Posted on 09/13/2003 2:46:24 PM PDT by Tony in Hawaii
That's odd. I thought Arnold had expressed his "low gun owner tolerance level" on several occasions. Not very socially tolerant of him.
The foundation of libertarianism is the freedom to persue your own goals, plus the responsibility of dealing with the consequences of your free acts. The success or failure of the libertarian approach has everything to do with the sequence in which things are implimented. Deregulating the S&L's while maintaining federal insurance for them led to the S&L fiasco a few years back.
The correct sequence is to take a machete to the "safety net" BEFORE giving somebody the OK to do things that would have an adverse impact on the rest of us if we have to catch him.
200 years ago, we had a level of personal freedom that would seem radical by today's standards. The reason it didn't bankrupt society is because people were not insulated by the consequences of their actions. You screwed up bad enough, you starved in the ditch -- unless some wiser relative took you in on his terms
Wrong. I understand it much better than you do. This libertarianism approach to drugs that you describe will NEVER be adopted by American society. Relax controls on drugs, eliminate drugs laws, open the jails and allow the drug dealers to walk freely and unmolested and you will find yourself at a social liberal endpoint--not a libertarian endpoint. That means vastly increased social welfare costs to coddle and care for drug users and insure their irresponsibility at taxpayer expense.
I consider the practical and sure consequences of the bone-headed and short-sighted libertarian approach to drugs. You and all other libertarians play mind games, envisioning this "perfect" society where Americans will step over the bodies of drug abusers lying in the streets and say, "Them's the breaks, bub." It'll never happen.
And Schwarzenegger, like all social liberals, will ensure as he puts it "That everything has to be provided for the people."
I well understand that you are only posting the article and not expressing agreement with it. It is a worthwhile post because it shows more of the ugly underside of the dishonesty that is Arnie's campaign.
In 1969, Mr. Dondero's friends/heroes tried to hijack Young Americans for Freedom. They failed then and they will fail now to hijack the GOP.
The Rino wing of the GOP needs hijacking, especially here in CA where it is an abject political failure.
George Schultz is about as libertarian as Slick Willie.
Bull. He has said he is libertarian on many issues.
Frank Meyer died in 1972 as Managing Editor of National Review, baptised Catholic on his deathbed with Bill Buckley as his Godfather. He was NOT purged from the conservative movement at any time. I believe he was the sharpest ideologue at NR. His wife Elsie was also an NR editor until her death.
Friedrich von Hayek's Road to Serfdom is a major bulwark of conserrvatism and was distributed free by Young Americans for Freedom in tens of thousands of copies long after 1962. Friedrich von Hayek was not a conservative because he did not believe in God.
Everyone that doesn't believe in your version of God is "not a conservative"? -- Bizarre
That Arnold attended a few economics conferenes or even believes in market solutions is not enough. The market is failing in job creation. Dondero can say that our philosophy is "Devil take the Hindmost" but Arnold had better not agree publicly or he is complete toast.
Meaningless rant..
Ron Paul is an honorable but thoroughly evventric man who has totally marginalized himself. As I understand it, Ron Paul is still a militant pro-lifer, unlike Arnold. Ron Paul's problems are neo-isolationism and an yutterly impractical expectation of treatment of the onstitution as the Ur documen of our nation. If, blessedly, that view might ever be restored, it will not be within the lifetimes of Ron Paul's great grandchildren.
Another meaningless, even weirder rant. What's you point?
I will give Dondero this much. The fight over California IS a fight for the soul of the national GOP. Will it be pro-death (like left Demonrats and other libertines) or pro-life (like GOP platforms and voting records)? Will it be pro-gun (like libertarians and conservatives) or anti-gun (like Arnold)? Will it be pro-homosexual or not? Will it be (like Demonrats and "paleos" and unlike Arnold) isolationist or interventionist (like Arnold and normal conservatives)?
The GOP should return to advocating its basic principles, -- fiscally conservative small government and constitutional liberty for individuals.
There are m,any other issues as well. Thirty some odd years into the existence of the Libertarian Party it is obvious that that party is stricly an electoral loser. Those in LP circles are again looking at taking over the better brand name of GOP. They aren't going to be allowed to have it.
Don't bet on it, kiddo. Constitutional libertarianism will lead the rebirth of republicanism.
Gee Kevin, that's where we already are. Had a drug dealer living next door in a middle class neighborhood - nothing could be done. So your worst nightmare is here and the War On Drugs is a big flaming failure. So, what are you going to do about it?
Arnold isn't a libertarian. Not by a long shot.
Arnold is a social liberal who is more than willing to tax and spend to support costly, failed social liberal programs. Again, as he put it in an interview with CNN last week, "We want to make sure the mothers have affordable day care. We want to make sure the older folks have their care that they need. That everything has to be provided for the people.".
I will give social liberal Arnold this much credit: he apparently knows you cannot fund social liberal programs out of thin air. Libertarians are not nearly so savvy. They believe you can have a pro-drug, pro-dope, pro-abortion social liberal state without paying for it.
How does Arnold expect to fund his social liberalism? It's hard to say because he isn't telling us. He keeps mouthing that he's a fiscal cosnervative while assuring the public educators and illegal alien lobby that he will keep the state coffers open for plunder. I suspect he believes a spontaneous economic recovery is underway that will boost tax receipts sufficiently that he will never have to actually cut the social liberal programs.
It's a fool's bet, if not in the short-term, then certainly in the long term.
A proud title.
A tribute to the man who saved Republicanism in the 60s
Nonsense, it is prohibition, with its policing and incarceration costs which is more expensive. Most of the costs of todays activities is due to black market conditions.
You must be a libertarian.
"We want to make sure the mothers have affordable day care. We want to make sure the older folks have their care that they need. That everything has to be provided for the people." CNN Interview
How does that meet the teeth of your fervid froot loop Goldwater quasi-libertarian mental mastications? How does that make Arnold a "fiscal conservative"?
I suspect you lack the guts, the honesty, or the intelligence (maybe all three) to answer forthrightly.
I think it is a stupid idea and a stupid thing to say. I think he was blathering because he didn't really have an answer he trusted.
Did you just call me a Democrat, Bubba?
There you go. FEAR!
VOTE COURAGOUSLY - VOTE SCHWARZENEGGER
It is an honest answer.
Actually, it goes deeper than that. RINOs and liberals in general have made it clear that they would PREFER California to slide into the sea (of red ink, at least) rather than elect a pro-life governor.
Why are RINOs and liberals so dogmatic over a single issue like abortion?
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.