Skip to comments.In Defense of Libertarians (being libertarian and being Republican are not mutually exclusive)
Posted on 01/12/2012 4:55:31 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Throughout the primary election season there's been a group unfairly villainized by the rest of the Republicans. Not the establishment (they can't be villainized enough for giving us McCain and trying to keep folks like Rand Paul from getting elected in 2010) -- I mean libertarians.
Republicans like to villainize libertarians for infiltrating their party -- but refuse to acknowledge that being libertarian and being Republican are not mutually exclusive. I wish someone had told me, but apparently all self-identified libertarians are the same caricature of Ron Paul supporters who refuses to debate and instead just shouts "Neo-con! Neo-con!" at everyone with whom he disagrees.
I'm not what you'd call a "Ron Paul libertarian"; I don't think he's the end-all, be-all personification of what a libertarian is or what libertarians must believe to fit the title. Love him or hate him -- which seem to be the only two options -- I'd like to believe that everyone on the right can admit that Ron Paul has brought the mainstream of the far right a little closer to libertarian beliefs. Without Ron Paul, you wouldn't have candidates like Rick Perry and Rick Santorum pushing for trillions of dollars in spending cuts, nor would they be promising to outright eliminate regulatory agencies. When I "came out" as a black conservative, I had to explain ad nauseam how the two were not mutually exclusive. I'm finding myself having to make the same point over and over with regards to libertarianism -- that the most vocal members of a given group do not speak for the whole. There is as much diversity of thought between fellow libertarians as there is in the Republican Party. While I self-identify as a conservative libertarian, many people react to that label as though I cannot be both simultaneously.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The problem with the Libertarian Party is that its “leadership” and many of its rank and file are far closer to the Left than the Right, and have an overwhelming obsession with legalizing drugs, pacifism and isolationism, keeping the borders open, and maintaining abortion. And the anarchists in its ranks do it no favors either.
Good article. I don’t agree with every word of it, but as a whole it’s pretty good - good enough to attract some flames on this board.
That’s crap. Libertarianism is as far from anarchism as capitalism is from communism. One of libertarianism’s basic right is property, which is total anathama to anarchists.
You’ve done what the author has noted is done too often - to conservatives by liberals, and to libertarians by both liberals and self-styled conservatives - set up a straw man that has no basis in reality, and knock it down.
Are there libertarians who are strong on defense? The Paulettes seemed to think not.
And so what I just posted is absolutely true from my own observations and private discussions with long-time Libertarians. And the vicious attacks against Sarah Palin in 2009 and 2010 from elements within the LP confirm this.
The party would be much more viable on the national stage if it got rid of the things I mentioned and its crackpots, and moved closer to Conservative values.
Sure, “small l” libertarians can be Republican, no problem. I consider myself one. Then there a Libertarians, those guys are a little kooky, even if much of what they believe is correct.
I am a small “L” libertarian, who has never voted for member of the large “L” libertarian party.
my libertarianism springs from the constitution....and individual freedom.
I have for the past 30 years, only voted for Republicans or Conservatives.
the ‘Paulist’ Libertarians are a bunch of anti-American buttwipes...
....when a group, “islamacists”, who we funnel trillions of petro dollars to, fly OUR planes into OUR buildings, you pound them unmercifully....
we did not pound them enough and we should have pounded the Saudis too....
There are crackpots in the LP (I’m not a member. I’m a crackpot in the Republican Party.) There are crackpots in the GOP, and I think that includes all the present candidates for president.
There are also small business owners who are tired of government intrusions into and expropriations from their businesses.
The reason the Libertarian Party gets trashed, at least by me, is that the party was taken over by the commies back in the 1990s.
Ron Paul’s campaign is attracting Code Pink and other commies, and Paul is embracing them. That should make any thinking person pause on supporting Paul.
And Paul doesn’t have a clue about the most basic tenets of libertarianism, especially private property and the justifiable defense of that property. On 9-11 our private property was attacked.
The correct libertarian response is to defend that property by punishing those who attacked it. How or what form that response should be would certainly be debatable for libertarians. But the basic defense of that property would not be questioned by a practical libertarian.
Ron Paul fails on this account and many others.
Ya know, I keep hearing the same stuff over and over.... my first statement is that all republicans are conservatives..... Now, you know and I know that is just not true. The same runs for libertarians.. there are capital L libertarians and small l libertarians. The small l libertarian is closer to a conservative than a nut job capital L libertarian. We believe in the constitution as written. Now, the constitution as written is not pleasant for “hard core” social conservatives. It is also not pleasant for libs ( I am not putting the two into the same basket, so please do not flame me for this statement )
Now for the drug issue. A conservative believes that the state needs to regulate certain personal behaviors. A small l libertarian believes in personal responsibility. That means you accept ALL responsibility for your actions, both physical and monitary.
Please do not throw the “what about murder? what about rape” crap out there. These are infantile arguments, and have no common sense. A small l libertarian also believes in civil rights and rule of law.
Now, does anyone have any real questions or wish to have a real debate?
Beyond that there is no difference.
Whether you’re a libertarian or not, the philosophy of libertarianism is perfectly consistent with being a republican. In the context of or political system, as defined by the original intent of the Constitution, we are a republic. The national government was intended to be the government of the States. It was not intended that it involve itself in the day-to-day affairs of individual citizens.
The article is about REPUBLICANS with libertarian ideals, not “libertarians” in the self-styled “Libertarian” Party.
Your argument against the conclusions of the article *is* a straw man because you are arguing against the infestation of idiots in the Libertarian Party. This is about conservative Republicans who have libertarian ideas about the role of the Federal Government and has nothing to do with the LP.
If you had actually read the article, you would have seen that the author criticized the LP. Stop saying the libertarian leaning Republicans who think RP is a nutjob are equivalent to “Libertarians” in the LP. They aren’t and Big Government “conservatives” who throw this pig swill aren’t really conservatives.
“Social Conservative” = Liberal who doesn’t like abortion. Beyond that, there is no difference.
Two can play at these infantile games. The statement may be true and may be false, depending on the individual. As a generality, it’s false, as is your “premise.”
There are massive numbers of conservative libertarians who are FAR more conservative than many self-styled “conservatives” on things like Socialist Security and Fraudicade. As soon as more Republicans figure that out, the sooner they’ll stop stabbing themselves in the neck.
How so? Honest question. And I don't mean to suggest that Paul is a God, or that his campaign hasn't attracted a good deal of anti-military loons.
But it seems to me that Paul's basic premise is that we should seriously curtail our military presence overseas. How is that being weak on defense? I would think we'd only want our soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen to go into harm's way---jeopardizing their lives, of course---only when the survival of our nation absolutely depends on it.
Interested to hear everyone's thoughts.
Hard to define this nice sounding phrase. Wasn't the U.S. Navy created in order to keep trade routes open and protect U.S. private sector commerce? Did the "survival of our nation absolutely depend on it"? Some would say absolutely yes and some might say not necessasrily.
Many of them are antisemitic and want Israel destroyed, just like their standard bearer running for president.
There are higher callings in the world than simply defending oneself. We can thank God for that.
Just askin', not challenging... Is nation building one of those higher causes?
Well, interesting that you chose the USN for your example, because basically the mission of the Navy is to be a blue water one: to be deployed not just overseas, but on the high seas.
I'm talking Air Forces bases overseas. Army bases overseas. Engaging in "limited" armed conflicts or "peace keeping missions." Etc.
Too many definitions of nation building to answer that question without more clarity on what you are referring to.
There may be, but is one of them sending people overseas to die, or killing people overseas because we don't like what they're doing?
OK if the Navy is only "blue water" - what are they supposed to be doing out there? Does the survival of the nation depend on them? Hard to say. I don't expect China will defend our commerce - but is that the survival of the nation?
As for bases overseas, I guess I have to look at history. Did the survival of our nation absolutely depend on securing Europe and Japan after WWII? Maybe not except any logical person would have assumed the Soviets would have just taken the entire continent. A threat to us? Maybe not but I'm not sure I'd want to find out. I think each one of the "limited" or "peace-keeping" missions has to be evaluated independently. I'm just not ready to say NO to any of them or Yes to all of them. Too many grays.
Indeed. Protecting self-determination, freedom of religion, speech... all those things WE value. Or like Washington DC, do we just let the thugs take over and say, it's none of our business.
I watched Herman Cain on Hannity last night. Mr. Cain was speaking about how many of his fellow church members secretly admire him, and his conservative positions. But they fear to be outed as a conservative, for fear of being villainized, and then perhaps ostracized, by their majority liberal fellow church goers.
It might be laudable to do so, but I don't think its our duty or our obligation.
I think that's a reasonable framework. My thing is let's make sure this is a vital interest and it's absolutely worth our time and treasure to ask our servicemen to stretch their necks for it.
Hard to disagree with any of that. All to often, when $heit hits the fan, too many say, if we'd only acted sooner. Where's that crystal ball whne you need one?
Agreed. Hindsight is always 20/20. It's easy for us now to kick back and think about what we could've done to stop Hitler, say, in the 1920s/1930s, but who knew?
Libertarians are very strong on the Second Amendment type of defense but not so enamored with the "Let's invade Libya because Kadaffy Duck is evil." or the "Let's invade Uganda 'cuz' it's like totally our business." types of defense.
Personally, I wish we would practice "Rattlesnake diplomacy" or, as it says on the Gadsden flag "Don't Tread On Me."
Many disagreements stem from a failure to recognize scope. The FEDERAL Constitution is a limiting document barely granting more power than the Articles of Confederation. Many of the arguments we have are actually concerns of each state.
We have become too much a nation at the expense of united states. I blame the Sixteenth Amendment, myself - and Global Warming, of course.
I doubt that many states would support your scenario but these issues are unaddressed in the Constitution.
How do think that would have worked out for them?
Maybe Churchill, but who listened to that fat old warmongering drunkard? ;-)
Oh no doubt that after they raped, pillaged and plundered they would have fallen apart - eventually. Would it have happened as fast if cold warriors hadn't stood gurard by the door and taken them on like Reagan? Possibly not. Who can say for sure. I wouldn't want to be part of the raped, pillaged or plundered sitting there waiting for it to happen.
Follow up questions: What's the libertarian thinking on American "territories"? Should the union of States protect American territories? Should the union of States even have territories? Aren't they basically froward operation bases? If the fleet had been at San Diego instead of Pearl, Japan might not have been threatened and not bothered to attack. They might have just moved in and taken it. Just wonderin'.
Stay armed, stay free, my friend.
So I guess after the Fall of Berlin we should have just dumped a bunch of guns and a copy of OUR Constitution and said, see ya suckahs! We’ll be back when you declare war on us again. :-)
Libertarian belief might be exactly what we need right now, whether large or small L. We need stronger medicine that what the mainstream Republican candidates are offering, which is more of the same-old tweaking.
Both major parties are obviously reading from the same hymnal. The Dems want to drive us off the big government cliff at top speed, while the GOP prefers to follow the speed limit. The finish line is the same for both. Maybe we need some whacko right-wing thinking right about now, to get us going in the right direction, which CAN’T be worse than our current direction!
— On a related note —
Abortion should be a state issue, not a federal one. Let the states decide. The same goes for drugs, gambling, prostitution and assorted “victimless” crimes. If the feds want to experiment in D.C., let them, but leave the states alone.
The states can decide if they want to outlaw any of the above and accept the associated costs. (And don’t worry — if drugs were decriminalized at the federal level, the states would still maintain their current laws.)
The War On Drugs has been an abysmal failure and waging it further benefits only the police unions and ... oddly enough ... the drug dealers by artificially raising the price of their products. We The People don’t benefit, because the drugs are easily available on the street right now, and always have been.
Think of it this way: You don’t want your kid messed up on drugs. Lectures, punishments, education and prayers are all you can provide. Really, that’s all you can do. Teach them and hope they’ll be smart enough to say no.
But as of right now, thanks to the War On Drugs, his life can be messed up both by drugs AND an arrest record for drugs.
Who benefits from that?
Works for me.
This does not prevent you, for instance, from donating money or your time or efforts to an international cause you feel is just or moral. Nor does it prevent our nation from building or maintaining a strong military that allows us to project our power internationally if need be and stomp our military enemies into oblivion.
If that's "sad" in your opinion, so be it.
Calling social conservatives liberals that don’t like abortion, no difference, is absurd.
Social liberals overwhelmingly vote democrat and liberal, social conservatives overwhelmingly vote republican and conservative, in fact they are the back bone of conservatism and the portion of the electorate which moderate republicans and the American left have the worst problem with.