Posted on 08/01/2013 9:28:50 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Tell me what, if anything, you find objectionable about FDR’s agenda.
See post 209.
So you are back to supporting “justice” for homosexuals in the military, equality.
The libertarian position on personal relationships.
I assume that you will be denying that again soon.
I don’t think the Continental congress would recognize gay marriage, that is some weird history you want to promote.
Okay, that was like pulling teeth to get you to at least admit a limited government stance. That is a libertarian position. Sorry if that hurts, but it is. How far you are willing to carry that stance is where a lot of lines get drawn. Reagan read libertarian thinkers, and especially admired the fusionism of Frank Meyer. Meyer blended traditionalism with libertarianism, which at that point had very little to say on social issues. Our culture would not come under direct attack until later. He impacted Reagan and Buckley enormously. That’s why Friedman, Hayek, Sowell, and others are libertarians that are part of the conservative pantheon. Philosophies are not grab bags for issues.
I’m glad to finally hear your support for limited government. I still think you are utterly ignorant on the subject at hand, and tend to be very dishonest in debate. You continually attack straw men, and make claims about previous posts that are demonstrably untrue. When called out on these lapses, you obfuscate and avoid even further.
Another silly post, it wasn’t like pulling teeth, I am a conservative and you knew that from many of my posts on this thread.
I’m not interested in how you share our conservative small government, conservative economics, I am interested in what you are trying to destroy in America, what you are at war with conservatism about and what areas you are joined at the hip with the left on.
It is where you fight conservatism that the discussion begins, and that is social issues and national defense.
Post 218 was very short, clear and honest and the clear cut conservative position, something that the libertarians can’t be, that is why these threads go on forever and you guys rage and attack and insult so much, while evading and avoiding what your actual views are.
You are fighting fiercely, but won’t be open about what you are fighting for.
This makes sense when you realize that Ansel here is showing off his mastery of the Tao of Republican Conservative Orthodoxy.
I do not believe that; I can remember nowhere that you have suggested limiting government. (Certainly not on this thread.)
My point is that liberaltarians want the fedgov way, way smaller. Well gosh, so do I! Way smaller, like 80%. Yet you and others want to put me in a box that just doesn’t fit. The point is that libertarians have said that they DO NOT WANT the states to have the right to criminalize porn, sodomy, dope and so on. So their philosophy is not based on Constitutional principles. Unless they think the states have a perfectly constitutional right to make such laws. But most seem to not think that. Yet, since most of them do exactly what you are doing, it’s hard to pin them down.
Your comment to me is very typical crazytalk libertarian attack/gobbledy gook psychobabble.
Have fun with your fellow mental 12 year olds reading dirty comic books under the covers with a flashlight libertarians.
I am officially finished with this thread since my short human life is precious to me and I have do desire to dodge monkey crap flung my way.
Have fun!
The libertarian social agenda dooms small government, and leads to an inevitable growth of government, socialism, and loss of freedom, as we have seen over the last 50 years.
As social conservatism is replaced by social liberalism, the weakened, hollow voters, just vote more liberalism.
You're absolutely correct for once! They would have said it was a State Issue and not a Federal one.
Congratulations for being correct!
What's wrong with equality? And I don't mean the media buzzword, but the sort like where the law looks at actions, irrespective of the who that did it.
In your world the trial, and indeed prosecution, of George Zimmerman was kosher, right? (Or was it tainted by the who and political correctness that was being pushed by the media?)
The libertarian position on personal relationships.
Sentence fragment?
I assume that you will be denying that again soon.
Again, you are unable to separate underlying principle and something someone purporting ascribing to that principle said; in this conversation this is your biggest problem and the reason that I leave you confused: in your world it is not possible for me to hold the position that (a) homosexuality is evil, and (b) the [federal] government has no legitimate business in relationships.
I, for one, welcome more examples of your mastery of the Tao of Republican Conservative Orthodoxy.
Actually, it did take quite a bit of prompting, and you still weren’t really willing to elaborate.
Post 218 was about keeping gays out of the military. That’s not a lot to go on. Lindsey Graham feels the same way. So do I. Lindsey Graham and I agree on very little. See, not much to go on.
I didn’t ask you to be interested in anything. I put a few things out there about President Reagan because you claim to like him, but don’t know much about him. Your choice to learn or not to learn. You are Free to Choose, so to speak.
You accuse me of trying to destroy America, which is a pretty strong accusation. I guess I should call you a name now, or something. I’ll pass. I’ve wrestled the pig that is you long enough, and have the mud on me to show for it.
No, the Continental congress had to make law regarding what is a legitimate marriage, just as the government always does.
They would not have counted a gay marriage as legal.
LOL, I know a lot about Reagan, and I was very open about being conservative on this thread, it didn’t require prompting.
I’m not interested in how you (libers) share our conservative small government, conservative economics, I am interested in what you (libers)are trying to destroy in America, what you (libers) are at war with conservatism about and what areas you (libers) are joined at the hip with the left on.
It is where you fight conservatism that the discussion begins, and that is social issues and national defense.
I'm just saying that you'd fit in better with the Democrats.
After all, you've already called Barry Goldwater a flaming liberal. That's another strike against the claim to be a conservative. He started the modern conservative movement after all. Try learning something; it will help immensely.
Ping me when you're not calling Goldwater a Liberal Democrat.
Arguing with some people is like crushing Jello in your hand, it oozes out, changes shape and your hand is covered in green stuff.
The Continental Congress had no such authority. The Articles of Confederation conferred no such authority. The Constitution confers no such authority.
If you have such a law, post it. Make like we're from Missouri. "Show me".
History argues against that. Marriage has always been a State issue, not a National Government issue.
The Continental Congress passed matrimonial legislation? I have no doubt that they would have found gay “marriage” to be abhorrent, but you are stating the factual point that the Continental Congress passed laws regarding marriage. Prove it.
What a bizarre lie.
I never mentioned his name, and this is my response to the post where you used him to try to promote homosexualizing the military.
To: superloser
Superloser, supporting the homosexual agenda as you do is not conservative.
155 posted on 8/1/2013 3:39:02 PM by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151
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.