Skip to comments.
I’m Throwing Down a Libertarian Gauntlet.
The Flada Blog ^
| May 23, 2007
| Ed Snyder
Posted on 05/23/2007 9:05:49 AM PDT by Equality 7-2521
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-204 next last
I can't count the number of times I've read on FR that libertarians should work within the Republican party. See what that gets us.
To: Equality 7-2521
I believe his rationale is that libertarians generally agree with liberals about more issues than they do with conservatives. Of course, Ive never debated that point because I agree with it.I knew there was a reason I've never identified myself as a libertarian.
2
posted on
05/23/2007 9:08:37 AM PDT
by
EndWelfareToday
(Live free and keep what you earn. - Tancredo or Hunter)
To: Equality 7-2521
It’s been clear to me for about 20 years that Libertarians have more in common with Liberals than they do with Conservatives. I have no time for them.
3
posted on
05/23/2007 9:08:39 AM PDT
by
ClearCase_guy
(Enoch Powell was right.)
To: Equality 7-2521
Conservatives get their backs up on some of the libertarian positions, like drugs & prostitution.
However, if the government would get out of the business of alleviating the consequences of poor choices and bad behavioral decisions, the problems would take care of themselves,
and conservatives would get their way - reduction of immoral behaviors and decisions (through attrition).
The reason that morals ARE morals is that they have the best record of causing a desirable outcome. When we use the government to “fix” an undesirable outcome, there’s no reason (consequence pressure) for the undisciplined to be moral.
4
posted on
05/23/2007 9:10:17 AM PDT
by
MrB
(You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
To: Equality 7-2521
Libertarianism is the politics of the adolescent, as well as the perpetual adolescent who happens to be 40 years old.
5
posted on
05/23/2007 9:11:42 AM PDT
by
Antoninus
(P!ss off an environmentalist wacko . . . have more kids.)
To: Equality 7-2521
It seems the Republicans of today love massive government and staggering deficits. When I was growing up, this was not so. How did this travesty happen?
To: MrB
However, if the government would get out of the business of alleviating the consequences of poor choices and bad behavioral decisions, the problems would take care of themselves, and conservatives would get their way - reduction of immoral behaviors and decisions (through attrition).
Are you really that naive? In our semi-socialist society, moral problems wouldn't take care of themselves via attrition. They'd continue to get worse and afflict more people and YOU would have the honor and privilege of paying for it, whether you want to or not.
That scenario (libertarianism + socialism) is the worst of all possible worlds.
7
posted on
05/23/2007 9:15:07 AM PDT
by
Antoninus
(P!ss off an environmentalist wacko . . . have more kids.)
To: MrB
To: Eternal_Bear
How did this travesty happen?Years and years of voting for the lesser of two evils. I'll paraphrase Ayn Rand. The lesser of two evils is still evil. If you are offered a plate of food with a lot of poison and one with only a little poison, which should you choose? The obvious answer is neither since they both contain poison. Go out and find your own, non-poisoned food.
To: Equality 7-2521
BullFeces. I was a Liberal who became Libertarian, who then became Conservative because I realized that the conservatives were Right, libertarian-wise, on more things that really matter and that Government can really control, than Liberals.
10
posted on
05/23/2007 9:20:50 AM PDT
by
Paradox
(In the final analysis, its mostly a team sport, Principles cast off like yesterdays free agents.)
To: Antoninus
Your scenario better describes the alliance between libertarian and liberal. The libertarians and liberals share a desire to unrestrict personal behavior, but the liberals then want socialism to provide a cure for the consequences.
11
posted on
05/23/2007 9:20:59 AM PDT
by
atomicpossum
(Replies must follow approved guidelines or you will be kill-filed without appeal.)
To: Antoninus
I do believe he stipulated that, in his scenario, the government would have to “get out of the business of alleviating the consequences of poor decisions”. The result would, by definition, not be a “semi-socialist society”.
12
posted on
05/23/2007 9:22:39 AM PDT
by
The Pack Knight
(Duty, Honor, Country. Thompson/Franks '08)
To: ClearCase_guy
Good morning.
Liberalism can only exist through coercion, while libertarianism is about, well, liberty.
Many faux conservatives who don’t understand the difference get the two mixed up.
Michael Frazier
13
posted on
05/23/2007 9:23:05 AM PDT
by
brazzaville
(No surrender, no retreat. Well, maybe retreat's ok)
To: EndWelfareToday
Out of frustration with the Illinois GOP (or what is left of it) I looked at the website of the Libertarian Party of Illinois. Outside of the absence of socialist planks, their platform was hardly distinguishable from the Green Party’s. One of the things that stood out was their participation in a coalition that included A.N.S.W.E.R, Code Pink, and other leftist organizations, including the CPUSA as I recall, in opposition to the Iraq War. They can oppose the war if they like. Do they have to get in bed with communists to do so?
I stayed Republican.
To: Equality 7-2521
Fine. Work within the Democrat part and see what THAT gets you...
Personally, I have grown up and figured out that Libertarians are about perpetual childhood, with nothing mattering more than their personal wants...
15
posted on
05/23/2007 9:24:37 AM PDT
by
Little Ray
(Rudy Guiliani: If his wives can't trust him, why should we?)
To: The_Eaglet
Please ping the Ron Paul list.
To: Equality 7-2521
Libertarians are useless, and the fact that Ron Paul ran as one speaks volumes about them.
17
posted on
05/23/2007 9:26:54 AM PDT
by
DesScorp
To: ClearCase_guy
Its been clear to me for about 20 years that Libertarians have more in common with Liberals than they do with Conservatives. I believe you are referring to their shared arrogance.
18
posted on
05/23/2007 9:27:21 AM PDT
by
Niteranger68
(If amnesty passes, I will be discriminating against all Mexicans.)
To: Equality 7-2521
Libertarians are not one group. There are left-libertarians (generally pro-abortion, pro-gay, anti-war, pro-criminal, pro-feminism, weakly pro-capitalism/third-way, anti-religion, pro-legislation of
immorality, etc), and there are right-libertarians (pro-gun, pro-life (as a liberty), strongly pro-capitalism, against government mandated religion, against pro or con special government recognition of gays, etc). The two camps agree on support of free speech, support of political freedom/suffrage, and both are pro-privacy and against police-state powers. A third camp, the anarcho-libertarians (opposed to the libertarian minarchist/small-government tradition), roam the political wilderness and have little influence (think Murray Rothbard).
The two major camps parted ways in the 60's, with one camp aligning with the liberals, the other camp aligning with the conservatives. As for organizations, the Cato institute is representative of the group within the fusionist conservative coalition, and the ACLU is representative of the left-libertarian camp aligned with democrats. As for most visible proponents, Samuel Edward Konkin III (author of "The New Libertarian Manifesto", BIH) was a left-libertarian, while Milton Friedman (RIP) was representative of the right-libertarian group.
Right libertarians should continue to work with the Republican party, despite the growth of nanny-state, big government tendencies of late (temporary I hope). Left libertarians are in a far more precarious position; IMO, most Democratic resistance to recent government expansion is fake, rooted in partisanship only - if it was Hillary doing it, the party establishment would be cheering her on.
19
posted on
05/23/2007 9:31:50 AM PDT
by
M203M4
(What I wanna see is a pro-war ("kill the bastards") Ron Paul. Pacifism is suicide.)
To: RacerF150
Arrogance in dealing with lesser mortals, yes. But also, both Liberals and Libertarians seem to think that human nature, in it's raw form, is benevolent. Human nature is flawed. All of society will suffer unless some control is exerted over certain damaging behaviors.
Coercion is not something I like, but a world with no coercion would be an ugly world. "Do as thou wilt" sounds appealing to some but it's a recipe for disaster.
20
posted on
05/23/2007 9:33:04 AM PDT
by
ClearCase_guy
(Enoch Powell was right.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 201-204 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson