Posted on 10/03/2010 5:59:15 PM PDT by Celtic Cross
Recently, I was considering becoming a member of the Libertarian Party. I admit I knew little about the party, except that they are for smaller government. I visited their website, and this is what I found...
The party's views of gay unions and abortion are as follows;
"Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships."
"Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."
I know that there are many libertarians here on FR, and I would appreciate it if they weighed in. How can you affiliate yourselves with a party that at least appears to disagree with many basic conservative principles?
While I lean Libertarian in many areas, I disagree with their platform when it comes to foreign & defense policy. What's more, they don't have the slightest chance of actually winning at the national level. That being the case, I normally vote for the more Libertarian-leaning candidate in the primary and then vote a straight Republican ticket in the actual election.
Because we’re libertarians, not conservatives? ;-)
Really, I go back & forth between the two. The final issue for me is personal FREEDOM. I have gay friends I’ve known for years. While I don’t think they need to marry their partner, it’s no skin off my nose if they do. Remove any gov’t subsidy (my tax dollars) & I shouldn’t really care.
Abortion is a harder problem, but it’s not likely we can totally stop it. Better to work on teaching people moral precepts & hope they make right decisions. The left has done so much to make people fear Christians (like conservatives) & for awhile we’ll just have to give them some space until they can come our way willingly.
Libertarians believe that people should govern themselves, and not have someone else do it for them. That means that there are fewer social laws, because they don’t want a nanny state in any regard.
Government doesn’t have a place in our day to day lives, or at least it shouldn’t, people are free to choose good, or bad, but they should be free to choose, then face consequences of bad choices, not precrime, justice, etc.
By the way, I’m not technically affiliated with any party, I just keep getting told I’m a libertarian, so, go figure...that’s the best explanation I have. I’m not an authority of libertarianism, but that’s the way I understand it. In any regard anyone and ANYTHING that limit’s man’s moral agency, or ability to choose is by definition evil. But sometimes (as in the case of known abusers—a specific class of “criminals”) it’s better to abridge one person’s agency if they’ll use it to abridge others, (Ie. murderers). But it’s best to go for the small government and have individuals and communities resolve their problems at the appropriate level than have a monstrous federal or even state government bearing down on you, 24/7. That’s my take.
The most successful Libertarian candidate in our history was Libertarian Presidential candidate Ed Clark, who ran to stop Ronald Reagan in 1980, receiving the best vote showing of any libertarian in American politics.
During the campaign, Ed Clark described libertarians as “low tax-liberals”
They mean that you are a liberal that likes conservative economic policies. A "low tax, liberal".
Big government is a far greater threat to basic conservative principles than small government. Dachau had a special section for Roman Catholic priests.
I lean libertarian, but I don't use drugs, have never divorced and am morally appalled at abortions. All these problems are exacerbated by big government.
I agree with that. One problem is that so few people are truly interested in government. They vote in every other presidential election, and thats it. If more people were actively and patriotically involved in their local government, trying to do whats best for their local area, then I believe that the federal government wouldn't be so out of control.
“Better to work on teaching people moral precepts & hope they make right decisions. The left has done so much to make people fear Christians (like conservatives) & for awhile we’ll just have to give them some space until they can come our way willingly.”
Bears repeating. No one can be forced to do what is right. Just like the Constitution will only govern a moral people, which cannot be legislated. As John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The problem is immoral loving people allowed communists (read evil worshippers in any form, not limited to Stalinists), further denigrate our society to the point scared and immoral people think that every law that they don’t think directly affercts them, if “Fine as long as you’re doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about,” losing our liberty, until the oppression of Tyranny has become nothing more to them than a suffocating security blanket, but for everyone else it’s an oppressive, lafe and liberty draining, noose.
I do not think that any real libertarian should support the violation of the liberty of infants. There is a reason not to support the Libertarian Party. They support murder for the sake of "sensitivity."
Yes, I consider myself a libertarian, but I will not support murder and those who support murder.
I too am a libertarian - with a small “l” not the large “L” of the party. The Libertarian Party has too many pacifist, naive, stupid, ignorant, utopian ideas about government and human behavior.
For instance, extremely unlibertarian positions of mine include:
1) four years of mandatory military training in high school plus one year of active duty — for everybody: male, female, gay, lesbian, transwhatever, handicapped, retarded, whatever, conscientious objector or unconscious.
2) a deadly wall on the Mexican border. And admission to citizenship only those really qualified, i.e., who know American language, history, geography, civics, math and science.
This is their immigration platform in 2004, it is longer than a yes or no answer.
2004 Libertarian party Platform:
Immigration
The Issue: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new “Berlin Wall” which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government’s policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.
The Principle: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.
Solutions: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.
Transitional Action: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.
Actually I’m always told by a non-libertarian, because I am a srtict/strong constructionist. It’s the catch all for conservatives these days (the name “Libertarian,” that is).
Thats a great line! So many people are concerned only with the mothers 'right' to have an abortion, rather than considering the right of the unborn human. 'The liberty of infants' really brings home that point.
Capital L Libertarians = socialists who like to get high
It is a kind of catch all, but definitely a code word for ‘I like a lot about conservatism, but I can’t stand those knuckle dragging Christian people, and their social conservatism’.
Low tax, liberals.
“2) a deadly wall on the Mexican border. And admission to citizenship only those really qualified, i.e., who know American language, history, geography, civics, math and science.”
I believe in the wall, but I think there are many worthwhile people who may not know English, or American History, but who are worthwhile and can make worthwhile citizens (Their home countries may not afford access to learn these two things)..and our own citizens, sadly, don’t perform well in either of these two areas, either. How to you feel about “buffer” communities for people to learn english, history, etc, and if they don’t learn quick, send them back, at their own expense. (Maybe they can contribute to some form of industry while in the buffer community). Just a question, I just thought of it in response to your post, so no flaming! ;)
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.