Posted on 08/18/2013 12:38:51 PM PDT by Kaslin
The good thing about being a libertarian is that you are motivated by freedom, which is a very noble principle, and you have lots of evidence on your side, whether the issue is economics or personal liberty.
You can’t afford to be smug, of course, since it’s still a big uphill battle to convince politicians not to engage in plunder.
But at least you can sleep soundly at night knowing that you’re on the side of the angels.
And that even means you have self-confidence about your ideas and you can laugh when someone puts together some clever anti-libertarian humor.
Here’s the latest example, sent to me by a TV journalist.
What makes this funny is that libertarians are sometimes quick to defend their rights, even when nobody’s trying to take them away.
Which is why we sometimes get pigeonholed as being weird, like the family in the lower left of this poster, or paranoid, like the guy in the #8 spot of this poster.
But let’s be thankful that there are some libertarians willing to raise a stink about government even if the rest of the world thinks we’re a bit odd. As we’ve seen dozens of times, most recently with the IRS and NSA, bureaucrats and politicians have a compulsive tendency to grab more power and make government more intrusive.
I started yesterday’s post with a mother-in-law joke, so I’ll end today’s post by mentioning the fable of the frog that gets put in a pot of water and doesn’t jump out because the temperature feels comfortable. But then the heat is slowly raised and the frog no longer has the energy to escape when he finally figures out he’s being cooked.
Well, libertarians are the ones who loudly complain when the government puts us into pots.
Libertarians are right-on when it comes to economics and preserving choice. But the more extreme versions are hostile to law enforcement and the military, believing that if we leave the thugs alone, they will leave us alone. This does not work with the thugs across the street, and it won’t work with the communist and Islamic thugs running foreign countries.
” If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”
- Ronald Reagan, July 1975
Sorry. Not buying it. If the gop stands for so little that it can be “infiltrated” by a group that is so small and marginalized as the LP then good for the libertarians.
some lines just write themselves don’t they?
So you admit that libertarians are, as I made reference in a previous post, stealth infiltrators? Would to God you would leave us alone and do your stealthy infiltrating in the other party, your moral soul mates. You could have joined in with them in their last convention when they tried to vote God out.
What do you mean by "preserving choice"? What kinds of choices?
The LP party platform, which it seems most libertarians agree with, has nothing at all to do with the vision and principles that founded our country.
It’s all about extreme hedonist licence.
Rand Paul’s immigration speech
03.19.13 | Hon Sen Rand Paul (KY)
Posted on 03/19/2013 7:04:07 AM PDT by Perdogg
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2998395/posts
...The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.
Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.
Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation.
Let’s start that conversation by acknowledging we aren’t going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.
If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you...
This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society.
Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.
[but he’s not against amnesty, snicker, definition of is is ping]
Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt’s Generals:
‘How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?’
Foreign Policy | 15 Aug 2013 | John Hudson
Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3055253/posts
Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt’s military — even as Cairo’s security forces massacre anti-government activists.
Say what? For the record, I think that the gop wing of the uniparty is only slightly less loathesome than it’s allies in the ‘rat faction of the uniparty. Neither faction is conservative, neither faction gives one whit about the Constitution or the people or the country. I would be fine with either or both being infiltrated by martians let alone libertarians whom I even occasionally agree with.
As for “admitting” that libertarians are infiltrating the gop, I’m not a libertarian, so I don’t know what they’re doing. But if they are then good for them. They couldn’t do any worse job.
The situation is indeed loathsome, except for Ted Cruz, who do we have up there that’s fighting for us? As a Christian conservative, I can count on Cruz on the issues that mean the most to me.
Where I differ from you is pinning my hopes on ANY libertarian. They talk a good line on certain things, but there isn’t an iota of difference between them and the democrats on moral issues.
The Founders were at least vaguely libertarian. For instance, there was no such thing as an illegal drug in the late 18th century. I am sure that they would have certainly thought that a government that had the power to control what someone ingested into their body in the privacy of their own home was a tyranny. BTW, please quote me an article, clause or ammendment in the Constitution where it says that the government can make it illegal for me to sit in my own home and eat, drink, smoke or inject ANYTHING into my own body.
I am not a drug user, and contrary to what many of you on here think, I suspect most libertarians are not either. It’s a principled stand, does the government have the power to control what we do with our own bodies? If so, then why do we fight against laws like Nanny Bloomberg’s ban on large sodas, for instance? The principle is the same.
Now, FWIW, I am not a hardcore libertarian. I do think we need to maintain our armed forces and project our power into the world. I do think police, firefighters, etc. should be public employees. I do think some governmental regualation is necessary; I wouldn’t want to live in a society where the person who is about to perform surgery on me is potentially unqualified, for example. However, in many cases, libertarians do a better job of adhering to the Constitution than conservatives.
The Founders were at least vaguely libertarian. For instance, there was no such thing as an illegal drug in the late 18th century. I am sure that they would have certainly thought that a government that had the power to control what someone ingested into their body in the privacy of their own home was a tyranny. BTW, please quote me an article, clause or ammendment in the Constitution where it says that the government can make it illegal for me to sit in my own home and eat, drink, smoke or inject ANYTHING into my own body.
I am not a drug user, and contrary to what many of you on here think, I suspect most libertarians are not either. It’s a principled stand, does the government have the power to control what we do with our own bodies? If so, then why do we fight against laws like Nanny Bloomberg’s ban on large sodas, for instance? The principle is the same.
Now, FWIW, I am not a hardcore libertarian. I do think we need to maintain our armed forces and project our power into the world. I do think police, firefighters, etc. should be public employees. I do think some governmental regualation is necessary; I wouldn’t want to live in a society where the person who is about to perform surgery on me is potentially unqualified, for example. However, in many cases, libertarians do a better job of adhering to the Constitution than conservatives.
Libertarians frequently lump sexual laws and drug laws together when discussing laws they believe illegitimate.
The problem with your theory is that the Founders passed and enforced all sorts of sexual laws at the state level that would appall most today, even most conservatives. Tom Jefferson, for instance, pushed a law in the VA legislature that prescribed castration for sodomy. It was voted down.
OTOH, they had a number of laws that most today would believe way too lenient. The age of consent in most states was either 10 or 12 till late in the 19th century, when Progressives got them raised, one of their few indisputably positive actions.
I think it is more relevant that the Founders put almost no restrictions on what a state could do to regulate its own citizens within the state. Their big fear was excessive federal power, because it would override the states. They appeared to have little fear that anything the states would do would be tyrannical.
Libertarians frequently lump sexual laws and drug laws together when discussing laws they believe illegitimate.
The problem with your theory is that the Founders passed and enforced all sorts of sexual laws at the state level that would appall most today, even most conservatives. Tom Jefferson, for instance, pushed a law in the VA legislature that prescribed castration for sodomy. It was voted down.
OTOH, they had a number of laws that most today would believe way too lenient. The age of consent in most states was either 10 or 12 till late in the 19th century, when Progressives got them raised, one of their few indisputably positive actions.
I think it is more relevant that the Founders put almost no restrictions on what a state could do to regulate its own citizens within the state. Their big fear was excessive federal power, because it would override the states. They appeared to have little fear that anything the states would do would be tyrannical.
Why don’t you finish the rest of that quote?
Or do you like engaging in half-truths?
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals.
Reagan could see - way back in 1975 - that the Lib party was being corrupted. Now anyone can see the corrpution is complete. The Lib Party is as bad as the Democrats.
You know nothing about me, and have a very odd imagination.
A rather lame claim.
Of course Reagan wasn’t an anarchist. Neither are most libertarians, nor Libertarians, for that matter.
You are a libertarian, aren't you? That's all I need to know. It's no great mystery to understand what libertarians are all about. Conservative they aren't.
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.
