Oh, and there's this guy:
Posted on 02/24/2005 6:27:01 AM PST by Happy2BMe
Libertarians Seeking 'True Conservatives'
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
February 24, 2005
(CNSNews.com) -- The Libertarian Party says its representatives were "very well received" by conservatives at a recent conference in Washington.
"We met a lot of people who are either supportive of our ideas or who simply support having an alternative to the big-government ideal put forward by the Republicans and Democrats," said Sam New, who organized the Libertarian Party's activities at the Conservative Political Action Committee Conference in Washington.
The Libertarian Party was a first-time cosponsor of the Feb. 17-19 CPAC Conference, and its involvement was a "big step forward" for the Party, said Executive Director Joe Seehusen in a report on the group's website.
"Our profile has been low for some time, and we were able to showcase our party in a positive light to many people and groups, including a large number of students and small business owners."
Seehusen, who considers President George W. Bush a socialist, said the Libertarians' support for limited government and appreciation for individual rights strikes a cord with many people who call themselves Republicans or conservatives.
"Many of them stopped by our booth to learn more," which is exactly why the Libertarians decided to take part in CPAC this year, he said.
The Libertarians believe they can appeal to "true conservatives" (as opposed to "big-government neo-conservatives") on a number of issues.
"By taking part in this CPAC conference, we hope to show that Libertarians are the true fiscal conservatives -- much more so than the Republicans are," Seehusen said on the Libertarian website.
He said the party is studying how successful groups market themselves, so the Libertarian Party "can more effectively reach out to conservatives" in the future.
This is where most people have a problem with LP philosophy. By sticking to the position that individual liberty always trumps all other considerations, the party has no choice but to take a hands-off approach to an action as abhorrent as abortion. The Republican Party makes room for those who believe that liberty should sometimes be usurped by more important underlying elements.
You sell bridges, too?
I guess you buy bridges. As their are many who use drugs just to relax, and are not risking arrest, publicity, loss of their vehicle, home, job, family, and friends. Then their are those who find different kinds of strenuous activities quite relaxing. Some pay a much higher premium price to strenuously relax than most drug users ever do.
Wow - Very well put. I don't know that I fully agree, as I do not put much weight on what the public thinks or does not think in regards to determining policy positions and have not thought through all the ramifications here. But I do agree that "government should get involved in the abortion business." As I see it, that is a private matter that should be decided privately.
Good! Most people are not Libertarians and should have a problem with the LP philosophy.
As for me, I have little concern for what most people think at this time. I see the fight for real liberty as a protracted conflict. What most people think of Libertarianism at this time is not worth bothering over. What is important however is what potential activists think. And they usually are way out side the mainstream.
Well put? He didn't even understand my post.
Fair enough, but what good can come from a liberty that lacks any sense of direction apart from its own sustenance? Shouldn't liberty have a point?
Nonsense. Name them. Many? How many?
I disagree with their anarchist positions, but must recognize that they do exist.
I have never met one. And I've been around vast numbers of libertarians for decades.
I have met a few whacko anarchists who CLAIMED to be libertarians in order to gain credibilty, but they were not libertarians. They were wackos.
Just like a lot of Freepers PRETEND to be conservatives.
Didn't you mean "government should not get involved in the abortion business?
I can think of two famous anarchist libertarians right off the bat: Rothbard ("Mr. Libertarian") and Friedman.
Yea, it looks that way. On rereading your two posts, it looks to me like you both are coming from the same approximate position. No disagreement should have been there.
The liberty I advocate does not lack any sense of direction and it definitely has a point. Your questions are quite vague, leaving open far to many ways for them to be answered, and yet still not answered to your satisfaction. I'll answer your question if you would first clarify what it is your asking. Exactly what sense of direction are you speaking of here? What kind of point are you looking for?
You ever hear of the Dallas Accord which was adopted in order to get the minarchists and anarchists to set aside their fundamental disagreements? That accord sets out that the Party would not settle the ultimate question as to whether government should be dispensed with entirely or kept alive as a minarchy. As of the most recent platform, the accord still seems to be in force.
You never witnessed any of the in fighting between minarchists and anarchists, who were other wise friends on everything else, long after the the Dallas Accord were adopted? Its absolutely fantastic to me how anyone could be in Libertarian circles and not know any of this.
How about the famous 1988 poll that put the LP anarchists at 31%. And the good news from the Liberty magazine poll of 1998 that showed the Anarchists had dropped to 13%, though still highly influential. (Liberty magazines analsys of the short comings of its own poll conceded that they accidently under counted the anarchists in the LP).
I do not see how you can call the author of Libertarianism In One Lesson, the LP 1984 Presidential Candidate David Bergland as being no more than just one of those "whacko anarchists who CLAIMED to be libertarians in order to gain credibility, but they were not libertarians."
Didn't I say "not perfectly so" in that reply? It seems that you see only what you want to see when reading, much like your blindness to the anarchists in the LP.
You are right, the word "not" did belong in that sentence. It otherwise does not make any sense. Thankyou.
But I do agree that "government should get involved in the abortion business."
Some how I left the wore "not" out of the sentence. What I meant to say is:
But I do not agree that "government should get involved in the abortion business."
That's a difficult question in itself to answer. :-) I don't suppose I'm looking toward any one point. The idea is that it seems Libertarians get so far entrenched in the idea of liberty reigning supreme, that all other considerations are deemed inferior. The most relevant issue that comes to mind is abortion. By stating that the mother's liberty is of primary importance, it leaves the party with no choice but to withhold moral judgments about the practice. Liberty, in my opinion, is not always the primary factor that should determine a nation's course of action. I would agree that it should usually be of primary importance, but by basing the party's entire platform on only liberty, it is impossible for leadership to take a stance on those few principles that should supersede liberty...like placing primary importance on the protection of life.
I hope this is a little more clear as you are probably correct; my last post was a little vague.
There are two factions in the Libertarian Party. One group is primarily interested in legalizing drugs for recreational group. The other, more serious group shares most beliefs with Conservative, but are afraid of winning.
Oh, and there's this guy:
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.