Skip to comments.Libertarians Seeking 'True Conservatives'
Posted on 02/24/2005 6:27:01 AM PST by Happy2BMe
Libertarians Seeking 'True Conservatives'
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
February 24, 2005
(CNSNews.com) -- The Libertarian Party says its representatives were "very well received" by conservatives at a recent conference in Washington.
"We met a lot of people who are either supportive of our ideas or who simply support having an alternative to the big-government ideal put forward by the Republicans and Democrats," said Sam New, who organized the Libertarian Party's activities at the Conservative Political Action Committee Conference in Washington.
The Libertarian Party was a first-time cosponsor of the Feb. 17-19 CPAC Conference, and its involvement was a "big step forward" for the Party, said Executive Director Joe Seehusen in a report on the group's website.
"Our profile has been low for some time, and we were able to showcase our party in a positive light to many people and groups, including a large number of students and small business owners."
Seehusen, who considers President George W. Bush a socialist, said the Libertarians' support for limited government and appreciation for individual rights strikes a cord with many people who call themselves Republicans or conservatives.
"Many of them stopped by our booth to learn more," which is exactly why the Libertarians decided to take part in CPAC this year, he said.
The Libertarians believe they can appeal to "true conservatives" (as opposed to "big-government neo-conservatives") on a number of issues.
"By taking part in this CPAC conference, we hope to show that Libertarians are the true fiscal conservatives -- much more so than the Republicans are," Seehusen said on the Libertarian website.
He said the party is studying how successful groups market themselves, so the Libertarian Party "can more effectively reach out to conservatives" in the future.
Just goes to show that you either have no clear understanding of libertarian objectivism, or that you would prefer to have a Nanny state government to protect your from your own moral weakness.
"Why shouldn't a felon vote if/when they have completed their sentence and done something to prove that they are no longer a criminal threat?"
If you feel that a criminal is penalized to rehabilitate, then your statement is half right providing the criminal does find something to prove they are no longer a threat (and I can't seem to think of anything that could ever prove that). But the point here is that a felony is not like a traffic ticket and warrants further punishment than some of the watered down sentences these people are getting. The purpose of taking away the privilege to vote, and to control firearms which seem to be the two most complained about areas by the pro-vote groups, is for nothing other than punishment. And let's face it, they still execute some for felonies. I would think having your vote taken away is a clear positive choice to execution.
I don't know if you aware of the problem with the governor's race here in Washington, but over 1100 felons illegally voted in the last election that was decided by less than 130 votes statewide. Funny thing is, just under 230 was the grand total for all but one county, combined, and the pro-liberal county had the rest of over 890. We are looking at Fort Sumpter here with court cases going and election people running for cover. If you don't think Hilery's statements about letting felons vote, and creating another minority sect to be controlled by the liberal party, is not being prayed upon because of their success here in the little watched northwest, then unfortuneatly you are watching your liberal media at work. Good luck.
Eexactly my point. Stay at your 1% level if you wish. When you learn some political savvy, get back to me.
I think you have described the "New Republican Party's" direction in a very interesting perspective. It seems to be indicative of what I've been seeing over the last six months anyway . .
The problem with drawing such a line is this: to draw it, more often than not you have to bend and twist the Constitution, bastardizing the concept of original intent, in order to justify drawing it. By doing that, you give your opponent the justification for bending and twisting the Constitution and original intent to justify their platform. Either the Constitution means what it means or it doesn't.
The Libertarian Party has actually been bad for the libertarian movement, IMO. Especially in the hands of the likes of Badnarik and Browne.
I think it was Hayek who once said that a small "l" libertarian's best chance at influencing policy was via the GOP. That certainly seems much less true today, with the current administration and its direction. I still hold out hope, but right now there's not really even much debate within the GOP and that frustrates me. I let my senators and congressman know it.
Get rid of welfare? Agreed. Get rid of handouts? Agreed. Restore the 2nd Amend. to it's original intent? Agreed. Remove the borders? Hell no. Just because you restore the 2nd Amend. doesn't mean the borders will be magically more secure. Yes, Bush is a dismal failure at securing the borders, but it's still a far cry from leaving it open to all.
I mean, just because people would have their unrestricted 2nd Amend. rights restored (as they should) doesn't mean everyone will go out and buy a gun. It sounds to me like you're hoping the people will take up the security call, but I'd say many wouldn't bother. One thing I do believe the gov't should do is protect our damned borders. If they can't, or won't, as the case may be, then yes, citizens need to do it. But dissolving the border in no way helps the situation. If anything, it would lead to more confrontation between people who want to defend their land, and the gov'ts position of having the borders open for anyone to come and go.
Hey, you've got support for your view:
Democracy is based on the principle of freedom of religion and belief. Under democracy, a man can believe anything he wants and choose any religion he wants and convert to any religion whenever he wants, even if this apostasy means abandoning the religion of Allah... This is a matter which is patently perverse and false and contradicts many specific [Muslim] legal texts, since according to Islam, if a Muslim apostatizes from Islam to heresy, he should be killed, as stated in the Hadith reported by Al-Bukhari and others: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.' It does not say 'leave him alone.'...
Democracy is based on the principle of 'freedom of expression,' no matter what the expression might be, even if it means hurting and reviling the Divine Being [i.e. Allah] and the laws of Islam, because in democracy nothing is so sacred that one cannot be insolent or use vile language about it....
--Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
Islam's greatest enemy and worst fear is democracy. The rule by and for the people is completely opposite to the rule of Islam, which is the (iron-fisted) rule of the Koran and the Islamic elite.
Advocating holy war against our culture is not a moral thing.
The 14th amendment had a lot to do with it. Much of the federal Bill of Rights now applies to the states such that a ruling by the USSC affects all states.
For example, if the USSC declares that abortion, or sodomy, or nude dancing, or pornography is a constitutionally protected right, the 14th amendment applies that ruling to all state laws, not just federal laws (as the Founding Fathers intended).
The only part of that list where Congress (not the USSC) stepped in was recreational and prescription drugs (alcohol is regulated at the state level). If this country wishes recreational and prescription drugs to be regulated at the state level, then I would suggest a federal amendment, similar in wording to the 21st amendment, taking that power away from the federal government.
It took to post 16 for someone to recognize they support open borders -- thank you for stating that fact. It is amazing how some conservatives are so blinded that they cannot see beyond the end of their nose at what Libertarians really stand for and this Conservative is not buying into their spin -- am a Republican and will always be a Republican.
Those Republicans that want 100% or nothing are not going to be happy anywhere. You start at the local level in your County Party structure and build from there but the "pure" or "true" whatever they call themselves today are too far right and stringent to make much of a difference. You cannot shove it at people if you don't believe the way I do, then you are not a "true" conservative. That is Bravo Sierra in my book!
My two cents for the day.
Porn is already legal as is prostitution. Recreational drugs are also legal.
Libertarianism would spell the death of the Republic. With them, no real social cohesion is possible.
Your lack of understanding about, and adversion to, freedom, does not make your opinion valid.
You wanna take my quote out of context, fine. Then how about, "Anarchists want the government out ..."
Equally true, taken out of context, yes?
What a crock.
Correct. The WOD is an abject failure. Thanks for pointing that out.
The Europeans ,especially Denmark, have had a bad experience with legalized drugs in their society, and they are reexamining those policies.
Please reference the proof of your assertion.
Not to mention you seem to think the US has no bad experiences with drugs using their guns and corruption unconstitutional approach.
I don't necessarily agree. I think we need to be able to control our borders. Not to strain out people due to some ethnic bias, but to keep the criminal element from invading us.
Borders. Language. Culture. These are the things that make up a country. We used to be a melting pot where we came together under a banner of freedom and free markets. Now, we are a bunch of enclaves each trying to scrabble for a piece of the government pie.
Excellent post. Authoritarians will hate it and attack it, but it's correct. You will be able to judge just how on the mark it is by the personalities who show up to attack it.
Many of them will be former drug users and criminals who have found a bizarre form of "religion" in opposing freedom.
Fun little debate going on here.
Excellent choice if you embrace huge new entitlement programs and providing Viagra to rich seniors on the public dime.
Then they'd be unique. (Well, maybe they'd join smokers or SUV drivers or some other cause de jour.)
Societal pariahs like pregnant single girls? Men who lie or those who cheat on their spouse? Homosexual behavior? Celebrity criminals who write books and appear on TV shows?
Oh yeah. Our society makes societal pariahs, all right. Mostly Christians and those who favor a moral society. Those are the societal pariahs.