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 ...
What I'm saying is that what consenting adults do behind closed doors, so long as it harms nobody, is not anyone's business.
That is precisely and exactly where I draw the line.
I can see from your posting history that you have been promoting the homosexual agenda here for years.
Now you are making up something about bedrooms.
The Dems are socialists at heart; he pubbies are careerists at heart; both are servants of he existing system.
When folks are truly fed up with socialism, they will vote for an alternative.
I’d give it a few more years - the USA is not stony broke yet!
another issue that is very big for libertarians is Strong national defense and stopping the adventuring our country has been doing in other country back yards.
There has been no dishonest cutsieness; I simply do not wish to give you more ammunition to attack me with precisely because I believe that you will attack and accuse me.
Moreover, I note how you are constitutionally unable to understand that agreement with the written statement Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships
is not the same thing as endorsing homosexuality. That's like saying that if I believe that the War on Drugs
is unlawful because it (a) has no Constitutional authority [ref the 18th amendment req'd to authorize prohibition], and (b) violates the Bill of Rights [ref the 4th Amendment whittled down to nothing] than, because I am against the War on Drugs
I am a 'pothead' or in favor of legalization, failing to realize that if the War on Drugs is unlawful then there is no need to "legalize" them because they were never unlawful in the first place as all such laws pursuant to the War on Drugs would be nullity.
You think that is a successful approach to get someone to argue it with you
No; I think it is a successful approach to mitigating your attacks — it has proven fairly effective because it denies you the chance to try to make an attack based on anything else I might say.
Do you believe it is within the proper purview of government to "define, license or restrict personal relationships"?
If you don’t support the libertarian position on personal relationships, then we don’t have anything to discuss, I don’t support it either.
That is a very expansive view of "agenda" given that I do not subscribe to the propaganda matrix going about.
So let's open the debate a little wider.
Do you believe the State should regulate interpersonal relationships between consenting adults? Yes or no will suffice.
| But I have to wonder about what the "Republican orthodoxy" is. It seems like there are a lot of varied opinions out there short of absolute isolationism.
As a practical example:
Don't forget that No True Republican™ would dare dissent against subjugation (for reasons of national security, of course); therefore, always remember to prostrate yourself before government agents: Stop, Drop, and Cower [Direct Link] |
Then you're saying that you DO think that the government should define, license or restrict personal relationships?
This makes government a god.
Tell me more about worshiping at the feet of your master, the government.
Tell me more about the Law, and how it can save souls.
You seriously have not thought your position through.
I’m a conservative, I have never been a republican, and I don’t see that ever changing.
You believe that “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.”, and I do, the two sentences of your libertarian position are saying the same thing.
You're conservative, yet support the government regulating all aspects of life?
I suppose if you take conservative
to mean keeping things the same, then yes: quite conservative.
That explains why any form of Constitutionalism is anathema to you — it would be a change from the status quo, which is the wholesale ignoring of the Constitution save in cases where you can use it politically against your opposition.
So then you think that the government can treat you differently because you are a hetrosexual? After all, if homosexual activists get into power and the government can discriminate on things like that: then they can discriminate against you. (Just like they're doing in the military, right now.)
But then, you're against keeping government out of personal relationships.
As a conservative you want to keep things the same, that means letting the government continue to lord over your life in all things: as befits a relationship with a god.
On this thread you have already supported homosexuals in the military, and the feds accepting gay marriage in the military in federal employment and immigration.
So that is done, I notice in your posting history that you also want to get rid of some of this pro-life stuff.
Are you also libertarian on abortion? How about immigration?
No I’m not in favor of giving atheists political power just so we can witness to them. We have a bunch of atheists in power now and they are oppressors of christians. Its time to get more christians in power to stop some of this suffering. I’m not for more of the same, thanks.
And snowden is a far left ows punk...far from a hero although the libertarians are doing all they can to convince conservatives otherwise.
Wow, the topic is the homosexual agenda, and also abortion and immigration, and to you that is all aspects of your life, and you want to oppose conservatism on those issues?
No wonder you don't want to reveal your views on freerepublic.
Did I? No, now kindly stop making things up. What I have said is that what consenting adults do behind closed doors shouldn't matter. I have not once said that I "support" anything. There is a wide difference there.
I've never commented on gays and immigration so we can take that as a strike and a lie right there.
I've never advocated for gay marriage, so we can take that as a second strike and a lie right there. I have commented that I think the Government should get out of the marriage business, but that is not advocacy for gay marriage. Its a comment that Government should not be involved. Twisting that into sign-waving support -- that's a real stretch and one would have to lie in order to call it that.
One more and you're out.
Just because I do not see where there is a compelling reason for Government to get involved in something and I step aside and do NOT call for regulation does not mean I support something. To call it that is a lie.
The world is not entirely black and white. Might be good to keep that in mind some times.
So that is done, I notice in your posting history that you also want to get rid of some of this pro-life stuff.
What I have said is that to win elections, it would be a good idea to tone down the rhetoric. If turning it up won elections, we would be seeing Senator Todd Akin right now.
Didn't work out that way, did it? So, we can write that off to a third strike and lie -- and you're out.
So, now we've established that either there are problems with reading comprehension, or someone wants to throw out bald-faced lies. Let's not speculate as to which; they both lead to the same place.
Good day.
Reading posts 172 and 173, I learn that you are much more rabidly in support of the gay agenda than I even thought.
You revealed real, almost moving, angst over the plight of gays and their total acceptance in marriage, the military, child custody, adoption etc.
Except he's done more for revealing the government's overstepping/violation of the Constitution than anyone in recent memory.
As a former military man, I respect that — indeed, he's put himself on the line in a way that would make a lot of service-members squirm.
I can forgive poor political leanings, but I do respect the willingness to stand up and say this is wrong — regardless of his political leanings, that is what the man did.
No I’m not in favor of giving atheists political power just so we can witness to them. We have a bunch of atheists in power now and they are oppressors of christians. Its time to get more christians in power to stop some of this suffering. I’m not for more of the same, thanks.
Then why would you vote for a Republican? They are revealing themselves to be just like the democrats: see obamacare, see amnesty, see the IRS scandal, see the NSA scandal -- all of those are unpopular and vigorously opposing them would not be jeopardizing their political positions. (Since they are going along to get along
, it is safe to assume that they are in favor of the underlying policies.)
Oh, they might mention 'bible' or 'Jesus' but they have no heart, no fruit. Look at the [in]action on every platform plank.God and guns
is just their 'code-words' to ensure votes. Look at Romney, politically he's virtually identical to Obama; look at the response republican people give when you point that out to them, it is invariably one of two things: indignation/outrage that you think their person was like Obama at all, or I'm ashamed that I held my nose and voted for him.
As to asserting that libertarians are all atheists, I'm unsure about that.
Libertarians have a "government shouldn't be involved in all aspects of life" philosophy that is, frankly, refreshing compared to the ever more statist Republican party; the application of render unto Cesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's
in politics would likely result in much the same.
The nomination of Romney convinced me that I was no longer welcome in the Republican party; Libertarians seem like the next largest party that aligns to any degree with my views. [I'd much rather do away with parties altogether and look at people; but that's more work, and the current system is vehemently set against that because as-is they can act as gatekeepers.]
I didn’t make up anything, read your post 151 again and what it was in response to, and I also didn’t make up your years old posting history.
Thanks for not trying to deny that you do push to get conservatives to lighten up on the pro-life agenda.
By the way,Akin lost, but so did pro-abortion Romney.
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.