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?

[DJ MacWoW]

Libertarians are a step away from being anarchists. There is no corner there. You only imagine there is. There are none. Libertarians are not conservatives.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

If you think homosexuals are born that way, would you mind telling me why?

I'm not a scientist, nor do I play one on television.

But based on what I've seen during my years on this planet, I'd say that there are probably many ways in which homosexuals are "created;" all of which stem from a combination of the chemistry they were born with and the environment in which they were raised. I have direct knowledge of at least one instance in which a South American child was adopted by an American couple and raised in an extremely "hetero" environment---Italian-American, in fact---and yet you could tell from just about the time this child could talk that he was going to be gay. When most boys this child's age would reach for the trucks, bats, construction equipment, etc., he'd be searching out the tutus and tiaras in the dress-up chest. There was literally no way this child was going to grow up anything other than gay.

Yet I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who grew up "confused" about their sexual identity and were pushed down the homo route by another homosexual, or someone who molested them.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Libertarians are a step away from being anarchists.

The typical saw is that libertarians are all for laws that protect the individual against "force or fraud." If this is anarchistic in your opinion, you're either politically unintelligent or intent on behaving like a petulant child, stamping her feet, holding her breath until she's blue in the face.

[little jeremiah]

The Libertarian Party Platform promotes libertinism, fool. But you being the slimey dishonest poster that you are, consistently use deceit and duplicity as your debating “tactics”.

[little jeremiah]

Trisham just posted this above:

From the Libertarian party platform:

1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the
government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption,
immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or
restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices
and personal relationships.

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

The LP promotes libertinsim. ‘Nuff said.

[Dead Corpse]

Libertines extol vice. Libertarians just don't think it is up to government to put a gun in your face to stop you from self destructing.

Pretty big difference you are deliberately mischaracterizing.

As for abortion, stop ignoring the fact that not all of us line up behind the Party line. http://l4l.org/

Honestly, I can't believe you guys are still keeping this thread going. Don't you have better things to be doing?

[Hemingway's Ghost]

The Libertarian Party Platform promotes libertinism, fool. But you being the slimey dishonest poster that you are, consistently use deceit and duplicity as your debating “tactics”.

I have a feeling that someone like you is going to find "libertinism" wherever you want to find it, friend. But in the real world, libertarianism and libertinism are not interchangeable synonyms that mean even remotely the same thing. But it's easy to see how your tactics fool the dimwitted.

[DJ MacWoW]

you're either politically unintelligent or intent on behaving like a petulant child, stamping her feet, holding her breath until she's blue in the face.

Address what I've stated instead of resorting to personal attacks. When a poster starts to attack it means they have lost the debate and have nowhere else to go but down.

I gave you dictionary definitions. Can you refute them or not?

[DBeers]

hmmm... So you state that the objective definition of (big-government social) issues is

"Programs which require trans-state funding and/or enforcement in order to effect a societal or political change to the benefit of the government."

Again now -referring to your self declared "logical" post #209:

"3) Assertion A(2) = (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."

The obvious question -how does one limit government without limiting what government imposes upon society and forces society to fund?

I would contend that true and authentic conservatives realize that morality is best defined by society in the free market of ideas. Just like the free market economy we as well have a free market morality where value in both cases is determined by particpants and NOT imposed by government...

Liberatarians are quite lacking in the moral regard suggesting as you do that it is not important -in essence government moral tyranny is quite okay as long as you can do your own "thing"...

[scripter]

Thanks for the reply.

I'm an engineer and/or a computer scientist, depending on the title. I'm not a geneticist, neither am I a climatologist but I can study climate data and understand global warming is based on bad science and pushed by agenda driven, power and money hungry people.

In regards to homosexuality, a lot of people on both sides don't understand the issue, mostly because it's quite complicated and also because they're not familiar with some terms and what the terms mean.

When I say biology plays a part, people on both sides of the issue take that to mean something very different from what is meant. To some who think homosexuals are born with their same-sex attraction, they say: "see, even scripter says biology plays a part." To some who think homosexuals are not born with their same-sex attraction, they say: "no it doesn't." It's complicated.

When I or a geneticist says biology plays a part, what is meant are traits and linkages, and neither are even remotely causal to same-sex attraction. I believe this is the most confusing part for most because they don't understand the terms.

Playing with tutus and tiaras means nothing other than it fits some stereotypical model society has fostered on us. The same is true with effeminate men. There are more effeminate heterosexual men than homosexual.

If you're basing any opinion on this child who play with tutus and tiaras, you've bought the sterotype and is something you should seriously reconsider.

I encourage you to read two stories:

Michael Glatze
Charlene Cothran

Both the above ran homosexual magazines before leaving the homosexual life.

[little jeremiah]

My wife's heavily involved with theater. Ergo, I know more than my fair share of gay folks. I've spent enough time around these people to feel moderately comfortable around them, and what I've discovered is that they're not bad folks. I can't see denying these people a seat at the table, so to speak, just because their sexuality is different from ours.

Ah, the old "I know plenty of gay people and most are just nice and friendly and not in your face" talking points. Trotted out by supporters of the homosexual agenda, like clockwork.

Not denying them a seat at the table? Who's talking about starving them? What you're staying while trying to stay under the boss' radar is that they get to make the rules. Why should a eensy teensy minority (say at most 2%) of the population who is mentally ill and has unnatural, unhealthy, and immoral sexual practices determine any public policy whatsoever?

[SeeSac]

I've spent enough time around these people to feel moderately comfortable around them

hmmm. moderately comfortable. Does that mean you still get that icky feeling?

[little jeremiah]

Snicker.

I don’t use tactics. I say what I mean, and mean what I say.

The LP platform as posted above, promotes immorality.

‘Nuff said.

[The Comedian]

I would contend that true and authentic conservatives realize that morality is best defined by society in the free market of ideas.

You're a secular humanist then, and have no idea what conservatives or Libertarians think, and so should excuse yourself from this subject until you learn something about it.

Libertarians are quite lacking in the moral regard suggesting as you do that it is not important -in essence government moral tyranny is quite okay as long as you can do your own "thing"...

That's simply too wrong and too exceptionally ignorant on too many levels to bother refuting.

I'm afraid your attempt at moral superiority by making Libertarians into bogeymen based on your misunderstanding of their philosophy has turned out to be a large helping of fail.

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

[little jeremiah]

Don’t you have something better to do than add your .02?

Removing any legislation restricting or prohibiting vices that have historically been considered necessary to restrict or prohibit, promotes said vices.

So any libertarians, large L or small, who do not support the LP’s support of vices, should enumerate the particulars of their non-support clearly, otherwise the assertions of non-support are meaningless babble.

[tacticalogic]

Do you find out what a democracy is by looking at the platform of the Democratic Party, too?

[DJ MacWoW]

Democracy is 2 wolves telling a sheep what’s for lunch. Certainly sounds like Democrats to me.

[tacticalogic]

And so a repulic must be defined by the platform of the Republican Party, eh?

We can all have a really coherent, intellingent converstion about political philosophy using that as a baseline.

[DJ MacWoW]

Is that what I said?

[DBeers]

I think you sticking your "logical" foot in your mouth will suffice...

Setting aside your spineless attempt to attack me --your arguments are bizarre, morally ungrounded and far from logical... Like many if not all Libertarians that are but leaves blowing in the wind -pretend as they may that they are the wind -they who are without moral premise get blown away...

The issues Liberatarians consider not important maybe they should just shut up about? -the non combatants by default are irrelevant in regard to these issues...