Replies

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.

The ones I've known are anti-big govt, anti-taxes and anti- all the positions on moral issues that are important to evangelical & Catholic voters == abortion, trannies/gender-fluidity, gay marriage, drug legalization, etc.

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.