Posted on 12/17/2001 12:32:10 PM PST by NC_Libertarian
DU discusses libertarianism. I thought some of you might find this interesting:
I'd add another division, between the activist rank&file and the incidental rank&file. The activists are nasty. The incidentals, who vote left because they are gay, minority, pagan, whatever and haven't really given it much thought beyond that are normal people. Sometimes, if you start them thinking beyond their identity and into their beliefs, they realize that what they believe is not what the left stands for and they start to at least consider voting GOP or Libertarian; at least, not Democratic.
To: NC_Libertarian
Libertarians are liberals who don't have the balls to admit it.
I am sure their soulmates at DU are treating them
like the brothers in arms that they are.
# 26 by VA Advogado
************************
I doubt it, VA Advogado.
I read as much as I could stand,
and I didn't see my philosophy on any of those posts.
The main "libertarian" poster over there said
that he started out a socialist, and joined the Democratic Party
because he thought they held his views.
He found out that the Democrats as a party supported the War on Drugs,
and became a libertarian because he wanted to keep taking his drugs.
Is that where you and other libertarian-bashers
on this forum get your ideas about libertarians?
From drug-taking socialists who claim the libertarian label?
Haven't you learned yet that liberals don't think?
You would do better to read
the libertarian posts here at FreeRepublic,
and stop listening to liberals.
I registered as a Republican and now consider myself a small l libertarian Republican. I voted for Bush in 1988. Then in 1992 I voted for Browne over Bush/Clinton, and in 1996 voted for Browne over Clinton/Dole, but I voted for W over Gore and Browne in 2000. I'm done with Browne. It's time for some new blood in the Libertarian party, and they need to address their foreign policy platform. That is, IMHO, their biggest weakness.
It seems to me that philosophically the Libertarian party is given an out. The entire world is acting aggressively towards us, militarily, through trade and in the UN, with espionage, conspiring around oil prices, using slaves to defeat our productivity and standards of living, etc. We would have every right to have a proactive foreign policy and remain consistent with Libertarian principles due to the way the rest of the world perceives us and acts towards us.
The problem with liberals as far as being open to the conservative philosophy (that part this is shared by both republicans and libertarians) is this :
Liberals have a hard time wrapping their mind around personal responsibility. They don't place blame for problems where it lies. Even when forced to place blame where it lies, they still have a hard time with it.
Whether it's placing blame on the criminal (rather than on the gun as they are so quick to do), or saying one murder is worse than another based on the skin color of the victim, they try to dodge personal responsibility.
"I have no problem with Jack booted thugs when they're used against the right people. In this case, law breaking druggies are the right people. No mercy, no peas."
8 posted on 12/13/01 4:50 AM Pacific by VA Advogado [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
VA Advogado is a leftist? Wow!
I have never done drugs and don't plan on it. Neither have most of the Libertarians I know. You can't find any major problems with the Libertarian platform, so you try to focus on one small aspect of a part of the platform, that many Libertarians don't necessarily support, but realize that it's there and not going away.
You and everybody else who keep harping on the drug-twist, just keep at it, you are the ones who look foolish. The whole drug thing is a very very minor part of the platform. I doubt every Republican supports %100 of the Republican platform, just as every Libertarian doesn't %100 support the Libertarian platform.
One thing I noticed about the DU folks regarding this topic. They seem to discuss it politely. Something that doesn't seem to be possible with some FR anti-libertarians.
I don't care for drugs, or even alcohol (have lost two relaties to drunk drivers), but I understand why it's listed in the platform (as far as the criminalization of posession). Not all FRers are rabid anti-libertarians, many do in fact care about freedom and see eye-to-eye on a large part of the libertarian platform.
I have always believed that the growth and success of the libertarian message is what bothers these folks rather than anything in particular about the platform.
That might happen in Democratic circles if they too saw democrats leaving the rank and file.
I think that's what bothers a lot of people as well. It's not that we are necessarily stealing as many votes away from the republican party as say Nader did from Gore (I have a feeling in closely contested states most libertarians voted for GWB), but that in a lot of ways we take the republican platform a lot further.
Bingo! When I talk politics with liberals, I always advise them there liberal vision of things might have a chance of working if every politician and bureaucrat were just like them. Because the politicos are not like them, there visions of universal healthcare, for example, would be a disater.
Funny, the government is immoral to meddle,
yet it is to have no morals.
How can anything be immoral then?
This is the point Liberitarians can't digest.
# 78 by Lowelljr
************************
Stupid libertarians.
why can't they see that morals are immoral?
Lowelljr, since you don't know what the word means,
and you don't know how to find out,
I looked it up for you.
Moral:
1) of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior
2) expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior
3) conforming to a standard of right behavior
4) sanctioned by one's conscience or ethical judgment
To re-phrase it so you don't get lost,
""This is where you constantly err in your assessment of libertarians.
Libertarians call for the government to quit meddling
in its citizens private affairs and consensual activities,
not because we endorse or approve of all such behaviors
but because it is wrong for government to do otherwise."
To: ThinkDifferent
Let's see....abolish the "racist" death penalty,
end the "racist" war on drugs
(this was a favorite of George McGovern
and currently a major plank in the Socialist Party),
end "discriminating" laws that support traditional marriage,
have open borders,
stop evil George Bush from bombing the poor terrorists in Afghanistan,
and allow abortion of demand while being "personally" against it
(a favorite of "moderate" Democrats).
Yep. Sounds conservative to me.
Not.
# 90 by BillyBoy
************************
Admit it, BillyBoy.
You've been lurking at the Democratic Underground.
There's no way any libertarian on this forum
said that they were against the War on Drugs
because it was "racist."
We're against it because government
should not control our lives to that degree.
Also, the "War on Drugs" is being used
as an excuse to destroy our freedom.
Billyboy, you do a serious injustice to George McGovern
by implying that he was a socialist. He was an old-style Democrat.
Today, he would be considered as far right as Pat Buccannon.
I expect to see "Character" defined next. Then later reduced in the same paragraph to someone that is no longer valued in this culture.
Yep, thanks for clearing that up for me Exodus. I'll just keep my values, morals and character, and you can keep your 1/2 percental.
Your mindset? I would completely agree, at least based on the way you comport yourself here.
However, not untrue.
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.