OH! Libertarians....? Nevermind....
Posted on 02/27/2013 9:28:02 AM PST by Kaslin
Last week, Conservative pundit Ann Coulter told me and a thousand young libertarians that we libertarians are puss- -- well, she used slang for a female body part.
We were in Washington, D.C., at the Students for Liberty conference, taping my TV show, and she didn't like my questions about her opposition to gay marriage and drug legalization.
"We're living in a country that is 70 percent socialist," she says. "The government takes 60 percent of your money. They take care of your health care, your pensions ... who you can hire ... and you (libertarians) want to suck up to your little liberal friends and say, oh, we want to legalize pot? ... If you were a little manlier, you'd tell liberals what your position on employment discrimination is."
We do, actually. We say employers ought to get to choose whom they hire. They created the business, so they should be allowed to discriminate against stutterers, TV hosts, old people -- anyone they don't want.
But Coulter has a point.
Government rarely makes a dent in people's drug use or their ability to partner with people of their own gender.
"Seventy percent socialism" does much more harm. It kills opportunity and wrecks lives.
But Coulter doesn't just want to downplay "liberal" parts of the libertarian agenda. She opposes them.
When I asked why gays can't marry, she said,
"They can -- they have to marry a member of the opposite sex."
I see why the students were annoyed by Coulter's shtick.
If Republicans were smart, they'd listen to that rising generation of young people who want government to stay not just out of the economy, but out of our personal lives, too.
Fortunately, some Republicans are onboard with that. Another of my guests was Justin Amash, congressman from Michigan.
The young libertarians admire him, in much the same way they admire Republicans like Sens. Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Jeff Flake; Gov. Gary Johnson; and new Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie.
Amash focuses on government spending. He has pictures of libertarian economists like Murray Rothbard in his office, and he warns that big government -- including military spending -- will bankrupt America. He's not afraid to call for cuts in popular programs like Medicare, Head Start and food stamps.
After Amash's complaints about government spending, establishment Republicans in Congress kicked him off the budget committee. One said it was because of the "a--hole factor ... inability to work with other members."
I asked Amash about that.
"It might be because I wanted to balance the budget," says Amash.
"The level of government spending is so insane."
It is. Even if the sequester cuts happen -- cuts the left calls "brutal" -- in eight years the feds will still spend $5.3 trillion annually ... just a little less than the $5.4 trillion they will spend if no cuts are made.
The "brutal" sequester is anything but. Even the much-feared Paul Ryan budget plan would only reduce the federal debt in 2021 from the $26 trillion President Obama projects to ... $23 trillion.
With our economic house in such disarray, Coulter is right to avoid getting bogged down in fights over drugs and homosexuality. But I prefer the way Amash handled the libertarian-conservative conflict.
Michelle Montalvo of Temple University asked him to "comment on your faith and how you reconcile that with your libertarian beliefs? There are stereotypes about libertarian students, that we're Republicans who love to do drugs, (but) we're not all godless."
Amash answered, "I'm an Orthodox Christian ... and I believe that the government is a hindrance, a lot of times, to our religious liberty." But he doesn't want government to promote Christianity. "Get government out of the way, allow people to make choices. We can't legislate morality and force everyone to agree with us."
The young people at the conference worry about the economy. They worry less about drug use and gay sex -- most have come to see those as socially acceptable.
Instead of insulting libertarians or kicking them off congressional committees, it's time for Coulter -- and other Republicans -- to stop suggesting that those who want the government out of their personal lives are morally suspect.
Then we can concentrate on the important things.
in before the zot, too sensible to be tolerated
Seems more and more people are leaning in the direction of ‘get out of personal lives’.
Agreed, as I like to say, we need more Barry Goldwater and less Barry Soetoro.
As long as 'personal lives' are tied to legal issues such as taxation, it is not a 'personal' or even 'social' issue. Many gay people now get married in private ceremonies that have nothing to do with government recognition. The Unitarian church performs these regularly. It is when they demand that the legal definition of marriage be changed that it is no longer a personal matter. The definition has spanned almost all cultures, religions (it isn't just a 'Bible thing' as many put it) and nationalities. It is a recognized legal definition. The Constitution does give Congress the authority to ensure equal application of legal issues (Article 1, Section 8 to 'define standards for weights and measures', legal definitions used in contracts and laws fall under 'measures'). Coulter is right. The law doesn't prevent gay people from getting married, it just defines who they can marry if it is to be a legally recognized marriage contract. It is blind to if someone is gay or straight. The legal definition is a partnership between two people of the opposite sex, who aren't already married, who are not close relatives, and who have reached a minimum age. That is a uniform definition of that legal term that is recognized almost everywhere.
Let me add, although there are some differences, we need to work together against the Federal Leviathan or we are all dead. Ben Franklin was probably the libertarian of his time and we put it, “if we don’t hang together, we will all hang seperately.”
I don’t particularly like Libertarians. I just like to say that I have to bump into them at two sites mainly, The Blaze and youtube. They have some difference with me on defense, war on terror and on drugs. I don’t agree with them. So despite every attempt, I just don’t know how the differences can be bridged.
A bunch of us have always been like that. We need to stop protecting people from their bad decisions.
When you advocate a Nanny State, you really shouldn’t complain when the State obliges you and creates something like the Free Sh*t Army.
Yes. You should be free to screw up your own life. No, don’t expect us to bail you out. No, we don’t want to associate with you until you clean up your act either.
This used to be common sense.
Notice drugs and homos goes hand-in-hand here.
..and I will say that Stossel is falling for the same problem of associating small l libertarian philosophy with big L Libertarian Party. I believe it was William F Buckley who said something along the lines of ‘there is very little libertarian about the Libertarian party’.
It is much of what Ayn Rand complained about the Libertarian Party. She called them the ‘hippies of the right’ who ‘traded rationalism for whims and capitalism for anarchy’. The Libertarian party has always had the problem of trading rationalism for whims. They get hung up on two or three fringe issues (pot for example) and it always seems to be the big base for their arguments. Even Reason Magazine which used to be a strong supporter of small l libertarian values has of late, been almost solely focused on the big L Libertarian Pot issue as if that somehow is the make or break definition of liberty.
EXCEPT he is wrong. It DOES matter what marriage is. I do NOT care if government on all levels gets out of the marriage business, which seems to be the libertarian argument.
But it DOES matter that marriage has a specific definition: the union between a man and a woman. It is the only workable family unit that assures continuation of the species and of any society. It offers a model of a family unit that works, not for the benefit of the couple but for the benefit of the children. That it is not perfect does not change its desirability. That heterosexulas abandon their marrages on whims, only proves the strength of the institution as a device to raise and comfort children.
Homosexuals do not get to change that.
Not having gay marriage IS gubmint staying out of our “personal lives.” Or at least refusing to further intrude upon it, which is what gay marruage fans want. Libertarians are usually more honest about this sort of thing. Either you see a compelling state interest in creating special legal status for gay couples just like we have for heterosexual couples, though I have absolutely no idea what that’d be, or you don’t. In any case creating gay marriage would be inviting more gubmint in, not limiting it.
I agree about prohibition. Unlike the absence of gay marriage it is an intrusion into aspects of our lives which are none of the state’s business.
Where the chasm will never be bridged is between those who believe any kind of activity between consenting adults is to be allowed and those who believe, like I do, there are limits to tolerance. I tolerate a lot of activity, but I don't approve of it. And nobody can force me to tolerate things I don't want to tolerate i.e. homosexual "marriage", bestiality, polygamy, pedophiles. But if Stossel believes homosexuality is irrelevant to today's youth, then he's not paying attention. The NFL players beg to differ.
Amash answered, "I'm an Orthodox Christian ... and I believe that the government is a hindrance, a lot of times, to our religious liberty." But he doesn't want government to promote Christianity. "Get government out of the way, allow people to make choices. We can't legislate morality and force everyone to agree with us."
Amen! I like what John MacArthur has been saying lately: legislating Christian behavior on non-Christians is casting your pearls before swine and trusting government over God.
the Libertarian party would increase their influence 100-fold if instead of pointlessly fielding their own impossible longshot candidates they would endorse the R or D candidate they feel best exemplifies their principles in national senate and congressional races.
the Libertarian party would increase their influence 100-fold if instead of pointlessly fielding their own impossible longshot candidates they would endorse the R or D candidate they feel best exemplifies their principles in national senate and congressional races.
Why does anyone take this woman seriously?
None.
But how moral is it when a corrupt government is putting a gun in your face and forcing you to be "moral" along their guidelines?
If all government disappeared tomorrow... How would you live your life? Would you suddenly go out and start raping, stealing, and doing every drug available? Or would you continue to live as you have, with maybe some additional resources given to protecting yourself against predators?
If 'stay out of my personal life' means appropriating something less than 60% of my labor and resources - let go of their claim of 60% of my LIFE - then I'm all down with the libertarians.
But the silly, completely inconsequential issue of gay marriage makes a mockery of the subject of government intrusion into our lives. Its a twisted little distraction.
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.