Click the Pic
Don't Let the FReepathon DragOn!
Donate Monthly
Sponsors will fire up $10 for each New Monthly Donor
Many thanks to JoeProBono for the Cyclops dragon graphic
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 ...
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? ;-)
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.