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 ...
in a la la land world then yes but in the real world of America then no, it does not work like that as we can see by the feds and homosexuals moving to states suing for adoption, divorce etc.
When I hear that argument then it sounds great but devolve a little more and you;ll find what their platform is way out there.
pilgrims and founding fathers used judges, i.e yes the govt to marry each other so for these people to shout any kind of marriage and get Govt out is pure bumper sticker slogans
clear to us but there are some who seem to think that they should come on a conservative website and then preach their perverted out of mainstream loony agenda.
Course they use their usual slogans of freedom and no Govt but devolve a little more and ask questions and we see their real agenda, anarchy no laws
one of the most correct posts on this thread.
Judges married many while when this country was founded
Libertarians have a political agenda, and part of that agenda is war against marriage and a conservative America.
This is a political position.
“”Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.””
Libertarians are political activists, they promote their libertarian beliefs at all levels of government, the PTA, city govt. County, State, Federal, it is the politics of their life, their agenda, their goal and plan for America.
One of the cult like distractions that libbers try in regards to marriage, is when after we all know how anti-God and anti-Christian, and anti-American their ideology is, they pretend to want only religion to determine legal marriage, that Americas shouldn’t have any laws pertaining to marriage (which is impossible of course).
As jarring as that is when they suddenly try that tack, it only takes a minute to realize that they really are sneaking around to another approach to there not being any such thing as “marriage”, because in America there is no such thing as a “religion”, Islam, Mormonism, the church of the gay goats, atheism, in other words that sleazy tack is meant to fool a poor Conservative Christian who is not listening closely and thinks it means preserving Christian marriage as the law of the land.
In typical libertarian fashion, they want to eliminate marriage as it is first, with nothing to follow.
>> 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.
There is no reason to get a new word nor is there an obligation to accept your premise describing agreement. What’s lacking is the intellectual ability to differentiate definitions that concern enforcement from definitions that concern social values. I understand definitions can be an inconvenience when emotional commitments are at stake, but the definitions stand for reason.
Any ruckus or wrath that I express is usually directed to those outside the forum with the exception of those that recklessly project depraved traits upon their fellow FReepers.
FRegards, lj.
statism
- - - - - - - -
Political system in which central government has a major role
libertarianism
- - - - - - - -
Political philosophy that emphasizes the importance of personal liberty and political freedom, with strict limits on state activity
conservatism
- - - - - - - -
A political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes
liberalism
- - - - - - - -
A political orientation that favors social progress by reform and by changing laws rather than by revolution
Don’t be a statist!
Reading sloganeering is very boring. When and if libertarians eschew the platform of the Libertarian Party, then we can have an honest discussion. Or, alternately, if they honestly say they agree with the LP platform.
Until that time, slogans are boring. Very, very boring.
I am not:
a statist
a liberal
a conservative
a leftist
a libertarian
I am a constitutionalist. And I agree with the founders many of whom made very clear statements about the necesity of morality being the foundation of society and that our form of government will not work if the people in general are immoral.
Another point is that libertarians who say the fedgov should not be making legislation about morality, I agree 100%. The states should have the freedom to make such laws.
But libertarians don’t want the states to make such laws, either. So they are basically a mixture of anarchists, ultra leftists and kooks.
Libertarianism is a cult. Blind believers who spout and repeat slogans and can neither think rationally or discuss honestly. And who are unified in their loathing of moral absolutes.
What is the libertarian position on the military accepting homosexuals, or recognizing soldiers who were legally gay married in some states as long as they recognize heterosexual marriage, as they have since even before the constitution was ratified?
I have no problem with libertarians holding liberal views on abortion and gay marriage. But I do have a problem with libertarians’ seeming embrace of having judges impose their liberal social views. This is especially true since the type of judge likely to impose gay marriage or abortion on demand is also likely to gut Second Amendment and private property rights.
And I have a big problem with libertarians absurd and self-defeating support for mass immigration. First of all, to view people as simply units of labor is absurd. Second, it’s simply amazing that libertarians could believe that their views have any appeal to most immigrants. They seem to think that people who leave big government, statist societies will reject those things once given a chance. There is no evidence of this, but still they insist on believing a fantasy. Most immigrants, and their succeeding generations for decades to come, will not embrace small government.
Sure, definitions are boring, but they’re not slogans. I hope a constitutionalist would agree.
The fed should set the minimum age of consent to be at least the age required for military service, and protect nascent life. The states can handle the rest.
I regularly make myself clear concerning the quality of LP.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3068726/posts?page=173#173
You see the cult methods on every such libertarian thread, they are passionate, angry, devoted, yet you can't get them to actually reveal what their beliefs are openly.
Here we are on a political forum and they don't want to reveal their actual political positions on the issues of concern here, yet they do want to argue against conservatism, just in a cult like way.
Cults want to take you on a journey and know that they can't tell you where, so they sound like the two bit con men with a hidden, unpleasant agenda that they are, to someone with a discerning ear.
One well known cult calls it feeding the potentials "milk before meat".
Libertarians prefer to keep things vague, they are radical political activists, passionate, driven, preachy and wordy, yet formless and concealed, even here (especially here) where political issues are the subject.
Very accurate.
It’s like trying to wrassle with a loud ghost that you can barely see and can’t seem to touch.
The problem with your position is we now have a tyranny of immorality, greed, socialism/progressivism, corportatism and a bunch of other very evil isms.
The horse is out of the barn - in fact, the entire herd is out of the barn, got stolen, killed, turned into dogfood, and the dogs that ate it died of old age.
What to do now is the question. And no one has an answer.
“Electing better people” won’t work. Why? Because the machinery of gov is mostly non-elected, and the vast sums - oceans - of money required for elections is so huge that very few can get that money without the “blessings” of one of the parties (which are both utterly corrupt, esp the dems but the GOP has become the bitch of the dems) and/or other monied interests who then own the candidate.
Add to that the massive cancer like election fraud and elections just don’t make a difference any more.
I would like to know if you could clearly enunciate whether you think the states can have laws, for instance, against sodomy, whether homosexuals should be in the military, whether abortion is a states’ rights issue, and whether all “recreational” drugs should be legalized.
Oh, and what’s your view of the LP open borders to everyone policy?
The thing you’re swatting at has two distinct definitions going under one name. No wonder you can’t ever land a broadside on “it.”
One is purely about political method. George Washington’s era with its explicit Christian ethic would actually be seen as that kind of libertarian, with respect to our era. If you actually bothered to look at Gene Eric’s own freep page you’d notice it, if (as applicable) you were not quite so packed with the desire to damn everyone you disagree with right to hell. (Christians especially should know better, but how many Christians take biblical dictums right to the root of their metaphysical implications? I do, and it’s been a real revolution for me. One of those implications is that this is not the time for damning people. Criticize philosophies all you want. Fight demons with gusto. But don’t damn any person.)
Anyhow about the subject: Another definition of libertarianism is with respect to what we generally know as Judeo-Christian morality. Love God and your neighbor, with all that entails. Here’s where that kind of libertarianism falls down and breaks its crown, but badly. “Abstain from force or fraud” is something like the shadow of a shadow of a shadow. It doesn’t even serve as a good picture of God’s economy.
And notice I said all this without damning anybody.
LOL, that was a perfect example of what we are talking about, it was useless and meaningless, not saying anything.
The article of this thread is promoting how wonderful it is that republicans and the nation is moving left on social issues, we conservatives disagree with you libertarians, and want to oppose the loss of our nation to the left’s/rinos/libertarian social liberalism.
Yes, you directed a self-blinding personal broadside at me. And you proved MY point to me quite nicely. Such attacks hurt you by kicking more blinding smoke in your own face than they ever make an impact upon what you claim you are trying to influence.
That’s just plain TRUE. You make equal sport in heaven and in hell right now. You achieve nothing. Ab-so-lute-ly NOTHING.
What is the purpose of that kind of posting? It is merely chatty and talkative, a waste of words, non responsive.
And notice that in your high dudgeon you just turned your nose right up at what was offered you right on a silver platter, a devastating critique in very few words about what is wrong with MORAL libertarianism.
Now if you want to keep on conflating MORAL libertarianism with POLITICAL systems that go under that name but mean different things (and which can be very copacetic with Judeo-Christianity)... well go right ahead and parade your ignorance. But try not to be too offended when you get laughed at.
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.