Posted on 08/07/2014 7:54:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
If you would claim to be purely fiscal, or assert that “social issues” should never be government’s domain, I’d ask a simple question: would you have no problem with a movement to legalize pedophilia?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Whoever can control the terminology will control the debate - and the outcome.
We know what libertarian means, it is why more nanny state rinos are discovering they are not liberal on social issues, they are “libertarian”.
The rinos and libertarians are realizing how close they are, and that their common enemy is conservatism.
“Whoever can control the terminology will control the debate - and the outcome.”
That’s Marxist thinking. It may be a correct observation, but that doesn’t mean we should stoop to those tactics.
“We know what libertarian means...”
Actually, from your posts, that is not apparent at all.
***********************
Worse than libertarianism?
The nanny-state Republicans hate libertarians so much they don’t realize they are heading in a direction that is worse than libertarianism. In order to spite libertarians, they want to abandon conservatism and leap headlong towards tyranny.
_________________________________________________
Bull Cheese. Was it tyranny when all 50 states had anti-sodomy laws? Were we under tyranny when for over 200 years America was a moral nation with moral laws?
What is especially apalling about you libs is your smugness. You really believe the standard by which America grew and prospered for over 200 years was flawed and now that we are ruled by the left instead of the right you can gloat at how we conservatives are getting what we deserved.
Eff off.
bump
I lost those links a while back. The thing is, when these libertopian (which is a subset of libertarians I admit) talk amongst themselves they pretty much admit they want an “anything goes” society.
Some FReeper the other day basically called illegal drugs the “American Dream”. lol.
“As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.
In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.
These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.”
NAMBLA could drive a Mack truck through that, sliding sideways and doing donuts!
“Was it tyranny when all 50 states had anti-sodomy laws?”
No, as there is no Constitutional prohibition against the STATES making those laws. Instead, if you argue that the FEDERAL government, without Constitutional authority, should make laws governing those areas, then yes, that is heading towards tyranny.
“What is especially apalling about you libs is your smugness.”
Who is a lib? I am a conservative.
Dang it. I'm cubically challlenged and my office is gonna wonder why I'm ROFLOL.
Many libertarians also think kids are just little adults and should have all the same rights. It can be disgusting to think about what that means and how it can be easily abused by adults.
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/02/what-about-children/
“”For example, teenagers have rights of informed consent for important medical decisions like chemotherapy and heart transplants, but are not permitted to access birth control, get cosmetic surgery, play violent video games and watch rated R movies, stay out past 8 pm, drop out of high school, drink, smoke, or have sex without fear of criminal penalties. Insofar as teenagers have the requisite capacities to make complicated life-and death medical decisions, they ought to be similarly considered competent to make less complicated and more trivial decisions for themselves.””
The libertarians haven’t put pedophilia into their platform, and in fact are still in early debate on it, but so far they have leaned and voted in a direction supporting child porn.
It doesn’t help when the NAMBLA spokesman describes himself as a Libertarian in an interview with Spy magazine.
This 2008 Time article may explain more on libertarians and child porn.
“”The fracas started with Mary J. Ruwart, the candidate with perhaps the deepest, purest libertarian roots (her rejection of government is so complete that some party moderates have begun warning of the anarchical dangers of “Ruwarchy”). In April, a rival called her out for her thoughts in a 1999 book called Short Answers to the Tough Questions. “Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally,” Ruwart wrote. “When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.”
Ruwart’s is a classic libertarian take — a defense of free will (even for “child performers”) and an attack on government prohibitions of any kind.
The party’s executive director, Shane Cory, saw the danger as well, and rushed out a press release titled, “Libertarians call for increased communication to combat child pornography.” Cory was attacked by hardliners who saw the release as an endorsement of increased federal prosecuting power. The party refused to vote on a resolution asking states to strongly enforce existing child porn laws. Cory resigned in protest, depriving a party in the midst of what may be its most promising election season of one of its most able organizers and fund raisers. But for many libertarian faithful, adherence to the most rigid of principles always trumps practical considerations about how those principles might be more broadly observed.
That rigidity has long been libertarianism’s greatest asset.””
You're a confused little basement dwelling troll who's on this thread BASHING conservatives as "Nanny State Republicans" while endorsing liberalism.
Yes, tyranny by a Federal government unrestrained by the Constitution is worse than libertarianism, in my book.
Still...
Didn't say we should. Do think it's bad juju and needs to be called out.
Ronald Reagan spoke of libertarianism. I think we should start with figuring out exactly what "libertarianism" he was talking about and use that for a definition. And see who's not willing to do that.
Thank you GeronL (post 131). Thank you ansell12.
I know there are more direct (and indirect) ties between pedophilia and libertarianism. But I get sick looking at them.
I would ping the libertarian pinglist keeper to alert him to the fact us conservatives are talking about the link between sex with children and libertarianism, but the last time I did, he got upset and he and I had a flame war ongoing, so I promised to leave him alone over this issue.
“You’re a confused little basement dwelling troll...”
Well, you’re an intellectual lightweight who resorts to ad hominems because he can’t form a proper argument.
“who’s on this thread BASHING conservatives as “Nanny State Republicans” while endorsing liberalism.”
Nope, I am bashing people who advocate for things which violate conservative principles. That’s why I didn’t call them “nanny state conservatives”, because such a thing doesn’t exist, it’s a contradiction in terms. If endorsing a federal government limited by the Constitution is liberalism in your book, then it says more about you than it says about me.
“Ronald Reagan spoke of libertarianism. I think we should start with figuring out exactly what “libertarianism” he was talking about and use that for a definition. And see who’s not willing to do that.”
A stellar idea.
Perhaps we can appeal to a dictionary as an unbiased source for a definition, rather than posters with an obvious agenda? Seems prudent to me.
To quote Rush, "Words mean things." Seems like a good place to start.
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.