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 ...
I have repeatedly tried to engage you, but you refuse, do agree with the Libertarian position on homosexual equality in the military or not?
No, you really haven't; even though you brought up the topic on thread before I did (possibly with Post #47, certainly with #64 and #113) whereas my first post on this thread was #170.
[you] do agree with the Libertarian position on homosexual equality in the military or not?
And here you only want a yes or no answer, regardless of any reasoning.
Tough. I'm going to give you my position without yes or no: the military is, currently, a volunteer corp [meaning non-coerced] -- it is not like society in-general because there is a requirement for cohesion. But here's the thing, if someone can subordinate themselves to the Army, then there is no disruption to cohesion. — the policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell was pretty stupid, because the 5th Amendment applies and thus one cannot be forced to testify against themselves, even in the case of alleged homosexuality.
So, if some homosexual is able to restrain his urges, then I would not prevent him from entering by law, precisely because I cannot legally condemn someone who does not act. (Just as I could not legally condemn the angriest shout of "I'm going to kill you" of murder, even if he had prepared to kill and only changed his mind at the last instant. [Attempted murder, maybe; but not murder.]) This is because, in the end, the law is about actions... not about thoughts, or sentiments, or temptations.
I must bring this up because people could consider someone with homosexual attraction/temptation to be homosexual; and thereby move the discriminating factor from purposeful-action to a non-purposeful event. (Researchers can abuse this conflation by defining 'homosexual' as having ever experienced a homosexual act OR ever finding yourself attracted to the same sex. — I've read about some homosexual therapy [treating the disorder, not affirming it] cases where the therapist said it was very common for men to think of themselves as homosexual because they'd experienced sexual abuse and, in their minds, the homosexual experience forced them to be homosexual regardless of their will. [Yes, it's screwy reasoning; but sexual abuse screws people up. Period.])
But, again, you ignore ways of handling the problem outside the legal realm. It used to be that if you were a homosexual in the army you could be made to feel unwelcome by the unit (possibly physically beaten, but there are other, more subtle methods to get the message across) — also such a person could be removed by a commander for disrupting unit-cohesion (I believe this was the preferred method during DADT, but in any case I wasn't ever aware of any homosexuals in any of the units I was in, so I have no first-hand knowledge of how it might be handled).
The Libertarians, alas, have a spine on immigration, but they do disagree with me, and I presume, with you. Their notion is that foreign persons who work in the US make the US stronger, and they are opposed to welfare programs anyways. They are used to being outvoted, so the presence of a large block of new voters who would increase welfare support levels doesn’t seem to phase them. In this they are, I believe, wrong.
I would rather cut welfare programs first and am willing to team with Libertarians as well as libertarians to do so. Then we could permit foreign persons to enter in a controlled way calculated to support the interests of US citizens.
Once the Atomic Energy Commission met, and had a quorum, though not quite all members were present. The President of the AEC said in his flawless native Hungarian “Shall we conduct the meeting in the Mother Tongue?” which motion was passed unanimously.
Or course back then the criteria for entry into the US was benefit to the US, not fraud prone standards like ‘reuniting family (on the US side of the border).
Some support the iron fist of government because it pays well.
Libertarians were not responsible for success of libertine social mores. The Democratic Socialists did that.
Certainly the Libertarians were not responsible for reductions in marginal rates of taxation. The Conservative Republicans did that.
Wow, everyone on this thread is so well Spoken.
That is why we must not shout down Dissenting Voices from the Democrat side, because you never know where you may find an Ally.
Same goals, same social agenda, of course the left wins the big battles that the libertarians campaign and argue for, they are leftist positions.
Now the libertarian fight is to get the GOP to adopt them and kill off conservatism and traditional Americanism once and for all.
Yeah, but it’s too much work to set up a DU account and battle the lefties who are the real problem. Easier to annoy the libertarian types here at FR.
So you strongly disagree with the libertarian position on homosexuality and the military and want to bring back the discriminatory policies of the past.
So you are not at all libertarian on that issue is what you are claiming.
By the way DADT meant if you were discovered to be homosexual you were out, so you had to hide it, and the military would not actively seek evidence against you.
The libertarian position is this is:
“”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.””
So you oppose all of it or just the military portion?
*shrug* - I don't much care about what some "party" claims on its platform planks anymore. Either they're (a) ignored [like the Republican's], or (b) dictated by some small minority which might be attempting to capitalize on the word/fashion [like the Tea Party political parties].
So you are not at all libertarian on that issue is what you are claiming.
Depends on how you read it: a Libertarian would say I do because I wouldn't be immediately judging against a homosexual purely because of his preference, a non-Libertarian/'Conservative' like you would say because I'm not throwing open the doors and/or pushing homos into the military I'm not.
By the way DADT meant if you were discovered to be homosexual you were out, so you had to hide it, and the military would not actively seek evidence against you.
As I said, stupid because it was fairly redundant via the 5th Amendment.
The libertarian position is this is:
“”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.””
So you oppose all of it or just the military portion? law (including homosexuals)
See my previous post: the law should be predicated upon actions, and facts, not upon magical whims and circumstance.
That was gibberish and you refused to answer, you just went of on not caring about a party platform and making some bizarre statement about “judging against a homosexual purely because of his preference” and saying calling the Jim Robinson (and my) position on homosexualizing the military “non conservative” which will be a shock to him, the 5th amendment has nothing to do with don’t ask don’t tell and what is this about magical whims and actions etc?
This is grown up life, decisions and laws have to be made and enforced, you read the libertarian position which is now mostly the law for the military and the federal government.
Homosexuality is no longer discriminated against, and a GI who is gay married legally by state law, has his marriage recognized by the federal military the same as a normal marriage.
You don’t seem able to speak plainly enough to be understood, talking about the 5th amendment and “the law should be predicated upon actions, and facts, not upon magical whims and circumstance.” how does that describe a position on “such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.”?
You aren’t making sense or speaking to reality and law.
You refuse to listen. Let me put it into terms you'll understand: insofar as I don't believe that it's the Federal government's business to be involved in marriage, adoption, and minimally the Army (there literally isn't supposed to be a regular Army — it's supposed to be drawn up from the States's militia) I cannot really condone much of any restrictions because, IMO, these are not the proper place for federal government.
Most of the marriage issues would be gone if the status of 'married' didn't impact the amount of money the government received via taxes; most of the military's issues would be gone if they weren't actively pushing homosexuals into it and onto the men (via politics and, yes, 'law'). I think it's a mistake to address the issue at the level [federal] law — I've said this to you multiple times.
This is grown up life, decisions and laws have to be made and enforced, you read the libertarian position which is now mostly the law for the military and the federal government.
You're wrong — laws don't have to be made; I think we have an overabundance of laws and could use a Great Culling. Let's get rid of the inconsistant crap and then we can talk about possibly adding more laws.
You don’t seem able to speak plainly enough to be understood, talking about the 5th amendment and “the law should be predicated upon actions, and facts, not upon magical whims and circumstance.” how does that describe a position on “such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.”?
Because how is the law supposed to know that you're a homosexual if you've never done a homosexual act in your life? Magic!
Or are you going to put, on an adoption form, 7. Are you a Homosexual? [ ] Yes [ ] No and use that to determine who's a homosexual?
Hell, why is the federal government even involved in adoptions anyway? Shouldn't it just be as easy as writing out that person X is adopted, visiting the notary, and then dropping a copy off at th e local courthouse? [If even that, I mean there have been whole cultures where all you had to do to adopt was declare it publicly. Do we need the government to do that?]
You aren’t making sense or speaking to reality and law.
Yeah, that's rich coming from someone who condemns everyone with libertarian leanings* as fully and totally supporting the Libertarian Party and it's platform-planks. How grounded in reality is that?
* Meaning that they believe that the role of the government is limited and that it shouldn't be as pervasive as it currently is.
Man, one rule of the internet, the ones with the least to say make the longest posts.
Law has to be made, either homosexuals are legal in the military, or not, either their legal state marriages are recognized by the military or not, these were BOTH COVERED BY FEDERAL LAW SINCE THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS AND THE FOUNDING FATHERS.
The feds also have to deal with “family” and “marriage” in federal employment and immigration laws.
So, answer this: how is "the law" going to determine if soldier X is homosexual?
If Soldier X doesn't volunteer the info, and "the law" goes looking for it [I'm assuming without a warrant], then isn't that malicious prosecution?
I don't really believe the federal government really ought to be involved in marriages at all. And there's two easy ways to handle "survivor benefits" -- (1) offer none at all, and (2) allow the soldier to specify any person at all [as you might on a life insurance policy].
I don’t care about your fantasies, the federal government, the founding fathers, the Continental Congress and then the regular Congress when the Constitution was ratified, all knew that marriage had to be legally decided on and recognized in the military, just as they decided that homosexuals could not serve, no crime is prosecuted until it is discovered. Do you really think that homosexuals are invisible and don’t make mistakes? George Washington himself sentenced discovered homosexuals, it was the law.
Discovered homosexuals, you idiot — how is "the law" going to find out someone's a homosexual without an action?
Or are you a fan of "guilty until proven innocent"? — Your criticism of War on Drugs detractors (ones who point out such injustices as asset forfeiture law) indicates you're fine with it.
I think it's fairly clear you don't care about the problem, or justice, but just "law" and condemning* people. If you were concerned about Justice, you would not be so hostile towards those who see the War on Drugs (and increasingly the War on Terror) as bad things in such an antagonistic light. If you were really concerned about the homosexual agenda, you would be working to address the core matters (why are they homosexuals?) and not the symptoms.
* I really need to break out my thesaurus when talking with you; 'condemn': belittle, doom, disparage, reprehend, reproach, upbraid...
If I could pass one Constitutional Amendment, it would be an expiration date of not more than twenty years after enactment on all laws.
That would automatically clear out the crap, and keep the lawmakers out of mischief because they'd be too busy re-enacting the laws that are actually proper and necessary.
Libertarians do generally agree with the ‘government ought to stay out of my bedroom’ aspects of leftism.
They often agree with the ‘government ought to stay out of my wallet’ aspects of small government conservatism.
They are sometimes allies, sometimes opponents of conservatives. That is how politics happens. Considering the reduction in marginal tax rates from the Carter administration 70%, they have had a good run on both counts up to 2006.
The problem Washington delt with was not homosexuality, it was buggery, aka forcible sodomy or homosexual rape.
Churchill reported that the British Navy in the time of Napoleon ran on “Rum, Buggery, and the Lash.”
If I had my way, there would be the government ‘civil union’ with various tax rules and ‘marriage’ as a religious sacrament.
Marriage should be up to the religion. Once could be married without civil union (say plural marriage for Fundamentalist Mormons or Muslims). One could be civilly united without marriage (atheists, agnostics, or unions that don’t meet the religious requirements of marriage for any sect you may name).
Or one could be married with a civil union.
That would get the government out of the marriage business, but limit their authority to tax matters.
Question: What would happen to the estate of a party with no will who was married to one person, and had a civil union with another?
Suggested Answer: Upon death, in the absence of a will, the civil union would be enforced by government.
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.