I’ve got plenty of overlap with small-l libertarians and some with capital-L Libertarians. But IMO they lose the necessary translation from principle to what is pragmatic given human nature and where we are starting from.
A perfect example is their take on immigration. The country does provide, and will continue to provide, social support (even if it weren’t governmental, it would be charitable) of a nature that can’t accommodate the billions who would like to come and avail themselves of it. The open borders that you and they espouse sets us up for invasion (which some could reasonably argue is ongoing from the south) at a level and even of a type that is the first Constitutional duty of our federal government to protect us against. Also, the Libertarian position on immigration ignores the common, Western cultural baseline that is required for Constitutional self-government to work.
The basics of libertarian philosophy can be used to support either side of the abortion debate, and so don’t of themselves provide much practical help on that issue.
It is IMO the small government, reasoned but firm dismantling of those federal (and state) monstrosities is the common ground where conservatives, libertarians, moderates and independents can find a majority coalition and start to take back the government and our country. That’s why the tea party was for a time so successful despite its organizational limitations.
The GOP is so totally sold out and rotten to its core that it is not a viable vehicle for what is needed (unless, as I outlined above a ‘freedom party/tea party’ initiative can succeed in taking over the party from within by 2016).
I fail to see then how one could A) Still support the GOP/RNC B) Rail for a NEW 3rd party (of which NO details exist), when they already exist (and have been in the trenches)
IMHO, I believe you’re mixing apples and oranges. Firstly, if the support were charitable/voluntary, I would have NO gripe/say whom they would give their $$. Secondly, ‘open travel’ does not = Citizen; no bennies (distributed BY gov’t) = no reason to LEGALLY immigrate unless one WANTS to be a Citizen. Again, open travel does NOT equal NO security/checks for those coming in (as if what we have today is ‘secure’ /s).
RE: ‘common, Western cultural baseline’. I’ll have to ask you to lay that out, I’m unfamiliar with your meaning.
RE: Abortion. That is ONE of the few areas I believe the (L) is wrong. BUT, as they espouse 95% of what I believe in, my vote goes with them (unless another candidate can sway me with more than ‘lesser of 2 evils’ B.S. or point to their record).
As for your closing statements, I wholeheartedly agree (EG: having common ground), but you’d be a minority, even here, to say forces should be joined on those basics.
Most, that I have witnessed, would rather/happily cast their lot with a party that would sell out their own base than acknowledge they may have been backing the ‘true’ opposition. It seems, to me, that the GOP has their own share of plantation workers who are too scared of Liberty themselves to ‘buck the system’ and vote for anyone other than (R).
Lastly, if this ‘new’ party were to join with some of the others out there, I would def. be one giving time/$$ all around. It’s been too many years since I held my nose to vote for ‘the next in line’ union seniority ideals; and I think the conglomerate (say to present the BEST candidate, given REAL debates and ideas) would shake the rot in the 2-party cartel to its core.