Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Here come the 'liberaltarians'?
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | Sunday, December 24, 2006 | Robyn Blumner

Posted on 12/25/2006 7:07:01 PM PST by Sunsong

”The libertarian vote is up for grabs in a way it may have never been before. A compelling case is being made for the economically conservative yet socially liberal libertarians to switch their political allegiances from Republican to Democrat, a trend that has already begun.

”Brink Lindsey, a scholar with the libertarian nonprofit Cato Institute, lays out the reasoning in "Liberaltarians," a provocative essay in The New Republic. He explains that the defining ideology of the American right for the last 50 years has been conservative fusionism, which recognized the common interest in both social and economic conservatives to protect traditional values from the intrusion of big government.

”But when social conservatives came to power and started to use big government to impose their cultural vision on others, the libertarian disaffection began.

”Libertarian voters were repulsed by the religious right's impulses to deny gays the right to marry and to interfere with Michael Schiavo's decisions about his wife Terri's end of life. Then, when an entirely Republican federal government abandoned any pretense of small government by spending uncontrollably, nation-building in Iraq and replacing science with theology, the trickle became a stream.

(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: government; homosexualagenda; liberaltarians; libertarian; libertarians; perverts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-140 next last

1 posted on 12/25/2006 7:07:04 PM PST by Sunsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sunsong
"Libertarian voters were repulsed by the religious right's impulses to deny gays the right to marry and to interfere with Michael Schiavo's decisions about his wife Terri's end of life."

No we weren't.

2 posted on 12/25/2006 7:12:18 PM PST by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing
Trying real hard to remember when the Libertarians last marched on behalf of gay rights ~ hmmm.

The Schiavo thing, though, bunch of 'em defected to the idea of letting husbands just kill their wives.

Not sure that's Libertarianism, but I somewhat suspect they have more than their fair share of divorces.

3 posted on 12/25/2006 7:14:19 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong

There are enough libertarians at FR, so I will let them comment. I consider myself a conservative, but turn up libertarian centrist on the little political test. There is no darned way I will ever vote for a Democrat or not vote and allow the vote to go that way. Ever.


4 posted on 12/25/2006 7:14:41 PM PST by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing
Nobody would have denied terri Shiavo's right to die if she had a living will. We just didn't trust her sleazeball pseudohusband who pocketed the malpractice money and bedded another women.
5 posted on 12/25/2006 7:15:59 PM PST by yochanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong
Anyone that would switch to democrat (for any reason) is a dingbat..
The democrat party (all of them) have always been parasites..
6 posted on 12/25/2006 7:17:03 PM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong
”Libertarian voters were repulsed by the religious right's impulses to deny gays the right to marry and to interfere with Michael Schiavo's decisions about his wife Terri's end of life."

Brink Lindsey? Never heard of him/her but if he/she actually believes this horse manure then I will be delighted to forget I ever saw the name.

7 posted on 12/25/2006 7:17:06 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong
”Libertarian voters were repulsed by the religious right's impulses to deny gays the right to marry and to interfere with Michael Schiavo's decisions about his wife Terri's end of life. Then, when an entirely Republican federal government abandoned any pretense of small government by spending uncontrollably, nation-building in Iraq and replacing science with theology, the trickle became a stream..

That's the main issue here. ....not the war on drugs, not nation-building in Iraq, not "replacing science with theology" (a ridiculous/fictional assertion), and certainly not gay marriage and Terri Shiavo.

It's about big gov't spending. .....an issue that all Republicans and Libertarians can agree on. If the GOP goes back to its fiscal conservative roots it wouldn't have to worry much about losing voters to third parties.

Just stay out of our wallets, our gun collections, and our property in general. ....and if you fight wars, fight all-out without concern for "hearts and minds."

...and stop throwing U.S. taxpayer dollars around in the Third World like its Monopoly money.

8 posted on 12/25/2006 7:26:49 PM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
The Schiavo thing, though, bunch of 'em defected to the idea of letting husbands just kill their wives.

The thing that stuck in a lot of our craws was the "issues-over-principles" leap a lot of "conservatives" hereabouts took over the Schaivo case. Leaping to use Federal power to influence the outcome of a local matter because you don't like the local outcome isn't a conservative position, IMO.

I've read the arguments on both sides, so save your typing.

9 posted on 12/25/2006 7:28:50 PM PST by cryptical (Wretched excess is just barely enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong
I don't really consider myself a libertarian or a Libertarian. However, I wrote on another thread something that also seems germane to this discussion.

George Washington asserted that people naturally migrate to either of two camps - Those who trust governement and those who do not. According to him, you could call them any names you pleased, but when you boiled it down to the root, that's what you had. This is where the "two party system" idea originated. The way he saw it, those were the only two political differences between people and that as long as you had those two parties at war with each other in congress, very little could be accomplished - Which was the idea.

Fast forward to today and we see that the Republicans and Democrats, while to quick to assert the contrary, all belong to the first party. They both believe that government is the answer, what they disagree on is the question, or questions as it were.

There's an awful lot of us out here who belong to the second party - the party of Washington who once said that government was not reason or eloquence, but force - We are those who believe that government is never the answer. It is merely a necessary evil to be boxed up tight - To paraphrase Jefferson: Governments exist to protect the rights of the individual - They have no other function.

It cannot continue in this manner forever.

Regards,

Col Sanders

10 posted on 12/25/2006 7:32:04 PM PST by Col Sanders (I ought to tear your no-good Goddang preambulatory bone frame, and nail it to your government walls)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing

Yes we were!


11 posted on 12/25/2006 7:32:49 PM PST by KDD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

So much for principles, those that can switch good and evil at the drop of a poll. How does one triangulate between good and evil, Clinton(spit) like?


12 posted on 12/25/2006 7:33:22 PM PST by dhuffman@awod.com (The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong
The media paid scant attention to it, but the Pubs alienated a lot of libertarian voters by passing the internet gambling act. 20 million Americans have played online poker at one time or another. If 1% of those people stayed home or voted Dem that's more than the Democrats margin of victory last Nov. I personally know many people who were disgusted by it. It's not only gambling per se, it's what it says about the demise of the Pubs as the party of small government. There is no party of small government.
13 posted on 12/25/2006 7:35:34 PM PST by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yochanan
We just didn't trust her sleazeball pseudohusband who pocketed the malpractice money and bedded another women.

Nice smear attack. Do you have evidence of your claim?

14 posted on 12/25/2006 7:37:13 PM PST by zarf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Col Sanders
George Washington asserted that people naturally migrate to either of two camps - Those who trust governement and those who do not.

Pournelle has an interesting take on that question: http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm. Its a long read, but worth it.

Rather than one axis, he uses two: "Attitude toward the State," and "Attitude toward planned social progress."

15 posted on 12/25/2006 7:39:02 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dhuffman@awod.com
[ So much for principles, those that can switch good and evil at the drop of a poll. How does one triangulate between good and evil, Clinton(spit) like? ]

Spit... Exactly..

16 posted on 12/25/2006 7:40:25 PM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong
”But when social conservatives came to power and started to use big government to impose their cultural vision on others, the libertarian disaffection began.

I need neither the Right's 'cultural vision' nor the Left's version of the 'vision'. What I need is: a 'constitutional' vision. If neither party will deliver, we're in trouble.

'08 will see Hillary's red flag raised (with hammer and sickle), what shall the Right raise? A white flag? Something with red, white, and blue would be nice for a change.

17 posted on 12/25/2006 7:41:29 PM PST by budwiesest (First comes power, then comes marriage, then comes tyranny in a baby carriage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong

Note to Liberaltarians (formally known as Libertarians). You have been officially pigeonholed (Soccer Mom'ed) and renamed by the wackos in the Liberal MSM. CONGRATUALTIONS!!!!!


18 posted on 12/25/2006 7:41:49 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (When I was a kid, "global warming" was known as "the weather.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

I take it from the discussion, that you are among the camp that believes, "Government is the solution, not the problem!"


19 posted on 12/25/2006 7:48:49 PM PST by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: patton

Not quite.


20 posted on 12/25/2006 7:53:38 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (When I was a kid, "global warming" was known as "the weather.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
There is no party of small government.

That makes a nice tagline. (see how it looks on me- [does it make my butt look big?])

21 posted on 12/25/2006 7:53:51 PM PST by budwiesest (There is no party of small government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing
No we weren't.

Speak for yourself.

22 posted on 12/25/2006 7:55:37 PM PST by Wormwood (I'm with you in Rockland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

Just like leftist Christians.


23 posted on 12/25/2006 7:56:02 PM PST by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

Sooo...advocating for smaller government, offends you, why?


24 posted on 12/25/2006 7:56:21 PM PST by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong

I prefer libertarians to Rudy-supporters. At least they are firm in their ideals and aren't willing to give away conservative ideals to win an election. What good is having a republican win if it's just another gun grabbing, free-spech stomping rino who cheats on his wife and loves the idea of hoovering babies out of women.


25 posted on 12/25/2006 7:57:02 PM PST by Fierce Allegiance (Merry Christmas! SAY NO TO RUDY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cryptical
Leaping to use Federal power to influence the outcome of a local matter because you don't like the local outcome isn't a conservative position, IMO.

Thank you.

26 posted on 12/25/2006 7:57:12 PM PST by Wormwood (I'm with you in Rockland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hugin
There is no party of small government.

Nope. The GOP is simply The Party of (slightly) Lesser Evil.

27 posted on 12/25/2006 7:59:01 PM PST by Wormwood (I'm with you in Rockland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing

Me neither. Where do these guys come up with this stuff? Is it completely made up?

No Libertarian would want the Government re-defining words that have had a fixed meaning for millennia to suit a trendy homosexual agenda.

Neither would we condone starving someone to death - with government sanction or without it. What this guy seems to be saying is that Libertarians oppose laws against murder, at least where the victim is ill and had been married to the perpetrator at one time.

Rubbish. And considering the source, its not surprising to find it there.


28 posted on 12/25/2006 7:59:02 PM PST by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: patton
The problem with your view is that government was used to impose the Left's social values on society and the only way to reverse that is through government action.
29 posted on 12/25/2006 7:59:07 PM PST by ekwd (Murphy's Law Has Not Been Repealed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ekwd

"My view?" Pray tell, what is my view?


30 posted on 12/25/2006 8:01:23 PM PST by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: sageb1; hosepipe; Lancey Howard; Mr. Mojo; cryptical; Col Sanders; KDD; Hugin; zarf; budwiesest; ...
This is interesting, based on the discussion here. Some dems are saying they want to restrain spending:

washington post

31 posted on 12/25/2006 8:02:52 PM PST by Sunsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Fierce Allegiance

LOL. Well said.


32 posted on 12/25/2006 8:03:24 PM PST by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Col Sanders

I figure that government may be the answer, but that should be rare, and practically the founders had it pretty close to right with the enumerated powers in the Constitution.

I would repeal the 16th amendment, myself, but would add put an amendment to put the commerce clause back to it pre FDR status.

I would further extend liberty by amendment to protect rights from infringement by US states. I believe this was an intent of the 14th amendment, but the SCOTUS interpreted that out fairly quickly.


33 posted on 12/25/2006 8:04:51 PM PST by donmeaker (If the sky don't say "Surrender Dorothy!" then my ex wife is out of town.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong

Well of course they do...on our side of the aisle.


34 posted on 12/25/2006 8:05:31 PM PST by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
I've read that, and while Pournelle makes some good points, I still belive that Washington was right - It's not really all that complicated even though modern man has tried to make it so.

Regards,

Col Sanders

35 posted on 12/25/2006 8:06:21 PM PST by Col Sanders (I ought to tear your no-good Goddang preambulatory bone frame, and nail it to your government walls)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong
They said...

"Raising taxes would certainly be an option," Conrad said in an interview. "The president, this is his policy. He's got an obligation to pay for it."

36 posted on 12/25/2006 8:06:27 PM PST by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: patton

Where are you getting the "big" and "small" government stuff from my post? I SAID, Libertarians have been renamed and pigeonholed by the wacky Liberals in the Liberal MSM in the same way that they pigeonholed and labeled Soccer Moms, NASCAR dads, etc. What does that have to do with the size of government? My comment was about Liberals in the "media" labeling people.


37 posted on 12/25/2006 8:07:38 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (When I was a kid, "global warming" was known as "the weather.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Col Sanders
Wow. Thanks for that, Col Sanders.

It cannot continue in this manner forever.

Especially when even most Republicans now advocating more government intrusion.

38 posted on 12/25/2006 8:08:09 PM PST by Swordfished
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood

Actually, it really wasn't a local matter. Ask Soros.


39 posted on 12/25/2006 8:08:28 PM PST by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong
Some dems are saying they want to restrain spending:

They're lying.

40 posted on 12/25/2006 8:09:10 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: sageb1
It will be interesting to see which dems want to restrain spending and which republicans want to increase it.

And it will be very important, I think, to see what happens with the idea of tax increases.

41 posted on 12/25/2006 8:10:59 PM PST by Sunsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: patton

Do you think President Bush will agree to a tax hike?


42 posted on 12/25/2006 8:11:31 PM PST by Sunsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
Do you think all of them are lying? Do you think there are no dems who want to restrain spending for the next two years in order to look good in 2008?
43 posted on 12/25/2006 8:13:21 PM PST by Sunsong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Wormwood
"The GOP is simply The Party of (slightly) Lesser Evil." Actually, the GOP is the party of most of us. It is up to us to come up with the correct people to represent us. Maybe we are just not doing our job as well as we could. Instead of waiting until the last minute and voting against GOP candidates, all of us need to be contacting current reps and finding new reps. Hey, if Rahm could do it, so can we.
44 posted on 12/25/2006 8:14:24 PM PST by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

The Republican Party's problem is not so much libertarians as it is republicans. From a federal perspective, States' Rights is a libertarian idea.


45 posted on 12/25/2006 8:14:32 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer
I took your comment, "Note to Liberaltarians", at face value.

Quite frankly, I am pretty tired of control freaks calling me a "liberaltarian", "loserdopian", "losertarian", etc., because I believe that freedom is the paramount ideal of our constitutional republic.

FWIW, I am a scientist for DoD, an Army veteran, and a member of our local Selective Service Board - in other words, I have been taking random drug tests since I graduated HS.

Yet, when I argue that poeple should be free, freepers complain, "you just want your dope, man."

Small minded idiots.

46 posted on 12/25/2006 8:14:45 PM PST by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Libertarians are at most 3 percent of the population. They rarely all vote. 2000 was a year in which they made a lot of noise here on FR. Yet when it came time fo vote less than 0.35 percent of the vote was libertarian.

Yet if in 2000 one used FR as a guide, one would have thought the Libertarian candidate would have gotten 20 percent of the vote.

Libertarians are always making the case that Conservatives and Republicans need to bow down to the libertarian views or face rejection by libertarians.

No Republican or Democratic politician with a brain would consider doing that.

Some 30 percent of the voters are moderates... sometimes called swing voters. To get one libertarian vote costs about 5 moderate votes. Only a idiot would trade 5 votes for one.

Libertarians only lie to themselves. They have no power and they have no clout. And few if any in the two major parties care what they think or do.

They can threaten Republicans as they have for decades and the response is always the same... No one cares for whom libertarians vote. As they did in 2000 and 2004 they mostly stay home on election day and complain.

This has been a two party nation for at least 150 years. There is just one thing that the two major parties agree upon... There should only be two major parties. The system is designed so that a third party will pull away votes form the party most like them.

It is impossible for the Democrats to win the support of the Green Party. In 2000 Gore was not nearly Green enough for the Greens. By the same token Bush was not nearly libertarian enough for the Libertarians.

The biggest mistake of the Gore campaign in 2000, was his final days attempts to win the support of the Greens in Florida. Trying to appeal to the Greens cost Gore the Election. It cost him enough moderate votes to elect George W. Bush. W never made any attempt to appeal to the libertarians and as a result picked up enough moderate support to win.

A major party when out of power always decides it must become more like the party that is in power. Which is the exact opposite of what the Greens and libertarians are trying to accomplish.

The voting laws and the two parties have done all they can to make third parties counter productive. Thus the libertarians and unhappy conservatives who supported Ross Perot in 1992, managed to elect the very leftist Bill and Hillary Clinton.

There is only one way to enact an agenda in the USA. That is to get active in one of the two major parties and then work to change that parties position on issues so they reflect the movement's position on those issues.

When Libertarians, as they always do, try to punish the Republicans for not being what they want, they only convince the Republicans to become more liberal.

Ronald Reagan turned the Republican party into the mirror image of the Democratic party of Truman and Kennedy. That left the Democratic party with the option to adopt the polices of the Republican party of the 1930s.

The Democrats of the 1930s were for cutting taxes and increasing government spending to spur the economy. The Democrats of the 1930's were in favor of being very active in the world's foreign policy. The Republicans of the 1930s were for balanced budgets and isolationist in foreign policy.

Today's Democrats stand for the same things the Republicans did in the 1930s while the Libertarians are out there saying do as we say or we are going to eat worms.

Get a clue... No one cares how many worms Libertarians eat!!!


47 posted on 12/25/2006 8:15:38 PM PST by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
I figure that government may be the answer, but that should be rare, and practically the founders had it pretty close to right with the enumerated powers in the Constitution.

The only question to which government should be the answer is "who protects the individual?" This was the vision the founders had and sought to construct with the Constitution. Unfortunately, certain among them demanded and were awarded a "bill of rights" leaving us with the hair-splitting idiocy that came with it. Does this right exist? Does that right exist? We have entire generations of people out there who believe the Constitution gives them rights.

I would repeal the 16th amendment, myself, but would add put an amendment to put the commerce clause back to it pre FDR status.

I would do the same, but scrap the commerce clause altogether. I would also remove the Bill of Rights and add a clause to the preamble that defines the document as "that which is not expressly permitted is forbidden". If there is no defined power allowing the federal government to create laws around speech or religion, then they cannot. If there is no defined power to tax an individual, then they cannot.

I would further extend liberty by amendment to protect rights from infringement by US states. I believe this was an intent of the 14th amendment, but the SCOTUS interpreted that out fairly quickly.

I would leave that to the states, personally. If a state has insufficient protection of the individual, the productive among them will quickly migrate to the state where they're better protected leaving the offender to perish under their own dead weight. This was the original design. What we have now is that so many things are "regulated" at the federal level leaving those of us who wish to be left alone very few places to run and hide.

Regards,

Col Sanders

48 posted on 12/25/2006 8:15:52 PM PST by Col Sanders (I ought to tear your no-good Goddang preambulatory bone frame, and nail it to your government walls)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: patton

I love to take shots at the Liberals in the "media." THEY are always telling us, AND HAVE BEEN DOING SO FOR 40 YEARS, that we shouldn't label and pigeonhole people. Now that those same hippie liberals are running "the media," they are making a career out of doing just that.


49 posted on 12/25/2006 8:17:45 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (When I was a kid, "global warming" was known as "the weather.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Sunsong

I am indeed afraid that he will.


50 posted on 12/25/2006 8:18:27 PM PST by patton (Sanctimony frequently reaps its own reward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-140 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson