Posted on 06/08/2012 1:21:30 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
The libertarian PHILOSOPHY is strictly constitutional - however, that gets bent out of shape in the instances you pose.
True libertarianism says:
True libertarians are passionate about protecting, on behalf of others, the rights they claim for themselves. One of the few legitimate roles of government is the protection of the weak from murderous attack by the strong. And no libertarian espouses the idea that government should not prohibit their own murder. An unborn child is one of the weakest, and thereby entitled to legitimate protection by the government. Any libertarian that advocates protection of their own lives and rights, but promotes the “legal” killing of unborn babies, is simply a hypocrite - claiming government protection for themselves that they are unwilling to grant the most helpless among us.
Libertarians can support the defense of marriage with this approach - any homosexual if free to marry a member of the opposite sex...just like anybody else - as long as they can find a willing partner...just like anybody else.
Adoptions - first preference, for the good of the child, is a home with a mother and a father, all other factors being equal or nearly equal. As much as I dislike the idea of gay couples adopting, I concede that a child is probably better off in a “loving” stable environment than in a series of foster homes or worse.
Of course, if Santorum wanted to play the delegate/platform leverage game, he should have stayed in, and collected more delegates.
man, this is getting ugly, and there is no need..
Just like there are republicans, and in the republican party there are conservatives... not all republicans are conservatives, and not all conservatives are republicans..
In the Libertarian party, there are capital L libertarians(the nut jobs) and there are small l libertarians...
Just like conservatives try and change the republican party platform, small l libertarians are trying to change that party platform..
Right now I can support 90% of the libertarian platform...
do you support the republican party platform 100%? Or are you working to change the parts that you do not like?
Your post is the first one that is non confrontational, and makes sense ( by the way, I am pro life )
“The Libertarians should try building up their own party and stop trying to co-opt the Republicans.”
“That’s pretty much the same message from the GOPe to the Tea Party. And my response is, “Okay, Smell you later GOPe. “
I disagree. The Libertarians are a national party with a platform, candidates on the ballots, rules and a structure and a convention. The Tea Party is individualistic and only organized on local levels.
Anybody can claim to be an adherent of a radical fantasy, class room philosophy. Depending on whether they are talking to Mike Huckabee or Noam Chomsky they can cherry pick to make the conversation fit the audience perfectly, that is a trade mark of libertarians.
Where the rubber meets the road is when libertarians join together and put it all on a party platform to try and enter the world of reality based on libertarianism.
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.
What Article and Section contains this explicit, imperative requirement the Constitution imposes on the States?
Honestly, I don’t pay enough attention to platforms anymore to be able to say what I do and don’t support of any party platform.
Here is what I know, when push comes to shove on the important things (abortion, taxation, government expansion, government spending, borders protection - both border patrol and national defense...), the one with an R beside his/her name is more likely to vote the right way. Sometimes this is not as likely as we would hope, but even 10% of the time is much more often than 0%. And I view the dems as voting the right way virtually 0% of the time. AND another dem in congress is another vote for Pelosi or Reid - and even the incompetent Boehner is better than they are.
Here’s what I try to do. In primaries, I vote for the person most closely aligned with my views. Sometimes this is a prolife Libertarian. In the general election I vote for the person that is NOT a dem, that has the best chance off winning, and is closest to my beliefs. OR, if the outcome is not really in question, I vote for the person most closely aligned with my views. So my decision making process is like this:
Does the dem, or someone left of dem, have a chance of winning? If “Yes” vote for the strongest candidate that is right of the dem (in extreme cases, I MIGHT vote for a dem to defeat an out-and-out commie that had a chance to win). If “No” vote for the candidate whose views are closest to mine, to add the weight of my vote to a growing conservatiive movement.
As important as it is to grow the conservative movement, and to move our nation back to its original position as a bastion of liberty and a champion of freedom - it is more important, in the immediate, to keep a trace, a flicker of the flame of Liberty alive. I truly believe that Obama can take us over the brink, and Romney, while maybe not really moving us perceptibly in the right direction, will not allow us to tumble off the cliff.
Remember - Romney is more likely to listen to conservative voices than is Obama. Obama WILL NOT listen to those voices except to formulate a policy against them. Romney might.
No he isn't. mitt hates Conservatives specifically. The won just hates America in general.
“Well, apparently you have admitted that all officers of government in this country, in every branch, at every level, have as the first obligation of their sacred oath the protection of all innocent lives within their jurisdiction.”
Did you seriously think that I believed otherwise?
Soon after President EV is voted out of office in a 50 state landslide (after one term in office), or soon after you are impeached in your first term, the abortion clinics will be back in business, maybe even with full federal funding in every state of the Union.
Right. Just as the TEA Party is trying to wrest control of the GOP from the Establishment. And for the same reason -- at this point no third party is viable. You have to take over control of one of the two main parties, much like the Communists incrementally took over control of the Democrats since 1968.
In any event, both the TEA Party and the Libertarians want to oust the Establishment. Perhaps there is some common ground?
Impeached? I would welcome the trial in the Senate. It would be a joy to force those stuffed shirts to defend the brutal annihilation of more than fifty million helpless, defenseless, innocent little children.
The Fourteenth Amendment
"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
-- The Fifth Amendment
Are you applying those amendments as they were understood and intended by the people who wrote and ratified them? That is the test of original intent.
Words mean what words mean. Nature is what nature is.
Are you claiming that the child in the womb is not a person?
Can you provide any evidence that any of the framers would have in any way approved of one abortion, much less more than fifty million of them?
The crowning purpose of the Constitution of the United States, as penned by the founders, is “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY.”
Abortion violates every single clause of the stated purposes of the Constitution, by the way.
How can you call yourself an originalist if you reject all of the stated purposes of the Constitution?
How can you claim to know their intent if you ignore the intent they placed right there at the head of the document?
If all words had only one meaning, and no use of them was ever ambiguous, that would be true. That not being the case, words mean what they meant to the person who wrote them. Whatever meaning the person reading them attributes to them may or may not have been what was intended by the person who wrote them.
Do you have any supporting evidence to submit that the meaning you attribute to them is the same meaning that was intended by the person who wrote them?
If so, then I have reason to support your interpretation. If you're intending to enforce your personal interpretation by force of will without any consideration or regard for the intent of the author, then we have no common ground. You've made the same error as the liberal jurists who say "It means what we say it means".
A common understanding of the meaning of words is the basis of law.
Again, are you saying that a child in the womb is not a person?
Roe vs. Wade turned on that question.
Blackmun and his colleagues said “no.”
What say you?
Why aren't you doing that?
-- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade, 1973"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment...If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."
Even the lawyers pushing abortion in that case admitted in their oral argument that if the child is a person that their case would fall apart.
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.