Posted on 08/03/2013 6:35:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
The very first bit of anti-libertarian humor I ever posted was this clever video about the anarcho-capitalist paradise of Somalia.
I then shared two cartoons, one on libertarian ice fishing and the other showinglibertarian lifeguards.
That was followed by a very funny list of the 24 types of libertarians.
But I haven’t shared anything making fun of people like me since this “think I do” montage last year.
Thanks to Buzzfeed, however, we now have something new for our collection. They came up with “23 Libertarian Problems” and here are two of my favorites from the list.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.townhall.com ...
Actually in 1770, promoting abortion and homosexuality would have probably gotten the death penalty.
libertarianism would not have been well received, or even tolerated.
Before the 1960s sodomy was a felony in every state.
...and three dozen more libertarian-leaning people.
I think the point is we need to ask on a Federal level, “what would the Constitution say?” I think on almost all social matters, the Constitution would be silent and leave such things up to the States (as long as it does not violate the Constitution itself) or the people themselves. Take same-sex marriage, under our system you’d have States that would allow it legally, not allow it legally or just leave it to the people and not get involved. That’s the ideal situation.
___________________________
Well-put!
That’s not exactly Sowell’s definition is it? Sowell said it meant conserving stuff. What stuff? Any stuff.
Are there any conservatives that believe in preserving everything just because it passes once? No. Buckley didn’t believe that either.
If you have a bad definition of conservativism, then it’s not accurate to say that one rejects what conservativism actually believes. This is really a ‘straw man’ on his part.
I love Sowell, but this isn’t really the best argument against his conservativism. It is a good argument against his libertarianism because he explicitly cites a substantive policy portion wherein he disagrees.
So you want marriage to cease to exist, and to just let people call whatever they want, marriage.
____________________________
That is what they are doing now.
_______________________
And you want all of those relationships treated as and funded as “marriage” in the military?
___________________________
Again that is what they are doing now.
“there is no question that abortion is a matter left to the states,”
Again, the position that abortion is wrong because it kills a living person would reject this position altogether. If the unborn child is living then states do not have jurisdiction to kill them.
“We are so conditioned by the leftwing desire to federalize every issue”
Personhood is a federal issue. Do you contest this?
“If it does not break any State or local laws and is OK with the parents/guardian, I have no problem.”
If a girl is old enough to get an abortion without her parent’s consent, then why ought she seek parental consent to purchase alcohol?
. If the unborn child is living then states do not have jurisdiction to kill them.
______________________________________
Actually the death penalty is a good example of some states having it and other states forgoing it. The states do decide they have jurisdiction to make that decsion
That is a fantasy.
It ignores that the feds also have to deal with marriage issues and always have, and it denies the reality that states recognize each other's marriages, and that once it started, gay marriage became a reality for all states.
Only 9 states "allow" the concept of common law marriage, yet all 50 states and the federal government recognize them, as long as they were legal in their original state.
Why quote and respond to a debunked, dishonest post?
It’s amazing because it’s like arguing or conversing with lunatics in a mental asylum. Only the lunatics think they’re the doctors....
Why would you worry about atheistic Communism, or British witch trials which had nothing to do with America, those were a 100 years before the United States existed.
Do you really want to embarrass yourself this badly in an attempt to mock the founding of America?
The problem that I have with many who call themselves Libertarians is that they don’t support freedom of religious thought. They demand a political correctness on homosexuality that denies the freedom to support the religious tenets. They demand approval of homosexual activity rather than just tolerance. That is not very Libertarian.
If being pro-all vice and condemning those who condemn vice is not Libertarian, then why do libertarians believe in that? I don’t know how many people on FR claim they’re libertarians but don’t adhere to the Libertarian Party platform (although trying to get them to be clear on which parts they don’t adhere to is downright impossible), so why call themselves libertarian (large L or small) if they don’t adhere to the LP platform?
There’s either lying going on or people need to think of another name to call themselves.
What does the Libertarian party platform say?
Inform yourself. It won’t hurt.
Really, the Death penalty and Abortion, the same thing?
This is insanity.
You do a good job of pointing out why “conservative” is as much of a misnomer as “liberal”. These days, “liberals” want more of the status quo and/or more government, while “conservatives” want radical change.
Sowell is a “libertarian” in the sense of the word as applied to the men by which he was influenced. Hayek wrote Why I Am Not a Conservative, and Friedman wrote The Tyranny of the Status Quo, for example. Sowell is probably a classical liberal (like Adam Smith) more than anything else, but to say that these days would create even more confusion. As the term relates to people like Sowell, “classical liberal” has been replaced in modern parlance by “libertarian”, mostly due to the progressive movement’s corruption of “liberal”. “Libertarian” in this sense, with the small “l”, is distinct from Libertarian Party, and I feel a little bit awkward even having to say that in a discussion with what I take to be an intelligent person. Forgive me if that was pedantic.
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.