Libertarians Seeking 'True Conservatives'

GOPUSA ^

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Which part does the President not get?

I'm afraid when it comes to immigration he's a libertarian. Too bad because no matter where it's been tried, starting in Rome it's proven to be a monumental disaster.

[New Orleans Slim]

"What the libertarians can't understand - at least until they grow up - is that man is a social being and to maximize individual liberty (licience) with no thought given to one's fellow man is to invite chaos which then can quickly turn into totalitarianism."

Man is a social being. And? This has jack and $#^& to do with government. Man will be social and will form social bonds with or without government. Government exists to ensure a functional marketplace and physical security, nothing more. Creating social bonds is your job.

I've noticed many of you go to a church. Did the government form that? Nope, people got together and made church groups on their own. Churches are free to make their own membership rules, and can throw those out who don't follow. There's your social bonds. I'm all for churches, just don't expect me to join and don't shove your group's morality down my throat. There are all sorts of ways for Man to express his social side. But government has no business getting involved.

There's your liberty.

[austinTparty]

You are confusing "L"ibertarian with "l"ibertarian. Most libertarians are not Libertarian Party members. So much jammering on this site about libertarians, interchanging it with Libertarians, and generally woeful ignorance of what libertarians believe, or what I personally prefer "classical liberalism."

You are also likely unfamiliar with Libertarians for Life.

[k2blader]

I'm certain there are some pro-Life Libertarians out there, but they are just not what I'd call mainstream (L)'s, if you know what I mean.

[FrankR]

"Knowing people are aware the word is spelled "kotow", although "kow-tow" may be acceptable in vulgar usage."

And Anal people scour the board looking for spelling errors, primarily to dilute the point of the post, especially when it strikes a nerve.

HOWEVER...

...checking with the dictionary, your spelling "Kotow" - in verb form - means:
KOTOW verb: To try to gain favor by cringing or flattering.

KOTOW, as a noun is defined as:
a former Chinese custom of touching the ground with the forehead as a sign of respect or submission

My Spelling, Kowtow I(or kow-tow), means:
In imperial Chinese protocol, the kowtow was where one is begging for forgiveness or offering an extreme apology, or showing respect .

So it seems that they are practically the same meaning when used in the context of my original post.

Please tell us all that you have more to contribute to the board than spelling lessons. Oh, and had I meant to be "vulgar"...you would have known it, without a doubt.

[Commie Basher]

My guess is you lack sufficient faith in yourself to not do drugs, so you want the government to play daddy.

A lot of weird people like that.

My friend's mother (a lifelong pro-life Republican), thought seatbelts were a good idea -- but she never used them. She did, however, support a seatbelt law, because she needed that "incentive" to wear seatbelts. She wanted to wear them, but wouldn't until it was the law, so she hoped the law would pass soon.

Like I said, weird.

[Commie Basher]

Just goes to show that you either have no clear understanding of libertarian objectivism

Of course, Orthodox Objectivists (of the Piekoff sect) would say, like Ayn Rand herself, that libertarians are "a random collection of hippies of the right," and hence, "libertarian objectivist" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.

[California Patriot]

Unless the Losertarian circle-jerk moonbats are blowing smoke (which, as immature blowhards, they may be) this "good reception" at CPAC sounds like very bad news.

If it's true, we have to hope that the good reception came from idiots who are already in, or voting for, the LP and not from Republicans who are about to defeat. We can't afford any substantial loss from our fragile, 51 percent coalition. Sorry, but that's the sad truth.

CPAC should have the guts to exclude the LP!!!! There are plenty of other conservative outfits with a serious limited-government message. Serious libertarians should, and probably do, focus on the ISSUES, not trashing the Republican party!!!!

[California Patriot]

Oops ... I meant, "Republicans who are about to DEFECT,"
not "defeat" ... though come to think of it, these amount in this case to the same gawddamned thing.

My anger at the LP sometimes causes me to write so fast that I make typos. Forgive me, wandering ghost of Ayn Rand. I'm sure I've thereby violated some tenet of "Objectivism."

[New Orleans Slim]

"Serious libertarians should, and probably do, focus on the ISSUES, not trashing the Republican party!!!!"

The Republican party needs to wake the hell up and stop spending money hand over fist on social "entitlement" programs like the new Medicare drug nonsense. I'm a libertarian/conservative (note the small "l") first - being a Republican is always secondary to that. Issues should always come first.

Now having said that, I think the Libertarian party is good for two reasons. First, it speaks truth to power - reminding the Republicans that they are supposed to stand for small government and individual liberty. Sometimes the Republican Party needs a bit of friendly trashing to pull it back to the actual issues. Second, the Libertarian Party it can be used to scare RINOs into acting like Republicans again. Competition is always good for the marketplace.

[Always Right]

The Republican party needs to wake the hell up and stop spending money hand over fist on social "entitlement" programs like the new Medicare drug nonsense.

That's one thing I don't get.

[New Orleans Slim]

Most libertarians I know are pro-life. It's one thing to be pro-life and another to believe the government should get involved in the abortion business. Or to put it another way, if you really want to stop all abortions, just convince everyone to be pro-life. Then no one will get them, right?

Oh, I forgot. Pro-life (at least for the first trimester) has never been able to win in the marketplace of ideas, so you marketplace losers need the government to subsidize your viewpoint. You guys are a bunch of viewpoint socialists.

[budwiesest]

Libertarians will always be at odds with the Talibanarians (Right) and communitarianist-common-gooders (Left) as they hold liberty, rather than power over others, as their highest ideal.

Someday, people might wake up and want to throw off the yokes, but we're a long way from "Give me liberty, or give me death".

[jackbob]

Last I heard, the LP's official position was that Roe V Wade needed to be overturned and that medical proceedures where strictly between the woman and her doctor. Each State should, like murder charges, set its own statutes for aborting a baby.

You are mistaken here. The LP has never taken the stand you suggest. The official LP position is that a woman's decision to have or not have an abortion is none of the government's business.

[jackbob]

I agree with you and the founding fathers in as far as agreeing that our form of government will not survive if we lose our morals, virtue, manners, etc. Recognizing this, it seems that you ought to be defending them as worthy values for America. But instead, I see you only using them as tools so as to help bring down our limited form of government.

It appears that you are one of those lacking in the morals and virtue necessary to maintain our form of government.

[jackbob]

I don't agree fully that "...no one in the world has ever been nor ever will be..." one of those "moral, responsible, self-governing people." I say that their are many who are such. Not perfectly so, but most people are basicly moral and responsible. And almost all have the potential to be self governing.

[jackbob]

Liberatarians are for legalizing drugs. That is forcing others (me) to believe as they do through coercion.

Allowing private behavior has nothing to do with forcing others to believe in anything through coercion.

[jackbob]

Libertarians do not advocate anarchy.

Correction. Most Libertarians do not presently advocate anarchy. But the number of anarchist Libertarians is quite large, to include many leading Libertarians of substantial influence.

I disagree with their anarchist positions, but must recognize that they do exist.

[k2blader]

You should try to actually comprehend the posts you respond to.

Big "L" versus small "l". Learn it.

And take your secular humanistic Libertarianism and shove it.

[jackbob]

Under the libertarian proposal, I MUST endure pot smokers in my neighborhood. That is coercion. Do you have another word for it?

Yea, minding your own business. In other words, tolerance.