Posted on 02/10/2012 9:16:22 AM PST by Superstu321
Jonah Goldberg makes the case that Libertarians are a essential to the Republican party and that conservatives and libertarians aren't that different.
(Excerpt) Read more at media.aei.org ...
There are times that I think there are quite a few LIBERTARAIANS who, if presented with a deal where the Dems agree to DECREASE restrictions on abortion and pornography in exchange for a DECREASE of the Nanny State and its funding, would take the deal.
I would not take the deal, for one simple reason: I've been around long enough to know that the Dems would cheat, would take what was offered them as an irrevocable concession, and then refuse to deliver on their side (or cancel their side of the deal the following year).
But thanks for illustrating my point.
The one time MrT5 trusted that a drug treatment (steroids) would fix a problem, he had a terrible reaction to it and it killed him-his untimely death was enough to convince me that I’m right. But if other people want to use the stuff, fine, as long as they know the risks (my husband didn’t pay attention till it was too late). Same with food-people can go ahead and criticize me for not “enjoying” sugary, fatty food and not being plump like a “normal” middle aged woman, but I’m happy doing construction work all day in my size 5 jeans.
The Dems would cheat. Sure they would. And that would leave us conservatives - as usual - being the victims of liars and cheaters.
But I’ll take that scenario any day over being a libertarian that is in agreement with the Dems when it comes to social values where “it’s none of my business what homo’s do” and “Drugs and hookers are not mentioned in the Constitution, so lets legalsize them.”
I said upthread that there is a culture war here at Free Republic betweens libertarians and Christians.
And so I thank YOU illustrating my point.
No way-that is nothing but bread and circuses, and that is for hedonistic idiots. The ‘rats got a big spoonful of whoopass from the Catholic church and others they thought they had in their pocket-this is not the f***ing Roman Empire and we are not the modern equivalent of plebes.
Here’s my take - and this just seems how it works.
You push in a politician who is, for all intents, a social conservative. That politician enacts regulations and laws and enables more and bigger bureaucracies to form. The government workers who are then hired in that new mega-department are almost always leftists and then push to subvert that bigger bureaucracy into a leftist enabling entity. Effectively nullifying the voters intent in the long run.
I myself am super strict in my family - but I see clearly when the government plays the moral parent we just get more and bigger leftism - more powerful immorality. For example, homeland security is now targeting abortion clinic protestors. My argument for less government is that government always ends up pushing the progressive agenda, because most people who want to work for the government are progressives. I wish that weren’t true - but it just is.
I feel we are used like suckers, pushing for a government that we believe will do the right thing - but they never, ever do. So I would rather see their power limited - and at least they won’t use my tax money to pay for every sick thing there is!
Also if we reduce government, it will force the population to grow up and act like adults, and that is always more socially conservative.
I’m one of many Christians here who are not at war with libertarian policies. My late husband was a libertarian from a young age, and he served proudly in the Army for 30 years-please don’t tell me that you think he was a pervert, drug user or homosexual.
Drugs were legal until the early 20th century-the mob wasn’t even involved in any black marketing of a substance until Prohibition, and then it was liquor-wow, that worked well, didn’t it? Prohibition does not appear to work-it creates a criminal class and underground economy all its own.
“We dont need to make laws to protect people’s souls or protect them from harming themselves on the basis that it makes people feel better about themselves.”
If you read my argument, I am arguing that they are endangering OTHER people’s souls and safety. I agree they have a civil right to destroy themselves.
“Please do try to help the woman you referenced-she may be stupid and lacking in sense, but she is still a child of God, as are we all.”
Trust me, many in her family, and a former (rejected) church group, are doing just that. However we are limited by law. We can only do what she allows us to do; if we can even get to know the need. For example that child needs to not be raised in a shared junkie apartment. But there you are.
God bless you for your help and concern. Does she have a relative she could live with, or close to? If so, perhaps her family can gently lead her bit by bit into their sphere of influence, which would be better for the child. It sounds as if she might have too much time on her hands-does anyone need housework or some such thing? Even a few hours in the outside world would be beneficial. I don’t doubt at all that she needs to be gently led away from the junkie apartment situation-that is never good for anyone, especially a kid. But people who are borderline intellectual functioning and the like are notoriously stubborn-press her too hard and she’ll probably just dig in her heels.
Do you think she is focused enough to participate in some kind of training? That might give her a sense of purpose, as well as a way to assist with her own support and that of her child.
And hopefully, when the child is old enough for school there is a way to get her homeschooled-I shudder to think of the child of any gullible, senseless parent in a public school.
Amen Sister! I am good with anyone who wants to cut down this socialist, centralized government down to a manageable size before we go bankrupt - and then full marxist.
S***, we’ve got to get it under control by the end of the year, if not before-we’re already broke. Richard Nixon was going to be impeached, but he resigned-it needs to happen to this one too-he is way too much like Nixon, enemies lists and all.
I feel we are used like suckers, pushing for a government that we believe will do the right thing - but they never, ever do. So I would rather see their power limited - and at least they won’t use my tax money to pay for every sick thing there is!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Agreed. But there is no one on the Libertarian side that has a chance of doing that.
Didn’t Palin ask that Paul’s positions have a prominent position in the party’s ongoing policy debates?
Not to mention Goldwater, and remarks of a similar nature by Reagan?
I’m one of many Christians here who are not at war with libertarian policies. My late husband was a libertarian from a young age, and he served proudly in the Army for 30 years-please don’t tell me that you think he was a pervert, drug user or homosexual.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Yes, but if your late husband was alive and could see that libertarians now wish to gut the military, are in favor of queers serving openly, and could see how they want to close military bases all over the world, I’m sure he would be disgusted.
Former US vice president Dick Cheney said Sunday it was "time to reconsider" the ban on gays serving openly in the US military.
"Twenty years ago, the military were strong advocates of 'don't ask-don't tell,' when I was secretary of defense. I think things have changed significantly since then," Cheney told ABC's "This Week."
"When the chiefs come forward and say, 'We think we can do it,' then it strikes me that it's time to reconsider the policy."
And he is supposedly on our side! Doesn't that frustrate you? It does me. They do nothing but play us for fools!
Even if a big L libertarian got in I doubt he'd even make a dent in this giant sucking monster. The beast just grows and grows and grows.
My thinking is that we need a monkey wrench thrown in - before we are slaves of a government that will nullify the constitution by executive order and throw christian conservatives in re-education camps (for our own good).
Well, I knew Dick Cheney was pro-gay from years ago when his daughter came out as a lesbian.
What could he do?
Even George Bush - who was as close a socon as we’ve had in years - and good on foreign policy - was a disaster on economic issues.
And I don’t trust Newt, but he is our best hope at defeating Obama.
It just frustrates me.
I guess my point is that big government isn’t going to make a moral country - I think big government has enabled us via the welfare/nanny state to become much more immoral. At least that seems like the trend. This is why I am not for making the FedGov any bigger or giving it any greater powers as I believe they will eventually be used against us.
As for Obama, I can’t even look at him without feeling nauseous.
You are incorrect-my husband has only been gone a couple of years and he was working as a veterans’ benefits counselor at the VA at the time, so he was very much aware of where things were headed. He liked Ron Paul.
After 9-11, he thought that we should defend our own shores and have more bases at home and not in countries where we are not welcome. He did not like nation building or limited force-Viet Nam was his favorite example. He thought if we were attacked, we should kick the enemy’s ass with devastating force, then go home-no money, no nation building.
He didn’t have a problem with don’t ask, don’t tell or homosexuals of either gender in the military-a fellow soldier was a fellow soldier, period, but then he didn’t think anyone should talk about sexual orientation in any job interview-people who don’t set themselves up for it don’t get ostracized. And he never used the term “queer”-not at work, not at home.
The libertarians I know are tired of homosexuals, minorities, space aliens and all others wanting to be a different, protected class from all others, You can be whatever you want-but you are no better than anyone else, so suck it up and act like a human being-no more special treatment. And that is my solution to all this protected class whining...
Russell Kirk, whose conservative credentials and scholarly achievements are a good deal stronger than those of Jonah Goldberg, labelled libertarians ‘chirping sectaries’, a borrowing from TS Eliot, and insisted that conservatives have nothing in common with them:
http://www.mmisi.org/ma/25_04/kirk.pdf
“The ruinous failing of the ideologues who call themselves libertarians is their fanatic attachment to a solitary principle- that is, to the notion of personal freedom as the whole end of the civil social order, and indeed human existence.”
He sounded like the Americans I grew up with - and respected.
I think of America like the founders did - that we were a better free’er country than the rest of the world. That we would be self sufficient, and morality would come from the bottom up, not the top down. That because we were more of an independent breed of people (not lapdogs), we didn’t need to be told what to do. Our mistakes were our own responsibility, no one else’s. We were free to do as we wished as long as we didn’t hurt anyone else - that covered guns and other dangerous items that cowardly countries kept from their citizenry.
I posted this before as this is the traditional opinion of the rights of the American citizen. I think it sums up the basic right. To be left alone.
*****************
[The] right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.
BRANDEIS, U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE LOUIS, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 479 (1928)
The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom.
DOUGLAS, U.S. SUPREME COURT JUSTICE WILLIAM O., Public Utilities Commission v. Pollack
The care of every man’s soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect the care of it? Well what if he neglect the care of his health or his estate, which would more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. God himself will not save men against their wills.
JEFFERSON, THOMAS, October 1776
To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.
JEFFERSON, THOMAS, Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779
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.