Today's Libertarians are Super Annoying

Town Hall ^ | October 26, 2023 | Kurt Schlichter

[joe fonebone]

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.

[Reverend Wright]

“...a conservative who has no libertarian tendencies, “

I plead 100 percent GUILTY !

[Drew68]

The old Ron Paul Libertarians are all Republicans now.

Today's Libertarians are primarily concerned with legalizing prostitution and repealing age of consent laws.

[Drago]

Its the “drug use has no societal consequences” & “open borders are good” Libertarian stances that annoy me.

[alexander_busek]

I did not want to flood Free Republic with one big long article, so I did an excerpt even if one has to read the original.

Thanks. We are definitely running out of room here.

We're almost completely out of electrons!

Regards,

[DeplorablePaul]

It would have been more effective if Schlichter named names. Who is he talking about? Rand Paul?

[Tired of Taxes]

" Let’s look at old-school conservatism. . . . Repressed, boring, self-righteous – that’s the worst of the old-school conservative stereotype."

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.

[alexander_busek]

It's the “drug use has no societal consequences” & “open borders are good” Libertarian stances that annoy me.

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,

[Drago]

But, importantly, they believe that the sovereignty of the individual over his own body trumps govt. jurisdiction.

-------------------------------
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..

[Stepan12]

Yeah, them and the hate Israel crowd.

[alexander_busek]

That is all well & good, but to achieve that you would have to [...]

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,