Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
Posted on 03/19/2010 12:25:37 PM PDT by presidio9
"Freedom" has long been a right-wing rallying cry for self-identified patriots ranging from John Birchers to tea party protesters to increasingly extreme members of the Republican establishment. They're particularly passionate about the freedom to own and openly carry guns and freedom from federal taxation (but not necessarily federal benefits). Otherwise, their most consistent attachments to freedom tend to be rhetorical, unless freedom means restricting reproductive choice, same-sex relationships, medical marijuana, or sexually explicit speech and permitting discrimination against people who do not acknowledge Jesus as their savior. For some prominent conservatives -- like John McCain, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and Dick Cheney -- freedom also entails the establishment of a national security state empowered to arrest and imprison summarily people suspected of terrorism and to spy on people suspected of nothing in particular, thanks to a ubiquitous but largely invisible surveillance system.
There are, of course, exceptions to this statism. The CATO Institute, generally associated with the right because of its commitment to free markets, is equally, if less notoriously, committed to civil liberty. CATO is unusual in its consistent libertarianism, which means, however, that (like Reason magazine), it is a creature of neither the right nor the left. A recent CATO report estimates that some 14 percent of Americans also qualify as libertarian, meaning that they're fiscally conservative and socially liberal (although it's unclear if fiscal conservatives who believe "the less government the better" are willing to surrender their own government benefits, from Pell grants to Medicare).
Libertarians are labile voters,
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
The fiscal conservatism and limited government portions of libertarianism would be of great import.
The rest, not so much.
A typical (and deliberate) misrepresentation of conservatism by a leftist. Libertarians seek personal and social anarchy; conservatives seek moral governance. Neither is reducible to a simplistic scale of “liberty.”
Yes, but we're trying to do that anyway. I'd prefer to see the libertarians aligning themselves with the left, and see if they can reign them in on spending a bit.
I think you’re probably correct.
Correct, but you need to add “moral relativism” to your list of libertarian ideals.
The usual Libertarian rant against those who realize that the advance of Islamic terrorism requires security measures that make libertarians nervous and motivate some of them to conjure up all kinds of Orwellian scenarios. Conservatives oppose the steady advance of a hedonist culture and most chose Christianity (or other religion) over secular humanism. Libertarians and conservatives may share some political DNA but we go our distinctly separate ways most of the time, and we should. This article demonstrates why.
The 'right' to kill a fetus? Some 'right'.
I'll second that. Such deception as this is all over America, and a reasonable true conservative voice is hard to find, basically repressed by the Media, and/or we have truly lost our way.
Libertarianism is NOT conservatism. Indeed libertarianism is basically shallow emotional reaction (as in 'reactionary') against the Left. Conservatism is, as you say, far deeper, and was once what America was about.
What an utterly clueless post.
Wendy Kaminer is with the ACLU - which means she is writing this to divide the right.
The greatest failing of libertarians is in selling what effectively is isolationism.
Like it is in the places where its now legal? In SF Hippies complain about phantom headaches and get perscriptions for "medical marijuana." Seems to me that about 90% of the people being perscribed want it for one reason: Because it is a mind-altering drug. There are better pharmaceutical options for all of the syptoms pot supposedly treats. Now, there are people dying of cancer, who claim that pot helps their appetite after chemo (there are other drugs that will do this). I sympathize with them, and would not have a problem with doctors prescribing pot to them so they could get stoned and say it was for the appetite. The rest of these people are just looking to get stoned. Even that wouldn't be such a big deal, except that when you are dealing with raw plants, there's no way to regulate the dosages. All people who seek to escape reality through mind altering drugs are obviously dealing with a reality that they would be better off addressing.
I support the limits granted to the government spelled out by the Constitution.
There are many things that social cons want that the federal government is not listed as having any authority over.
“Yes, but we’re trying to do that anyway.”
Hardly. Gutting the federal government is necessary, even things that otherwise have value (e.g., drug issues).
It all just needs to be gutted and let individual states decide.
Yeah, how about conservative relativism as well?
This is about where I like to remind all the libertarian lurkers who are about to get pinged into ths theard that President Reagan strongly opposed libertarianism.
I was glad to see the libertarian author recognize the fact that libertarian does not correctly belong on the political "right."
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.