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.
Typical bad reasoning and name calling.
i left lp because of abortion amongst others.
People have the right to life so why would the constitution address abortion
The first question you answer. Don’t know what gives the Feds any say over marriage
You have no strong reasons to support the war on drugs except typical nanny state.
See both of us can name call
If you come back with that weaka$$ bs I
Ll not respond, so bring your a game.
...the Judeo-Christian foundation was necessary starting point for our country, as it had a balance between the rights of the individual along with their responsibility to their fellow man.
In short, liberty is summed up in this ethic. License is any deviation from it. Now, you may claim that I am being moralistic, but all law is derived from someone's morality.
OK.... here we go..
I am a small l libertarian. I, like most small l libertarians beleive..
1) that abortion is not only wrong, but is not a power granted to the federal government. Get the feds out of this area of our lives ( by default, according to our constitution, this becomes a 10th amendment issue )
2) the war on drugs is a dismal failure. This is not about “smoking pot” as so many so called conservatives insist. This is a basic liberty and financial issue. How many have been killed, imprisoned, or had there homes disassembled in the name of the war on drugs? How many alphabet agencies sole existence is due to the war on drugs? how much money and human capital is spent?
3) back to the war on drugs. How come my doctor cannot prescribe painkillers to me without PERMISSION from the feds? How come i cannot go into the drugstore and buy antihistimines without signing my name? this war on drugs has crawled into everyone’s personal lives.. look at rush limbaugh and his medical history splattered all over the news.. war on drugs..
3) gay marriage... not a power granted to the feds, so by default, it is a 10th amendment issue.
4) what part of the words “illegal immigrant” are so hard to understand. illegal means illegal. go to jail, then go back home and do it the right way.
5) the best defense is an overwhelming and sustainable offensive capability. However, this does not make us the worlds policemen...
So, with this all in mind, how far apart are we really?
That’s not personal responsibility that’s government responsibility.
Most libertarians and conservatives I know object to their tax money being wasted on pipe dreams and hopeless causes.
What responsibility to one's fellow man does one fail by smoking pot?
Also: Where in the Constitution do you see the rights to restrict marriage to straights only?
And.... Where in the Constitution do you see the rights to deny an abortion?
The trouble with you liberals is that you treat the Constitution as toilet paper
Backward - it's your dismissing Constitutional concerns as "typical liberal talking points" that is treating the Constitution as toilet paper.
#1> no one may be deprived of life without due process of law guaranteed by the constitution. That makes it a federal issue, not a 10th issue.
#4> congress is given sole authority in Article 1 section 8 to set clear standards for measures such as legal terms. Again not a 10th issue.
I’ll get to the others when I’m not on my tablet.
So, with this all in mind, how far apart are we really?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As East is from the West. Look - I get it. Libertarians are the reason why The GOP is stuck with RINO’s and why us SoCons will never ever likely have any political voice in DC.
You libs have more - much more - in common with the Democratic Party than the traditional Republican Party, and while I mourn the loss of the country I once knew, I will NOT endorse your ideals.
Considering what the establishment offers up every cycle, that's like choosing the venereal disease that's just right for me.
ROTFL!
VD is easier to get rid of.
Well, until pot is legalized OR unless one grows his own, he is failing his fellow man by supporting drug dealers and suppliers who are responsible for a large percentage of crime and deaths in the country.
If one grows his own, and wants to go through life stoned and stupid, that is his decision. But I don't think legalizing his vice is beneficial to him or to society as a whole.
Free Republic, 364 days out of the year:
"You libertarians are all dope fiends and light in the loafers. You're all smelly hippies, and God hates you. Get out of our movement, get out of FR, and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way."
Free Republic, the day after election day:
"Hey, how come you libertarians didn't vote for our guy?"
now i get it..
debate and discussion is out of the question..
better to call names and alienate..
are you really a conservative, or just a gop-e operative??
it is fairly obvious from your many responses that you just do not believe in either the constitution, or personal responsibility...
just sign your name on the document labeled “Nanny State Supporter” and move on...
And yet different states have different definitions of what constitutes "murder" and differing penalties. We don't have a federal law against murder, yet amazingly enough it's pretty rare.
Well, until pot is legalized OR unless one grows his own, he is failing his fellow man by supporting drug dealers and suppliers who are responsible for a large percentage of crime and deaths in the country.
And once pot is legalized he is not. Would a user of legal pot be failing his responsibility to his fellow man in any way?
If one grows his own, and wants to go through life stoned and stupid, that is his decision.
Not now it isn't. Do you agree that it should be?
But I don't think legalizing his vice is beneficial to him or to society as a whole.
Liberty may not be "beneficial" - but it's not the proper business of government to restrict his liberties for his "benefit" or society's, any more than it should mandate a personally or societally "beneficial" bedtime for him. Liberals argue that Obamacare is "beneficial to society as a whole" - do we have to argue that it isn't to argue against Obamacare, or is liberty a good in itself?
funny, I saw 72 posts above this one of just that. Or are you really upset he isn't just bending over and agreeing with you?
Ideas like strict adherence to the Constitution.
Yeah... We get your message loud and clear.
"Freedom is icky, we're all Evil and need a Nanny State to make us all behave."
Old hat from you guys...
Free Republic, the day after election day:
"Hey, how come you libertarians didn't vote for our guy?"
LMAO! This thread is full of funny posts - and in your case the humor was intentional.
Here are some other great truths I posted within that thread.
A person doing 120mph on an empty highway is a threat only to himself and as such that person should solely bear the consequences of his actions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GeronL didn’t say empty highway, now did he. And these useless dopers are not on any empty highway in our society, now are they?
Nope, while you cheer them on in their right to crush themselves, their loved ones and our society in the pursuit of dangerous drugs, don’t forget to smile as you pay more and more taxes to sustain their sorry welfare funded existence.
Or do you naively believe these cretins are healthy productive members of society and besides... the taxes that the gubmint would be collecting will cover any problems?
Wow.
Bookmarked.
Wow?
Assign my statement to parents right over a child. Still stay wow? How about some felon tried and convicted by a jury of his peers and is in prison and a warden is in control of his rights and freedoms? No wow there, is it?
Me? I would demand and expect welfare recipients and Section 8 citizens be subjected to random drug tests. Why should they get a pass when I - as a tax paying productive citizen - have to pee in a cup to get a job and they don’t, yet they collect thousands in taxpayer monies.
You don’t think I have a right to control that aspect of their life? Sure you do.
So yeah. Use drugs and live an immoral, unproductive, socially damaging illegal lifestyle and clean your ears out as I repeat:
I DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTROL YOU.
(Bookmark this too.)
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.