Can Libertarians function in the Republican Party?

Fox News | 11/26/02 | me

[Sparta]

I just heard on John Gibson's show a guest say that libertarians can influence policy in the Republican Party. He pointed to Ron Paul and Dick Armey as examples. Your comments please.

[RetiredArmy]

If you think it is ok to put porn out there, for anyone, then your Christian values come into question. Bible believers, who truly believe the Bible, do not cut corners for any reason. Either your believe or you don't. There is no in-between or gray area. The Bible says no to those types of activities, so regardless of what you think on legal issues, your Bible beliefs of being a Christian are tarnished if you take the legal side for allowing porn.

[WaveThatFlag]

The link doesn't work, but I get the idea. Until the so-called "Libertarians For Life" get their act together and get the Libertarian Party educated on the truth about abortion, they are essentially voting for the pro-abortion Democrat when they fail to vote for a pro-life Republican in a two part election.

[Sparta]

Try the link in post 13.

[Britton J Wingfield]

The Bible says no to those types of activities, so regardless of what you think on legal issues,

Do you think it should be illegal to worship false gods?

[plain talk]

RINOs are useful only in that they help deliver a Republican majority in the Senate or House and provide for control of the agenda, chairmanships, etc In that regard RINOs are useful. Until Libertarians learn how to compromise they are irrevelant to the battle (although they do affect elections). They do not influence the Republican party at all. The battleground is for the moderates and that's the voters the Republicans are going for. May not be pretty or what we would all like but that's how it is.

[Sparta]

You don't need a flame suit, just an increase in intelligence. Insulting those who'd agree with you on many points is not bright.

If you thought I was attacking libertarians, you are wrong. I use the word LIBERALtarian to attack those libertarians who primary focus is sex, weed, and porn. I also put on for those who call all libertarians liberals and consider them the enemy.

[ihatemyalarmclock]

If Republicans were to expand their "tent," or their voting base, just a little, they'd find fewer close races spoiled by Libertarian candidates.

How they would go about doing this could occupy a half-dozen more threads. But if the vitriol hurled at Libertarians here is typical, I don't know why any would be motivated to make the switch.

But perhaps more to the point, Ralph Nader sucked away more votes from the Dems -- far more -- than Harry Browne did from the Republicans in 2000.

So who really gave America 36 days of "ugly?" Factor in Al Gore's refusal to concede, the Florida SUPCO and SCOTUS, and you'll need two more sets of arms just to point all the fingers.

[Young Rhino]

The Republican's could destroy the Libertarian Party by adopting the legalization of pot. This argument would then be over.

As a [l]ibertarian who consistently votes GOP, I find the pot argument to be ludicrous. It is about as offensive as stating that the GOP can regain the Patsy Brigadiers by shooting illegal aliens crossing the border. Taking a philosophical difference and creating an absurd straw man out of it won't win LP votes.

[Joe Bonforte]

Why be content with just one strategy? Yes, I'm happy for guys like Ron Paul, but to be honest, he is so out of step with the Republican Party's mainstream that I can't tell that he has much influence. If we are supposed to be happy that we've got some token representation, but still nothing really happens, I think those are pretty low expectations.

Running candidates outside the GOP is not contradictory with supporting real small-government types inside the GOP. I'll bet Ron Paul did not have any LP candidate running against him. But just because we have a Ron Paul certainly doesn't mean there doesn't need to be some sort of pressure on a Norm Coleman.

If the GOP money types support more Ron Pauls, they will get the libertarian support. If they serve up more "compassionate conservatives" who in their compassion desire a larger government, prescription drugs for the elderly, federal interference in education, an insane War on Drugs, expanded snooping on Americans, etc. etc., then they won't get libertarian support, nor should they.

Bottom line is this. No one who just wants to go slower on growing government will get my vote. I'll only support those who realize that we must have a reversal. I don't want to have to vote for LP candidates, because the party is amateurishly run and does not have the effect that I would like. But I'd rather use my vote to show the GOP that I support a real small government candidate than vote for a large government GOP-type. If I vote for "lesser of two evils" mushy moderates, the GOP is certainly never going to change. They assume I vote for those horse's a$$e$ because I like them. I want the folks who run the GOP to understand that I don't.

[WaveThatFlag]

Sounds like a decent group of people, but they are misguided if they think that they are accomplishing anything other than taking votes away from a pro-life candidate with a legitimate shot at being elected. Libertarians in general have some good ideas, but their time and energy would be better spent lobbying within the Republican party, rather than offering themselves as an alternative.

[Phantom Lord]

How do you keep it out of the hands of kids, while keeping it available to adults?

Require proof of age to purchase or view. Whats so hard about that?

[putupon]

and disgusted former-Pubbie-now-independants

Do disgusted former-Pubbie-now-independants vote and if so for who? Not being a weisenheimer here. A lot of Freepers here in VA wrote in Ollie North (the Libertarian was a joke) over our RINO incumbent senator last election day, but the seat was safe. I wouldn't have done it if there were in any danger of a DimRAT getting it.

[ThinkDifferent]

The Bible says no to those types of activities, so regardless of what you think on legal issues, your Bible beliefs of being a Christian are tarnished if you take the legal side for allowing porn.

Where does the Bible support the use of violence (i.e. government force) against those who don't obey its teachings? Enforcement at gunpoint seems to be the characteristic of a different religion. (You know, the "peaceful" one).

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Ron "Neville Chamberlain" Paul? He's a fruitcake who has a Doctor complex and thinks he is smarter than everyone else.

[jwalsh07]

Require proof of age to purchase or view. Whats so hard about that?

The ACLU is currently suing libraries across the country to force them to carry porn on the internet. This is a local issue to be determined by local taxpayers. You want porn in the libraries in your town be my guest. We don't and anybody that supports a strong central government forcing it down my throat is no friend of mine or freedom.

[jimt]

I use the word LIBERALtarian to attack those libertarians who primary focus is sex, weed, and porn.

While there are some of us who fall in that category, most see the "victimless crime" issue as a massive waste of law enforcement resources and a big intrusion on personal freedom. My concept of law enforcement just doesn't include guys in ninja suits kicking in doors and using flash-bang grenades to stun those inside. I think more of the "come out with your hands up" approach.

Besides, it would be nice to see the murderous thugs involved in illegal drug dealing out of business. At a stroke we'd eliminate their financial resources and leave them naked to arrest and incarceration (and execution) for violent crimes.

[Billthedrill]

Well, I'm sort of a libertarian who votes mostly Republican because the denizens of the LP seem more to me like Martians at times than political operators. I'm also pretty conservative - libertarianism as an ad hoc philosophy isn't necessarily conservative or liberal but its strict-construction constitutional basis and its insistence on smaller government tend, these days, to place its adherents into the Republican camp, and probably will do so for the foreseeable future.

Much of the nonsense you see spouted around here regarding what libertarians are accused of believing is just that, usually thrown down by people looking for a fight and who, in reality, believe in a fair number of libertarian tenets themselves (if they only knew what they were). There is no recognized canon of libertarian belief, so when you see someone insisting, for example, that because Harry Browne says this or that all libertarians are idiots. In fact, the idiocy is, IMHO, more reflective of Mr. Browne than of his theoretical soulmates...

For example, I don't believe that we should distribute heroin and pornography to kindergartners through the public schools system. That sort of thing is best done through through private enterprise... ;-)

[ThinkDifferent]

The ACLU is currently suing libraries across the country to force them to carry porn on the internet. This is a local issue to be determined by local taxpayers.

IIRC, the ACLU is challenging a federal law which *requires* the use of filters for libraries which receive federal support. If you believe that the decision should be made at the local level, then you actually agree with the ACLU. (Don't worry, I won't tell anyone).

[Sparta]

There are some libertarians who use the name because all they want is sex, drugs, and porn, but are really socialists(Bill Maher comes to mind). Those are the libertarians who I have a problem with. On drug legalization,I support legalizing weed, but I'm not sure on harder drugs like crack and heroin. On porn, I think the government should keep it out of schools and libraries. On sex laws like prostitution and sodomy, I tend to support legalizing both but with some restrictions.

[Liberal Classic]

No flames here. I think we're going to have to.