Posted on 10/26/2023 6:03:24 PM PDT by Stepan12
Libertarians are victims of their own success, and the rest of us are victims of the few remaining libertarians, who – like CrossFitters, militant atheists, and vegans – can’t seem to shut up about their obsession. The fact is that conservatism has absorbed most of libertarianism, at least the useful parts of it. I don’t have much use for a conservative who has no libertarian tendencies, but I’ve got no use at all for the self-identified libertarians we see all too often today. They are a bunch of rigid scolds with zero conception of how the world works but no hesitation to explain it to the rest of us.
The libertarian influence on modern American conservatism was a healthy and overdue development, and has opened conservatism to consideration by a much wider audience. Let’s look at old-school conservatism. The stereotype would be John Lithgow as the stick-up-his-Schumer minister in “Footloose,” obsessed with making sure that Kevin Bacon can’t bust a move. Repressed, boring, self-righteous – that’s the worst of the old-school conservative stereotype. But that’s not conservatism today. It’s not even close. And that has to do with the libertarian influence on our movement. The libertarian streak broadened not only the movement’s possibilities, but the potential for consideration by other folks who didn’t particularly want some dude monitoring their booty calls or regulating their haircuts.
Now, conservatives are not exactly libertines, and generally prize traditional values. As for abortion, there’s no libertarianism there. You just don’t get to kill babies. If live and let live means anything, it means both people involved live.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Actually there’s 2 kinds...
Capital L libertarians, and small l libertarians.
Capital L libertarians are Ron Paul nut jobs.
Small l libertarians are pissed off conservatives.
“...a conservative who has no libertarian tendencies, “
I plead 100 percent GUILTY !
Today's Libertarians are primarily concerned with legalizing prostitution and repealing age of consent laws.
Its the “drug use has no societal consequences” & “open borders are good” Libertarian stances that annoy me.
Thanks. We are definitely running out of room here.
We're almost completely out of electrons!
Regards,
It would have been more effective if Schlichter named names. Who is he talking about? Rand Paul?
That's how Democrats like to think of conservatives - as social conservatives - someone who is "resistant to change."
But, a social conservative can be a Democrat or a Republican.
In U.S. politics, a conservative is someone who favors free market capitalism, limited government, private property, national defense, and, yes, traditional values.
A libertarian might agree with a conservative, but he uses different rhetoric. He might favor traditional values, too, but believes limited government is more important.
What's confusing is that people use the terms "conservative" and "liberal" as social terms. When you start listening to them, you realize they don't fit the definition of what they think they are. Some people say they're conservatives, but they're only "conservative" on a few issues. The same with people who say they're liberal.
It seems people who don't want to identify with either of those two social groups, or who dislike both parties, have been using the term "libertarian," even if they really don't fit that definition, either.
Libertarians don't deny that legalized drug use has societal consequences - just as they don't deny that Free Speech and Freedom of Religion have societal consequences. But, importantly, they believe that the sovereignty of the individual over his own body trumps govt. jurisdiction.
Regards,
-------------------------------
That is all well & good, but to achieve that you would have to convert all the junkies in the USA to Libertarians that wouldn't burglarize homes or shoplift, etc. to support their habit...then overdose/die with individual sovereignty by themselves w/o calling a ambulance or going to the ER. Which leads me to the 2nd requirement of "individual sovereignty"...the government would have to exit the medical/medical insurance business (no Medicaid or Medicare or ACA/"Obamacare"). i.e. "the government pays the bills, the govt. makes the rules"....helmet laws, seatbelt laws, etc., etc..
Yeah, them and the hate Israel crowd.
Well, I didn't say that it would be consequence-free!
Every freedom has costs! Even Freedom of Speech is associated with certain trade-offs!
The real question is: Do you believe that you have a God-given (i.e., "inherent" and "inalienable") right to decide what is done to your own body? Or, conversely, do you believe that the "Nanny State" should instead be entrusted with determining "what is good for you?"
And where do you draw the line?
Regards,
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.