Posted on 11/06/2008 7:40:03 PM PST by Delacon
It's no secret that the Bush years have severely strained and perhaps broken the conservative-libertarian political coalition. Most libertarians were deeply disappointed by the Bush Administration's vast expansion of government spending and regulation, claims of virtually unlimited wartime executive power, and other departures from limited government principles. As a result, many libertarian intellectuals (and to a lesser extent, libertarian voters), actually supported Barack Obama this year, despite his being a very statist liberal. Republican nominee John McCain had opposed some of Bush's excesses, including rejecting Bush's stance on torture and being one of the very few GOP senators to vote against Bush's massive 2003 Medicare prescription drug program. But McCain had numerous statist impulses of his own, including the most famous piece of legislation that bears his name. Even those libertarians who voted for him (myself included) did so with grave reservations.
With Barack Obama in the White House and the Democrats enjoying large majorities in Congress at a time of economic crisis, it is highly likely that they will push for a large expansion of government even beyond that which recently occurred under Bush. That prospect may bring libertarians and conservatives back together. Many of the items on the likely Democratic legislative agenda are anathema to both groups: a vast expansion of government control of health care, new legal privileges for labor unions, expanded regulation of a variety of industries, protectionism, increased government spending on infrastructure and a variety of other purposes, and bailouts for additional industries, such as automakers.
Even if conservatives and libertarians can find a way to work together, it would be naive to expect that they can block all the items on the Obama's agenda. Many are going to pass regardless of what we do. However, a renewed libertarian-conservative coalition could help limit the damage and begin to build the foundation for a new pro-limited government political movement.
Obviously, a lot depends on what conservatives decide to do. If they choose the pro-limited government position advocated by Representative Jeff Flake and some other younger House Republicans, there will be lots of room for cooperation with libertarians. I am happy to see that Flake has denounced "the ill-fitting and unworkable big-government conservatism that defined the Bush administration." Conservatives could, however, adopt the combination of economic populism and social conservatism advocated by Mike Huckabee and others. It is even possible that the latter path will be more politically advantageous, at least in the short term.
Much also depends on what the Democrats do. If Obama opts for moderation and keeps his promise to produce a net decrease in federal spending, a renewed conservative-libertarian coalition will be less attractive to libertarians. However, I highly doubt that Obama and the Democrats will actually take the relatively moderate, budget-cutting path. It would go against both their own instincts and historical precedent from previous periods of united government and economic crisis. If I am right about that, we will need a revamped conservative-libertarian alliance to oppose the vast expansion of government that looms around the corner.
Reforging the conservative-libertarian coalition will be very hard. Relations between the two groups have always been tense, and the last eight years have undeniably drawn down the stock of goodwill. But if we can't find a new way to hang together, we are all too likely to hang separately.
That is easy enough to dispense with.
In short, libertarianism only works because we take for granted the work that evangelical Christians have done on the moral foundations of society.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Strawman arguments all. They’ve all been dealt with in responses to you personally. You don’t care. Don’t let the truth get in in your way.
BTW, yes, duelling has been dealt with above. I’m impressed at your ability to dig *that* deep.
Since you seem to be incapable of applying broad concepts to specific situations, I suspect you had a wonderful public education. Thank a teacher!
We homeschool. A number of Republicans in our area think homeschooling is bad because it is a “Christian” principle to make sure all kids get the same crappy education.
You think the government should control many aspects of our personal lives. Fine. Don’t expect me to let you and your government goons to walk into my house and tell me how to raise my kids because I’m Orthodox and you’re Protestant and you’re religion is right.
1. No abortion. Murder is not a libertarian idea.
2. No state sanctioned marriage. God makes a marriage, not the state. A state lacks the competence to recognize what is God’s alone.
3. Your rights end at the other person’s nose.
4. Christians have a personal responsibility to the poor. Christians cannot delegate their *personal* obligations to a state through mandates (”I was hungry and *you* did not feed me.” “Well, gee, I voted for the state to use force to take money from other people to feed you, does that count?”).
Since you have no idea what Libertarian views are with respect to the abortion issue, and have in fact had all of your arguments on this thread rebutted (a fact that you have so far ignored), i have serious doubts that you are capable of or willing to be properly instructed on this issue.
It rather sounds as if you are one of those people who believe that the contents of their Pastor's Sunday sermon should be federal law.
No thank you.
In the event that i have misjudged your intentions, i suggest that you start here.
You are arguing against a strawman. I never said that the government should do those things. Just because the government should have some laws that prohibit consensual behavior doesn't mean that the government should regulate all aspects of our lives.
Libertarianism, rightly understood, is a pro-life philosophy. However, most libertarians are pro-choice social liberals and actually go the other way: that stopping abortion is aggressing against the woman. Until libertarians clean house and apply their principles consistently they deserve their immoral and selfish reputation.
Polygamy and dueling are counter-examples to libertarian as a philosophy. They are consensual behaviors but you cannot build a prosperous society when those behaviors are allowed.
I am sympathetic to your response about poverty. The real intent of suffering children is to show that libertarianism fails as a moral philosophy even if it has merits as a political philosophy.
Please post a link to your facts supporting this allegation or retract it.
Thanks.
1.4 AbortionLiberty for me, but not for thee.Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
Again: Please post a link to your facts supporting this allegation or retract it.
Your specific allegation was: "most libertarians are pro-choice social liberals"
Are you really arguing that the Libertarian Party Platform is not representative of what libertarians believe?
Yes. As have many others who consider themselves "small-l" libertarians.
The consistent libertarian position on abortion is that the initiation of violence against an innocent unborn child is wrong.
The Libertarian Party has become infested with libertines, pot-heads and socialists. It does not reflect the libertarian philosophy.
Abortion and Rights: Applying Libertarian Principles Correctly
I’ve read libertarians for life already. That website launched my interest in philosophy. I’ve already said that I agree that libertarianism, correctly understood, is pro-life. However, the fact remains that most libertarians are pro-choice. Hence the shameful ‘personally opposed’ position for the party platform.
Change that from "most" to "some" and you'd be correct.
As opposed to Libertarian Party members who are nearly all pro-choice.
The Libertarian Party does NOT reflect the beliefs of most libertarians.
Conservatives are natural allies for libertarians. Big-spending, pork-barrel, big-government Republicans are not.
If Republicans start turning the GOP back into the party of Reagan you will find excited libertarians more than willing to be part of the coalition.
The largest disagreement between conservatives and libertarians on the abortion issue is that while libertarians would love to see Roe v. Wade overturned, they would rather not see it replaced with a FedGov ban on abortion. Rather, the libertarians would rather it be a state issue like rape, murder and theft already are.
I don't care if he hates us. I just want him to leave us alone.
After all, I'm a libertarian. ;)
This is just what Newt and a lot of others have been saying. I can now understand why Newt has backed off the top job at the RNC and is working behinds the sceen with Lt. Gov. Steele.
The realization that it would be very hard for a white southerner to t-off on Obama. Steele can do it and it just becomes a black on black battle. He will be called Uncle Tom by the Dems but he has already been called a U.T. so what is the difference.
No data to suggest any such thing. No poll of Libertarian Party member's views on abortion exists to my knowledge.
Jibaholic is blowing smoke on a rant that he can't support with any objective evidence.
He still has to get around the FACT that four of the last five Libertarian Presidential candidates, Ron Paul, Harry Browne, Michael Badnarik, and Bob Barr are or were (Harry Browne is deceased) pro life.
True. But the published Libertarian Party platform is pro-choice. Ipso facto, members of the Libertarian Party are pro-choice. Or at least a majority of them are, sufficient to keep that plank of the party platform in place.
I looked into joining the LP but was put off by the libertines and socialists that have infested the party.
The party platform remains pro-choice.
Where did you get that idea? Quoted below is the Party platform on the subject of abortion.
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
No view, pro life or pro choice is articulated. It is a repudiation of Roe v. Wade. It also means that the decision would revert back to individual state law, as was the Status Quo before Roe. It can be argued that abortion laws should be repealed at the state level as well, and the platform leaves room for that. The repeal of state laws is neither likely nor practicable. The Party merely affirms the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the US Constitution.
In other words, the number of abortions would drop.
The only other alternative, Amending the Constitution with the so-called 'human life amendment' is a far bigger pipe dream than Libertarian Government.
If Jimbaholic is so concerned with the life of the unborn, then he or she must have enjoyed the Clinton administration, when the number of abortions was actually dropping.
Incidentally, NO Libertarian, pro life or pro choice, would approve of government money being given for the procedure, much unlike the Status Quo.
That's pretty much the definition of pro-choice.
Being in favor of a system where there are no legal controls on abortion is a pro-choice position.
It also means that the decision would revert back to individual state law, as was the Status Quo before Roe. It can be argued that abortion laws should be repealed at the state level as well, and the platform leaves room for that.
That's not the LP's position. Their position is that ALL goverment should stay out of it.
The only other alternative, Amending the Constitution with the so-called 'human life amendment' is a far bigger pipe dream than Libertarian Government.
I agree. I think that a Constitutional amendment is the wrong answer. This is manifestly a state issue and the decision belongs there.
Incidentally, NO Libertarian, pro life or pro choice, would approve of government money being given for the procedure, much unlike the Status Quo.
Absolutely.
Note that I have repeatedly stated that the "small-l" libertarian position on abortion is pro-life but against FedGov interference. The LP position is not quite the same. There are far too many pro-aborts in the LP or the platform would say:
Abortion is an immoral act and the initiation of aggression against an infant that has committed no crime is unacceptable. However, we also believe that laws against abortion should be handled at the state level and that Roe v. Wade was an unacceptable intrusion into local affairs.
THAT would be a clear pro-life but anti-government statement.
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.