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

Skip to comments.

The Conservative-Libertarian clash: Values and the free society
Enter Stage Right ^ | May 12, 2003 | By W. James Antle III

Posted on 05/12/2003 1:22:04 PM PDT by JURB

Conservatives and libertarians are often allied against common enemies: the growth of the redistributive state, the assault on private property, the denigration of the free market and various socialist plots large and small. Ron Paul, Walter Williams, Jacob Sullum, Stephen Chapman and Charles Murray have seen both labels applied to them and have had their written work appear in the flagship publications of both movements. The Cato Institute is variously described as a conservative and libertarian think tank.

A reminder of this overlap could be found in the reaction to a brief item on the Drudge Report suggesting that libertarian talk show host Larry Elder might run for office as a Republican ?there were libertarians, including some at Reason magazine's in-house blog, who wondered why Elder would desert the Libertarian Party and conservatives surprised he wasn't already a Republican.

But occasionally the underlying ideological distinctions between libertarians and conservatives surface. Some tried to highlight these differences with regard to the U.S. military campaign in Iraq, but professed libertarians like Brink Lindsey and Glenn Harlan Reynolds of Instapundit fame emerged as staunch interventionists in contrast with a resolute antiwar right typified by such publications as The American Conservative and Chronicles. Despite the diversity of opinion both among those who describe themselves as conservatives and those who describe themselves as libertarians, a number of post-9/11 policy disputes ? the USA PATRIOT Act, the use of the military to spread democracy, various military campaigns in the war on terror, the Bill of Rights and privacy in an age of terrorism ? have increasingly separated many mainstream libertarians from large numbers of conventional conservatives.

Nevertheless, libertarian writers are still published in conservative newspapers, magazines and websites. Libertarian policy institutes are still mined for pro-market talking points by conservative commentators. Jonah Goldberg still refers to libertarians as operationally being members of the political right. What has kept many, perhaps most, libertarians operating within the broader right is the fusionism championed by the venerable conservative magazine that employs Goldberg, National Review.

Conceived by the late political theorist Frank Meyer, fusionism posited that in the American Republic, libertarian means could be used to achieve traditionalist ends. Want the traditional family to thrive? Stop subsidizing illegitimacy through federal welfare payments. Want children to grow up to be faithful and law-abiding? Stop funding the left-wing propaganda being dispensed by public education programs. The synthesis was imperfect ? some Kirkian traditionalists and Strausian conservatives continued to be outspoken about their differences with libertarians, Rothbardian libertarians in particular were never co-opted by fusionism ? but it allowed for libertarians and conservatives to work together and share such common heroes as F.A. Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman and Peter Bauer.

Meyer's fusionism was always fine as far as it went, but it began to break down when confronted by two different factors: Some conservatives were perfectly comfortable using the state to promote their values; some libertarians cared nothing for traditional morality and in fact regarded any concept of shared values as collectivist nonsense.

This split was evident during the recent Bill Bennett gambling flap. Libertarian criticism of Bennett in light of the Newsweek and Washington Monthly revelations equaled and perhaps exceeded left-liberal criticism in intensity. The former education secretary and drug czar was an unrepentant drug warrior and leading force for using the federal government to promote traditionalist conservative objectives. But libertarian criticism was not limited to Bennett's designs for the state: many were clearly put off by his propensity to judge lifestyles, criticize individual choices and espouse limits on personal appetites. It was these attributes of his moralizing persona as much as his stance on drugs and other public policy issues that made libertarians rejoice in the knowledge that he ? at least arguably hypocritically ? indulged in some vices of his own.

Even before the Bennett story broke, there was an article by Stanley Kurtz on gay marriage attempting to address some of the libertarian arguments, which was followed by a cacophonous ? and largely unfavorable ? response by some of the leading libertarian voices of the blogosphere. What was truly remarkable about the ensuing debate is that traditionalist conservatives felt Kurtz's arguments had convincingly carried the day while his libertarian critics found them self-evidently absurd. Both sides simply talked past each other. But it is important to note that the libertarian objection to Kurtz's piece was not always confined to his partial defense of Sen. Rick Santorum's thoughts on sodomy laws or even his insistence on state involvement in the institution of marriage. Some libertarians explicitly rejected his call to shared values and social conventions.

The tensions that have frayed the National Review fusionist consensus do in part reflect ideological differences that can never completely be bridged. But some of the arguments at the root of the conservative-libertarian schism are counterproductive even from the perspective of the side of the debate advancing them.

Government at all levels, and the federal government in particular, can never function primarily as a morals police and will never be an adequate guarantor of traditional values. The state is not inherently conservative. The state can only grow and support itself by extracting wealth from the private economy; excessive growth, even when self-styled conservatives are running it, can only come at the expense of civil society (including what in today's parlance we refer to as "faith-based institutions"), the family and the community. The state can uphold individual rights and prevent people from aggressing against others; it cannot make people internalize virtues in the same was as other life-changing institutions that need room to grow unfettered by government.

Just as conservatives must remember the limits of government, libertarians must understand the importance of virtue. A free society rests in part on shared values, including a common understanding of the intrinsic value of each individual and the obligation to respect others' rights. It is not inconsistent with a regime of minimal government to judge, shun and exclude certain conduct while to affirming, upholding and exhorting certain other conduct. In fact, under this regime the power of real community becomes even more important. A belief in individualism does not mean ignoring the reality that human beings are relational creatures, who live together and form their understandings of the world around them together rather than in total isolation from one another. It is thus important how they live together. The ability to live peacefully together is vital to a free society and may be supported by the moral and cultural framework of that society.

This of course does not solve every policy debate that may divide conservatives and libertarians. Just because something is immoral does not mean that it should be legal; just because something is legal does not mean it is moral; just because some people reject the moral code that has been historically shared by a particular society does not mean that everything that violates this code should be legal.

In my own politics, I am a conservative-libertarian hybrid. I happen to believe both in the traditional understanding of marriage and that sodomy, prostitution and private adult consensual sex generally should be legal. I believe society can and should, through law as well as custom, affirm the two-parent, marriage-based family as the ideal without criminalizing other arrangements and throwing people who live differently in jail. There is plenty in that grab bag of positions to invite disagreement from all kinds of conservatives and libertarians; specific policy positions can be debated.

What is important is a common understanding presupposed by Meyer's fusionism. Edward Feser, a teacher of philosophy at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, once offered the following description of this understanding in an outstanding essay published on libertarian Lew Rockwell's website: "If I had to sum up the common moral vision of libertarians and conservatives, I would say it is a commitment to the idea of the dignity of man." As Feser went on to note, libertarians tend to emphasize the fact that this means the individual cannot be used as a means to another's end while conservatives tend to emphasize conformity to a moral law that reflects this special dignity. But each emphasis in its own way reflects a belief in the uniqueness of humanity and the inherent value of the individual.

It is because of this belief that in the United States and (to a lesser extent) Canada conservatives and libertarians, for all their differences on many issues, have so often collaborated in a crucial task: Conserving a society with a tradition of valuing individual liberty.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: civilization; conservatism; libertarians; values; wjamesantleiii
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-143 next last
To: AdamSelene235
We ended up having to go to war twice to do the job we should have completed the first time had we not surrendered our sovereignty to the United Nations. Thousand of innocent Americans and Iraqis died as a result. Now the American taxpayer must finance a complete political and economic transformation of the Middle East. We're just getting started over there. We have yet to even name our true enemies, the Saudis. You'll excuse me if I'm not awed by the brilliance of our foreign policy.
47 -AS235-

It will soon become apparent, imo, that a major goal of the Iraq war was to gain a base from which to control the Saudi 'situation', which is supposedly about to collapse.
- As you say, we are there for the duration.
51 posted on 05/12/2003 4:53:19 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: The Green Goblin
Libertarians are against the very existence of government schools, so your argument is moot on that point...

No it isn't. To claim, as many of them do, that religion should be banned from government schools because government should not fund education is a dodge. A typical Libertarian dodge which fits in perfectly with the liberal agenda. One doesn't give up constitutional rights simply because government funds something. Not all Libertarians are this way but many are. You can pin them down by asking about a privately funded Nativity scene on public land. They are against that too. Just my opinion of course but I believe, strongly, that most Libertarians are liberals in disguise.

Should they ever accomplish anything concrete to advance the principles they claim to hold, I will think different. But in 30 years they have done absolutely nothing except talk and pick off an occasional GOP candidate.

52 posted on 05/12/2003 4:56:29 PM PDT by DPB101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: LizardQueen
I like that. South Park Republican. That's me, too!
53 posted on 05/12/2003 4:57:00 PM PDT by gcruse (Vice is nice, but virtue can hurt you. --Bill Bennett)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: bribriagain
Garbage. I consider myself a libertarian and have morals and values that come from my upbringing, religous beliefs, and my internal code of honor, not from some nanny-state gov't trying to legislate them or the Defenders of the Public Morality trying to stuff them down my throat.

LQ
54 posted on 05/12/2003 4:57:57 PM PDT by LizardQueen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: bribriagain; cinFLA; yall

bribriagain wrote:
"Libertarians are conservatives without morals or values."


Some time ago, tired of FR's neverending libertarian/conservative bash fest, JR established the RLC Forum, and posted their libertarian policy statement:

REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/721810/posts

Why don't you boys take a look at it, and tell us all how 'immoral' & valueless it is?

I'll hazard a guess as to why you won't. -- Juvenile inablity.


55 posted on 05/12/2003 5:10:39 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
If ever I say "whatever", it will be whenever, wherever, and however I choose to say it. Got it? Good. I knew you would!

I liked the article. But Mises, Rothbard, Rockwell, and Hoppe are all from the true conservative libertarianism. Rothbard didn't like the lift wing libertines from Bizarro World.
56 posted on 05/12/2003 5:12:10 PM PDT by ValenB4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LizardQueen
"Defenders of the Public Morality trying to stuff them down my throat."

OK, LQ.

BTW, should there be laws against child molestors?

57 posted on 05/12/2003 5:12:28 PM PDT by bribriagain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: ValenB4
Whatever, whenever, wherever.

My answer: Whatever you say.

And, I didn't know about that piece. That's why, against my better judgement, I asked your opinion. Thanks. Now I know what NOT to think.

Just kidding, of course, sweetie.
58 posted on 05/12/2003 5:14:08 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford (Bush helps those who help themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
"The fact that some people think morals and values are better governed by Church"

Example: The Catholic Church

59 posted on 05/12/2003 5:15:20 PM PDT by bribriagain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
You're correct that Cato is not big-L Libertarian, and there's a good reason why.

Cato was founded by David Koch, who was the 1980 LP candidate for Vice President. Koch used his own millions to bankroll the campaign, and the result was by far the LP's best showing in a Presidential election, a whopping 1%.

The LP had two opposite reactions. The more practical members realized they were on to something, and got Koch to agree to back a candidate again in 1984. The radicals were horrified at their electoral success, feeling that it implied a lack of ideological purity, so they nominated the most radical, hard-line candidate they could find. The radicals finally prevailed on the fourth ballot, by one vote. The Koch supporters stormed out and never returned. Koch diverted his attention and funding to Cato.

The radicals have owned the party ever since, so it has remained irrelevant ever since, which is fine with them. It allows them to dedicate all of their time to collecting dues, choosing party officials, drafting platforms, issuing condescending press releases, and recruiting computer programmers and Trekkies as members. They also nominally run candidates for office, but only if they're absolutely certain that they can't win.
60 posted on 05/12/2003 5:16:00 PM PDT by Stay the course
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
Definately taking a risk when you ask for my judgment. Sometimes I'm afraid to ask for my own judgment. Gotta go to the store.
61 posted on 05/12/2003 5:17:16 PM PDT by ValenB4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"I'll hazard a guess as to why you won't. -- Juvenile inablity"

Me thinks you protest too much. How childish.

62 posted on 05/12/2003 5:17:36 PM PDT by bribriagain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: ValenB4
Enjoy the store. I'm sure it'll enjoy you.
63 posted on 05/12/2003 5:18:30 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford (Bush helps those who help themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Cathryn Crawford
By the way, if I want to know who was the costar in Star Trek episode 439, or who did the pencil work for Superman vs. Batman comic #48, I'll ask Jonah Goldberg. He's not very useful for much else.
64 posted on 05/12/2003 5:20:59 PM PDT by ValenB4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
"It's not terribly surprising, as government is hardly the best place to look for examples of moral rectitude."

Government is only as good as the people it governs. Good government, like the Bush Administration, will not usurp our rights. If the people elect Shrillary for President, the people deserve the consequences.

65 posted on 05/12/2003 5:23:37 PM PDT by bribriagain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: bribriagain
So, you think that morals are taught more effectively by atheistic government than by the Catholic Church?
66 posted on 05/12/2003 5:23:59 PM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: bribriagain
Yes, that's true, but...

Change in who governs is inevitable, and from time to time the wrong people will be in charge. I see limited government as a means of controlling the damage that can be done by people like the Clintons.

Obviously, we need governance; the question is how much?

67 posted on 05/12/2003 5:26:17 PM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: ValenB4
You know how much I love your witty sarcasm.
68 posted on 05/12/2003 5:26:54 PM PDT by Cathryn Crawford (Bush helps those who help themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: bribriagain
BTW, should there be laws against child molestors?

Yes, of course. In my view, gov's purpose is to protect us from one another, not to protect us from ourselves.

Therefore, laws against murder, child molestation, robbery, driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol etc. are entirely necessary. Laws such as ones against drug use and consensual sex in the privacy of ones home are not.

And there are plenty of things I believe are wrong and won't allow in my home even though I don't believe they should be illegal.

BTW, what was the point of your child molestation question? You think that because I'm a small-l libertarian I'm in favor of child abuse?

LQ

69 posted on 05/12/2003 5:26:59 PM PDT by LizardQueen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
"So, you think that morals are taught more effectively by atheistic government than by the Catholic Church? "

No.

But no institution is perfect. When an institution goes astray, it needs to be checked. The recent problems with homosexuals in the Church is a prime example.

The leagal overthrow of the corrupt Clinton Administration shows our system works.

70 posted on 05/12/2003 5:30:02 PM PDT by bribriagain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: LizardQueen
"Yes, of course. In my view, gov's purpose is to protect us from one another, not to protect us from ourselves."

Slippery slope, LQ. "Therefore, laws against murder, child molestation, robbery, driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol etc. are entirely necessary. Laws such as ones against drug use and consensual sex in the privacy of ones home are not."

OK, what about two lesbian mothers enticing their 12 year old "daughter" into an elicit trist inthe privacy of their home? "And there are plenty of things I believe are wrong and won't allow in my home even though I don't believe they should be illegal."

Good for you. But some things should be illegal. "BTW, what was the point of your child molestation question? You think that because I'm a small-l libertarian I'm in favor of child abuse? "

No, this is a conversation. Nothing more.

71 posted on 05/12/2003 5:38:19 PM PDT by bribriagain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: bribriagain
OK, what about two lesbian mothers enticing their 12 year old "daughter" into an elicit trist inthe privacy of their home?

What slope? The 12 year old is a minor, minors can't consent, this is child molestation and illegal.

LQ

72 posted on 05/12/2003 5:43:18 PM PDT by LizardQueen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: LizardQueen
LQ, my point is that all things that take place in a persons home aren't necessarily legal and by extension, protected.
73 posted on 05/12/2003 5:47:58 PM PDT by bribriagain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235; cinFLA
Ignore cinFLA

His hatred for Libertarians, whether small or big "L", is so overwhelming that he cannot process information or make reasonable or rational conclusions.

He keeps talking about NORML, but honestly who ISNT for reform of Marijuana laws? Only the most hard-core Drug Warriors are for the current insanity in that aspect of the law.

He refuses to recognize THE greatest libertarian think-thank, Cato, as libertarian.

He's also a disruptor on any thread remotely tied to libertarianism, and doesn't substantively address anything in the topic.

GET A LIFE, CinFLA.

74 posted on 05/12/2003 6:11:50 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: JURB
I am a conservative-libertarian hybrid. I happen to believe both in the traditional understanding of marriage and that sodomy, prostitution and private adult consensual sex generally should be legal. I believe society can and should, through law as well as custom, affirm the two-parent, marriage-based family as the ideal without criminalizing other arrangements and throwing people who live differently in jail.

This is a perfectly reasonable position that balances the interests of everyone fairly, but to many troglodyte-conservatives here on FR, this stance is utter heresy.

75 posted on 05/12/2003 6:50:38 PM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JURB
Conservatives and libertarians are often allied against common enemies: the growth of the redistributive state, the assault on private property, the denigration of the free market and various socialist plots large and small.

And yet, so many of FR's vituperative anti-libertarians still insist that libertarians are liberals and/or closet Democrats.

76 posted on 05/12/2003 6:52:17 PM PDT by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JURB
Bump for a later read.
77 posted on 05/12/2003 6:52:36 PM PDT by Just another Joe (FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
Reviewing your subsequent posts and posts directed to you, I'll have to amend my prior comments. You are not doing a good, or even excellent imitation.

You really are ignorant of what a libertarian is.

Really.
78 posted on 05/12/2003 6:57:22 PM PDT by RJCogburn (Yes, I will call it bold talk for a......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent
"I like "classical liberal", although it sometimes causes confusion.

I love the confusion it creates... I am surrounded by people on the left, and usually announce that I am the only true liberal in the group. I also find it useful as a political ice breaker.

I've found that my Libertarianism isn't as offensive to the left as say, the idea that I vote pragmatically. ( in other words , I probably vote for the republican in most cases). I've been able to introduce subjects that are caustic to them, (2nd amendment etc) and they are at least willing to entertain the logic behind my arguments.

79 posted on 05/12/2003 7:22:05 PM PDT by Katya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bribriagain
"Libertarians are conservatives without morals or values."

That's just such an idiotic statment....I don't know where to start.

This is what I dislike about the political label "conservative". It's meaning is completely transient. In the former Soviet Republics a conservative would be a..........

Communist!

In that case you're right....I don't have the morals or values of a Russian communist.

80 posted on 05/12/2003 7:26:49 PM PDT by Katya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: bribriagain
By definition, sex with a minor can't be consensual (since they are unable to give informed consent). Any reference I make to consensual sex does not include minors, mentally retarded people, the senile, animals, and anyone else not of age or capacity to give informed consent.
If consent is absent, privacy or lack thereof makes no difference and the act is illegal.

LQ
81 posted on 05/12/2003 7:35:13 PM PDT by LizardQueen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Katya
I think the point here is that it is not neccesarily a question of libertarianism vs. conservatism, but that it is quite possible to reconcile both. In my own case, I am very comfortable in describing myself as leaning towards libertarianism of the small 'l' variety politically (I do make concessions to federalism), while being philosophically and attitudinally conservative. I see nothing inconcongruous with such a positition. I can both reject the big government nanny state, while respecting authority, traditional institutions, behavioral norms and accumulated wisdom. It is big government that undermines these things.
82 posted on 05/12/2003 7:46:37 PM PDT by JURB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: LizardQueen
"If consent is absent, privacy or lack thereof makes no difference and the act is illegal."

Agreed. Given your many stipulations, aren't you a pro-government consrvative?

83 posted on 05/12/2003 8:03:03 PM PDT by bribriagain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: bribriagain
Agreed. Given your many stipulations, aren't you a pro-government consrvative?

I don't think so - no one but real nutjob big L Libertarians would argue against laws that prohibit people from taking advantage of those who can't stand up for themselves.

I still believe that what consenting adults do is their own business no matter how distasteful it is, which is where I differ from the social conservatives.

Gotta work tommorrow, g'night.

LQ

84 posted on 05/12/2003 8:18:21 PM PDT by LizardQueen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235
The entire point of classical liberalism is not to subjugate individual dignity and liberty to politics.

Huh? It was NOT me that associated the CI with the LP!

85 posted on 05/12/2003 9:01:25 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235
Your original assertion about CATO not being libertarian is false. 40 posted on 05/12/2003 4:14 PM PDT by AdamSelene235 (Like all the

I never claimed that CATO was not libertarian. I said it was not part of the Libertarian party which links to NORML.

86 posted on 05/12/2003 9:03:40 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235
You'll excuse me if I'm not awed by the brilliance of our foreign policy.

And thank god that the CI was wrong! Or should I say, thank Bush.

87 posted on 05/12/2003 9:05:25 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: LizardQueen
What slope? The 12 year old is a minor, minors can't consent, this is child molestation and illegal.

According to the LP platform, the minor can declare adulthood. Then anything is legal .....

88 posted on 05/12/2003 9:12:44 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
False. You just made this up. Support your post!
89 posted on 05/12/2003 9:14:34 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
His hatred for Libertarians, whether small or big "L", is so overwhelming that he cannot process information or make reasonable or rational conclusions.

You are irrational. You cannot support your claim. Just because I talk about Libertarians and their wierd platform you are insulted!

90 posted on 05/12/2003 9:17:16 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
Why? Your posts are fast becoming infamous as they repeat themselves constantly.

My assertion is proven in nearly every post you make. In fact, I even think you sound so programmed that you are software rather than a human poster. Nothing resembling a multifaceted personality or intellect is apparent in your posts.

Sorry, but you sound like a disruptor-bot.
91 posted on 05/12/2003 9:19:04 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
He keeps talking about NORML, but honestly who ISNT for reform of Marijuana laws? Only the most hard-core Drug Warriors are for the current insanity in that aspect of the law.

Again, you make irrational links. Just because I expose the medical marijuana scam, George Soros' total drug legalization and his financial support of NORML, the L's support for the repeal of all drug laws, even for minors ....

92 posted on 05/12/2003 9:19:20 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
He refuses to recognize THE greatest libertarian think-thank, Cato, as libertarian.

Again, you make a false statement. Three for Three. I said CI was not LP, which has been supported by others on this thread.

93 posted on 05/12/2003 9:20:29 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
He's also a disruptor on any thread remotely tied to libertarianism, and doesn't substantively address anything in the topic.

Again you make false statements. I didn't attack libertarianism. I responded to a poster that said he had recently joined the Libertarians.

Now go back and look at my posts and see if ANYTHING in your post can be supported. NOT!

94 posted on 05/12/2003 9:22:37 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Skywalk
My assertion is proven in nearly every post you make.

Not one example. Just more trash from you.

95 posted on 05/12/2003 9:23:39 PM PDT by cinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
LOL

Why should I stop you? I don't care if Hitler was for decriminalizing drugs, he'd still be right. If Soros is backing it, I'd only be concerned about him reaching out to another issue if he successfully fought this one. As for minors, where do you get your information "Dane.com?"
And you think medical marijuana is a scam? Not that I particularly care, I'm for legalizing it altogether. You're a loon, on the fringe, and every post on every thread related to drugs and libertarians you spout the same nonsense.

When your assertion that Cato was not libertarian was disproven you have no answer. Oh, I guess YOU are the arbiter of what's libertarian and what's not. Makes sense, considering you are not a libertarian yourself.

Go away.
96 posted on 05/12/2003 9:28:30 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: cinFLA
I'm not a Big-L libertarian, so I don't care if you insult their "weird platform." I'm not for open borders, either. That doesn't mean your posts have any value.

Honestly, what did your posts on this thread have to do with discussions of libertarians and conservatives, other than to continue your bizarre Dane-like behavior?
97 posted on 05/12/2003 9:30:16 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: JURB
I don't know why the article is so long,
libertarians are merely irresponsible narcissists who worship the stock market above all else. They have no other values.
98 posted on 05/12/2003 9:31:59 PM PDT by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Another idiot.
99 posted on 05/12/2003 9:33:07 PM PDT by Skywalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Ohioan
Let us not magnify those differences out of all proportion, or lose sight of the pathetic course that most politics has been taking throughout the past Century, with the exception of the Reagan victory in 1980. We need both Conservatives and Libertarians who support the Conservative ethos of traditional America, to regain the initiative.

BUMP!

100 posted on 05/12/2003 9:34:54 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-143 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