Posted on 07/25/2013 8:32:09 PM PDT by Nachum
ASPEN, Colo. — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) on Thursday offered a clear broadside against Republicans drifting toward a more libertarian view of foreign policy, lumping Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in with them and suggesting they explain their position to victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The House earlier this week narrowly voted against a reduction in funding for the National Security Agency, as libertarian-leaning members from both sides joined together to vote for the amendment. “As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
A warrant for all communications from all Americans does not qualify for "probable cause" nor does it "particularly describe" the things to be seized. This is completely and totally unacceptable. Any government that would engage in such data collection is illegitimate, and any big government liberal who would support such data collection is un-American.
Why is Gov. Christie afraid of libertarians? Good grief!
Even if Christie were running against Barack Obama himself, I would never vote for him.
A lot of conservatives could live with the government not being involved in marriages at all, just legal contracts. Let the churches and other organizations do the marrying.
Amnesty? I think some of the libertarians are beginnning to come around to protecting citizenship and residency.
The RINOS are getting desparate because even if it's shortlived, a coalition of conservatives and libertarians could get our traitors knocked out of office.
I would say that the opponents of libertarian ideas are the ones who insist that the Libertarian Party defines what it means to be 'libertarian', in the same way that leftists say that the Republican Party platform, and politicians, define conservatism.
Neither is true.
Christie is afraid of Rand as well he should be.
Christie wants to be prez and Rand is his biggest obstacle.
uh no. There is a biiiigggg conservative libertarian following.
Get yourself educated
Read Maybury and others.
That's a ridiculous slur against a large number of people whose political views you apparently disagree with. Along the same vein, while you may have seen some "self-described libertarian" advocate for changes in those laws, I have read plenty of actual news reports of people who subscribe to the positions of the Republican and Democratic parties, and who vote for their candidates, be convicted of actually performing those illegal acts.
So if your logic were to prevail, we should doubly oppose the positions of Republicans and Democrats alike since some of them not only believe that such actions are appropriate, but do them.
Taking the most extreme position espoused by someone who claims to be affiliated with a political group as representative of the group is a tactic of the left, not conservatives.
Lets look at them one by one:
* freedom to speak and publish - widely supported by voters.
* freedom to assemble - widely supported by voters.
* pornography - legal already, internet traffic data shows large percentages of the population view pornography. Little political support for changing those laws apparent among current voters, regardless of the moral issues many of us feel about the topic.
* sexual deviation - in the context of the times when the book was written the term included behavior which few in our society now think should be illegal, including what President Clinton liked to do. Obviously a contentious issue still for other kinds of sexual behavior, but politically speaking the position expressed by Rothbard is not far different from that espoused by many politicians today.
* prostitution - Ask the citizens of Nevada.
* violent invasion of someone else’s person or property is a crime - widely supported by voters.
* conscription as slavery on a massive scale - how many conservatives would support a mandatory 2 year "community service" requirement if President Obama proposed it?
* the mass slaughter of civilians is totally illegitimate - widely supported by voters, it is one reason our rules of engagement are so strict. Would the voters today support a candidate who proposed simply bombing the cities of an enemy to "break the will of the people"?
Christie is another RINO wolf in sheeps’ clothing.
Translation-- Freedom is dangerous to fat Rino statists....
“Mass slaughter” is a canard when it comes to the USA. Unless you are accepting the anti-US propaganda of Nazis, Islamists and Communists as legit. As for conscription per se, remember the Second Militia Act of 1792, under the authority of none other than President George Washington? Equating conscription and slavery is another canard.
Are you seriously trying to get a conservative to accept pornography merely on the basis of it being “legal”? Same with abortion and prostitution (the latter called “porneia” in the Greek New Testament)? The Founding Fathers would unilaterally call for the hanging rope, the context perhaps being lost on those unfamiliar with Judeo-Christian symbolism within jurisprudence (a person hung on a tree is cursed by God). As for Clinto(o)n, no, conservatives will always excoriate his behavior as a rotten and fatal character flaw and not anything positive, and even destructive to the nation.
The Founding Fathers emphasized morality to prevent the USA from making the same mistakes as (or worse than!) nation-states (or even empires) of the past, which all rotted from within thanks to a decline in morality. As I see things (and as you are apparently confirming), libertarians do not support the moral pillars of the USA.
How would such people be conservatives? The traditional family is the basic unit of society, and any “alternate” destroys society. A conservative does everything in his power to protect that pillar of society, to the point of standing in the way of a government that is attacking it.
A coalition of conservatives and libertarians would not re-establish the USA’s moral center and would be racked by infighting even if they gained power. The social liberalism of the libertarians means that they would tend to maintain the social damage that the liberals/RINOs caused and even try to inflict more damage. So I see no change effected, unless the libertarians allow the conservatives to lead—which is something completely unlikely once libertarians get a taste of real power.
If the federal government wants to get out of the business of defining marriage and marrying people, I'm okay with that. The problem is that every time constitional conservatives leave the plantation, the RINO ptb bring up one of these social issues, and pretend to support a conservative view, but it ends up they don't support it in the long run.
I could live with a "meeting of the minds" of Rand Paul, Ted Cruz and other people who want to preserve our liberties, constitution and identity as a nation.
The real simple question to ask the libertarian haters is this. Can you point me to Republican as openly disdainful of Libertarian thought as you folks who didn’t sell our butts out to the Police State?
Some of you claim Cruz, fine but I doubt you’ll see him attack Libertarians like Christie.
Possibly Sarah Palin though she’s been silent on the Amash vote. And yet, what does Sarah tell people? We need to welcome in the Ron Paul team. You folks are enablers, pure and simple. Enablers of Dubya, McCain, Boner and the rest of the tyranny wing.
There are some really vehement knee jerk libertarian haters on here, aren’t there?
I’m not a libertarian myself, but I used to be, so I have some sympathies in that direction.
Some folks, though, just viscerally hate and will reject the concepts, even AS conceptual models.
I don’t get it so much of it should be a model for someone who believes in limited government.....However, there are far fewer of those types around here these days.
The whole Snowden/NSA/Amash vote is waking people up quickly. Better to plug your nose and be free than choose a so-called conservative who is on the take for the machine.
Why did you refer this to me? I was defending a coalition of constitutional conservatives and libertarians to stop the spying on US citizens and the out-of-control war mongering.
No, I was simply pointing out that many, if not all of the issues identified in the book you cited were issues that the majority of citizens, even those who consider themselves conservatives, are not voting to change the laws about.
You cite the example of conscription, but avoid my point that few conservatives today would support mandatory conscription, except perhaps for the defense of the nation in the most dire of circumstances. Would you support mandatory "public service" if it meant young people spending a year doing community organizing, volunteer work, etc.?
Imagine a candidate whose platform was the reverse of all the issues listed, i.e. they were against free speech, in favor of mandatory government service, and said they would upon taking office outlaw all pornography, and arrest any men and women, even if married, who engaged in the kind of sexual behavior President Clinton enjoyed. How many votes would they get in an election?
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.