Posted on 10/18/2010 9:10:24 AM PDT by 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?
(Excerpt) Read more at libertypundits.net ...
I've stated my stance. Time and again. Are you going to read it or just jump around like a flea on a hot griddle?
No threat: a reminder of the purpose of this site. It has always mystified me that so few have either read Jim’s mission statement, have ignored it, or have failed to understand its implications.
Homosexuals already have more power than “folks like me”. Is that so hard to see?
I should have said:
No threat: a reminder of the purpose of this site. It has always mystified me that so few seem to have read Jim’s mission statement, and how many appear to have ignored it, or have failed to understand its implications.
Homosexuals already have more power than “folks like me”. Is that so hard to see?
Well, DADT doesn’t work; homosexuals even sort of hidden cause tremendous trouble in the military.
Why do you think they should serve even though homosexuality is a mental illness and they are more prone to deadly disease, violence and so on?
I’m right there with you, my friend.
Yes, that should be the standard, and it pains me to admit that because I know of at least one fellow USNA grad who served with valor as a swift boat sailor in Vietnam, amassing more comms and medals than most others, who just happened to be gay. My stance makes me feel as though I’m denying him his due as an American citizen, but it is what it is, and on the whole, I cannot see how the gay lifestyle is compatible with the military lifestyle.
I understand the point you are trying to make though, I just don't think it's enough of an issue to keep gays from serving.
I was only in the Marines for six years ('88-'94), but DADT just wasn't a major issue for most folks.
And where did they get that power from? Government. Either biddable legislators or activist judges. Neither of which should have had that power to begin with.
That right there is the entirety of my point. Never give the Fedgov power that you would want used against you. EVER. It WILL be used against you.
This simple fact of logic is how people like me get labeled "anarchist" and derided as "supporting" these various agendas.
We need government to help keep some form of order, to provide that sense of group membership that allows us to act as a Nation. It keeps groups and individuals both from running rough-shod over their neighbors Rights.
But this has limits. The Founders knew this and tried their best. From the state of things today, this wasn't enough... but it is fixable.
Amen. Why people cannot comprehend the logic in your post is beyond me. And newer people around here might be surprised to learn that the ideological tenor around here was very different when Billy Jeff was calling the shots. Everyone was all for limited governmental power when the Dems were in control.
Wise words.
I remember telling people not to give Bush (W) any power you wouldn't want Hillary to have.
Everyone wants to hold the whip, no one wants to be tied to the post. It’s as old as mankind.
Thank you. I’m not wise yet, but FR has helped over the years. ;-)
As I review postings in general here in my opinion I would say there is a disconnect here between moral Conservatives and Libertarians in two areas:
The first area might be considered the moral natural or moral common law which includes such things as marriage etcetera. These "things" open to the moral free market of ideas have been defined by society as valuable while other things have been deemed of no value and or harmful. One can find no rational basis for many of these "things" -these declarations.... If comparing the free market of moral ideas with the economic free market we see many similarities with values being determined by participants, with both success and failure being determined by and within the free market (society). Looking for instance at the value of an SUV automobile or a fine piece of artwork or lets say an IPOD -where is the rational basis? Do you see where I am going here? I am suggesting that the premise itself that all things require a rational basis is a flawed premise... This flawed premise in essence cedes authentic individual liberty to a higher authority. In the case of Libertarians it would seem they choose to sacrifice what they consider irrational social order for government imposed social order... e.g. they prefer a government controlled 'neutered' moral free market... This neutering premised in rational requirement flies in the face of what the Founders established by guaranteeing freedom of Religion for the very reason that the free market of ideas should be free... One could say that the requirement for no "religious test" is is being trampled by a government that imposes a 'rational' test that by default establishes a secular humanist state religion...
The second area might be considered the unalienable/inalienable. Again, these have no rational basis... If one was sat down in front of a judge and had to argue that he is endowed with freedom form the Creator he could not prove it -he could only point to the Constitution... One might then say WELL does the Constitution grant this freedom -if so, then what if we revoke it? What it comes down to is principles and what they are premised upon. One could say that moral Conservatives have principles founded upon something that goes beyond and transcends that piece of paper that Libertarians defend while at the same time discounting that which premises it... This paradox seems odd to me and as well dangerous as repeatedly I have stated this equates to a political entity with moral relative principles that van be swayed in any direction like leaves blowing in the wind...
Another way to state your position might be that you want government to neuter the power of society e.g. see a government imposed moral anarchy?
Meanwhile, justifying government interference in our lives in the form of instituting THEIR definitions of marriage etc.
What the libertarians fail to recognize is that they don't not want government interference, they just don't want government interference that interferes with what THEY want to do.
So they say the government shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage, but then turn around and say that anything goes, which IS defining marriage. All they object to is defining marriage our way, the moral way, between one man and one woman at a time.
They don't object to THEIR definition of marriage to be the norm, which is anything goes.
There is no neutral ground in an issue like that. Refusing or failing to define it one way, by default defines it another.
Or are you ok with other "society" based morals like slavery, sharia law, etc.?
What you, the government, the gays, or little green men on Mars has to say about it matters not one wit to me.
Nor should it.
Mind your own business.
Hmmm... Is there some 'rational' basis for either side? You can play with yourself on that one since you can not tackle that flaw that I pointed out...
Anyway, the real question is who is the authority? That is what the culture war that Libertarians deem irrelevant is all about...
I say lead, follow, or get out of the way!
1. The military does not want mentally ill violent people - you must be out of your mind.
2. If you think there is no problem with homosexuals in the military, then you are at odds with most in the military.
Just so I understand, you think homosexuals in the military is no problem and you think they should be able to signuup. Okay.
Your points are clear and easy to understand. Simple. The exact opposite of the tortured irrational statements on the other side.
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.