Libertarianism is now civil libertarianism, I suppose. And that used to reserved for the kooks at the ACLU.
People should be VERY cautious when it comes to the libertarian view. I do not buy this idea that a massive majority of people are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. If this were the case, the Libertarian Party would get more than 1%. They don’t. Are there a lot of social liberals nowadays? Yes. But they’re usually either too dumb or stoned to vote, or they’re moochers like Sandra Fluke who need fiscal liberalism to fund their social liberalism.
George knows what he likes ~ expect an announcement any day now.
I’ve been meaning to ask this question here for a long time now: Issue for issue, what are the true differences between Conservative and Libertarian viewpoints?
As a follow-up question: For each issue, which viewpoint best matches those of the Founders?
I’m not altogether for or against either position, necessarily, but I am curious to hear how fellow FReepers sort out the distinctions.
Some people want drugs and penis. When you stand against that they get nasty. That is where the problems will come.
Regulating morality, if ever a good thing by people with unlimited resources and the very power of life and death, is constitutionally up to the various states.
Social engineering and nation building by crony capitalist bureaucrats has got to end sometime, either by choice or by natural collapse.
I consider myself to hold many libertarian views but I fail to see why any self described libertarian, people whose fall back position tends to be “get the government out,” would want to creat a whole other area of government to regulate and administer gay marriage. Since “gay marriage” is not real marriage, the current laws governing the act would not be sufficient to govern what the homosexuals propose and the result woud be more government and laws added.
I for one would support removing marriage from the realm of government all together and returning it to the church.
Marriage is about KIDS... Gays cannot have kids.. unless they buy them..
-OR- lie to some heterosexual women(man) about their preference..
Marriage is about KIDs not Love..
I place great importance on both fiscal and social conservatism — but if forced to choose one over the other, I would choose social conservatism as primary. The Libertarianism doesn’t do it for me.
Well played, GW.
“Republicans have been arguing — social conservatives and libertarian free-market conservatives — since the 1950s, when the National Review was founded on the idea of the fusion of the two,” he continued. “It has worked before with Ronald Reagan. It can work again. What I did see at CPAC was the rise of the libertarian strand of Republicanism, which has an affected foreign policy that is a pullback from nation-building and other ambitions aboard that they never countenance from government at home, and a sense of ‘live and let live’ with subjects such as decriminalization of certain drugs and gay marriage.”
Whether or not it would be a good thing, that foreign policy pullback never actually happens. The clear lines that parties out of power draw get blurred when they win elections.
Parties in power really get to like using all the weapons, so all the talk about a "more modest foreign policy" remains talk, and not talk one hears much in the corridors of power.
Also, an ambitious foreign policy is a way to get around political stalemates at home. And of course, things happens overseas that we don't have any control over, and so we get dragged into conflicts that we may not have wanted to be involved in.
George Will Who?
Thought on Liberty is not a new idea. Libertarianism did not begin this.
CONCERNING CHRISTIAN LIBERTY
by Martin Luther
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1911/1911-h/1911-h.htm#link2H_4_0001
Martin Luther on Liberty written in 1520
excerpt letter from Martin Luther to Pope Leo X:
“beware of listening to those sirens who make you out to be not simply a man, but partly a god, so that you can command and require whatever you will. It will not happen so, nor will you prevail. You are the servant of servants, and more than any other man, in a most pitiable and perilous position. Let not those men deceive you who pretend that you are lord of the world; who will not allow any one to be a Christian without your authority; who babble of your having power over heaven, hell, and purgatory. These men are your enemies and are seeking your soul to destroy it, as Isaiah says, “My people, they that call thee blessed are themselves deceiving thee.” They are in error who raise you above councils and the universal Church; they are in error who attribute to you alone the right of interpreting Scripture. All these men are seeking to set up their own impieties in the Church under your name, and alas! Satan has gained much through them in the time of your predecessors.”
“In brief, trust not in any who exalt you, but in those who humiliate you. For this is the judgment of God: “He hath cast down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble.” See how unlike Christ was to His successors, though all will have it that they are His vicars.”
—
“I cannot bear with laws for the interpretation of the word of God, since the word of God, which teaches liberty in all other things, ought not to be bound.”
The issue centers around that gray area where one person’s rights cross over into another. Traditionally, that has been defined as “trespass” - the act of an individual that substantialy harms another’s life, person (health and safety) and poperty. Morality is self-regulation of our actions so as not to trespass on another’s rights.
Morality is respecting the rights of the unborn individual. It is not preventing gays from marrying (no trepass.) That is the imposition of a religious notion of right and wrong and not a civic one. Telling me I have to use my property to benefit society is not a legitimate prevention of tresppass. Making me pay to support the installation of solar panels on someone elses roof is beyond the oprevention of trespass.
Social conservatives and liberals like to impose their religious or philosophical notions of right and wrong on other’s behavior well beyond the limits of preventing tresspass. I think most libertarian Republicans just want to be left alone in liberty to follow their own conscience and inclinations as long as they are not trespassing on other’s rights.
I’m always intrigued by this notion that Republicans have to moderate whenever we lose. Nobody ever said the same thing about the Democrats after Kerry lost.
I have some questions:
1) What is the difference between outright libertarianism and being a “moderate Republican? They all seem to be saying the same things.
2) Am I blonde? We’ve RUN moderate Republicans, Bob Dole, Mitt Romney, et al..where are the electoral victories?
We had so many handpicked establishment candidates for the Senate such as Denny Rehberg, Scott Brown, Rick Berg, Tommy Thompson et al — if this brand of moderate Republicanism was so great, where the heck are their electoral victories?
The problem from my standpoint is that too many moderate Republicans alienate conservatives once nominated, assuming that they’ll just “vote for them anyway.” While many of us do end up voting for the lesser of 2 evils in many cases, the passion/vigor/GOTV effort(s) are not as strong. Then the moderate is portrayed as a flip flopper because he’s constantly trying to alienate the conservative base while still reluctantly throwing us a bone or two hoping we don’t stay home. The Dems and the media then make a mockery. They lose, then we’re told to moderate, repeat.
Conservative candidates are universally expected to “reach out” to moderates, but moderates never have to do anything to reach out to us. Shouldn’t it be a two way street?
The way some of these people talk, they act like we nominated a right-wing crusader for the last 2 cycles. Like I said, either I’m blonde, or we nominated RINOs for two cycles now.
The reason I am a conservative, and not a libertarian, is that I do believe the government has some responsibility to try and restore the American people to become once more a “moral and religious people”, because after all, the constitution will “serve no other”.
The Founders were dead on for their time period, but there is no way they could have anticipated the effect that mass media would have on this country. The person before who mentioned what the Founders would have done with gay marriage proponents and abortionists is correct. Why is there no mention of morality in the constitution? Simple. It wasn’t an issue. Nobody would have dreamed about killing their baby, or marrying someone of the same gender. It was just unthinkable.
I value the constitution as the greatest political document in history, but I also recognize the place of “One Nation Under God” and “In God We Trust”. The Founders never intended a society detached from its heritage and roots. If a country abandons its culture and tradition, it is ripe for overthrow by a foreign culture, as we see in Europe.
I don’t believe the Founders would have objected to erecting Christmas Trees in public squares, having a painting of Jesus Christ in a school, having prayer in school, or teaching children that they are accountable to forces beyond this life. I believe in an objective right and wrong, which we have learned from our human experience and the commandments given by God. We are given more freedom than people in every other country by our constitution, but with freedom comes responsibility, and we should all know the difference between right and wrong in this society. Right and wrong are not simply alternative lifestyle choices. They are definitive things.
Libertarianism: has its warts, but is far, far better than Marxism
You don’t have to be socially liberal to be a libertarian. I’m pro-life and a Christian, and a libertarian. I believe abortion should be banned like all other forms of murder, and I believe the government shouldn’t be involved in marriage.