What tedious writing. He has invested far too much energy into trying to sound high minded.
This doesn't have a direct effect on me, but OUCH!
This guy is flat out wrong. He's right about people who are members of the Libertarian Party, but people with Libertarian ideals have LONG been one of the key groups within our movement. Much of the Goldwater coalition was comprised of Conservatives with Libertarian leanings. If we purge all Libertarian ideals from the Conservative movement, we become a Religious Party and not a Political Movement.
You're a bitter, bitter person, aren't you? Is libertarian bashing the only thing you do on FR these days?
"[A] State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish." --John Stuart Mill, last paragraph in "On Liberty"
Also, objectivism/libertarianism is hardly "bottomless". It has definite boundaries drawn quite sharply around it via the equal Rights of other individuals and the non-initiation of force/fraud/theft doctrine.
Pompous a-hole authors opinions notwithstanding...
Pure pathetic. Not least because the author is speaking about fundamentalists whenever he says "conservatives". If the GOP decides it can win elections with nothing but fundamentalist voters, it's got a really rude awakening on the way - even ruder than the one two days ago....
I think that the Libertarians are quite clear about their moral order - human beings are not chattel for the government or other people do use as they please.
In a time requiring long views and self-denial, alliance with a faction founded upon doctrinaire selfishness would be absurd-and practically damaging.
Odd using the term "self-denial". Only the libertarian ideal could delayed gratification be considered self-denial. The statist beliefs of the other parties would be best described as "other-denial" - i.e. you can't have that because I'm in charge.
collective adversaries of ordered freedom
"Ordered Freedom"? The author just sprained my Orwell-to-English dictionary.
He's correct about a lot of this, but writes far too much out of emotion, with a desire to cut and wound, rather than to persuade and inspire. An ideology is going to be useful and true in some circumstances and unworkable and excessive in others. It would have been better to see the good and bad points and the limits of libertarianism, rather than simply condemn it in unqualified terms.
Sorry, you're not getting your flame war.
BS
Yes they do. It is pro-homosexuality, pro-abortion, anti-family, anti-property, and downright anti-American. Who wants to associate with that? Only people who agree on other socialist platforms, like big government and the taking of the powers reserved for the States respectively, or to the people (yes, I chose that last wording purposely).
Ridiculous.
There is little difference between conservatives and libertarians at the federal level as both seek the same thing.
We only disagree at the most basic local levels ("No, it is NOT a right to open a porn store down the street from an elementary school!") and THIS we can handle far better than trying to come to ANY agreement with socialists/communists.
The socialists at least declare the existence of some sort of moral order; the libertarians are quite bottomless.
The author is delusional, or woefully ignorant, or flat out lying, or all three.
The most revered and honored moral principle/code is that no person may initiate force, threat of force or fraud against another person or their property.
Right wing republicans and left wing democrats share a delusional common denominator.
Ninety-plus percent of persons don't initiate force, assault, threat of force or fraud against other individuals or their property. It has nothing to do with politics. It's a matter of individual personal choice. A conscious decision each individual must make for himself and herself.
Voting for the lesser of evils still always begets evil.
Republican supporters and their counterpart on the left work to persuade people to vote for their candidates. Whom are "evil", but not as "evil" as the other side of the aisle. Politicians on both sides of the aisle initiate force, threat of force and fraud against United States citizens and their property.
Right wing and left wing supporters are delusional when they put politicians above themselves and their own principle of not initiating force against anyone or their property.
The democrat supporter says: "Vote for my candidate. He'll abuse you but not as bad as the republican candidate."
The republican supporter says: "Vote for my candidate. He'll abuse you but not as bad as the democrat candidate."
Politics is not the solution -- politics is the problem.
Criminals are the problem. The most destructive, most value-destroying criminals are politicians and bureaucrats. You know who they are -- withdraw your support.
For goodness sake, stop trying to persuade innocent citizens that stand firmly on the principle that no person may initiate force against anyone or their property to join you in support of your brand of value-destroying, force-initiating, criminal politicians.
Dump the criminals. Stand firm on the principle which you and 90+% of the populace honor and respect of one another. Evermore persons are abandoning their self-inflicted delusions. They're opting out of the lose-lose, vote-for-the-lesser of evils fraud..
What nonsense. The current "conservative" GOP leadership has done nothing BUT compromise with socialists (except insofar as they have simply given the socialists their entire way rather than compromise with them). That's why they just got a spanking.
The guy is cluless. What the conservative holds to conserve is liberty. Liberty is the fundamental concept in libertarian theory.
The first paragraph of this gripping op-ed piece:
"Any discussion of the relationships between conservatives (who now, to judge by public-opinion polls, are a majority among American citizens) and libertarians [liberals] (who, as tested by recent elections, remain a tiny though unproscribed minority) naturally commences with an inquiry into what these disparate groups hold in common."
Dear Professor: If conservatives (however you would define the word) are a majority, why did the Dems take over the Congress on Tuesday?
But there are plenty of five syllable words in the article, meaning he must be plenty smart....