Libertarian Folly: Why Everybody is a Social-issues Voter

American Thinker ^ | 08/07/2014 | Selwyn Duke

[SeekAndFind]

There is this notion, one we hear more and more, that the Republican Party has to shed the social issues to seize the future. “Social issues are not the business of government!” says thoroughly modern millennial. It’s a seductive cry, one repeated this past Tuesday in an article about how some young libertarians dubbed the “Liberty Kids” are taking over the moribund Los Angeles GOP. Oh, wouldn’t the political landscape be simple if we could just boil things down to fiscal responsibility? But life is seldom simple.

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?

Some responses here won’t go beyond eye-rolling and scoffing. Others will verbalize their incredulity and say that such a movement would never be taken seriously. This is not an answer but a dodge. First, the way to determine if one’s principles are sound is by seeing if they can be consistently applied. For instance, if someone claims he never judges others, it’s legitimate to ask whether he remains uncritical even of Nazis and KKK members; that puts the lie to his self-image. And any thinking person lives an examined life and tries to hone his principles.

[Boogieman]

“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.”

Well, I’m not arguing against conservatives or conservatism, I am only arguing against those who are trying to use deceptive tactics, which is not a hallmark of conservatives. It’s leftists who try to redefine terms and set up straw men based on those new definitions, rather than using the actual meaning of words.

[ansel12]

You are the one trying to make a horse a cow, and pretend that libertarians are not social liberals and weak on national defense.

[Beagle8U]

I think they are just stingy liberals, other than not wanting to share their Cheetos, they agree with liberals on every issue.

The Libtardian party was formed when some hippies discovered that the group sex pot party share everything coop didn’t work out. Half the hippies found out that the other half didn’t do any work.

[Boogieman]

“You are the one trying to make a horse a cow, and pretend that libertarians are not social liberals and weak on national defense.”

I’ve simply said that isn’t the definition of libertarianism, which is a true statement that nobody on this thread has yet offered any decent rebuttal of. Some libertarians certainly ascribe to those views, but not all of them.

You are trying to define a whole by a subset, which is a logical fallacy. If you were doing it merely out of ignorance, then you would correct your mistake when it was pointed out to you. As you have refused to do that, then I see no other alternative but to think you must be intentionally doing it to deceive people.

[ansel12]

The last thing anyone needs to do in politics, is to get off into the tall grass of fantasy and distraction of the fringe elements like listening to communists and libertarians and socialists describe themselves in their own fantasy world of theory.

When Rand Paul goes libertarian on us, we know where he is going.

[Morgana]

“Abortion is MURDER, it’s not society’s role to end murder, it’s GOVERNMENT’S.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The governments job is to pass and enforce laws. The only way to end abortion in America is to change hearts and minds of American citizens. I believe even Jesus said something about “men’s hearts have hardened”. Our government is by the people for the people, only they (the government) sometimes forgets this.

[Boogieman]

“The last thing anyone needs to do in politics, is to get off into the tall grass of fantasy and distraction of the fringe elements like listening to communists and libertarians and socialists describe themselves in their own fantasy world of theory.”

You don’t want to use libertarians’ definition of themselves, yet you offered the Libertarian Party platform to support your definition? That seems a bit dissonant.

Anyway, I’ll take you at your word and suggest that we go to an objective, unbiased source for a definition of the word “libertarianism”. Or do you have a problem with that?

[bamahead]

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?

Yet another round with this article's age old argument based in pure idiocy...American Thinker is really scraping the barrel here.



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!

[bamahead]

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.-- Thomas Jefferson

[bamahead]

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. ---C.S. Lewis

[Fledermaus]

Right. People who proclaim the are “fiscally conservative but socially liberal” are idiots at odds with their own childish thinking.

Social liberalism kills the fiscal budget.

[bamahead]

The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog. --G.K. Chesterton

[fwdude]

Bingo. I wouldn’t even say that social and fiscal are joined, as much as they are one unified world view. You can’t split it without destroying it.

[fwdude]

To paraphrase Trotsky, “you may not be interested in the ‘social issues,’ but ‘social issues’ are interested in you.”

[DJ MacWoW]

I don’t support libertarians anarchist view and never will. Lack of moral fiber is destroying this country and if men cannot control themselves then the law will.

[DBeers]

...big, activist government has destroyed society’s role to limit abortion, which society once did many decades ago. Indeed, we are faced with a situation now where big, “progressive” government is in the business of funding and supporting abortion.

It seems that all true conservatives agree that restoring liberty entails limiting federal government. However, it seems Libertarians only focus on limiting fiscal issues when it should be obvious that fiscal and social issues must both be limited. As such I see Libertarians as conservative allies that come to the fight with one hand tied behind their back.

The Left makes moral social arguments to increase government and take more taxes; these are the arguments that need to be countered with a principled philosophy that addresses social issues head on. Sitting on the sidelines does nothing to oppose the Left on these issues.

[dware]

The anti-libertarian argument in a nutshell:

It's not REPUBLICAN!!!! DEMONCHILD!!!! BEGONE!!!

That being said, they are missing one key point: libertarianism can be construed to support a lot of things, but ultimately, the anti-l's forget the most important factor in the equation - the individual. It comes down to the individual, and the individual's morality. Just because something is legal or accepted doesn't mean it's the "moral" or "American" thing to do. I'll give an example:

Libertarianism can be construed to support pedophilia, simply by virtue of the very free nature of libertarian ideology. On the other hand, anyone that thinks libertarians, such as myself, support pedophilia, are the most ignorant in the worst kind of way.

It's sad, really.

[bamahead]

if men cannot control themselves then the law will.

You are simply promoting the same form of statism as your leftist counterparts. Just a different flavor. Let's apply your 'men cannot control themselves' statement to a few leftist arguements:

Men cannot morally control themselves sexually, therefore birth control should be free to men and women...we must make a law to enforce this.

Men cannot control themselves aggressively, therefore it should be illegal for all men to own weapons...we must make laws to enforce this.

Men cannot be trusted with excessive amounts of money...we must set limits on income.

Your sword has a double edge. Look at the 'moral' War on Drugs and the erosion of liberty that travesty has caused. Yet you would continue it? History has proven that practically ANY power you entrust to the state WILL be used against you at some point. Yet you argue for more state control over 'morals'?

You may not agree with the libertarian position on much, but you can't sit there and claim to love liberty while advocating a trade of one form of statism for another.

[DJ MacWoW]

I am not interested in anything you have to say. Don't bother posting to me.

[bamahead]

the anti-l's forget the most important factor in the equation - the individual. It comes down to the individual, and the individual's morality.

A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom. -- F.A. Hayek