Posted on 02/24/2005 6:27:01 AM PST by Happy2BMe
Libertarians Seeking 'True Conservatives'
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
February 24, 2005
(CNSNews.com) -- The Libertarian Party says its representatives were "very well received" by conservatives at a recent conference in Washington.
"We met a lot of people who are either supportive of our ideas or who simply support having an alternative to the big-government ideal put forward by the Republicans and Democrats," said Sam New, who organized the Libertarian Party's activities at the Conservative Political Action Committee Conference in Washington.
The Libertarian Party was a first-time cosponsor of the Feb. 17-19 CPAC Conference, and its involvement was a "big step forward" for the Party, said Executive Director Joe Seehusen in a report on the group's website.
"Our profile has been low for some time, and we were able to showcase our party in a positive light to many people and groups, including a large number of students and small business owners."
Seehusen, who considers President George W. Bush a socialist, said the Libertarians' support for limited government and appreciation for individual rights strikes a cord with many people who call themselves Republicans or conservatives.
"Many of them stopped by our booth to learn more," which is exactly why the Libertarians decided to take part in CPAC this year, he said.
The Libertarians believe they can appeal to "true conservatives" (as opposed to "big-government neo-conservatives") on a number of issues.
"By taking part in this CPAC conference, we hope to show that Libertarians are the true fiscal conservatives -- much more so than the Republicans are," Seehusen said on the Libertarian website.
He said the party is studying how successful groups market themselves, so the Libertarian Party "can more effectively reach out to conservatives" in the future.
IMHO, Libertarians are liberals...who want a balanced budget, and legal MJ.
Two things. One, the original Constitution/BOR has already been bent and twisted by 17 amendments, albeit constitutionally. The 14th, 16th, and 17th being the most egregious.
The 14th amendment, for example, has turned our nation into a judicial oligarchy -- five justices interpret and define the laws for all 50 states. This was not the original intent, now was it?
The 16th taxes the income of only some citizens, and does so mecilessly and unequally. This was not the original intent, now was it?
The 17th has removed the voice of state government from Congress. This was not the original intent, now was it?
Two, what do you propose we do? Stand by and do nothing while our society goes down the toilet? The death of our great experiment, a federal republic, is preferable to violating your interpretation of the U.S. Constitution?
Well, I don't agree. I think that what we have is worth saving. I don't agree that we are "violating" the constitution. Moreover, if you can show me that "original intent" means "sole intent" then I'll agree with you that is how it should be applied. If not, then "original intent" is merely interesting in an historical sense, and plays no role in current judicial interpretation.
I ignore the legal opinions of people who say that the Second Amendment protects the right of the states to have a National Guard, for the same reason I ignore the scientific opinions of people who say that the Earth is flat. Thus, citing Robert Bork carries no weight with me.
I expect government to protect me, by the enforcement of constitutional laws, from the moral weakness of others.
Libertarians know that the proper role of government in a free society is to defend the rights of it's citizens, nothing more.
You are correct about one thing, your opinion is indeed humble.
This wouldn't be such a bad idea for Pubbies infiltrating the Dem party. There are a lot of districts in America where people vote based on a "D" beside the name. Claim to be a Dem and vote conservative once in Congress.
He's right. The effect of democracy is to push for radical individualism, which eventually rots and destroys liberty. The restraining factor on radical individualism is morality and virtue as defined by religion (specifically, the judeo-christian ethic).
With the collapse of that ethic, radical individualism proceeds unbridled and we wind up with the cultural rot today that slowly devolves toward tyranny or anarchy.
I would highly recommend you read Slouching Towards Gommora.
Of course, decriminalizing drugs would also necessitate getting rid of welfare for drug addicts and cutting them off from socialized medicine as well. If a druggie wants to kill themselves? Fine. Don't soak up any resources from those of us who don't use drugs.
I'll give you credit for openly admitting that you stand by the side of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Uhm Beer ? Do your own search. Try keyword Libertarian, cops, drugs...the same cast of clowns shows up everytime and the same idiotic rants time after time in the name of "lost freedom" that boils down each time to bad cops, failed WOD, and neoconservatives.
I'm sure its impressive each time you proofread your posts, we all wish we felt the same about muddling through them.
Sure thing... maybe you should tell the President to stop using the word "democracy" 40-50 times per speech.
And this precedent justifies bending and twisting further, including through extra-constitutional means (i.e., administrative law)? Judging from the tenor of your next few paragraphs, I'd venture to guess you think it doesn't.
Two, what do you propose we do? Stand by and do nothing while our society goes down the toilet? The death of our great experiment, a federal republic, is preferable to violating your interpretation of the U.S. Constitution?
All I'm saying is that when you twist and turn, you give the twists and turns your opponent makes legitimacy. I remember back when Clinton was president, and here on FR (I was a long-time lurker), we conservatives used to use constitutional and ideological arguments as anti-Clinton weapons, and we felt pretty justified in doing so. Now that our side's in power, we seem to give constitutional and ideological arguments short shrift because our guys have their hands on the controls. They had their Clintonites; we have our Bushbots.
Well, I don't agree. I think that what we have is worth saving. I don't agree that we are "violating" the constitution. Moreover, if you can show me that "original intent" means "sole intent" then I'll agree with you that is how it should be applied. If not, then "original intent" is merely interesting in an historical sense, and plays no role in current judicial interpretation.
Do words mean anything at all if not what an author intends them to mean?
Excuse me? What is representative government other than the people making the laws by which they agree to be governed? If people decide on a moral issue, then it is perfectly appropriate in a self-governing society for those people to enact that moral issue into law.
Our government has degenerated into much of what it is today, not because of out of an out of control congress, but because of the worship of the oligarchy that is the Judiciary.
What part of radical did you not understand?
Why do you think that we need an amendment giving power in order to pass an amendment taking it away?
The federal government already has the power in Article I, Section 8. If we wish to remove that power, we need a constitutional amendment. Period.
It’s less of a lie than neocons advocating facism. But you posted such a brain dead POS accusation first. So if that’s all you’re capable of, that’s all you get.
Taken to the extreme, removing “big government” as the sole arbitrator of retaliatory force inevitably breeds private armies and anarchy like in Somalia. That’s what many libertarians see as an ideal, and is MUCH less of a stretch than your claim that conservatives are the mirror image of Islam fascism.
I don’t have the patience for this discussion today. Regards
Not bizarre at all. Under the libertarian proposal, I MUST endure pot smokers in my neighborhood. That is coercion. Do you have another word for it?
The LP can kiss my butt after their behavior in Ohio and Washington State.
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.