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?
Oh, I largely agree with your assessment, I’m just saying that I’m not a low tax liberal, and that I’m always called it by someone who is not technically libertarian. I actually disagree on a number of the tenets you posted from their website (immigration a huge one), I’m just saying I get called that, is all, by people who don’t know the difference.
“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.”
Agreed, to a point. I think if politicians were stopped at the local level, instead of the knee-jerk party lever polling, we’d be in a better place. The pols learned long ago what letter (D/R) to attach to their name in what district and get elected. If people even knew the issues, they’d weed out a ton of the politicials by their own words. People don’t want tyranny, they want to be lazy, but that just brings tyranny.
There’s three parts of society, the producers, the tyrants and the enables. I think a lot of “Big L” libertarians fall in the enabler group.
If they are calling you libertarian, then you must be liberal in some obvious areas.
What are their politics?
My favorite: Libertarians are Conservatives who like to do drugs.
Thats not to say that I don't think the federal government has an important place in overall government, especially regarding defense and secure borders.
“What are their politics?”
I’m not sure, actually, but I’m not liberal (feel free to check my posts). I think that since there is virtually NO difference between Dem and Repub anymore (except magnitude, but not direction), when someone asks me how I feel about politics, I say I’m a strict constructionist, small government proponent. Then it’s “Oh a libertarian.” Since I know best about what it is that I believe in, I’ll put it simply.
Immigration: reform (meaning letting in those who will contribute, building a wall, exporting illegals, and firing on any invaders).
Taxes: reduction. The 16th ammendment doesn;’t authorize a personal income tax anyway, but since the FedGov is to be funded by tariffs/duties, I’m for the FairTax.
Gay Marriage: This is a state issue. Every state I’ve lived in has outlawed it (my vote included). The FedGov has no say, not should they be subsidizing marriage anyway, in my opinion.
War in Iraq/abroad: I think the U.S. needs to stop policing the world. I think if we have a treaty with a nation, we come to their aid. I think if a despot starts murdering people in outher countries, then we eliminate the threat. I think people in their own nations should resolve their own problems. I believe God liberates the captive and opens doors for help, but that no one can give freedom to someone who doesn’t want it. Like a dog to it’s vomit, people will continue to put despots in power until they suffer enough to remember for more than 10 years thay despots are bad.
War on drugs: State issue. It’s not in the Constitution, for the Fed Gov to decide.
Second Ammendments: ALL people who are not in prison/jail are afforded a weapon. I would even be for prisoners having weapons (they once did) but no ammunition. If they bludgeon someone, then take the weapon away. I should add far to many people are in prison for NO reason other than to rake in Federal dollars. The right to bear arms is NOT TO BE INFRINGED, period. No ifs ands or buts. Felons had gun rights until recently (about 50 years ago). The lauterberg ammendment of the 90’s stole more gun rights.
Voting rights. All citizens. Coupled with the FairTax. I believe that unless citizens pay state taxes, no state voting. No Federal taxes, no Federal voting. A FairTax sytem would fix this, but it’s time the consumers stop voting for people who promise to rob from producers to give to consumers while skimming off the top.
Anything else, you’ll have to ask specifically. But I don’t know of any “liberal” area that you allude to. Probably since I’m not.
1) We should do whatever is possible to enhance personal liberty and freedom, as set forth by the Founders of our nation. This implies a parallel increase in the responsibility taken on by individuals voluntarily to live their lives in a way which is consistent with having more personal freedom.
2) Where at all possible, the coercive use of force should be avoided. This inherently requires a reduction in the size of the government, since most taxation is coercive in nature, and is really just the legal taking of someone else's property - backed up by force.
3) Private property, free markets, and voluntary exchange among individuals are key aspects of personal freedom. One of the few legitimate roles of government, in the eyes of libertarians, are laws intended to protect property, markets and the freedom of individuals. This leads to many misunderstandings about libertarian thinking.
Individual libertarians are often against particular actions, but think that society would be better served by a government which did not involve itself in regulating every aspect of life. Thus libertarians, for example, may advocate that government have no role in determining who can marry, except in situations where someone's rights and freedom, (such as a child), must be protected. Instead, for adults, the decision would be left to churches and the individuals involved. In such a situation, the personal moral beliefs of everyone, regardless of their point of view, are shielded from the coercive power of the state.
I ask my libertarian neighbor and see if he is unstoned enough to get you an answer.
Furthermore, why not legalize polygamy... or pornography on network tv? Both topics have been considered moral issues, but if someone wants to have two, ten, twenty, spouses, then what do we care? If someone wants to engage in certain sexual acts on their own property in full public view (or even in public places), according to strict libertarian principles, who are we to judge? How about plastering your car with foul words and images? Who is to say what is foul or fair? According to libertarians, the government should have no say in those matters.
There are certain human activities that society has deemed not to be done in front of others. The view of society many times end up as laws which is the province of government. In short, society has deemed there are a number of activities that should either be suppressed or done behind closed doors. I agree with a lot of that.
Excellent post, I agree entirely.
“Thats not to say that I don’t think the federal government has an important place in overall government, especially regarding defense and secure borders.”
Sadly the two areas they keep selling us out more and more on (among others). I’m all for local business. I currently work in a local manufacturing enterprise, and it’s the most fulfilling work I have had. I have a garden, and buy local, even if it cost’s more (unless it’s ridiculously over my budget). I believe in self reliance, and patriotism too. No one is legally responsible for me or my decisions (morally, I believe we all help on another to our extent, but it needs to be an individual choice).
I agree the FedGov has a place, but I think it’s minimal.
There it is, you are not conservative on social and cultural issues, and not conservative on national defense, there is no mystery for why they call you libertarian,and I find it a little hard to believe that you have never had anyone else point that out.
The better explanation for you is that you simply have a self constructed, fantasy wish list.
I've never taken an illegal drug, but I couldn't care less if an adult wants to do so. None of my business.
Wait a minute! Is anyone who’s a libertarian a libertarian? Reading here, seems everyone who’s a libertarian is really not a libertarian.
The ideas in your post frightens at least three posters on this thread.
So if you get your way, marriage is over, it no longer exists, do you really see marriage as meaningless to western Civilization, and America, and the American people?
How much power do you think that you need, to impose that on conservative America?
I’m a little-l libertarian. I like to refer to myself as a “Goldwater Republican,” referring to the 1963 version of Barry, whose full-throated defense of individual liberty (and its flip-side, responsibility) combined with a vision of a government limited to its Constitutional duties such as a strong defense thrills my heart to this day.
It’s why I’m very much supportive of gay monogamy. If the term “marriage” is too incendiary, let’s find some other way of making it work, because government has no damn business telling you or anyone else who you can love.
It’s why I’m very much opposed to the Federal War On Drugs. At least with Prohibition we wrapped that exercise in futility in proper Constitutional garments. With the WOD, the Feds just took the power they wanted. Wrong.
It’s why I’m blue in the face opposing almost all of the DemocRat agenda (and, sorry to say, a significant hunk of the Republican agenda) for the past couple decades. Look to the Constitution: if it isn’t in there, the Feds have no damn business doing it, and no legal business frankly, or extracting money from my pocket and yours to fund it.
Simplistic? Sure. That’s its beauty.
Okay. Abortion. There I agree very much with the notion of applying individual liberty to the question. In this case (like Ron Paul, with whom I agree on domestic issues and disagree on most foreign-policy and defense issues) I apply the notion of “individual” to that genetically-distinct being popularly known as the fetus. If it has rights, then abortion is wrong. That’s the fulcrum, morally and, I hope someday, legally. So the question becomes: at what point does the fetus acquire rights. Science can help answer that question. If partial-birth abortion in Month 9 is an abomination (and I agree, it is), then what about Month 8.5? Month 7? ...and so on. Let’s let science answer that question. So it’s an unsettled question that a real leader would help answer by convening a critical mass of scientific thinkers, and ensure ongoing review keeps pace with unfolding scientific knowledge. Having said that, note that there’s no Federal law against manslaughter or murder. It’s a matter for the states. The Federal role would be in defining when the right-to-life commences.
Don’t confuse the above with the looneytunes gange of head-bangers who constitute the capital-L Libertarian Party. They’re nuts.
So why don’t you define what you think conservativism is, LOL. What a joke.
Protecting marriage is a fundamental part of it.
I’ve already said, that is a state issue. Unless you don’t believe in the constitution, and the tenth ammendment. In which case you’re neither conservative, nor as theocratic as you claim to be. I voted for the [state] constitutional ammendment to define marriage as one man and one woman. You’re just fostering argument to stroke your ego. You have an axe to grind and I’m not playing your game. Get over yourself.
That is merely supporting the homosexual agenda.
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.