Posted on 12/20/2006 3:27:19 PM PST by neverdem
In a recent column, I discussed the disaffection of libertarians within the conservative coalition, suggesting that many might be more at home on the political left. A number of readers wrote to say that they agreed with my analysis and had left the Republican Party for the Libertarian Party. Among these is former Republican Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, who officially joined the Libertarians last week.
Of course, people are free to do what they want to do, and if they want to join the Libertarians, that's their business. But if their goal is to actually change policy in a libertarian direction, then they are making a big mistake, in my opinion. The Libertarian Party is worse than a waste of time. I believe it has done far more to hamper the advancement of libertarian ideas and policies than it has done to advance them. In my view, it is essential for the Libertarian Party to completely disappear before libertarian ideas will again have political currency.
The basic problem with the Libertarian Party is the same problem faced by all third parties: It cannot win. The reason is that under the Constitution a candidate must win an absolute majority in the all-important Electoral College. It won't do just to have the most votes in a three- or four-way race. You have to have at least 270 electoral votes to win, period.
Theoretically, this is no barrier to third parties at the state and local level. But in practice, if a party cannot win at the presidential level, it is very unlikely to achieve success at lower levels of government. In short, the Electoral College imposes a two-party system on the country that makes it prohibitively difficult for third parties to compete.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Oh, really? Name me a law proposed by a social conservative anytime in the last five years that would affect what sex you can have at home in your bedroom. By the way, if you want to extend the "you" in that challenge to people other than you with a different lifestyle, feel free.
I'm sure you know for a fact that if I spent any time searching I could find hundreds of examples where libertarians have claimed that social conservatives will run their bedroom, but I'm figuring you won't find one example of a law that would even begin to do so.
When was there a Republican in your bedroom?
Actually, I've been heard laughing until my eyes watered over claims (by libertarians and social conservatives) that libertarians delivered the election to the Dems.
Name me a law proposed by a social conservative anytime in the last five years that would affect what sex you can have at home in your bedroom.
That's a nice but irrelevant constraint. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about a law passed a year ago, 15 years ago, or one that has yet to be passed. The issue is whether you support such a law. A liberal is (partially) defined by their support of abortion, regardless of whether they are proposing new laws, or have proposed laws "in the last five years". Since the incorrect Roe v Wade ruling, more than thirty years ago, libs haven't needed any new laws. That doesn't make their pro-abortion stance any less immoral.
Don't be a baby. You advaced the idea that theocons want to pass laws governing your sex life, and I asked for proof. You were challenged for specific facts first, so you get to provide them first. Never fear, I will provide examples after you've provided yours--or more likely, admitted that there aren't any.
That's a nice but irrelevant constraint. ... The issue is whether you support such a law. [followed by example of libs being pro-aborts for 33 years]
Well, that's quite convenient for you, isn't it? As entertaining as I would find it when you came up with some quote from 1952 about keeping birth control illegal, I'd like to keep things in the world or relevance to today's politics. But, since you claim "theocons" support laws that would restrict your bedroom options, let's expand it:
Cite a statement, by any social conservative, in the last five years, supporting a law that affects what sex you can have at home in your bedroom, or proposing such a law. Note that supporting a state or locality's right to pass or maintain such a law does not count, it needs to be an endorsement of the law itself.
Surely, if all of we social conservatives are so obsessed with your boinking choices, you should be able to find a plethora of examples. Lay it on me, baby. Blow my mind.
What makes you think I'm a Republican? Because I mentioned smaller gov't, and everyone knows that a Dem would never say such a thing?
We have a gov't out of control on spending. I'll cheer any politician or party that will step up to the plate to fix it. But, frankly, I worry a lot less about short term earmarks than I do about the unfunded liabilities of SS and Medicare. And the idea of Universal health care is enough to make me look at housing prices in Costa Rica.
Tell me which party will fix SS and Medicare, and return our health care to the private sector, and I will be there.
Still waiting for evidence of a bedroom control law, almost twelve days after making the challenge. Cat got yer tongue?
It's called the CATO INSTITUTE
Came across this old post of yours and it really hits the mark. I was just listening to old audio of President Reagan the other day, and was astonished to realize how different today's rhetoric is. I had forgotten how laser-sharp the focus was, on smaller government.
There's always been some conflict between libertarianism and the "social conservatives". The cry of "9/11 change everything" has become a platform that lets them reject the idea that we need smaller government. They don't want smaller federal government, and more control returned to the States and the people. They want big, powerful, centralized federal government for themselves.
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.