Posted on 08/01/2013 8:04:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Aside from Reagan as a conservative hero, here are some reasons.
Here is the leftists agenda hidden behind the libertarian 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”, eliminate the Border Patrol and INS.
Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.
Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments full 9 months.
Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.
Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science and marketers can come up with, zero restrictions.
Advertising those drugs, prostitution, and pornography; zero restrictions.
Military Strength; minimal capabilities.
Another non response when libertarian social issues are brought up in front of this conservative audience.
“Howard Dean is so damned dumb he has no idea of the difference between a Little L or a Big L libertarian.”
Can you post a link to the ‘little L’ party platform?
Thanks, I’ll wait.
The fact you don’t know speaks volumes unto itself.
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/libertarianism.html#A7
A7. What’s the difference between small-l libertarian and big-l Libertarian?
All Libertarians are libertarians, but not the reverse. A libertarian is a person who believes in the Non-Coercion Principle and the libertarian program. A Libertarian is a person who believes the existing political system is a proper and effective means of implementing those principles; specifically, “Libertarian” usually means a member of the Libertarian Party, the U.S.’s largest and most successful third party. Small-ell libertarians are those who consider the Libertarian Party tactically ineffective, or who reject the political system generally and view democracy as “the tyranny of the majority”.
That’s sort of a long way of saying that the Libertarian Party has been infested with those who are from the Left. Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell were saying that 35 years ago. Plus, you didn’t say why conservatism was preferable to liberalism. To do that in any convincing way, you are going to have to make the case for limited government. Reagan drew from Hayek, Friedman, Von Mises, and several others, and did so while acknowledging the libertarian aspects of conservatism (a long time ago, only the one time, to a libertarian audience, went on to disagree with them, etc...).
Reagan may not have been a libertarian, but without libertarian philosophy, especially concerning economic issues, Reagan would never have moved towards conservatism.
Libertarians have provided all sorts of intellectual ammunition for conservatives to use against leftists. Reagan was sympathetic to libertarianism because he was intellectually indebted to it.
Even today libertarians are doing the work many political conservatives refuse to do. Where’s the leadership in the house of representatives? Where’s the fire, the energy?
NAILED IT!
You are making that up, no one took over the libertarian party, it is exactly the same as it always was, that is why you can’t name the reversals that you claim, they are still perfectly libertarian.
As far as why conservatism is better than libertarianism, I already proved that in post 61.
there are republicans and conservatives..
there are democrats and communists...
there are small l libertarians and ron paul nut jobs..
And there are complete control freak statists most certainly in the first two groupings. Not so many in the last group. Until the Republican get rid of the big state, nanny state control freaks they will never live up to protectign the constitution which is a document of LIMITED GOVERNMENT!
This is one major reason why some little l libertarians are disgruntled republican.
Nice try, but no cigar.
Now post a link to the small L party platform.
You CAN’T because there is no such thing!
” Small L” means Liberaltarian that can’t defend the turds in their party platform punch bowl!
I think libertarianism is fine at the national level.
If libertarianism could find a way to incorporate strong local government into their philosophy, they’d have a better chance of succeeding.
I think if Libertarians could say they are against a “National War on Drugs(war on rights)” but are perfectly fine with the states or localities deciding if drugs should be illegal or not. It would go a LONG way to ending some of the confusion.
In some way I think instead of Libertarians we need a party that has the belief of “Controlled federalism” which is to say that there should be sharp lines on what matters the federal government can intervene in and stay out of state’s issues.
Because these lines have been blurred, the federal government has gotten too involved in stuipid local stuff like education and government assistence, which of course causes it to abandon it’s constitionally defined responsibilities like defending the border, etc...
Nice try, but no cigar.
Now post a link to the small L party platform.
You CAN’T because there is no such thing!
” Small L” means Liberaltarian that can’t defend the turds in their party platform punch bowl!
Small L isn’t an actual party, or did you not get that part.
Small L is a philosophy that you limit the federal government’s power over the citizens. Rand Paul is a Republican, whith some philisophical leanings of libertarianism. Just like you can have a Republican who is a statist control fream big government liberal moron like Juan McCain.
It’s your punch bowl, you pick the turds out.
You still didn’t make a case for why conservatism is preferable to liberalism (read it carefully, l-i-b-e-r-a-l-i-s-m). To do so I really hope that you would make a case for limited government. You didn’t do that in post #61. Maybe you are a statist, but I seriously doubt that. Why is conservatism preferable to liberalism, using contemporary definitions of those terms?
You still can’t bring yourself to capitalize “Libertarian Party”, which is a real stumbling block. I’m not making up a single thing. I even named two prominent libertarians who are/were not part of the Libertarian Party in no small part because they saw it turning into an excuse for a grab-bag of libertine (oh, crap, that’s going to cause even more confusion) social positions. That’s really why Ron Paul isn’t a Libertarian anymore; or am I making that up? Some others would include Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, Walter Williams, Friedrich Hayek, and Albert Nock. All of them could be fairly considered “libertarian”, yet none of them were members of the Libertarian Party, and none of them would be in favor of rejecting traditional notions of morality.
Yet it wasn't until 1962 that he changed his party registration from Democrat to Republican.
And his "Time for Choosing" speech was given in 1964 in support of that very libertarian Republican, Barry Goldwater.
I agree.
But sometimes you end up with the same problems at the state level where the state intervenes too much in local matters. That's why I prefer focusing on cites and towns.
Escaping an unhappy political environment to find a better one elsewhere shouldn't take more than a 60 minute drive.
Maybe the constitution should be amended to allow large groups of people (say 1,000,000 or more) to leave their current state (or states if geographically connected) and carve out a new one without needing the permission of the source state (or states).
Once you get to 1,000,000 people, you're nearing nation-level populations.
LOL, his 1964 speech was for the GOP convention as Reagan was embarking on his CONSERVATIVE” political career.
As far as waiting until 1962 to formally change his registration in preparing to run for office, Reagan had been capitalizing on his national republican campaigning and conservative activism for more than a decade, as “a Democrat for......”.
Sure I did, one the conservative economics that you support, and two because it opposes the lefty/libertarian social agenda that you support, listed in post 61, and three, it is strong on national defense, which libertarians and lefties oppose.
Reaganism, you should give it a try.
Where is the party in conflict with it’s libertarian ideals, and where is this huge internal war between libertarianism versus libertarianism?
libertarinism is actually socially conservative?
It’s amusing hearing non-libertarians telling libertarians what they believe.
No, you really didn’t. You spouted a few policy positions, but you didn’t say why they were superior to the Left. I wasn’t aware I supported a “lefty/libertarian social agenda”. Which parts of it do I support, since you seem to know? You could identify them right after you identify what I was “making up” about Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard in the previous post. Since you passed on it, I won’t hold my breath.
“There are so many people and institutions who come to mind for their role in the success we celebrate tonight. Intellectual leaders like Russell Kirk, Friedrich Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Milton Friedman, James Burnham, Ludwig von Mises — they shaped so much of our thoughts.
It’s especially hard to believe that it was only a decade ago, on a cold April day on a small hill in upstate New York, that another of these great thinkers, Frank Meyer, was buried. He’d made the awful journey that so many others had: He pulled himself from the clutches of “The God That Failed,’’ and then in his writing fashioned a vigorous new synthesis of traditional and libertarian thought — a synthesis that is today recognized by many as modern conservatism.”
Reaganism, pretty big fan of it. I completely made up that quote. Reagan didn’t really say it.
Escaping an unhappy political environment to find a better one elsewhere shouldn’t take more than a 60 minute drive.
Maybe the constitution should be amended to allow large groups of people (say 1,000,000 or more) to leave their current state (or states if geographically connected) and carve out a new one without needing the permission of the source state (or states).
Once you get to 1,000,000 people, you’re nearing nation-level populations.
Agree 10000%
I think that there should be a ratio in (represented people/Represenative) and when that ratio gets out of whack there should be steps to partition down to another state or even, break it down where the country itself get’s partitioned.
The average citizzen in 1790 had far more “representation” than the average citizen today.
I think the “max population” for a country should be around 100 million. With this in mind the country as it exists today should be partitioned into 3 seprate countries with three seprate federal governments so that the federal tyranny is harder to be forced upon the populace.
We could easily parition the country into 3rds with each one treating one another like we treat canada today.
There gets to be a certain ratio of population vs, representation that reaches a level that invite tyranny of the federal government and I think we passed that point a few decades ago...
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.