Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Should Libertarians do About Politics? (To fight or not to fight at Cato)
Libertarianism.org ^ | March 6, 2012 | Trevor Burrus

Posted on 03/06/2012 12:29:39 PM PST by Timber Rattler

Recent momentous events at Cato have drudged up some age-old questions about libertarianism and politics: how should libertarians interact with politics and political candidates? Should libertarians compromise “full freedom” by promoting half-measures in the form of less-than-perfect candidates who are better than the alternatives on some matters but perhaps worse on others?

Many of the most long-standing divisions within libertarianism are partially a result of different answers to these questions. Some regard all interactions with politics and politicians as inherently corrupting and a tacit endorsement of governmental oppression. Others feel that a refusal to engage in politics is a one-way-ticket to irrelevancy that ultimately guarantees a less-free society. They claim that while utopian dreams of a political discourse built on ideas and bereft of partisanship are fine, political change happens through politics and politicians, and to deny this is to be obstinate.

(Excerpt) Read more at libertarianism.org ...


TOPICS: Issues
KEYWORDS: cato; libertarian; politics
Trouble at the Cato Institute...

Cato and the Kochs

1 posted on 03/06/2012 12:29:53 PM PST by Timber Rattler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

Personally, I do no think librarians should be involved in any political discussions.


2 posted on 03/06/2012 12:33:51 PM PST by svcw (Only difference between Romney & BH is one thinks he will be god & other one thinks he already is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler
The full essay...

Recent momentous events at Cato have drudged up some age-old questions about libertarianism and politics: how should libertarians interact with politics and political candidates? Should libertarians compromise “full freedom” by promoting half-measures in the form of less-than-perfect candidates who are better than the alternatives on some matters but perhaps worse on others?

Many of the most long-standing divisions within libertarianism are partially a result of different answers to these questions. Some regard all interactions with politics and politicians as inherently corrupting and a tacit endorsement of governmental oppression. Others feel that a refusal to engage in politics is a one-way-ticket to irrelevancy that ultimately guarantees a less-free society. They claim that while utopian dreams of a political discourse built on ideas and bereft of partisanship are fine, political change happens through politics and politicians, and to deny this is to be obstinate.

I believe both methodologies are needed. In an age of increasing politicization it becomes more and more necessary to “win” libertarian goals through politics. It is crucial, however, that concessions to politics do not compromise the libertarian message that political choice must be limited in its reach. If we only focus on the next election, this message may be lost and politics will take over, perhaps forever.

“Liberty” is not the ideology of an interest group; it is the baseline of the human experience. But encroachments on liberty will inevitably manufacture interest groups that seek out compromises in order to preserve liberty in limited areas. Thus, a city considering licensing cab drivers creates an interest group that fights to maintain a free market in taxis. After licensing is instilled, the interest group lives on, fighting new regulations, passing their own regulations, and defending certain interests of cab drivers.

As more and more areas of life are politicized, this type of politically oriented behavior becomes increasingly necessary. We move so far away from the baseline of liberty that political mobilization is required in nearly every area of our lives: to marry who we want to marry, to get the medical treatment that may save our life or relieve our constant pain, to choose a health-care plan that does not violate our conscience, or even to drink raw milk. In the process, the struggle to preserve the baseline of the human dignity—human liberty—are sub-divided into battles over the mundane—such as the freedom for children to start a lemonade stand. This is how the fight for human dignity is trivialized and advocates for liberty are balkanized. This is how politics takes over the fight for liberty.

I do not blame anyone who fights for liberty through politics. In fact, I encourage it when it is needed. If your honest business is threatened with extinction due to a new prohibition or regulation, then any politicians pushing the rule should be opposed in the political arena.

But while such fights are perhaps the frontline of the fight for liberty, they are not the baseline. Those fighting for the baseline should constantly remind us that political squabbles over taxi licenses are second-best solutions to a problem that is far more pervasive than licensing: the increasing politicization of human life and the compromising of human dignity that results from that politicization. When there are no more zones where political control is forbidden—your mind, your body, your family, your property, etc.—then there will be no liberty. The fight for liberty has both a short and a long game and, just like football, both should be part of the strategy. But, unlike other political persuasions, focusing too much on the short game actually undermines some of our core principles: that there should be little or no political involvement in certain areas of life. Above all else, libertarians should have long memories that can point out how political concessions of the past paved the way for crises in the present, and we should also be able to show that we made this argument in the past, but no one listened to us. Otherwise, if our past is filled with political concessions, then our message will be substantially weakened, if not totally lost.

Trevor Burrus is a legal associate at the Cato Institute. Get the latest from Trevor by following him on Facebook.

3 posted on 03/06/2012 12:33:50 PM PST by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: svcw

I think libertarians should take over the democrat party.


4 posted on 03/06/2012 12:36:01 PM PST by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler
Here's what's going on...

Cato Goes to War

5 posted on 03/06/2012 12:36:26 PM PST by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

Form a party, write a platform and keep their childish fantasies among themselves.

That would save us from those deep political arguments such as, “”Open borders are fine, and free, we just eliminate social programs, and then no one will want to come here except for a few excellent people, see how easy politics are? Next complicated issue please.””


6 posted on 03/06/2012 12:57:22 PM PST by ansel12 (Santorum-Catholic and "I was basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress" he said))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: svcw

And they wouldn’t be involved but for a media industry, both extremes, so intent on constantly stirring up controversy that they always provide a ready venue, a hungry camera. Same crap we see out of the middle east and out of Washington every five minutes


7 posted on 03/06/2012 1:04:28 PM PST by arrdon (Never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

Refraining from telling other liberty lovers that they’re “statists” and “are afraid of freedom” for not supporting a full and immediate legalisation of crack cocaine would be a good place for libertarians to start if they’re really serious about interacting with the political system.


8 posted on 03/06/2012 1:10:55 PM PST by Yashcheritsiy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

They should sit in their caves and contemplate their belly buttons.


9 posted on 03/06/2012 2:00:09 PM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

ya wanna know what this small “l” libertarian is doing?? I will not cast a vote for anyone running for a public that:

Has voted in the past for big government.

Has shown a willingness to bypass the constitution to win votes.

Is a supported, either now or has been, of the nanny state.

with this in mind, the only candidate left in the race for president is Nwet.

All others are at the best socialists

unless you are talking about mcromney, here the only difference is that one is white and has an r after his name...


10 posted on 03/06/2012 2:19:43 PM PST by joe fonebone (Project Gunwalker, this will make watergate look like the warm up band......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

social conservatives should be alligned with Libertarians more often than they are

What is needed is not so much more laws and rules but more people who do not so much more laws and rules because His rules are written on their hearts.©Wuli 2012


11 posted on 03/06/2012 2:30:16 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

social conservatives should be alligned with Libertarians more often than they are

What is needed is not so much more laws and rules but more people who do not so much more laws and rules because His rules are written on their hearts.©Wuli 2012


12 posted on 03/06/2012 2:45:34 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

Libertarians support polygamy and homosexual marriage, social conservatives don’t.


13 posted on 03/06/2012 5:38:49 PM PST by ansel12 (Santorum-Catholic and "I was basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress" he said))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

“Libertarians support polygamy and homosexual marriage, social conservatives don’t.”

Libertarians are found across the spectrum on these issues; like many other conservatives.

Just like members of the GOP vs GOP party positions, Libertraians do not necessarily fall in line with the views of the Libertarian Party (much like most Catholics who do practice some form of contraception outside of their church’s teaching).

Besides, Libertarianism in politics is less about the moral position of an individual Libertarian as it is their beliefs regardiing the limitations of secular law.

The political question is not always the moral question.

The Conservative political question goes to the requirements of law in order to (1) maintain security, deter crime, and establish civil order, as well as (2) the limitations of law in order to preserve Liberty.

The moral question is larger and assumes we can, and ought to, choose to act for the good without secular law having to be used to mandate what is good in every detail of life. The more that secular law is the source of mandating what is “good” the less it is by the human conscience that true good is chosen, and the law gravitates to corrupting good for the mere benefit of the secular regime of law.

Within Conservatism at large both the social conservative moral priority and the Liberterian legal priority must be addressed. Conservatism needs them both and needs both the philisophical contest between them and the willingness to reach a workable balance that respects both the side of “moral order” and the side of Liberty, recognizing the limitations of law and the endless ability of action by individuals and free associations in a free society.

Secular law is the state. Libertarians are not ambivalent about their disdain for the intrusions of the state against Liberty. That’s a philosophical position regarding the use of secular law. SOME (not all) social conservativs are philosophically ambivalent about the state, calling it a tyrant when it offends their values but not always opposed to using it to establish law to not merely respect their values but mandate them; much like the secular humanists try to do now.

The true Libertarian, when it comes to how far the law can go to mandate what is “legal” from a moral point of view, is neither pro or con toward the moral values of either the social conservative or the secular humanist. Th true Libertarian seeks for the law to more often be an agnostic - neither pro or con - and expects that the law ought to, and the institutions of the state ought to be neither proactively for or proactively against; letting the social dynamics of individuals and all of society’s free associations to work for and establish MORE of the social and moral norms of the society, outside of legal mandates. That’s not a position against the moral values of social conservatives; it’s a position about how we use, or refuse to use, the secular law to comvert every moral position to a legal (state authority) position.


14 posted on 03/07/2012 11:57:57 AM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
Libertarians are found across the spectrum on these issues; like many other conservatives.

No they aren't, any politician promoting polygamy and homosexual marriage would not be a conservative, and any libertarian wanting to forbid them would not be a libertarian.

15 posted on 03/07/2012 12:08:19 PM PST by ansel12 (Santorum-Catholic and "I was basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress" he said))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

“No they aren’t, any politician promoting polygamy and homosexual marriage would not be a conservative, and any libertarian wanting to forbid them would not be a libertarian.”

To not desire to put the law against something, is not, on an individua basis, a desire to “promote or advocate” something as morally right, or what one ought to do.

For example: The law permits people to smoke cigarettes. I think it is not only bad for their health but morally wrong, but I oppose the law making all cigarette smoking illegal. That is not a postion that seeks to promote or advocate smoking. It is a position that respects limits to the law, if Liberty is to be protected - i.e. Libertarian.


16 posted on 03/07/2012 12:58:48 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

I.E. hard lefty that pushes the radical agenda of the left and thinks that relabeling it libertarian tricks conservatives.

The libertarian Supreme court, i.e. the Earl Warren court, the most beloved court in history to the lefties, despised by conservatives, and fairly credited by them as being the most destructive.


17 posted on 03/07/2012 3:16:35 PM PST by ansel12 (Santorum-Catholic and "I was basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress" he said))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

There is little about the Warren court that I would call Libertarian.


18 posted on 03/08/2012 12:51:16 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

Yet The Warren court is famous for being liberal and “libertarian”, and is described as such.


19 posted on 03/08/2012 2:54:20 PM PST by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Could you provide some cases which would support your theory? Saying “described as such” doesn’t make your case. Who describes it as such? What basis do they have in saying so?

I’ll cite something. Roe v. Wade and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, transferred the question of whether or not abortion was murder or not from the states to decide to the federal government, supercedeing the authority of the states in favor of a massive centralized power.

It is likely that as a conservative, you would, for example, not see a massive central government that uses its power to do what, in your mind, would be good as an intrusion. Therefore, if the massive centralized government used its power in matters of authority where it constitutionally doesn’t belong, for example, regulating marriage or abortion, you wouldn’t see it as a problem. However, when the opposite happens, you would see it as intrusion. Likewise, a court which makes abortion legal no matter how it does this is probably seen by you as libertarian, when it is in fact the complete opposite of libertarianism.

The fact of the matter is that there are four federal crimes mentioned in the constitution. Piracy, treason, counterfiting, and slaveholding. Everything else should be left to the states to handle under the 10th amendment, including murder. If there is a similar federal crime, it is simply overlap and redundant. Abortion should be a state crime. The remedy for the big government anti-libertarian Roe v. Wade / Doe v. Bolton would be for state governments to nullify the decision as unconstitutional and to implement state laws which consider abortion as murder.

I’ll cite you an example of the remedy. In the 1850s, Wisconsin was a free state where slaveholding was illegal, even though the federal law (which supercedes state law, right?) made slaveholding legal. Consequently the Underground Railroad brought many escaping slaves to the state of Wisconsin. At the time, there was a federal law known as the Fugitive Slave Act. The act stated that escaped slaves would be rounded up by the state where they escaped to and sent back to their owners. The act subsidized slaveholding, because in theory, the cost of rounding up escaped slaves and buying new ones would eventually cost more than the cost of employing workers, which would end the instution of slavery peacefully and without a War Between the States or hundreds of thousands dead. Wisconsin decided to have nothing to do with the Fugitive Slave Act, nullifying it and declaring that any federal authorities who apprehended escaped slaves in their state would be charged with kidnapping. Illinois, home of Lincoln, on the other hand, not only complied with the Act but decided that any free blacks who entered Illinois would be apprehended, taken to Kentucky, and sold into slavery.

That was a long way to get to it but the point is that any decision that centralizes authority cannot be described as libertarian. The most famous decision of the Warren court is anti-libertarian. I guess I’m confused by your post. Could you elaborate?


20 posted on 03/09/2012 2:32:12 PM PST by BaBaStooey ("Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will give you light." Ephesians 5:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

“and ‘libertarian’, and is described as such”

“described as such”? By whom?

The essence of Libertarianism is not a philosophy that argues AGAINST the values of social Conservatives; it is, instead, a philosophy that argues in favor of natural limitations of law and promotion of Liberty wherein one can be a social conservative in their personal affairs, or a social liberal in their personal affairs, as their conscience dictates. The problem for both social conservatives and modern day Liberals is they both want to bring the state into making “legal” and “illegal” many things the Libertarian would leave for the individual to decide; and when they can, both Liberals and social conservatives want to use the institutions of the state to take on the role of advocating for their social positions and advocating against the social positions of others - where again, the Libertarian wants to remove the state from having such power in the first place.

In the essence of Conservatism, Libertarians are more Conservative than many social conservatives, as many social conservatives don’t really want the state diminished, they only want it diminished as regards oppostion to their social values.


21 posted on 03/09/2012 2:53:01 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Wuli; BaBaStooey

“The Warren Court was committed to the promotion of a libertarian and egalitarian society.” http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Warren+Court

“Throughout the remainder of his political career, Warren publicly defended his action, which stands in stark contrast to his role as one of the staunchest civil libertarians ever to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.” http://what-when-how.com/social-sciences/warren-earl-social-science/

“Most of the accolades of the Warren Court, Vestal points out, are ascribed to what the Court accomplished after justices appointed by President Kennedy joined the Court’s liberal bloc to form a solid majority of libertarians who usually upheld civil liberties claims against the government. This consolidation of the libertarian bloc occurred before the beginning of the 1962 term when the Court the public identifies as “the Warren Court” came into being.” http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Eisenhower_court_and_civil_liberties.html?id=XrSRAAAAMAAJ

” While Warren’s record as a civil libertarian on the Supreme Court had cast his role as an architect of the relocation policy in an ironic light,” http://www.vqronline.org/articles/1979/autumn/white-unacknowledged-lesson/

“Engel vs. Vitale (1962).—A strongly civil-libertarian court, headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that reciting nondenominational prayers written by government officials violated the Establishment Clause.” http://www.witchvox.com/white/wscourt_schools.html

“Warren did not immediately manifest the libertarian activism that would eventually result in all-out assaults on the Court, accompanied by the distribution of ‘Impeach Earl Warren’ bumper stickers and Warren Impeachment Kits. By mid-1956 it had become crystal clear that, as Chief Justice of the United States, Earl Warren was in the process of providing leadership for a libertarian activist approach to public law and personal rights that went far beyond the Eisenhower brand of progressive Republicanism. The Chief Justice, usually with Justices Black and Douglas (and later Brennan) by his side, wrought a constitutional revolution in the application of the Bill of Rights to the states; in the generous interpretation of specific provisions of criminal-justice safeguards for the individual; in the application and interpretation of the Civil War amendments; in the liberalization of the right to foreign travel, to vote, the right to run for office, and the right to fair representation, to ‘one person, one vote’; an elevated commitment to freedom of expression; and in many other sectors of the freedom of the individual. He was the Chief Justice par excellence-second in institutional-leadership greatness only to John Marshall himself. Like Marshall he understood and utilized the tools of pervasive and persuasive power leadership available to him; he knew how to bring men together, how to set a tone, and how to fashion a mood. He was a wise man and a warm, kind human being. He was his Court, the Court.” http://www.humanistsofutah.org/humanists/EarlWarren.html


22 posted on 03/09/2012 3:12:17 PM PST by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I personally don’t care about the issue of prayer in public schools. I feel that if someone subjects their child to a school run by big government, they are going to get what they get. It is all pretty much soiled in my opinion. If someone sees the idea of prayer in public schools being struck down as libertarian, they should take it with a grain of salt because the idea of public schools is anti-libertarian in the first place. If people want to educate their children properly, then they belong at home or at a religious or private school that parents can trust. And there shouldn’t be school taxes.

Upholding civil liberties claims against the government is a good thing. Every blind judge can find a nut once in a while. For example, all of the left-wing justices voting in the recent Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC, a unanimous decision. Good grief, Kagan and Alito even wrote a joint concurring opinion.

The reason why upholding civil liberties claims against the government is a good thing is that it is wrong for a powerful government to run your life. I shouldn’t have to go into too much detail on that, but essentially, freedom means freedom, and if your natural rights come from God then man doesn’t have the authority to take them away. But a court that upholds those rights from time to time isn’t necessarily a libertarian court, any more than Kagan is a right wing religious conservative for supporting Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church.

Once again, you support my blind squirrel theory with Warren’s support of relocation camps during WWII. Big government messing up the lives of Japanese Americans. You might agree with Michelle Malkin that it was necessary, but it is not something a libertarian would do. Just as supporting Roe/Doe is not something a libertarian would do.

The “impeach” effort in 1956 was perhaps due to Warren’s recent role in Brown v. Board of Education. Once again, a central government sets policy for the states (although I think that with public education, you takes your chances when it comes to big government pushing people around). Did they have the power to do so? No more so than the federal government that forced policy on the states as they did with the Fugitive Slave Act, or Dred Scott v. Sanford or Plessy v. Ferguson.

Plessy, interestingly enough, was brought forth by private companies, specifically train companies, who were trying to get rid of a Louisiana law that harmed their ability to do business. They were specifically required to carry at least four train cars, two for white and two for black (one smoking and one non-smoking each). Train companies couldn’t afford to run 4 cars on every train, they preferred to run as many cars as there were tickets sold. Big government Supreme Court supported Big Government Louisiana who were jerking around people and private companies. If the trains didn’t have to run under regulations they didn’t want, they would have integrated their trains and then, there is another private solution a problem where some feel only government can solve problems.

Warren being compared to Marshall is a laugh, and another sign that Warren wasn’t nearly as libertarian as everyone says. Thanks to Marshall, most people think that only the Supreme Court can decree that things are unconstitutional. A read of the Constitution and the 9th and 10th amendments shows this to not be the case. Certainly the Supreme Court can do it, but the authority does not reside with them alone. If it did, then Wisconsin wouldn’t have been able to fight the Fugitive Slave Act.


23 posted on 03/09/2012 5:23:42 PM PST by BaBaStooey ("Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will give you light." Ephesians 5:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BaBaStooey

If anyone wants to know my opinion on Cato, its simple. It is inside the Beltway and it has been corrupted by power like everything else. It all went downhill when they purged Rothbard.

Therefore, I do not choose a side in the Crane/Koch battle because I want them both to lose.


24 posted on 03/09/2012 5:26:04 PM PST by BaBaStooey ("Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will give you light." Ephesians 5:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BaBaStooey
Warren being compared to Marshall is a laugh, and another sign that Warren wasn’t nearly as libertarian as everyone says.

Yes, everyone says his was the greatest libertarian court.

25 posted on 03/09/2012 5:28:11 PM PST by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I am happy to learn that I am no longer included in the meaning of the term “everyone.”

Although, how many of the courts were truly libertarian? Since Marshall, they have all been about building up big government at the expense of everything else, so perhaps you could be right.

But that is like having the distinction as the world’s tallest midget. Which, I think, is a musician named Dewey Cox.


26 posted on 03/09/2012 5:32:14 PM PST by BaBaStooey ("Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will give you light." Ephesians 5:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BaBaStooey

I don’t know what you mean by the “everyone” remark.

The left/libertarians loved the libertarian court though, famed libertarian Noam Chomsky probably did as well.


27 posted on 03/09/2012 6:03:56 PM PST by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
I don’t know what you mean by the “everyone” remark.

It is simple.

You said, "Yes, everyone says his (Warren) was the greatest libertarian court." Since I disagree, I am no longer included in the term "everyone." Which is cool.

"The left/libertarians loved the libertarian court though, famed libertarian Noam Chomsky probably did as well.

When you say stuff like this I wonder if I am being punked. Chomsky has come up with stuff to describe what it is he thinks and has come up with terms like "libertarian socialist" which in my opinion sounds like "tall midget."

As long as we are talking about Supreme Court decisions, we could discuss Chomsky's reaction to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), which Chomsky opposed, calling it a corporate takeover of U.S. Democracy. A libertarian would respond as Congressman Paul did on the recent Tonight Show interview, where he agreed with the decision, because companies and groups like SuperPACs are essentially people who have a right to free speech, and that if government can restrict that, then they could also restrict the media, etc.

In addition, a libertarian would say that the reason why such money is going into politics in the first place is because the federal government has become a bloated spigot from which companies and others work to become well connected so they can get rich of the backs of little people like us. Turn off the spigot, shrink the bloated thing, and the money getting thrown into campaigns gets put into more productive areas. As long as this country has more Orren Boyles than it has Henry Reardens, this country is in trouble.

I sure hope you are getting something out of this discussion. Or perhaps, do you want to explain in great detail for me next time how Stalin was a libertarian? Or perhaps Alexander Hamilton? or Thomas Hobbes or Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli??
28 posted on 03/27/2012 8:07:46 AM PDT by BaBaStooey ("Awake, O sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will give you light." Ephesians 5:14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: BaBaStooey

Noam Chomsky, Bill Maher, Earl Warren, well known libertarians, you I haven’t heard of.


29 posted on 03/31/2012 9:41:15 PM PDT by ansel12 ( Romney is a Mormon Bishop, as was his father, his uncle was in line to be the Mormon Prophet. Pope))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
No they aren't, any politician promoting polygamy and homosexual marriage would not be a conservative, and any libertarian wanting to forbid them would not be a libertarian.

I think you are missing the point of the issue. I am somewhere between a Conservative and a Libertarian on some issues; I consider myself a moral libertarian and feel I have good company in Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry. That said I am a strong believer in protecting our national security.

It's a question of what it the government's responsibility. The question is this: Is it the government's job to legislate morality and moreover can it? As a Bible believer I have no doubt that both polygamy and sodomy are wrong; and I think politicians in favor of either do not posses the moral fiber to be a good leader. I do however wonder at the effectiveness of laws against both, do they really change anyone’s behavior?

The underlying moral problem is not decided in government,but the hearts of men. If our laws are a reflection of our society then changing the laws and polishing the mirror won't cleanse society. If you read the Bible and believe as many do that we are in the last days then you know the world is in a time apostasy and that man “as in the days of Noah,” “did that which was right in his own eyes.” Matthew 24:37,
Laws aren't going to stop that change. Certainly I can personally oppose it and stand against it without forbidding other from sinning.

The same is true of the other erstwhile point of contention: drug policy. Does the federal government's anti-drug policy actually cut down on drug use, are the federal laws a violation of states rights? The libertarian in me will be cynically laughing if the Supreme Court uses the federal drug law cases as precedence to shove Obamacare down our throats.

I find it a complex and fascinating issue. I'm no full fledged Proudhon following Anarchist; I do however think conservatives should think long and hard before they suggest a big government solution to any problem.

30 posted on 04/23/2012 8:05:26 AM PDT by Idaho_Cowboy (The man of a thousand tag lines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: aflaak

Ping to comments


31 posted on 02/09/2013 7:52:41 AM PST by r-q-tek86 ("It doesn't matter how smart you are if you don't stop and think" - Dr. Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Karl Rove and John McCain call themselves “conservwtives” despite all of the evidence to that contrary.

Keep voting for bigger government and less freedom RINO’s. you may as well be a Democrat.


32 posted on 02/09/2013 7:58:35 AM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: r-q-tek86

Comments? More like typical “we’re afraid of real freedom/personal responsibility” anti-liberty crap.


33 posted on 02/09/2013 8:00:30 AM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

I ended up in some weird time warp thing on my Nook. I hit News/Activism in the side bar like i always do and got the feed from October 2011.

I didnt pick up on it until about halfway down the page and after I pinged my friend. Sorry for the confusion.


34 posted on 02/09/2013 8:13:30 AM PST by r-q-tek86 ("It doesn't matter how smart you are if you don't stop and think" - Dr. Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: r-q-tek86

Cue Frankenfurter and the Unconventional Conventionalists...

http://youtu.be/Rtkdo7bOmJc


35 posted on 02/09/2013 8:30:35 AM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson