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 ...
Libertarians:
A bunch of drug-addled, baby-killing, boy-rapers....according to their platform.
Right Bortz?
When libertarians answer simple questions with simple, clear non-duplicitious non-devious answers, I’ll bother engaging.
So, when pigs fly, when hell freezes over, and when 0bama becomes a good man, we can discuss. Until that time, adios. Slogan slinging, straw men, diversion, duplicity, pretending to answer questions but never doing so - not my cup of tea and life’s too short.
My posting history is pretty straight-forward. Trouble is, it takes eyes to see. Please remove the beam from yours before trying to find the mote that doesn't live in mine.
Thanks for not trying to deny that you do push to get conservatives to lighten up on the pro-life agenda.
I said nothing about lightening up on the agenda. I did, however, advise changing the rhetoric if winning was desired.
Go check my posting history on that. I *dare* you to do so. You'll find I've said the exact same thing before and I will continue to do so until it gets through thick skulls.
There is a huge difference between changing the message and changing how you deliver the message. I don't expect you to comprehend the difference between the two. It will suffice to note there is a difference between the two. See above about "eyes to see".
By the way,Akin lost, but so did pro-abortion Romney.
Akin lost because of his idiotic rhetoric. Anyone who engages in such silliness is going to lose. That is why it is time to change the rhetoric and the message delivery.
Of course, one could continue beating one's head against the wall in perpetuity, getting nowhere, but being convinced one is correct and being so filled with self-righteousness that they can't consider that perhaps an error has been made is a losing move.
That would be you, my FRiend.
Now, as to Libertarian thought, it all starts with two things. First, you have to say to yourself, "Is there a role for Government here?" and Secondly, you say to yourself, "Should there be a Government role here or should it be left to the People themselves to sort out?"
That is how you start leaving the Big-Government Democrat Party (where you are) and start entering the Small-Government Republican Wing (where I am). Unfortunately, you seem to have more in common with the Liberal Left than you do with actual Conservatives who say, "Ya know, the Government should just BUTT OUT!"
I eagerly await news of your conversion.
I gave you clear, simple answers: post 214.
So, when pigs fly, when hell freezes over, and when 0bama becomes a good man, we can discuss. Until that time, adios. Slogan slinging, straw men, diversion, duplicity, pretending to answer questions but never doing so - not my cup of tea and life’s too short.
Excuse me, but I did actually answer your questions; where were the slogans, or straw men, or diversions, or duplicity? Where was the pretense in answering?
Please show me.
You sound just like a liberal calling conservatives “nazis”. You completely misrepresented Reagan on the subject. You’ve been given two quotes from The Gipper on the subject of libertarianism; one in which he said the heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism, the other a listing of thinkers he admired, some of whom are or were libertarians. You lamely tried to explain away the first in terms of it being “early” and other piffle, and ignored the second entirely.
Libertarian philosophy is a big part of conservatism, as clearly stated by the guy you claim to admire, Ronald Reagan. You can’t make the case for limited government without it, because it is the case for limited government. Maybe that’s a case that doesn’t interest you. Or, maybe you don’t want to state your reasons for wanting to limit government, because you know you will have to make an argument that could be called libertarian. You certainly do avoid it. In case you hadn’t noticed, the growth of the state has happened simultaneously with the degradation of the culture. The two things are related.
Your continuing inability or unwillingness to capitalize Libertarian Party is pretty childish in and of itself.
You said (did you not?) “no one has posted examples of how the libertarian party is at odds with the libertarianism that founded it although you claim many examples have been posted”. That is patently dishonest on your part. The Libertarian Party was founded in 1971. The political philosophy of libertarianism predates that by quite a bit. Locke, Hobbes, Von Mises, and Hayek did not found the Libertarian Party in 1971. That said, in the late 70s and early to mid 80s, many libertarians became at odds with the Libertarian Party over what they saw as a rejection of morality and even Western Civilization. I gave you Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell as examples. Did you miss that? I also gave the obvious examples of Ron and Rand Paul. They are not in the Libertarian Party and cannot be, they are Republicans and libertarians. There is a reason for that. Ron Paul differs with the Libertarian Party, largely over abortion and gay marriage. Neither of them can run as Libertarians (capitalization is our friend) because of those issues and several others in Rand Paul’s case. You missed that too? “No one has posted examples...” Yeah, none at all. I mean there’s two high profile examples, and enough to point you in the direction of plenty more.
Maybe you could tell us how and why you would limit government. Got anything? At all?
In my opinion:
You fail to see the point because you enter into the discussion to attack, you are unable to see an argument made based on Justice because you yourself are inherently unjust, wishing only to impose your will on others: you have no love, mercy, or compassion because that is drowned out by your lust for the power to lord Law over people.
Yeah very convincing, the guy to the right of you and your republican party is actually a closet democrat slipping under the radar here at this social conservative political site as he tries to move you to the right.
There is a role in government for preventing abortion, for running the military and keeping homosexuality out of it, for staying completely away from libertarianism on the border and homosexuality and abortion and gay marriage, and other things that they push.
Conservatism is what built America, libertarians are at war with it.
Now is this you arguing for justice for heterosexuals, or is this you arguing for justice for homosexuals?
You seem to float around to whichever pops into your head from post to post.
I know Democrats a lot better than you think. You'd fit in right well with them.
There are very few people to the Political Right of me. I want to dismember the Federal Government as much as I can.
On the other hand, you want to make it twice as big as it is right now.
Tell me again who is the conservative and who is the liberal?
There is a role in government for preventing abortion, for running the military and keeping homosexuality out of it, for staying completely away from libertarianism on the border and homosexuality and abortion and gay marriage, and other things that they push.
Let's back that up bit by bit, shall we?
Abortion is not a Federal Issue. It is a State Issue and you'd be well served to note that. Same with Marriage. It is not a Federal Issue. Immigration IS a Federal Issue and as such may be regulated.
As for keeping homosexuality out of the military - excuse me - there should be no sexuality in the military at all. It shouldn't matter who is in it. Its the MILITARY and is not a social club.
Apparently, you think it is for some reason? Care to explain why you think sexuality of any sort has any place in the MILITARY?
Conservatism is what built America, libertarians are at war with it.
So ... "Give me liberty or give me death" had no role anywhere. Got it. Might want to take a US History class for a refresher. Liberty was the callphrase of the American Revolution.
Apparently, liberty is now passe' and we all need to be slaves on the Big Government plantation. Thank you no, we don't have an interest in that.
Go join the Democrats. You'll fit in better there. They don't understand the country's history either.
Weird, you are one of our more liberal posters, yet telling the conservatives on this social conservative site that they need to leave because they are like liberals.
And thus you out yourself: Justice is Justice, it cares not for homosexual or heterosexual.
You seem to float around to whichever pops into your head from post to post.
The concept that Justice is blind
is, apparently, a foreign concept to you.
Hmm, I wonder exactly why, how and where he would disagree with the politics of FDR. I mean FDR undoubtedly loved this country, was pro-military, and certainly would have been shocked by gay marriage (well, he was married to one, but you know what I mean). I doubt FDR was pro-choice. From the perspective of a couple of our libertarian-hatin’ posters, I wonder what’s wrong with FDR and the New Deal.
LOL, wow that much over his lifetime? No wonder he wasn't a libertarian.
The libertarian party never changed it's positions on social issues. I'm sorry but you can have your personal views, but America knows what libertarianism is in America.
If libertarians were merely conservatives, then we conservatives and Reagan would all be libertarians, but we all know about the dark side of libertarianism, and how part of it is as lefty as it gets, and the lefty part is the democrat party’s dream making machine.
A serious beatdown cdc well done.
This is absolutely his issue of not debating from the same set of definitions, descriptions, etc. To continue to phrase every single argument with the Libertarian Party is just laughable. It’s almost a perverse fantasy these folks have. He simply will not listen. He’s a statist who knows what’s best for all of us, including forcing discussion of the philosophy of Liberty into his limited worldview.
I don't think that even one of our libers reacted to that point in the article, yet man do they rage when we conservatives point it out.
I know what we all know, why someone is against conservatism and promotes libertarianism as a replacement.
You avoided it again, and still can’t say why government should be limited.
Reagan on libertarian thinker, Milton Friedman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7HtZtwyn_c
We’re up to three now! Three times Reagan didn’t really mean what he said!
Another weird post, being against gay marriage and pro-life makes one like FDR in your eyes?
You are that anti-conservative?
You guys reveal more than you intend to at times.
One thing they dance around is when you ask them something like: “Okay, you want no laws against any kind of porn, sodomy, same sex marriage/adoption/in the military/drugs and so on - federal laws. I’m fine with that. What about STATES enacting such laws?” They generally leave the discussion cold at that point. Some have admitted to me that the states have no business making such laws either.
So, now I see what's going on here and that is you have a perverse need to get inside their head. So someone from a more libertarian thought process says it's a states issue not something for the federal government to decide. But you press further.
You have a twisted need to get deep inside their head. You'd make a great statist, you should apply to the TSA or NSA. Maybe DHS. We'll need folks who can probe to find out what really drives patriots so we can root them out.
What you are attempting to do here isn't much different than the movie Minority Report. Everyone's brain must be clean before LJ can accept them. Shoot you might want to think about being an instructor in the re-education camps.
Thanks for the assist.
I’m a conservative and for limited government and conservative economics and pro Reagan, the hero of conservatism and a non-libertarian.
What you are admitting is what I keep saying, that what separates libertarians from Reagan and conservatism, is their social liberalism and being liberal on national defense.
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.