Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 05/03/2006 2:49:08 PM PDT by ghostmonkey
Often I see Libertarians refer to themselves as "Conservatives" or "Right". Yet, many times, on many web-boards, I see the libertarians taking the same positions as Demonrats, and they seem to support Demonrats over Republicans.
I did a bit of research, and I found why this might be the case. Libertarianism is actually in the same political system as Liberalism.
http://www.moral-politics.com/xPolitics.aspx?menu=Political_Ideologies&action=Draw&choice=PoliticalIdeologies.All
I had one libertarian dad on a prior thread I started talk about using drugs in front of his kid and allowing them to decide what they will do with drugs (while watching dad juice up).
Being this is a conservative forum, I at times get real surprised at what I see posted.
I'm with you in what you said though. Good for you. :)
do you wanna refute this author or should I ?
You go for it.
Do you think I should ping the list for this one? I didn't think it was even worth it before as this whole test they have setup is 'gobblygook' IMO.
Yeah i would. let everyone on the libertarian ping list tear this article to shreds it would be fun to watch :-) ill be back on tomorrow o siputethis article myself i gotta geta couple of links to post herethat im to tired to do right now
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
It must be the same tendency that causes a five-year-old to poke a stick into a red ant mound.
Of course libertarianism is the same a liberalism, read Hayek if you don't believe it. However, simply because American socialists expropriated the word doesn't change its meaning. A liberal society is one that believes in competition as the best economic system and believes that the governed must give their consent for the state to use its coercive powers in all cases. Classical liberals also believe that laissez-faire utopianism is the road to anarchy. They believe a moral society is the only way to keep the tyranny of government at bay.
Once again invoking Hayek, conservatives seek to maintain the status quo. The current status quo is rampant socialism tending toward national socialism and has resulted in the rise of the so-called "neo-cons." To call one's self a conservative today means that one supports socialized medicine, welfare state rights for illegal immigrants, soviet-style international adventurism, and runaway deficit spending by an ever more fascist government. Given that, I'll take the liberal label any day.
Would you please substantiate your claim?
I don't think you can based on the junk and extremely flawed logic I've seen from you on this thread.
"By replacing morality with legality, you remove the ability to differentiate people who make moral choices because they want to (or are moral themselves), from people who make moral choices out of fear of the state."
Well said. I often ask a question of those righteous righties. The question is what value does government forced morality carry? If we use the power of government to force moral behaviour, then we no longer have the free will to chose to be moral. Without that free will, we are no longer chosing to follow God's path. If we don't freely chose to follow God's path, are we capable of receiving his gift of everlasting life in heaven?
The bottom line is that the righteous right feel that it is valid for them to coerce the government into forcing people into certain behaviours, therefore they are taking away the gift of a free will from those people. They are trumping God, for our own good.....
No they are not, jeez...
They are absolutely not. Please cite one example of the ACLU defending 2nd Amendment rights.
Bookmark
I've only posted 9 threads in my whole time here at FR.
It was a thread about the problems with drugs about almost a year ago.
I should have kept a link to where that was, but it's there and still available.
This doper was actually advocating recreational drugs and was doing them in front of his kids who he felt were then mature enough to make their own choices.
That of course is called child endangerment and that jerk should have had his kids taken away for their own good.
It will take you 1-3 hours to find it, but it was in some thread after (I think) post #300.
A libertarian would say that he was "liberal" where "liberalism" was possible or necessary or advantageous. A conservative would argue the point and say that the libertarian was liberal in some dangerous, or foolish or unnecessary ways.
But then, Ronald Reagan would probably say himself, that he was "liberal" in time-tested ways, remaining with the "liberalism" of the founders and avoiding the errors and missteps of more recent liberals.
LIBERTARIAN PARTY PLATFORM 1:23
We advocate an end to all government attempts to dictate, prohibit, control or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship.
We would repeal existing laws and policies intended to condemn, affirm, encourage or deny sexual lifestyles, or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles.
And section 1:3
We advocate... the cessation of state oppression and harassment of homosexual men and women, that they, at last, be accorded their full rights as individuals.
It's right there in plain english.
Same old, same old ad-hominem attacks on Libertarians from the big-government "conservatives."
Mrs. Grundy is alive and well. In the two Majors parties, they both have their targets for government CONTROL. Even if you err on the side of Freedom and Liberty, cross them and you are the Enemy and must be Destroyed at all costs. Even if it costs us that very same Freedom and Liberty.
Don't expect otherwise and you won't be disappointed.
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.