Libertarians flex their muscle in the GOP

Wash. Post ^ | 07/31/2013 | By Karen Tumulty

[Responsibility2nd]

Way back in 1975, a Republican agitator named Ronald Reagan had this to say about an esoteric young movement that was roiling politics: “If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”

Neither the GOP old guard nor the rowdy libertarians ever quite bought that argument.

They both lay claim to the same conservative economic philosophy. But libertarians are more isolationist and antiwar than Republican orthodoxy allows on foreign policy and more permissive on social issues.

Still, in the nearly four decades since Reagan made those comments, the two have managed — at least most of the time — to maintain an uneasy marriage of expedience.

Libertarianism once again appears to be on the rise, particularly among the young. But its alliance with the Republican establishment is fraying, as demonstrated by the increasingly personal war of words between two leading potential 2016 presidential contenders.

The sparring began last week, when New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) posited: “As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought.”

After Christie made it clear that he was referring to Rand Paul, the Senate’s leading critic of the National Security Agency and its surveillance programs, the Kentucky Republican fired back on his Twitter account: “Christie worries about the dangers of freedom. I worry about the danger of losing that freedom. Spying without warrants is unconstitutional.”

Their feud — which is being watched closely as a possible warmup round for 2016 — has continued, expanded and spilled over into other issues.

[cdcdawg]

“There are so many people and institutions who come to mind for their role in the success we celebrate tonight. Intellectual leaders like Russell Kirk, Friedrich Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Milton Friedman, James Burnham, Ludwig von Mises — they shaped so much of our thoughts.

It’s especially hard to believe that it was only a decade ago, on a cold April day on a small hill in upstate New York, that another of these great thinkers, Frank Meyer, was buried. He’d made the awful journey that so many others had: He pulled himself from the clutches of “The God That Failed,” and then in his writing fashioned a vigorous new synthesis of traditional and libertarian thought — a synthesis that is today recognized by many as modern conservatism.”

Yet another isolated quote.

[cdcdawg]

You are swimming in the shallow end, so don’t be surprised when you bump into children.

[little jeremiah]

Slinging nice sounding slogans isn’t rational debating.

Sort of like saying your opponent doesn’t like Mom and apple pie.

Very short on details.

[Dead Corpse]

No. It isn’t.

So stop doing it.

[little jeremiah]

One point that libertarians avoid like the plague is the fact that the libertarian party platfrom (which of course many try to pretend that they don’t agree with...) has not a damned thing to do with the Constitutional form of governance as intended, nor as practiced, and is entirely in opposition (other than some of the economic/financial and fedgov limitation) that the founders espoused.

Libertarians actually have little use for the spirit of the Constitution in toto.

One thing they dance around is when you ask them something like: “Okay, you want no laws against any kind of porn, sodomy, same sex marriage/adoption/in the military/drugs and so on - federal laws. I’m fine with that. What about STATES enacting such laws?”

They generally leave the discussion cold at that point. Some have admitted to me that the states have no business making such laws either.

They want sexual/hedonistic/immoral anarchy, but with low taxes and guns.

When I used to take drugs I was an idiot too, and if someone had presented the libertarian ideas to me I would have loved them; I sort of thought along those lines anyway.

[ansel12]

It isn’t clear because you seem incapable of being clear.

Now you claim that all these hours were not you supporting the libertarian position of non-discrimination against gays in the military (and elsewhere), but instead you were arguing with me because you were arguing about your wanting heterosexuality not being discriminated against.

No one here, including me, were arguing against hetrosexuality in the military, so who were you arguing with all this time?

Now you want only the religious to be able to marry and that goes for any religion or cult, gay, polygamous, whatever people can come up with.

What do the atheists do, and what happens when people divorce with vast estates and children and being of different religions?

The main point is, why are we wasting time on such ridiculous fantastical silliness.

Libertarians have the most bizarre fantasies and ways of fighting Americanism.

[ansel12]

What is it about the homosexuals in the military and marriage that you want to share with us?

[Dead Corpse]

The FedGov os limited by Art 1 Sec 8 and the BoR.

The States are only limited by the BoR and the State Constitutions.

It’s a lot more simple than you are making it out to be.

[ansel12]

“Okay, you want no laws against any kind of porn, sodomy, same sex marriage/adoption/in the military/drugs and so on - federal laws. I’m fine with that. What about STATES enacting such laws?”

First, the military, federal employment, immigration, open borders, are all federal, and second, libertarianism is a political philosophy and agenda.

Libertarians are not fighting for gay marriage in the military, and then against it at the state level. Libertarians support their political beliefs and agenda at all levels, PTA School Board, City, county, State, Federal.

[Dead Corpse]

Here’s an 8 hour class on the Constitution.

http://youtu.be/V31zYjZamz4

It’s worth the time. You won’t agree with everything, neither did I, but at least we’ll have a common reference point that just doesn’t seem to exist right now.

[cdcdawg]

Why look, one of the little children wants to play grownup political talk! How cute.

[ansel12]

What is it with libertarians and the hostility and childish outbursts.

Every thread with libertarians on this conservative site, quickly leads to the libertarians making personal attacks and getting a pack mentality,

[cdcdawg]

It might have something to do with your utter lack of knowledge or understanding about libertarian philosophy, and how that differs from the platform of the Libertarian Party, despite being given numerous examples. You have accused me of policy positions that I don’t support, and of making up rifts among libertarians, despite being given the names of people involved. You have misrepresented the views of Ronald Reagan on the subject of libertarianism, claiming that he didn’t really mean it or something (and you cleverly or cowardly avoided the second quote). At some point one must call them like he sees them. Your childish mentality is what it is. The fact that “libertarian” and “liberal” both have “l-i-b-e-r” in them is too much for you to process. I’m glad you support conservatism, if I can assume as much, even if you don’t know why.

[OneWingedShark]

When I used to take drugs I was an idiot too, and if someone had presented the libertarian ideas to me I would have loved them; I sort of thought along those lines anyway.

I don't do drugs; save for a little alcohol and maybe a cigerate once a year... and I find the War on Drugs to be entirely unlawful and morally reprehensible. (If the WoD is legitimate, then why did Prohibition require an amendment?)

They want sexual/hedonistic/immoral anarchy, but with low taxes and guns.

I'm not sure about that: I don't believe it's the [federal] government's place to dictate law on most of what it dictates law on.

One thing they dance around is when you ask them something like: “Okay, you want no laws against any kind of porn, sodomy, same sex marriage/adoption/in the military/drugs and so on - federal laws. I’m fine with that. What about STATES enacting such laws?”

They generally leave the discussion cold at that point. Some have admitted to me that the states have no business making such laws either.

Perfectly fine with me; saving for the case of guns (the 2nd amendment is written in the passive-voice and therefore it is the action, not the actor, that is restricted) states have authority to make any law which is not forbidden to them by the Constitution.

Libertarians actually have little use for the spirit of the Constitution in toto.

Listen to Ansel12: I'm totally and completely libertarian filth. A dirty heretic who must be cleansed from the face of the earth to appease his god-king: the government.

One point that libertarians avoid like the plague is the fact that the libertarian party platfrom (which of course many try to pretend that they don’t agree with...) has not a damned thing to do with the Constitutional form of governance as intended, nor as practiced, and is entirely in opposition (other than some of the economic/financial and fedgov limitation) that the founders espoused.

Neither does the Republican party's actions; despite everything on their platform they consistently do nothing to pursue those goals. The only way that this could happen with such frequency is if their platform was an utter lie. (I've come to believe that national-level Republicans [the party] are indistinguishable from Democrats; that they are merely statists who wish to use the power ceded, seized, and usurped to/by the government to their own ends.)

I think CS Lewis's quote goes a long way toward explaining my discomfort in the area:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
— C.S. Lewis

[sermon]

Likewise, Ansel's solution is no solution at all: the law does not save, it only condemns.
If he were a Christian he would know this, and he would realize that homosexuality is no worse than lusting after women (which Jesus said was adultery), precisely because he would be a lawbreaker just as much as a murderer:

James 2:8-13
If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

This is not to say that homosexuality is ok, just the opposite: that it is sin. The problem with a law-based approach to sin is that it cannot be forgiven/justified via the law (Romans 3:20), and the liberty that Christians have is the liberty that comes from being made free, liberated from sin's condemnation by Jesus's infinite propitiation on our behalf. But the more we understand what sin is, the more we are humbled and awed that the King of Heaven should step down from the throne and take the punishment; it is for that reason that we should be very, very careful of condemning people because of sin: remember the parable of the Ungrateful Servant. Also remember that Jesus said:

Let him who has no sin cast the first stone. (John 8:1-11)

(And that story itself could be made into many sermons.)

Jesus had, at that moment in time, abstained from his position as Judge so that he could show mercy to the world, saving we sinners from our certain and justly-deserved doom. (John 3:17)

[/sermon]

[ansel12]

No, that can’t be it, because I understand libertarians and libertarianism very well, it is what annoys them so here, no one has posted examples of how the libertarian party is at odds with the libertarianism that founded it although you claim many examples have been posted, and I have never misrepresented Reagan and his views on libertarianism, Reagan was a conservative and never was a libertarian.

Even that post was full of personal attacks and childish nastiness, it seems to be a trait of libertarians.

If libertarians were merely conservatives, then we conservatives and Reagan would all be libertarians, but we all know about the dark side of libertarianism, and how part of it is as lefty as it gets, and the lefty part is the democrat party’s dream making machine.

Libertarianism leads to, creates, breeds and imports, liberalism and liberal democrat voters.

[OneWingedShark]

Libertarianism leads to, creates, breeds and imports, liberalism and liberal democrat voters.

What about Republicanism?
Aside from the little (R) on his name, Romney is a liberal Democrat.

[listenhillary]

I’ll take one more shot. I’m a glutton for punishment.

You are in charge. What would you do with homosexuals?

I gather you would forbid them from serving their country in the military.

Do you put them to death?
Do you allow them to exist as long as they drink from the homosexual water fountains?
Can they sit in the back of the bus?
Can they sit and eat at a table in restaurants with heterosexuals?
Do you let them go to the same public schools, colleges as heterosexuals?
How would you legislate to keep them in subservient and non-obtrusive so they don’t upset your ideal society?

I keep saying again and again that many things that people are opposed to the promoting the homosexual agenda, such as gaining protected status as a minority have occurred as the result of a huge overreaching government who has assumed the role that it can tell people how to think, what is OK to say. Without the over reaching government, we would have the right to free association. Superior rights aren’t granted to persons based on their sexual orientation with a government that sticks to it’s constitutionally limited role.

Without over reaching government, individuals would choose the teachers, the curriculum they wish their child to experience.

Promoting the homosexual lifestyle is detrimental to the survival of Western civilization. Western civilization is already at risk of disappearing from being buried under the masses of Muslims who are out breeding Western cultures by a huge margin. When Christians become a minority because they are vastly out numbered, remember you supported government legislating morality. How would that shoe fit then? You may not have to wear it in your life, but your children or grandchildren might need to.

So I don’t promote the homosexual agenda, but I don’t consider them sub-human either. They have a right to exist. They have a right to serve in the military. They should have equal rights as US citizens to civil unions providing the same legal benefits of marriage. I don’t like the perversion of the word marriage, because it already has a meaning and definition.

Don’t like them getting survivor benefits? Get rid of survivor benefits unless you can find where in the constitution the federal government is authorized to pay survivor benefits.

They don’t have a right to use government force to teach acceptance of their lifestyle with government policies. Nor do they have a right to use public schools to promote their lifestyle. That is all removed if you have a federal government that hasn’t vastly overstepped it’s authority.

[ansel12]

You are in charge. What would you do with homosexuals?
I gather you would forbid them from serving their country in the military.
They have a right to serve in the military.

Of course I would keep them out of the military, jeez do you think this is DU or wherever the left goes to promote their ideology?

[ansel12]

Libertarianism leads to, creates, breeds and imports, liberalism and liberal democrat voters.

[superloser]

My point is it is the Conservatives and Moderates whom have ruined their own brand.

I could not agree more!