Libertarian Folly: Why Everybody is a Social-issues Voter

American Thinker ^ | 08/07/2014 | Selwyn Duke

[SeekAndFind]

There is this notion, one we hear more and more, that the Republican Party has to shed the social issues to seize the future. “Social issues are not the business of government!” says thoroughly modern millennial. It’s a seductive cry, one repeated this past Tuesday in an article about how some young libertarians dubbed the “Liberty Kids” are taking over the moribund Los Angeles GOP. Oh, wouldn’t the political landscape be simple if we could just boil things down to fiscal responsibility? But life is seldom simple.

If you would claim to be purely fiscal, or assert that “social issues” should never be government’s domain, I’d ask a simple question: would you have no problem with a movement to legalize pedophilia?

Some responses here won’t go beyond eye-rolling and scoffing. Others will verbalize their incredulity and say that such a movement would never be taken seriously. This is not an answer but a dodge. First, the way to determine if one’s principles are sound is by seeing if they can be consistently applied. For instance, if someone claims he never judges others, it’s legitimate to ask whether he remains uncritical even of Nazis and KKK members; that puts the lie to his self-image. And any thinking person lives an examined life and tries to hone his principles.

[Beagle8U]

This one tries to explain away/condemn child sex and winds up mostly endorsing it.

About the only thing he couldn’t agree with was sex with a 5 year old. That just a little too young for his tastes, 14 is OK, but 5 was too young. He also though child porn was OK.

http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/04/mary-ruwart-child-porn-and-libertarian.html

[ansel12]

LOL, you are desperately looking for some footing to defend the anti-conservative movement, but are rambling.

Reagan was no libertarian and had almost nothing to say about it.

[trisham]

Are you serious? Your definition was from an encyclopedia.

[GeronL]

wow!

[tacticalogic]

LOL, you are desperately looking for some footing to defend the anti-conservative movement, but are rambling.

Well then call up a moderator and have me banned for using a dictionary.

[ansel12]

Man you libbers can waste time on games and nothing posts.

[Boogieman]

“Actually if you read that 1975 libertarian interview that you want to pretend is something important, as lonely as it it in his long life of politics, Reagan while wanting to keep his audience, still disagrees with them about what we do here at FR as well, social liberalism and being weak on national defense.”

I did read that article, and Reagan draws a clear distinction between his disagreement with some in the Libertarian party who advocate on those types of issues, and the libertarian philosophy itself in general:

” If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.”

http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan

[Boogieman]

No, I don’t think we should.

[trisham]

Good grief.

[Boogieman]

“Here is the leftists agenda hidden behind the Libertarian Party curtain.”

Hey, if you want to argue against the Libertarian Party platform, go right ahead, I will probably join you on that count.

If you want to, instead, make false assertions that the Libertarian Party platform represents the full extent of libertarianism and that we don’t need to make a distinction between the political philosophy and the party that bears the name, then you’ve lost me.

[Boogieman]

Sure, because encyclopedias generally give a more in-depth definition than the couple sentences you will find in most dictionaries.

As I said before, you are free to offer another source for us to check out, if you don’t like the one I presented.

[redgolum]

Ah! But that wasn’t quite what you said.

You said and I quote “The Federal Government clearly does not have the enumerated powers to regulate drugs or sexual activity.
Neither promoting morals nor raising revenue (outside of supporting enumerated powers of Government) are legitimate reasons for legislation”.

Anti murder laws are a form of promoting morals. As are anti theft laws.

Now, if you are arguing from the US Constitution, that is a different argument than what you stated above. For the Constitution is rather explicitly about morals (Rights) and about raising revenue (taxes and tariffs).

The idea that there are “inalienable rights” is an explicit moral statement. It was also quite radical for the time, and hence the need to have them spelled out in the first ten amendments.

[tacticalogic]

Man you libbers can waste time on games and nothing posts.

Like empty insults and personal attacks are some great intellectual contribution.

[ansel12]

Their party is where libertarians have to actually put their fantasies and theories into political language and positions.

In real life, it really does look silly, no wonder it embarasses you guys.

[trisham]

No, I’m sorry to say that at the moment I have more pressing matters to attend to. I’ve made my opinion clear.

[Boogieman]

“Their party is where libertarians have to actually put their fantasies and theories into political language and positions.”

So, if I create a party called the “Conservative Party”, then create a platform that espouses positions that conservatives don’t actually all agree on, I can go around saying that “conservatism” is defined by the platform I made, rather than the pre-existing definition of the word?

That’s pretty much what you are saying, right?

“In real life, it really does look silly, no wonder it embarasses you guys.”

I’ll say it again, I’m not a libertarian. No matter how many times you folks try to pretend that I am one, it will not magically transform me into one.

[Boogieman]

Alrighty, take care then.

[ansel12]

Yeah I know, almost all of the libertarians who want to argue against the conservatives here are “not libertarians” they just want to argue as though they are.

You guys are a waste of time.

[trisham]

Thank you. You too.

[GeronL]

There is a segment of libertarians (Libertopians) that are just 100% insane.

They can make sense when they talk economics but anything else they just fall off the trestle.