Posted on 09/13/2013 10:40:10 AM PDT by Dysart
Wait, we've had libertarian social policy for the last 50 years?! Quick, someone call the Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush libraries so they can change their displays!
It doesn’t help when the NAMBLA spokesman describes himself as a Libertarian in an interview with Spy magazine.
This 2008 Time article may explain more on that.
“”The fracas started with Mary J. Ruwart, the candidate with perhaps the deepest, purest libertarian roots (her rejection of government is so complete that some party moderates have begun warning of the anarchical dangers of “Ruwarchy”). In April, a rival called her out for her thoughts in a 1999 book called Short Answers to the Tough Questions. “Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally,” Ruwart wrote. “When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.”
Ruwart’s is a classic libertarian take — a defense of free will (even for “child performers”) and an attack on government prohibitions of any kind.
The party’s executive director, Shane Cory, saw the danger as well, and rushed out a press release titled, “Libertarians call for increased communication to combat child pornography.” Cory was attacked by hardliners who saw the release as an endorsement of increased federal prosecuting power. The party refused to vote on a resolution asking states to strongly enforce existing child porn laws. Cory resigned in protest, depriving a party in the midst of what may be its most promising election season of one of its most able organizers and fund raisers. But for many libertarian faithful, adherence to the most rigid of principles always trumps practical considerations about how those principles might be more broadly observed.
That rigidity has long been libertarianism’s greatest asset.””
Don’t worry...none of those things believe in you, either.
For a libertarian you are a rarity here.
Most of our libertarians will spend days on a thread attacking conservatism and arguing for social liberalism, without ever admitting that they are pro-abortion and support the homosexual agenda.
They will argue like fanatics for the homosexual agenda, or open borders, or abortion, without ever actually openly supporting them.
Looks like somebody with no clue on libertarianism decided to post their delusion on what Libertarianism is.
Libertarianism is a strict constitutionalist political belief that doesn’t buy in to this ‘living document’ thing about the U.S Constitution. Libertarians have an even stronger constitutional viewpoint than your run of the mill conservative.
Libertarianism draws most of it’s protests from the religious right — which is somewhat like the natural enemy of libertarianism.
Examples indeed hard liners, nambla, and extremists.
I stand by what I said earlier about the people I knew.
Btw. I left because of my position for th last 8 years we should have joined Israel and attacked Iran.
Also, I believe abortion is wrongfully taking an innocent life-both positions not supported by the libertarian party
I see a lot of ignorance and illogic about some of the anti-lib statements on these threads including your smearing libertarians with pedophilia.
Libertarianism is a utopian fantasy with a lot in common with the marxists
Actually the point was that the party refused to take an anti-pedophilia position and their Executive Director resigned in protest of that action.
That is why it is natural for the NAMBLA spokesman, or most other NAMBLA members to be libertarians, what are they supposed to be, God fearing conservatives that the libertarians love to mock and insult, even here on freerepublic and on this thread?
“”The aim of NAMBLA’s small but determined membership was to attack social and legal proscriptions against sexual relations between adults and pubescent or teenage boys. NAMBLA’s argument was and remains a libertarian one: age of consent laws are an unnecessary, punitive intervention by government into the lives of its citizens.””
Well, reading these posts made my IQ even lower. Too bad, because this was a very worthwhile article and worthy of a decent discussion.
I gave you my position and what others said.
Have fun
The interview was intriguing and worth watching in full. I don't idolize George Will nor have I agreed with him on plenty of things in the past, but he has a lot of perspective and his evolution toward libertarian thought, largely in reaction to decades-long unconstitutional, dysfunctional government is salient.
I liked his response to the social issues question: 'It's just not something I think very much about.' Perspective.
That has always been the lightest rino/libertarian position, the worst is when they actually are passionate about their libertarianism and are at open war with Christianity and conservatism, and America.
Most people who are indifferent to social issues, or libertarian or liberal on them, are who makes up the democrat party.
Thanks for the kind words. You and I probably have far more in common than we know. I’ve read some of the libertarian rants and I fault them for not seeing the bigger picture. Our economy is wrecked, tens of millions of people are out of work, and we have a growing number of Americans on public assistance programs. Our status in the world is shaky. Our friends can’t trust us and our enemies don’t fear us. Right now the economy and our nation’s defense should be our main focus. Everything else can wait.
As I said earlier we need to unite. We can’t defeat liberals if each of our factions can’t get together. Ted Cruz is far more preferable as president than Hillary Clinton. Anyone who is supposedly on our side should see that clearly and I, for one, will gladly mark my ballot for him in Nov. 2016, and not stay home just because he’s against gay marriage and I support it. Big picture folks! This is not the time to be a one issue voter.
You need to work on the rest of the libertarians on this thread to be honest about just how liberal they are.
Why is it only his job?
“Social libertarians are the enemy of conservatives”
However during Reagan’s tenure, they put such differences aside, to achieve other mutually agreed ends.
And Reagan himself argued (1975, Reason magazine):
“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.”
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/06/ronald_reagan_t.html
To mount a new majority will require such pragmatic compromises and coalitions.
Libertarians don't support anti-pedophilia legislation, and at what age is someone a child, and when do they fall under libertarian freedom?
Open borders, well maybe the Libertarian Party is open to that idea
Of course they are, it is a libertarian ideal.
Marriage, it is not a federal issue, leave it to the States or better yet, just leave it to the people themselves. I will say, it is a non-issue with me. It is just a distraction from the real issues.
OK, you support gay marriage and polygamy or more precisely, ending any concept of marriage and just people define it themselves, and you are wrong about the feds, they have always had to have a definition of legal marriage, they just decided to accept the libertarian view and recognize gay marriage for the military, federal employment, and immigration recently.
YOU ALSO IGNORE THAT PEOPLE CAN DEFINE MARRIAGE FOR THEMSELVES NOW, AND ALWAYS COULD, IT JUST wasn't/ISN'T RECOGNIZED AS LEGAL. People could call themselves gay married 50 or a 100 years ago.
There will be a time in this country, and even world, where you or me will not care if the hand reaching out to help you or me is gay or straight, black or white and so on as long as we generally fighting to keep America alive. Libertarians are not friends of America, period.
You really have no grasp of politics do you? You don't know how social liberals vote versus how social conservatives vote.
Libertarianism breeds, imports, and creates more anti-God, anti-conservative, broken and shallow voters for the democrat machine.
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.