Posted on 10/31/2013 10:31:42 AM PDT by JSDude1
In polite society at least, questioning the fundamental claims that people make about themselves is rather frowned upon. If a person says that he is a Catholic, then one is expected to believe that he is a Catholic, even if there is no evidence for this whatsoever. If a person says he is a conservative when he clearly agrees with not a single conservative position, we are likewise expected to smile and nod grimly. “No, you’re not!” is not a socially acceptable response to erroneous self-description, alas.
There is some virtue in this convention, I suppose, even if it is just that it helps to keep the peace. But there is an awful lot more virtue in the integrity of our political language and terminology. This is to say that if we lose the capacity to demand that words and actions remain linked, then we will lose our ability to discuss current affairs with any meaning. And that, I’m afraid, will be disastrous.
Advertisement
It is with this in mind that I have taken a certain exception to Robert Sarvis, the supposed “Libertarian” candidate for governor of Virginia. “Libertarian” is, admittedly, a fairly broad term, and one that is claimed by a considerable number of people across the ideological spectrum — sometimes reasonably and sometimes farcically. Nevertheless, whatever the various internecine disagreements that surface inexorably among its adherents, it does have a core meaning, and one that I would argue is generally understood. A majority of people know approximately what the definition of “libertarian” is, I would venture, and know also which position in any given race they might expect the “libertarian” candidate to stake out.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
I thought most Libertarians were social liberals and fiscal conservatives, which is why nobody ends up voting for them.
Curious, most Libt candidates are pretty invisible, but hear a LOT about this guy Sarvis.
Is he wealthy, or getting big funding from somebody?
I told him that's like being a seven-foot-tall midget.
I don’t think Libertarians classify themselves as liberal or conservative. I believe they believe in freedom and that is about it. There is not a rule that you have to be liberal or conservative to run on the libertarian ticket. I don’t know much about the ticket but I do know that anybody can run of the ticket. It is not a requirement to be conservative.....surprised as heck that you thought otherwise.
Exactly. As soon as anyone says s/he is ‘libertarian,’ I assume s/he is a social liberal. Don’t know one libertarian who isn’t liberal on social issues.
Any “conservative” Virginian who votes for Sarvis should just volunteer for higher taxes, worse services, higher unemployment, and a lower standard of living in Virginia. It was depressing enough when the Tea Party couldn’t get energized to get out the vote last year (let’s thank the IRS for helping to depress the Tea Party activity as well as the conservative vote). Now, when the governorship (and down-ballot leadership positions) are in play, and when trends will be set for the mid-term and 2016 presidential elections, conservatives better get out the vote for the only conservative(s) in the race — and that’s not Sarvis.
I never said my personal views, friend, however libertarians believe in smaller government.
Sarvis clearly does not. He’s really a progressive Democrat in disguise.
Mr. Cuccinelli is more like a libertarian than Sarvis the official “L” in this race!
A Democrat trying to split the Republican vote by calling himself a libertarian?
The author is confused. As are many FReepers.
It makes no difference if you look at Libertarians or libertarians. They both suck. They both like to pretend they are Constitutionalists and that they are for small government and that our Founding Fathers were libs and blah, blah, blah.
Truth is - they are social liberals and - like Sarvis - third party spoilers.
The true ROFLMAO irony here is the Grand Father of all libs (RoPaul) is now actually campaining against the lib candidate here in Virginia.
More proof that libs are nutz!
The beginning premise of Libertarian philosophy is a strong and demanding sense of Liberty and from it a sentinel for what is mine that I can I keep the business of government out of and NOT what can government do for me.
Scratch the Sarvis money trails long enough and I would bet there’s some Soros money in there somewhere, just as we found there was in who went to work for Rubio.
The foxes are in the henhouse.
Follow the $$$. I’ll bet the DNC, Soros et al donated tons to this guy to split the anti-rat vote. It’s their SOP.
Nah. The LP is just so poorly organized in VA that they are vulnerable to stuff like this. That con man Wayne Allen Root got on the national ticket in '08 and tried again in '12 before people wised up to him.
Too bad. Virginia is the home of GMU and some of our greatest libertarian thinkers. Now, people are going to equate libertarianism with this lightweight.
No, I’d say you’re right about some of God hater libertarians, but not all are like that.. some genuinely are smaller gov/constitutionalist based.
It’s all about expanding the coalition while not giving up our principles!~
-JS
Levin speaking of this right now.
Thanks JSDude1.
You can download a copy of the Family Foundation Voter guide at this location: http://vavotes.net/guide/
The Faith and Freedom Coalition version can be viewed here: http://virginiavoterguide.com/
Heterosexual marriage is a natural institution homosexual “marriage” isn’t. Marriage is the bond between a man and a woman forming the basis for a future family. Only a man and a woman can produce a child so it follows that only a man and woman can make a family.
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.