[magellan]

This is B.S. because of the following:

"The [Libertarian] Party ... has to emphasize its social liberalism to appeal to the broader American public."

This is a huge fallacy which equates "libertarians" with "moderates" or "independents", or even worse, equates a "libertarian" with "fiscally conservative and socially liberal."

Libertarians, and the Libertarian Party, should not be socially liberal. They should be socially libertarian.

Social Liberals favor Affirmative Action, libertarians favor a meritocracy.

Social Liberals favor the government mandating socially liberal policies on the population, libertarians want the government to butt out of their social lives.

Social Liberals favor gun control.

Social Liberals oppose school choice.

Social Liberals want to ban trans fats and Big Gulps.

I could go on, but my point is proven. A self-described "libertarian" who supports socially liberal policies opposes personal liberty, instead of favoring it.

[Gene Eric]

>> who largely have experience with Ron Paul, and has to emphasize its social liberalism

Ron Paul is Pro-Life.

Screw the LP platform.

[Gene Eric]

>> Libertarianism is rebranding itself to be more inclusive. Now more than ever, it is accepting of LGBT ...

Rachel is describing liberalism which is hardly libertarianism given the legal controls it requires to ensure homos can force businesses to service their needs.

The Libertarian Party of fools must feel embowered. But the idiots aren’t libertarians. Most are prolly eager for their free Obamacare.

[PhiloBedo]

This article came across as gibberish. Sort of “anything and everything”, kinda like Libertarianism. I didn’t see anything that related to the title.

[Sola Veritas]

“...and has to emphasize its social liberalism to appeal to the broader American public...”

Its “Social Liberalism” is why I despise the Libertarian (Libertine) Party as much as I do the “Demoncrats.”

[meadsjn]

But what is most striking is that a majority (39 percent) consider themselves “moderates”—not conservatives or liberals.

Well, they sure got that liberal math working for them.

[lentulusgracchus]

[Art.] If anyone should be compromising on their ideals, it should be people like Hunter. He does not have the authority to determine what is and isn’t best for liberty.

Yeah? And how do you determine that? Will you sit him down now with a baseball bat?

The basic question, raised a dozen years ago by a better conservative than I, is, "Who do you have to be, to say 'should'?"

Social conservatives are "for" conserving the social mores that got us where we are today, viz., Judaeo-Christian mores. Don't believe me? Well, just look around -- where is Babylon today? Where is Nineveh?

Come Nineveh, come Tyre, the Jewish model has withstood the test of 36 centuries, and their former enslavers are all dust.

[Orangedog]

Bump

[magellan]

Social liberals should be more appalled by libertarians than social conservatives. Libertarians, on principal, oppose ALL welfare. Libertarians oppose Medicare and Social Security. A true libertarian even opposes zoning laws—want to smelt iron in you backyard? Have at it, but if you burn down my house in the process, you pay. A libertarian is more accurately described as an individualist—they are the polar opposite of not just collectivists but anyone who promotes a social contract.

[Arthur McGowan]

There is NOTHING in Libertarian Principles that logically implies support for abortion. Libertarian support for abortion is founded on the same basis as Progressive/Communist support for abortion: the desire to kill a certain class of people because they are inconvenient.

As long as the majority of Libertarians are pro-abortion, the sound principles of Libertarianism will not get a hearing.

[Servant of the Cross]

In order to "fundamentally change" our country BACK to its Constitutional foundations (a LONG HARD SLOG that will take decades), both conservatives and libertarians need to UNITE together to beat back the Socialist DemocRATs, who are the very ANTITHESIS of small government and true liberty.

"Liberty" is the root word of libertarian; and it is something we ALL want. Liberty = FReedom. Sustainable Freedom is completely DEPENDENT upon a government that is restricted in its actions by morality, and yes, religion.

John Adams famously articulated this essential element in the foundation of our Republic ...

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Os Guiness expanded upon this truth by defining what he called the three elements of the "The Golden Triangle of Freedom" ...

FREEDOM   requires ... FAITH    requires ... VIRTUE requires ... (and around and around again)

So ... supporting the fundamental social, moral and 'religious' matters are actually essential to our liberty and freedom. They cannot be moderated away or you will not retain the virtue necessary in a society to keep your government in check by vital moral bounds.

Face it libertarians, in order to achieve and sustain the freedom you cherish, you must also support the social conservative leg of our shared stool.

[x]

"Libertarians" is an ambiguous term. Does it mean members of the LP? Self-identified libertarians? Or voters for the Libertarian candidate this time around?

This group of Sarvis voters is more like the John Anderson or Lowell Weicker or Lincoln Chafee voter than the standard issue small government (or no government?) libertarian.

Liberal Republicans (or the kind of people who used to be liberal Republicans), maybe with a dash of the Jerry Brown Dennis Kucinich anti-establishment voter among the young.

[Sloth]

No true libertarian supports government regulation & licensing of marriage.