Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 145

Thread: Conservatives Will Embrace Libertarians When Libertarians Stop Embracing Government

  1. #1

    Default Conservatives Will Embrace Libertarians When Libertarians Stop Embracing Government

    http://thefederalist.com/2014/02/26/...ng-government/

    The latest fad in libertarian thought-leadering is asking social conservatives to relinquish their tired doctrines and past-due principles to get with the Randian program.


    David Harsanyi made one of the more convincing arguments on Tuesday, defending 2016 Presidential hopeful Rand Paul’s olive branch to the devout:



    Christians commit themselves to God, which, as far as I tell, doesn’t prohibit them from supporting a political philosophy that emphasizes free will over a state-ordained “morality.” No doubt, most religious Christians appreciate that our collective national political decisions and their personal moral compasses will not always be synchronized. That’s where the religious freedom comes into play. Should social conservatives “commit themselves” to a political philosophy [liberalism] that not only strives for gay equality, but one that seeks to impel others to participate in these new norms despite religious objections?


    I murmured Amen as I scrolled down. I logged onto Twitter to get this very important piece onto the screens of my social conservative followers right away, adding a hardy “+1,” a secular, tech-friendly Amen, as a signaling device. That’s when it all went wrong.


    The screen flashed with update upon update from my libertarian friends. It turns out they are quite comfortable impelling “others to participate in these new norms despite religious objections.”


    “Arizona is in the midst of one of its habitual tussles over pointless and stupid legislation intended to make some portion of the population feel unwelcome,” Reason’s J.D. Tuccille said. “So Arizona lawmakers are basically just being homophobic pricks.”


    Tusselle was referring to an updated state Religious Freedom Restoration Act that the Arizona legislature passed this week. The bill is designed to protect religious business owners from the types of litigation and sanction that have seen massive fines imposed upon Christian entrepreneurs for opting out of gay weddings. Tuccille is well aware of this:



    They’re playing off of incidents in other states where socially conservative bakers and photographers have been penalized for turning away gay and lesbian customers (the wisdom of insisting that somebody who hates you bake your wedding cake is a topic for another conversation). Those other states’ laws don’t apply in Arizona, so this is grandstanding. [emphasis in the original]


    Anyone with passing knowledge of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) would recognize that Arizona lawmakers are not engaged in mere grandstanding. The act, which passed unanimously through the house, cleared the Senate 97-3, was endorsed by the ACLU and signed by President Bill Clinton, only applied to the federal government. States and localities had to pass their own version of the bill, in order to protect their citizens from state overreach and frivolous lawsuits. Arizona lawmakers took a pro-active approach to protecting religious freedom from litigiousness. The Reason Foundation and CATO Institute, among others, embrace the RFRA as long as it’s used to overturn Obamacare through the upcoming Hobby Lobby case. But if conservatives use the same law to seek religious protections for believers, libertarians are the first to cry “Bigot” and let slip the dogs of concern trolling.


    The reaction to Arizona’s bill begs the question liberal Christian Elizabeth Stoker posed in Salon: “Why would someone with such a commitment to Christianity ever commit themselves [sic] to a political philosophy without a similar commitment?” [emphasis original]


    Libertarians have not provided adequate answers. When great thinkers like Harsanyi and Paul try to, their ideological brethren undermine the bonhomie of the apologetics. Modern libertarian fusionists are too busy attacking the driest of straw men—the social conservative out to break up the party—to recognize that they should be policing their own.


    Rand Paul set out to reassure social conservatives at the American Principles Project that “Libertarian and liberty doesn’t mean libertine.” He argued that the real libertarian agenda is about ensuring economic freedom and prison reform—two causes that have drawn considerable support from the religious right. But libertarian voters and candidates have made clear that they are willing to accept more regulation, taxation, and government intrusion, in order to stick it to social conservatism. How else does one explain the 2013 Virginia gubernatorial election?


    Republican nominee Ken Cuccinelli, a socially conservative Catholic, pledged to cut taxes, roll back regulations, and reject Obamacare’s disastrous Medicaid expansion (he spearheaded the Supreme Court challenge to the law as attorney general). Sarvis, the libertarian nominee, supported abortion and gay marriage, as well as putting black boxes in cars to tax road use and implementing Obamacare. He opposed tax cuts and “strongly libertarian economics.” Naturally, libertarians put him on the ticket and turned out for him in droves. Sarvis received nearly 7 percent of the vote, Democratic crony Terry McAuliffe won by less than 3 points and libertarians got what they voted for: the former DNC chairman is expanding Medicaid.


    While libertarians have demonstrated an unrelenting willingness to support candidates based solely on social liberalism, social conservatives have been the consummate team player.


    Despite the wishful thinking of the Republican consulting class, big money GOP donors and libertarian puritans, social conservatism isn’t to blame for the party’s woes. A majority of young people identify as pro-life. Six out of ten Americans support banning second trimester abortion and 80 percent want to ban third trimester abortions. Voters may now support gay marriage, but they oppose “conservative economics,” a libertarian stand-in, by wider margins. While support for libertarian economics dropped among the greater population over the past several years, it grew within one group, according to Gallup. Three out of four social conservatives identified themselves as fiscal conservatives in 2013, compared to 31 percent of social moderates and 17 percent of social liberals.


    The Gallup poll translates pretty well into legislative action. Sam Brownback, the much-maligned Kansas moralist, received the libertarian Club for Growth’s Defender of Economic Freedom Award in the run-up to the 2008 primary. Social conservatives topped this year’s list in the Senate, while GOP gay marriage supporters Mark Kirk, Rob Portman, and Lisa Murkowski finished 30, 31, and 44, respectively.


    The general acceptance of libertarian politics by social conservatives has not stemmed the tide of condescending columns about the need for the religious right to get with the program. GOP consultants are fond of saying that the current intra-party war pits the “mathematicians,” who want to broaden the tent by embracing gay marriage, abortion, and immigration reform, against the “priests,” those superstitious puritans who hold the party back. The increasingly libertarian conservative smart set nods in agreement: no one in their Beltway circles is pro-life, so the country must be heading in that direction, too. The mathematicians forget one crucial piece of the equation: there are more than 20 million social conservatives who turn out for Republicans each election day, as well as millions of conservative-leaning blue collar whites who sat out the 2012 election. Kicking social conservatives out of the tent doesn’t make it bigger—it just means there’s more empty space.


    GOP reformers are correct that social conservatives lost the debate over marriage with the Supreme Court’s DOMA decision. They are right when they say that public opinion has swung too hard against proponents of traditional marriage, that opposition to gay marriage is an electoral handicap. Social conservatives are ready to lay down their arms. All they’re asking for is to keep their shields for the day a gay couple demands a church wedding, as is happening in Europe. Libertarians talk a good game about religious freedom and protecting Constitutional guarantees of religious liberty. They’re just unwilling to make good on those promises.


    When Harsanyi says, “There is no conflict between political freedom and faith,” believers yawn. Libertarians treat it as revelation. Or bigoted heresy. There is no better friend to Republican fusionism than social conservatism. If libertarians don’t address their own ranks soon, it may be time for believers to live up to the no-worse-enemy half of the mantra.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    The author can't seem to figure out whether he is talking about Libertarians or libertarians.

    Embracing government by libertarians ended long ago. (like when they each became libertarian)

  4. #3

    Default

    Yet another article that ignores the fact that the Arizona bill "solved" a problem that didn't even exist in Arizona but probably will in the future as a result of the stupid bill. In fact, in the Tucson newspaper this very morning was an editorial calling for Arizonans to make sure nothing like this ever happens again. Just wait. This stunt is going to backfire in a big way.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  5. #4

    Default

    “Arizona is in the midst of one of its habitual tussles over pointless and stupid legislation intended to make some portion of the population feel unwelcome,” Reason’s J.D. Tuccille said. “So Arizona lawmakers are basically just being homophobic pricks.”


    Tusselle was referring to an updated state Religious Freedom Restoration Act that the Arizona legislature passed this week. The bill is designed to protect religious business owners from the types of litigation and sanction that have seen massive fines imposed upon Christian entrepreneurs for opting out of gay weddings.

    I am very glad that the Reason / Tuccille-type wing of libertarians are no longer dominant in the movement. Instead, the movement is clearly being led by men who are very "socially conservative." Lew Rockwell, Hans Hoppe, Tom Woods, Ron Paul, and Rand Paul -- these are good respectable men, with traditional values, living in old-fashioned family arrangements, supporting and loving their wives and children in the normal and wholesome way.

    So I basically agree with where the author of the article is coming from, but I do not think there is as much of a problem as he does. The situation is pretty good vis a vis libertarians not supporting nor being libertines.
    The rebel of the 21st Century will be old-fashioned.

    No enemies to the right

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    Yet another article that ignores the fact that the Arizona bill "solved" a problem that didn't even exist in Arizona but probably will in the future as a result of the stupid bill. In fact, in the Tucson newspaper this very morning was an editorial calling for Arizonans to make sure nothing like this ever happens again. Just wait. This stunt is going to backfire in a big way.
    I don't know how many times people have pointed that out. Even the OP's link ignores that point in Tucille's piece:

    As Reason's Scott Shackford documented, "sexual orientation is not included in Arizona’s public accommodation laws. Discrimination against gays is actually legal in a lot of places in America still. What Senate Bill 1062 does is essentially tweak the state’s existing freedom of religion laws to say that, no really, people in Arizona have the right to the free exercise of religion."
    Not for long.
    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    The author can't seem to figure out whether he is talking about Libertarians or libertarians.

    Embracing government by libertarians ended long ago. (like when they each became libertarian)
    It is absolutely ridiculous that we''ve given ourselves sooooooooo many labels that there is now a difference between Libertarians and libertarians (same spelling except one is capitalized.) Does anyone else think that is fking stupid? Is it really that difficult to think of a new label to give yourself?

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucille View Post
    I don't know how many times people have pointed that out. Even the OP's link ignores that point in Tucille's piece:

    Not for long.
    Read this article. The bills in Kansas and Arizona had nothing to do with allowing businesses to discriminate against gay couples who want to come in and eat. The laws were introduced in order to prevent Christians from being forced to participate in gay marriage ceremonies.

    http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/mi...#axzz2uNENlbmz

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    It is absolutely ridiculous that we''ve given ourselves sooooooooo many labels that there is now a difference between Libertarians and libertarians (same spelling except one is capitalized.) Does anyone else think that is fking stupid? Is it really that difficult to think of a new label to give yourself?
    No, it's NOT "fking stupid".

    Libertarians are the Libertarian Party; libertarians embrace a liberty-minded life style that is not necessarily political.
    There is no spoon.

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    It is absolutely ridiculous that we''ve given ourselves sooooooooo many labels that there is now a difference between Libertarians and libertarians (same spelling except one is capitalized.) Does anyone else think that is fking stupid? Is it really that difficult to think of a new label to give yourself?
    Domestic Terrorist?
    "I shall bring justice to Westeros. Every man shall reap what he has sown, from the highest lord to the lowest gutter rat. They have made my kingdom bleed, and I do not forget that."
    -Stannis Baratheon

    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    The reason we have an evil, immoral empire is that it is populated by evil, immoral peons. The State isn't a faceless monster...it is composed of all our petty, ignorant, self-righteous and self-absorbed neighbors.

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    It is absolutely ridiculous that we''ve given ourselves sooooooooo many labels that there is now a difference between Libertarians and libertarians (same spelling except one is capitalized.) Does anyone else think that is fking stupid? Is it really that difficult to think of a new label to give yourself?

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    Read this article. The bills in Kansas and Arizona had nothing to do with allowing businesses to discriminate against gay couples who want to come in and eat. The laws were introduced in order to prevent Christians from being forced to participate in gay marriage ceremonies.

    http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/mi...#axzz2uNENlbmz
    I did, I didn't say anything about restaurants, and I know all about the bill. I live in AZ. Again, Arizonans already had (and still have) that right. Once the Ds win the majority after this stunt, they won't any more though, thanks to Republicans. And when it comes up, whatever Rs are left in the legislature will probably vote like the MN clowns.
    Based on the idea of natural rights, government secures those rights to the individual by strictly negative intervention, making justice costless and easy of access; and beyond that it does not go. The State, on the other hand, both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him. It has always made justice costly and difficult of access, and has invariably held itself above justice and common morality whenever it could advantage itself by so doing.
    --Albert J. Nock

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    It is absolutely ridiculous that we''ve given ourselves sooooooooo many labels that there is now a difference between Libertarians and libertarians (same spelling except one is capitalized.) Does anyone else think that is fking stupid? Is it really that difficult to think of a new label to give yourself?
    We had the name first until a group of disgruntled, frustrated limited government conservatives seceded from the Republican party in the early 70's and hijacked the name "libertarian" and formed their oxymoronic "Libertarian" Party (so called). It's kinda like when the socialists hijacked the name "liberal" to hide who they really were.

    Same old political BS and malarkey. Let the hijackers get a new name.

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    We had the name first until a group of disgruntled, frustrated limited government conservatives seceded from the Republican party in the early 70's and hijacked the name "libertarian" and formed their oxymoronic "Libertarian" Party (so called)\.
    I'm not a Libertarian, but I've read many books on the formation of the party. It is deceptive and inaccurate to call the entirety of the party "disgruntled, frustrated limited government conservatives"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...United_States)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard

    mbibing Randolph Bourne's idea that "war is the health of the state", Rothbard opposed all wars in his lifetime, and engaged in anti-war activism.[37] During the 1970s and 1980s, Rothbard was active in the Libertarian Party. He was frequently involved in the party's internal politics. He was one of the founders of the Cato Institute, and "came up with the idea of naming this libertarian think tank after Cato's Letters, a powerful series of British newspaper essays by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon which played a decisive influence upon America's Founding Fathers in fomenting the Revolution." From 1978 to 1983, he was associated with the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus, allying himself with Justin Raimondo, Eric Garris and Williamson Evers. He opposed the "low-tax liberalism" espoused by 1980 Libertarian Party presidential candidate Ed Clark and Cato Institute president Edward H Crane III. According to Charles Burris, "Rothbard and Crane became bitter rivals after disputes emerging from the 1980 LP presidential campaign of Ed Clark carried over to strategic direction and management of Cato."
    The Libertarian Party is diverse enough on its own, without alluding to Republicans and Democrats for definition.

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quark View Post
    I'm not a Libertarian, but I've read many books on the formation of the party. It is deceptive and inaccurate to call the entirety of the party "disgruntled, frustrated limited government conservatives"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...United_States)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard



    The Libertarian Party is diverse enough on its own, without alluding to Republicans and Democrats for definition.
    The Libertarian Party was hijacked- much like the Tea Party movement.
    There is no spoon.

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    The Libertarian Party was hijacked- much like the Tea Party movement.
    That is arguable, but that is not what Ronin Truth said.

    seceded from the Republican party in the early 70's and hijacked the name "libertarian"

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quark View Post
    I'm not a Libertarian, but I've read many books on the formation of the party. It is deceptive and inaccurate to call the entirety of the party "disgruntled, frustrated limited government conservatives"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...United_States)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard



    The Libertarian Party is diverse enough on its own, without alluding to Republicans and Democrats for definition.
    I was there at the time. Where were you?

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    Read this article. The bills in Kansas and Arizona had nothing to do with allowing businesses to discriminate against gay couples who want to come in and eat. The laws were introduced in order to prevent Christians from being forced to participate in gay marriage ceremonies.

    http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/mi...#axzz2uNENlbmz
    And since nobody in Arizona (where I live) could possibly have been forced to participate in a gay marriage ceremony under existing law, the bill would have had no legal effect at all. The real purpose was purely political and it backfired. It made Republicans look like bigots for no reason and has now been the stimulus for organizing a movement in the opposite direction. Brilliant.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    I was there at the time. Where were you?
    That is a logical fallacy. Millions of other people who are alive today were also in existence in the United States at that time, are they all experts on the Libertarian Party with an authority that supersedes all others non-present? Of course you can actually make the claim that there weren't any anarchists or non conservatives in the Libertarian Party who contributed to its foundation and its early existence, and that would be false. Anyway, this is off-topic. I just wanted to point out that what you claim is not what the reality was or is of the situation. There existed variety in the Libertarian party, at some point in time, including persons whom do not fit your description.

  20. #19

    Default

    But libertarian voters and candidates have made clear that they are willing to accept more regulation, taxation, and government intrusion, in order to stick it to social conservatism. How else does one explain the 2013 Virginia gubernatorial election?
    But social conservative voters and candidates have made it clear that they are willing to accept more regulation, taxation, and government intrusion, in order to stick it to social liberalism. How else does one explain the 2013 Virginia gubernatorial election?

    While libertarians have demonstrated an unrelenting willingness to support candidates based solely on social liberalism, social conservatives have been the consummate team player.
    HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA! HAHAHA!



    HA!
    "You cannot solve these problems with war." - Ron Paul

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    No, it's NOT "fking stupid".

    Libertarians are the Libertarian Party; libertarians embrace a liberty-minded life style that is not necessarily political.
    Is this like some official rule written somewhere or did you make this up yourself?

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucille View Post
    I did, I didn't say anything about restaurants, and I know all about the bill. I live in AZ. Again, Arizonans already had (and still have) that right.
    Then why were the gay lobby and the Democratic Party fighting tooth and nail against it?

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mczerone View Post
    But social conservative voters and candidates have made it clear that they are willing to accept more regulation, taxation, and government intrusion, in order to stick it to social liberalism. How else does one explain the 2013 Virginia gubernatorial election?
    You mean the Republican candidate who Ron and Rand Paul endorsed?

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    Is this like some official rule written somewhere or did you make this up yourself?
    How long have you been around to have not seen this somewhere?

    The specification absolutely matters. Take for instance republican, a word which has a completely different meaning when not capitalized (dictionary). Of course, capital L "Libertarian" isn't even defined in the dictionary because the party is so irrelevant.

    "Bob, a staunch Democrat, is a republican because he believes in a government run by representatives elected by the people."
    "Nancy, a Libertarian, has changed her views on many topics over the years and identifies as a socialist."
    Last edited by Anti-Neocon; 02-27-2014 at 02:35 PM.

  25. #24

    Default

    And libertarians will embrace the Republican party when Republicans stop embracing war and meddling in peoples' private lives.

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NIU Students for Liberty View Post
    And libertarians will embrace the Republican party when Republicans stop embracing war and meddling in peoples' private lives.
    I agree, but this guy said conservatives, not Republicans. True conservatives should be in favor of defensive wars only and should be in favor of defending the Bill of Rights and the privacy of the American people.

  27. #26

    Default

    I don't know about the author of the article in the OP, but I've never met a 'libertarian' who supports the use of government force to make sellers and buyers transact business against their will.

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    You mean the Republican candidate who Ron and Rand Paul endorsed?
    Yeah, that worked out so well...

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    Then why were the gay lobby and the Democratic Party fighting tooth and nail against it?
    Some of them were ignorant about the state of the law. Some of them saw it as an opportunity to make the Republicans look like bigots and to help excite and organize their supporters. And they were successful.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    You mean the Republican candidate who Ron and Rand Paul endorsed?
    Seriously, I got so $#@!ing $#@!ing $#@!ing sick and $#@!ing tired of $#@!ing saying this in $#@!ing November that I $#@!ing left for $#@!ing months, and you people with your complete and utter lack of facts and understanding are bringing it all back up again despite the fact that we $#@!ing covered this.

    Cuccinelli made up a special $#@!ing website to drum up support for keeping a law on the books, which he supported while in the state senate, which he knew -KNEW - at the time would make it illegal for married couples to engage in anything other than missionary sex.

    He KNEW that his law made it a felony for me to receive a blowjob from my wife.
    HE KNEW THIS.

    HE STILL KNOWS THIS.

    Libertarians - big L or little l - didn't vote for Cuccinelli because he is the 180 degree polar opposite of libertarian.

    Ron Paul got this wrong.
    Rand Paul got this wrong.

    Believe it or not, oh repeated and malicious invokers of the appeal to authority fallacy, it isn't the first time either of them was wrong.

    $#@!ing deal with it already.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Traditional Conservative View Post
    You mean the Republican candidate who Ron and Rand Paul endorsed?
    Because Ron got it right with Ronald Reagan, Lamar Smith, and Ted Cruz...

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 41
    Last Post: 08-25-2014, 10:22 PM
  2. Why most libertarians stupidly embrace open borders
    By AggieforPaul in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 07-01-2011, 09:00 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-22-2011, 02:32 AM
  4. Libertarians vs Conservatives: CPAC criticized by libertarians
    By Matt Collins in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-19-2010, 06:43 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •