Posted on 03/19/2010 12:25:37 PM PDT by presidio9
"Freedom" has long been a right-wing rallying cry for self-identified patriots ranging from John Birchers to tea party protesters to increasingly extreme members of the Republican establishment. They're particularly passionate about the freedom to own and openly carry guns and freedom from federal taxation (but not necessarily federal benefits). Otherwise, their most consistent attachments to freedom tend to be rhetorical, unless freedom means restricting reproductive choice, same-sex relationships, medical marijuana, or sexually explicit speech and permitting discrimination against people who do not acknowledge Jesus as their savior. For some prominent conservatives -- like John McCain, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and Dick Cheney -- freedom also entails the establishment of a national security state empowered to arrest and imprison summarily people suspected of terrorism and to spy on people suspected of nothing in particular, thanks to a ubiquitous but largely invisible surveillance system.
There are, of course, exceptions to this statism. The CATO Institute, generally associated with the right because of its commitment to free markets, is equally, if less notoriously, committed to civil liberty. CATO is unusual in its consistent libertarianism, which means, however, that (like Reason magazine), it is a creature of neither the right nor the left. A recent CATO report estimates that some 14 percent of Americans also qualify as libertarian, meaning that they're fiscally conservative and socially liberal (although it's unclear if fiscal conservatives who believe "the less government the better" are willing to surrender their own government benefits, from Pell grants to Medicare).
Libertarians are labile voters,
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
Judging from your comments, you must not be very familiar with Russell Kirk. Far from pining for a world that never was, he calls for dealing with things as they are.
I recommend that you read The Conservative Mind (Chicago: Regnery, 1953) and then judge for yourself whether or not he was a literary dreamer. And, by the way, I would also recommend that you read William Strunk's The Elements of Style (Ithaca, NY, 1918).
Just posted this at the Yahoo Group, for Calif. Libertarian Party Candidates:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some of you may be interested in this debate going on this AM over at Free Republic, between the Conservative Republicans & Libertarians -
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2474831/posts
‘Free Republic’ is a conservative website. It is really a great website/ forum for finding recent news articles about govt policies and politics. But the majority of participants at FR are traditional Conservatives, not Libertarians. A small percentage of them are Libertarians.
On rare occasions, a Libertarian at FR will post an article like this one above. . . and then - all Heck breaks loose.
Though a minority, the libertarians at FR, when they decide to peek their heads out of their tortoise shells, are quite persistent - and really tear into the Trads.
The resulting intellectual fight - as usual (and as you can see from the link above), quickly degenerates. . . into arguments about religion beliefs (”Aren’t Libertarians atheists?!”), drug legalization (”You’re all on drugs!”), abortion, foreign policy (”You’re a bunch of pacifists!”), and the role of govt (”You’re anarchists”!). They won’t admit that William F. Buckley was strongly pro-drug legalization, that Milton Friedman was a “philosophical anarchist” - and that many of Libertarian politics would be (and were in practice) embraced by Ronald Reagan. For example, I know many libertarian economists who WORKED at the FTC & in Congress for Dick Armey, under Reagan’s Administration. Tom McClintock is libertarian leaning; and Scott Brown has given indications he is, as well.
Anyway, as you can see, it is a tough sell to win these folks over. Though we DO share strong common beliefs about economic freedom (free enterprise) and reduced govt. spending, there is a wide gulf between trad-Republicans & Libertarians on some other issues, as you can see.
This underlying fight I think represents who will ultimately control (& benefit from) the ‘Tea Party’ Movement: Libertarians or Republicans.
If any - ANY - Republicans switch and vote “Yes” on the HC Bill this weekend it will be a major boost to our Party [the LP] in Nov, as people abandon the RINO’s for real fiscal conservatives.
No, I just don’t think you know what a libertarian actually is.
This article post, like many of these article postings was posted by a self-professed pick-and-choose Conservative who gets their kick out of watching Conservative infighting.
Posters like this are more damaging to Conservatives and Libertarians than any Socialist or Liberal screeds on Democratic Underground. They are extremely suspect and are bullies to the political fight we must keep our eye on.
They are gnats in the soup.
I wish that were true. I honestly think there are some unsolvable & difficult hurdles, here. They will be difficult to bridge. Such as drug legalization. Most Freepers enjoy a beer I’m sure, but they’re unwilling to let people smoke Pot while watching the Game on the weekend. It’s hard to convince them to butt out. They just have a prejudice against some drugs in favor of others. I honestly don’t know how to overcome this, other than to mock them, call them hypocrites. Can’t get much traction there. I see it as insurmountable, it’s frustrating.
We (Libertarians) are consistently FOR allowing individual self-determination and personal liberty, laissez faire, as long as your personal choices to smoke cigarettes, eat red meat, and drink beer (and ruin your liver) for example, don’t infringe on others’ liberty; they call that “anarchistic” and “amoral” — rather than consistent and principled. Go figure... They like to pick-and-choose which choices people are “free” to make in the privacy of their own homes. They like to “pose” as individualists, but don’t have the courage to be truly respect of personal liberty, which always includes maximum tolerance of private activities by consenting adults which they, personally, may not necessarily choose. Pretty sad.
;)
4L
If any - ANY - Republicans switch and vote “Yes” on the HC Bill this weekend it will be a major boost to our Party [the LP] in Nov, as people abandon the RINO’s for real fiscal conservatives.
This says it all about the scummy RonPaul et al lie-bertarian agenda. Thank you for exposing it for all to see.
Nothing but lies from the LP and RLC, trying to claim that Reagan and Buckley were libertarians and that Dick Armey and Scott Brown are libertarian. And to claim that Tom McClintock is libertarian is the biggest laugh of all... just because he's a Scotsman, I suppose, haha.
If libertarians stood for anything other than aiding and abetting the Radical Leftist agenda, they would run their own candidates under their own banner rather than infiltrating the GOP and posing as Republicans.
This just reinforces that.
We have conservatives in Congress who do embrace smaller government and fiscal conservatism and they don't align themselves with those Libertoonbats.
Just off the top of my head, there's John Culberson, Ted Poe, Jim DeMint, Duncan Hunter, Michele Bachmann...
The Libertoonbats are trying to infiltrate the conservative movement by pretending to be conservatives themselves, but they're really Code Pink, pro-drug, self-serving egotists who just want to get their own into higher profile positions.
See what I mean?
Oh, yeah...we read you loud and clear.
"If any - ANY - Republicans switch and vote “Yes” on the HC Bill this weekend it will be a major boost to our Party [the LP] in Nov, as people abandon the RINO’s (sic) for real fiscal conservatives."
It's all about the Libertarian Party, is it? To heck with defeating the HC bill as long as there is a potential for the Libertarians to get noticed in November?
So what do you think folks SHOULD do to a pubbie that votes for that abomination, say “Thanks, job well done,” and reelect him?
Libertarianism generally means pro narcotics, whoredom, sodomy and being anti-christian. Those aspects of the dogma are generally rejected by conservatives.
Gee, you’re good. FOUR lies for the price of one. Amazing.
Said "pubbie" should be outed as a lie-bertarian, ya silly.
And I say that as someone who doesn't think very highly of the Libertarian Party as a political enterprise. (Lots of good ideas; but some very quirky ones. And some VERY quirky candidates. If some dude who dyed himself blue is the best the LP can do -- then I'll remain a Republican Party "small-l" libertarian, thanks).
There’s no libertarian I ever met that would vote for that bill or anything even REMOTELY like it. Is telling lies what you do for a living?
Helllooooo....??!!
It was a self-described libertarian, on this very thread, who advocated voting FOR the HC bill. Look up a few posts; it wasn’t me.
See last paragraph, post 142.
Actually, from what I read, it was a libertarian saying that if Republican Congressmen vote for this bill, their constituents should punish them by instead electing Libertarians.
I understand his sentiment, but I don't think it will work. That sort of thing too often throws the general election to the Democrats. I'd rather just work to elect better, more fiscally-conservative Republicans in the GOP primaries.
Ahh... That would be a big negatory, good buddy. The comment was made that IF a pubbie should break ranks and vote in favor of this abomination, THEN it might be a big break for the LP. Reading for comprehension is our friend. Because NOWHERE did anyone actually favor such an atrocious act.
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.