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 ...
That’s the textbook description of a libertarian, not a conservative. See Cato Institute.
I’m working with folks who might be loosely associated with YAL, and they’ve helped me out. Win-win in my book.
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.
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.
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.
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.
THAT'S CRAP!...True....but crap.
The states have no business telling business what they have to do.
No, but it is Libertarian.
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.
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...........
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.
>> THAT’S CRAP!...True....but crap.
Yup, true statism
libertarian “true-believers” (the ones who apply the ideology to everything) are whacked out Utopianists
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.
I agree.
Real simple .
Read post #23
Study the meaning of the words.
Give money to TEA party candidates.
It is a good thing to do.
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..
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.
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.
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.