Can Libertarians function in the Republican Party?

Fox News | 11/26/02 | me

[Sparta]

I just heard on John Gibson's show a guest say that libertarians can influence policy in the Republican Party. He pointed to Ron Paul and Dick Armey as examples. Your comments please.

[EBUCK]

Agreed.

EBUCK

[Ben Ficklin]

I made the list and didn't comment, but feel the same as you about the libertarians at INS, except stronger.

The story of Andersons role in undoing CIPRIS is sickening. The new student tracking system is scheduled to be operable in mid 03. Congress authorized in 96.

[Poser]

In my county most of the Libertarians got sick of losing. We joined the local Republicans. We started attending county meetings and started running for office as Republicans. We now hold 6 state House seats and a whole lot of local and county offices. We have 8 seats at the state Republican convention and hold 8 seats on the state Republican Committee.

On most issues we are quite conservative. The major disagreements with the religous right of our county aren't really an issue because local government doesn't deal with those issues and even the state legislature seldom considers them.

For all practical purposes, we are the local Republican party and we support the platform. The best part is... We get elected and actually serve in government.

There are quie a few tin-foil hat types in the Libertarian party. I'm pretty sure we don't want them in the Republican, but most thinking Libs would fit in very well with the Republicans. They are making a mistake by going it alone.

[Phantom Lord]

Freedom doesn't come from a overly intrusive central government in the guise of the Supreme Court demanding my town provide access to porn on the internet. That decision is left to the citizens of my town.

If your town library wants to get federal dollars, they have to do as the feds say. Gotta dance with the date who brought you.

Wanna be free of federal dictates in the library (and elsewhere), then shun the federal dollars.

[Ben Ficklin]

Have any of the libertarians running as a repub had to face libertarians running as libertarians?

[supercat]

Wanna be free of federal dictates in the library (and elsewhere), then shun the federal dollars.

And can a community that does so receive a rebate of the federal dollars its members put in but are not taking back?

Today's situation is alalagous to a mugger who takes $100 from someone but tells that person he can have $95 of it back if he does something the mugger wants. Sure the victim is "free" to refuse the mugger's demands, but only by forfeiting $95 of his own money which he should be under no obligation to part with.

[jwalsh07]

Wanna be free of federal dictates in the library (and elsewhere), then shun the federal dollars.

You're lost. Federal dictates are for filters. The ACLU is opposed to filters regardless of where the funds come from. I am in favor of localities determining what appears on the internet in the library we paid to have built. My take is that you support the ACLU in their position. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[gcruse]

 Porn laws are a little tougher. How do
you keep it out of the hands of kids, while
keeping it available to adults?

We're doing that right now, aren't we?
As an adult I consume all the porn I wish.
Children cannot legally do so.

[gcruse]

Libertarians destroyed several Republicans' chances
in the last election. I have no use for Libertarians.

That is a recipe for more of the same.  It didn't
work before, it won't in the future.  Are you
into masochism?

[citizenK]

Limited government and a government that stays out of the daily lives of the people, this is for what Republicans used to stand. Instead of competing with the Dems on the basis of ideas and a principled stand, the Republicans now compete with the Dems and run on the basis of the race to build constituencies who demand other people's money for their special interests and pet projects.

Both the dems and Republicans are awash in a sea of their own B(ravo)S(ierra). If the Republicans think the Libertarians are really a problem where it comes to spoiling elections, then they should pay more than lip service to the Constititution. The Republicans can either try to attract more libertarian-minded folk by moving toward a more limited government in line with the Constitution, or they can continue on their current trajectory in the hopes of getting more socialist-minded democrats and soccer moms to vote for them.

The Republicans used to stand for something - exemplified by the Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater type politicians. It is simply astonishing the degree to which anti-federalism has gripped such a large faction of the Republican party.

Compassionate conservatism? President Bush is a master politician, but I am afraid he is more interested in maintaining the power establishment of the Republicans than he is in moving the country away from the socialism gripping this country and destroying it's former greatness from within. President Bush has a wonderful opportunity to turn this country around, but if he holds the same animus toward libertarian ideas that many on this thread do, then we will see socialism further entrenched and institutionalized in this country. The Republicans, afterall, are far better at implementing and producing results than are the Dems. In the restructuring of the government vis-a-vis Homeland Security, Bush could reform the government in general to better serve the people. Unfortuntately, the government for the past 100 years has been more about the government than it is about the people - and that's how all pols and government bureaucrats look at the Constitution.

Polticians and bureaucrats (Dems and Republians alike)anymore ask not what the Constitution does for the people, they ask what the Constitution can do for government.

</rant>

[WaveThatFlag]

But when a vote for either is a vote for the other a feller must take his support from both.

It is distressing to hear someone who has thought about this issue bragging about the fact that he thros his vote away.

[xdem]

Libertarians destroyed several Republicans' chances in the last election. I have no use for Libertarians.

Can you name a single Republican who both supported the Reagan legacy, and lost due to Libertarians?

I suggest that the Republicans who lost were either lukewarm Conservatives, or uninterested in individual rights such as gun rights, property rights, etc.

[altair]

That's nonsense that has been thoroughly debunked. In SD there were 20,000 Republicans who voted for the Democrat. That far exceeds the number of Libertarian votes.

I split my ticket in California because I just could not stomach some of the Republicans. McPherson boasted of casting the deciding vote to ban off-shore drilling (part of the problem). Conlon boasted of chairing the corrupt CPUC (part of the problem). Ackerman is a gun grabber.

I'm certainly willing to cast Republican votes for reasonable candidates, but some of these guys are too much to stomach. No one has a right to my vote, whether they have an R or an L beside their name. Besides, it was fun voting for the ferret guy for Lt. Governor.

[FormerLib]

It depends on whether or not libertarians can find common ground with social conservatives and work toward those common ends.

No Republican can turn his back on the social conservatives and win re-election...unless, of course, he/she sells his/her soul to the liberals in which case the libertarians won't want anything to do with them.

[FormerLib]

Here's a question: Would it be acceptable for a Christian to bring charges against someone who made pornography available to a minor in the Christian's care?

[VietVet]

"...it would be nice to see the murderous thugs involved in illegal drug dealing out of business."

If you think that legalizing or decriminalizing some "soft" drugs would accomplish that, then you are unaware of how deeply entrenched organised crime is in the bar and retail liquor business.

Making some drugs, or even all drugs legal would not get the thugs out of the business, it would just lower their opperating costs, thus increasing their profits.

VietVet

[Britton J Wingfield]

Sure. Give a minor a porno or a beer and you get hammered.

[Onelifetogive]

...your Bible beliefs of being a Christian are tarnished if you take the legal side for allowing porn.

I disagree. Christ and the New Testament Church made no effort to use the legal system of their day to prevent other people from sinning, blaspheming, etc.