Posted on 07/08/2009 9:27:16 AM PDT by r-q-tek86
I think they get singled-out for their viewpoints on defense and the gay “marriage” thing, more than anything else.
I don’t know that they’re really treated that poorly, here.
Small-l libertarianism is more of a moral philosophy regarding the use of coercive force, rather than a specific party.
Here is the portion of the libertarian party’s agenda that they don’t like to share with conservatives, liberal libertarians stress these aspects while the other wing of their party stresses economics to conservatives.
Here is the leftists agenda hidden behind the Libertarian Party curtain.
Libertarian Party Platform:
Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political boundaries”.
Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.
Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments.
Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.
Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science can come up with, zero restrictions.
Advertising those drugs, prostitution, and pornography; zero restrictions.
Military Strength; minimal capabilities.
politicalcompass.org
Thanks.
I realize I am definitely NOT a “big L” type of guy...
That’s not liberty, that’s chaos.
Yes they were the ones who infiltrated a enviro-nut fest and got all of the greenies to sign a petition to ban water.
Thanks! I’m off to there now...
Little l refers to the basic principles of libertarianism... the big L refers to the Libertarian Party. They, oddly enough, don’t seem to adhere to libertarian principles.
They talk about big l and little l but I can’t find out the difference, I don’t know how they differ on abortion for instance, or homosexuals in the military.
“Constitutional Conservative.”
Sounds about right to/for me.
And it seems to provide a better opportunity for liberty than the Libertarian Party.
I start with the Declaration of Independence: “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
He left out the first part: “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
So, essentially our government does what they do with my consent.
No. You’re not the king. Essentially, “our government does what they do with” the consent of the governed (Supposedly at least). “The governed” is not just you, it’s a lot of us and sometimes we disagree on what the government is to do. When that happens, we vote, compromise, come to consensus etc after which “our government does what they do with the consent of the governed”. (And if we can’t come to some agreement on what should have our consent, the government should do nothing.) Of course, not everybody is satisfied with the outcome in all cases.
So, the way I figure, it’s not okay for our government to use force in any situation where I personally wouldn’t use force.
Again, you’re not the king. You might be overruled by the rest of “the governed” regarding what the government has consent to do.
I’m even okay with using force to enforce voluntary contracts.
The fact that the majority wants something good does not give them the right to use force on the minority that don’t want to pay for it.
So, if the governed came to an agreement (voluntary contract) to institute government to secure rights, and the majority of the governed wanted to consent to a particular government action (“something good”) within the terms of the agreement (voluntary contract) which of the following is true::
1. It would be okay to use force to enforce the agreement (voluntary contract) except that the fact that the majority wants something good does not give them the right to use force on the minority therefore it would not be okay to use force to enforce the agreement (voluntary contract).
2. The fact that the majority wants something good does not give them the right to use force on the minority except that it would be okay to use force to enforce the agreement (voluntary contract) therefore the fact that the majority wants something good within the terms of the agreement (voluntary contract) does give them the right to use force on the minority.
So it's YOUR fault that Obama is our President! A vote for anyone other than a Republican is just another automatic vote for the Dims! If only you had voted for McCain, then we would have a CONSERVATIVE in the White House! < / sarc>
Things don't change much for the Libertarian Party, here is the 1990 Libertarian Party Platform on immigration and the 2004 Libertarian Party Platform on immigration.
17. IMMIGRATION, 1990 Party Platform:
We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.
Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual preference.
We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally. We oppose government welfare payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.
Because we support the right of workers to cross borders without harassment, we oppose all government-mandated "temporary worker" plans. Specifically, we condemn attempts to revive the Bracero Program as government imposition of second-class status on Mexican-born workers.
We welcome all refugees to our shores and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new "Berlin Wall" which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government's policy of barring those refugees from our shores and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.
Immigration, 2004 Party Platform:
The Issue: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new "Berlin Wall" which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government's policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.
The Principle: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.
Solutions: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.
Transitional Action: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.
Republicans hate libertarians because both are competing for the same public. This is similar to the way Fascists and Communists hate each other, various religions hate each other, etc etc. I find it doubly amusing that Republicans use the same “They’re crazy” argument against libertarians that Democrats like to use against their opponents. In fact the unhinged screed you tend to see on the FR against libertarians is virtually identical to the unhinged screeds you see on the DU or moveon.org against conservatives.
Republicans and Democrats are both totalitarians who believe in the massive use of govt force to achieve whatever their aims are for the moment. Both are Big Govt organizations, though the Republicans from time to time put on an outward show of seeking smaller govt. They never actually do anything about it. Even Reagan never did much to slow the juggernaut of the erosion of freedom and independence. Over the last 8 years the Republican Party proved itself beyond doubt to be a big spending Party on the road to ruin, maybe not as quickly as the Democrats but every bit as surely.
I fear for the Republic. There is currently no organized movement capable of reversing the road to perdition we are currently traveling down. Whether we up end up in a Republican bankruptcy and police state or a Democrat bankruptcy and police state we end up in the same place.
I was a Libertarian (big-L, Libertarian Party membership card and everything) for a while, when I was younger and not quite as cynical or as realistic about human nature.
Libertarianism (small L) is an ideal. But practically, it has problems—like ALL moral absolutes. I think it has fewer problems than, say, Marxism, but a Libertarian “paradise” would be difficult for mortal, fallen humans to implement successfully.
So, my basic philosophy is “leave me alone and I’ll leave you alone.” This is a small-l libertarian statement. As you might guess, it’s also extremely hard to implement in practice, as there’s a huge number of people in this world who seem bound and determined NOT to leave me alone.
The Libertarian Party is full of a bunch of Ron Paul-esque nutters who will never, ever understand what it will take to win elections.
That secret weapon is “compromise when necessary, but never, ever retreat.” This is something the Democrat Socialists learned a long time ago, and adhere relentlessly to through good times and bad. Something the more doctrinaire conservatives might need to strongly consider. Half a loaf IS better than none. If you doubt that, look at the current constitution of the United States Senate.
But remember that Rep. Paul is a REPUBLICAN. He doesn't have (L-TX) by his name, it's (R-TX).
The refreshing thing about Penn is that he’s candid about being both libertarian and bugBLEEP crazy.
Oh, yes, I know. But my essential point is that politics is "the art of the possible," not the art of the ultimatum.
Ron Paul has much more in common with the LP nutters than he does with most Republicans, IMHO.
What do you think about his comment about not eating steak if he can't kill the cow. By that logic, because I don't like working in a particular noisy and dangerous factory, I have no right to use the product made by that factory? And he talks about nobody has a right to tell someone else what to do. What are our laws, including the constitution, but a huge guide telling us what we can and cannot do? He contradicts himself a number of times. Don't get me wrong, I like Penn, but he's not a master of logic.
How about “if you don’t think cows should be killed, don’t eat steak”? Better.
“If you don’t like factories, don’t buy their products.”
As for the Constitution, I consider it a huge guide telling the GOVERNMENT what it can and cannot do.
BIG difference.
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.