Libertarians: Still In Search Of Their Perfect World. Practically Irrelevant.

Liberty Pundits ^ | 17 October 2010 | Melissa Clouthier

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

I have come to believe that Libertarians are worthless. Before them, a crop of wonderful, small government candidates sit and will likely win–scores of points of optimism in a political sky that has been bleak and black. To coin a word from the opposition, there’s Hope.

Now, most of us watching this election realize that the exhausting work over the last two years has hardly begun. Once this new crop become part of the system, they’ll have to be watched and held accountable.

The most optimistic change, then, hasn’t really been these candidates. It’s been the heart of the American people. Citizens have decided that they’ve sat on their duffs long enough. It’s time to get involved. It’s time to stay involved.

The candidates aren’t perfect. No politicians are perfect. Hells bells. They’re human and mere vessels for the expression of the voters’ will.

So, I read Doug Mataconis’ piece about why Libertarians are still disenchanted even with the best electoral hope in a generation presents itself. I feel absolute disgust.

Kvetching about the social issues of a Christine O’Donnell while ignoring the economic liberties that Mike Castle would have assuredly stripped had he had his way makes no sense. How on earth can a true Libertarian even worry about such irrelevance?

[King Greymung]

What people in the Tea Party believe is that 2010 is a START

And they have until 2012 to produce results (in terms of cutting back government interference), or they END.

[King Greymung]

I would like to have some libertarian explain to me any aspect of social conservatism that is anti-liberty.

When you want to repeal the plethora of victimless personal-conduct laws, get back to us.

Conservatives ask for everyone to have an equal right to representation on how issues of life, sexuality, etc… are dealt with in public.

Liberals ask for everyone to have an equal right to representation on how issues of expenditure, employment, etc are dealt with in public. The two positions are equally based on commonism, and equally unacceptable.

[King Greymung]

You could just as easily commented that if people lived a moral life, they wouldn’t be as likely to need to impose their needs on others (through the government).

No one has any such "need" Immoral people have the desire to forcibly impose their personal preferences.

[King Greymung]

Yeah, I've noticed the same thing. There seems to be about 1 "Libertarians are basically Democrats, and even if they aren't, they can't win" thread every day or so.
Flak, target. 'Nuff said.

They also keep bringing up the argument that the (big-government social) issues where libertarians disagree with social conservatives are less important than the (small-government economic) issues where libertarians and conservatives are on the same page.

Well, if the differences are so darned small and insignificant, and the resultant splitting of the vote is so terribly important, why don't conservatives just concede those points and end the infighting?

[King Greymung]

Social conservatives don’t stamp their feet.

LOL -- the entire OP is an exercise in foot-stamping so intense that I'm surprised it hasn't set off the New Madrid faultline.

[King Greymung]

you will not last long

Hmmm... who knows more about how to "last long" here -- the chap with the 2008-09-23 signup date or the one with the 1999-03-06 signup date?

As a relative newcomer myself, I have an obvious interest in knowing where to get useful advice on the subject.

[King Greymung]

You also follow the typical left-wing rhetoric of equating homosexual behavior to a person’s race or religion.

How, exactly, are they different?

[The Comedian]

Well, if the differences are so darned small and insignificant, and the resultant splitting of the vote is so terribly important, why don't conservatives just concede those points and end the infighting?

BING!!

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[little jeremiah]

And since the official Libertarian Platform espouses “gay” everything, abortion,no holds barred porn, dope and open borders, it is clear they are just ultra far out kook fringe of the Left.

All they do is make it so Rs lose close elections.

Screw them.

[little jeremiah]

The only people who think more about queerness than queers themselves are people who wish to bury their own queer feelings under a heap of queer-bashing and moral trumpeting. Based on your fixation on the subject on a place like Free Republic, I estimate you're a member of the latter group. You're probably on the down low and are so ashamed about it you have to flex your intranet muscles and take pot shots at the gays to bolster your feelings of masculinity.

Pure, unadultered homo-agenda pushing talking points. You win the booby prize!

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda and Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

Just in case anyone's in the mood for a libertarian idiot-fest. Cicero's comment is excellent and I don't feel well enough to do better. Bottom line is this - the official Libertarian Party platform want "gay" anything they want including marriage and in the military, no holds barred porn, dope, open borders, and abortion. So what is that supposedly makes them conservative in some way? Oh, lower taxes and hopefully they want to get rid of the Dept of Education and other unconstitutional departments and agencies. But since they will never garner enough votes to do anything except get Dems won in close elections, they are the enemeis of real Constitutional conservatism. And they prove it with their infantile sloganeering and zero grasp of human nature or what the writings of the founders are really saying.

[little jeremiah]

You are right.

It’s also advocacy for homosexuals in the military and getting married, any kind of porn anywhere, abortion, and open borders as well.

Those are part of the Real Official Libertarian Party Platform. On a FR thread not long ago.

[wagglebee]

They also keep bringing up the argument that the (big-government social) issues where libertarians disagree with social conservatives are less important than the (small-government economic) issues where libertarians and conservatives are on the same page.

Well, if the differences are so darned small and insignificant, and the resultant splitting of the vote is so terribly important, why don't conservatives just concede those points and end the infighting?

Hey troll, first of all conservatives have NEVER SAID that social issues are "less important" than other issues.

Secondly, like all libertarians, you have demonstrated that you are basically a leftist-anarchist by saying that you think conservatives should "concede" issues like abortion, homosexuality, etc.

[little jeremiah]

Try calling a normal black man a homosexual and see what happens; then you’ll know the difference.

[little jeremiah]

Normal people with normal morals are disgusted that homosexuals have been pushing their agenda on everyone else for over two decades and are sick of it.

[wagglebee]

That only stands to reason. People who are fully heterosexual have no particular reason to think about homosexuality any more often than they might think about wind speeds on Neptune or the origin of the en passant rule in chess or any other random thing that has no particular relevance to their lives. However, someone with repressed homosexual urges would, for obvious reasons, think about the subject often, and would be moved to denunciation to support their internalized denial.

Hey troll, I see that you joined two days ago to push militant homosexualism.

I've got news for you, conservatives oppose the homosexual agenda because we are CONSERVATIVES. By your idiotic logic we also protest abortion because of some "repressed" urge to kill.

Be gone troll!

[metmom]

Personally I think that mainstream conservatives are scared sh**less of small 'l' libertarians and that's why they spend so much time trying to tear down a group which is actually an ally.

In your dreams.

What we recognize is that most libertarians are liberals and anarchists in disguise.

Some government is a necessity for an orderly society.

Most libertarians have revealed themselves to be spoiled, selfish, immature brats. They want total freedom to do as they please, to he!! with the other guy; no restrictions whatsoever and no moral restraint.

Society will collapse under their delusion of what utopia should be, total unrestrained license.

It's not possible. Little as libertarians like to admit it, they DO have an obligation to society in general and to their neighbor to live in a courteous well mannered relationship with them. That is sorely lacking among the vast majority of libertarians, I've had the displeasure of dealing with. They think of no on but themselves and how nobody has the right to tell them what to do, all the while telling others what they have to put up with whether they like it or not.

[Jim Robinson]

zot

[metmom]

You make the common error of mistaking libertarians for anarchists.

You're making the error of not realizing that most libertarians ARE anarchists. That is exactly what they advocate for, denying it all the while.