Skip to comments.Christie goes after libertarians — hard
Posted on 07/25/2013 8:32:09 PM PDT by Nachum
ASPEN, Colo. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) on Thursday offered a clear broadside against Republicans drifting toward a more libertarian view of foreign policy, lumping Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in with them and suggesting they explain their position to victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The House earlier this week narrowly voted against a reduction in funding for the National Security Agency, as libertarian-leaning members from both sides joined together to vote for the amendment. As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Liberals like Christie are the flies and libertarians are the windshield, here.
Leftists and libertopians are like National Socialists and Communists in 30’s Germany, killing each other for the same voter bloc.
So, perpetual warfare for peace.
Your progressive b*st*rds have gutted our military, encouraged an invasion of illegal alien locust, taxed our citizens to redistribute more of our shrinking wealth and called us racist, xenophobic and selfish when we object.
Some of us have become so fed up that we've retired early, gone on disability and even abandoned the ranks of the makers to join the takers. How do you think that is ultimately going to work out for you when TSHTF?
Conservatives need libertarians and libertarians need conservatives.
If we don’t hang together, we shall surely hang separately.
I agree, but be prepared to be lectured otherwise.
Neither of them need Chris Christie.
What a bunch of crap.
Who’s on your side - the guy you agree with 70-80% of the time or the guy who agrees with the Democrats 95% of the time? Hint - it ain’t Christie.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) ...
He's a Republicrat? I thought he was a Democan.
So conservatives need backers of gay marriage and amnesty?
” - - - He dismissed some of the current privacy/national security debates as esoteric.
Yup, Christie believes that the US Federal Government would NEVER do anything to harm those who are TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY.
Crispy Creme is again irrelevant and off the mark.
The only reason Libertarians are still around is because idiots like Crispy Creme sadly make them needed as lawyers for the people who have no representation in Congress with RINOs and Democrates running the dungeon of make believe world of DC and continued abuses of power under bigger and bigger government
This desire for exclusive neededness goes so far into the language of dependency as to make us believe that we need Stevie Wonder in Florida for music and self defense, when we can sing ourselves fine without your fascist approvers in the controled private sector. This is the dungeoning and hostaging mentality which aims to make the hostaged feel so incapacitated and demoralized, that they feel they need their captors now.
Libertarians might not be the answer in legislation, but they are certainly so to keep our eyes and spirits open.
I've got a better idea. Why doesn't Gov. Christie explain to the families of all of the people who have been jailed because of New Jersey's firearm laws, or had someone they know murdered because they couldn't defend them with a firearm, why he hasn't done anything to allow the citizens of New Jersey to exercise their right to keep and bear arms?
I'd be happy to explain the position of people opposed to excessive and unwarranted NSA surveillance now to anyone who wants to talk about it. But unlike Gov. Christie, I don't think it is possible to explain anything to the victims of that attack who died on Sept. 11, 2001, and I think the survivors of that awful attack realize that spying on American citizens today can't possibly have any effect on what happened more than 11 years ago.
As to Gov. Christie's apparent belief that spying on all American citizens is somehow useful to detect and prevent future terrorist attacks, I'd like to hear his explanation of why he doesn't seem to support other strategies which are much more likely to enhance our security. Like securing our borders, and enhancing screening and denying entry to people who are likely to be terrorists.
What makes you think libertarians support either of those ideas?
Indeed, I am still wondering how can one be for small government in “Libertaria” when Libertarians seem to favor government religious dependence on protecting gays through gay marriage and illegals through legalization via the Feds protection scheme.
It’s not like contracts between two men were ever illegal before, but, whatever.
They still are a good eye opener into the errors of big government, though, if one eyed.
Indeed, it’s not like before 911 NewYorkers had assumed their own self defense freely.
Crispy Creme errs in that in fact New Yorkers were completely dependent on government for their security before and on 911. Oh, irony, and now more dependency is warranted as further a psychological slap on the happless and confused citizens of NYC.
I like the way he misrepresents what I perceive Libertarian beliefs to be.
A true libertarian is not a pacifist, indeed they are probably some of the most vociferous defenders of a military because they realize the need to protect liberty from reach of tyrants
Would a libertarian have been able to stop 9/11? I doubt it. Just like neither the Bush administration nor the Clinton administration could have.
The issue is not what happened. It is what is done about it. Libertarians are not pacifist. They just oppose preemptive invasions
A related issue
I don’t actually blame the invasion of Iraq so much on GW Bush as I do Tony Blair. He had been agitating for an invasion of Iraq since at least 1998 but the UK is too weak to do that and Bill Clinton wouldn’t bite. I don’t think G.W. Bush would have invaded if not for 9/11.
Iraq, or so it appears to me was playing a dangerous game.
I believe the Iraqi government was afraid of Iran and wanted the region to think it had vast stocks of chemical weapons to deter an attack by the Iranians. The Iraqi government knew they were not liked and didn’t think they could count on any help0 from anyone else. (Probably a wise assumption) but by playing games with the inspectors they kept a seed of doubt alive in the minds the Iranian military. I don’t think the Iraqi government thought they would ever be invaded.
You have a point: since there is no unified libertarian manifesto (not all subscribe to the von Mises one), one cannot tell; individual prominent libertarians (self-professed) seem all over the place on such matters. For example, the United Kingdom Independence Party calls itself libertarian, but while opposing gay marriage on the religious plane, it supports gay civil unions.
I have seen self-described “libertarians” even go so far as to oppose age of consent laws on sex as well as oppose laws against incest.
Not a lecture, just a fact, Libertarians are not Conservatives no matter how much they try to claim they are.
If no man may aggress against another; if, in short, everyone has the absolute right to be free from aggression, then this at once implies that the libertarian stands foursquare for what are generally known as civil liberties: the freedom to speak, publish, assemble, and to engage in such victimless crimes as pornography, sexual deviation, and prostitution (which the libertarian does not regard as crimes at all, since he defines a crime as violent invasion of someone elses person or property). Furthermore, he regards conscription as slavery on a massive scale. And since war, especially modern war, entails the mass slaughter of civilians, the libertarian regards such conflicts as mass murder and therefore totally illegitimate.Think such positions might grossly offend a conservative? especially a pro-family one that sees the so-called victimless crimes for the attack on the family that they are? Never mind the views on war that just do not jibe with George Washingtons notions of readiness for same.
Pork Porkie, running for president. Wow. (yawn)
I bet 90% of all those who call themselves “libertarians” only do so because they think it’s about making weed legal.
Beyond that they have no clue.
Chris “I helped elected Obama” Christie has a lot of nerve.
I bet he runs as the Hildabeast’s VP in 2016.
When I first read this I thought it said “Christie goes after Librarians — hard”
This is the same Fat Christie who supported the Islamic Terrorist supporting Mosque being built at Ground Zero.....Christie supports the Islamic Terrorists who cheered 9/11
Christie would be a disaster for the US if elected president. Weak elbows and bent knees are bad leadership qualities
So you’re all for the NSA domestic spying?
What does Christie have to do with either conservatives or libertarians?
That’s a painful contortion to not blame Bush for his policies.
I don’t think Christie has been able to bend his knees in at least 40 years!!
>> What makes you think libertarians support either of those ideas?
Unfortunately the Libertarian Party platform has defined what it means to be ‘libertarian’. I’ve grown tired of defending the libertarianism that I believe is something quite different especially concerning migration and morality.
>> [Christie] suggesting [libertarians] explain their position to victims of the Sept. 11, 2001
A super-idiotic ‘suggestion’ if that is indeed what Christie intended — there was no active war component at the time.
I expect you'll see a lot more people calling themselves Republicans who couldn't even give you a decent definition of a republic without Google, support legislation that effecively destroys the boundaries between the state a national governments.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
A warrant for all communications from all Americans does not qualify for "probable cause" nor does it "particularly describe" the things to be seized. This is completely and totally unacceptable. Any government that would engage in such data collection is illegitimate, and any big government liberal who would support such data collection is un-American.
Why is Gov. Christie afraid of libertarians? Good grief!
Even if Christie were running against Barack Obama himself, I would never vote for him.
A lot of conservatives could live with the government not being involved in marriages at all, just legal contracts. Let the churches and other organizations do the marrying.
Amnesty? I think some of the libertarians are beginnning to come around to protecting citizenship and residency.
The RINOS are getting desparate because even if it's shortlived, a coalition of conservatives and libertarians could get our traitors knocked out of office.
I would say that the opponents of libertarian ideas are the ones who insist that the Libertarian Party defines what it means to be 'libertarian', in the same way that leftists say that the Republican Party platform, and politicians, define conservatism.
Neither is true.
Christie is afraid of Rand as well he should be.
Christie wants to be prez and Rand is his biggest obstacle.
uh no. There is a biiiigggg conservative libertarian following.
Get yourself educated
Read Maybury and others.
That's a ridiculous slur against a large number of people whose political views you apparently disagree with. Along the same vein, while you may have seen some "self-described libertarian" advocate for changes in those laws, I have read plenty of actual news reports of people who subscribe to the positions of the Republican and Democratic parties, and who vote for their candidates, be convicted of actually performing those illegal acts.
So if your logic were to prevail, we should doubly oppose the positions of Republicans and Democrats alike since some of them not only believe that such actions are appropriate, but do them.
Taking the most extreme position espoused by someone who claims to be affiliated with a political group as representative of the group is a tactic of the left, not conservatives.
Lets look at them one by one:
* freedom to speak and publish - widely supported by voters.
* freedom to assemble - widely supported by voters.
* pornography - legal already, internet traffic data shows large percentages of the population view pornography. Little political support for changing those laws apparent among current voters, regardless of the moral issues many of us feel about the topic.
* sexual deviation - in the context of the times when the book was written the term included behavior which few in our society now think should be illegal, including what President Clinton liked to do. Obviously a contentious issue still for other kinds of sexual behavior, but politically speaking the position expressed by Rothbard is not far different from that espoused by many politicians today.
* prostitution - Ask the citizens of Nevada.
* violent invasion of someone elses person or property is a crime - widely supported by voters.
* conscription as slavery on a massive scale - how many conservatives would support a mandatory 2 year "community service" requirement if President Obama proposed it?
* the mass slaughter of civilians is totally illegitimate - widely supported by voters, it is one reason our rules of engagement are so strict. Would the voters today support a candidate who proposed simply bombing the cities of an enemy to "break the will of the people"?
Christie is another RINO wolf in sheeps’ clothing.