Posted on 01/06/2013 3:43:37 PM PST by grumpa
Just as it’s a common mistake to confuse Christians with theocrats, it’s a common mistake to confuse libertarians with anarchists.
No, libertarians by definition are not social conservatives, that is why they can’t just call themselves “conservative”, and real conservatives and Christians, are social conservative.
Libertarians are lefties who like conservative economics and are liberal on military and social issues, that is why Bill Maher and a lot of Hollywood lefties are proud to be libertarians.
not a strawman. I have quit forums over things like that
I believe you have a reading comprehension problem. If you want to put words into other peoples mouths, try someone else.
I do call myself a libertarian and a social conservative which proves you wrong.
The definition of libertarian that most understand and I prefer is Merriam-Webster’s: “a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action.”
As a libertarian and also a social conservative I’m in favor of a strong military and what some may call an interventionist foreign policy. For instance we should have taken out Castro 50 years ago. I’m in favor of private religious schools, prayer at public events and private contracts. I’m opposed to abortion, non-traditional marriage and government coercion.
Just where do you get the definition that “libertarians... are not social conservatives?” As a forty year reader of National Review I’m aware of many instances where William F. Buckley referred to himself as a “libertarian” and also a “social conservative.” Bill Maher (and most of the rest of the Hollywood crowd) on the other hand is a democrat half-wit that doesn’t understand the term any better than you do.
Yeah, it’s definitely possible to be a socially conservative libertarian — I know because I’m one too. I used to be a card carrying member of the Libertarian party but quickly realized they were politically hopeless, so I switched over to the Republicans who certainly have their problems and their impurities but who at least are lined up where the ball is against the Democrats, the true enemies of liberty.
It merely proves that you are confused, you live in the Ted Kennedy camp of being personally opposed to, but politically and publicly supporting the libertarian agenda.
Here is the leftists agenda hidden behind the Libertarian Party curtain.
Libertarian Party Platform:
Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political boundaries”.
Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.
Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments.
Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.
Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science can come up with, zero restrictions.
Advertising those drugs, prostitution, and pornography; zero restrictions.
Military Strength; minimal capabilities.
Would you care to quote to me the words you claim I put into other people’s mouths?
Please enlighten me with your brilliance.
Hopefully it was the party platform that drove you from the libertarians.
Are you capable of reading? I said that MANY (THIS MEANS NOT ALL)Libertarians are anti-religion.
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, did you even read my reply? You accuse me of being confused and then ascribe a list of incorrect policies that I certainly don’t agree with and have made plain I don’t in over thirteen years on this forum.
I don’t give a damn what you claim some political party advocates. I have my own positions and I will continue to use the term libertarian to mean an advocate for individual liberty and autonomy.
That is what I meant by confused, you pretend to be against those things that libertarianism is founded on.
Do you think they had to make up a new word because they agreed with conservatives on economics?
When we hear a politician proclaim himself libertarian instead of conservative, then we know that he means that he is socially liberal, that he is OK with the liberal/libertarian social gains of the last 60 years.
The implications of your statement was plain as Hell.
No, it wasn’t the platform that drove me from the Libertarian party. It was that I realized they were an unserious debate club. That said, I just googled their platform from 2000, which is when I split with them, and they were wrong on abortion. Is that what you’re getting at?
So when Reagan said that libertarianism is the heart of conservatism, he was talking strictly about economics?
I think you need to get hold of yourself, and stop putting words into my mouth. Have a nice day.
The 2000 platform is the same as the one I listed in post 47, nothing has changed, it never does, it is a philosophy.
Reagan was no libertarian, that lonely, 1975 quote is thin pickings from him being interviewed as a presidential candidate, by a libertarian publication, and yes, that interview made clear that he sought the only common ground, economics, he then proceeded to explain that he was a social conservative and pro-military.
Yet you support the radical leftism of libertarianism and it’s positions on abortion and the homosexual agenda, open borders, and so on when you promote their agenda and proclaim yourself as one.
If you don’t, then you aren’t libertarian, you cannot pull that libertarian scam of always matching which ever audience you are talking to, a left one, or a right one.
Well, until you have the who/what/when to show, I’ll call it as blowin’ smoke.
Don’t be jacking the thread with spurious comments. You want an articulate and reasoned debate, state your own or back ‘em up....I’ve only got so much witty rejoinder for so many people, y’know :P
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.