Posted on 10/02/2009 1:12:54 PM PDT by presidio9
Nice long post. Some of it I even agree with. However, you waste a great deal of time defining general libertarian principals. We both know what they are. How about you see if YOU can tell me how you think libertarians and conservatives differ?
Note that while libertarians and conservatives share many principals, it is easy to identify clear libertarians and conservatives among the Founders. You can say that libertarianism goes back to the Enlightenment if you like (and I can say that Conservatism goes back even farther, if I like). The point is that Conservatives are no more libertarians who accept some government intrusions than libertarians are conservatives who believe that anything goes.
But that’s not really what we are talking about here. The point has been from the beginning that Ronald Reagan was no libertarian. You demanded some examples. I gave you several. You declined to address them specifically, after demanding them in your previous post. I can only assume that you’re just looking to waste my time here, or desperately hoping I’ll give you the oppostunity to post your talking points on drug legalization (none of which you thought of).
And, since you brought it up, the Catholic postion on the death penalty is that it is acceptable in some circumstances. That being said, you can oppose the death penalty and still be a Catholic. In the future, you DEFINITELY want to pick a different institution for metaphors with conservatism. One, because in the Catholic Church one man calls all the shots, and two, because, there is very little chance you know more than me about Catholic theology. Eighteen years of Catholic schooling (ten Jesuit), three clergy members in my extended family (one a bishop), and one in my immediate family.
My only point about drug enforcement for this thread remains that it is the #1 most important issue for libertarians. And you continue to prove that point nicely. It’s clearly an obsession for you.
And yes, I get it. Not a single libertarian on FR has ever smoked pot.
Forgot to add the most important part to that point about liberal and conservative founders:
It does not matter (of course) what things were like on July 3rd 1776. Or even what the Founders themselves were like. This for of government had never been tried in the history of man. Independance day was also Day One for political philosophies in this form of government. I’m sure Washington (conservative) and Jefferson (quasi-libertarian) were both monarchists at one point in their lives.
How about you see if YOU can tell me how you think libertarians and conservatives differ?
I have done it. Read my posts on the thread. I have discussed the relationship between conservatism and libertarianism, and what each is by definition, and in practice. I don't really see any point in wasting my time by reposting all my previous comments for you.
The point is that Conservatives are no more libertarians who accept some government intrusions than libertarians are conservatives who believe that anything goes.
And here you put words in my mouth. I have never suggested that conservatives are libertarians who accept some government intrusions. They are anything but. A true, as you would say "honest," conservative is a libertarian who has a foundation of traditional personal values and beliefs. They have a goal for society. Libertarianism is a skeleton. It is only a way to an end. Without an end you get lost. I am a libertarian, but more importantly I am a conservative. A libertarian, by definition, could be a person who believes in small government so that he can distribute or smoke pot or be a pimp. However, a conservative, by definition, believes in small government so that he, his family, and his fellow citizens can prosper and continue to shape their culture and country with those values. Strong personal values or independence, God, honesty, integrity, strength, charity, and so on. Libertarianism is a simple political philosophy, and a good one as far as it goes, but it is limited in scope and doesn't address societal issues as conservatism does.
But that’s not really what we are talking about here. The point has been from the beginning that Ronald Reagan was no libertarian. You demanded some examples. I gave you several. You declined to address them specifically, after demanding them in your previous post.
You are wrong. I did address them, either generally or specifically. If you have problems with what I said in response, then say so, but don't claim I didn't address them. That is untrue. Additionally, I never said that I would treat each thing specifically. But, even then, I did respond to them.
Lastly, Reagan was libertarian, as I have said. He was not necessarily a libertarian, as that would imply a limitation to that one value, and I don't claim that. However, he was fundamentally libertarian in his political beliefs, though he did compromise himself on that and other issues from time to time, and also made mistakes I think. Regardless, he was generally a believer in small government principles and laissez faire policies. Those are libertarian and so he was libertarian as well.
I can only assume that you’re just looking to waste my time here, or desperately hoping I’ll give you the oppostunity to post your talking points on drug legalization (none of which you thought of).
Ah, your favourite, and ironic, hobby of putting words in other peoples' mouths. I am not a supporter of "legalising drugs" though I don't really give that issue a lot of thought. I have said that the War on Drugs is unconstitutional, and you have yet to refute that. Instead you claim that I am obsessed with drugs, and want them legalised. Blah, blah, blah... Stop making things up and make your point. Convince me that the War on Drugs, as a set of policies, is allowed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. You haven't even tried so far. You certainly won't by telling me what I believe in.
And, since you brought it up, the Catholic postion on the death penalty is that it is acceptable in some circumstances. That being said, you can oppose the death penalty and still be a Catholic. In the future, you DEFINITELY want to pick a different institution for metaphors with conservatism. One, because in the Catholic Church one man calls all the shots, and two, because, there is very little chance you know more than me about Catholic theology...
Are you really this obtuse? It is an analogy (not a metaphor in case you really don't know the difference) and not a theological statement. I know what the Church teaches. I didn't deny it. If you read what I said you will find that I was assuming you also know it. My point was, and is, that just because many people in a group believe something doesn't mean it is a definitive belief of the group itself. Do you understand this? Is it really that hard for you to get?
Just as (do you see the analogy part here?) the Catholic Church cannot be said to teach that the death penalty is always wrong just because many Catholics think so, (here comes the second part of the analogy) neither can libertarianism be said to be about freely available drugs just because many libertarians desire it.
My only point about drug enforcement for this thread remains that it is the #1 most important issue for libertarians. And you continue to prove that point nicely. It’s clearly an obsession for you.
Don't be simple. You are already tedious, but simple is not any better. This argument is insulting to anyone with an IQ in whole numbers. This is the same lefty "reasoning" that holds that voting against affirmative action is racist and just an example of conservative hatred of minorities. I oppose the War on Drugs only because it is unconstitutional and liberal. People can oppose a policy for reasons other than supporting what it pretends to oppose.
How about you quit putting words in my mouth, boasting about your theological prowess, and hurling epithets and start making some sensible points. You could at least try.
Sounds to me like the problem is that you're not very smart. When I specifically say that I have no interest in debating the pros and cons of federal drug laws, and then you edit the sentence so you can ask the question anyway, it sounds a lot like you are unable to follow a simple instruction.
You think I am "not very smart" and yet you believe that I have to edit your sentences so that I can ask a question anyway? Really? If I didn't edit it, I couldn't still post?
Okay, one more time since you are apparently unable to grasp this concept. I don't need any permission to comment on your posts. They are public posts. I don't need to "edit" your sentences to comment. I quoted the relevant part of your post, which did not include your insipid claims that people have to ask your permission to comment. If you don't want to "debate" something, guess what, don't post back! Not hard at all. Even you should be able to understand it.
No, not quite. Nixon invented the war on drugs, but Reagan did greatly expand it. And I also have no interest in debating the pros and cons. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments either mean something, or they don't. Do conservatives support the Ninth and Tenth Amendments? If so, then how do you defend the Federal War on Drugs?
First quote is mine. Second is your response. I just wanted to call attention to this because it's illustrative of why I find talking to you and people like you such a waste of time. Note that I was careful not to say that Reagan invented the war on drugs. Or even that term. You chose to argue a point that was not being made, which wastes both our time.
The fact that Reagan invented the war on drugs as we know it today is a point much lamented over by libertarians on this list and elsewhere. I didn't think I needed to spell it out for you, but under him federal law enforcement assets were brought into play to fight drug trafficing, mandatory minimum sentences were invented, and lists of federally banned substances were compiled. This is not a point of contention among intelligent people. I mentioned it at all, because it is a prime example of why many libertarians have open distain for Ronald Reagan. My point on this thread continues to be that Reagan was not a libertarian at all. Do you think he was, or do you just like arguing.
That is an oxnomoic term. Libertarians share political ideals, but are directly opposed to each other on many important issues.
Listen, I'm not calling you a liar, but I didn't remember you ever having spelled things out on that one. So I just went back over the last 150 posts of this thread (obviously paying special attention to the posts you wrote to me), and I don't see a clear comparison anywhere. Perhaps you are mistaking this thread with another one. I'm just trying to get a better idea of where you're coming from on this one, because it seems like you've given the subject a lot of thought. So, if it's not too much trouble, would you please direct me to the post where you outlined the clear differences between libertarian political philosophy and conservative political philosophy in the United States? It's certainly possible that I was not clear in my earlier requests. If you decide that you did not already provide such a comparison earlier, please feel free to do so now. And be honest in your comparison. I promise you my feelings won't be hurt.
And here you put words in my mouth. I have never suggested that conservatives are libertarians who accept some government intrusions. They are anything but. A true, as you would say "honest," conservative is a libertarian who has a foundation of traditional personal values and beliefs. They have a goal for society. Libertarianism is a skeleton. It is only a way to an end. Without an end you get lost. I am a libertarian, but more importantly I am a conservative. A libertarian, by definition, could be a person who believes in small government so that he can distribute or smoke pot or be a pimp. However, a conservative, by definition, believes in small government so that he, his family, and his fellow citizens can prosper and continue to shape their culture and country with those values. Strong personal values or independence, God, honesty, integrity, strength, charity, and so on. Libertarianism is a simple political philosophy, and a good one as far as it goes, but it is limited in scope and doesn't address societal issues as conservatism does.
Now, I was not trying to put words in your mouth, but I'm sorry if it came off that way. Obviously, the point was that neither of us feel that way, but we need to come to a point where we understand what we do believe. For instance. There is a type of thinking that is referred to as "libertarian" that has nothing to do with the political philosophy. This is the similar to the idea that the Democratic Party is in no was more democratic that the Republicans. So, to say that a conservative has "libertarian" beliefs is in no way useful to our discussion, because those beliefs are also those of conservatives, so they are conservative. Republicans favor the death penalty. So do conservatives, but those beliefs are not "republican" because of it. Conservatives happen to believe in laws against prostitution (this is an example, not an invitation to argue that point). Libertarians do not. If George Washington were alive today, we would not believe in slavery, but he would still be in favor of laws against prostitution. Thomas Jefferson obviously would not. Do you disagree?
Conservatives DO believe in smallerer, government, but they accept government as a necessary evil. Libertarians tend to look at big government intrusions through the prism of history and say that a libertarian would have accepted them. I called Jefferson a libertarian, but I have to admit that no libertarian could have accepted the Louisiana Purchase when it happen, so he is a bit of an enigma. It cost a lot of money when this nation was broke. The world was at war, and we were extremely vulnerable.
You are wrong. I did address them, either generally or specifically. If you have problems with what I said in response, then say so, but don't claim I didn't address them. That is untrue. Additionally, I never said that I would treat each thing specifically. But, even then, I did respond to them. You are wrong. I did address them, either generally or specifically. If you have problems with what I said in response, then say so, but don't claim I didn't address them. That is untrue. Additionally, I never said that I would treat each thing specifically. But, even then, I did respond to them.
Again, I was unable to find where you did so. Please refer to the first paragraph.
Lastly, Reagan was libertarian, as I have said. He was not necessarily a libertarian, as that would imply a limitation to that one value, and I don't claim that. However, he was fundamentally libertarian in his political beliefs, though he did compromise himself on that and other issues from time to time, and also made mistakes I think. Regardless, he was generally a believer in small government principles and laissez faire policies. Those are libertarian and so he was libertarian as well.
You keep saying that Reagan was a libertarian. Please provide one or two specific examples of uniquely libertarian policies that he implemented. I have already provided eight or nine that were in direct contrast with libertarianism. I can think of a few more. General comments about small government and laissez fair economics are of course disqualified. First, because the entire point of this thread is that we are contrasting Reagan Conservatism from Libertarianism. There is no argument that the two philosophies overlap, and neither has a direct claim on a good idea. Second, because the two were also part of the overall Republican Platform. Reagan made it so when he engineered his conservative revolution. If the green party believes in global warming and so does Obama, that doesn't mean that he isn't still a socialist.
Just as (do you see the analogy part here?) the Catholic Church cannot be said to teach that the death penalty is always wrong just because many Catholics think so, (here comes the second part of the analogy) neither can libertarianism be said to be about freely available drugs just because many libertarians desire it.
Sorry, but that analogy still doesn't work. Most Catholics accept (I won't say "favor") the death penalty as prescribed by the Church. On the other hand, you would not argue that most most libertarians are not in favor of liberalizing the drug laws dramatically. I've never heard anyone suggest that libertarians favor "freely available drugs," so I think you might have imagined that one.
Don't be simple. You are already tedious, but simple is not any better. This argument is insulting to anyone with an IQ in whole numbers. This is the same lefty "reasoning" that holds that voting against affirmative action is racist and just an example of conservative hatred of minorities. I oppose the War on Drugs only because it is unconstitutional and liberal. People can oppose a policy for reasons other than supporting what it pretends to oppose.
Again, I have no interest in getting into a drug war discussion with you, but the phrase "lefty reasoning" is too much of an enticement. If that's a litmus test for you, it must kill you that your greatest allies on drug issues are the far left. San Francisco is Ground Zero for the legalize drugs campaign. My lack of respect of libertarians is only partially about legalized drugs. My point was that it is the number one issue of libertarians here on FR. You continue to make that point for me, and I bless you for it.
You chose to argue a point that was not being made, which wastes both our time.
Quit being simple. You pretend I am arguing about Catholic theology, because you are too obtuse to understand what an analogy is or how one works, and then quibble about my being specific on this relevant issue? You are wasting my time.
I didn't think I needed to spell it out for you, but under him federal law enforcement assets were brought into play to fight drug trafficing, mandatory minimum sentences were invented, and lists of federally banned substances were compiled.
Yes, he greatly expanded it. I have already said that. And some things he did in this may have been tolerable, or even good, but some definitely were not. Here is a good exercise. Go read the Constitution and cite for me exactly where the power to ban such substances is delegated to the Federal Government. Which Article is that in? If it isn't, then it is reserved to the States and the People, and that means that this War on Drugs is unconstitutional. Unless of course you agree with the left in their very liberal interpretation of the Constitution. Do you think that such interpretation is actually conservative?
Do you know what I find amusing? Your insistence that I am obsessed with drugs. I physically laugh every time I read it. It reveals so much about you. I will tell you that, as far as such policies go, I am only obsessed with the Constitution. I say that any power claimed by the Federal Government, no matter how virtuous the intentions, if not supported by the Constitution it is unacceptable. But you say no. The War on Drugs is too important for constitutional tests. Don't worry that this power isn't given to the Feds. If you argue that the Federal Government should be restrained by the Constitution in regard to drugs then you are some kind of crazy liberal. Who, I want to know, is really obsessed with drugs here? You are.
I mentioned it at all, because it is a prime example of why many libertarians have open distain for Ronald Reagan. My point on this thread continues to be that Reagan was not a libertarian at all. Do you think he was, or do you just like arguing.
Don't waste my time. Read the thread. I have answered this again and again. Or do you just like arguing?
Of course, the problem may be that you just aren't very smart. Therefore, I will repeat it yet again. Ronald Reagan, as he himself professed, and as his stated positions and goals reflect, was libertarian. He was not the most libertarian man out there, and neither was he only libertarian, but he was libertarian.
You seem to be obsessed with some idea of ideological puritanism among people who subscribe to libertarian ideas. Silly. Simple. Not surprising, in other words. Yes, some things Reagan supported, or at least tolerated, were definitely not libertarian. I will not dramatically make claims about how they are the opposite, or 100% opposed or so on, but, they were certainly not libertarian. However, and this is what you ignore, some things he supported, or at least tolerated, were equally not conservative. Often these are the same policies.
Your argument is that Reagan is not libertarian because some policies he was responsible for were not libertarian themselves. Fine. But, he was also not a conservative then, and so your argument is defeated. Ideological puritanism is not an issue, and if you insist on using it then it would affect both sides or neither. Your entire argument is untenable.
That is an oxnomoic term. Libertarians share political ideals, but are directly opposed to each other on many important issues.
What is "oxnomoic?" And what is your point about libertarians sharing ideals and yet opposing each other? Which libertarians? Which ideals? How is the variety among libertarians relevant to your position? I have no idea what you are talking about here.
If you decide that you did not already provide such a comparison earlier, please feel free to do so now.
I won't dig right now, so one more time. Here is a basic understanding, remembering this is not encyclopaedic in any way.
Libertarianism is a very simple and narrow political and economic philosophy seeking limited government in order to protect personal liberty. Conservatism is a political, economic and social philosophy seeking to defend, i.e. conserve, traditional values. These values are not all political in nature, and so conservatism has a broader application and meaning than does libertarianism. Among the values defended by conservatism are strong family values, individual responsibility, faith, independence and a basic libertarian view of government. This last thing is crucial because it makes the other things possible.
My complaint about some modern conservatives is that they are no longer defending traditional values, because they have become obsessed that libertarian is a bad word and so government should not be restrained but engaged as a tool. Conservatism is not about a bunch of people who live near each other passing laws forcing people to go to Church. It is about a bunch of people who live near each other keeping the government from stopping them from going to Church.
There is a type of thinking that is referred to as "libertarian" that has nothing to do with the political philosophy.
Yes, but it is not libertarianism, and so is not relevant to the discussion.
So, to say that a conservative has "libertarian" beliefs is in no way useful to our discussion, because those beliefs are also those of conservatives, so they are conservative.
Yes, but the specific ideas are still libertarian. You cannot simply insist that by being held by conservatives they then become nothing more than conservatism. Consider this. Obama is a liberal. He is also a socialist, which most liberals are to some degree. Does that mean that he is not a socialist, because socialism, as a value of liberals, is now simply liberalism? Would you say that he is then not a socialist? I say absolutely not. Socialism is socialism, and liberalism does overlap with it, as you would say. But, where it overlaps it adopts socialism, and its proponents are themselves also socialists. It doesn't become rechristened mere liberalism by association, but rather retains its definitive status as socialism.
Conservatives happen to believe in laws against prostitution (this is an example, not an invitation to argue that point). Libertarians do not.
Yes, not all libertarians are conservative. But, all conservatives are libertarian.
I called Jefferson a libertarian, but I have to admit that no libertarian could have accepted the Louisiana Purchase when it happen, so he is a bit of an enigma. It cost a lot of money when this nation was broke. The world was at war, and we were extremely vulnerable.
No, Jefferson was a libertarian, and yet he accepted the Louisiana Purchase. Which proves my point. Libertarian people are like anyone else. They are no more ideologically pure than any other people.
Again, I was unable to find where you did so. Please refer to the first paragraph.
Well, just go look at post 271, and read the second half of it. I addressed your points over some four or five paragraphs. You may or may not like the depth of how I handled your points, but from my side of the discussion I don't think long detailed responses on each thing is necessary. If you think something needs more attention post it and I might elucidate further, if I think it is relevant.
Sorry, but that analogy still doesn't work. Most Catholics accept (I won't say "favor") the death penalty as prescribed by the Church.
You are missing the point by focusing on the theological points, and are assuming I am discussing them when I am not. The point is that no matter how many Catholics oppose the death penalty it won't make that specific position a Catholic belief. Catholicism is what catholicism is, regardless of the popularity of any number of ideas among people calling themselves catholic. The same is true for libertarians, and I will leave it there.
Again, I have no interest in getting into a drug war discussion with you, but the phrase "lefty reasoning" is too much of an enticement. If that's a litmus test for you, it must kill you that your greatest allies on drug issues are the far left.
No, you are wrong because you do not know what reasoning means. You defend a policy which violates the Tenth Amendment, and therefore have adopted a liberal understanding of the Constitution. The violation is so patently obvious to anyone that no reasonable conservative could possibly hold to it, but yet you and many others do. And do it with fanatical devotion and obsession.
Again, I did not say that you are not very smart. I said it sounds like you're not very smart. There's a difference. When I say to you multiple times that I'd like to keep this thread on subject (Reagan was not a libertarian), and you continue to try to change the subject to drug leagalization, even though I've specifically indicated I have no interest in the distraction here, the choice are (a) you are intentionally being an a##hole for no good reason, or (b) you're not very smart. I have a pretty good idea which one it is, but I've never met you, so I can't be sure.
BTW, every time you try to hijack this thread into a discussion on drugs, you prove the only other point I've made, which is that drugs are the reason why people become libertarians in the first place.
For the record: This thread is about libertarians dissing Reagan. That's all I'm interested in talking about on this thread.
BTW, every time you try to hijack this thread into a discussion on drugs, you prove the only other point I've made, which is that drugs are the reason why people become libertarians in the first place.
I thought this thread was about whether Reagan was libertarian? Why are you trying to hijack it to argue about why people become libertarian? It sounds to me like you are not very smart.
For the record: This thread is about libertarians dissing Reagan. That's all I'm interested in talking about on this thread.
You have made me laugh more on this thread than I have in weeks. You are simply incredible. I think you are rather confused about this, and I want to help you. Do you know what you can do if somebody posts something that you don't want to talk about? How about don't talk about it! Don't post. It's just that simple. Incredible, huh? But don't get me wrong, your method of avoiding thread drift by posting on and on about how other people need to follow your instructions about what to discuss seems to be doing a great job of keeping the discussion on track. No thread drift here.
Actually, you're confused again. I was making a related point about the libertarians on this thread and others who have a hard time staying on point. OTOH, whether or not drugs should be legal is irrelevant, because Reagan DID more to criminalize drugs than any other president. The philosophical discussion has no bearing on this particualar argument, because all sides agree that he did in fact fight drugs from the White House.
You have made me laugh more on this thread than I have in weeks. You are simply incredible. I think you are rather confused about this, and I want to help you. Do you know what you can do if somebody posts something that you don't want to talk about? How about don't talk about it! Don't post. It's just that simple. Incredible, huh? But don't get me wrong, your method of avoiding thread drift by posting on and on about how other people need to follow your instructions about what to discuss seems to be doing a great job of keeping the discussion on track. No thread drift here.
I think it is you who are confused. Like any sane person, I always ignore a post that I have no interest in. It is only when people start posting directly to me, on new and unrelated subjects, that I instruct them to stay relevant. There's a big difference. If we are talking about the unpires in the Yankees-Twins series, and you suddenly began arguing with yourself about the Yankees payroll, I would do the same thing. If you wrote the same post to someone else, I wouldn't waste my time.
Got it?
Actually, you're confused again. I was making a related point about the libertarians on this thread and others who have a hard time staying on point.
The War on Drugs, as a key issue of Reagan's White House, by your own reckoning, and presumed by you, quite erroneously, to be a foundational conservative policy is not only relevant to this discussion, but crucial. It lies at the center. It is relevant as something that libertarians criticise him for, and this relates directly to the original article. It is also relevant to your later false claim that he was not libertarian in his outlook.
And yet you insist that it is off-topic, while arguing about how libertarians post is on-topic, as a related point. When you are wrong, you are gloriously wrong at least. Related points are good things, but your hijacking the thread so that you can demand that people follow your instructions, and so that you can carry on a screed about potential thread drift is neither related nor sensible. Arguments about thread drift are themselves thread drift, though tis the sport to have the engineer hoist with his own petar.
And yet you insist that it is off-topic, while arguing about how libertarians post is on-topic, as a related point.
You're still getting it wrong. The point is this: We both agree that it happened. We both agree that it was in opposition to libertarian values. Whether or not it was constitutional, good for the country, or effective can wait for another day.
Whether or not it was constitutional, good for the country, or effective can wait for another day.
Wrong, and I will show you why.
You have made two basic claims on this thread which are in error. One is that any political philosophy which is held by another larger group becomes absorbed by that group or school of thought, and therefore loses its identity as what it was as long as it is found within that larger body. This, of course, is silly nonsense that nobody but yourself has ever claimed. Liberals are also generally socialist to some degree, but by your reasoning they would not be. Liberalism would have absorbed the socialism and it would cease to be socialism. That would mean, if we reason as you do, that Obama would not be a socialist, but merely a liberal. Obama is undeniably liberal, and so he could not also be socialist. Ridiculous. Completely absurd.
The other major error you have argued is that libertarians are only so by being perfectly libertarian in all ways at all times. This is false and arbitrary. Libertarianism, like any other political philosophy, is applied in various ways by its adherents. Some are moderate, some are extreme and others may be a little of each. Some apply libertarian values to social issues, and others only to those of a political and economic nature. It is not absolute in any way, and yet all those who generally seek limited government in order to facilitate or protect personal liberty are libertarian. Your arbitrary insistence on ideological purity is just as wrong as your claim about libertarianism not being present in conservatism.
And now we come to the War on Drugs. That policy, or body of policies, is founded on a liberal understanding of the Constitution, and that is unarguable. The Tenth Amendment, as written, denies any possibility of it. No power to ban substances consumed by citizens is granted to the Federal Government anywhere in the Constitution, and so the Tenth Amendment reserves it to the States and the people. That is simple fact. In order to defend or support the War on Drugs one is, quite simply, required to engage in an interpretation of the Constitution which is, by definition, opposed to conservative thought. Conservatism does not, as a political philosophy, adhere to liberal interpretations of that document. In every way that you insist this policy is not libertarian, and I agree that it is not, it is equally not conservative.
You argue that because Reagan supported this non-libertarian policy he was not libertarian. However, since it is also non-conservative then he also could not be a conservative. And so your reasoning is revealed to be untenable because this is patently untrue.
And so we see that both of your arguments fail completely. Reagan, most definitely was conservative, and he also was libertarian. And he wasn't perfect in either.
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.