Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

23 Ways of Poking Fun at Libertarians
Townhall.com ^ | August 3, 2013 | Daniel J. Mitchell

Posted on 08/03/2013 6:35:31 AM PDT by Kaslin

The very first bit of anti-libertarian humor I ever posted was this clever video about the anarcho-capitalist paradise of Somalia.

I then shared two cartoons, one on libertarian ice fishing and the other showinglibertarian lifeguards.

That was followed by a very funny list of the 24 types of libertarians.

But I haven’t shared anything making fun of people like me since this “think I do” montage last year.

Thanks to Buzzfeed, however, we now have something new for our collection. They came up with “23 Libertarian Problems” and here are two of my favorites from the list.

(Excerpt) Read more at finance.townhall.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: abortionondemand; catholic; dopertarians; libertarian; libertarians; medicalmarijuana; paultards; randsconcerntrolls; soclibs; wod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450 ... 501-530 next last
To: Dead Corpse

LOL, one cannot squeeze a drop of honesty from you.

You just called for legalizing polygamy and of course gay marriage, and atheists being forbidden marriage unless they join a religion.

So the Army has to recognize all of the soldiers polygamous wives, unless he is atheist, then he can never be married.

How can you post nonsense like that, and not explain it?


351 posted on 08/03/2013 5:33:04 PM PDT by ansel12 ( The difference between libertarianism and conservatism is the libertarian liberalism, not economics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 347 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

“Are you suggesting that they ought to be completely deregulated?”

At the Federal level and absent an Amendment giving the FedGov that power, yes...

At the State level, that is up to the people of that State.

As for abortion, l4l.org. If it’s human, killing it is murder. Getting tired of restating that.

I’d point-for-point the rest of your post... But i’m typing this on an iPad while my youngest daughter is using me as a jungle gym. My apologies...


352 posted on 08/03/2013 5:36:50 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 349 | View Replies]

To: cdcdawg
Before the absurd ruling in Roe v. Wade, it was a state law matter

What changed was the nation becoming aware that they were killing people, American people.

Once people realized the reality, then it made for an entirely different issue.

If innocent people are being murdered under a local law, then it is not local.

353 posted on 08/03/2013 5:37:30 PM PDT by ansel12 ( The difference between libertarianism and conservatism is the libertarian liberalism, not economics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: cdcdawg

The point is that personhood doesn’t depend on state lines. Any law that defines personhood on state lines will suffer the same fate as Dred Scott.

this is why personhood as a state issue (as abortion is), isn’t going to work. At best, it’s a stopgap. You don’t stop being a person just because you crossed the mason dixon line.

The general movement seems to be this. Statists recruit liberaltarians for assault on federal law they don’t like. Liberaltarians go along telling themslves, “it should be a state issue”.

Then what statists immediately do, is push for a federal law which squares with your personal beliefs. You don’t believe that marriage ought to be a man or a woman - so it’s best to fight discrimination and support this new federal law because it squares with what you believe.

Which leads the conservatives to go, huh?

There’’s really nothing in it for us to compromise with liberaltarians on anything. It hasn’t ever worked out well.


354 posted on 08/03/2013 5:38:19 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Troll...


355 posted on 08/03/2013 5:38:20 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

So you’re disputing that Sowell said what he said because it was printed by a liberal source?

That seems kind of weak.

And quibbling with his definition of conservatism misses the point since he did more than just reject the conservative label. He also expressed a preference for the libertarian label.

And no, that’s not what he’s saying about drugs. What he’s saying is that making drugs illegal has made things worse, just as alcohol prohibition made things worse. This is a fairly standard libertarian argument.


356 posted on 08/03/2013 5:38:49 PM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

“At the Federal level and absent an Amendment giving the FedGov that power, yes”

Well, it’s not going to happen. There’s just too much of a public interest in regulating controlled substances, either at the state or federal level. I don’t have a problem with state regulation, but here’s the problem. States (and the folks on this side of the issue), don’t tend to respect state laws that tell them that they can’t do what they want to do. This is an issue.

If you want state laws, than this cuts both ways. If Texas does not want dope, then the folks in Colorado are going to have to respect that. Instead, what we have been seeing, and will see more of, is importation of dope into Texas, violation of possession laws, etc.

So it really doesn’t work ‘both ways’. It only works one way, were legalization proponents push product all over America.

“I’d point-for-point the rest of your post... But i’m typing this on an iPad while my youngest daughter is using me as a jungle gym. My apologies...”

No problem. Spend time with your daughter. :)


357 posted on 08/03/2013 5:42:53 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

No, you’re simply wrong. Many libertarians oppose abortion. Inform yourself, it won’t hurt.


358 posted on 08/03/2013 5:45:00 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Don't fire until you see the blue of their helmets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Federal law has always had and needed it’s own definition of marriage, for it’s own laws and policies.

The federal government has had it’s own accepted definition of legal marriage since 1780, that was always one male, one woman until this year, when libertarians got a break for gay marriage at the federal level.


359 posted on 08/03/2013 5:45:13 PM PDT by ansel12 ( The difference between libertarianism and conservatism is the libertarian liberalism, not economics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: Yardstick

That’s not what I said at all. I’m saying that the definition of ‘conservative’ that your source has Sowell stating, isn’t a very good definition of conservative.

I don’t think any conservative would find that definition compelling, so Sowell stating, “This is why I’m not a conservative” Isn’t very compelling either.

Then Sowell going on to state, “I disagree with libertarians on core principles”, also doesn’t make me very confident in stating that he’s a libertarian.


360 posted on 08/03/2013 5:45:38 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

LOL, no they don’t, or else they would be able to carry some weight in changing the libertarian unlimited abortions at any time, any stage, ZERO interference position.


361 posted on 08/03/2013 5:47:38 PM PDT by ansel12 ( The difference between libertarianism and conservatism is the libertarian liberalism, not economics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

To point out the obvious, it was the comments about restricting individual choices by adults. Thanks for asking.


362 posted on 08/03/2013 5:47:55 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Don't fire until you see the blue of their helmets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: randomhero97
You are wasting your time. These folks refuse to think for themselves. It’s easier for someone to hand them an agenda so they can blindly follow.

True, I like to think and make up my mind on many matters. I think that would be a position of a "classical liberal" where they support free minds and free markets. I'd say a libertarian would fit there. I just don't like it when they confuse libertarianism as being part of the New Left.
363 posted on 08/03/2013 5:48:00 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (I miss you Whitey! (4-15-2001 - 10-12-2012). Take care, pretty girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

So you don’t think Sowell said it then?

Let’s get that cleared up first.


364 posted on 08/03/2013 5:48:57 PM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

So, you haven’t informed yourself. I’ll bet you’re used to that position.


365 posted on 08/03/2013 5:49:35 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Don't fire until you see the blue of their helmets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

You are agreeing that Islam should define marriage, and that atheists can’t marry?

__________________________

No to both


366 posted on 08/03/2013 5:52:53 PM PDT by Chickensoup (200 million unarmed " people killed in the 20th century by Leftist Totalitarian Fascists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Yes


367 posted on 08/03/2013 5:53:31 PM PDT by Chickensoup (200 million unarmed " people killed in the 20th century by Leftist Totalitarian Fascists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup

In 366 you lied, you had agreed that marriage should be purely a religious matter, Islam is religion and atheism is not.

That gives you legalized polygamy and atheists unable to marry at all.

In 367 you say that the military does not need to have a definition of wife or widow, you don’t know anything about a military life, or death, do you?

Why do you not speak, unable to explain your nonsense?


368 posted on 08/03/2013 6:03:16 PM PDT by ansel12 ( The difference between libertarianism and conservatism is the libertarian liberalism, not economics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 367 | View Replies]

To: stevie_d_64

I am not a libertarian, but you accuse conservatives like myself of infiltrating what’s left of a political force. What political force would that be?

The GOP left conservatives, like me and many there, just like the DNC left Ronald Reagan. The GOP leadership does not care one iota for conservatives and want to marginalize us.

If the GOP leadership wants me and many other conservatives on their side, they will have to start moving back to the right instead o lurching hard to left. The days of “pulling the lever for the GOP guy because if I don’t the Democrat wins, are over. If the GOP candidate does not hold my beliefs at heart, he or she is not going to get my vote...period.


369 posted on 08/03/2013 6:03:47 PM PDT by TennTuxedo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: Yardstick

I think he did say it. My issue is what he says and how he says it. I don’t think the definition he stated there of what constitutes a ‘conservative’ is all that compelling.


370 posted on 08/03/2013 6:04:30 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

Under our system of law, there is no question that abortion is a matter left to the states, because it is not addressed in our Constitution. It’s just not enumerated in the Constitution. 10th Amendment. That was clearly understood for nearly 200 years. We are so conditioned by the leftwing desire to federalize every issue, that it’s difficult to conceive of the states deciding those issues, but they did for decades. Important does not equal federal. Thank God, because Washington is obviously a cesspool. Alas, federalism is probably dead anyway. The alternative under our laws is to amend the constitution. I don’t have a lot of hope, but I tend towards pessimism.

As for the left recruiting libertarians to fight their battles, I have to ask for an example. Libertarians don’t make much of a voting block (like 1% or so in a strong year), and the Left hates them even more than ansell does. Given that electoral weakness, I don’t think the Left would even bother.


371 posted on 08/03/2013 6:06:52 PM PDT by cdcdawg (Be seeing you...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

William F. Buckley summed up the role of conservatives with his classic line “standing athwart history yelling stop”. So Sowell isn’t exactly off the reservation with his comment.

But again, what’s most interesting about Sowell’s remarks isn’t so much what he said about conservatism, but that he selected the label libertarian as the best match for him. Presumably this was because libertarian core principles are closest to his own, and even though yes he does note that he disagrees with libertarianism on some issues. I do think it’s telling that he apparently agrees with libertarians on the drug issue, which for many conservatives is the bright line between conservatism and libertarianism.


372 posted on 08/03/2013 6:18:38 PM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Before Washington got in on it, abortion was illegal here. Washington got in on it. Now it’s legal here. Do the math.


373 posted on 08/03/2013 6:21:39 PM PDT by cdcdawg (Be seeing you...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

In 366 you lied, you had agreed that marriage should be purely a religious matter, Islam is religion and atheism is not.

_______________________

So what? I said that the religious can define marriage however they want. Atheists can define marriage how they want.
________________________

In 367 you say that the military does not need to have a definition of wife or widow, you don’t know anything about a military life, or death, do you?

_______________________

Survivor would be the designation I would use.


374 posted on 08/03/2013 6:25:20 PM PDT by Chickensoup (200 million unarmed " people killed in the 20th century by Leftist Totalitarian Fascists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: cdcdawg

Do the math?

Why don’t you look at what changed.

What changed was the nation becoming aware that they were killing people, American people.

Once people realized the reality, then it made for an entirely different issue.

If innocent people are being murdered under a local law, then it is not local.

Don’t tell me that you would be against ending abortion at the federal level if we can.


375 posted on 08/03/2013 6:29:47 PM PDT by ansel12 ( The difference between libertarianism and conservatism is the libertarian liberalism, not economics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup

So you want marriage to cease to exist, and to just let people call whatever they want, marriage.

And you want all of those relationships treated as and funded as “marriage” in the military?


376 posted on 08/03/2013 6:33:34 PM PDT by ansel12 ( The difference between libertarianism and conservatism is the libertarian liberalism, not economics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 374 | View Replies]

To: Yardstick
which for many conservatives is the bright line between conservatism and libertarianism.

That was cute the way you tried that, use abortion, and then the homosexual agenda.

Remember abortion?

377 posted on 08/03/2013 6:37:13 PM PDT by ansel12 ( The difference between libertarianism and conservatism is the libertarian liberalism, not economics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Well hell why not point out with the same energy the fact that the Democrats are the party of slavery ,socialism & sodomy or that the Republicans are for all intents & purposes spineless zipless F#@ks.


378 posted on 08/03/2013 6:42:31 PM PDT by Nebr FAL owner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
What a crock, 1870 America and 1770 America would be lynching libertarians only post 1960s America embraces their social agenda, and nowhere man, “spy in your bedroom” is the most lefty language.

I'm sure some would but there would be others who would mind their own business.

Is that really what you think of JR and freerepublic?

No, my posts are my own opinions and take on things.
379 posted on 08/03/2013 6:49:47 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (I miss you Whitey! (4-15-2001 - 10-12-2012). Take care, pretty girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Yes, do the math. Abortion was illegal here. Washington got involved. Now abortion is legal here. It’s almost like they didn’t care what folks around here thought about it. That’s what changed. What part of that has you confused?

Why are you inquiring as to where I stand on ending abortion at the federal level. You already know everything about where I stand on everything, don’t you? You claim to. Any minute now you will post that single leftwing social position I have promoted, or that spot where I attacked social conservatism. In my heart, I almost believe that you will. Come on, man (I might assume too much). You can do it!

I’ll make this issue easy on you. Under our Constitution, abortion is a matter left to the states, because it doesn’t fall under an enumerated power for the federal government. It’s that simple. Leaving it to the states doesn’t mean it isn’t vital, it just means that’s the way our Founders set things up. They thought it best that the federal government only have a few specific duties (please tell me if you disagree on this). They were sort of suspicious of concentrated power (again, please tell me if you disagree on this). What they didn’t anticipate was a Supreme Court that would make stuff up. I think you would have to read the Constitution in a dishonest manner (like a liberal) to see it otherwise. Since the Supreme Court usurped the 10th Amendment power of the states on abortion, it is necessary to amend the Constitution. I don’t see another alternative, apart from war, as efforts to overturn Roe have been unsuccessful.

You are arguing that abortion is a federal issue because people suddenly became aware that abortion was killing. That is absurd. Abortion was illegal prior to Roe for a reason. Namely, that reason was that people saw abortion as killing. Obviously. You don’t get that?


380 posted on 08/03/2013 6:52:32 PM PDT by cdcdawg (Be seeing you...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup
You are still playing games. Libertarians do not as a group ADVOCATE these issues. They allow them to be discussed and chosen OR NOT!

I think the point is we need to ask on a Federal level, "what would the Constitution say?" I think on almost all social matters, the Constitution would be silent and leave such things up to the States (as long as it does not violate the Constitution itself) or the people themselves. Take same-sex marriage, under our system you'd have States that would allow it legally, not allow it legally or just leave it to the people and not get involved. That's the ideal situation.
381 posted on 08/03/2013 6:54:11 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (I miss you Whitey! (4-15-2001 - 10-12-2012). Take care, pretty girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Nowhere Man

Actually in 1770, promoting abortion and homosexuality would have probably gotten the death penalty.

libertarianism would not have been well received, or even tolerated.

Before the 1960s sodomy was a felony in every state.


382 posted on 08/03/2013 6:55:15 PM PDT by ansel12 ( The difference between libertarianism and conservatism is the libertarian liberalism, not economics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
For every one of them I think there are a dozen libertarians here.

...and three dozen more libertarian-leaning people.

383 posted on 08/03/2013 6:55:20 PM PDT by superloser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Nowhere Man

I think the point is we need to ask on a Federal level, “what would the Constitution say?” I think on almost all social matters, the Constitution would be silent and leave such things up to the States (as long as it does not violate the Constitution itself) or the people themselves. Take same-sex marriage, under our system you’d have States that would allow it legally, not allow it legally or just leave it to the people and not get involved. That’s the ideal situation.

___________________________

Well-put!


384 posted on 08/03/2013 6:56:55 PM PDT by Chickensoup (200 million unarmed " people killed in the 20th century by Leftist Totalitarian Fascists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: Yardstick

That’s not exactly Sowell’s definition is it? Sowell said it meant conserving stuff. What stuff? Any stuff.

Are there any conservatives that believe in preserving everything just because it passes once? No. Buckley didn’t believe that either.

If you have a bad definition of conservativism, then it’s not accurate to say that one rejects what conservativism actually believes. This is really a ‘straw man’ on his part.

I love Sowell, but this isn’t really the best argument against his conservativism. It is a good argument against his libertarianism because he explicitly cites a substantive policy portion wherein he disagrees.


385 posted on 08/03/2013 6:57:30 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
You support permitting a 14 year old to buy alcohol just like she buys ice cream.

Legally, it is none of the Fed's business, it is a State, local and/or parental matter as the case may be. If it does not break any State or local laws and is OK with the parents/guardian, I have no problem. However, the 14 year old will be held accountable and responsible for their actions, alcohol or no alcohol. If you want to change the law in your State or locality, as long as it passes Constitutional muster) work within the system.
386 posted on 08/03/2013 6:57:58 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (I miss you Whitey! (4-15-2001 - 10-12-2012). Take care, pretty girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

So you want marriage to cease to exist, and to just let people call whatever they want, marriage.
____________________________

That is what they are doing now.

_______________________

And you want all of those relationships treated as and funded as “marriage” in the military?
___________________________

Again that is what they are doing now.


387 posted on 08/03/2013 6:58:52 PM PDT by Chickensoup (200 million unarmed " people killed in the 20th century by Leftist Totalitarian Fascists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: cdcdawg

“there is no question that abortion is a matter left to the states,”

Again, the position that abortion is wrong because it kills a living person would reject this position altogether. If the unborn child is living then states do not have jurisdiction to kill them.

“We are so conditioned by the leftwing desire to federalize every issue”

Personhood is a federal issue. Do you contest this?


388 posted on 08/03/2013 6:59:22 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 371 | View Replies]

To: Nowhere Man

“If it does not break any State or local laws and is OK with the parents/guardian, I have no problem.”

If a girl is old enough to get an abortion without her parent’s consent, then why ought she seek parental consent to purchase alcohol?


389 posted on 08/03/2013 7:00:34 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge ("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 386 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

. If the unborn child is living then states do not have jurisdiction to kill them.

______________________________________

Actually the death penalty is a good example of some states having it and other states forgoing it. The states do decide they have jurisdiction to make that decsion


390 posted on 08/03/2013 7:02:11 PM PDT by Chickensoup (200 million unarmed " people killed in the 20th century by Leftist Totalitarian Fascists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: randomhero97; ansel12
Colonial America? Really? I go back to my other post. I see you long for the days of no due process where the local religious elders were judge, jury, and executioner.

Well, I cannot read any minds here so I cannot vouch for anyone's take except my own but I don't want to trade one form of tyranny for another. I don't want us to become the USSR or Cuba nor do I want us to become like Salem during the days of the witch trials. One is as bad as the other.
391 posted on 08/03/2013 7:03:13 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (I miss you Whitey! (4-15-2001 - 10-12-2012). Take care, pretty girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: Nowhere Man; Chickensoup
Take same-sex marriage, under our system you'd have States that would allow it legally, not allow it legally or just leave it to the people and not get involved. That's the ideal situation.

That is a fantasy.

It ignores that the feds also have to deal with marriage issues and always have, and it denies the reality that states recognize each other's marriages, and that once it started, gay marriage became a reality for all states.

Only 9 states "allow" the concept of common law marriage, yet all 50 states and the federal government recognize them, as long as they were legal in their original state.

392 posted on 08/03/2013 7:04:33 PM PDT by ansel12 ( The difference between libertarianism and conservatism is the libertarian liberalism, not economics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: Nowhere Man

Why quote and respond to a debunked, dishonest post?


393 posted on 08/03/2013 7:06:07 PM PDT by ansel12 ( The difference between libertarianism and conservatism is the libertarian liberalism, not economics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

It’s amazing because it’s like arguing or conversing with lunatics in a mental asylum. Only the lunatics think they’re the doctors....


394 posted on 08/03/2013 7:10:00 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Nowhere Man

Why would you worry about atheistic Communism, or British witch trials which had nothing to do with America, those were a 100 years before the United States existed.

Do you really want to embarrass yourself this badly in an attempt to mock the founding of America?


395 posted on 08/03/2013 7:11:46 PM PDT by ansel12 ( The difference between libertarianism and conservatism is the libertarian liberalism, not economics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 391 | View Replies]

To: Eva

The problem that I have with many who call themselves Libertarians is that they don’t support freedom of religious thought. They demand a political correctness on homosexuality that denies the freedom to support the religious tenets. They demand approval of homosexual activity rather than just tolerance. That is not very Libertarian.


If being pro-all vice and condemning those who condemn vice is not Libertarian, then why do libertarians believe in that? I don’t know how many people on FR claim they’re libertarians but don’t adhere to the Libertarian Party platform (although trying to get them to be clear on which parts they don’t adhere to is downright impossible), so why call themselves libertarian (large L or small) if they don’t adhere to the LP platform?

There’s either lying going on or people need to think of another name to call themselves.


396 posted on 08/03/2013 7:12:35 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

What does the Libertarian party platform say?

Inform yourself. It won’t hurt.


397 posted on 08/03/2013 7:13:05 PM PDT by MrEdd (Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 358 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup
Actually the death penalty is a good example of some states having it and other states forgoing it. The states do decide they have jurisdiction to make that decsion

Really, the Death penalty and Abortion, the same thing?

This is insanity.

398 posted on 08/03/2013 7:13:46 PM PDT by ansel12 ( The difference between libertarianism and conservatism is the libertarian liberalism, not economics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

You do a good job of pointing out why “conservative” is as much of a misnomer as “liberal”. These days, “liberals” want more of the status quo and/or more government, while “conservatives” want radical change.

Sowell is a “libertarian” in the sense of the word as applied to the men by which he was influenced. Hayek wrote Why I Am Not a Conservative, and Friedman wrote The Tyranny of the Status Quo, for example. Sowell is probably a classical liberal (like Adam Smith) more than anything else, but to say that these days would create even more confusion. As the term relates to people like Sowell, “classical liberal” has been replaced in modern parlance by “libertarian”, mostly due to the progressive movement’s corruption of “liberal”. “Libertarian” in this sense, with the small “l”, is distinct from Libertarian Party, and I feel a little bit awkward even having to say that in a discussion with what I take to be an intelligent person. Forgive me if that was pedantic.


399 posted on 08/03/2013 7:15:05 PM PDT by cdcdawg (Be seeing you...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
If a girl is old enough to get an abortion without her parent’s consent, then why ought she seek parental consent to purchase alcohol?

Again, it depends on the law in that State. I'm pro-life BTW but under the Constitution, it is silent on the issue so it is (or should be) left up to the States. The only way the Feds can get involved is if the Constitution has been amended to address the issue. It's like Dred Scott, the decision, as terrible as it was to may, was most likely the correct one because it was before they amended the Constitution with the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.
400 posted on 08/03/2013 7:15:06 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (I miss you Whitey! (4-15-2001 - 10-12-2012). Take care, pretty girl!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 389 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 301-350351-400401-450 ... 501-530 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson