Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Libertarians' Awkward Bedfellows
Townhall.com ^ | February 27, 2013 | John Stossel

Posted on 02/27/2013 9:28:02 AM PST by Kaslin

Last week, Conservative pundit Ann Coulter told me and a thousand young libertarians that we libertarians are puss- -- well, she used slang for a female body part.

We were in Washington, D.C., at the Students for Liberty conference, taping my TV show, and she didn't like my questions about her opposition to gay marriage and drug legalization.

"We're living in a country that is 70 percent socialist," she says. "The government takes 60 percent of your money. They take care of your health care, your pensions ... who you can hire ... and you (libertarians) want to suck up to your little liberal friends and say, oh, we want to legalize pot? ... If you were a little manlier, you'd tell liberals what your position on employment discrimination is."

We do, actually. We say employers ought to get to choose whom they hire. They created the business, so they should be allowed to discriminate against stutterers, TV hosts, old people -- anyone they don't want.

But Coulter has a point.

Government rarely makes a dent in people's drug use or their ability to partner with people of their own gender.

"Seventy percent socialism" does much more harm. It kills opportunity and wrecks lives.

But Coulter doesn't just want to downplay "liberal" parts of the libertarian agenda. She opposes them.

When I asked why gays can't marry, she said,

"They can -- they have to marry a member of the opposite sex."

I see why the students were annoyed by Coulter's shtick.

If Republicans were smart, they'd listen to that rising generation of young people who want government to stay not just out of the economy, but out of our personal lives, too.

Fortunately, some Republicans are onboard with that. Another of my guests was Justin Amash, congressman from Michigan.

The young libertarians admire him, in much the same way they admire Republicans like Sens. Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Jeff Flake; Gov. Gary Johnson; and new Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie.

Amash focuses on government spending. He has pictures of libertarian economists like Murray Rothbard in his office, and he warns that big government -- including military spending -- will bankrupt America. He's not afraid to call for cuts in popular programs like Medicare, Head Start and food stamps.

After Amash's complaints about government spending, establishment Republicans in Congress kicked him off the budget committee. One said it was because of the "a--hole factor ... inability to work with other members."

I asked Amash about that.

"It might be because I wanted to balance the budget," says Amash.

"The level of government spending is so insane."

It is. Even if the sequester cuts happen -- cuts the left calls "brutal" -- in eight years the feds will still spend $5.3 trillion annually ... just a little less than the $5.4 trillion they will spend if no cuts are made.

The "brutal" sequester is anything but. Even the much-feared Paul Ryan budget plan would only reduce the federal debt in 2021 from the $26 trillion President Obama projects to ... $23 trillion.

With our economic house in such disarray, Coulter is right to avoid getting bogged down in fights over drugs and homosexuality. But I prefer the way Amash handled the libertarian-conservative conflict.

Michelle Montalvo of Temple University asked him to "comment on your faith and how you reconcile that with your libertarian beliefs? There are stereotypes about libertarian students, that we're Republicans who love to do drugs, (but) we're not all godless."

Amash answered, "I'm an Orthodox Christian ... and I believe that the government is a hindrance, a lot of times, to our religious liberty." But he doesn't want government to promote Christianity. "Get government out of the way, allow people to make choices. We can't legislate morality and force everyone to agree with us."

The young people at the conference worry about the economy. They worry less about drug use and gay sex -- most have come to see those as socially acceptable.

Instead of insulting libertarians or kicking them off congressional committees, it's time for Coulter -- and other Republicans -- to stop suggesting that those who want the government out of their personal lives are morally suspect.

Then we can concentrate on the important things.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: anncoulter; awkward; budgetandgovernment; cannabis; cinos; drugs; drugwar; fff; homosexualagenda; jobsandeconomy; libertarianism; libertarians; linos; marijuana; medicalmarijuana; rinos; samesexmarriage; stossel; warondrugs; wod; wodlist; wosd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-121 next last

1 posted on 02/27/2013 9:28:11 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

in before the zot, too sensible to be tolerated


2 posted on 02/27/2013 9:32:11 AM PST by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Seems more and more people are leaning in the direction of ‘get out of personal lives’.


3 posted on 02/27/2013 9:38:36 AM PST by LuvFreeRepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Agreed, as I like to say, we need more Barry Goldwater and less Barry Soetoro.


4 posted on 02/27/2013 9:40:55 AM PST by Nowhere Man (Whitey, I miss you so much. Take care, pretty girl. (4-15-2001 - 10-12-2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
If Republicans were smart, they'd listen to that rising generation of young people who want government to stay not just out of the economy, but out of our personal lives, too.

As long as 'personal lives' are tied to legal issues such as taxation, it is not a 'personal' or even 'social' issue. Many gay people now get married in private ceremonies that have nothing to do with government recognition. The Unitarian church performs these regularly. It is when they demand that the legal definition of marriage be changed that it is no longer a personal matter. The definition has spanned almost all cultures, religions (it isn't just a 'Bible thing' as many put it) and nationalities. It is a recognized legal definition. The Constitution does give Congress the authority to ensure equal application of legal issues (Article 1, Section 8 to 'define standards for weights and measures', legal definitions used in contracts and laws fall under 'measures'). Coulter is right. The law doesn't prevent gay people from getting married, it just defines who they can marry if it is to be a legally recognized marriage contract. It is blind to if someone is gay or straight. The legal definition is a partnership between two people of the opposite sex, who aren't already married, who are not close relatives, and who have reached a minimum age. That is a uniform definition of that legal term that is recognized almost everywhere.

5 posted on 02/27/2013 9:42:20 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nowhere Man

Let me add, although there are some differences, we need to work together against the Federal Leviathan or we are all dead. Ben Franklin was probably the libertarian of his time and we put it, “if we don’t hang together, we will all hang seperately.”


6 posted on 02/27/2013 9:43:15 AM PST by Nowhere Man (Whitey, I miss you so much. Take care, pretty girl. (4-15-2001 - 10-12-2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I don’t particularly like Libertarians. I just like to say that I have to bump into them at two sites mainly, The Blaze and youtube. They have some difference with me on defense, war on terror and on drugs. I don’t agree with them. So despite every attempt, I just don’t know how the differences can be bridged.


7 posted on 02/27/2013 9:44:17 AM PST by Mozilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Depends on the Librarian!

OH! Libertarians....? Nevermind....

8 posted on 02/27/2013 9:44:24 AM PST by Kartographer ("We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LuvFreeRepublic

A bunch of us have always been like that. We need to stop protecting people from their bad decisions.

When you advocate a Nanny State, you really shouldn’t complain when the State obliges you and creates something like the Free Sh*t Army.

Yes. You should be free to screw up your own life. No, don’t expect us to bail you out. No, we don’t want to associate with you until you clean up your act either.

This used to be common sense.


9 posted on 02/27/2013 9:44:36 AM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Notice drugs and homos goes hand-in-hand here.


10 posted on 02/27/2013 9:44:46 AM PST by Berlin_Freeper (RETURN TO MECCA [http://youtu.be/zWQkaDUCJ_Y])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

..and I will say that Stossel is falling for the same problem of associating small l libertarian philosophy with big L Libertarian Party. I believe it was William F Buckley who said something along the lines of ‘there is very little libertarian about the Libertarian party’.

It is much of what Ayn Rand complained about the Libertarian Party. She called them the ‘hippies of the right’ who ‘traded rationalism for whims and capitalism for anarchy’. The Libertarian party has always had the problem of trading rationalism for whims. They get hung up on two or three fringe issues (pot for example) and it always seems to be the big base for their arguments. Even Reason Magazine which used to be a strong supporter of small l libertarian values has of late, been almost solely focused on the big L Libertarian Pot issue as if that somehow is the make or break definition of liberty.


11 posted on 02/27/2013 9:47:11 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

EXCEPT he is wrong. It DOES matter what marriage is. I do NOT care if government on all levels gets out of the marriage business, which seems to be the libertarian argument.
But it DOES matter that marriage has a specific definition: the union between a man and a woman. It is the only workable family unit that assures continuation of the species and of any society. It offers a model of a family unit that works, not for the benefit of the couple but for the benefit of the children. That it is not perfect does not change its desirability. That heterosexulas abandon their marrages on whims, only proves the strength of the institution as a device to raise and comfort children.
Homosexuals do not get to change that.


12 posted on 02/27/2013 9:48:10 AM PST by Adder (No, Mr. Franklin, we could NOT keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Not having gay marriage IS gubmint staying out of our “personal lives.” Or at least refusing to further intrude upon it, which is what gay marruage fans want. Libertarians are usually more honest about this sort of thing. Either you see a compelling state interest in creating special legal status for gay couples just like we have for heterosexual couples, though I have absolutely no idea what that’d be, or you don’t. In any case creating gay marriage would be inviting more gubmint in, not limiting it.

I agree about prohibition. Unlike the absence of gay marriage it is an intrusion into aspects of our lives which are none of the state’s business.


13 posted on 02/27/2013 9:49:19 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Here's where I depart from Stossel... a person I like, and whose show I sometimes watch. I don't think social issues are unimportant. Tell me what area of human activity is free of morals? Anything you do or not do can judged moral, immoral, or amoral. Of course, many things judged amoral are actually immoral.

Where the chasm will never be bridged is between those who believe any kind of activity between consenting adults is to be allowed and those who believe, like I do, there are limits to tolerance. I tolerate a lot of activity, but I don't approve of it. And nobody can force me to tolerate things I don't want to tolerate i.e. homosexual "marriage", bestiality, polygamy, pedophiles. But if Stossel believes homosexuality is irrelevant to today's youth, then he's not paying attention. The NFL players beg to differ.

14 posted on 02/27/2013 9:49:40 AM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
"There are stereotypes about libertarian students, that we're Republicans who love to do drugs, (but) we're not all godless."

Amash answered, "I'm an Orthodox Christian ... and I believe that the government is a hindrance, a lot of times, to our religious liberty." But he doesn't want government to promote Christianity. "Get government out of the way, allow people to make choices. We can't legislate morality and force everyone to agree with us."

Amen! I like what John MacArthur has been saying lately: legislating Christian behavior on non-Christians is casting your pearls before swine and trusting government over God.

15 posted on 02/27/2013 9:50:23 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

the Libertarian party would increase their influence 100-fold if instead of pointlessly fielding their own impossible longshot candidates they would endorse the R or D candidate they feel best exemplifies their principles in national senate and congressional races.


16 posted on 02/27/2013 9:51:06 AM PST by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

the Libertarian party would increase their influence 100-fold if instead of pointlessly fielding their own impossible longshot candidates they would endorse the R or D candidate they feel best exemplifies their principles in national senate and congressional races.


17 posted on 02/27/2013 9:51:37 AM PST by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Ironic to hear Coulter - the chief supporter/apologist for Romney & Christie - criticize the politics of others.

Why does anyone take this woman seriously?

18 posted on 02/27/2013 9:53:36 AM PST by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftless2
Tell me what area of human activity is free of morals?

None.

But how moral is it when a corrupt government is putting a gun in your face and forcing you to be "moral" along their guidelines?

If all government disappeared tomorrow... How would you live your life? Would you suddenly go out and start raping, stealing, and doing every drug available? Or would you continue to live as you have, with maybe some additional resources given to protecting yourself against predators?

19 posted on 02/27/2013 9:53:42 AM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
If Republicans were smart, they'd listen to that rising generation of young people who want government to stay not just out of the economy, but out of our personal lives, too.

If 'stay out of my personal life' means appropriating something less than 60% of my labor and resources - let go of their claim of 60% of my LIFE - then I'm all down with the libertarians.

But the silly, completely inconsequential issue of gay marriage makes a mockery of the subject of government intrusion into our lives. Its a twisted little distraction.

20 posted on 02/27/2013 9:54:33 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: babble-on
the Libertarian party would increase their influence 100-fold if instead of pointlessly fielding their own impossible longshot candidates they would endorse the R or D candidate they feel best exemplifies their principles in national senate and congressional races.

They could also increase 100 fold if they regulated fringe issues to the fringe and focus on things like the freedom of businesses to operate, the freedom of you to be secure in your home, etc. They mention these things but treat them like side issues to things like Pot. They turn off many people to issues they are strong on such as limiting government surveillance when they tie in Alex Jones types into the argument and suddenly it becomes a big trilateral conspiracy.

Also, one other beef I have with them is their attacks on big Corporations. Yes, some are in bed with Big Brother but most are trying to get by in the sea of regulations like the rest of us. The concept of a Corporation who is free to grow as big as it can manage is fundamental in Capitalism. After all, if they weren't free to do that, it means you have a regulatory body restricting their growth- not very Libertarian is it?

21 posted on 02/27/2013 9:56:13 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Would you suddenly go out and start raping, stealing, and doing every drug available?

Sadly, many would. Which is why Conservatives aren't anarchists (unlike how the left likes to paint us). There has to be some level of societal order or there won't be a society.

22 posted on 02/27/2013 9:58:32 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: babble-on
the Libertarian party would increase their influence 100-fold if instead of pointlessly fielding their own impossible longshot candidates they would endorse the R or D candidate they feel best exemplifies their principles in national senate and congressional races.

How's that working out for the Tea Party folks?

23 posted on 02/27/2013 9:58:59 AM PST by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LuvFreeRepublic

I do, too. Of course, gay marriage is the opposite of that. I can’t understand why we can never talk about that for what it really is, instead of getting bogged down in false and irrelevant equality or personal liberty arguments. Stossel writes as if Pubs are trying to outlaw sodomy, or something, instead of merely refusing to allow the state to intrude further into our lives. It’s akin to the sort of corruptly n of language in FDR’s “four freedoms,” not all of which were freedoms at all, but rather the opposite.


24 posted on 02/27/2013 9:59:22 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but here goes:

The problem with libertarians is that they overemphasize the rights of the individual to the detriment of the society, which is the opposite of the progressives, who see the individualistic point of view as a detriment to social development.

There has to be a balance between our rights and our responsibilities, and there is a difference between liberty and license. While many of our founders where not Christian, they realized that the Judeo-Christian foundation was necessary starting point for our country, as it had a balance between the rights of the individual along with their responsibility to their fellow man. Both progressives and libertarians work to undermine this foundation of this Republic.

25 posted on 02/27/2013 10:02:11 AM PST by kosciusko51 (Enough of "Who is John Galt?" Who is Patrick Henry?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mnehring
I agree with all that, and would suggest that the pot fixation issue is driven by the more exuberant, activists 20-somethings who are more likely to champion drug legalization. Institutions like Reason and lately the party apparatus, I think, are just playing to that crowd. It's a mistake because important and basic principles of liberty get lost in the haze so to speak.
26 posted on 02/27/2013 10:04:13 AM PST by Dysart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“If Republicans were smart, they’d listen to that rising generation of young people who want government to stay not just out of the economy, but out of our personal lives, too. “

IMHO, the contention that young people want government to stay out of their lives in a lie. They want free tuition, they want the government to mandate their parents pay for their health insurance and birth control, to not allow you to smoke, or eat animal products, or develop your property if it endangers the environment, or hire whomever you want, and a host of other things. They are like all other people. They are zealous in support of what they believe in.

Very few have even heard of a serious discussion of the idea that the Feds should have less say in our lives.


27 posted on 02/27/2013 10:04:13 AM PST by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The left knows what they are doing when they call themselves libertarians.

Here is the libertarian position on the concept of having a border.

“”COMPLETE PLATFORM TEXT
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND CIVIL ORDER

IMMIGRATION:
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. government’s 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.””


28 posted on 02/27/2013 10:04:41 AM PST by ansel12 (Romney is a longtime supporter of homosexualizing the Boy Scouts (and the military).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gdani
How's that working out for the Tea Party folks?

Better than the Libertarians.

29 posted on 02/27/2013 10:04:44 AM PST by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

A Libertarian is just a Democrat who doesn’t want to pay his own taxes.


30 posted on 02/27/2013 10:08:13 AM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
You should be free to screw up your own life. No, don’t expect us to bail you out. No, we don’t want to associate with you until you clean up your act either.

That's the way it should be. This was why the Constitution was written, to guarentee it.

Liberalism destroys lives. Destroyed lives lead to social programs. Social programs lead to bigger government. If people were set free to do as they please without others being held responsible, society would clean itself up. (Liberals would eliminate themselves via homosexual diseases, STD's, drug abuse, fighting over stuff among themselves,women would have to raise their own illegitimate children, etc.)

If everyone were to be held responsible for their own actions, the world would be a much, much better place. Our founding fathers were well aware of that.

31 posted on 02/27/2013 10:09:25 AM PST by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mnehring

You are exactly right. Why does Stossel pretend as if Republicans are llcalling for police raids of private gay “commitment ceremonies”? I wouldn’t normally ask, because people will use whatever’s at hand to win an argument, and just like they misuse the equality argument because it’s important in our culture to pretend to believe in it, there’s also still a residue of regard for freedom to which we bow in empty ceremony. But if you can rely on libertarians for anything, it’s to keep clear the division between government intrusion and living your own life. Everyone partakes in special pleading, of course, but this seems too obvious.

Gay marriage is not an equality nor a liberty issue (except, maybe, to people who advocate tearing straight marriage down to equalize it with homosexuality, but then we’re not talking about gay marriage, are we).


32 posted on 02/27/2013 10:09:25 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: gdani

Tea Party screwed it up on their own. Lost their focus on the tax and spend issue and became a catch-all for 100 disparate Conservative causes.


33 posted on 02/27/2013 10:15:11 AM PST by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Adder

“I do NOT care if government on all levels gets out of the marriage business, which seems to be the libertarian argument.”

That’s the small l libertarian argument as they know the state can punish you for not buying into whatever impossibility the state decides to call marriage at the time. The big L libertarians seem to be completely hypocritical on the marriage issue, as the whole ‘gay marriage’ fight is about punishing those who disagree with their nonsense with the power of the state, which they seem to have no problem with.

Freegards


34 posted on 02/27/2013 10:15:30 AM PST by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dysart
It's a mistake because important and basic principles of liberty get lost in the haze so to speak.

While I don't typically prescribe to any particular party or label, there are those of us who see the wholesale evisceration of the Fourth Amendment & billions of dollars spent by the Republicrats on the failed War On (some) Drugs to involve important & basic principles of liberty.

35 posted on 02/27/2013 10:15:44 AM PST by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: LuvFreeRepublic
Seems more and more people are leaning in the direction of ‘get out of personal lives’.

That's because more and more people are wholly brainwashed into confusing completely separate issues, rendering them incapable of rational thought. For example, the number one argument for changing the definition of one of the most basic, foundational institutions of society, marriage, to include same-sex couples is "Why shouldn't people be able to love whomever they want?"

This question, of course, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with changing the definition of marriage, because anyone can love anyone, emotionally, physically, or whatever, whether the definition of marriage is changed or not. In addition, nobody is trying to outlaw love of any kind, or even homosexual sex. But "gay-marriage" proponents can't allow the dumbed-down masses of America to engage in rational thinking, or they would easily reject the redefining of marriage as ludicrous, so they muddy up the waters by equating a redefinition of marriage with the right to love, thus using base emotions to override real thinking. That technique, of course, is the very definition of brainwashing.

Millions of kids who grew up drooling in front of the TV (largely thanks to their lazy parents) have been conditioned to passively accept whatever is pumped into their mushy little brains. They have been spoiled rotten to the point where most have never known real hardship or sacrifice, and have come to expect everything handed to them on a silver platter, considering it a violation of their "rights" when they don't have the latest smartphone or big screen TV. Some of these "kids" are currently middle-aged, by the way.

Only a collapse and purge will correct this problem which, ironically, the self-indulgent policies of this dumbed-down, spoiled population will guarantee.
36 posted on 02/27/2013 10:20:05 AM PST by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

That’s just stupid. The Berlin Wall kept people in, not out, duh.

I believe in open borders, so long as people have to make their own living.


37 posted on 02/27/2013 10:21:22 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51
there is a difference between liberty and license.

Which is what, exactly?

38 posted on 02/27/2013 10:23:18 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JustSayNoToNannies

Did you read the rest of my post?


39 posted on 02/27/2013 10:26:05 AM PST by kosciusko51 (Enough of "Who is John Galt?" Who is Patrick Henry?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
I don't approve of abortion on demand. Do you? If a new conservative government comes in and appoints new supreme court justices who throw out Roe v. Wade, would you agree, or would you say government has no right to interfere with individual choices?

If your neighbors decided to prance around naked in their yards and engage in sex on their front lawn in full view of you and everyone else in the neighborhood, what right do you have to forbid them from doing something they want to do? How does two people having sex on private property harm you? Don't give me the morality argument, after all, according to you, it's a private affair and none of you or the government's business.

40 posted on 02/27/2013 10:34:46 AM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: gdani
here are those of us who see the wholesale evisceration of the Fourth Amendment & billions of dollars spent by the Republicrats on the failed War On (some) Drugs to involve important & basic principles of liberty.

Won't disagree with you there. And yet, for many, if not most, it becomes a moral question of recreational drug use at the exclusion of all other matters of importance. Who makes this issue nearly the centerpiece of contemporary Libertarianism? Insiders or allies? Ideological rivals, perhaps? And why?

41 posted on 02/27/2013 10:36:13 AM PST by Dysart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This reasonable, sane commentary cannot be posted on Free Republic.


42 posted on 02/27/2013 10:39:18 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: babble-on
the Libertarian party would increase their influence 100-fold if instead of pointlessly fielding their own impossible longshot candidates they would endorse the R or D candidate they feel best exemplifies their principles in national senate and congressional races.

Considering what the establishment offers up every cycle, that's like chosing the venerial disease that's just right for me. No one makes it to the top of those tickets unless they are bought, paid for and fully compromised.

You guys should probably get used to being a permanent political minority because you all can't get along with the one group you have the most in common with (libertarians). When you can't get along with people who just want you to leave them alone and in turn will leave you alone, well, you better suck up to the feckless soccer moms again. But be ready for them to turn on you again, if they'll even listen to you.

43 posted on 02/27/2013 10:40:39 AM PST by Orangedog (An optimist is someone who tells you to 'cheer up' when things are going his way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mozilla
So despite every attempt, I just don’t know how the differences can be bridged.

Apply the same political standards you would in the fiscal realm to the social realm as well.

44 posted on 02/27/2013 10:42:21 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; Impy; BillyBoy
RE:”We're living in a country that is 70 percent socialist,” she says. “The government takes 60 percent of your money. They take care of your health care, your pensions ... who you can hire ... and you (libertarians) want to suck up to your little liberal friends and say, oh, we want to legalize pot? ... If you were a little manlier, you'd tell liberals what your position on employment discrimination is.”

Entertaining thought.

I am against big guberment so legalize gay marriage and pot and illegals,
but you can keep all those gubment programs going, they dont bother me, in fact I kind of like the student loans.

45 posted on 02/27/2013 10:48:06 AM PST by sickoflibs (Losing to Dems and Obama is not a principle! Its just losing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51
there is a difference between liberty and license.

Which is what, exactly?

Did you read the rest of my post?

Yes, and I didn't see my question addressed. If you did address it, please specify which part of your post did so.

46 posted on 02/27/2013 10:50:17 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: blueunicorn6
A Libertarian is just a Democrat who doesn’t want to pay his own taxes.

Okay, but turnabout is fair play, no?

A Republican is just a Democrat who's been bent over the sink by Barry O a few too many times and discovered hey, it's not that bad . . . I can get into playing this game too . . .

47 posted on 02/27/2013 10:51:23 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Dysart
Who makes this issue nearly the centerpiece of contemporary Libertarianism? Insiders or allies? Ideological rivals, perhaps? And why?
 

Good question. But legalized drugs is not the only focus of libertarians. They are pro-amnestry, pro-gay marriage, for open borders, and a whole host of other liberal ideals.

And the liberal FReepers we still have around here are very clever in distancing themselves from the pro-gay marriage concerns, as that would get them zotted, so what do they yammer on and on and on about?

Legalized drugs.

You can see the liberalism oozing out of every pore as they spew forth Barney Frank/Ron Paul talking points on marijuana. They think themselves very clever has they hide behind the Constitution as they bad mouth SoCons. One of them (on this thread now) evidently is a paid agitator from NORML, as he cuts and pastes bullet points from their website on a daily basis.

You ask what makes legalized drugs the centerpiece of libertarians? FReepers do. And JimRob tolerates this.

(See tagline)

48 posted on 02/27/2013 10:54:06 AM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Orangedog
When you can't get along with people who just want you to leave them alone and in turn will leave you alone, well, you better suck up to the feckless soccer moms again. But be ready for them to turn on you again, if they'll even listen to you.

Spot on.

Many of the red-meat psychos who patrol FR are so itchin' for a fight they can't distinguish between friend or foe anymore.

49 posted on 02/27/2013 10:56:17 AM PST by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
One of them (on this thread now) evidently is a paid agitator from NORML, as he cuts and pastes bullet points from their website on a daily basis.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to quote (with URLs) the NORML text that has allegedly been copied to FR by a poster on this thread.

50 posted on 02/27/2013 10:59:02 AM PST by JustSayNoToNannies ("The Lord has removed His judgments against you" - Zep. 3:15)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-121 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson