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”
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 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.
Capital L Libertarians = socialists who like to get high
My favorite: Libertarians are Conservatives who like to do drugs.
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.
Wait a minute! Is anyone who’s a libertarian a libertarian? Reading here, seems everyone who’s a libertarian is really not a libertarian.
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.
Libertarians: Anarchists with credit cards.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
libertarians are those with a less government philosophy who are of any political party. Libertarians are those who support the Libertarian party.
I am usually a Republican with libertarian leanings. In my own case, I am hardline pro-life, pro 2nd Amendment, support a non-interventionist foreign policy, and support less government. I disagree with the LP on abortion and immigration.
I’m going to join the libertarians the moment “conservatives” nominate a leftwing turd like Romney.