Posted on 07/01/2013 8:20:22 AM PDT by Kaslin
I generally believe that social conservatives and libertarians are natural allies. As I wrote last year, this is “because there is wide and deep agreement on the principle of individual responsibility. They may focus on different ill effects, but both camps understand that big government is a threat to a virtuous and productive citizenry.”
I even promoted a “Fusionist” principle based on a very good column by Tim Carney, and I suspect a large majority of libertarians and social conservatives would agree with the statement.
But that doesn’t mean social conservatives and libertarians are the same. There’s some fascinating research on the underlying differences between people of different ideologies, and I suspect the following story might be an example of where the two camps might diverge.
But notice I wrote “might” rather than “will.” I’ll be very curious to see how various readers react to this story about a gay couple that is taking an unusual step to minimize an unfair and punitive tax imposed by the government of Pennsylvania.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.townhall.com ...
Please! Libertarians applauded the Windsor USSC decision. That is unforgivable by conservatives.
Social Conservatives and Libertarians have a whole host of differences. For instance, legalized drugs, legalized prostitution, and same sex marriage to name just a few.
“I generally believe that social conservatives and libertarians are natural allies.”
Nope.
The story is about two, gay Obama voters who don’t want to pay inheritance taxes. So one adopted the other. Typical liberals.
The War on Drugs has been the single most damaging policy (or set of policies) to the Bill of Rights that I can think of:
1st Amendment: there are negative impacts on the freedom to assemble, as well as practicing religion (Native American Peyote, for example).
2nd Amendment: the vast increase of felonies, intersecting with the GCA [IIRC, it might be NFA], creates thousands of people whose right to bear arms is infringed.
3rd Amendment: I don't know of any damage here, from the WOD.
4th Amendment: Stop and frisk, the exigent circumstances
because they might flush a joint, and many, many, many more.
5th Amendment: the deprivation of property [and liberty] without due process is rampant to the point where it is SOP (and because it is SOP, they claim that it is due process
).
6th Amendment: Just throwing in a bunch of drug-related charges can contaminate a jury.
7th Amendment: Because everything is criminalized the use of civil redress has gone way down.
8th Amendment: Excessive bail is the norm, as are excessive fines. It is easily arguable that it is cruel and unusual punishments to routinely rob men of a fourth of their lives and then tell them that they can live as 2nd-class citizens (rights kept from ex-felons, except by permission from the government).
9th Amendment: seriously undervalued — the control of inter- (and intra-) state commerce is not intended by the so-called commerce clause
, indeed the word states
appears in between foreign nations and Indian tribes. The importance of this is clear: if the federal government were to assert the level of regulatory control over a foreign nation as it does the states that would be an act of war. Moreover, enforcing such policies would be waging war, thus it is that the War on Drugs really is Treason. — How does this fit into the 9th? It fits because the ninth states that just because a right isn't listed doesn't mean it doesn't exist: therefore, there certainly can be a right to grow your own medicine (or food) and medicate yourself.
10th Amendment: See the 9th Amendment. The War on Drugs is the deprivation of the sovereignty of the States.
So that's 90% of the Bill of Rights that's directly damaged, in some way, by the War on Drugs. (Granted, the 7th Amendment is the shakiest, but even if we throw it out that's 80%.)
No, Libertarians have no clue what their freedom is based on. Only a moral people can keep freedoms, just as our founders stated. They knew and warned us that once our faith was wiped out our freedoms would be lost.
Christians and Jews know where the wall of their freedoms stop while the rest find their freedoms allow them to prey on others which leads to freedoms being taken away for the safety of the people as a whole....
I told my father-in-law that if it passes in GA then we should divorce our wives and get a legal marriage to avoid all inheritance taxes.
He laughed, but then I saw him thinking about it. He still remembers the substantial hit when his father passed away.
The IRS has no idea what is about to hit them as accountants start getting creative. :)
I think the Libertarian position is: Why should government be endorsing any relationship between individuals (with tax incentives or capabilities)? Churches can endorse or preside over the relationships they choose to endorse, but the government should stay out of that.
So are you a fiscal conservative or a Libertarian?
Yes.
ditto dat
Good God, is this writer insane?
Libertarians are at brutal combat against traditional America, God, and social conservatism, it is what they are famous for and why they exist, to overcome social conservatives.
Here is the leftists agenda hidden behind the Libertarian Party curtain.
Libertarian Party Platform:
Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political boundaries”, eliminate the Border Patrol and INS.
Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.
Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments full 9 months.
Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.
Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science and marketers can come up with, zero restrictions.
Advertising those drugs, prostitution, and pornography; zero restrictions.
Military Strength; minimal capabilities.
Adoption has been an option for leaving one's estate to someone otherwise unrelated all along. That homos would use it does not come as a surprise. (They don't need an ersatz 'marriage' either.)
Unfortunately, we here a lot of this bilge here on FR.
There is no such thing as a fiscal conservative that is socially liberal, as the destruction of families attendant to the latter inevitably induces major costs to government and raises a citizenry incapable of productive self-control. "Fiscal conservative" is an oxymoron.
there are Libertarians with a big ‘L’ and small ‘l’ libertarians.
big ‘L’ Libertarians are the drug crazed, homo friendly, it’s a woman’s choice crowd
little ‘l’ libertarians are against those and push for small govt, personal responsibility, low taxes, and personal freedom.
you may think that’s what a republican is... but you’d be wrong. GWBush and MRubio are republicans that would not fit the libertarian mold and would be more in line with JFK then Ronald Reagan. of course, 0bama is more in line with Stalin or Mao then JFK... as today’s dems are far, far left of JFK (he would never be pro abortion and anti Christian)
Consevatives and libertarians align due to the expansion of govt and the conservative push against such a change. but at the end of the day, conservatives like to preserve the status quo... which keeps pushing left with every decade.
a libertarian’s desired position on the political balance beam would be rather fixed
you’re talking about big ‘L’ Libertarians. please make the distinction
(see my #17)
They are exactly the same, there is no libertarian war against their own party positions, no disagreement on issues, libertarians are libertarians.
One thing they will do, is lie to fit what ever audience that they are speaking to.
there is no libertarian party... but there is a Libertarian party that libertarians would not align with
;)
and please, republican positions keep sliding left. mine never have
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.