Posted on 08/01/2013 9:28:50 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Way back in 1975, a Republican agitator named Ronald Reagan had this to say about an esoteric young movement that was roiling politics: “If you analyze it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”
Neither the GOP old guard nor the rowdy libertarians ever quite bought that argument.
They both lay claim to the same conservative economic philosophy. But libertarians are more isolationist and antiwar than Republican orthodoxy allows on foreign policy and more permissive on social issues.
Still, in the nearly four decades since Reagan made those comments, the two have managed — at least most of the time — to maintain an uneasy marriage of expedience.
Libertarianism once again appears to be on the rise, particularly among the young. But its alliance with the Republican establishment is fraying, as demonstrated by the increasingly personal war of words between two leading potential 2016 presidential contenders.
The sparring began last week, when New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) posited: “As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought.”
After Christie made it clear that he was referring to Rand Paul, the Senate’s leading critic of the National Security Agency and its surveillance programs, the Kentucky Republican fired back on his Twitter account: “Christie worries about the dangers of freedom. I worry about the danger of losing that freedom. Spying without warrants is unconstitutional.”
Their feud — which is being watched closely as a possible warmup round for 2016 — has continued, expanded and spilled over into other issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The gays have used government force to claim themselves a protected class. You would use governmentforce to rectify this situation how?
As typically evasive as that was, I think we can see that you support the libertarian acceptance of homosexuality in the military and immigration, and in marriage and adoption.
libertarinism:
“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.”
bump
I don't know how to talk to someone who is that confused, you don't think for example that the military has had to take into consideration sexuality and marriage and widows and kids and immigration, during the centuries?
I don't know how to talk to someone who is that confused, you don't think for example that the military has had to take into consideration sexuality and marriage and widows and kids and immigration, during the centuries?
I’ll take that post as you agreeing with the libertarian position on personal relationships.
Marriage, widows, and kids, yes. Sexuality, no. Sex is not the business of government. Fifth amendment and all.
My libertarian brother-in-law likes to quote the Constitution when arguing abortion with me: “all persons born or naturalized..” is what he likes to say, claiming that a fetus isn’t legally “born” (no legal name, SS#, status, etc) and thus does not yet have any rights.
It’s disturbing how they’re willing to warp words for murderous purposes.
I would agree with those positions, but I haven’t seen anything like that coming from any administration in my lifetime. Reagan is rightly held up as an exemplary conservative, but his dragon was the Soviets. The true leviathan hardly noticed his tenure.
All the “draconian cuts” we have somehow survived have been smoke and mirrors. Real cuts are painful and they would hit conservatives as hard as liberals, since we all partake of the excess. The shadow government isn’t some nefarious conspiracy; it is the banal bureaucracies that answer to no one and employ the majority of those in government at every level.
I don’t care about drugs either, other than the fact that the War on Drugs has corrupted law enforcement across the nation and militarized these agencies to the point of danger. I have sworn to defend this nation against all enemies, and I really don’t see the enemy part in the oath to protect and serve. Leave soldiering to the professionals and leave law enforcement to the LEOs. Neither one of us is very good at the other’s job.
I see, so you supported homosexuals in the military, and the feds accepting gay marriage in the military in federal employment and immigration.
I'm sorry, I cannot reply to you because the government has not authorized our relationship as acquaintances
, nor is this an authorized free-speech zone
, nor has it issued a temporary freedom of association
pass.
You have poor reading comprehension and read none of my other posts.
The reduction of federal reach into every aspect of our lives would render many of the problems we have with alternate sexual orientation irrelevant.
Don't want them teaching your kids? Don't hire them in your private school.
Don't like companies providing them benefits? Don't buy from that company. Don't like airlines that employ them? Don't fly that airline.
Don't like paying for their medical care for their life choices? You won't have to. Hire your own doctors, build your own hospital with like minded people.
Don't want to sell your house to them? Don't sell it to them. There would be no discrimination laws. We have right of association.
A libertarian society in my mind would not use government force to enforce discrimination laws nor would it enforce morality, as one religion would necessarily need to define which morality is to be enforced.
The military has had gays in the past and will in the future. Big government overreaching has made them a protected class. How about we let the military do their job? I don't see the harm in letting a gay person who wants to serve in the military serve. If that offends others that want to serve in a military free of gays, I don't know what to tell them. They must decide what they value more. Serving their country or not serving their country that is made up of all kinds of people.
I don't really care if gays adopt children. It is not the best situation. I would rather see a traditional family adopt them. What if the choice was staying in an institution or being adopted by a gay couple? Is the preferable solution keeping the kid institutionalized?
If they are capable of providing guidance and love, I see no harm. If you think they are all pedophiles based on what you read on Free Republic, you have that right to hold that idea.
I won't go into immigration again as I already covered it in an earlier post.
Your side has won huge victories recently, for instance the feds have quit discriminating against homosexual marriage and homosexuality in the military and immigration policy.
libertarinism:
“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.”
Your Libertarian brother in-law should watch some abortion videos.
Again, that seems to be a yes, you do support this.
libertarinism:
“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.”
*””I won’t go into immigration again as I already covered it in an earlier post.””*
No you didn’t, this is the libertarian position on the American borders.
IMMIGRATION:
“”THE ISSUE: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new “Berlin Wall” which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government’s policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.
THE PRINCIPLE: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.
SOLUTIONS: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.
TRANSITIONAL ACTION: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.””
You mean the libertarian position on NAMBLA and child pornography?
I read that, it said nothing, it had a vague meaningless sentence on it.
I just gave the actual libertarian position in post 116.
It is much more fleshed out.
Libertarians are like drooling dogs.
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.