Replies

What's up Jim?

The Republican Liberty Caucus makes some excellent points. In fact, many of their political positions, mirror the positions conservatives, like myself, have championed for many years now.

However, there are some downsides to the RLC and they should be discussed openly. First off, the RLC website specifically states the following, on the issue of abortion.

What is the RLC's position on abortion?

Neutral. We have both pro-lifers to pro-choicers, and in between. As far as libertarian groups go, you'll find that we are probably the most tolerant of the pro-life viewpoint. Our immediate past chairman, Cong. Ron Paul (R-TX, 14th Dist.) is very pro-life. Many other members are pro-choice. As libertarians, we oppose Federal funding of abortion under any circumstances. It is not a litmus test, and it is not an issue that is often debated internally. However, the California RLC website www.LibertyCaucus.org, has sponsored a debate on the issue between two prominent members.

Neutral?

That won't fly with social, moral and Christian conservatives. That's a big black mark against the RLC. This is a political position taken by most Libertarians.

In addition, without removing a portion of #13 off its agenda, the RLC will never appeal to law and order conservatives, in the great tradition of Ronald Reagan. Leaving in that certain portion of #13 as part of its position statement, which promotes alternatives to America's current national drug control strategy, gives its agenda a stench of libertarian-lite.

Are you attempting to appeal to the craven immoral libertarian mindset? Has FR lost too many libertarian ideologues lately? Do libertarians, anarchists and other fringe extremists really mean that much to you Jim? Hmmm. Inquiring minds want to know.

I don't expect you to answer these questions, but I continue to respect your right to follow the political philosophy of your choice, even if that may include, basic agreement on a neutral position on abortion. Even if that means opposition to America's successful national drug control policy. Even if that means joining forces with individuals who consider themselves libertarian-Republicans. There's an oxymoron for ya!

Having a separate forum on FR, that promotes a libertarian-lite website, won't make you any political allies among conservatives. But with you being an ex-Democrat, I can appreciate your desire to return to a political philosophy more in tune with your personal desires.

I think it is utterly and completely UN-libertarian to support unrestricted abortion. There's no right more fundamental then the right to live. It's unfortunate that the RLC has taken that position.

Even if that means opposition to America's successful national drug control policy.

The mean the "successful" drug control policy that classifies bottled water and glowsticks as "drug paraphenalia"?

The "successful" drug control policy that drove the price of MDMA in the US up to $30 a tab, wheras in the Netherlands, where MDMA is produced, it only costs $3 a tab?

Oh yeah, that "successful" drug control policy... ~~Prohibition~~ I mean, the "War on Drugs"...

Even if that means opposition to America's successful
national drug control policy.

Please elaborate. What is the successful nature
of the War on Drugs? How has it reduced drug
use, kept drugs out of the country, and maintained
our constitutional rights? How has the constitutional separation of powers
between federal government and the states been impacted by the War on Drugs?

"Are you attempting to appeal to the craven immoral libertarian mindset? Has FR lost too many libertarian ideologues lately? Do libertarians, anarchists and other fringe extremists really mean that much to you Jim? Hmmm. Inquiring minds want to know."

When your "moral" Republicans stop forcing me to hand over part of my paycheck to support Planned Parenthood, et al, then you can talk.

When "pro-life" President George Walker Bush directs HHS Director Tommy Thompson to investigate the use of taxpayer money to fund organizations who violate state laws mandating the reporting of suspected child molestation, then you can talk. When your "moral" Republicans do that, you ping me. OK?

What's up Jim?
The Republican Liberty Caucus makes some excellent points. In fact, many of their political positions, mirror the positions conservatives, like myself, have championed for many years now.
However, there are some downsides to the RLC and they should be discussed openly. First off, the RLC website specifically states the following, on the issue of abortion.
What is the RLC's position on abortion?
Neutral. We have both pro-lifers to pro-choicers, and in between. As far as libertarian groups go, you'll find that we are probably the most tolerant of the pro-life viewpoint. Our immediate past chairman, Cong. Ron Paul (R-TX, 14th Dist.) is very pro-life. Many other members are pro-choice. As libertarians, we oppose Federal funding of abortion under any circumstances. It is not a litmus test, and it is not an issue that is often debated internally. However, the California RLC website www.LibertyCaucus.org, has sponsored a debate on the issue between two prominent members.
Neutral?
That won't fly with social, moral and Christian conservatives. That's a big black mark against the RLC. This is a political position taken by most Libertarians.
In addition, without removing a portion of #13 off its agenda, the RLC will never appeal to law and order conservatives, in the great tradition of Ronald Reagan. Leaving in that certain portion of #13 as part of its position statement, which promotes alternatives to America's current national drug control strategy, gives its agenda a stench of libertarian-lite.
Are you attempting to appeal to the craven immoral libertarian mindset? Has FR lost too many libertarian ideologues lately? Do libertarians, anarchists and other fringe extremists really mean that much to you Jim? Hmmm. Inquiring minds want to know.
I don't expect you to answer these questions, but I continue to respect your right to follow the political philosophy of your choice, even if that may include, basic agreement on a neutral position on abortion. Even if that means opposition to America's successful national drug control policy. Even if that means joining forces with individuals who consider themselves libertarian-Republicans. There's an oxymoron for ya!
Having a separate forum on FR, that promotes a libertarian-lite website, won't make you any political allies among conservatives. But with you being an ex-Democrat, I can appreciate your desire to return to a political philosophy more in tune with your personal desires.

You posted the above this morning. - An hour later, I wrote a short retort, intending to post it on this thread. - But then had second thoughts, as it would no doubt only start a 'flame war'.

So I posted the below, to you, in 'private reply':

Re: REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT
To Reagan Man | 2002-07-25 09:45:41 sent
Hoisted on your own petard as a rino, and as an irrational libertarian hater.
Thank you.

-- Now, you have seen fit to 'report' me to the mods as flaming you in private.
- How weird can you get?

"neutral"!!!!!!

Well, I guess the Republican Liberty Caucus doesn't care about the liberty of the unborn.

There are liobertarians who are Christian who oppose abortion like I do. Look at the Lord Acton Institute for example. That is a Catholic libertarian group. Heck, even in the Libertarian Party you have Libertarian For Life lead by Doris Gordon. Libertarians come from different philosophies or factions but one thing that we have in common is limited government, property rights, strict construction of the Constitution the Supreme Law Of the Land, we are pro second ammendment. There are other Christian Libertarian Groups also.

"That won't fly with social, moral and Christian conservatives"

That is probably true, but who cares? Not me. As soon as you moved that word "social" to the front of any list of qualities, you negated any references to "conservative" that follow. SOCIALISTS will adapt ANY ideology that they can use to move into governing a utopian society ir their UNIQUE and twisted view of it. Even so-called "christians".

The same authority that folks surrender to the feds for one area are WITHOUT exception, used in unexpected ways to our detriment. Abortion should return to being a state regulated issue, as there were far less abortions then, than there are now.

We need to get FEDERAL government out of EVERYTHING but its enumerated powers. It is time to end the illicit affair our residents have had with federalism. It has adulterated the fiduciary rights and responsibilities between sovereign states and their residents.

First degree murder and it's corollaries, are still all defined under regional and state laws. It should be the same for MOST items that have now been federalized... drugs, sex, guns, alcohol, abortion, and so on... WE need to keep them regulated at state and local levels where special interests cannot concentrate their efforts so easily and the electorate lives within driving distance of the legislatures... and leave the big guns of federalism for INTERNATIONAL issues of security, economics and trade...

The founders never envisioned the "interstate commerce" clause being used to regulate such wide ranges of issues as medical proceedures... they were right in that LACK of vision. They just couldn't see it then, and we shouldn't now.