Replies

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.

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.

This fusionist conservatism, embodied in many ways by the late Ronald Reagan, is the platform the GOP must adopt if it is to ever win another election.

Social cons can have their pro life positions, but need to give up on overreaching things like public smoking bans and, to some degree, drug issues. I know it goes against the grain with a lot of folks I know, but I believe the evil perpetrated by the state running the 'drug war' is far greater than the evil of someone sitting around smoking dope. I won't hesitate to tell that dope smoker that what they're doing is wrong and is affront before God, but the government has already proven it's not responsible enough to punish such behavior without catching innocents in the process and that, my friends, is a far greater threat than any pothead ever will be.

Government is instituted among men to secure the rights and liberties of the people. Securing the rights of the unborn falls under this category, so social cons can win on their single biggest issue hands down under this platform. But social cons need to get used to the idea that returning our govt to its constitutional bounds is both a good thing and will require actions that may seem extreme. Many social cons are also apathetic on the 2nd Amendment; this group either needs to get enthusiastic about it, or just stay out of the way.

Libertarians can win on the free speech and reduction of police state powers, but left leaning libertarians are going to have get off the pro abortion, pro euthanasia, and pro embryonic stem cell research thing. In fact, a true libertarian would probably note that the Constitution doesn't grant the govt the power to spend public money on scientific research anyway, so this one shouldn't be an issue but for some reason, it is with some Libertarians.

Libertarians might've opposed the war in Iraq, but it's time for them to get some common sense about it. The war is on, and withdrawal now would be a disaster.