Posted on 11/09/2006 1:18:32 PM PST by Keltik
[Final two pharagraphs]
So in the nature of things conservatives and libertarians can conclude no friendly pact. Conservatives have no intention of compromising with socialists; but even such an alliance, ridiculous though it would be, is more nearly conceivable than the coalition of conservatives and libertarians. The socialists at least declare the existence of some sort of moral order; the libertarians are quite bottomless.
It is of high importance, indeed, that American conservatives dissociate themselves altogether from the little sour remnant called libertarians. In a time requiring long views and self-denial, alliance with a faction founded upon doctrinaire selfishness would be absurd-and practically damaging. It is not merely that cooperation with a tiny chirping sect would be valueless politically; more, such an association would tend to discredit the conservatives, giving aid and comfort to the collective adversaries of ordered freedom. When heaven and earth have passed away, perhaps the conservative mind and the libertarian mind may be joined in synthesis-but not until then. Meanwhile, I venture to predict, the more intelligent and conscientious persons within the libertarian remnant will tend to settle for politics as the art of the possible, so shifting into the conservative camp.
(Excerpt) Read more at emp.byui.edu ...
What tedious writing. He has invested far too much energy into trying to sound high minded.
Ezra Taft Benson was a much better writter and speaker
This doesn't have a direct effect on me, but OUCH!
"So in the nature of things conservatives and libertarians can conclude no friendly pact"
And, it's all your fault, travis! (:^0)
This guy is flat out wrong. He's right about people who are members of the Libertarian Party, but people with Libertarian ideals have LONG been one of the key groups within our movement. Much of the Goldwater coalition was comprised of Conservatives with Libertarian leanings. If we purge all Libertarian ideals from the Conservative movement, we become a Religious Party and not a Political Movement.
obviously the writer doesnt know libertarians to say they have bottomless morals. damn republicans are just looking for whipping boys because they couldnt get thier base out when truth is many liberatarians voted R including myself
You're a bitter, bitter person, aren't you? Is libertarian bashing the only thing you do on FR these days?
It would hurt indeed, if it were true.
But it's not.
And frankly, this Libertarian is damn tired of being called names.
If Libertarians are so powerful as to give an election away, if Republicans need us so much, perhaps a more fruitful tactic would be trying to find common ground, instead of insulting us and then wondering why we don't want to hang with y'all.
BTW.....
I thought it was "Those that can't teach.....teach gym."
"[A] State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish." --John Stuart Mill, last paragraph in "On Liberty"
I agree. I brought up this point yesterday on other threads.
Also, objectivism/libertarianism is hardly "bottomless". It has definite boundaries drawn quite sharply around it via the equal Rights of other individuals and the non-initiation of force/fraud/theft doctrine.
Pompous a-hole authors opinions notwithstanding...
Pure pathetic. Not least because the author is speaking about fundamentalists whenever he says "conservatives". If the GOP decides it can win elections with nothing but fundamentalist voters, it's got a really rude awakening on the way - even ruder than the one two days ago....
Every day on FR other than the day after an election:
"Ha! Libertarians! You clowns can't muster up more than 2% of any vote! What a joke of a party!"FR after the 2006 election:
"You a-hole Libertarians cost us the election!"Either we're so few we can be marginalized, or we're so many we can turn the tide of elections nation-wide. Which is it, Libertarian bashers? Because it can't be both. What a bunch of idiots.
I think that the Libertarians are quite clear about their moral order - human beings are not chattel for the government or other people do use as they please.
In a time requiring long views and self-denial, alliance with a faction founded upon doctrinaire selfishness would be absurd-and practically damaging.
Odd using the term "self-denial". Only the libertarian ideal could delayed gratification be considered self-denial. The statist beliefs of the other parties would be best described as "other-denial" - i.e. you can't have that because I'm in charge.
collective adversaries of ordered freedom
"Ordered Freedom"? The author just sprained my Orwell-to-English dictionary.
He's correct about a lot of this, but writes far too much out of emotion, with a desire to cut and wound, rather than to persuade and inspire. An ideology is going to be useful and true in some circumstances and unworkable and excessive in others. It would have been better to see the good and bad points and the limits of libertarianism, rather than simply condemn it in unqualified terms.
I wonder why this didn't work?
"You liberaltarians and losertarians and libertines suck! But you'd better vote Republican, because if you don't, we'll . . . uh . . . well, you just don't want to see what we'll do!"
Sorry, you're not getting your flame war.
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.