Posted on 09/19/2013 9:45:28 AM PDT by shego
The libertarian philosophy is taking the Republican Party by storm, according to a poll conducted by FreedomWorks, a DC-based grassroots service center with over 6 million members.
With Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) and many other liberty-minded politicians gaining influence, libertarianism has generated new interest inside the Republican Party, much to the chagrin of the GOP's political establishment....
"FreedomWorks' poll shows that 42 percent of Republicans have a favorable view of the word ‘libertarian,' and only 10 percent don't know the word, compared to 27 percent who don't know nationally," they added.
And the term "libertarian" may still turn off some Republican voters, the basic message of the philosophy earns significant favor. The poll found that 68% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents agree with the statement that "individuals should be free to do as they like as long as they don't hurt others, and that the government should keep out of people's day-to-day lives."
What's more, an eye-popping 78% of Republicans consider themselves to be "fiscally conservative, but socially moderate," which is a significant finding given the debate in the GOP on social issues.
Looking outside of just the Republican box, the poll found that 66% of respondents consider themselves to fiscally conservative and socially moderate.
These numbers show that the libertarian message is appealing, not only to Republican voters, but also to all Americans; further advancing the case for conservative-libertarian fusionism as a way to promote free market ideals, limited government, and personal liberty....
(Excerpt) Read more at unitedliberty.org ...
Good job ansel12, you’ve turn another possible ally into someone that thinks you are impossible to deal with, way to go! You should write a book.
re state and local levels, I am very much in favor of social issues being decided at the state an local level for all of the reasons you’ve out lined. But some issues need to be dealt with at a national level, were in not for the fact that federal law requires every state to recognize a marriage done in any state I would agree with you 100% on same sex marriage.
Because I’m not speaking to the tangent you’re insisting exists.
My point concerns the definitive meaning of libertarianism which is explicitly the adverse of statism. The value factors you’re addressing are not relevant as they are when discussing liberalism and conservatism.
LOL, what weird kind of senseless comment is that?
This is a conservative political forum, not a philosophy club.
Your politics and sympathies seem to be against the conservative position on homosexuals and gay marriage in the military, for just one example.
which means we are right but that doesn't matter.
My point was that the feds and all government has to make decisions and law in regards to homosexuality.
Conservatives and libertarians/lefties, disagree on what those laws and decisions should be.
Do you know what relevancy means?
A Libertarian is just a stoned out, baby-killing boy-raper, who wants smaller government.
Not sure why you insist on being a jackass, but that’s your problem. Bye.
I guess that you have made enough personal insults and non-relevant, evasive, escapist posts that you feel that you would have to either move on or start speaking openly and addressing the subject or what embracing liberal/libertarian social “values” means for the GOP.
I’ve been too busy to jump into this thread, just have seen a few comments the last couple of days.
If people insist on using the word “libertarian” and then repeatedly insist they don’t agree with (some/whatever) the Libertarian Party platform, and get mad when people talk about the LP platform, they’re just acting crazy.
Get a new word. If people keep using the word “libertarian”, it means they agree with the LP. If they didn’t, they’d use another word.
I like to call myself a “Constitutionalist”. Because the fedgov should limit itself ONLY to what its responsibilities are in the Constitution. The LP, otoh, is a pro-vice pro-open borders hodge podge of kookdom that makes a false claim of being for smaller government. Its positions are contradictory, puerile, impractical and downright harmful.
So libertarians must want to see the ruckus they create by using the word “libertarian” and then getting angry when connected with the LP.
More insanity.
The reality is that there is no difference, big L little l, party/not party, it is all the same, that is why they never disagree and go at each other’s throats here at freerepublic, and it is also why almost all their posting is a defense of the same positions as the party.
It also explains their both interchangeably raging at social conservatives.
I have never seen an FR thread where the little l and big L rage was not directed at the social conservatives, never is it a war between the two supposedly opposing enemies who call themselves libertarian, that is a phony cult-like tale.
Should a person have the right to declare himself to be the life partner of his dog, his Yugo, and the number 57? Sure, why not? Such declaration wouldn't mean anything, but if saying it makes the guy feel better, good for him. However, on the flip side, the fact that the person has the right to declare himself the life partner of those things does not give the person any right to demand that anyone attach any significance whatsoever to such declaration.
It's worth noting that the government's primary interest in marriage stems from establishing the paternity and legitimacy of children resulting from the sexual union implied thereby. Civil unions (including among heterosexual people who would be ineligible to get married) could serve all other purposes which marriage would serve.
Excellent points. The small “l” libertarians who make the claim that they are not all on board with the LP never, ever state in which ways they disagree, or get angry that the LP uses the name they use. They only attack morality.
It’s crystal clear to anyone who doesn’t use drugs, which of course they all want legalized and claim they don’t use, personally.
In any case, governments both in this country and England were interested in protecting and preserving marriage and the family until the middle of the 20th Century, irrespective of the issue of marriage license. Libertarians of any school are wrong with their stance of neutrality on the matter of marriage.
Give it a rest.
Marriage licenses go back many centuries, before that, banns, before that other formalities or laws.
There is always and has always been a legal definition of marriage imposed, whether by tribal law, or what we call government, or what we call a ruling religion or church.
People can and always could just make up whatever relationships they wanted to in secret, it just didn’t count as a legal marriage.
Thanks, libertarianism is not in disagreement with it's party.
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.