Posted on 10/18/2010 9:10:24 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
I have come to believe that Libertarians are worthless. Before them, a crop of wonderful, small government candidates sit and will likely win–scores of points of optimism in a political sky that has been bleak and black. To coin a word from the opposition, there’s Hope.
Now, most of us watching this election realize that the exhausting work over the last two years has hardly begun. Once this new crop become part of the system, they’ll have to be watched and held accountable.
The most optimistic change, then, hasn’t really been these candidates. It’s been the heart of the American people. Citizens have decided that they’ve sat on their duffs long enough. It’s time to get involved. It’s time to stay involved.
The candidates aren’t perfect. No politicians are perfect. Hells bells. They’re human and mere vessels for the expression of the voters’ will.
So, I read Doug Mataconis’ piece about why Libertarians are still disenchanted even with the best electoral hope in a generation presents itself. I feel absolute disgust.
Kvetching about the social issues of a Christine O’Donnell while ignoring the economic liberties that Mike Castle would have assuredly stripped had he had his way makes no sense. How on earth can a true Libertarian even worry about such irrelevance?
(Excerpt) Read more at libertypundits.net ...
Our outspoken champion for moral integrity, lj, said this once about libertarians, and I agree wholeheartedly considering the stand I’ve seen most libertarians on FR
take.....
lj: “Yes, libertines want their immoral world view forced on everyone else, in the false name of “freedom”.”
It’s true.
It also is a great excuse to sit on your butt and not fight for a moral society. If you allow others their pet sins then they won’t yell about yours.
Exactly right.
lj: “Yes, libertines want their immoral world view forced on everyone else, in the false name of “freedom”.”
That's wonderful, except for in this brilliant blanket statement about "libertarians," you substituted "libertine" for the word "libertarian." That means either:
You wished to make a point about libertines, not libertarians.
You believe the words "libertine" and "libertarian" are interchangeable, which is incorrect.
Either way, you failed to make any sort of cogent point other than the fact that you really think poorly of a certain group of people . . . you're just not quite sure who they are.
Yes, equal rights for all people. No special treatment for anyone. How awful and un-American is this liberal pinko commie homo sympathizer Hemingway's Ghost!
Libertarians are worse than that. They are one step away from anarchists. Total freedom of conduct is lawlessness. Laws are based on morality. If it feels good, do it is NOT a political slogan.
Libertarians want all restrictions removed from immoral behavior.
The natural result is going to be anarchy.
Our form of government only works for a moral people, not a bunch of over grown, selfish, spoiled brats, which the vast majority of libertarians are.
Libertarians are great at disguising their support of immorality and anarchy in terms of limited government. I’ve seen libertarians on other forums brag on how they were able to stealth support homosexual marriage for years on FR without getting the zot by couching in in the form of *The government doesn’t have any business defining marriage*.
They’re a deceitful bunch in their drive to breakdown all barriers to the behavior they want to engage in without concern for the consequences.
They support homosexual marriage, abortion on demand, prostitution, legalizing drugs, and opening the borders (pro-illegal immigration) to start with. Ironically, some those supporting legalized drugs are all in favor of the government providing those drugs at a reduces cost. So much for smaller government.
Those are all liberal positions. It’s not a matter of advocating for smaller government. They are advocating for liberal positions under the guise of advocating for smaller government. That’s deceitful.
Everyone else is not as stupid as libertarians like to think they are and I am not going to be trusting anyone who will lie to advance their agenda.
4) Assertion B = Conservatives should concede when A(2) is True.
So, group A holds belief set A(1,2) asserts B = True.
I have to agree with that because it is simply a logical fact. Now you can disagree about the A(1) and A(2)'s relationship to actual, objective reality, but you can't argue Assertion B in the context of A(1,2) as given.
A logical fact? What is the objective definition of (big-government social) issues Einstein?
I would say your "logic" is but a morally devoid house of cards. The argument is flawed in that it diminishes through slight of hand what exactly are conservative moral principles.
Libertarians, most, have tunnel vision -on the one hand they wish to fully exploit that which the Creator endowed them while on the other hand they deem the Creator irrelevant or secondary in regard to public discourse...
That is why the Libertarians are but a fringe group...
As far as your arguments -you know the terminology; however. seem to fail grasping the concepts behind the terms.
I would say that many of them are full-blown anarchists.
I'd say that sounds like anarchy.
Liberty is defined as: freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
Programs which require trans-state funding and/or enforcement in order to effect a societal or political change to the benefit of the government.
Did that help you, Forrest?
Examples include:
Public school busing.
Social Security (and all unfunded mandates).
Pharmaceutical importation restrictions.
Equal Opportunity employment mandates.
Agricultural subsidies.
The list goes on and on.
A libertarian is someone who advocates individual liberty over coercive control by a powerful government.
You're making a grave error by stating "libertarians want all restrictions removed from immoral behavior." If that were true, libertarians would want all restrictions removed from the decidedly immoral behaviors of murder, rape, and theft, among others. This is entirely untrue, for libertarians are typically staunch defenders of laws that protect both person and property from outside interference.
not a bunch of over grown, selfish, spoiled brats
. . . an illogical, emotion-based rant against something you really don't understand. I can comprehend your passion, but your guns are trained on entirely the wrong target.
I'd say that sounds like anarchy.
And I'd say that the ability to comprehend nuance is not your strong suit.
Definition of nuance: subtle difference: a very slight difference in meaning, feeling, tone, or color
So slight as to make no difference.
From the Libertarian party platform:
1.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the
government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption,
immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or
restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices
and personal relationships.
1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
Remember, you're the one who threw the BS flag on "nuance" . . . "the great tool of the left."
Just libertarians.
Because that's the corner your into which you're arguing yourself
Hardly. I believe in the rule of law not catch phrases from the 60's.
Ask me a direct question...
You didn't post that to me but I'm hoping it applies to everyone. So... I have a couple of questions if you don't mind.
Do you think homosexuals are born with their same-sex attraction?
The reason I ask is this: after decades of research, there is still no scientific evidence homosexuals are born with their same-sex attraction and a growing body of evidence that environment is a major factor in determining our sexuality.
I know of two very public homosexuals who left the homosexual life and are now doing whatever they can to help others leave the homosexual life.
As I see it, homosexuals are confused about their sexuality and I really think that's an accurate summary of decades of data.
If you think homosexuals are born that way, would you mind telling me why?
The dictionary definition of libertarian : a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.I'd say that sounds like anarchy.
Either you meant what you posted or you did not mean what you posted. Or you meant to "nuance" what you posted. But since "nuance" is a tool of the left, and you are anything but a leftist, you wouldn't be caught dead using leftist tools, would you? So must have meant it absolutely, instead: a person who advocates liberty is an anarchist.
You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
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.