Posted on 11/04/2020 10:15:03 PM PST by libertasbella
The Libertarian vs. Liberal debate is confusing for some, but once you understand it, it’s clear as day. While both of these political thought processes have some areas that overlap, you’ll soon understand the fundamental differences between the history, modernization, and 20th century belief systems behind them.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.libertasbella.com ...
I don’t misunderstand a damned thing about libertarians. they’re sinister, spineless little jackals that get liberals elected to congress.
a pox upon their house.
What stopped you from posting the whole thing?
bookmark
People who stand for nothing and fall for everything
They prefer no religion in the public square to all
Drugs...that they go for
The difference between Libertarian and Conservative is more interesting.
Libertarians reject social conservatism entirely, a robust global defense of American interests (or hegemony), and are for an even smaller bureaucracy and economic regulation than most conservatives are prepared to accept. The first two issues cause them to frequently vote left despite the obvious sellout to big government regulation.
I am a Conservatarian. I align with conservatives despite some disagreements, albeit fewer than Libertarians. I reject enactment of religious dogma into law (intoxicants, gambling, prostitution and sex in general), but I believe the right to life transcends the dogma of any religion or political philosophy. I believe in the necessity of a global defense of America: Better over there than over here. And I believe in the constitutional regulation of business, that it should be local in the sovereign states except where it actually crosses national, state and Indian reservation lines.
On marriage, there are 3 kinds: personal, religious and civil. I believe that any people are free to call themselves married and make vows and other agreements with each other without interference. I believe the authorities of any religion should be able to recognize whatever they will as marriages and perform ceremonies without government interference. But civil marriage has but 2 concerns: the promotion and support of children for the future of society by conferring benefits deemed useful to society, and the enforcement of communal and individual property rights. Civil marriage was never for love or equality. In fact, civil marriage benefits exclude and are subsidized by unmarried people who are therefore unequal no matter who is allowed to marry and should have the ultimate say in whom they will benefit.
A primary concern of civil marriage is the regulation of inheritance for purpose of taxation, for which some not allowed to marry have claimed discrimination. The solution to this is a ban on inheritance tax, which is odious and unfair anyway.
which is the only possible explanation of their invariably irrational thinking and behavior; they’re constantly stoned of their asses.
Libertarians are like a small band of righteous brothers who dare not fight the Bolsheviks alongside with the conservatives, thinking they can prevail on their own.
Absolute utopist morons, if not back soulless immoral stabbers who do not follow the moral imperatives of the consciousness of Kant as followed by Ayn Rand, but instead only want the benefits of freedom.
Freedom is not doing whatever you want, it is to be autonomous.
Today’s libertarians are actually more communistic in that aspect.
Only important exceptions I know of are Ron & Rand Paul, who are pro-life.
An oversimplification would be: "Libertarian = Conservative on economic issues and Liberal on Social/Moral issues". Picture Anthony Kennedy.
I think a lot of them were complete liberals originally, but the cognitive dissonance required to be pro-taxes and pro-all-powerful-govt finally got to them, and they felt forced to move to something else. They just could NOT stomach the thought of becoming a conservative, because decades of drinking the Cultural Grape Koolaid spewed forth by Hollywood made them Social Liberals.
So the Libertarian siren call of splitting the difference to embrace half the Liberal agenda and half the Conservative agenda appealed to them.
To try to make logical sense out of this belief system, so that they can pat themselves on the back by being able to point to some kind of consistency between the two halves of their world-view, they claim that the undergirding principle that ties both together is Liberty / Freedom / Human Rights / Non-Oppressive-Government.
So they frame late-term abortion as merely a matter of "freedom" for the woman, while turning a blind eye to the 9-month old baby girl in the process of moving down the birth canal just prior to being born, having a scissors stuck into the base of her skull. "Regrettable, and rare, but necessary to do in the name of Freedom and Basic Rights". To clutch the fig leaf of "consistency on issues of liberty and rights," they throw the unborn under the bus, because if they didn't lie to themselves that these aren't truly human lives we're talking about, there would once more be the cognitive dissonance of advocating a gruesome, painful death for some in order to give "liberty" to others.
That's why they again & again prove themselves - in terms of voting patterns - to be undependable, unreliable "Fair Weather Friends" to conservatives. I saw them go in droves for BJ Clinton in '96 the first time Bob Dole said anything about moral issues. Then they came back in droves along with the Tea Party in 2010, because the oppressive measures of Obama with his filibuster-proof Senate was so, so, soooooo bad, that they held their noses and made common cause with moral conservatives to flip the House and toss Nancy out on her ear.
But that didn't last forever. The biggest chunk left after 2012 when Mitt beat Ron Paul in the primaries, some by 2014, and all the rest by 2016.
. . . not to mention pretentious, supercilious cowards who don’t have the stones to actually pick a side.
I was going to say cowards, but retained myself. Yes, they are these borderless wusses, antiwar dogmatics who side step politically correctly politics as an inherent extension of war, blaming the two party system for all the ills.
exactly. they refuse to participate, and then spew omnidirectional blame on all the participants.
these people have permanent sand in their girlie bits.
As an economist noted, there cannot be capitalism if there is no respect of equal treatment under the law, at any age and under any status.
That idea of capitalism coming out of a void is nonsense. It is how it got us to erroneously think that making China capitalist would make them pro freedom. What a stupid idea.
I’d have liked to, but this site has a fairly restrictive word count.
At least they’d vehemently argue that that sand belongs to them.
No. Nothing impedes your posting the whole thing.
Watch this:
Guess you didn't pay the rent on your Dollar-Store Blog:
This site can’t be reached The connection was reset.
Try:
Checking the connection
Checking the proxy and the firewall
Running Windows Network Diagnostics
Paying the rent on your Dollar Store Blog
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.