Posted on 08/09/2009 12:44:19 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
WASHINGTON - America's third largets party Friday called on Democrats to end what appears to be a budding campaign of union violence targeted at citizens who dissent with the White House at town hall meetings across the country. Libertarians oppose not only the White Houses's plan for government-run medicine, but the use of violence to achieve polirtical or social goals.
(Excerpt) Read more at smallgovtimes.com ...
At least there are those OUT THERE calling the dems on the carpet on it. They may have few members however there are a whole lot of indies who are libertarians...just not listed members.
“One that sounds a lot like a Palin/Jindal echo chamber would be good. ;-) “
Yeah. Two people, both with a brain, and are able to use it.
Of course the 24,000 RINO’s will try to ruin them. I’d like to take a baseball bat to some RINO kneecaps. I know what they would say...”Hey, maybe you’ve got a point there!” ;-)
There will always be people that could care less about America and it’s traditions and moral climate and so on, yet that will still vote for conservatives for pocket book issues.
I imagine that a lot of immigrants over the last few decades are amused by middle America and it’s cultural concerns and patriotism but still lean republican to protect their personal economic pursuits that brought them here.
“Or — they are someone who believes that we the people are better protectors of our own virtue than some idiot politician is.”
That’s exactly what I said: a vice to protect.
“Government legislated virtue is no virtue at all.”
Government doesn’t legislate virtues. It requires and prohibits actions that are essential to or destructive of a healthy society.
“as though we don’t have a real conscience of own. That’s BS.”
The number of Americans alive today who have a properly formed conscience is quite small.
“they are further from socialism than most Conservatives are. They are so far from socialism that they border on anarchy.”
No, they want the sexual permissiveness that socialism always promises and never delivers, without the tyranny that socialism always imposes.
“Show me a Republican with the cajones to do what the Libertarians just did, and I’ll “French kiss” him, too!”
To me, the alternative was not Republicans, but conservatives. BTW, the word is “cojones.”
“But instead, most of the Republican leadership hide in their ivory towers French-kissing George Soros, Obama and the Democrats — also on our dime..”
It certainly seems so.
“I’d rather get “fleas” than be stupid.”
False dichotomy. One need not get fleas to avoid stupidity.
“BS. Libertarianism and Socialism are on the opposite sides of the spectrum. Make your point, but don’t lie to do it.”
So, if I make a point you don’t like, I’m lying?
As for the oft-repeated falsehood that libertarianism and socialism are far apart, there is one idea that lies at the heart of both.
That idea is that someone — either the individual or some collective — is as a god. That is, humans possess the ability and moral authority to decide matters of right and wrong, without consulting any higher authority.
Where God says sodomy is an abomination, both the libertarian and the socialist feel competent to contradict, to substitute their own judgment for God’s. Ditto for the rest of the commandments.
The serpent told Eve, “You shall be as gods.” The difference between the libertarian and the socialist is only in their interpretation of the word, “you.”
The libertarian thinks the serpent meant the individual, the socialist thinks the serpent meant some arbitrary quorum of people. Either way, the distance between them is a matter of implementation, not fundamental premises.
“Show me ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a libertarian, nuch smaller government, much more individual liberty “socialist.” Just one will do. Thanks in advance.”
Sorry to be confrontational, but you didn’t understand my argument at all. See my note to Dead Corpse above.
“Also, would you say that William F. Buckley or Rush Limbaugh are “libertarians” or conservatives? I know Rush had/has a vice to protect but Bill Buckley was Anti-WOsD...”
No, you don’t know that Limbaugh had a vice to protect. You may have swallowed that canard, but it’s just nonsense.
Intentionally taking drugs for pleasure is a vice; being accidentally addicted by a doctor during the course of treatment for a legitimate medical condition is a tragedy.
Buckley advocated the use of medical marijuana, not the legalization of the recreational use of narcotics.
As for the matter of a “nuch smaller government, much more individual liberty “socialist,” that would be just about every true believer in socialism.
According to the doctrine of the Church of Socialism, once the tyranny of the masses is established, the new, socialist man will replace greedy capitalist man, and the worker’s paradise will emerge. At that point government will wither away and disappear. There will be no government, and everyone will completely free — to do the right thing. And, of course, socialist man will not want to do anything except the right thing.
Which conservatives did I say were attacked in this article?
If you find one let me know.
Take your time, we'll wait.....
boundaries and goals
bookmark
I DID follow your “argument” with Dead Corpse. My question stands.
Also, Buckley advocated decriminalization of HEROIN, not just pot. Was he Conservative or Libertarian?
Rush, it was alleged, went doctor-shopping for his pain meds. Trust me, I KNOW how it feels. I don’t have an addiction but I would not want to not have my pain meds when I need them.
Intentionally taking drugs for recreational purposes is, well, recreation. Tobacco, alcohol, pot, whatever. It is also no legitimate business of the state. At the LOCAL level, perhaps a city could regulate PUBLIC BEHAVIORS while intoxicated, much as they do now. But please point out to me where a war on some drugs is either Conservative or Constitutional. Keeping the Tenth Amendment in mind, please be extremely specific as to where that authority is located.
As for “every true believer,” I suspect that they, like some “conservatives,” are more interested in control over others’ lives than in seeing the State wither away and die. The State is their security, just as it is yours; neither of you could exist without it, without the control it maintains over your life and attempts to maintain over mine and other liberty advocates. I have never met (or heard of) a socialist who thinks at all beyond the all-powerful State. So I’m calling BS on your comment.
Likewise, your brand of “conservative” is deathly afraid of true liberty, where you ARE responsible for your actions, not to the State, but to yourself and your own continued grasp on life itself.
“The libertarian thinks the serpent meant the individual, the socialist thinks the serpent meant some arbitrary quorum of people. Either way, the distance between them is a matter of implementation, not fundamental premises.”
Bunch of lies and nothing but lies. There are MANY pro-life, CHRISTIANS who are libertarians. There is no conflict whatsoever between believing in individual liberty and owing one’s life to God. Not a bit. You are as full of sh!t as the proverbial Christmas goose.
“There are MANY pro-life, CHRISTIANS who are libertarians.”
Either they only think they’re libertarians, or they only think they’re Christians. Can’t be both.
“There is no conflict whatsoever between believing in individual liberty and owing one’s life to God.”
Nobody said there was. Conservatives believe in liberty; libertarians want license.
By the way, contradiction does not constitute rebuttal. I offered an argument in support of my position. Instead of trying to explain why you think it is mistaken, you have chosen to respond only with hysterical insult.
Just saying.
Very short, homely version.
Someone who understands the Constitution and its intent as it was intended by the founding states that agreed to ratify it, based upon their legal histories and not based upon words removed from the world view and assumptions that gave context to the words when they were written.
To ignore the intent assumed by the states represented is to illegally rewrite the Constitution. The Constitution is not an 'evolving' document, so named by liberals to allow liberal judges to illegally 'amend' the Constitution based upon their more 'enlightened' world view and their more 'enlightened' view of morality.
We live in a Republic of laws and not an oligarchy ruled by judges given unlimited authority by the ever expanding breadth of the catch-all fourteeth amendment..
Either they only think they’re libertarians, or they only think they’re Christians. Can’t be both.
As a Christian, pro-life libertarian, I must respectfully disagree.
The very essence of the Jeffersonian, old right, classical liberal or libertarian political philosophy is to live by the golden rule.
Please note also... libertarians are not monolithic, and libertarianism shouldn't be defined by the political platform of the Libertarian party.
“I DID follow your “argument” with Dead Corpse. My question stands.”
The argument to which I referred was not a quarrel with Dead Corpse. I used the word in the sense of “A process of reasoning; series of reasons: ‘I couldn’t follow his argument.’ ”
My argument was my explanation of why I hold my position. If you had understood that explanation, you would have seen that your question is…well, it’s so bad it’s not even wrong. It has nothing to do with anything I said.
“Also, Buckley advocated decriminalization of HEROIN, not just pot.”
Are you and Dead Corpse the same person? Both of you seem to have trouble locating your caps lock key.
Be that as it may, I read Buckley’s writings for years, and don’t remember him ever advocating the legalization of heroin. Perhaps you have a source for that.
“Rush, it was alleged, went doctor-shopping for his pain meds.”
Well, let us by all means accept the allegations of leftist scum. One might think that if their allegations were true, they would have been able to demonstrate that in court, but let’s not let that get in the way of credulity.
“Intentionally taking drugs for recreational purposes is, well, recreation.”
No, it’s a vice, and it is most certainly the legitimate business of the state.
“But please point out to me where a war on some drugs is either Conservative or Constitutional.”
I don’t feel like letting you introduce that into the conversation just now. However, I will note that a person can hold that recreational use of narcotics should be prohibited without endorsing the constitutionality of any measures now in place.
“So I’m calling BS on your comment.”
Call the library instead. Go get yourself some literature on socialism. Educate yourself.
“Likewise, your brand of “conservative” is deathly afraid of true liberty”
You have no idea what “brand” of conservative I am. You don’t even understand what I said in this one thread.
“The very essence of the Jeffersonian, old right, classical liberal or libertarian political philosophy is to live by the golden rule.”
Would that be a reference to the Thomas Jefferson who said, “When (the moral sense) is wanting, we endeavor to supply the defect by education (and religion). These correctives supplied by the moralist, the preacher and legislator lead into a course of correction of those whose depravity is not too profound to be eradicated.”
Is that the Thomas Jefferson who believed that sodomy should be a capital offense?
Please note also... libertarians are not monolithic, and libertarianism shouldn’t be defined by the political platform of the Libertarian party.
Limited government is a fundamental tenet of conservatism. Where libertarianism departs from conservatism is on the question of vices. If you don’t believe in the legalization of vice, you’re not a libertarian. If you do, you are in conflict with the tenets of Christianity.
“I have a vice to protect. I’d like to keep more of my income for my family and not pay so much in taxes to support Big Government.”
Then why would you call yourself a libertarian? You sound like a Reagan Republican.
Your baseball bat idea has merit. I wonder if we could trick Pelosi's Union goons into going after our herd of RINO's...
If you try and equate Libertarianism, based on Laissez-faire Capitalism, with Socialism... Then yes. Libertarianism is predicated as the Individual as supreme arbiter of their life, Socialism that life is subservient to the State.
IOW...YOU ARE LYING.
As for God... my God thinks your God should stick to impressing his desert rats in the Middle East and leave the rest of us alone. Where does that leave you?
Not the most recent platform, I noticed.
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.