George Will's Libertarian Evolution: Q&A on Obama, Syria, & the Power of Choice

Reason ^ | 9-13-13 | Gillespie & Welch

[ansel12]

Get real.

You have a 1975 campaign quote to a libertarian audience where he makes nice with his libertarian audience before reminding them that he is a social conservative and strong on national defense, in other words the conservative we know that he was.

Reagan was a hero to God fearing social conservatives, and the Libertarian party’s greatest presidential election success was when they tried to defeat Ronald Reagan.

[9YearLurker]

Reagan knew better than to have that attitude.

[Nowhere Man]

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.

I ask, "What would the Constitution say?"

Libertarianism draws most of it’s protests from the religious right — which is somewhat like the natural enemy of libertarianism.

I know I will get into trouble with my thoughts but I have to be honest. Yes, the left is very tyrannical and we must fight that, but there are some on the right who would just be as tyrannical in a different way. I oppose a nanny statist, be they someone from the super greenies or the communists. I oppose the nanny statists who would usher in an American Ayatolla or some type of rule that would resemble "Hand Maid's Tale" ala Margaret Atwood. I know for the record, she is leftist, but on this issue, she does have a point.

Myself, we need to have a society based in freedom, yet be responsible and accountable for our actions and the people generally police themselves. Also, we need to teach the next generation what our values are along with being responsible. People are going to do what they are going to do no matter what but, again, the point needs to be driven that they have to be responsible and accountable

It drives me nuts when the NAMBLA "bogeyman" is brought up. They are not libertarian, they are libertine and any libertarian group that has them ought to kick them out. I said before, children cannot consent, they do not have the capacity physically and mentally to make such decisions so they need protected.

Like we need laws to determine which side of the road we drive on, age of consent is needed as a benchmark. We need to teach our children from a young age and as they grow up and are able to understand, thought processes to be able to make such decisions at some point. Yet, societies generally set an age of consent, many times a compromise where all sides get some of what they want but not everything. I guess IMHO, 15 or 16 is a good compromise, 16 preferably. Some may agree, or not.

I think what is lost is compromise. There are some issues where we should not compromise on, it is who we are, but on many others, sometimes you have to, not everyone agrees on everything.

Some of my best friends are homosexual. We were talking about the NAMBLA/pedophile "bogeyman" and they had the biggest laugh of all. Like us, they are not for that and feel they should be punished if a crime was committed, after a fair trial of course. I guess I'm this way since I know what it is like to be different, most likely, I have Asperger's myself. I know a Marine who served in Iraq, he was friends with a gay civilian doctor over there and credits him with saving the lives of many of his Marine buddies.

[DainBramage]

Freeper ralf would be proud....rest in peace brother!

[Nowhere Man]

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.

I'm sure they did. People are going to do what they are going to do and I have no problem if they consent and are able to do so. I remember when I was in 7th grade back in 1979 where my teacher even cited a case where two gay guys got married back in the 1500's, give or take. I can't remember who, I'm trying to track it down, but it proves that no matter what, if they're gonna do it, they are gonna do it.

You really have no grasp of politics do you? You don't know how social liberals vote versus how social conservatives vote.

Actually I do. There is a need to compromise, not on everything I mind you, but not everyone on our side sees everything the same and there is a need to compromise at times. There is no true, Borglike conservatism really.

[truth_seeker]

Get real.

“You have a 1975 campaign quote to a libertarian audience where he makes nice with his libertarian audience before reminding them that he is a social conservative and strong on national defense, in other words the conservative we know that he was.

Reagan was a hero to God fearing social conservatives, and the Libertarian party’s greatest presidential election success was when they tried to defeat Ronald Reagan.”

So what are you telling me? That a coalition in order to start winning elections again, is not in the cards for you?

The GOP have lost the Presidential popular vote 5 of the last 6 times, and something needs to change in order to turn that around.

You have any practical, realistic alternatives?

I don’t see any particular success in the offing, for growing the number of social conservatives, but there is ample evidence of new interest in “libertarianism.”

[ansel12]

So if individuals can and always could define fake marriage for themselves, just not have it recognized as legal, then your real argument is that you want either gay marriage and polygamy as legal, or for no marriage to be legal, in other words, for marriage not to exist as we have always known it.

If you know that social liberals are for big intrusive government, and social conservatives against it, then why do you desire to turn against the conservatives and push them away, to embrace a more lefty politics?

Why don’t you just quit wasting our time and pushing the homosexual agenda here at freerepublic, and just become a democrat, and push conservative economics to them?

[BfloGuy]

Some Libertarians do not believe the age of consent is constitutional. They think kiddie porn is art. Some libertarians pretend otherwise to be palatable to the mainstream.

Some Libertarians also want open borders, state sanctioned gay marriage (destruction of the institution) and a long list of other things that will help destroy this country.

Some Libertarians are not friends of America, period.

Just wanted to fix that for you. You paint with too broad a brush.

[ansel12]

I don’t see any particular success in the offing, for growing the number of social conservatives, but there is ample evidence of new interest in “libertarianism.”

This is one of the most honest libertarian threads that I have seen you guys do here, the language is finally getting a little more open.

[ansel12]

So those of us fighting the homosexuals in the military, gay marriage, adoption, and immigration and abortion and so on are just Christian Ayatollahs?

[ansel12]

ralf didn’t come up in search, is that a misspelling?

[ansel12]

Reagan knew who hated him and conservatism, social liberals.

[DainBramage]

Sorry , ralph great guy active Libertarian in Colorado.

[Usagi_yo]

Libertarianism is a utopian fantasy with a lot in common with the marxists

Not even close. Libertarian is closer to fascism than it is to marxism.

Anarchy is the complete right, Communism is the complete left. Libertarian sits somewhere between center and Anarchy -- for those of us who read more than the backs of cereal boxes in the morning.

[Gene Eric]

Libertarianism is the opposite of statism. Liberalism is the opposite of conservatism. The argument that libertarians are intrinsically liberal is nonsense.

[Usagi_yo]

A perfect form of government exists in theory, too bad that when it comes in contact with real life people, it goes out the window. You just can’t trust your fellow man when it comes to Government and Religion. Both are taken and distorted and manipulated to manipulate others.

If you’re interested in who has a good viewpoint on government, I suggest reading Vilfredo Pareto. A philosopher, scientist, engineer and government official. Minor spoiler: It’s all about balancing the poor, middle class, upper class to acceptiable and stable ratios of each other.

But .....

Lets take GeronL for instance. He responded and asserts that libertarianism is marxist. That’s about as far from the truth as you can get. Why does he think this? How can he even have the desire to compare it to something else when he has no iota of knowledge about libertarianism.

My guess is it’s probably a fallout from exposure to the really really hard right Christian Fundamentalists. There is nothing that can be said to him to disabuse this notion that libertarianism is leftist. It’s what they’re just going to keep on believing because it suits them.

[Nowhere Man]

A perfect form of government exists in theory, too bad that when it comes in contact with real life people, it goes out the window. You just can’t trust your fellow man when it comes to Government and Religion. Both are taken and distorted and manipulated to manipulate others.

If you’re interested in who has a good viewpoint on government, I suggest reading Vilfredo Pareto. A philosopher, scientist, engineer and government official. Minor spoiler: It’s all about balancing the poor, middle class, upper class to acceptiable and stable ratios of each other.

I know. I was talking about this to another friend, he's a Freeper too, where there are times you have to compromise to get some of what you want in order to advance what is right and come back later to work to get some more. I think where the right (I lump in conservatives and libertarians into the same group) does not get it and tends to lose is because they lose sight of that. The left knows that and that's why they win. Out of the two main factions on our side, the libertarians get that more than the conservatives, you have one guy holding up his end but not the other and you have to have both, otherwise you'll not win and lose ground.

Lets take GeronL for instance. He responded and asserts that libertarianism is marxist. That’s about as far from the truth as you can get. Why does he think this? How can he even have the desire to compare it to something else when he has no iota of knowledge about libertarianism.

My guess is it’s probably a fallout from exposure to the really really hard right Christian Fundamentalists. There is nothing that can be said to him to disabuse this notion that libertarianism is leftist. It’s what they’re just going to keep on believing because it suits them.

I just don't want to trade in one nanny state for another. Basically those on the left want to get their hands into your wallet, gun cabinet and ice-box. Some on the right want to get into your bedroom. I don't want anybody getting into anything, yet we need to respect the wishes of all and that is why we have States Rights as long as it does not violate the Constitution.

I think many of the ones who pick on libertarians do think that if you do not think like them, "you're the devil." That is close to the side of leftist thinking. I'm not calling them leftists, but I'm just saying the thought processes are similar. The other thing, maybe they have such a huge chip on their shoulders that they cannot see what we are trying to say. I dunno.

I think the real devils are the ones who are weaking America economically and in world power standing and if we don't work together, debate on gay marriage and abortion will be moot. I think the thing is that people do not like being told what to do and if you jump on them, they will tell you to "go fly a kite." Yes, you need proper laws to maintain order and have a system of redress but you cannot get to the point where you are into peoples' lives all the time. Ewen in the old Soviet Union, people go around the system when they can or go underground.

Lastly, I just hate it when they always see every homosexual as a devil. They are not, they are trying to get through life like all of us. Some of my best friends are gay and they are very supportive through my current ordeal with my mother fighting breast cancer. I look at it this way, there are bad people of all stripes and there are ways to address that.

[shego]

Geez, what do you think liberalism is?

It's tax-and-spend, duh. Libertarians are opposed to that. Republicans have made their peace with it.

[shego]

I just don't want to trade in one nanny state for another. Basically those on the left want to get their hands into your wallet, gun cabinet and ice-box. Some on the right want to get into your bedroom.

Here we have the root of the reason why Establishment politicians both left and right support the surveillance-state abuses that have been going on for decades and have become particularly obvious in the wake of the Snowden whistle-blowing.

Proper legitimate laws do not require extensive snooping to ferret out. The government doesn't have to spy on everyone to detect murders and rapes and thefts -- the victims (or their survivors, in the case of murder) will make the offense known. A certain amount of probing is sometimes required to detect and convict the criminals, but this is facilitated by the fact that most people object to real crimes and will gladly cooperate in ferreting out the perpetrators.

Illegitimate laws, on the other hand, require police-state tactics for enforcement. If you drink a bigger soda than Mayor Bloomberg thinks is good for you, or engage in sexual practices that shock the Church Lady's tender sensibilities, or keep a gun in the dresser drawer that Sarah Brady doesn't think you really need... well, the Major and the Church Lady and the Busybody won't even know about it unless their agents engage in totalitarian invasion of every sphere of life. Every anti-libertarian knee-jerk is one small step in that direction.