The Conservative - Libertarian Schism; A Harmonization

FreeRepublic ^ | July 13, 2002 | Francis W. Porretto

[narses]

PS TP, since my question presupposed your anarchist fantasy was potentially real, what constitution would you be defending, and since you surely admit most people are NOT "libertarian" minded, when the bastards outnumber you, then what?

[narses]

If you like fiction, read The Syndic. It posits a different kind of alternative America.

[tpaine]

When those who disagree with you create a government and impose their will on you, what will you do?

---

--- Defend our existing constitution of course. -- How bout you?
97 by tpaine

---

So either you accept what goes on today as constitutional or you are doing what again?

---

- 'So either'?
-- What makes you think you set the choices here?
-- You made some silly claims, and were corrected. -- Now you can make a valid point or go away.

[FastCoyote]

Well written, I understand quite well the idea of being politically homeless. I have turned to the phrase "Constitutional republican" as a way to resolve the dilemma. Our U.S. Constitution is quite remarkable in balancing libertarian and conservative ideas. People should try it sometime.

[tpaine]

PS TP, since my question presupposed your anarchist fantasy was potentially real, what constitution would you be defending, and since you surely admit most people are NOT "libertarian" minded, when the bastards outnumber you, then what?

---

I have no such fantasy. You have a bizarre imagination.
I defend our constitution, -- and think there are more basic 'libertarian minded' people, than authoritarian bastards.
--- Then what? -- We dance.

[tpaine]

I have turned to the phrase "Constitutional republican" as a way to resolve the dilemma. Our U.S. Constitution is quite remarkable in balancing libertarian and conservative ideas. People should try it sometime.

---

Well said.
-- But far to many, even here at FR, --- see the constitution only as a way to enforce their own single issue agendas.

[NittanyLion]

Certainly, a unique life begins at conception. -- But why would human rights immediately begin that supersede those of its mother?

I understand your position much better now, and can see how one could reasonably come to it. Personally, I still believe we should err on the safe side - particularly since IMO the child's life should be assigned greater weight than inconvenience (to the expectant mother).

Certainly, this is the most difficult of moral dilemmas. Regards.

[tpaine]

-- Thanks --

[rdb3]

Where is your evidence that George Washington was a libertarian?

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Why do you think a policy of non-agression for government is a 'bad idea'?

I chose the wrong words, meant to say non-initiation of the use of force. The primary legitimate government function is as a cooperative means of self-defense. There are times when you can not wait for the other side to attack you first; you need to launch a pre-emptive first strike in order to eliminate a threat. Our Government’s first priority is to protect the lives of American citizens and that takes precedence of the rights of the citizens of any other nation.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Ya know, Fran, a libertarian who is trying to harmonize libertarian perspectives and conservative ones could do worse than to read

The Theme Is Freedom

Religion, Politics, and the American Tradition
by M. Stanton Evans

Lots of good stuff in that, including surprising precedents for the Declaration of Independence . . . 'course I know you are quite well read, and would scarcely assume that you've never seen it. But if not . . .

[tpaine]

I'm trying to remember the last this country "needed to launch a pre-emptive first strike in order to eliminate a threat".
-- In fact has this ever been a U.S. military or political policy?

[Celtman]

Yes, the constitution is a fixed limitation on government powers, and it guarantees individual, inalienable rights to ALL, including pregnant women.

      AND including the unborn.

[tpaine]

Yes, the constitution is a fixed limitation on government powers, and it guarantees individual, inalienable rights to ALL, including pregnant women.
      AND including the unborn. [who are viable]

---

Yep. -- ALL 'persons'. -- Legally, you're not a person till viablity.

-- We are a nation of constitutional law. --Learn to live with, and accept, your constitution. - It protects your rights.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

I'm trying to remember the last this country "needed to launch a pre-emptive first strike in order to eliminate a threat".
-- In fact has this ever been a U.S. military or political policy?

Preemption is the current US policy. A wise example was the Israel military striking Iraq’s nuclear facilities in the early 80’s. In any war the party who strikes first generally has an advantage. Japan’s striking of Pearl Harbor gave them a naval advantage that was not reversed until Midway. Maximizing security requires projecting both strong defensive capabilities and avoiding antagonizing others to the point where they retaliate but when those steps fail to deter aggression you can’t wait to be attacked.

[tpaine]

We've used a pre-emptive strike before declaring war? When?

[stuff like Clintions aspirin factory aside, that is.]

[Libertarianize the GOP]

So what is your point or don't you have one?

[tpaine]

My hope when I chose my freeper name was to remake the GOP in a more libertarian direction without adopting the non-agression and other bad ideas from the Libertarian party.
34 by Libertarianize the GOP

---

Question to ALL:

--- Why do you think a policy of non-agression for government is a 'bad idea'?

---

This question was my original 'point'. -- What was yours? -- You claimed that the non-aggression/initiation of force principle of libertarians is 'bad'.
-- Can you back it up with more than your opinion?

[Libertarianize the GOP]

You have made no attempt to respond to anything I have said or to even offer an alternative.

[tpaine]

Alternative to what?