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.
"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly.... [However, now] there's a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it."
-Bill Clinton
OOps, a substance abuser. You have never used POT? Your President has. Almost all of the Republican heros have. Rush, Newt, Bush, and a long list of others.
Do your own search.
In other words, you made a claim and can't back it up. You accuse people of using drugs but can't name them. No surprise there.
I'm sure its impressive each time you proofread your posts, we all wish we felt the same about muddling through them.
You don't have to read my posts. Based on your own posts, you haven't read any useful posts.
Bork argues that the second amendment can be interpreted either way, and he's correct.
Who said I believed in democracy as a form of government? Are you saying that? Are you the liar?
Mmmm Hmm. That's what I'm sayin'. Preach it!
I swear - by my life and my love of it - that I will never live life for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for mine.
Your gonna go far. Any body anti WOD is pro dope. Any body pro dope, is pro crime. Anybody pro crime is not a libertarian but an anarchist.
Nope. If that were true, there would have been no Eighteenth Amendment (an ordinary federal statute would have sufficed).
Incorrect. I agree with the statement. Unlike you, I can seperate the message from the messenger.
Zarqawi's answer is to impose theocracy. Which is an equally wrong solution in a world of imperfect people.
The fact is, imperfect people can never create a perfect society. However, a form of democracy can come the closest because generally a majority of people will adhere to moral principles. However, when the majority of people abandon moral principles, then democracies will also decay into either anarchy or tyranny.
As radical individualism continues to pervade our nation, the calls for greater government powers will increase, if for no other reason than to simply ensure personal safety.
"You don't like the Goths?"
"No! Not with the persecution we have to put up with!"
"Persecution?" Padway raised his eyebrows.
"Religious persecution. We won't stand for it forever."
"But I thought the Goths let everybody worship as they pleased."
"That's just it! We Orthodox are forced to stand around and watch Arians and Monophysites and Nestorians and Jews going about their business unmolested, as if they owned the country! If that isn't persecution, I'd like to know what is!"
-- L. Sprague DeCamp (Lest Darkness Fall)
It is actually amoral for a person to decide what is right or wrong for him/herself as long as no force or fraud is inflicted on another person. Morality does not involve a person alone. A man on a deserted island alone has no morals. Morals come into play when more than one person is involved.
Wrong, it's way bizarre Kevvie.
Under the libertarian proposal, I MUST endure pot smokers in my neighborhood.
Under that wacked out theory, I am being coerced into enduring your breathing.
That is coercion. Do you have another word for it?
A real good word. Freedom.
You are coecring me into enduring your driving a car because it's not illegal. You are coercing me into enduring your eating because it's not illegal. You are coercing me into enduring your drinking beer because it's not illegal. You are coercing me into enduring your walking because it's not illegal.
Kevvie boy, you are way way out there.
Nonsense. The notion that an amendment preventing the government from disarming itself was somehow inserted into a batch of protections for individual liberties is preposterous on its face.
Chappaquiddick Ted & Company managed to do a great service to the nation, albeit unintentionally, when this joker somehow got himself nominated as a justice.
You remind me of the saying, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner."
It's customary to insert padding between mutually exclusive statements, as a pretense of respect for the reader's intelligence.
He's right. Again, unlike you, I can agree with the statement while disagreeing with the messenger.
We have laws against murder precisely for the reason Bill Clinton stated. Ditto laws against certain kinds of narcotics.
The fact is, there is no such thing as unbridled freedom, and it is also a fact that people who use freedom irresponsibly must be limited in the freedom they can exercise. Because, you see, we live in a society. A society is a GROUP of individuals living together. Unbridled individual freedom is impossible in a society. The result is anarchy.
This is not rocket science. Push a libertarian on it, and you'll eventually get them to admit that what they want is unbridled freedomg for THEMSELVES, and everyone else can just go to h*ll.
A form of anarchy.
Kevvie, are you moral?
I believe that the will of people should be expressed through their elected representatives. I believe that their elected representatives should heed the will of their constituents, and pass legislation reflecting their desires.
I also believe that constitutional laws be enforced at gunpoint, if necessary. What, do you prefer "pretty please with sugar on top"? Do you think that laws are suggestions? Or that they're optional? That you, personally, decide which ones you'll obey, and which ones you won't?
Grow up.
False analogy. But you already knew that. Marijuana is not a harmless drug, regardless of what radical Libertarians maintain.
pro-jec-tion (pr&-JEK-sh&n: The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or desires to someone or something as a naive or unconscious defense against anxiety or guilt.All you have to do to rebut is to name three things that you yourself routinely enjoy that you advocate prohibiting by force of law.
So you are guided by the Rousseauean political philosophy.
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.