Posted on 02/10/2012 9:16:22 AM PST by Superstu321
Jonah Goldberg makes the case that Libertarians are a essential to the Republican party and that conservatives and libertarians aren't that different.
(Excerpt) Read more at media.aei.org ...
How is his drug use harmful to your or your family?
No one is trying to take away your right to representation. Your complaint seems to be that if your representative isnt in line with you, then you arent represented. But that is not true. If you follow your representation plan to its logical conclusion, you support direct democracy where everyone in the nation votes everytime on the issues.
Representation doesnt guarantee that you will get people who represent your beliefs. There are liberals in Lubbock and conservatives in Austin whose representatives dont really represent their views. Do you think they have no representation?
In the same manner, if your district elects a libertarian who tries to make activities that you find destructive legal, you are still represented. Libertarians do believe that people are responsible enough, and that is why they want to remove as much governmental restrictions as possible. You seem to think the only way to let people be free is for their representatives to determine what is proper.
There are two kinds of people in the world, those who divide things into two groups and those who don't. Besides, there are more than two kinds of Libertarians. Another is pretend libertarians who are trying to hide their liberalism, like Colbert, Maher, and some celebrities.
Is that their sincere belief, or a convenient rationalization? I see no support among "moral conservatives" for outlawing uncharitability - although it's one of the "seven deadly sins" and is roundly condemned in the Gospels.
Jonah Goldberg makes the case that Libertarians are a essential to the Republican party and that conservatives and libertarians aren’t that different.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Goldberg is a nut. Ron Paul is a nut. Conservatives and Republicans DO NOT NEED (L)libertarians.
See tagline.
“Where is the difference?’
Conservatism is a three legged stool: fiscal, social, and foreign policy.
It is true, Libertarians are lock step with conservatives on fiscal policy. Where we can cooperate, we should.
However, their social and foreign policies are anti-human.
If you’d like to close all of our foreign bases, consider Bradley Manning a “patriot,” (quote Ron Paul), want heroin legalized and big ads for homosexual prostitutes at your bus stops, think possession of child porn should be legal and have no interest in defending Israel politically/militarily - you may be a Libertarian.
Your post has nothing to do with what I asked.
The conservative movement does need help from libertarians, and labeling their policies anti-human to shut up debate does nothing to cut the growth of government.
But if you want to fit all libertarians into a box, then have at it. But dont wonder why government keeps growing.
Libertarians insist that Western ethics are “religious” and therefore illegal, like liberals do.
Being led or governed by people who reject a public Western ethical culture and character for the nation - especially among business and government leaders or the elite - precludes constitutional freedom’s self governance.
Marxism’s atheism goes with Marxism’s total governing structure. Constitutional freedom, born of Western philosphy, goes with a public Western ethical based, self governing public culture.
This is area where libertarians and conservatives will never agree. Rand thought it clever to mix Marxism’s social ideal of State enforced public atheism or amorality with free markets. It was not clever and it does not work - as we can see. We are losing the constituition as liberals and libertarians “progress” in cleansing the American culture of freedom.
I've never heard a libertarian say that. Can you give a specific quotation?
Being led or governed by people who reject a public Western ethical culture and character for the nation
Does having a public Western ethical culture and character for the nation require governmental enforcement? As far as I know, libertarians oppose only the latter.
There are two kinds of people, those in the box and those out. I guess I could be called either a libertarian hawk or fiscal conservative, but I see more similarity in nanny state liberals and nanny state social conservatives than either could imagine of each other. I think the key issue I agree with social conservatives on is abortion because I think the baby has right to life.
“The conservative movement does need help from libertarians, and labeling their policies anti-human to shut up debate does nothing to cut the growth of government.
But if you want to fit all libertarians into a box, then have at it. But dont wonder why government keeps growing.”
The only box I want to fit them in is the platform that they themselves support.
Many conservatives get excited about Libertarians because they speak our language when it comes to economics.
And I’ll call their foreign and social policies anti-human if I want to. That is what they are.
I see your point, but I don’t know the answer to that. Mind-reading is difficult.
You’re free to label anything you want. But labels end conversation, and turn people off. So enjoy the bigger government you want.
You see how low the level of discourse gets when you have people implying that anyone who espouses liberterian beliefs must be a substance abuser, when all that is being put forth is a belief in personal responsibility with no government mommy to keep the bubble they live in intact.
Getting out there and assuming the responsibility for one’s own self and family is an old concept, I know, but it worked a lot longer and better than socialism-look at the Soviet Union-most of those people have no idea how to be responsible, really work for a living, the place is rife with crime and many of the people have become so weak over 70 years of communism that they want Putin to bring back their mommy government again so they can live in wretched, free tenements and be told what to eat and where to work...
And will someone tell me why government is involved in marriage in the first place? If you are a man and woman, two of each, a tribe of pygmies, whatever, you can go to the courthouse and get a license for a civil partnership, but most churches are not going to perform a marriage ceremony for you if they have a choice. I doubt that lawyers care which is which, as long as there can be a legal settlement if the thing dissolves. A civil contract is just that-not a marriage. “Marriage” is a religious ceremony performed by a church official between a man and woman before God, and there is no reason for any government to have anything to do with it at all.
I sent my child to private school, but-if you look at your property tax bill, you will likely find that most of it is taxes levied by your local school district, and outrageous at that. In a libertarian system, the government would get out of the public education business and lower that number drastically, not to mention getting rid of taxes for all the nanny welfare services that working people who pay taxes get no benefit from. But that would mean that all parents would have to assume responsibility for the education and behavior of their children-oh, the horror...
“You’re free to label anything you want. But labels end conversation, and turn people off. So enjoy the bigger government you want.”
Raider Sam, there are major differences between conservatives and Libertarians. I’ve lined them out. Just because I am not a Libertarian does not mean I therefore want bigger government. Why assume that?
I do want a bigger government than Libertarians do; but a much smaller government than we now have.
As a strict constitutionalist who votes Republican, I can see that ideological libertarianism most closely matches the ideology that created the constitution. That doesn’t mean they are always in accord with the constitution but far more so than mainstream Republicans. If you can’t tell the difference between a Liberal and a libertarian it might not be a good idea to broadcast it. You know what they say “It’s better to be thought a fool than open your mouth and prove it”.
Because you dont want libertarians on your team. You label them. So when they leave because conservatives call them all the names that have been bandied about on this thread, the conservative candidates dont get enough support, and the liberal one wins. But at least the losing party is pure, or something.
You say you dont want it as small as libertarian, but not as big as we have now, so define what size you want, and define how what you want isnt where libertarians are taking it.
A marriage qualifies you for spousal Social Security benefits.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.