Posted on 01/03/2010 10:07:14 AM PST by Christian Prophet
I'm about to publish the below article and would appreciate any pre-publication feedback: ---------------------------------------------------- "We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service." -Platform of the Libertarian Party
Nicely worded. But in most libertarian minds this gets translated into "get out of Iraq, get out of Afghanistan, let Iran develop nuclear weapons, and don't ever fight a battle on the enemy's turf." In the minds of voters, such a policy is patently stupid. It's a strategy called "missed opportunities while those who have vowed your destruction build their strength."
Are you wondering why LP candidates usually receive only 1% or 2% of the vote?
The problem is libertarians spend so much time and attention focusing on their own government as their enemy that they make themselves blind to other possibly even more destructive enemies.
One of the greatest threats to freedom in the world today is the religion of Islam's dedication to taking over the world. Islam is being sold by master propagandists as a "peaceful religion," but no Muslim is allowed to be at peace as long as there are non-Muslims in the world. The Koran is full of admonitions to do battle against non-Muslim "infidels." See "Koran commands to kill infidels"
No other religion admonishes their adherents to kill non-coreligionists, not Christianity, not Judaism, not Buddhism, not Hinduism, not even Marxism which has become the religion of materialist intellectuals. True, Marxism has been responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths and immeasurable suffering the world over, but killing is not an explicit tenet of the original Marxist religious texts.
Libertarians are well aware of the power and danger of religious fanatics as enemies. But even those libertarians who do not deny Islam is a world threat still tend to steadfastly deny that the best defense is a good offense.
When libertarians get their heads out of the sand and start appearing strong on foreign policy, they will surely start winning elections, don't you think?
Translation: “Libertarians should become big government Republicans.”
I’d settle for rational....
“They’re Terrorist Because We’re Occupiers” Ron Paul
If they could fix those problems, they could win elections.
Agree...the REAL debate in this country should be reformed Libertarians (i.e., loose on social issues, but tough on foreign policy / military), versus Conservatives (i.e., tough on social issues and foreign policy / military).
In other words, the DEMOCRATS should not even have a place at the table, and wouldn’t if the Libertarians would grow up (and accept that it is in OUR interests to be a strong world-power, and capable of projecting force), and if the true agenda of Democrats could be brought forward (i.e., destroying the government, enslaving the people, etc.).
Instead, the media gives the Dems a free ride, by allowing them to morph into whatever is needed to win elections, and the Libertarians stick their heads in the sand when it comes to the United States being a strong military power. I mean, do they REALLY think that a country as reliant on imports (even discounting China) can just ignore the rest of the world and expect to be left alone?
Even their oft-quoted President Washington entered “entangling foreign alliances”.
1% to 2% of the vote sounds about right.
But why write about Libertarians? They are a minor, inconsequential party? Always have been. Heck, I think the Peace and Freedom Party regularly out polls the Libertarians.
“Grow up”, very useful advice. I’m sure your small government enemies will take that in the spirit in which it is offered.
They need to work on that whole "open borders" nonsense, too.
If by "big government Republican" you mean "opposing baby-killing, plugging the holes in our porous southern border, opposing the redefinition of one of society's fundamental building blocks for the benefit of a tiny minority, and actually being serious about protecting the US and her interests from foreign attack", then yes, I guess you could say that.
The borders are secured now under Republicans from 2000 - 2006?
Graham is working with Schumer on resurrecting amnesty. Which party does Graham belong to again?
At least libertarians would get rid of the welfare handouts, the anchor babies, and lower the cost of doing business here in USA so companies won't hire illegals. Illegals would then self-deport on their own.
* Cough * Republicans for Choice * Cought *
True...and if I had my way, the "Republicans for choice" would be out on their cans in half a heartbeat. Nevertheless, this doesn't change the fact that much of the time, when libertarians (and I mean small-l types just as much as I do LP members) complain about "big government conservatives" or "big government Republicans," they have in mind social conservatives who oppose abortion and gay marriage. If that's what it takes to get the label from the libertarians, then so be it. I'd rather stand for right on those issues, regardless of what childish names libertarians want to throw my way, then sell my soul to jump through hoops to get in good with a few liberaltarians.
Whenever you are referencing LP members, platforms, beliefs, candidates, and the like, you might consider using the capital-L when spelling "Libertarian". Otherwise, you risk discrediting your own article's premises by painting with an overly-broad brush, even if that's not what you intend...
The difference is that rank and file Republicans strenuously disagree with RINOs like Graham on this issue, while rank and file libertarians tend to be all for open borders, a position which is flawed, even aside from the welfare and employment issues.
At least libertarians would get rid of the welfare handouts, the anchor babies, and lower the cost of doing business here in USA so companies won't hire illegals. Illegals would then self-deport on their own.
Rank and file conservatives, including most SoCons, want to do that too, so what do we really need the libertarians for?
Not true.
Libertarians believe that these issues should be decided at the state level.
Both of these issues should have no federal jurisdiction, and
politically speaking, this is the smart solution. (I personally support a Constitutional ban on both but that'll never happen)
The difference is that rank and file Republicans strenuously disagree with RINOs like Graham on this issue
Rank and file Republicans like President Bush and Mike Pence when the GOP controlled Congress?
while rank and file libertarians tend to be all for open borders, a position which is flawed, even aside from the welfare and employment issues.
Libertarians hold no elective office though.
So who cares what their position is?
The fact is that Republicans up until 2006 when they knew they were going to get the boot did nothing about the borders.
Actually, it IS true. I've dealt with enough self-described libertarians to know that a goodly number of them think that social conservatives who want to ban gay marriage and end abortion are "just as bad" as leftists who want to socialise our entire economy. This a lot of the reason why libertarians have little to no credibility with me.
Rank and file Republicans like President Bush and Mike Pence when the GOP controlled Congress?
I think you need to go back to the dictionary and look up what "rank and file" means.
The fact is that Republicans up until 2006 when they knew they were going to get the boot did nothing about the borders.
Which is exactly why the Republican rank and file needs to get it together and toss these cats out on their tails.
On the one hand, I believe the GOP really needs libertarians to keep them honest regarding economic and social policy. But libertarians themselves need a few awakening jolts. You just cannot hide in your little Ruby Ridge America and expect the world’s power-mongers to leave you alone.
Some argue for private, voluntary effort as opposed to government effort, both in the economy and in foreign policy.
Some say they are capitalists. Then they want the government to repeal the law of supply and demand as it applies to labor and the goods produced by labor. In short, they don’t trust capitalism despite all the evidence that shows moving foreign economies towards capitalsim and freedom to trade is more effective as foreign policy than either military actions, or Smoot-Hawler II.
Some allege that big government departments like HHS and HUD and DOE are inefficient, incompetent bureaucracies. Then those same people argue that a big DHS or big DOD is somehow different.
Some argue that big government is bad ... except for their own pet agenda where big government is needed because their pet agenda is different.
Trust in free markets, freedom in general, requires a leap of faith. I have that faith but I do understand where people who don’t are coming from. It’s just that no alternative ever conceived of or tried by man has ever worked better.
The Leap-of-faith problem is mostly one of education and understanding what capitalism and free markets are.
We live in a mixed economy. $65,000 of my $160,000 gross income in 2009 goes directly to the government. God knows how much goes indirectly thru taxes paid by others and added into my costs, and due to regulations. But using the direct costs, 65,00 of my 160,000 is clearly not capitalism.
Then we get to the regulation, the corporatism/mercantilism. Most people really think that the bailout of big corporations is part of capitalism. They think the way regulatory bodies protect incumbents from new entrants is capitalism.
The result is that capitalism gets blamed for a lot of things that are not capitalism at all.
A major disservice of the “moderates” is to use terms like “free markets” interchangably with subsidy and regulation. A major mistake of the Heritage/Cato type of think tanks has been to think they could educate a few elite in the beltway and it doesn’t matter what the mass media or the masses think or say.
When the Belin wall came down, Heritage/Cato said “We have won the debate”. They wre delusional and out of touch with reality. They have not even been in the debate.
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.