Posted on 08/03/2013 6:35:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
The very first bit of anti-libertarian humor I ever posted was this clever video about the anarcho-capitalist paradise of Somalia.
I then shared two cartoons, one on libertarian ice fishing and the other showinglibertarian lifeguards.
That was followed by a very funny list of the 24 types of libertarians.
But I haven’t shared anything making fun of people like me since this “think I do” montage last year.
Thanks to Buzzfeed, however, we now have something new for our collection. They came up with “23 Libertarian Problems” and here are two of my favorites from the list.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.townhall.com ...
Funniest thing I have read in I can't remember how long.
My dear friend, so much of what you know just is not so.
First order of business, of course, is to downsize the Government.
Amnesty? Not such a hot idea. Even Lew Rockwell came out against it because it would just create more people screaming for more Government benefits. Another 10+ million votes for "more goodies" is just not a good thing. Once the Government is downsized to the point where there aren't any Government benefits, then we can talk about immigration but doing so now while there is an incentive to "vote more goodies" is just not proper.
Any other myths I can help with?
You didn’t say anything related to what I posted.
Is a part of your order to join with conservatives to oppose and block the libertarian social agenda, or to advance it?
“I hope you understand my frustration with liberaltarians over social issues.”
It’s not a matter of “social issues”. It’s a matter of where overarching government gets to stick its nose.
The government shouldn’t legislate regarding marriage, sexuality, or a whole host of other areas where it’s seen fit to pass laws. The end result is the mess we have now.
I really couldn’t care less how my neighbors live as long is they keep it private, don’t hurt anyone, and pay their own way. That was a cornerstone of the America Way, before it became perverted into the current disgraceful situation.
You may choose to support government intervention into all sorts of personal matters, I most emphatically do not.
“Why not?”
Indeed, why not? Are you a tobacco or alcohol user JC? Or a modern day abolitionist?
Please enlighten us.
Still evading.
Name one. Or straightforwardly, like an honest man, admit you cannot.
First and foremost, I want the Government downsized. The rest can be discussed later when it is more appropriate.
If you want to win, you have to build a coalition. Try going it alone and see how well you do. Its not a winner.
What you do is pick your battles, choose priorities, and move accordingly. Smaller Government is always going to win over the libertarian (small-l) vote. It gets mine.
Make sense?
Again my point was made, we know what your social agenda is.
It is why you can’t be open and frank.
You said that you have spent time at democratic underground as a libertarian.
As Reagan did when he spoke to the libertarian magazine in 1975 about his conservatism, I assume that you shared some common ground that your libertarianism has with the left when you were interacting with the DUers.
What common grounds did you describe?
What agenda is that then?
First and foremost, I want the Government downsized and the Constitution adhered to in a strict manner.
What social agenda is that? Liberty? Freedom? Getting people out from under the boot heel of Washington DC?
You're like one of those people who tries to tell Catholics what they believe. It never ends well for the non-Catholic but does generate a load of good laughs.
First and foremost, I want the Government downsized. The rest can be discussed later when it is more appropriate.
If you want to win, you have to build a coalition. Try going it alone and see how well you do. Its not a winner.
What you do is pick your battles, choose priorities, and move accordingly. Smaller Government is always going to win over the libertarian (small-l) vote. It gets mine.
Make sense?
I am assuming ansel12 is a Christian. The pattern set forth by Jesus was to affect individuals, not storm into Rome (at the time Jesus walked the Earth) and take over the government. Most of us will fight for values and vote in lockstep with those values come hell or high water. Coalitions are for folks taking the easy road. You can toss us to the lions before we will condone un-Godly agendas.
Our children need to be raised to have integrity, so their families will have healthy, responsible lives and carry on the tradition. The crap being shoved down their throats by those who are liberal socially, is destructive and needs to be fought, no matter there economic perspective.
Libertarians are a never will be party precisely because they are disinclined to force their views upon others.
The points you object to are the logical conclusions of conservative principles. They may be unpleasant but nobody is compelled to go there; personal integrity is a choice, not a punishable compulsion.
Leftists, on the other hand, make those objectionable vices their starting principles (not marginal side effects) and leap off the cliff from there.
I don’t recall Catholics hiding their beliefs and evading them for hours and days and years on end.
If you ask a Catholic if he accepts equality in the military for homosexuals, he would probably answer.
Libertarianism advances because of having a party, but they could never become big for obvious reason, the contradiction of trying to combine conservative economics with a left wing social agenda in the open where people can actually see it, does not win many voters.
The only way that libertarianism can prevail, is to either corrupt the democrat party on economics, or corrupt the GOP on social issues and Christianity and traditional Americanism.
Amazing how some people can't tell the difference between libertarians and anarchists, isn't it?
What a crock, 1870 America and 1770 America would be lynching libertarians only post 1960s America embraces their social agenda, and nowhere man, “spy in your bedroom” is the most lefty language.
Is that really what you think of JR and freerepublic?
I believe folks should be able to drink and smoke. I drink occasionally, and I don’t smoke.
I also believe that the government has the constitutional power to regulate substances.
If you believe that the government doesn’t have this power, why not permit a 14 year old to drink legally?
Why would anyone assume that you are trustworthy on any matter if you not only abrogate that agreement, but do so with an arrogant sense of entitlement.
“The government shouldn’t legislate regarding marriage, sexuality”
So, bigamy, a-ok. Polygamy, a-ok. Sharia’s 4 wives, a-ok. Marrying children, a-ok. Marriage between a father and daughter, mother and son, a-ok.
You’re fine with all of these?
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.