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.

[PGR88]

So the libtardian...

With an attitude like that, you belong on Huffpo or DailyKos.

[PGR88]

The social issues didn’t manifest until AFTER the Progressive/Liberal gov’t kicked-in: Before welfare, there was relatively low out-of-wedlock, low no-daddy@home. Before the Dept.ofEduc, we had better test scores, etc.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one out here he sees cause-and-effect in action.

[trisham]

That’s your argument?

[wagglebee]

Libertarians would say - government can not and should not control people, so let them take drugs - but let them suffer the consequences too without taxpayers getting involved or creating a nanny state to deal with it. Before long, society (and the family) will take over, as it should (and as it once did) to shun drug use, to stigmatize it, to penalize it, and to let civil society (churches, etc...) deal with those who do.

Got it, how does this sound:

Libertarians would say - government can not and should not control people, so let them take drugs rape children - but let them suffer the consequences too without taxpayers getting involved or creating a nanny state to deal with it. Before long, society (and the family) will take over, as it should (and as it once did) to shun drug use child rape, to stigmatize it, to penalize it [HOW WITHOUT GOVERNMENT'S INVOLVEMENT?], and to let civil society (churches, etc...) deal with those who do.

There were few controls on Marijuana in the 1920's - why did our parents and grandparents know no one who ever smoked it then?

Libertarians LOVE to use fact that marijuana was legal in the early 20th century as a "gotcha." They overlook (perhaps purposely) the fact that laudanum, morphine and other opiates were also legally available without a prescription and abuse/addiction of these drugs was rampant. Funny how libertarians always seem to focus just on marijuana or Prohibition and ignore this.

[GeronL]

bump

[Boogieman]

If you’re going to intentionally misread my comment, I’m not even going to bother responding to your arguments.

[Boogieman]

“Nonsense, libertarianism is about being left wing except on economics.”

No, that isn’t the definition of libertarianism. It might seem convenient for you to assert that, but it’s not true.

[PGR88]

Ending abortion is hard

Not just hard, it will be impossible, unless you try to understand who and what supports it.

and not really that important

Now you are just making stuff up in an effort to sound clever.

[Durus]

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.

That is it.

[trisham]

Another non-response from you.

[LevinFan]

So this is about PGR’s drug love. Maybe we should look at alcohol and legalize it. Oh, we did. You’ll note it is still going strong and harming people.

People don’t get wasted in a closet,
then come out harmless. Addictions havefar reaching affects. It is no less harmless than DUI.
I have connections with 12 step people and groups. One thing i learned from them is that drugs and alcohol are pure evil.

As BEAGLE says, you needed a bigger cause than dope love.

[PGR88]

They overlook (perhaps purposely) the fact that laudanum, morphine and other opiates were also legally available without a prescription and abuse/addiction of these drugs was rampant.

And how is it going today? Any better?

[wagglebee]

Does not the child have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? If you think a libertarian believes a mother can kill a child simply because of her own inconvenience, then you just haven't learned enough about it.

Are you denying that the Libertarian platform is pro-choice?

Let me ask you this, if you believe in the rights of the unborn child, who SPECIFICALLY should protect those rights?

[trisham]

It’s my understanding that morphine addiction was a big problem then.

[i_robot73]

Funny, for a party w/ relatively few members in office, the (L) sure do a lot of ‘damage’. Now I can empathize with the ‘ape/dummy’ Bush :).

Sorry, but you should (if you haven’t) started to note that (C) are just as happy as the Left to use gov’t to CONTROL through ‘the Law’.

Not much will you read “Not that the States DON’T have a Right to do X, Y, or Z; whereas the Fed has NONE...”. More likely, you’d get “There outta be a LAW...”

Outside of abortion, which this (L) DOES oppose [not that the (C) would acknowledge as much]), the (C) love to lose the battle on the, for lack of a better word, minutia. EG: Instead of realizing the partnership in limiting gov’t and returning to PERSONAL responsibility (*cough* drug use *cough*), they’d just as readily slap you across the face than shake your hand over their own idea of what (L) encompasses; when I have yet to hear exactly what (C) is ‘conserving’ (the 80’s, the 60’s, the 20’s....)

Note the ‘issues’ of today that go away when the Constitution is FOLLOWED: No ‘safety net’ = low/no abortion, no illegal immigration, intact families, etc. Nope, the two-headed beast is just as happy chopping the heads off the hydra instead of going for the heart

[Beagle8U]

“It’s the crippling of social-ital issues from the crushing taxation of the Nanny State, not the other way around.”

Before the ‘if it feels good do it’ 60’s that kicked the nanny state into high gear there were laws against the causes of those social problems.

The anything goes society you so long for is what spawned the nanny state we suffer with today.

[monocle]

As with any other endeavor, the results depend upon the people involved. Try as we may how could one not be dismayed with John Roberts. Leaving social issues in the hands of the more distant federal government increases the likelihood political hacks making unacceptable decisions.

A voter has more say on all matters in states elections than in federal elections because of the relative sizes of states versus the federal government. A few crumbs are better than none.

I take it that you are totally happy with the Department of Education, the EPA and Department of Energy among other sterling intrusions into our lives?

[Responsibility2nd]

I’m sorry, but you set yourself up so well for that Zing!.

Couldn’t resist.

[wagglebee]

Of course it was, that's why the libertarians never include it in their argument that legalizing drugs will end the problem with drugs.

[trisham]

"The Libertarian Party was formed in Colorado Springs, Colorado, in the home of David F. Nolan on December 11, 1971.[8] The founding of the party was prompted in part due to concerns about the Vietnam War, conscription, and the end of the gold standard.[9]

Although there is not an explicitly-labeled "left" or "right" designation of the party, many members, such as 2012 presidential nominee Gary Johnson, state that they are more socially liberal than the Democrats, but more fiscally conservative than the Republicans.

The party has generally promoted a classical liberal platform, in contrast to the social liberal and progressive platform of the Democrats and the more conservative platform of the Republicans.[10]

Current policy positions include lowering taxes,[11] allowing people to opt-out of Social Security,[12] abolishing welfare,[13] ending the prohibition of illegal drugs,[14] and supporting gun ownership rights.[15]

Source: Wikipedia