winning, I don’t believe that because I keep hoping that AmeriKa will wake up and start voting on principle again, instead of trying to pick a winner at a horse race. Look where the winners have led us so far: a facist, male hating country with a world economy about to fizzle. Yeah, the repugmocrat wieners have done a fan-fu**ing-tastic job so far, haven’t they. What else have they given us. How about an election system that only the rich can win? How about an election system that only rich repugmocrats can win. How about an election system that excludesa people with good ideas, that doesn’t want to hear about anything that’s not in line with the sieg-heil party? Such as equality for men in reproductive choice, sentencing, family court, military, etc.
This site is called MENS News Daily. It’s about mens reproductive and family issues, and I guaran-damn-ty ya THEY aren’t concerned with your issues. Last election only ONE candidate came out in favor of equality in family court. I’ll clue you, IT WASN’T A REPUGMOCRAT!
Keep voting for your winners! While you’re at it, you should learn how to bow and courtsey when the Supreme Feminist rolls by.
September 4th, 2007 at 6:27 am
“A Constitution, interpreted by a libertarian, would be an interesting thing to behold.”
Yes indeed it would. The remarkably timeless ideas recorded there are as important today, nay, they are MORE important than ever. While most of us agree, and me included, that fighting global Islam is the right thing to do, conquering Iraq is not allowed by the Constitution. So a Libertarian president would actually refuse to do things on Constitutional grounds.. Imagine! In any event, conquering Iraq is about oil, and nothing more.
For me, Libertarianism starts with the radical notion that everyone OWNS THEMSELVES. From this notion flow lots of really really good ideas:
1. If you own yourself, you own your ideas and the output of your labor.
2. If you own yourself, no one has the right to deprive you of liberty without genuine due process of law.
3. If you own yourself, YOU are responsible for your own well-being. If you choose to do drugs, engage in dangerous lifestyles, etc., that is your right, but you have no legal claim to any of my largesse to help you when you damage yourself, become an addict, or whatever.
4. If you own yourself, you have the right to live any way you choose, as long as it doesn’t interfere with others’ similar rights. This, and only this, is what courts are for.
One thing further. The genius of America, and the source of its incredible historical success, is in its unleashing the human spirit to achieve whatever it can. Humans function best when they are free. American stature is testament to that. But we are off track, and our prominence is suffering because of it. We are no longer truly free. And on this central issue of freedom, I can tell no difference between Dems and Repubs. None whatsoever.
September 4th, 2007 at 6:47 am
So why am I drawn to the Men’s movement? Simple. Feminism has shown its true colors: it is about giving one group of people dominion over another, and codifying it into law. This cannot be allowed to stand. Men truly are being treated as slaves in the family courts; men truly are being presumed guilty in criminal courts. The “dominant aggressor” doctrine is one incredible example, foisted on us in my state by the majority Christian Republicans. Due process has been effectively suspended. That is anti-freedom, and I oppose it. Why do Americans allow this? We were sold it initially by the damned Republicans in the name of “fighting the drug war”, then “fighting the war on terror”. All these wars are fought as wars on our civil rights. They engender mistrust and suspicion even among ourselves. They have made it easy for the public to condemn others with little or no information.
This is also why I am less than enthusiastic about any candidate for president coming out in favor of “saving marriage”. This sounds exactly like Christian Republican code; even if it is not, many will interpret it as such and be repulsed by it.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:03 am
It’s amazing to me how so many people confuse Libertarian Party with libertarianism, and equate Republican Party with conservatism. Political parties do not represent an ideology. Their purpose is to get their candidates elected, period. To a political party, the ideology of the candidate is simply window dressing that presents a contrast between the candidate and his or her opponent.
You can be a libertarian Republican, a conservative Republican, a centrist Republican, or a communist Republican. Saying that a newspaper is libertarian is not a repudiation of the Republican party; it is merely an endorsement of libertarian ideas. There is no such thing as “Republicanism” insofar as philosophy is concerned; the only idea that the Republican party truly represents is the idea of achieving electoral victory. And that maxim holds true for the Democratic party.
If conservatives are leaning libertarian, that just reflects a philosophical shift. They’re going to remain in the Republican party, by-and-large, unless a viable and well-funded political party replaces the GOP, and the Libertarian Party ain’t it!
September 4th, 2007 at 11:36 am
The Libertarian Party is not well-funded because it does not have political favors to sell to rent-seekers. Shall the Libertarian Party embrace that philosophy and, in so doing, cancel itself? As someone else stated above, go ahead and keep voting for your winners and see where it gets you.
September 4th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
***** When so-called Libertarians realize there are nuts the world over who want us dead (for no other reason than we live in freedom and worship God in our own way) *****
Libertarians are amont the nuts in the world who want us dead for that reason.
Just mention “God” in the presence of a libertarian. The hatred that you’ll receive in return is thick enough and palpable enough to cut with a knife.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
***** “A Constitution, interpreted by a libertarian, would be an interesting thing to behold.”
Yes indeed it would. The remarkably timeless ideas recorded there are as important today, nay, they are MORE important than ever. *****
The Constitution is not a libertarian document. Not even close. A Constitution interpreted by a libertarian would be an interesting thing to behold in the same sense that a Constitution interpreted by a chattering chimpanzee would be an interesting thing to behold.
***** While most of us agree, and me included, that fighting global Islam is the right thing to do, conquering Iraq is not allowed by the Constitution. *****
Neither is blowing your mind on hippie drugs.
***** So a Libertarian president would actually refuse to do things on Constitutional grounds *****
Obviously, a Libertarian president — like a Libertarian citizen — would use the Constitution when it suited his purposes to do so and would disdain the Constution when it didn’t suit his purposes. I’ve just provided an example.
***** For me, Libertarianism starts with the radical notion that everyone OWNS THEMSELVES. *****
Libertarianism starts with the dangerous notion that Libertarians OWN non-Libertarians.
***** One thing further. The genius of America, and the source of its incredible historical success, is in its unleashing the human spirit to achieve whatever it can. Humans function best when they are free. American stature is testament to that. *****
Patriotism is the last refuge of a libertarian scoundrel.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
***** This is also why I am less than enthusiastic about any candidate for president coming out in favor of “saving marriage”. This sounds exactly like Christian Republican code; even if it is not, many will interpret it as such and be repulsed by it. *****
This is an example of what I’ve been saying all along.
Libertarians believe in mandating sexual deviance in the name of sexual freedom.
Get a load of that libertarian scare tactic! “To arms! To arms! The *Christian Republicans* are coming!”
September 4th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
***** As someone else stated above, go ahead and keep voting for your winners and see where it gets you.*****
Keep voting for your losers. See where it gets you.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
“repugmocrat wieners”
“fan-fu**ing-tastic”
“that doesn’t want to hear about anything that’s not in line with the sieg-heil party”
“I guaran-damn-ty ya”
Ah, the libertarian vocabulary. The libertarian colloquialisms. One really can’t appreciate them unless one has the worldly wisdom of a horny pimply-faced teenager.
If sprout didn’t exist, I’d have to invent him. How was school today, sprout? Are you parents still getting on your nerves because they tell you to turn your stereo down once in a while? Are they making you do your homework?
Sex, drugs, and heavy metal. That’s what a teenage political philosophy is all about.
September 4th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Keep voting for your losers. See where it gets you.
Same place it gets the rest of us – President Hillary.
September 4th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
I went to RonPaul2008.com and here is my report.
There are a large number of YouTube videos listed and in them Paul does a credible job of laying out his positions on the issues and explaining them in enough detail where you can intelligently critique them.
For example, on the motivation for 9-11. Yes, it is true that Osama bin Laden, the 9-11 Report, and the CIA analyses, state that our occupation of bases within Saudi Arabia was a motivation. Paul observes this and then postulates that we should withdraw from the world, from the Iraq War and so on, so as to avoid giving people a motivation to come to America and attack us.
While there is merit to this, I wonder about giving those hostile to our interests a “heckler’s veto” on our foreign policy. You see, Saddam Hussein overran Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia. In response, the Kingdom granted us PERMISSION to base our troops on its soil and from that soil, we and 30 other nations launched the 100 hour war to liberate Kuwait. Because we did not finish the job with Saddam the way we finished the job with Hitler, we had to protect Saudi Arabia and Kuwait from further adventures by So Damned Insane, and contain his regime.
Thus our occupation of Saudi bases at the invitation of the House of Saud and our weekly bomb drop over Iraq.
My point is that simply because the 9-11 hijackers were angry about this does not mean we were wrong to do it.
As for Israel, another motivation for the 9-11 hijackers and the other Islamic terrorists, so be it. We will not allow a Second Holocaust of the Jews.
Period.
Which means that we have a sticky wicket because the Palestinians and other Arabs hate Israel and Jews to a point that would leave Goebbels concluding that they are stark raving lunatic. The same conclusion President Reagan reached after the bombing of our Marines in Lebanon by Hazballah.
They just seem unwilling to make peace on any set of conditions that would leave a single Jew living in Canaan as a non-dhimmie. Israel could no more make peace with such an insane rabble on such terms than we could cede the entire North American continent to the native tribes and go for a lemming swim.
So in answer to Ron Paul’s position on foreign policy, the mere fact that there are those who hate us and attack us because of our defense of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel does not mean we were wrong to liberate Kuwait and defend Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Whether it is right or wrong to defend these three nations from our prospective is an analysis that must be done without allowing Al Quaida or anyone else a “heckler’s veto”.
But I must admit I like Paul’s positions on reigning in a federal government out of control. However, for all his preaching about restoring the Constitution as the supreme law of the land that is actually obeyed, in not one of his videos does he state any position on family law and the Child Support Crusade. If he is consistent with his position on the other policies we follow in derogation of the Constitution, then he would be totally appalled by the present practice of divorce and the peonage and worse inflicted upon divorced fathers.
He just has yet to say so.
That I find inexplicable. Even Paul is treating our votes and concerns the way Dracula treats sunshine.
September 4th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Why can’t I leave a comment?
September 4th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
What happened to the comment I left?
September 4th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Where is it?
September 4th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Griz, your emotional comments are beyond ridiculous. Nowhere do I even hint of any of the extreme ideas you attribute to me. “Mandated sexual deviance”? Where did I say anything close to that? “Libertarianism starts with the dangerous notion that Libertarians OWN non-Libertarians”? Please show me anywhere on any Libertarian site or source that even comes close. Are you simply trying to provoke an angry response? That is childish.
“A Constitution interpreted by a libertarian would be an interesting thing to behold in the same sense that a Constitution interpreted by a chattering chimpanzee would be an interesting thing to behold.” Hmmm. We should talk about this, what the Constitution means, from whence it sprung, and how far we have drifted. But clogging these forums with that discussion is a bad idea. Suffice it to say that Libertarians know a lot about it. I suspect you don’t.
So have one more angry outburst, and then let the forum return to actually discussing issues.
September 4th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
***** “Mandated sexual deviance”? Where did I say anything close to that? *****
You strenuously objected to a “Christian Republican code” designed to “save marriage”.
Translation: You favor gay marriage, which is a typically libertarian position. In other words, you are against civil society exercising its OWN right to define marriage in such a way as to exclude deviants.
This is an example of the false promise of libertarianism, which purports to be all about “freedom”. Yet those who wish to preserve the traditional definition of marriage would be prevented from doing so under libertarian hegemony.
Where are their freedoms? Under libertarian hegemony, the freedoms of those who wish to preserve the traditional definition of marriage are non-existent. Because libertarianism isn’t about freedom at all; it’s about license. It’s about requiring dominant culture to submit to the lowest common denominator.
And, by the way, you have also proven yourself and other libertarians to be far-left Democrats. How do I know this? Because while you expressed alarm over what you refer to as “the Christian Republican code”, you express no alarm whatsoever over the loss of liberty inherent in the secular Democratic code.
Are Democratic Party intrusions upon individual liberty — to take one example — in the name of “civil rights” (i.e., affirmative action) or — to take another example — “universal health care” alarming to you? If libertarians truly believed in “freedom”, they would oppose the Democratic Party on these issues.
But libertarians do NOT oppose the Democrats on these issues. They do not do so because libertarians do not actually believe in freedom for its own sake, even if they say that they do.
Libertarians are liberal Democrats who believe in the liberal Democratic version of the good society, and therefore do not oppose intrusions upon liberty that are undertaken to fulfill liberal Democratic ends.
That’s why a few Christian Republicans gamely fighting judicial enshrinement of the institution of “gay marriage” alarms libertarians while the Democrat’s use of the long arm of the state to seize and redistribute wealth and opportunity alarms libertarians not at all.
Because libertarians are not an independent political organization. They are stalking horses for the far left wing of the Democratic Party.
And yet libertarians — while favoring Democratic ends — claim to be seeking to siphon away Republican votes. I have always believed that careful investigative reporting would disclose a link between libertarians and the far left wing of the Democratic Party.
There is little doubt in my mind that such a nexus exists and that libertarians are receiving money and succor from people such as Howard Dean and Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. That link exists and it remains for someone to find it.
***** We should talk about this, what the Constitution means, from whence it sprung*****
I will save you the trouble. The Constitution is about checks and balances that are designed to prevent one faction from becoming institutionally more powerful than another. The Constitution is thus about avoiding tyranny — whether such tyranny derives from an aristocratic faction or a popular one.
As such, the Constitution is a profoundly NON-libertarian document, given that libertarianism is about the tyranny of the individual over civil society at large — more so, libertarianism is about the tyranny of the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR of individual over civil society at large.
September 5th, 2007 at 4:21 am
What he said.
Go Grizzlie. Go Grizzlie.
You go write thoughtful comments and suddenly your attackers are somewhere else.
September 5th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Well, now you have given me actual positions and/or thoughts that I can respond to.
“Translation: You favor gay marriage, which is a typically libertarian position. In other words, you are against civil society exercising its OWN right to define marriage in such a way as to exclude deviants.”
In fact, I favor freedom of association. There is a very long lost of personal choices I don’t like, but am unwilling to make illegal, because I believe that taking away choice is taking away liberty. Example: Gay marriage. I don’t like it, but I don’t think it should be illegal. Recreational drug use: unimaginably stupid and personally destructive (almost as much as alcohol, eh?). Should it be illegal? No. Should we hold people responsible for their actions while drunk/stoned? Absolutely.
Affirmative action? One of the most anti-liberty examples that comes to mind. Should employers be allowed to exclude ANYONE from their place of employment for ANY REASON at all? YES. If you own something, even a business, then running it is your affair, not the governments. If I run a bus line, and I want to test you every day for impairment before you drive, then that is my business. I will be able to tell my customers that my drivers are drug-free. If you don’t want to work there, then go work somewhere else. See?
I am amazed that you say you know anything at all about Libertarians and then try to say we support universal heath care. Nothing, nothing could be further from the truth. Libertarians support economic freedom. How can economic freedom be reconciled with government-provided ANYTHING? It cannot. Government destroys everything it touches. The federal government should be in the business of following the Constitution, and not telling me how to live, who to hire, how much pay and benefits to give them, what to eat, what to teach children, taking money from me to give to others because they have more votes than me, giving money to farmers to NOT grow anything, giving huge tax breaks to large corporations…the list is almost endless.
Which brings me to my original point. The Constitution was written with an understanding that the federal government was being granted specific powers in it, and everything else was left to the states. Ron Paul is known in the Congress as “Dr. No”, because he always votes against any bills that are unconstitutional, which is most of them.
Public education? Please give me back my money and my children, and let private school choice flourish. You could send your kids to schools where they said prayers before each class; Hillary could send her kids to school where they practice putting condoms on each other, and my kids would go to school with a 1,000 yard rifle range where they would have “recess”. Let the public vote with their dollars for the kinds of schools they want for their own children.
But that kind of freedom of choice scares you, doesn’t it? You might not be the majority, and you would feel threatened. So you would rather control the juggernaught that is the federal government and use it to force everyone to live the way you think they should, under penalty of law. In this, you are no better than the feminists.
“tyranny of the individual”
This is the scariest thing you have said.
September 5th, 2007 at 8:21 am
***** In fact, I favor freedom of association. There is a very long lost of personal choices I don’t like, but am unwilling to make illegal, because I believe that taking away choice is taking away liberty. Example: Gay marriage. I don’t like it, but I don’t think it should be illegal. *****
This is an example of the duplicity that gay rights advocates and libertarians demonstrate on this issue so gay marriage has everything to do with whether public civil servants shall be REQUIRED to issue a marriage license to two or more gay people.
It is gay rights advocates and libertarians who seek to restrict freedom here.
***** Should we hold people responsible for their actions while drunk/stoned? Absolutely. *****
You don’t believe this because the Democrats don’t believe it.
***** Affirmative action? One of the most anti-liberty examples that comes to mind. Should employers be allowed to exclude ANYONE from their place of employment for ANY REASON at all? YES. *****
You don’t believe this because the Democrats don’t believe it.
***** I am amazed that you say you know anything at all about Libertarians and then try to say we support universal heath care. Nothing, nothing could be further from the truth. *****
I’m saying that libertarians are stalking horses for the Democrats; that libertarians are working for the Democrats; and that libertarians do not oppose the Democrats when the Democrats support universal health care.
***** The federal government should be in the business of following the Constitution *****
Libertarians should be in the business of following the Constitution and not forcing others to live their Woodstock lifestyle.
***** Public education? Please give me back my money and my children, and let private school choice flourish. *****
In a libertarian world, no man is likely to know his children, since libertarians favor untrammeled license.
***** But that kind of freedom of choice scares you, doesn’t it?*****
On the contrary, it’s the libertarians who are anti-freedom (while claiming to be pro-freedom). Libertarianism stands for freedom for libertarians only and servitude for the rest of us.
***** You might not be the majority, and you would feel threatened. *****
How many libertarians have ever won an election or are likely to do so in the future? Libertarians are in the MINORITY on issues such as gay marriage and illegal immigration.
That’s why libertarians are anxious to seize the reins of government to impose servitude on non-libertarians — in order to create some sort of pax 1960’s version of Woodstock America and force that upon others.
Libertarianism is an evil paradox (”we will FORCE you to live according to our version of *freedom*) just as Marxism is an evil paradox in its own way.
September 5th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Would a better question be “Is Republican the new ‘moderate’”?
Perhaps the problem here is that some folks are confusing “libertarian” with “constitutionalist”.
NotNOW: “Gay marriage. I don’t like it, but I don’t think it should be illegal.”
Is it illegal? Clearly, the “free association” is not illegal (nowadays).
Libertarianism calls for fewer laws (that limit citizens). Would a Government restriction of the Government recognition of gay marriage equal a limit on personal freedom? So, lack of Government endorsement is a restriction of personal freedom?
That’s what the whole goal of the GM movement is: Government recognition.
True Libertarian principles would call for Non-recognition of ANY marriage by Government. In other words, it is none of Government’s business.
By FORCING Government recognition of gay marriage, you are opposing Liberty.
What you are doing, by following the propaganda of the Liberal GM movement, is attempting to re-define what marriage is. The institution of marriage has been around longer than any existing form of Government, hasn’t it? You would put a restriction on Society, rather than Government?
NotNOW: “Should employers be allowed to exclude ANYONE from their place of employment for ANY REASON at all? YES.”
Really? Hmm. Is my employer responsible for my safety in any way?
If I park on company property, should I expect myself and MY property to be safe?
If I choose to carry a firearm for safety, should I be able to keep it on my person or leave it in MY vehicle?
If I leave it in MY vehicle should I be forced to park in an unsafe place off of my employer’s property? Should they be able to fire me if I leave it in MY vehicle on company property?
If I either conform to my employer’s demands or park unsafely off site and someone causes me to be harmed as a result, is the employer responsible because he removed my ability to protect myself?
Has he then infringed upon MY freedom?
Clearly you are not acting true to Libertarian Principles, NotNOW.
Lasalle, Unfortunately the majority of what we see as published Libertarianism is anything but. (Remember also that alcohol is TAXED.)
Pot? Yes.
Homosexuality? Yes
Tax reform? Yes or maybe.
Tort reform? Maybe but not likely.
Freedom of speech? As long as no one is offended.
Gun rights? Somewhere between “yes” and “Hell No, I’m afraid of that stuff.”
Better yet: Gun rights to include technology of the day including artillery? (See: “Privateer”) “Hell no!”
Your rights end where mine begin. Where do mine begin and end?
Is it okay for a Government employe in a Publik school to teach my kid that homosexuality is “normal” and gay marriage is fair and acceptable? (Is it okay for a Publik school to even exist?)
If I find it offensive that you try to teach my kid things that I don’t agree with, have you infringed on my rights?
Do I have a right to be not offended?
Do I have a right to not be afraid of you because you have a gun?
Do I have a right to indulge in self destructive behavior?
Do I have a right to foster a Societal embrace of destructive behavior? (Keeping in mind the relationshhip between homosexuality and HIV/AIDS that Liberals work so hard to convince the public is not real.)
Where is the line drawn? How to fix things with a Libertarian mold?
Clearly Social Security is an antithesis of Libertarianism and Objectivism. Can I have my share back now? With interest?
Is it practical to do so? Can I have a guarantee that we won’t bail out people who save nothing and retire in destitution?
Sure thing, let ‘em starve. Let me rephrase it: Can I have a GUARANTEE that we won’t be compassionate and bail ‘em out?
Can Government or Society “guarantee” anything?
Squigg is correct.
Embracing third parties is simply a hand over to the opposition (or the greater of evils). Ross taught us that. What to do?
Change the party from the inside.
Resist the attempts by Liberals to re-define what the “center” is.
Throw out bums (Liberals, moderates, whatever) when it is politically possible to do so.
Stop the pork and investment in bigger Government.
Throw out bums when they are proven to be as corrupt as a Liberal Democrat.
Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Socialist, whatever.
For my own part, I prefer “Independent”.
September 5th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Would a better question be “Is Republican the new ‘moderate’”?
Perhaps the problem here is that some folks are confusing “libertarian” with “constitutionalist”.
NotNOW: “Gay marriage. I don’t like it, but I don’t think it should be illegal.”
Is it illegal? Clearly, the “free association” is not illegal (nowadays).
Libertarianism calls for fewer laws (that limit citizens). Would a Government restriction of the Government recognition of gay marriage equal a limit on personal freedom? So, lack of Government endorsement is a restriction of personal freedom?
That’s what the whole goal of the GM movement is: Government recognition.
True Libertarian principles would call for Non-recognition of ANY marriage by Government. In other words, it is none of Government’s business.
By FORCING Government recognition of gay marriage, you are opposing Liberty.
What you are doing, by following the propaganda of the Liberal GM movement, is attempting to re-define what marriage is. The institution of marriage has been around longer than any existing form of Government, hasn’t it? You would put a restriction on Society, rather than Government?
NotNOW: “Should employers be allowed to exclude ANYONE from their place of employment for ANY REASON at all? YES.”
Really? Hmm. Is my employer responsible for my safety in any way? If I park on company property, should I expect myself and MY property to be safe? If I choose to carry a firearm for safety, should I be able to keep it on my person or leave it in MY vehicle? If I leave it in MY vehicle should I be forced to park in an unsafe place off of my employer’s property? Should they be able to fire me if I leave it in MY vehicle on company property?
If I either conform to my employer’s demands or park unsafely off site and someone causes me to be harmed as a result, is the employer responsible because he removed my ability to protect myself? Has he then infringed upon MY freedom?
Clearly you are not acting true to Libertarian Principles, NotNOW.
Lasalle: Unfortunately the majority of what we see as published Libertarianism is anything but. (Remember also that alcohol is TAXED.)
Pot? Yes.
Homosexuality? Yes
Tax reform? Yes or maybe.
Tort reform? Maybe but not likely.
Freedom of speech? As long as no one is offended.
Gun rights? Somewhere between “yes” and “Hell No, I’m afraid of that stuff.”
Better yet: Gun rights to include technology of the day including artillery? (Look up “Privateer”) “Hell no!”
Your rights end where mine begin. Where do mine begin and end?
Is it okay for a Government employe in a Publik school to teach my kid that homosexuality is “normal” and gay marriage is fair and acceptable? (Is it okay for a Publik school to even exist?)
If I find it offensive that you try to teach my kid things that I don’t agree with, have you infringed on my rights?
Do I have a right to be not offended?
Do I have a right to not be afraid of you because you have a gun?
Do I have a right to indulge in self destructive behavior?
Do I have a right to foster a Societal embrace of destructive behavior?
Where is the line drawn? How to fix things with a Libertarian mold?
Clearly Social Security is an antithesis of Libertarianism and Objectivism. Can I have my share back now? With interest?
Is it practical to do so? Can I have a guarantee that we won’t bail out people who save nothing and retire in destitution?
Sure thing, let ‘em starve. Let me rephrase it: Can I have a GUARANTEE that we won’t be compassionate and bail ‘em out?
Can Government or Society “guarantee” anything?
Squigg is correct.
Embracing third parties is simply a hand over to the opposition (or the greater of evils). Ross taught us that. What to do?
Change the party from the inside.
Resist the attempts by Liberals to re-define what the “center” is.
Throw out bums (Liberals, moderates, whatever) when it is politically possible to do so.
Stop the pork and investment in bigger Government.
Throw out bums when they are proven to be as corrupt as a Liberal Democrat.
Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Socialist, whatever.
For my own part, I prefer “Independent”.
September 5th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
You haven’t been reading what I have been writing.
“Libertarianism calls for fewer laws (that limit citizens). Would a Government restriction of the Government recognition of gay marriage equal a limit on personal freedom? So, lack of Government endorsement is a restriction of personal freedom?
That’s what the whole goal of the GM movement is: Government recognition.
True Libertarian principles would call for Non-recognition of ANY marriage by Government. In other words, it is none of Government’s business. ”
I confess I have been slow to understand your point related to government recognition. This is because, from my perspective, government has no right to grant any special favors to anyone regardless of status, so marriage really doesn’t matter. You are right, it is none of government’s business. “My” government wouldn’t give anyone special status, so “allowing” gays to get married doesn’t matter to me. It simply doesn’t mater. If we can get government out of it totally, then by all means lets do so. Failing that, I really don’t care who gets married, as long as they are consenting adults.
Pot? None of government’s business.
Homosexuality? None of government’s business.
Tax reform? Yes, as long as “reform” means “lower for everyone”; the only way to kill Leviathan is to starve it.
Tort reform? Depends entirely on what you mean. If it means “bring a product to market you know to be faulty, get people injured or killed, and hide behind tort reform”, then the answer is no. I DO understand that tort abuse makes it impossible to bring many new products to market.
Freedom of speech? Please feel free to offend anyone as often as you wish. This means I believe you have the right to stand in front of an abortion clinic as long as you wish, and yell practically anything you like. I understand that when you take away the rights of people to peacefully protest things they don’t like, then you invite violence.
Gun rights? Primary. Citizens own weapons, subjects and slaves do not.
Is it okay for a Government employe in a Publik school to teach my kid that homosexuality is “normal” and gay marriage is fair and acceptable? (Is it okay for a Publik school to even exist?) No it is not. Public schools should all be sold. Did you not read what I wrote above?
If I find it offensive that you try to teach my kid things that I don’t agree with, have you infringed on my rights? Yes I have, so you get your kids and money, and I get mine, and we pick schools based on our own wishes for our children. Again, did you not read my post above?
Do I have a right to be not offended? Nope. But you do have a right to protest it.
Do I have a right to not be afraid of you because you have a gun? Be afraid if you want, but you can only get government intervention if I threaten you or harm you, or put you in danger through careless use of it.
Do I have a right to indulge in self destructive behavior? Yes, absolutely. And I have the right to step over your carcass on my way to work, or to choose to stop and help you. You have NO right to ask the government taxpayers to bail you out when you make bad choices.
Do I have a right to foster a Societal embrace of destructive behavior? Yes you do. If people are stupid enough to follow you, that is their misfortune.
Where is the line drawn? Start moving it toward “Liberty”, and I will tell you when to stop.
How to fix things with a Libertarian mold? Allow personal choice, reaping the rewards of success, and feeling the pain of failure. When you separate people from the consequences of their actions, they become children, and then people like griz start thinking we need to treat everyone like children.
Clearly Social Security is an antithesis of Libertarianism and Objectivism. Can I have my share back now? With interest? If we sold off federal assets, then yes you could.
Is it practical to do so? Can I have a guarantee that we won’t bail out people who save nothing and retire in destitution? From me you could.
Sure thing, let ‘em starve. Let me rephrase it: Can I have a GUARANTEE that we won’t be compassionate and bail ‘em out?
Can Government or Society “guarantee” anything?
No it cannot. Please understand something. THERE DIDN’T USED OT BE ANY BAILOUT, AND EVERYONE KNEW IT. People knew they had to form into communities to survive. We made it right up to the great depression, and then comrade Roosevelt hit us with his junk. We are still “hungover” from our experiment with socialism. We have created this huge government monster that has taken on a life of its own, and now we are reduced to merely arguing about who gets to control it. No one (since Reagan) ever talks about making it smaller.