For half of Freepers, the word “libertarian” goes in eyeballs, the brain stops working.
I think most conservatives take the middle road approach, contrary to the libertarian stereotype of conservatives.
I don’t want any military presence in Europe whatsoever, and I don’t want to meddle with the regional affairs of Russia and such. No business of mine. So I’m not a neocon
Our military should be used for defense, not to police the world.
A bit oversimplified. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense.
Offhand, I don't know any conservatives who would disagree. Of course our meddling has made new enemies. The disagreement comes over the net effect: Has our meddling done more harm than good? And would lack of meddling have prevented new enemies, or merely be seen as weakness by potential enemies, who then are emboldened to become active enemies.
We want less military spending.
That's where the rub comes. The author thinks we've made a bunch of new enemies, and the appropriate response is to cut defense. Not entirely sure if that's logical.
Though there is an entirely logical argument to be had about whether our defense spending is logically allocated.
No "WE" don't, we want MORE military spending. In a libertopian world, an isolated America is a safe America.
“They are quick and correct to point out the danger of Iran going nuclear. They are not as quick to talk about the fact that Iran has a population three times the size of Iraq’s — and the Iraq War wasn’t as smooth or short as then-Vice President Dick Cheney and others assured us it would be.
If it’s realistic to acknowledge that America has dangerous enemies, it’s also realistic to acknowledge that going to war is not always worth the loss of money and lives, and that it makes new enemies. War, like most government plans, tends not to work out as well as planners hoped.”
And another Libtardian proves himself stump-stupid.
You don’t go to war with them jackass, you bomb their nuke [lant back to the stone age and fly home!
I don’t think foreign policy, Circa 2014, is a Libertarian vs Conservative issue. It’s an issue of American exceptionalism vs Postmodernism. The Iraq war was going pretty well when a regime who believed in American exceptionalism was in charge. When the Postmodernists took over, every gain was quickly dissolved. The realism factor is not what Stossel thinks. The disaster that is Iraq is not a necessary function of war, it’s what happens when there’s no moral impetus to win. Which demonstrates why I’m not a Libertarian. They preach a political paradigm devoid of moral considerations.
War with Iran would be an unimaginable disaster, but not because it violates some Libertarian philosophy.
They find no problem with open borders, let workers follow the work, they say.
Nope, between their embrace of open borders, drug legalization, prostitution, abortion "rights," etc. their beliefs are not for me.
It’s not so much the “policing the world” business that I have a problem with, it’s the attempts at nation-building amongst savages. It isn’t working. How could it? It fails for the same reason that open borders will destroy this country. Culture matters, perhaps preeminently.
Libertarians, particularly those in the Libertarian Party, are having a difficult time distinguishing themselves from anarchists. Free trade and open borders will not bring about world peace. That is just the sort of Utopian thinking that runs rampant on the Left, merely from the other direction.
Cue up the LDS music.... (Libertarian Derangement Syndrome)
Bolton was right. But Stossel wants to second guess the Iraq conflict? And claim that libs were right on their being against it?
He's an idiot. And he's one of the better libs.
So do a lot of old conservatives (the so-called "paleoconservatives.") Especially these days.
Isn't that what liberals say about guns?
Of course, if you really want to stop nuclear weapons, the obvious answer is strategic defense.
Yes -- as long as it doesn't have a negative impact on the ability of our military to do the job when we need it done.
Cut the Pentagon bureaucracy, reform our procurement practices so we don't spend so much on supplies, eliminate redundant weapons systems. All of that would be responsible cutting. I think we as conservatives can support that. But cutting our troops or anything that damages their ability to defend our interests would be irresponsible.
The funny thing is, if libertarians and conservatives banded together to work on what both sides have in common, we’d crush the opposition and each get about 80% of what we want. We could fight over the remaining 20% afterwards.
I like a lot of Libertarian positions and most conservatives would agree with small government and libertarian views on economics and the free market.
What caused me to bail on the Lib Party was the position on abortion and Iran
Abortion is clearly the taking of an innocent life, but the Libs say you have a right to chose to do that.
On Iran they didn’t see the threat of the bomb and say it’s Iran’s right.
Some of the anti-war on drug statements here and comments that Libs are potheads are ridiculous. There is a difference between the right to do something and doing it, but the drug addict comments keep on coming. Plus look at the results of pouring billions down the WOD rat hole. Give it up already.
The best solutions to me is that each side adopt what they have in common and defeat the democrats.
I would support interventions to kill our enemies, say bomb Iran's intelligence offices and terrorist training camps.
Our enemies need to fear the long arm of American Justice.
No more invasions without victory.
bfl
This is a depressing thread. How can there be conservatives who don’t know who Whittaker Chambers was? Whose first reaction to Frank Meyer is to dismiss him as a Communist? 70-80 years ago, there wasn’t “conservatism” as we know it today. There were various forms of traditionalists and libertarians who were opposed to the progressive, liberal direction of things, but there wasn’t an intellectual or political movement to rally around.
Several important thinkers and writers contributed to the movement that saw its apex in the election Ronald Reagan. You can be against gay marriage and abortion all you want, and that’s fine and I hope you vote, but if you don’t know why and how conservatism is what it is, you will all too easily wind up lost in the Bushes. You will not be ready to advance the cause without knowing why conservatives believe what they believe. It’s not a grab bag of positions on issues, nor is it simply a political confederacy for winning elections.
I cannot recommend strongly enough American Conservative Thought in the Twentieth Century (a/k/a Did You Ever See a Dream Walking).
http://www.amazon.com/Walking-American-Conservative-Thought-Twentieth/dp/0672512408