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

Skip to comments.

Young Libertarians Aim to Be Players in 2014 Elections (Your Opinions Please)
US News & World Report Online ^ | 2/21/14 | Lauren Fox

Posted on 02/22/2014 4:21:53 PM PST by majormaturity

From the article: Young Americans for Liberty’s political action committee – Liberty Action Fund – bills itself as a youth-driven, grass-roots machine ready to harness enthusiasm for former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, and leverage it into support for constitutionally focused and libertarian-minded congressional candidates. The PAC is an offshoot of Young Americans for Liberty, a libertarian youth organization with 500 chapters and more than 125,000 participants, according to the YAL website.

(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2014; libertarians; teaparty
A question to the assembled: What would be the consequences to the conservative movement if the Tea Party and Young Libertarians united to capture the Senate this Fall? Suppose both groups agreed to back mutually agreed-upon candidates? It seems to me that both individually lack enough clout to save us. But together, could they show the GOP that the old guard is defeated? And would that return the ship of state to a constitutional course? Talk amongst yourselves.
1 posted on 02/22/2014 4:21:53 PM PST by majormaturity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: majormaturity

IMO, “Young Libertarians Aim to Be Players in 2014 Elections” would make a better title for your thread.


2 posted on 02/22/2014 4:26:21 PM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: majormaturity

I’m not fan of the total libertarian package but I see exactly zero future for conservatives or libertarians if we don’t find common ground to unite around.


3 posted on 02/22/2014 4:27:16 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: majormaturity

First the Libertarians would have to be small ‘l’ Libertarians (Ronald Reagan is the best example) who are not ashamed or afraid of being Social Conservatives or lacking that, would promise to work with Social Conservatives, dropping their fight against Social conservative laws like Anti-Abortion laws and fighting the Gay Agenda, Conversely, the Social Conservatives would have to work for the Limited Government that Libertarians desire. Most already do, desiring less government in most if not all areas of their lives.

If that sort of compromise can be achieved, this collaborative movement or approach will work, if it cannot be achieved, expect more infighting that does nobody any good.


4 posted on 02/22/2014 4:29:49 PM PST by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
I’m not fan of the total libertarian package

Nor am I. However, desperate times call for desperate measures.

5 posted on 02/22/2014 4:30:24 PM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts ("The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it." - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Thank you, duly noted. I was just a bit concerned that if I used that title, some might ignore it because of the word “libertarian.” However, I think you are right - more precision is better. Thanks again.


6 posted on 02/22/2014 4:31:36 PM PST by majormaturity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

>> First the Libertarians would have to be small ‘l’ Libertarians

Yes.

There are two prominent social issues that young folks need to understand: 1) killing nascent human life is not libertarian, 2) forcing the citizens to support and service homosexual behavior through law is not libertarian.


7 posted on 02/22/2014 4:36:48 PM PST by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Not sure what you mean, but “Social Conservatives” to me means fiscally tight, but socially loose. NJ is a great example of this model. I don’t perceive the Tea Party as merely social conservatives; I see them as true conservatives - less spending, less intrusion by big gov’t. Maybe I’m wrong.


8 posted on 02/22/2014 4:36:48 PM PST by majormaturity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: majormaturity
Not sure what you mean, but “Social Conservatives” to me means fiscally tight, but socially loose.

*****************************

? What is your definition of "socially loose"?

9 posted on 02/22/2014 4:41:16 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: trisham

Fiscally tight (reduce spending & gov’t costs) but allowing abortion, gay marriage, pretty much anything short of screwing in public, on the personal behavior side. Freedom in terms of personal choices and life; but stay out of my wallet.


10 posted on 02/22/2014 4:44:36 PM PST by majormaturity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: majormaturity

You may be completely misinformed. That does not describe a social conservative.


11 posted on 02/22/2014 4:46:44 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: trisham

Visit NJ - then get back to me. Perhaps we aren’t connecting on the phrase, but the point is, can the Libertarians and Tea Party unite for a common victory? Other than that, please post the correct definition of a social conservative for my learning. Thanks.


12 posted on 02/22/2014 4:50:02 PM PST by majormaturity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Based on clearly anecdotal evidence, i.e., young people I know personally, they are “libertarian” precisely because they oppose the conservative social positions on gays and abortion. In that order. Gay rights is THE civil rights issue of their generation. Abortion as an issue doesn’t even come a close second. Otherwise, especially on economics, these young folks are already very conservative. With this kind of irreconcilable difference, I can’t picture a great coming together, unfortunately.


13 posted on 02/22/2014 4:54:05 PM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: majormaturity

Social conservatives are pro-family, pro-traditional marriage, and pro-religion.


14 posted on 02/22/2014 4:56:25 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Case closed. You’re absolutely right.

Libertarians are serious, enough to kick in the right doors and show up and do the heavy lifting, at precinct, county, state and national conventions. Noise and youth and energy at minimum, makes a statement.

I’m seeing too little of all that among conservatives. Putting Libertarians down is a huge mistake, given the ground they gained with state convention rules that hamstrung conservatives.


15 posted on 02/22/2014 4:58:57 PM PST by RitaOK ( VIVA CHRISTO REY / Public education is the farm team for more Marxists coming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: trisham

Noted. Different definitions then in different parts of the country. I like your definition better.


16 posted on 02/22/2014 4:59:01 PM PST by majormaturity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: majormaturity
Different definitions then in different parts of the country

***********************

I don't think so.

17 posted on 02/22/2014 5:00:09 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: FReepers
1773 Was A Pivotal Moment
Let's Make 2014 Ours!


Click The Pic To Donate

Support FR, Donate Monthly If You Can

18 posted on 02/22/2014 5:05:29 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (The Fed Gov is not one ring to rule them all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RitaOK

I have several black conserva-tarian friends on twitter and in the real world who say they would love to see a Cruz/Paul ticket.


19 posted on 02/22/2014 5:12:30 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Excellent example.

We have RINOS and fiscal conservatives, social conservatives. This means painting Libertarians with one brush misses all those Libertarians who will happily allign with us.

If-we-quit-calling-them-names, and pecking against their flank radicals, as if they are their sum total.


20 posted on 02/22/2014 5:25:05 PM PST by RitaOK ( VIVA CHRISTO REY / Public education is the farm team for more Marxists coming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: majormaturity

That’s the textbook description of a libertarian, not a conservative. See Cato Institute.


21 posted on 02/22/2014 5:51:18 PM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: majormaturity

I’m working with folks who might be loosely associated with YAL, and they’ve helped me out. Win-win in my book.


22 posted on 02/22/2014 6:22:46 PM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: majormaturity
What you've described is license not freedom. It's why Libertarians are doomed to failure. No society can survive with a licentious population.
23 posted on 02/22/2014 7:25:22 PM PST by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
"There are two prominent social issues that young folks need to understand: 1) killing nascent human life is not libertarian, 2) forcing the citizens to support and service homosexual behavior through law is not libertarian. "

Most of the libertarians I run into would be totally aboard with the first clause...but would prefer no state sponsored/codified marriage. Where that state sponsorship exists, they would see no harm to allowing homos to marry each other.

Abortion is generally not supported by libertarians.

24 posted on 02/22/2014 7:55:27 PM PST by Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

Well, it goes further than state sponsorship — it’s a matter of statism when it concerns forcing individuals to service the behavior. Homosexual marriage is a form of statism.


25 posted on 02/22/2014 8:22:37 PM PST by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
" it’s a matter of statism when it concerns forcing individuals to service the behavior"

You must be referring to the recent news of folks being forced to do commerce with open homos? Yeah, that's crazy. A man ought to be able to do business with whom he chooses, and decline those he doesn't.

But what does that have to do with homo marriage? I'm not a supporter mind you, I just don't get the link. Seems like a reach.

26 posted on 02/22/2014 8:31:43 PM PST by Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

What is homosexual marriage when the states nor faiths refuse to recognize it? It’s non-existent.

When the state recognizes homosexual marriage, every entity of the state is essentially forced to support it where applicable including caterers, photographers, bakers, insurance companies, adoption agencies, etc. The only reason a state recognizes homosexual marriage is to ensure it’s supported within the state.

I have no interest in personal contracts involving homosexuals. I have no interest in preventing individuals from engaging in sodomy. But I have a problem when the state mandates that the behavior is supported and serviced by individuals/entities of the state.


27 posted on 02/22/2014 8:43:37 PM PST by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
When the state recognizes homosexual marriage, every entity of the state is essentially forced to support it where applicable including caterers, photographers, bakers, insurance companies, adoption agencies, etc.

THAT'S CRAP!...True....but crap.

The states have no business telling business what they have to do.

28 posted on 02/22/2014 8:47:02 PM PST by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate "Republicans Freed the Slaves" Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
1) killing nascent human life is not libertarian.
2) forcing the citizens to support and service homosexual behavior through law is not libertarian.

No, but it is Libertarian.

29 posted on 02/22/2014 8:50:07 PM PST by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate "Republicans Freed the Slaves" Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
I see exactly zero future for conservatives or libertarians if we don’t find common ground to unite around.

Almost every social conservative issue has suffered huge setbacks with the exception of one: RKBA rights are gaining ground in state after state. Interestigly, this is one issue where conservatives and libertarians are in agreement.

30 posted on 02/22/2014 8:51:58 PM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Bloody Sam Roberts

MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL....LIBERTARIANS DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE NATION-STATE-NO BORDERS

I will support liberaltarians once they take their experiment of LIMITED GOVERNMENT to CA and are successful there...........


31 posted on 02/22/2014 8:53:49 PM PST by magna carta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: majormaturity

YAL was created to harm Young Americans for Freedom.

However, I am always for limited government people getting more involved and holding more offices. I’d rather Libertarians than Democrats or RINOs.


32 posted on 02/22/2014 8:55:03 PM PST by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER

>> THAT’S CRAP!...True....but crap.

Yup, true statism


33 posted on 02/22/2014 9:04:22 PM PST by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: magna carta

libertarian “true-believers” (the ones who apply the ideology to everything) are whacked out Utopianists


34 posted on 02/22/2014 9:07:25 PM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
Yeah, I'm not a fan of state sponsored/defined marriage.

While ingrained in our culture and laws it does lead to some unequal treatment under tax and probate law.

People who are not married pay more in taxes.

I'm just of the opinion that state sponsorship has lived it's useful life.

35 posted on 02/22/2014 9:08:46 PM PST by Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

I agree.


36 posted on 02/22/2014 9:12:47 PM PST by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: majormaturity; Varda

Real simple .
Read post #23
Study the meaning of the words.
Give money to TEA party candidates.
It is a good thing to do.


37 posted on 02/22/2014 9:36:55 PM PST by right way right (America has embraced the suck of Freedumb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trisham

Hey hon.. long time no see :) Hope all is well with you and your family ;^)

I do understand what he means (and the NE definitions).. I don’t agree with it, but he does have a point (which many of us here on FR have tried to point out since before the 2008 elections)...

What WE see as a Conserv and what the NE sees is totally different... There are still some here wanting sweatervest back on the ballot (as a Conserv) >.<

BTW, I am with you..


38 posted on 02/23/2014 2:21:11 AM PST by Bikkuri ( those would have been affected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: majormaturity

Too many young libertarians focus on drugs and sexual freedom but don’t care about big government. Too many of them are in favor of government mandated equality, to the detriment of freedom.
Not a good fit.
We need to get our message out how we enable them to have freedom, including economic freedom.


39 posted on 02/23/2014 8:20:14 AM PST by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: majormaturity

I’m not anti-libertarian in total.
But we have to understand they can be a “tool” for Democrats.
Funding a libertarian and winning with a “Clintonian plurality” is a current scheme that has worked before.


40 posted on 02/23/2014 8:24:53 AM PST by nascarnation (I'm hiring Jack Palladino to investigate Baraq's golf scores.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bikkuri

Nice to see you, Bikkuri! :)


41 posted on 02/23/2014 9:53:18 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: majormaturity

there synergies of beliefs, on Liberty, that can be exploited to common purpose, if “social conservatives”, “fiscal conservatives” and general big C Conservatives want to explore where, when and how they can do that - it essentially requires understanding what Liberty means to each, in the context of some policy area; they won’t always achieve total agreement; they will reach fuller understanding of each other and might, out of mutual reespect, find compromises toward common purpose they can live with


42 posted on 02/23/2014 10:22:18 AM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
First the Libertarians would have to be small ‘l’ Libertarians (Ronald Reagan is the best example) who are not ashamed or afraid of being Social Conservatives or lacking that, would promise to work with Social Conservatives, dropping their fight against Social conservative laws like Anti-Abortion laws and fighting the Gay Agenda, Conversely, the Social Conservatives would have to work for the Limited Government that Libertarians desire. Most already do, desiring less government in most if not all areas of their lives.

If that sort of compromise can be achieved, this collaborative movement or approach will work, if it cannot be achieved, expect more infighting that does nobody any good.

Totally agree however in my experience in trying to find common ground with libertarians in which to work together I don't see it happening. I was told that it would have to be me and other like minded conservatives who would have to compromise some key issues of our Christian beliefs and I decided that would make me no better than them or even libtards for that matter. So, no just like the libertarians I've worked with I don't see it happening in reality, at least not in this election cycle.

43 posted on 02/23/2014 1:05:33 PM PST by Ron H. (The GOP-e is the Tea Party's best recruiter yet. Stay at it GOP the Tea Party appreciates your help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: trisham

My thoughts exactly! Paint me confused with that definition.


44 posted on 02/23/2014 1:09:15 PM PST by Ron H. (The GOP-e is the Tea Party's best recruiter yet. Stay at it GOP the Tea Party appreciates your help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: TBP

“I’d rather Libertarians than Democrats or RINOs.”

I do not want ANY of the three to hold office. Liberal Democrats and RINO Republicans (usually also liberal) are and obvious evil. Libertarians are basically, IMO, just anarchists and isolationists....both dangerous ways to think.


45 posted on 02/23/2014 4:56:00 PM PST by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

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