They can make sense when they talk economics but anything else they just fall off the trestle.
Posted on 08/07/2014 7:54:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
This one tries to explain away/condemn child sex and winds up mostly endorsing it.
About the only thing he couldn’t agree with was sex with a 5 year old. That just a little too young for his tastes, 14 is OK, but 5 was too young. He also though child porn was OK.
http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/04/mary-ruwart-child-porn-and-libertarian.html
LOL, you are desperately looking for some footing to defend the anti-conservative movement, but are rambling.
Reagan was no libertarian and had almost nothing to say about it.
Are you serious? Your definition was from an encyclopedia.
wow!
Well then call up a moderator and have me banned for using a dictionary.
Man you libbers can waste time on games and nothing posts.
“Actually if you read that 1975 libertarian interview that you want to pretend is something important, as lonely as it it in his long life of politics, Reagan while wanting to keep his audience, still disagrees with them about what we do here at FR as well, social liberalism and being weak on national defense.”
I did read that article, and Reagan draws a clear distinction between his disagreement with some in the Libertarian party who advocate on those types of issues, and the libertarian philosophy itself in general:
” If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.”
http://reason.com/archives/1975/07/01/inside-ronald-reagan
No, I don’t think we should.
Good grief.
“Here is the leftists agenda hidden behind the Libertarian Party curtain.”
Hey, if you want to argue against the Libertarian Party platform, go right ahead, I will probably join you on that count.
If you want to, instead, make false assertions that the Libertarian Party platform represents the full extent of libertarianism and that we don’t need to make a distinction between the political philosophy and the party that bears the name, then you’ve lost me.
Sure, because encyclopedias generally give a more in-depth definition than the couple sentences you will find in most dictionaries.
As I said before, you are free to offer another source for us to check out, if you don’t like the one I presented.
Ah! But that wasn’t quite what you said.
You said and I quote “The Federal Government clearly does not have the enumerated powers to regulate drugs or sexual activity.
Neither promoting morals nor raising revenue (outside of supporting enumerated powers of Government) are legitimate reasons for legislation”.
Anti murder laws are a form of promoting morals. As are anti theft laws.
Now, if you are arguing from the US Constitution, that is a different argument than what you stated above. For the Constitution is rather explicitly about morals (Rights) and about raising revenue (taxes and tariffs).
The idea that there are “inalienable rights” is an explicit moral statement. It was also quite radical for the time, and hence the need to have them spelled out in the first ten amendments.
Like empty insults and personal attacks are some great intellectual contribution.
Their party is where libertarians have to actually put their fantasies and theories into political language and positions.
In real life, it really does look silly, no wonder it embarasses you guys.
No, I’m sorry to say that at the moment I have more pressing matters to attend to. I’ve made my opinion clear.
“Their party is where libertarians have to actually put their fantasies and theories into political language and positions.”
So, if I create a party called the “Conservative Party”, then create a platform that espouses positions that conservatives don’t actually all agree on, I can go around saying that “conservatism” is defined by the platform I made, rather than the pre-existing definition of the word?
That’s pretty much what you are saying, right?
“In real life, it really does look silly, no wonder it embarasses you guys.”
I’ll say it again, I’m not a libertarian. No matter how many times you folks try to pretend that I am one, it will not magically transform me into one.
Alrighty, take care then.
Yeah I know, almost all of the libertarians who want to argue against the conservatives here are “not libertarians” they just want to argue as though they are.
You guys are a waste of time.
Thank you. You too.
They can make sense when they talk economics but anything else they just fall off the trestle.
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.