Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 12/20/2006 3:27:19 PM PST by neverdem
He's right. Next Election, vote either Federalist, Whig, or Democratic-Republican!
opinion.
Bob Barr occupies the 21st Century Liberties Chair for Freedom and Privacy at the American Conservative Union, and serves as a Board Member of the National Rifle Association. He serves as the Chairman of Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances, and provides advice to several organizations, including consulting on privacy issues with the ACLU, serving as the Chair for Youth Leadership Training at the Leadership Institute in Arlington, Virginia, and as a member of The Constitution Project’s Initiative on Liberty and Security, based at Georgetown University's Public Policy Institute. Bob served as a Member of the Long-Term Strategy Project for Preserving Security and Democratic Norms in the War on Terrorism, at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University from 2003 to 2005. Recognizing Bob Barr’s leadership in privacy matters, New York Times columnist William Safire has called him “Mr. Privacy.”
The problem with Libertarians is that they want to go back to the time when we had a very small federal government. You know, back when there were no labor laws, no education departments, no FAA, no Dept of Transportation, no FBI...
I want a smaller government, but I want one that provides sensible and efficient services.
More like way out there on the Z-axis!
Which is just it.
If the Republicans would behave fiscally responsible with social conservatism thrown in, they'd clean house.
It's really the party's only hope of keeping all sides reasonably happy.
And really, social conservatives and libertarians have a number of things in common.
For starters, the start of which is low taxes and a belief in charity as opposed to forced extraction.
I'm a social + fiscal conservative, but frankly, the social issues the Republicans have chosen to tackle are NOT ones that I would have. I feel they wasted a lot of good capital on Schiavo and stem cell research.
Embryonic cells have proven worthless (to this point), anyway.
Actually, libertarians' views on many social issues are often orthagonal to those of liberals and conservatives.
Liberals generally believe that bad behavior should have no consequences.
Conservatives generally believe that bad behavior should have government-imposed consequences.
Libertarians generally believe that bad behavior should have those consequences, and only those consequences, which flow naturally from the behavior itself; government should impose punishments upon the bad behavers only when the consequences of their behavior would fall on people who would otherwise lack recourse.
Is there any limit to the number of services you want the gov't to provide? It would be "sensible" to make sure we all had clothing, food and medical care. Do you want the gov't to do that efficiently?
On stem cell research, the Republicans should have hammered more on the fact that by any reasonable measure, adult stem cell research is far more practical and promising than embryonic research. Even if there weren't any objection to using surplus embryos for research purposes, spending money on such research instead of adult stem cell research would be fiscally irresponsible.
On the Terri Schiavo case, the Republicans should have hammered on the fact that a man who has openly pledged to marry another woman as soon as his wife is dead cannot be expected to act in his wife's interest. To say that a husband should be allowed to bed another woman, sire children by her, and pledge to marry her, all without forfeiting his claims as husband to his present wife, is to make a mockery of marriage.
Especially consequences based on the behavior.
Suggesting the depth of hostility toward the notion of legal drugs, Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., asked whether anti-racketeering laws could be used to prosecute people conspiring to legalize drugs. McCaffrey shot back that doing so "would have a chilling effect on the right of free speech."
Barr wanted to keep drugs illegal and prosecute advocacy of legalization. Even Drug Csar McCaffrey sttod closer to the libertrians on that one.
Sure.
Liberals: promiscuous sex, heterosexual or homosexual, should be a-ok. The government should supply the funding to cure any diseases that result.
Conservatives: homosexual sodomy should be banned.
Libertarians: Do what you like, but if you get sick don't run to the government for help.
Don't know. I haven't heard or seen anything by him on the subject in years.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
I think that's about as wrong as it can be. It's the LP's failure to build a party structure at the state and local level that keeps them from winning much of anything. You need canvassers and envelope stuffers, people to make coffee and sandwiches, gofers, somebody who can meet the guest speaker and make sure he has a room reserved....
You know, all that boring stuff that Libertarians are too high-minded to bother with.
So how the Hell was the Republican Party born? Immaculate conception? The problem with the LP is the kook leadership that focuses on drugs, porn, & prostitutes instead of limiting government & getting us out of the UN. Plus they're ambiguous on some of the issues. If they spent more time on the latter they'd get somewhere.
A few times they will run their own candidates, but they seem to mostly recommend the least objectionable of the viable candidates.
If the Libertarian Party were to just refuse to nominate its own candidate until such time as a very high profile person is willing to step into that position, then they might get more respect and have more success.
Existing as a party with the skills and manpower to help support other candidates would be a good selling point in the short run until they can attract someone reasonable to run as a Libertarian.
That makes sense.
First of all, there's no "liberal" in Libertarians. Saying this only makes your argument look weak.
Second of all, Libertarianism is the heart and soul of the GOP. Limited gov't, low taxes, individual responsibility....so the GOP should disregard these voters?
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.