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.
Palin Drives Libertarians out of Tea Party
The infiltration of the Libertarian movement by the FAR LEFT
Now for a Real Underdog: Ron Paul, Libertarian, for President (1988)
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.
“Not crap...”
Yes crap.
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.
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.