Posted on 07/24/2002 3:47:01 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS
POSITION STATEMENT
As adopted by the General Membership of the Republican Liberty Caucus at its Biannual Meeting held December 8, 2000.
WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;
WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and
WHEREAS we believe in upholding the U. S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land;
BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following principles:
1.0 FEDERALISM
1.1 The power of the federal government should be limited, as per the tenth amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
2.0 EDUCATION
2.1 The U. S. Department of Education should be abolished, leaving education decision making at the state, local or personal level.
2.2 Parents have the right to spend their money on the school or method of schooling they deem appropriate for their children.3.0 HEALTH CARE
3.1 Free market health care alternatives, such as medical savings accounts, should be available to everyone, including senior citizens.
3.2 The federal entitlement to Medicare should be abolished, leaving health care decision making regarding the elderly at the state, local, or personal level.4.0 TAXATION
4.1 The tax system of the United States should be overhauled.
4.2 There should be a national debate discussing various alternative means of taxation including but not limited to a single flat income tax, repealing the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax, and reducing spending to the point where the income tax can be repealed without the need to replace it with a national sales tax or any other form of taxation.
4.3 The capital gains tax should be *eliminated*.
4.4 The inheritance tax should be *eliminated*.
4.5 The new tax system should be implemented *promptly*.5.0 WELFARE
5.1 The U. S. Department of Health and Human Services should be abolished, leaving decision making on welfare and related matters at the state, local or personal level. All Americans have the right to keep the fruits of their labor to support themselves, their families and whatever charities they so choose, without interference from the federal government.
5.2 All able-bodied Americans have the responsibility to support themselves and their families.6.0 CRIMINAL JUSTICE
6.1 Every American has the right to keep and bear arms. We affirm our support for the second amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
6.2 All people, regardless of position in the public or private sector, should be held equally accountable under the law.
6.3 The *only* litmus test for Supreme Court or other judges should be their determination to accurately interpret, not amend, the Constitution. Judges have *no* authority to make new law.7.0 CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
7.1 Election campaigns should not be subsidized by tax payers.
7.2 No individual should be compelled to support a political candidate he or she does not support. Government should not empower trade unions to collect funds from their members for use as political contributions without their members' expressed consent.
7.3 All limits on campaign contributions should be eliminated.
7.4 There should be full and timely public disclosure of all the sources and amounts of all campaign contributions upon their receipt.8.0 FEDERAL BUDGET
8.1 There should be an amendment to the U. S. Constitution to require a balanced budget, provided it includes a supermajority requirement to raise taxes and provided it does not empower the judiciary to unilaterally raise taxes.
8.2 Honest accounting dictates that all federal expenditures should be on budget.
8.3 Each budget should be derived based upon the justification for and needs of each program, with no program being either budgeted for or increased automatically.9.0 GOVERNMENT REFORM
9.1 The U. S. Department of Commerce should be abolished, per the tenth amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
9.2 The National Endowment for the Arts should be abolished, per the tenth amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
9.3 The National Endowment for the Humanities should be abolished, per the tenth amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
9.4 The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development should be abolished, per the tenth amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
9.5 Subsidies to agricultural and other businesses should be eliminated.
9.6 Corporate taxes should be eliminated simultaneously and proportionally with the elimination of subsidies to businesses.
9.7 Recommendations by the Grace Commission and the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) should be reviewed and implemented, where possible, beginning immediately.
9.8 Privatization of government assets, management and services should be implemented for cost-effectiveness wherever applicable.10.0 TRADE
10.1 The U. S. government should inhibit neither the exportation of U. S. goods and services worldwide, nor the importation of goods and services.
10.2 The United States should not be answerable to any governing body outside the United States for its trade policy.11.0 DEFENSE
11.1 U. S. military should be deployed only where there is a clear threat to vital U. S. interests and only with the consent of the U. S. Congress.
11.2 It is the duty of the federal government to provide a system to defend against missile attacks.
11.3 No branch of the military should be put in harm's way without a clear entrance and exit strategy and a goal, which when achieved, constitutes victory.
11.4 U. S military personnel should always be under U. S. command.
11.5 U. S. armed forces should be all-volunteer.
11.6 Military draft registration should be eliminated.
11.7 Foreign aid is often more harmful than helpful and should be curtailed.12.0 PROPERTY RIGHTS
12.1 The government should not take private property without just compensation.
12.2 All unconstitutional regulation of private property should be repealed.13.0 DRUGS
13.1 While recognizing the harm that drug abuse causes society, we also recognize that government drug policy has been ineffective and has led to frightening abuses of the Bill of Rights which could affect the personal freedom of any American. We, therefore, support alternatives to the War on Drugs.
13.2 Per the tenth amendment to the U. S. Constitution, matters such as drugs should be handled at the state or personal level.
13.3 All laws which give license to violate the Bill of Rights should be repealed.
Entered into the record December 8, 2000
ESPECIALLY if you are a Pro-Abortion, Pro-Federalist, Pro-Welfare, Anti-Gun, Anti-Capitalist, Anti-Constitutional "moderate". The Republican National Committee loves those sorts of "Republicans". They give them tens of millions of dollars a year.
Of course, if you oppose a Covenant with Hell for the sake of "winning", then you'll ditch your support of the Republican National Committee and instead support FreeRepublic.Com's stated and official objective -- to elect Liberty Constitutionalist Republicans.
You can only lose, RM; and we can only gain. And that's all to the good!!
Now you're reverting to outright lies and pure distortions. Typical for a Libertarian loser. I would suggest you read the Republican Party platform and then eat that good portion of crow you've served for yourself.
Conservative Republican's are pro-life, pro-family, pro-military, pro-capitalism, pro second amendment rights and support the Constitution and the BoR.
OTOH, Libertarian's are anti-government, anti-society, anti-military, anti-criminal justice system and they support abortion on demand, prostitution, special rights for homosexuals, drug legalization, open borders and unlimited immigration. Libertarian's have more in common with liberals then they have with any other political philosophy.
Like I keep telling you, Libertarianism is DEAD. You're wasting your time, effort and money supporting this losing political philosophy. But it's you time, effort and money. After thirty years as a political party, the LP has gone absolutely nowhere. Libertarian's are the biggest fools in America. Truly, pathetic creatures.
Exactly why they should support the Republican Liberty Caucus.
After all, the Republican National Party spends tens of millions of dollars a year in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the "pro-life, pro-capitalism, pro-second amendment" agenda.
Sheesh -- Who needs 'em?
Apparently not www.FreeRepublic.Com, I'm happy to say.
We can only gain, you can only lose. Which is all to the good!!
Libertarians: The Enemy Within
by C.J. Carnacchio
When Napoleon was asked upon whom he would most like to wage war, the vertically-challenged dictator replied, “My allies.” With this in mind I would like to turn my intellectual guns on the libertarians — the so-called “allies” of conservatives.While superficially conservatives and libertarians have a political alliance based on a mutual support of the free market and opposition to the omnipotent State, philosophically we are mortal enemies.
The philosophical war between conservatives and libertarians began two hundred years ago when the first aristocratic French head was placed on a pike as declaration of war to prescriptive society. Libertarians are the disciples of the Enlightenment and staunch supporters of the French Revolution. They are the bastard children of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Paine.
Conservatives, on the other hand, are the disciples of the eighteenth-century British statesman Edmund Burke. It was his fiery diatribe against the French Revolution, Reflections on the Revolution in France , that gave conservatives their philosophical substance for the next two centuries. Burke railed against the atrocities of the Jacobin revolutionaries as well as Enlightenment philosophers like Rousseau, whom he viewed as responsible for the revolution.
Unfortunately, most modern-day conservatives and libertarians are ignorant about this 200 year old quarrel. Most believe the alliance based on superficial common interests is sound political practice. But the conservatives’ pact with the libertarians has been most harmful to the cause of true conservatism as expounded by Burke. More often than not you hear so-called conservatives constantly singing the praises of the free market and stressing individualism rather than speaking about tradition and the spirit of community. The libertarians have so polluted the intellectual waters of true conservatism with their ideological filth that many conservatives now have trouble distinguishing between the two. In light of this, I would like take this opportunity to remind my fellow conservatives of the extreme philosophical chasms which have always separated conservative man from libertarian beast.
The most fundamental difference between conservatism and libertarianism is one of ideology. Libertarianism is an ideology based upon abstract ideas and doctrines such as the free market, absolute liberty, and radical individualism. The libertarian foolishly believes that if his abstract ingredients are properly mixed within the social cauldron, an earthly utopia will bubble forth.
Conservatism, as H. Stuart Hughes declared, is the negation of ideology. Ideology is founded upon abstract ideas which possess no relation to reality, whereas conservatism is founded upon history, tradition, custom, convention, and prescription. As Russell Kirk put it, “[C]onservatism...is a state of mind, a type of character, a way of looking at civil social order. The attitude we call conservatism is sustained by a body of sentiments, rather than by a system of ideological dogmata.” The conservative puts his faith in the wisdom of his ancestors and the virtue of experience, rather than the abstract jargon of “sophisters, calculators, and economists.” He knows that there are no simple political formulas to solve all the world’s troubles.
Next, conservatives and libertarians disagree over what binds civil society. Libertarians view civil society as something artificial — a dissoluble agreement made to furnish individual self-interest. In their repugnant view, society is a “partnership in things subservient only to the gross animal existence of a temporary and perishable nature.” Society is merely a machine with interchangeable and separable parts, says the libertarian.
In contrast, the conservative declares that society is not a paltry economic agreement or a mechanical device, it is a spiritual and organic entity. The conservative, imbued with the spirit of Burke, sees society as a partnership between the living, the dead, and those yet to be born – a community of souls. Each social contract in each particular state “is but a clause in the great primeval contract of eternal society, linking the lower and higher natures...”
It is not true that the legitimacy of the state is dependent solely upon tacit consent, as the libertarians would have us believe. The social contract’s legitimacy is the work of history and traditions which go far beyond any single generation. The present is not free, as political rationalists tell us, to redesign society according to abstract doctrines or theoretical dogma. As Russell Kirk put it, “Society is immeasurably more than a political device ... If society is treated as a simple contraption to be managed on mathematical lines, then man will be degraded into something much less than a partner in the immortal contract that unites the dead, the living, and those yet to be born, the bond between God and man.”
The next philosophical issue at which conservatives and libertarians cross swords is the concept of liberty. Libertarians believe that liberty is the first priority of any society. But the liberty they value so highly is solitary, unconnected, individual, selfish liberty. Theirs is an abstract liberty divorced from order and virtue. The libertarian views liberty as a good thing in and of itself and constantly strives to maximize it, no matter the cost.
The conservative believes that order is the first priority of society, for it is only within the framework of an enduring social order that a true and lasting liberty may be attained. To the conservative, the only liberty is “a liberty connected with order: that not only exists along with order and virtue, but which cannot exist at all without them.” When considering the effects of liberty, the conservative hears Burke’s words ringing in his ears: “The effect of liberty to individuals is, that they may do what they please: we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations, which may be soon turned into complaints.”
Individualism is the next battlefield on which conservatives and libertarians slip the dogs of war. Libertarians possess an ideology of individualism which denies that life has any meaning other than the gratification of the ego. They envision a utopia of individualism where man exists for his own sake and human beings are reduced to social atoms. Selfishness is a virtue, says the libertarian.
Conservatives recognize that that basic social unit is not the individual but the group – autonomous groups such as family, church, local community, neighborhood, college, the trade union or guild, etc. These groups intermediate between the individual and State and help preserve social order. As Robert Nisbet pointed out, “Release man from the context of community and you get not freedom and rights but intolerable aloneness and subjection to demoniac fears and passions.” The conservative values the spirit of community and agrees with Marcus Aurelius that, “We are made for cooperation, like the hands, like the feet.”
Both conservatives and libertarians support the free market economy, but they differ in the degree of their devotion. Many libertarians worship the free market as if it were a religion — indeed many have no trouble replacing the cross with a dollar sign. But libertarians do not confine their zeal for the market to the economic arena. They believe the market is an abstract doctrine to be applied to all facets of life and social problems. The libertarians are really just inverted Marxists, who substitute the free market for socialism as not only the dominant economic system but also the overriding social and political influence. Indeed, they are guilty of the same dialectical materialism as Marx.
Conservatives know that society is too complex to be reconstructed according to abstract economic doctrines. They think too highly of man and society to distill everything in existence down to the production and consumption of material goods — the nexus of the cash payment is indeed a weak social link. The laws of commerce are no substitute for the laws of convention and the Divine.
In conclusion, libertarianism is as much an anathema to true Burkean conservatism as Marxism and it should be fought against equally as hard. As Russel Kirk once said, “Adversity sometimes makes strange bedfellows, but the present successes of conservatives disincline them to lie down, lamblike, with the libertarian lions.”
>>>Exactly why they should support the Republican Liberty Caucus.
BS!!! True Conservatism has very little in common with true Libertarianism. See my post at RE:#125. True Conservatives don't support the craven agenda of Libertarianism. You can shout at the top of your lungs, boy, no one is listening to you.
The end.
anti-society,
anti-military,
anti-criminal justice system
and they support abortion on demand,
prostitution,
special rights for homosexuals,
open borders and unlimited immigration.
Are you sure that you are, like, an American and stuff? You sure don't sound like one... judging by the Founders of Americanism, anyway.
If your sympathies tend towards the Authoritarianism of King George, why celebrate July 4th?
July 4th is a Worldwide Libertarian Holiday. Every Libertarian Party in the World celebrates July 4th. Why do you celebrate July 4th, hmmm?
Gimme Five reasons. Go. Give it your best shot.
Fine. I challenge you to a "Negation of Ideology" duel.
The first one to advocate forcible control of individuals to accomplish a specific Ideology... LOSES.
"Conservatism, as H. Stuart Hughes declared, is the negation of ideology". Your own quote. Your own citation. I am taking up your challenge. The first one to advocate forcible control of individuals to accomplish a specific Ideology... LOSES.
I promise you in advance that, by your own so-called "authorities", I am vastly more Conservative than you.
"Conservatism, as H. Stuart Hughes declared, is the negation of ideology". You ready to play, or do you want to just admit Defeat now and make it easy on yourself?
"I, _____, pledge to the citizens of the State of _____ and to the American people, that as their elected representative I will work to: Restore liberty, not restrict it; shrink government, not expand it; reduce taxes, not raise them; abolish programs, not create them; promote the freedom and independence of citizens, not the interference of government in their lives; and observe the limited, enumerated powers of our Constitution, not ignore them."
So far only only 5 congressmen have signed it since March.
Rep. Todd Akin of (R-Missouri)
Rep. Bob Barr of (R-Georgia)
Rep. Jack Kingston of (R-Georgia)
Rep. Pat Toomey of (R-Pennsylvania)
Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tennessee)
You are asking the military question: "What are the risks of a totally conus (continental U.S.) based military with the exception of naval power on the open seas?"
1. Annihilation if an adversary also develops nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction. Mutual destruction is no solace to me. It's still destruction. Were an enemy to gain a technological or strategic edge, then first strike risks increase. Our presence in other countries enables us to deter through influence and intrigue.
2. Economic disruption.
3. Operations other than open warfare....espionage, industrial espionage, computer attack, civil destabilization, etc.
All of these are enhanced by armies of influence and agents of influence/intrigue on the ground in other locations of the world.
My .05 worth, for what it's worth.
I agree in so many other areas. My disagreements in areas other than defense are more questions on new procedures than they are disagreements with the ideas.
For example, you have Medicare becoming a state program instead of a federal program. Why not get government entirely out of the business EXCEPT FOR QUALITY CONTROL LAWS to see what happens in the market place when providers have to deal directly with consumers.
Um, actually, most of the people you are screaming at and namecalling here have expressed an interest in, and appreciating for, the very topic that Jim Robinson has posted - The RLC. You, on the other hand, have been doing nothing but "moaning and groaning" throughout this thread about the very topic this thread addresses. Are you sure you aren't a Democrat? They are very good at accusing others of the very thing they are doing themselves.
Why don't you stop whining and crying about it ReaganMan, instead of accusing those you are whining and crying to of being whiners and crybabies?
Here, let me insert your response for you:
Oh yeah? Well you are a loser crybaby. Hah hah!! I win the argument, end of debate. Hah hah! If you hate this forum so much, leave! You little man you! You must love abortion. It is so obviously clear from your illogical post above. Politics is a tough game, boy so don't whine and cry. The RLC is full of a bunch of Satanists because I said so. Hah hah, you can't overcome that bit of superior logic boy, so don't even try little man. The debate is over and I won it, crybaby little man!! - Reagan Man
There, I have done a nice ReaganMan post for you to save you some time. Wasn't that nice of me?
Thank you very much for providing this forum.
Are you saying that libertarians are immoral? Or that conservatives are moral? Or both?
We need a little input from you on this thread.
I guess the question then becomes what you think about an organisation who certainly does not support the VAST majority of Republicans in office today. Up to and including GWB. The elected officials and party leaders are completely opposed to almost all of what is in the RLC info which you posted.
Not need to answer, I'm not trying to pick a fight or turn this into a Bush bash session. I'm just making a point and I hope you take my point in the spirit in which it was given.
If our country is to be saved, it won't be saved by the current Republican party. And we will never turn it into a party which will as long as we are scared that by actively opposing them means that Democrats will be elected.
My opinion is that the Republican party has been successfully (and purposely) infiltrated by Democrats and to a large degree they now set the agenda.
If you asked GWB to support even half of what is in the document you provided, he would dismiss you like a school child. Regards, TJ
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.