Skip to comments.Libertarians have a stake in traditional values, too [Does Not Support Abortion, Same-Sex Marriage]
Posted on 09/16/2012 6:51:44 PM PDT by billflax
Remember the old saw about speeding: anyone zipping along faster is nuts, but slower drivers are idiots. Ideologues believing in limited government are an obstinate breed, myself included. We find anyone who wants more government as fools, but those desiring even less are crazy. In theory, if everyone went 65 we'd never have a traffic jam. Sadly, state authority is necessary because of man's fallen nature.
Many libertarians approve same-sex marriage. Likewise, some perceive abortion as fundamental to freedom, even questioning Ron Paul for championing life.
Meanwhile, Americans have grown so inured to government intervention that letting people purchase contraceptives privately construes now into waging "War on Women." "Keep politics out of people's bedrooms," the Left insists, except, of course, taxpayers should get involved with their wallets.
If men were just or could all protect themselves, government would be redundant. Political authority became necessary because, to paraphrase James Madison, we aren't angels. Governments' legitimate purpose preserves culture and protects life, liberty and property. To which our Founders rightly incorporated propriety over conscience and the "pursuit of happiness."
No group needs more protection than babies regardless of which side of the womb they presently reside. By the time a mother can even confirm pregnancy, her baby has started sprouting a unique personality, brain waves have begun and her heartbeat resonates. Everyone matures through this essential phase. Unborn babies are undeniably human beings.
Libertarianism rests on the nonaggression principle, "live and let live" they say. But then why allow life to be snatched from helpless children? Lawful abortion mocks government's very legitimacy.
Same-sex marriage also betrays libertarian principles. Unless government intervenes, matrimony remains what it has been for millennia. Why have government alter an institution antecedent to America's very existence?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Gary Johnson is an idiot PING
I agree. The abortion license ignores not only the rights of the pre-born human being, but the rights of the father.
The imposition of same-sex marriage is authoritarian, not libertarian: people who want to marry another of the same sex, or a pet or a piece of furniture, can hold all the weddings they want, and nobody will stop them. However, they need government to coerce others to recognize their associations as marriages.
Flirted with Libertarianism when I was young. Learned enough to move on.
There are “Little L” libertarians and there are “Big L” Libertarians. They are not always the same.
And to hell with the rights of his wife.
I’m not sure what your point is. If there are “rights” vis-a-vis a child - which there must be, since there are obligations - such rights must be borne by the child’s father as well as his mother. There is no legitimate right for anyone to kill a child.
You can add support for unending mass immigration as another crazy position held by most (or at least most prominent) libertarians.
The libertarian party is the true expression of libertarianism.
The party is where the ivory tower fantasy meets the road and has to be put into actual positions.
Yes. Very good piece. Important to state this openly as you have - am sick of dancing around libertarians and their fatalism and narrow minds.
To prevent duplication, please do not alter the published headline. Thanks.
Libertarians for Life. Basic premise: if it’s human, killing it is murder.
This isn’t hard to understand.
Close the welfare spigot and the only immigrants coming here those who want to be Americans. Folks like my Dad and his parents.
“Have a stake”
Well phrased. They want government to get out of everything that would constrain them, except for the things that they do love. Like free condoms, Obamacare and same sex marriage. You’re bigotted if you oppose it because ‘marriage should be open for everyone.’
I know, let’s stick with the GOP... How’s that working out for us?
Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. Falling for the same BS over and over again doesn’t speak well for your judgement either...
Moron. “Free” condoms? Libertarians embody TANSTAAFL.
Religion? Keep the State out of it. No legislation mandating your religious sects marriage customs that way. Don’t want to honor a particular marriage arrangement as a condition of employment? You are free to find employment elsewhere...
Same for Obamacare as your free condoms thing. Utterly moronic to say any libertarian would support any kind of government handouts at all...
But they do. Why am I paying for educating your children?
I tell you what, you libertarians and radical leftists, end welfare first, then we look at your open borders policy.
This is the actual, 2004 text of the Libertarian Party Platform on immigration, it is, and always has been the same (since at least 1990 that I can find).
COMPLETE PLATFORM TEXT
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND CIVIL ORDER
The Issue: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new Berlin Wall which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. governments policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.
The Principle: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.
Solutions: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.
Transitional Action: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.
What’s your stance on spousal visas? Gay marriage tourism is huge. Get married in America, grab a visa. :)
Isn’t that just fab?
You still don’t have a point.
No. Nor is birthright citizenship to children of those here illegally.
But the GOP seems ok with it...
When you agree with that position in post 19, and all the other radical leftism of your party, then you are beyond being talked to by conservatives.
No wonder that Noam Chomsky became a leading libertarian and that you guys get the Bill Mahers.
Even if what you say is true, it’s just not realistic at all to think we can close off welfare while we allow mass immigration of those likely to use it. Most Hispanic (and now most Asian) immigrants are going to vote for Democrats, and Democrats are going to be very generous spending tax payer dollars in buying the loyalty of voters. It’s really amazing (in a bad way) that libertarians think their ideas of limited govt will have appeal to immigrant communities.
But I disagree with you in part because I’m not convinced that even today’s heavily pro-Democrat immigrants are coming here for the welfare or govt freebies. I think they are coming because the US still offers more economic opportunities than their native lands. Of course once they get here...well, who’s gonna look a gift horse in the mouth?
Even if we somehow implemented libertarian policy today, it would simply be undone years from now when the Democrats have a demographic lock on power.
I just saw an amazing picture of my friend’s 21 week old baby in her womb. The baby was so beautiful with all it’s fingers, toes and even it’s private parts fully formed. It has what looked like an expression on it’s face. Anyone who could think that he wasn’t a human deserving protection has to be nuts. Every human’s life from conception must be legally protected if we are to not be a barbaric, murderous society.
So you’re in favor of eliminating public education altogether?
“Nor is birthright citizenship to children of those here illegally.”
Last I checked, we call them ‘citizens’.
If you think socialists like Noam Chomsky agree with the ideas of Libertarians you don't understand much about either. Chomsky is a libertarian socialist, which is a school of thought that is soundly rejected by non socialist libertarians.
Your argument is no different than saying that Democratic Socialists who believe in elections are the same as conservatives who also believe in elections. Obviously they don't have the same beliefs, even if they agree on some things like having elections.
Should we also presume that the Republican party is the true expression of conservatism?
If it isn't then how do you know that the true expression of libertarianism is the Libertarian party?
I don’t see anything in their current platform that disagrees with this position on child pornography....
Libertarian Presidential Front-Runner Defends Child Porn
April 25, 2008 · By Adam Dyck
Mary Ruwart, research scientist, perrenial Libertarian Senatorial candidate and front runner for this years Libertarian Presidential ticket is being taken to task for comments she made in her book, Short Answers to Tough Questions.
When discussing self choice in relation to child porn, she had this to say: Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if its distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.
Because that party was founded not as a mass party, but just for that little niche of oddballs and lefties (who like low taxes).
The list of truly radical leftists that are libertarians is very long.
Noam Chomsky adheres more to the true libertarianism, not this newer version that embraces the left, except for it’s economics.
That is why libertarianism is so silly, it is really a bunch of childish nonsense for some fringe whack cases.
I’m a conservative. You are a GOP hack who forgot what it is your were trying to conserve in the first place.
We know we’ve been raping you for decades. But we can’t just stop now because people have come to expect us to rape you.
Your logic doesn’t scan. If it is wrong,cot is wrong. No matter how many people approve.
Yes. NASA and the FAA as well....
Yes... And who redefined what it takes to claim birthright citizenship. Who Los broadened the term that any illegal squatting on a roadside can claim all those freebies if she can just wait until they are over the border....
The Founders would puke up a lung at such fraud....
Considering that they were all grandfathered? I think not.
No. The term was never meant to be so broad. Just as with most "penumbras and emanations" the courts and legislatures are currently using to run our Republic into the ground.
Do you have any evidence to support your contention? The 14th is pretty clear - everyone born in the US is considered an American, even if you were born in Louisiana Territory, or Texas. It used to be far broader than it is today, in awarding citizenship to those who were not born in the United States.
"Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." John Jay, July 25th 1787 to George Washington.
Then there is the text of the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts.
Much later came the 14th.
So no... You're argument still doesn't hold water. Sorry.
“the Command in chief of the American army”
Ok, and you’re saying that people born in the United States would not be considered American citizens? They aren’t foreigners. What this is saying is that the President of the United States should be someone born in the United States, not born abroad.
I find it intriguing that a libertarian wants to strip citizenship away from Americans.
Further, various pieces of legislation and court decisions have repeatedly upheld the idea that no one should be able to keep the profits of their crimes.
This should include jumping the border and attempting to defraud the US tax payers as well.
Come here legally and the situation changes dramatically. It's that "non-initiation of force, FRAUD, or theft" thingie that defines a libertarian.
I find it intriguing that a libertarian wants to strip citizenship away from Americans.
How can you "strip" something that was never yours to begin with? If you cheat during a race and are later caught, do you get to keep the awards and trophy?
“If they are here illegally, they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US. They do not fall under the 14th.”
When did they cross the border? His parents crossed the border. But the child did not. The child is not responsible for what the parents chose to do. Citizenship looks at the child as an individual, not the child based on the parents.
“no one should be able to keep the profits of their crimes.”
And we don’t try children for what their parents did.
“This should include jumping the border and attempting to defraud the US tax payers as well.”
When did the child cross the border if they were born here.
“Come here legally and the situation changes dramatically. It’s that “non-initiation of force, FRAUD, or theft” thingie that defines a libertarian.”
The child born in America is here legally and is entitled to citizenship same as everyone else born in America.
“How can you “strip” something that was never yours to begin with?”
Legally, they do possess citizenship same as everyone else.
“If you cheat during a race and are later caught, do you get to keep the awards and trophy?”
Say you’re running a race. Player a cheats, and trips up player b. You go on to win the race. Should you be stripped of your medal since you profited from someone else cheating?
The child crosses the border in utero. They may not have had intent, but the law is still broken regardless.
Which kinda negates your last attempt at an analogy that doesn't fit.
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.