Posted on 12/21/2006 5:52:56 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez
Wha you say?
"At least they have that moral issue right."
This idea of "no compromises" being seen as noble intrigues me.
We can start with a safe assumption...that in our method of governance, everyone gets a voice, so just in that, we understand that compromises to one degree or another are imminent. It's also fair to say that one political ideology governing without compromise, is most often called a dictatorship.
So, adhering to this notion that by holding steadfast to a set of principles, and entertaining no possibility of compromise, leads to certain defeat in our system of government, because you'll never get enough people who refuse to compromise on their ideas to form a party large enough to actually get anyone elected.
Now then, does being a paleoconservative mean that you've resigned yourself to forever being governed without a voice, or in fact, taking yourself out of the system so that you can then stand back and criticize those who actually participate?
After all, the best way to never be wrong is to never try to actually do anything.
I figured you would show up. LOL
Not at all.
It is however, a way to join neoconservatives and libertarians together in order to take the rudder from the social fundamentalists that seem to be driving the GOP into the ground these days.
>How did you equate equal access to free access?
If equal access is determined by fee's to gain equal access, then access will never be equal. The people of escodindo recently had to surrender their rights because the city could not afford the costs gaining equal access to the same court as the ACLU over the long haul.
The only persons who are doing anything that benefit any society are independent individualists--everything else is a slow compromise with collectivist statism, and all that any political party is doing is helping to bring totalitarianism down on everyone. It's bad enough that Americans are loosing their freedom by a steady incrementalism that is all but undetectable by most of the dunces produced by government education--but to actually feed the fire heating the pot the frog is in by promoting compromise is raw evil.
Hank
Actually, if you'd bothered reading the article, you would have seen that the author meant that neolibertarians would be less rigid. More willing to compromise, and not take an "all or nothing approach" to political beliefs. Most libertarians actually have more in common with (old style) republicans than dems, especially the new, hard leftists.
Mark
Libertarians do not take the military seriously, along with law and order and the family.
Libertarians share more with Rousseau than they do with Locke-- they think man is born good, and coercive society makes him evil. So instead of the military, the family, the police, and capitalism being the cause of all our problems like the Dems believe, libertarians think the military, the family, the police, and the government are the causes of all our problems.
If I have a choice between what happens 200 years from now and what happens to my kids in 2020, guess which one I'll focus on.
"Practical libertarian". That's how I've described myself for years.
Sorry, but that isn't an accurate description of any libertarians I know, and is inconsistent with the published tenets of the Libertarian Party.
At their core the ideas of libertarianism are those of the Founding Fathers, and are embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Since when is wanting to be left alone by the government, to live in freedom as it was known to the early citizens of our nation, a bad thing?
While we're on the subject, who is John Galt?
seems this is just a brand label for 2008's useful idiots.
the divide the conservatives stategy.
Did everyone see Hitlary's marketing for 2008? She wants to be the first "mommy". The unltimate nanny nazi for the left wing nanny state.
Do people really want to elect a bitchy nagging mother to be in charge?
ping
I consider myself to be a plain old regular libertarian who can compromise on certain issues. For instance, I've taken a liking to Duncan Hunter for the GOP nomination despite a somewhat questionable record on pork spending. However, it is my opinion that matters regarding liberty are non-compromisable.
Would a neo-libertarian compromise on 2nd Amendment issues? Campaign Finance Reform? In my opinion, it is OK to have a "litmus test" on certain issues. I am a big fan of Tom Tancredo when it comes to border issues and fiscal restraint, but his gun-grabbing votes from several years ago would make it extremely difficult for me to support him if he were to run for President.
It is very rare that I'm inspired by something a politician has to say, but an exception to this is when I went to the Bret Schundler for Governor Election Night party back in '01. Bret unfortunately lost to Jim McGreevy and the theme of his concession speech was "the good fight is the good life" and went on to explain how you can feel good at the end of the day knowing that you fought for what you genuinely believe to be right, regardless of whether or not you are victorious. I doubt I'll be able to find it, but I'll try Googling up a transcript of this speech and I'll post it to you if I do. I really was an inspiring speech on an otherwise depressing evening.
I'm surprised that someone with the tagline "President Giuliani in 2008! Law and Order. Solid Judges. Free Markets. Killing Terrorists" is harping on the family values of libertarians. Rudy ain't no Ward Cleaver, you know. Also, not to hijack the thread, but why do you feel that someone too dense to understand the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment would nominate "solid judges"?
By the way, you have a very interesting blog.
No no no no no.
We already have had decades of stupid infighting because a socialist attempted to split conservatives using the "neo" and "paleo" phrasings. Even now the socialists are taking charge of Congress because we're too busy arguing about whether "neo-"conservatism or "paleo-"conservatism is the 'real' conservative cause.
However well-written the rest of the article, appropriating "neo-" and "paleo-" to libertarian interests is just dumb.
Besides, is the libertarian movement so large already that it needs a schism? This is something akin to the Peoples' Front of Judea vs. the Judean People's Front arguments in _Life of Brian_.
http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/brian/brian-07.htm
I hate compromise. Especially when it comes to Rights. Is it ok to suffer a little bit of rape? Politicians NEVER compromise in a way that gives up power, they only compromise on how badly they want to strip us of freedom.
Libertarians are the ONLY party talking about reversing that trend. Neo-libertarians appears to want to waffle on that one like Bush does on just about everything...
No thanks...
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.