Posted on 09/30/2013 9:24:47 AM PDT by shego
During his Ironman 21-hour speech, Sen. Ted Cruz read excerpts from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, name-dropped "libertarians" at least six times, and yielded to Sen. Rand Paul, who invoked Frederic Bastiat's "What is Seen and Unseen," a favorite among libertarians.
Ted Cruz, who retained remarkable composure over the long night, seems in all things deliberate. Political leaders seem to have become more comfortable talking about libertarians, even identifying themselves as such. Libertarians may have reached a tipping point within the Republican Party.
Last week, a FreedomWorks study on public opinion found that libertarian views within the Republican Party are at the highest point in a decade, today representing 41 percent of Republican voters....
We define libertarians as those who favor "smaller government" and think government should not promote "traditional values." Using this method, FreedomWorks data show that 41 percent of Republicans and Republican leaning independents are libertarian today.
Two separate data sources, Gallup and ANES, show the same trend: that libertarian views are at the highest point in a decade....
Of course, as I've have noted previously, not all these libertarians self-identify as such and many don't know the word. But even that seems to be changing, and it's not just Ted Cruz.
Sen. Rand Paul calls himself a "libertarian-leaning Republican." Glenn Beck now considers himself libertarian, saying "I'm a lot closer to Penn Jillette than I am to Chuck Hagel." Matt Drudge recently tweeted his frustration with Republicans on Syria, saying it's now "authoritarian vs. libertarian." According to FreedomWorks' poll, only 10 percent of Republicans "don't know" the word libertarian, compared to 27 percent nationally.
The data confirm that libertarian views may well have reached a tipping point in the Republican Party.
(Excerpt) Read more at cato.org ...
So you support homosexual equality and marriage in the military and in immigration and abortion and the rest of the libber agenda, what are you doing here among these conservatives?
You can shove at us a few fringe platform planks of a fringe party, but you’re missing the true principles of libertarianism.
Reagan said it is the “heart” of the Republican party. Not the whole body, but the most important key to survival.
This libertarian is anti-abortion, wants to get government out of the marriage issue, wants to eliminate the welfare that attracts illegal immigrants, and supports barring anyone from military service whose presence undermines the Constitutional purpose of a military.
I’d take a libertarian federal government (even a Libertarian one) over what we have now, or have had for the last generation or two.
Conservatism needs to be based on deeper principles than “what I think is best.” Libertarianism in its fundamentals provides just that.
Pretty much how I see it SoCon....they create more diversion and division then they help in any given issue and this because you never know for sure which side of the aisle they’re going to come down on.
Like McCain who I kept believing what he said and he continually moved his position....I learned he is also useless in every respect....so too with Libs...
Every single law that exists is based on a moral viewpoint.
Obvious nonsense.
Which of these acts is intrinsically evil?
1. Driving on the right side of the road
2. Driving on the left side of the road
You’re the one who is walking away from the important principle (rolling back government arrogations of power).
Obviously, those are examples of legitimate laws, necessary to keep peace and order.
The problem is the use of spuriously asserted "moral" rationalizations for enforcing one's sectarian preferences.
There is not much space between us on taxes, spending, energy, Obamacare, unionism, welfare, etc.
Also, drug use becomes much less of an issue once the “social” fallout is dealt with in a more “libertarian” way. Ie; no handouts for drug addicts. Sink or learn to swim. With everyone toting personal armaments, being a bath-salted zombie will get you killed quickly. Addiction can either be treated as a medical issue then, under your own insurance not government subsidized, or it becomes a self-correcting problem.
No more illegal invasion because there’s no welfare paradise to exploit (and I don’t mind the motivated workers - for whom there will be plenty of room in the legal process). And people who don’t like the ones that come here can move to states whose laws are hostile to them.
Gay marriage efforts fall flat when there’s no financial spousal benefits at the end of the rainbow, because federal discrimination based on marital status is now illegal. And if you don’t like gays who parade naked or have showy weddings, you can move to a state whose laws are hostile to what you don’t like.
Etc.
And I like your point about how the right to bear arms is an excellent defense/deterrent/sanitizer of drug zombies, and other vermin.
A very reasonable position. I’m a libertarian who does not have a problem with drugs (including pot) continuing to be illegal as long as (1) the determination is at the state not the federal level, and (2) we return to non “war” law enforcement (no military weapons and tactics, no asset confiscation).
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
without realizing what it really implies, that if people are "immoral", one can force them to be "moral" only through extra-Constitutional means.
Another libertarian benefit:
There may be freedom of certain people (government workers) to unionize, but there is also freedom of certain people (the taxpayers, through there elected officials) to fire those who unionize.
Both points are fine with me. I don’t see any reason for having a separate body of federal drug laws (or most federal laws, for that matter.)
Had drugs not been an issue the government would have used something else. If they adjudicated it today the target would be the owners of scary black guns or fundamentalist Christians. The sheeple today would sacrifice almost anything to be protected from those kinds of threats.
Exactly so...
And thank you. :-)
Social liberalism/libertarian social positions only leads to more government and more voters voting for personal gain, the last 50 years of social destruction and libertarian social gains has proven that.
Looking at the voting data today we see social liberals overwhelmingly voting liberal, and social conservatives overwhelmingly voting conservative.
You really don’t know the difference in the voting patterns of atheists/non religious, versus religious/Evangelicals?
If the libertarian party is successful in it’s social agenda, then conservatism and America is doomed.
Because this is flatly wrong (I didn't have anything to do with DOMA or anything on the legal status of "homosexual marriage") and not worthy of a reply.
Apparently because I maintain that there are portions of life that the [federal] government does not have proper authority over, you wish to ascribe to me every manner of evil your mind can conjecture. I can only surmise that this is because I dare to imagine limits on the god you worship: government.
Moreover, I disagree with your "solution" precisely because you "solution" does nothing to address the issue: you are obsessed with the legality/legalisms when it is most obviously an issue of the heart. The law does not, and cannot, change the heart: it can only condemn. The best, and most effective, way to solve the problem therefore is something that changes hearts: fortunately for humanity, God's in that business.
Your reaction is indifference, and no denial, so Yeah, I think we know where you are at, that and your war against conservatives at freerepublic such as on this thread.
Thank you for illuminating another of you egregious errors: non-answer is not the same as an affirmative answer.
I hope you aren't a lawyer or judge, because that mentality is utterly incompatible with the 5th Amendment.
If Republicans view every Democrat victory as their victory (and strive for those victories), then is this not functionally the same as being one party?
The new Conservative party is forming and it consists of Tea party and Libertarians.
Oh, this I got.
That’s a two part savings deal there.
Having laws that actually punish real crimes (ie; crimes where there is a real Perp, a real Victim, and actual damage done) and a populace fully armed and able to defend itself means that law enforcement deals mostly with cleaning up the bodies of dead perps. Making sure the right body got ventilated would be the hardest part of their day.
No more worries over primary seatbelt laws, sobriety checkpoints, and no-knock raids at wrong addresses.
Not exactly my pro-abortion liberal romneybot, I was already out of the Army by the time you bought Le Pavillon in 1974.
I am curious if you owned the Cadillac bar during the mid 1980s, if so, then you have a connection to one of my learning experiences in a military parachute jump.
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.