Pajamas Media

85 Comments

1. Eric Dondero:

Poppycock! I’m a 25 year veteran of the libertarian movement, and member of the Libertairan Party. Even a former Libertarian National Committeeman. Pacifism and Isolationism are NOT compatible with real Libertarianism. The Ron Paul wing of the libertarian movement are actually Leftists who’ve infiltrated our movement, and should be given no respect. They DO NOT represent libertarianism.

Pro-Defense, along the lines of Goldwater, Dana Rohrabacher and PJ O’Rourke, is our real legacy.

PLEASE! stop saying that Libertarians were against the War in Iraq. In fact, many of us were critical of Bush and the GOP precisely because we thought he wasn’t fighting Islamo-Fascism hard enough.

Libertarians are Republicans. We disagree with our Conservative cousins on social issues, NOT Defense. We wish you Conservs would be a little more dedicated to repealing Seat Belt laws, legalizing Marijuana, lowering the drinking age back down to 18, especially for the Military, and on Gambling.

And we wish you all would be harder on socialist Obama. That’s the difference. Not foreign policy and defense.

Feb 19, 2009 - 2:32 am 2. Marc Malone:

Pretty spot on assessment, Mr. Green. Not bad considering you weren’t slurring, except when saying liberaltarian.

Feb 19, 2009 - 2:53 am 3. cfbleachers:

Herein lies the problem with building a strong national presence for libertarians. There is no defining structure to the “party”. It is a loose coalition of people who don’t want the “other two”.

I believe if a strong, charismatic leader could give voice to the rejection of the baggage that comes with our broken two party system, it would find itself a very large tent for those who have no political “home” team and who swing the pendulum in American politics wildly from side to side…basically by “throwing the last bums out”.

I detest the leftists. (although I have a very soft spot in my heart for the compassion of CLASSIC liberals). I am repulsed by the radical left wing ideologues and I find their inherent treason despicable.

On social issues, I have soft spot in my heart for faith-based folks…and I feel these folks get picked on and stereotyped repeatedly, in a way that, if aimed at certain minority groups, would create a vehement and powerful backlash. Careers would be ruined, instant pariah status attained. The irony and hypocrisy of the group who would impose the former and the latter, seems to be missed entirely.

On social issues, I am indeed more inclined to promote government non-interference, it is true. On fiscal issues, I ask that the government not bind and gag the free market with red tape. On national defense issues, I ask that the government not shrink from sworn enemies. On taxation issues, I ask that the government tax me on what I use and expend…not on what I make. If I am taxed on what I make…you are creating class warfare. If I am taxed on what I use and expend (especially national services), then I am paying my fair share.

This desire to create a war between the “haves” and the “have nots” is a canard. “Haves” are not the enemy of “have nots”. They are almost always the benefactors. Building phony resentment…is usually done by trying to get the “kinda haves” to believe that they are being kept down by some super-secret, double probation, society handshake. What a load of horse hockey.

Quit making the IRS into a mafia bag man. Quit making the federal budget into Santa Claus on crack. Quit making the Supreme Court into a peeping Tom.

If we could wrest away the debate from the screaming Mimi extremists, what a paradise we could build here. The two party system is broken. I asked that it be changed…and now I fear I got my wish. We are hurtling toward a one party system. First things first…that needs to be resisted with every ounce of effort we can muster.

Feb 19, 2009 - 3:57 am 4. Cato:

Those who style themselves as ‘liberaltarians’ are either (1) those who equate ‘libertarian’ with ‘libertine’ or (2) ‘intellectuals’ who want to get invited to the cocktail parties where the hot babes are now that liberalism is back in the saddle.

Feb 19, 2009 - 4:06 am 5. ARJIS:

cfbleachers, you have my vote!!! Where do I sign up? :^)

Please take a peek at my piece related to this topic:

http://arjis.blogspot.com/2008/12/new-hope.html

Feb 19, 2009 - 5:25 am 6. David Thomson:

“Those who style themselves as ‘liberaltarians’ are either (1) those who equate ‘libertarian’ with ‘libertine’”

It’s mostly about abortion and gay marriage, and sometimes an immature attitude toward the defense of the nation. The latter foolishly forget that while they may not be interested in war—war is still occasionally interested in them. Any libertarian who thought that modern day liberals would abandon the philosophy of increasing the power of the state is something of a moron. They were doomed to be disappointed by the Obama era. These people, at the end of the day, are forced to answer this question: is abortion that important to me? Is it truly my number one issue?

Feb 19, 2009 - 5:50 am 7. Bumr50:

As a man without a party, I was at first drawn to libertarianism, assuming that they would be the most attuned to my individualist principles.
But as I tried communicating in libertarian circles, I found a lot of incohesion and people with very specific axes to grind.
I live in a state with closed primaries, and it’s going to take a lot more than special interest rhetoric and head-in-the-sand isolationism to sway me away from the admittedly wayward GOP.

Feb 19, 2009 - 6:06 am 8. Bilgeman:

#3 cflbleachers:

” Quit making the federal budget into Santa Claus on crack.”

Ahhhh, so THAT’S why my Nintendo Wii was missing after Christmas Eve.

Here I was leaving Old Saint Nick COOKIES!

Feb 19, 2009 - 6:06 am 9. Fantom:

“the idea that libertarians and liberals should combine in the Democratic Party to further our goals.”

Uh, no, Libertarians and the socialist liberal scum are at opposite ends of the freedom index. As a Conservative “Bert(Libertarian) I would be aghast at such a turn of events. While big government neo-cons are almost as bad as liberals, the repub party is the only place ‘Berts actually win elections.

I won’t vote for a ‘Bert if a democrat is running in the race. Unless of course poll numbers point to a ‘Bert winning, not just being a repub spoiler.

Feb 19, 2009 - 6:33 am 10. G Alston:

Simple answer: have the GOP simply not have an opinion on social issues. The only real difference between the GOP and libertarians is the insane pandering to the (thankfully) dying and dwindling breed of social conservatives.

On another thread here someone responded to that by saying that it was the social conservative “base” that makes the republican party. You can’t ignore them! I’m thinking… really? Where exactly are they going to go?

On the same thread I also pointed out that social conservatives are dying off, dwindling. Those blue areas on the maps? Church membership is practically on life support. No gains being made. The blue areas are increasing in size. The new voters coming up are overwhelmingly democrat. Visit any college.

There is zero rational explanation for this other than the negative influence of social conservatives: republicans are painted as anti-intellectual (e.g. stem cells), anti-choice (e.g. abortion), anti-progress (e.g. gay marriage) and so on. And the frustating thing is that the students have it right: the social conservatives cause the entire party to be perceived negatively.

I reckon that without the social conservative baggage to carry around, the GOP would be so strong and complete that you couldn’t get a democrat elected to so much as dogcatcher.

Feb 19, 2009 - 7:03 am 11. Steve P.:

“Please Libertarians, please please just keep voting Republican. Even though we haven’t represented your interests since ever. And even though we expanded the federal government exponentially even when we promised we wouldn’t. And even though we started a meaningless War in Iraq when we promised that we’d take a more isolationist role in foreign affairs. And even though we continue to be hijacked by the religious right, which is completely antithetical to Libertarian ideology.”

It doesn’t really matter anyway, because Libertarianism will never truly get a real foothold in this country because:
1. People have been so traumatized by the government’s terrorism fearmonging over the past seven years, and will continue to be traumatized by the governments economic crisis fearmongering, that they are now completely unwilling to give up their momentary sense of security for lasting freedom.
2. Libertarians as a group are a disorganized hodge podge of individuals whose various petty grievences with civilization sound more like a city diner conversation between George Costanza and Kramer than an actual political philosophy.

Feb 19, 2009 - 7:16 am 12. bob:

Thank a Libertarian for Frankenstein.

Feb 19, 2009 - 7:18 am 13. Steve P.:

Fantom: Uh, no, Libertarians and the socialist liberal scum are at opposite ends of the freedom index.

True, but liberals actually have political power, whereas libertarians do not. Plenty of educated libertarians vote Democrat when the alternative is McCain and Palin.

Feb 19, 2009 - 7:25 am 14. Steve P.:

bob:Thank a Libertarian for Frankenstein.

The book? Or the scientist? Or the creature?

Feb 19, 2009 - 7:26 am 15. MarkD:

Both parties are full of statists. They want control. Do you honestly think any party is for limited government and freedom? That’s not what parties or governments do.

The government was finally forced to repeal the telephone excise tax that paid for the Spanish-American War. When do you think the TVA will be abolished?

Feb 19, 2009 - 7:31 am 16. jaymaster:

Stephen:

Spot on! I couldn’t have said it better myself, and I sure as hell have tried….

G Alston:

“Simple answer: have the GOP simply not have an opinion on social issues”.

Amen to that too (so to speak…) That is the one glaring weakness in the R platform that drives independent minded, small government types like me bonkers. And the Dems have made political hay out of that issue for probably 15 years now. You would think some one setting the R platform would catch on to that.

I would LOVE to hear the party state something like “The Federal government should have no role in setting moral standards” or such. But I realize that ain’t likely to happen any time soon. So just going silent on the issue might be good enough.

Feb 19, 2009 - 7:37 am 17. Charlie (Colorado):

Thank a Libertarian for Frankenstein.

Well, yeah. It was a pretty good book, too.

Robert Heinlein, I think, had a deep insight on this: the two political parties — no matter what the political divisions may be — are really people who want people to be controlled, and people who have no such desire.

Feb 19, 2009 - 7:46 am 18. Ms. Attitude:

3. cfbleachers:
“Quit making the IRS into a mafia bag man. Quit making the federal budget into Santa Claus on crack. Quit making the Supreme Court into a peeping Tom.”

Best statement I’ve heard in forever!!! : )

Feb 19, 2009 - 7:53 am 19. Marik:

Everyone loves to say they are Libertarian. In my experience most have no idea what it means to live as a Libertarian. Especially my own objectivist/Libertarian hybrid. The real truth is until Libertarians jetison the stoned wing of the party, they’ll never get anywhere. Wouldn’t hurt to toss the isolationists overboard, while we’re at it. What we see right now in Washington is Atlas Shrugged being acted out, minus John Galt. Who is willing to start the avalanche?

Feb 19, 2009 - 7:58 am 20. Andrew Ian Dodge:

It only works for left libertarians the ones who care more about isolationism and protectionism than freedom.

For a capitalist libertarian allying with the socialist (now overtly so) Democratic Party is laughable and completely objectionable.

Eric D made the case eloquently above. He especially nails the Paulians.

Feb 19, 2009 - 8:06 am 21. Dave:

People. I think Bob @#12 is talking about the new senate nightmare Al Franken. Bob correct me if I’m wrong.

Feb 19, 2009 - 8:32 am 22. Steve P.:

Marik says: “Everyone loves to say they are Libertarian. In my experience most have no idea what it means to live as a Libertarian. Especially my own objectivist/Libertarian hybrid. The real truth is until Libertarians jetison the stoned wing of the party, they’ll never get anywhere. Wouldn’t hurt to toss the isolationists overboard, while we’re at it. What we see right now in Washington is Atlas Shrugged being acted out, minus John Galt. Who is willing to start the avalanche?”

The only true libertarians are survivalists like biker gangs, commune-ists and pockets of religious cults like the Branch Davidian from years back. If you are not one of these groups, you are not a libertarian.

Jetison the stoned wing of the ‘party’ and you’ll have about 5 members left.

And the real John Galt, if there is one, is too busy profiting wildly from the system to ever think about abandoning it. That’s why Atlas Shrugged, along with the rest of Rand’s canon, is stacked under “Fiction.”

Feb 19, 2009 - 8:40 am 23. Charlie (Colorado):

Plenty of educated libertarians vote Democrat when the alternative is McCain and Palin.

And when they do, the get Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. Golly, that trick worked out good, didn’t it?

Feb 19, 2009 - 8:59 am 24. Chemman:

As I have said before as one of those pesky evangelicals I could easily be persuaded to support Libertarian positions provided some intellectual honesty was applied. I’m all for government staying out of decision making such as seat belts, helmets, drugs, sex etc. What I want from the libertarians is for you not to expect government then to tax me to take care of the situations that result from libertine lifestyles. At that point you are introducing the government into the bedroom, not me. In fact, before you try to crucify me about government involvement in other medical research for apparent lifestyle diseases I am for privatizing those also.
As to wanting the evangelicals to take their votes and go home. Some of you need a math lesson. Obama received about 63 million votes. McCain received about 57 million votes. If my math is correct that’s 120 million votes. Evangelicals of all stripes made up about 33 million votes not counting the 5 – 7 million who stayed home. Do any of you realistically think that the Small Government conservatives, Fiscal Conservatives and Military Conservatives stand a chance of winning an election without the help of social conservatives who also hold fiscal, small government and military conservative positions.

Feb 19, 2009 - 9:01 am 25. Jeff:

In past LP conventions where I had attended as a delegate, the abortion issue was as contentious there as it was and is outside of libertarian circles.

I wouldn’t categorize libertarians as isolationist given that free trade is typically a cornerstone issue. Non-interventionist would be a more appropriate description.

I personnally believe that the LP is wrong with their non-interventionist stance. There is this idea that trade agreements between states are somehow adequate guarantees against aggression since neither would wish to jeopardize the benefits received from trade. This to me, seems naive.

States are run by people – sometimes many, other times just a few. There are just way too many examples of people who risked reputation, family, or wealth on ventures that have us saying “what were they thinking?”

Then you throw in un-governed areas or places where there is only local control such as Somalia (can you really call it a country?), western Pakistan…clearly these areas cannot be ignored (ala Clinton). The LP stance here again, appears incredibly naive and inadequate.

Feb 19, 2009 - 9:04 am 26. cfbleachers:

Ahhhh, so THAT’S why my Nintendo Wii was missing after Christmas Eve. Here I was leaving Old Saint Nick COOKIES

You may have left cookies, bilgeman…but you are about to get milked.

Feb 19, 2009 - 9:06 am 27. Richard:

As a libertarian, Republicans would be our best representation among the two major parties, /if/ they would only act like republicans. They haven’t, so they aren’t. What we are seeing now is the “fair weather friend” phenomenon among republicans. Suddenly, they’re all fiscal conservatives now that they’re in the minority. Gee, what a f’in surprise! Why didn’t they act fiscally conservative the whole time they had majorities in the house and senate, or while they held the presidency? Did anyone actually watch Bush’s last press conference in which he admits that he jettisoned his free market “principles” because it was a “crisis”? Hell, anyone can be fiscally conservative and stick to your principles when its all butterflies, puppies and lollipops on the political landscape. I don’t know why Bush is such a hard-ass when it comes to terrorists and such a pussy when it comes to Congress. That’s the sort of republican we’ve been getting since Reagan and look where it got us. Show me that you can stick to your principles when you’re in power and then I’ll believe that a republican can represent me.

Feb 19, 2009 - 9:16 am 28. Fantom:

Jeff, the Right to Life should be the very essense of Libertarianism. For without that the individual is nothing. One of the few legitimate acts of government is to protect the life and property of those unable to do for them selves. I would say a baby in the womb qualifies as being unable to protect itself.

Life trumps choice.

I do agree that some of the ‘Bert platform does not fit me. They lose me on isolationism and open boarders for one.

Feb 19, 2009 - 10:15 am 29. G Alston:

#24 — “As to wanting the evangelicals to take their votes and go home. Some of you need a math lesson.”

I don’t think so.

Of 120 million votes, without the evangelicals enforcing and hamstringing GOP positions, there are 90 million potential GOP votes. Voters choose between parties solely based on actual issues like defense and ecomomy.

Of 120 million votes WITH evangelicals firmly pandered to, the GOP and the Dems can count on 50 million each with the rest up for grabs.

Think of it as Newtonian math: for every evangelical there is an equal and opposite anti-evangelical.

Feb 19, 2009 - 10:15 am 30. bob:

Frankenstein, the candidate of comedy. And tax cheat.

Feb 19, 2009 - 10:54 am 31. Tom:

If Secular Libertarians and Religious Conservatives don’t learn to unite, they will be dominated by Totalitarians period.

Feb 19, 2009 - 11:08 am 32. lee:

I often hear that the evangelical wing of the GOP party is responsible for the party’s decline. But how is that? In 04 moral values helped reelect George Bush. A good CHUNK of the minority (think Latino) voters the GOP must court are either evangelical or catholic. Minority votes helped pass prop 8, which most libertarians probably opposed.

Libertarians get a sliver piece of the pie that is the popular vote most elections. Was Bob Barr actually a threat in any state? The last third party candidate that was relevant was Ross Perot, who actually won a state if I recall correctly. The party will decline even faster if you alienate a relatively reliable voting base to gain a few fringe votes.

Libertarianism is certainly more compatible with conservatism, but remember what Mark Levin said – They actually side with the Marxists on a number of issues. A few nutheads will oppose ANY government regulation. They make no distinction between the government counting calories for us and protecting the borders.

Feb 19, 2009 - 11:23 am 33. gcblues:

what poppy cock. by the posters and the essayist. this is so stupid, but why should i be surprised. it is exactly the same posters and writer that wish to tell others what their thinking is all the time. juvenile name calling, straw manning bull leftovers. libertarians at the core reject central planners. they view collectivism as force, and altruism as evil. period. it is in the tradition of mann and hayek, government is solely there to protect the rights of individuals. not dial in the culture, determine what language people need to speak, not to make religion a part of government, not to run the economy, set prices and wages, build protectionist trade walls etc etc. so bible thumping morons and racist wall building english only idiots have chased us out. good. you can whine about us as a minority. however, you people have rendered yourselves as perpetual losers as well. good job! i suggest you fools listen to the 3 part 1957 interview with Ayn Rand by mike wallace on you tube. maybe you will understand why many libertarians that voted republican for Reagen for the first time will never vote republican again because bush, as an amoral evangelical welfare state enabler was simply too far over the line to stomach.

anyone that thinks god speaks to them is not qualified to govern others. bastante.

Feb 19, 2009 - 11:34 am 34. zzyzx:

The basic problem is that most people don’t want to be free.

If the body politic was rational, which it isn’t, the disastrous
XXth century experiment with state power would lead to a two-party
system: Republicans and Libertarians. As it is, collective human
human stupidity is leading us to disaster—the usual situation over the last 5000 years, punctuated by rare and short-lived exceptions.

Feb 19, 2009 - 11:34 am 35. momof3:

“What I want from the libertarians is for you not to expect government then to tax me to take care of the situations that result from libertine lifestyles. At that point you are introducing the government into the bedroom, not me. In fact, before you try to crucify me about government involvement in other medical research for apparent lifestyle diseases I am for privatizing those also.”

AMen! No taxing me for your abortions or kids you can’t support or birth control or a cure for the disease you got from sleeping around. Be an adult and handle yourself. Ditto on not expecting me to insure your health from illness or your belongings from disaster, if you don’t think it’s worthwhile to do yourself.

#28, right on too. Why can’t any group just focus on prevention? Why does killing even ever need to be an option? The way to not get pregnant is very, very well known.

While I, and I think most people, have no issue using umbilical cord stem cells for research, I do have a huge issue with fetal stem cells being used. Most diseases being looked at for possible stem cell cures affect older people. Why should a baby have to die-never have a chance to live at all-so that some 64 year old can cure his parkinsons? How selfish is that?

What many don’t understand about the social conservatives is that abortion to us is much much worse than pedophilia. Would anyone advocate legalizing that? It’s insane to ask us not to care that kids are killed. We can’t accept it and won’t.

Feb 19, 2009 - 11:38 am 36. Big Red:

Why was Bush hardass on terrorists and a pussy toward Congress? Easy, you can shoot terrorists. Remember, it takes 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate, so no party has really controlled it. As for the Pubs “re-discovering fiscal responsibilty” they are down 40 some seats in the last two elections. That amounts to a lot of RINOs gone. Sometimes you gotta cull the herd to improve it. Now you have newer blood stepping up, such as Pence, Ryan from Wis. Cantor and others, plus some old bulldogs like Sensenbrenner. What will be interesting to watch will be the Blue Dogs who claimed to be conservative and got in on Mark Foley’s “coat-tails”. Politics is a game of movement and no side can claim a permanent victory.

Feb 19, 2009 - 11:45 am 37. Big Red:

Well said, momof3. You nailed it perfectly and not once did I hear a Bible being thumped. That’s the way it needs to be done.

Feb 19, 2009 - 11:53 am 38. TL:

28 Fantom, I hate to allow myself to be drawn into the abortion issue — which isn’t what drives my vote — but you’ve questioned my logical consistency which I take very seriously. There is no inconsistency in a libertarian being pro-choice. Your assertion to the contrary presupposes that a couple cells are “life.” Only a religious leap of faith can get you there. Not all of us take that leap so we don’t think of early term abortion as murder (though the line should be drawn somewhere in the womb either based on viability as Roe v. Wade held or maybe brain development). What is arguably inconsistent is someone who thinks of himself as a libertarian feeling comfortable regulating others based solely on a religious premise to which those others do not and need not subscribe.

One more thought about logical consistency. It can be tricky to transalte libertarian principles to foreign policy. I think libertarians, as opposed to anarchists, want to provide for the common defense just as we want basic police protection domestically. Disagreements about how best to defend ourselves, both in general and in response to today’s specific threats, are differences on strategy, not on the essence of libertarianism. Some of us aren’t sure about the best strategy. Some of us are sure. Some of the sure are wrong. Some of the sure are right. But we’re all still legitimately libertarians.

Feb 19, 2009 - 12:01 pm 39. Steve P.:

Isn’t the whole idea of being a libertarian based around keeping the government out of your life and bedroom? If you’re advocating that the government force victims of rape and incest to carry their children to term, then YOU ARE NOT A LIBERTARIAN! All you have done is arbitrarily defined when life begins – you have not scientifically identified it, you have only arbitrarily defined it – and used the federal government as a ramrod to enforce your definition. See how quickly you sink to fascism?

Feb 19, 2009 - 12:20 pm 40. Self-hating Boomer:

The “progressive” left is only libertarian when it comes to issues that in one way or another relate to sex. They’re sexual anarchists, but control freaks wrt everything else, including drugs. Fer crying out loud, they want to regulate sugar in pop and trans-fats, and any other pleasures that aren’t sexual in one way or another.

Sexual anarchy is counterfeit freedom, and too many suckers don’t seem to grasp the difference. And too many of those suckers run around calling themselves libertarians.

Feb 19, 2009 - 12:30 pm 41. Pat J:

More and more I see libertianism as a lot closer to anarchism. They both want to ablish the state. The question I ask is “then what?”

Feb 19, 2009 - 12:47 pm 42. Shef Rogers:

Quick way to tell who’s a real libertarian: ask them how they feel about America’s insane drug laws, which have crushed the lives of millions, and I do mean millions, of decent people.

Feb 19, 2009 - 12:53 pm 43. Big Red:

38 TL. “Only a religious leap of faith…” Beg to differ. In a scientific sense, nothing unliving creates life. A sperm cell and an egg are two living cells that unite to to further develope into type of life they are, whether plant or animal (human). The wooden chair you sit on will not ever be a tree again. Only life continues life. All life goes back to the beginning, whether you believe in Creationism, Evolution or the Big Bang theory. I did not “create” my kids, just passed on the life passed to me by my ancestors and hopefully passed on to generations. Ther are truths in this world that have no bearing whether they come from Jehovah, Jesus, Allah, Buddah, Rama, Darwin or no one at all. The question is how we deal with them.

Feb 19, 2009 - 1:10 pm 44. Achillea:

Hear hear, TL and Steve P. Thank you.

Feb 19, 2009 - 1:15 pm 45. G Alston:

#43 — “The question is how we deal with them.”

We do so by minding our own business. A woman’s body harbours nascent life. The decision to continue, since it affects her body, is therefore hers. Not yours. Whether or not you approve or think you can define when said life as human has absolutely no bearing.

Women are either equal partners in all aspects or they are property whom you may impregnate at your will.

You can’t have an equal partner AND claim moral superiority when the whim to define what is moral strikes you.

This is especially disgusting when you attempt to invoke scientific authority on top of the morality claim. “Ah yes, my morals are correct and I can prove them scientifically.” What a crock. Hitler could similarly ‘prove’ that blacks were inferior. Scientifically, of course. And the difference between your and Hitler’s position is… what, precisely? Both of you are invoking your own definitions to prove the inferiority of others, hence the necessity for you to impose your moral superiority in the name of [varies depending on situation.]

The underlying question is whether women are equal or not. The right to life belief is a medieval throwback that says women are mere property. If you state belief in right to life you’re claiming that women are property. Chattel. Slaves. It’s really simple.

Feb 19, 2009 - 2:00 pm 46. jaymaster:

RE: Abortion

See, any time small government Republican/libertarian types start talking palsy with social conservative Republican types, it always, always, always, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALLLLLWAYS denigrates into the abortion debate. The Dems don’t even need to stoke the fire.

So how do we get over that?

Feb 19, 2009 - 3:00 pm 47. Rachel Peepers:

While some of my best friends are libertarians (none liberaltarians, which would put them in bed with the “Blame-America-Fist” Barack cheerleaders,)most keep disappointing me.

I mean, speaking up for fundamental beliefs like free speech, entitlement reform, preserving, protecting and defending the U.S. from enemies foreign and home grown, the Fair Tax, rights to life liberty and the persuit of the American Dream are all good. Only Barackian knaves are not copecetic with those ideas.

My problem with my libertarian allies is this: they seem to be reluctant to fight in the trenches when Barack and his merry band of tax cheats, race card throwers, career corrupt lifers and socialist adoring huge government scallywags try to run roughshod over decent American traditional ideals. Like self reliance. Bootstrap pulling-sweat-breeding success. The American Dream of enjoying the fruits of living in a free America. Free to make your million. Free to lose it. Free to hand it down to your children so they can get a running start in life.

Freedom from government mandating you to pull your fat sloth-filled neighbors up along with you. Freedom from spending your life trying to keep the government off your back.

Of course, we need roads and schools and an army, and tax money pays for it, but we shouldn’t have to pay for our neighbors’ cars to drive on those roads. We need to pay our own mortgages, not the mortgages of slackers. All of which don’t represent rogue American beliefs, but, rather, traditional American beliefs.

Trouble with the brown eyed handsome man and his loathsome band of fear mongers, they don’t give two hoots in hell about traditional American values.

Like cockroaches, they’ve weedled their way into our government, and are doing their best to eat away at its core beliefs from inside out.

Eric Holder, whose resume includes snaking his way around the FBI to pardon Marc Rich, on the FBI’s most wanted list is a prime example of the character challenged additions to Barack’s administration. And don’t forget Eric the terrible was instrumental in pardoning Puerto Rican cop killers (done purely for Latin votes).

Now Holder is calling Americans cowards for not moving into racially segregated communities. Maybe that’s the next executive order from Obama. If you want to deduct mortgage payments, you must live in an ethnically diverse community.

Then there’s Rham the bomb Emmanuel who’s knee deep in Blago pay for play money deals.

And, of course, let’s not forget another Barack change. To get a high government job, it helps to be a tax cheat. In fact, in charge of the IRS is now America’s most famous tax cheat, Tim Geithner.

Then Barack’s end run plan to redistribute the wealth in America promises to put in hock even our children’s children’s children to the tune of a startup price of a cool trillion dollars.

People, a morally bankrupt President who 53% of you voted for is bankrupting America. Libertarians. Democrats. Republicans with one voice have to step up and say, this is not what we elected you to do. Barack, we won’t let you demonize big business while you canonize tax cheats. We won’t let you strap our nation with debt that will send inflation to heights that make our money worthless. Barack, you’ve done a month’s worth of damage, enough is enough. If need be, we’ll impeach you. If need be, we’ll rise up and not pay another dime in taxes. If need be, we’ll start voting you and your henchmen out of office so fast you won’t know what hit you.

Like the Japanese awoke a sleeping giant on December 7, 1941, I call on all Americans to stand up for your country. And force Barack to stand down with his attack on America; dastardly plans to bankrupt America with a bankrupt political idiology.

There is a cancer on the Presidency. And we need to find the cure.

Feb 19, 2009 - 4:00 pm 48. TL:

43 Big Red. Is that supposed to pass for “science?” Yikes. You sound like a Rene Descartes. Remember the philosopher who tried to prove the existence of god by sitting in a cabin and sribbling down a theorum? Despite his best efforts his logic fell apart after “I think therefore I am.” Greater minds than yours have tried this exercise. It can’t be done, as David Hume conclusively explained long ago. Many serious thinkers take the leap of faith but at least they know they are taking it.

Feb 19, 2009 - 4:05 pm 49. gray man:

G. Alsto
#43
wrong. when DNA show that a fetus is a separate being, it has as much rights as any other separate being. No one want’s to treat women as chattel or slaves. We want both men and women to accept responsibility for their behavior. It is REALLY SIMPLE

Feb 19, 2009 - 4:15 pm 50. Big Red:

G Alston. You missed the point entirely. I was saying to momof3 that the argument can be made without bring God or “morality” into the discussion. You were the one who brought others morality up as an attempt to silence all discussion. As for Hitler, Jesse Owens proved him wrong, but some people keep bring him up to silence those who disagree with them. And as for women being proprty, chattel, slaves, sorry, but my “morality” won’t allow that.

Feb 19, 2009 - 4:24 pm 51. gcblues:

42, shef.

could be correct. the drug laws we have are so stupid and condescending, many police officers, agents of the dea, and mayors today think all drugs should be legal.it is precisely the type of folly you right wing fascists as opposed to right wing libertarians engage in. you think you can write any law and then demand that someone not following your stupid law is immoral. never for a moment thinking that much of the criminality we have today is predicated by the fascist laws written by psychologically damaged control freaks. certainly drugs cause harm, however much more harm, nationally and internationally is predicated by drugs laws. if someone gives a mind altering substance to a minor, or is on the highway high on anything, the government has a right to protect the rights of others. the government has no right to tell people what to ingest before any danger to others occurs. that is so basic it defies anything but the most sick central planning control freaks ….. you know today’s social right wing of the formerly proud republican party. it does not matter if aunt martha wants apricot pit juice for cancer or fred wants to inject arsenic in his veins, it is none of the governments, or your business until another persons rights are interfered with. hence, we have a right wing loaded with alcoholics and legal drug users trying to lecture others on the morality of their laws. the social right wingers are a pathetic sick joke. which is why you will continue to lose forever more any national election held.

the panoply of today’s drug laws are a perfect example of right wing fascists going mad. thank you shef.

Feb 19, 2009 - 4:36 pm 52. Richard:

To those who liken libertarians to anarchists, consider this: how much has the total burden of government shrunk under republicans at any level: local, state or federal? Zip. Zilch. Nada. Bupkiss. I live in the state that claims to be the most “republican” state in the nation and we have creeping socialism here under republican statist thugs, just like those in Chicago have it forced on them by democratic statist thugs. There isn’t any evidence beyond rhetoric that republicans actually want to shrink the scope, size and cost of government. Please show me a single city or state where the republican shrank the total cost of the government measures under their control by 5%, much less 10%.

The Libertarian party has two major wings: the ideological libertarians (I think these are the ones that most people are thinking “anarchist” when they listen to them) and the pragmatic libertarians (I think these are the ones that most people think “well, he’s just a republican” when they listen to them). When government has been reduced to half its current burden on society and the free man, then we can talk about how much farther we need to go. At that point some pragmatic libertarians might say we’ve gone far enough, but the anarchists will say we need to go farther. If we can manage to get down to a quarter of the current burdern, then some more pragmatic libertarians might say we’ve gone far enough, but the anarchists will say we need to go farther. If we can manage to get down to an eighth of the current burdern, then some more pragmatists will say its enough, but the anarchists will say we need to go farther. The anarchist is simply a pragmatist that feels that we the best way to maximize human liberty is to push things all the way down as far as they can go. The pragmatist essentially concedes some power to the state in order to protect its citizens from invasion (national defense) and provide for a system to adjudicate disputes (legal system). The anarchic libertarians also believe in a system of defense against invasion and also believe a system to adjudicate disputes is necessary. They simply posit that these means can also be achieved by private ends and needn’t require a State in order to achieve them. “Anarchist” to many people means chaos and disorder (”dogs and cats living together!”) but libertarian anarchists are not of that variety of anarchist. They would be more correctly described as privatarians, people who believe that all matters of interaction between persons are better handled by private entities than by State entities. They do not advocate chaos and disorder; rather they believe that a more harmonious order can always be achieved by eliminating State action from the equation. Pragmatic libertarians feel that there would always be a need for some State action, but that due to its corrosive and corrupting nature it should be minimized and guarded against (as embodied in the documents defining our republic). The point to understand is that anarchic libertarians and pragmatic libertarians agree on the direction we need to go. If we manage to pare down the size and scope of government, there might be a point where we would disagree on further action, but that point is a looooooong way from being here. I’d say the point at which we need to have that conversation about our differences is so far away from the current situation, that by harping on the differences now, we only do a disservice to all of us. Stay focused, people.

Feb 19, 2009 - 4:47 pm 53. David S:

@23. Charlie (Colorado):

Plenty of educated libertarians vote Democrat when the alternative is McCain and Palin.

And when they do, the get Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. Golly, that trick worked out good, didn’t it?

No complaints here.

Peace.

DS

Feb 19, 2009 - 4:58 pm 54. Donna V.:

Contrary to what God Alston states, the ’80’s were not some Victorian Age when evangelicals and social conservatives were everywhere to be seen, as compared to 2009 when in God Alston’s mind, we’re talking about 20 old church ladies in Backwater, Alabama. The libertarians have been giving the GOP the same tired advice since 1976 – dump the socons and you’ll score big at the polls. The GOP has been called the “stupid party” but since it’s not quite “the completely stupid and totally insane party” it wisely ignored libertarian calls to dump the party base in favor of the libertarians. A socially liberal Republican ran in 1980, if anyone remembers, and yet somehow John Anderson never got to move into the White House. Aping the Dems on social issues at the risk of alienating the socons is like going into work and telling your boss to take a hike because you just know you’re gonna win Powerball on Saturday. It’s a profoundly unconservative idea. .

I personally would not vote for a pro-abort candidate. However, I recognize that most people in this country do not see eye to eye with me on this matter. They do not want Roe v. Wade overturned (which incidentally, is the only thing that would make abortion a “states rights” matter. It would not end legalized abortion in America, which most people do not know – hence their opposition to overturning it.) But a majority of Americans are also uneasy about things like late term abortions and the “Born Alive Act.” And well they should be, since not even the secular Europeans permit such things. Most Americans support some restrictions on abortion.

But abortion is not a make- or -break issue for most people. If the economy worsens,and I don’t see how the Dems meddling will improve matters in the slightest, today’s young Obama fans will have a lot more to worry about than “a woman’s right to choose” and gay marriage. Smoking spiffs in the dorm room and damning evangelicals will give way to more immediate concerns – like “Dude, where’s my job?”

All the GOP needs to do is return to first principles – lower spending, lower taxes, and limited government. If you run RINOs, people will figure they might as well vote for the Dems. The Republicans lost in 2006 before they lost sight of those principles and took a bath again in 2008 because they didn’t learn the lessons of ‘06. They don’t need to toss socons under the bus – in fact it would be suicidal for them to do so.

God Alston, you’re a treat! Once again you provide us with a priceless display of assbackwards morality. The greatest beneficaries of abortion, in this country, at least, are men. When I was in college in the ’70’s and early ’80’s, women who were impregnated were relentlessly pressured by their boyfriends to get an abortion. I have friends who did, and they still suffer intense remorse. They didn’t seem to find it very “empowering.” Players need only toss a few hundred bucks at the women they’ve knocked up and voila! there are no child support payments and no paternity suits. Whew! Took care of that! Now I can move on to the next chick! I wasn’t yet out of my 20’s when I realized the people who really benefited the most from the sexual revolution were the ones with penises. (Please note: I also realize that there are men who suffer when their wives or girlfriends abort a child they wanted. It’s not you guys I’m talking about, it’s the feckless Don Juans. Abortion is a boon for them.)

As a conservative, I believe freedom comes with responsibility. Why do lefties love abortion rights so much? Well, it’s one more way of opting out of responsibility (since the vast majority of unwanted pregnancies in the US are not due to rape or incest or the health of the mother). Let’s take the easy way out and toss that blob of tissue in the trash.

Feb 19, 2009 - 5:24 pm 55. Big Red:

TL. Again, the point was to leave God and morality out of the discusion entirely. I am merely saying that abortion should be argued on the basis of what we know through man’s study and what we as a society can come to a concensus about. Seeking the start of life no more proves the existence or not of God or what form he does or doesn’t take any more than than the fact the sun “rises” in the east every day. We have decided that stealing, murder, and other actions are not right in our society, so must we scrap all these laws because they may be tainted by someone’s “morality”? In a sense then, all society is forcing morals on someone. Who are we to tell Dillinger robbing banks is wrong? As there are many religious people who think choice is right, there are atheists who believe it is wrong.So let’s just go from there.

Feb 19, 2009 - 5:47 pm 56. Big Red:

gray man. Thanks for your help. That’s the point I was trying to make, use our ability to investigate and reason and go from there. To say I was trying to prove the existence of god was as silly as saying that I drove my old Trans Am 100+ mph and lived to be this old is proof God exists.

Feb 19, 2009 - 6:02 pm 57. Thursday:

As a self-described libertarian, I’m just a toenail length from saying, “A plague on both your Houses!”

Just what kind of nonsense is the Republicans peddling nowadays? When they want to talk about social issues, they demonize gays with ugly, lurid talk about a gay conspiracy.

Please. That’s just insulting.

Then when Republicans want to talk about the economy, they just say “tax cut” in a droning Buddhist mantra. Anyone with two brain cells knows that tax cuts won’t fix everything.

Now if they do their tax cut prep rallies along with legislation to cut government programs (really cut them) and a simple flat tax and other such proposals, I’m all ears.

It’s such a bleeding tragedy that the American people are presented with a choice between totalitarians and let-them-eat-cake robber barons.

I once liked the Republican Party because they checked the Democratic ambition toward the Nanny State, but now they both look like differing factions of the same company to me. They both behave like “overlords” and they both try to shuffle us around like medieval peasants.

It may change, but I really don’t like either of them right now.

Feb 19, 2009 - 6:07 pm 58. momof3:

“No one want’s to treat women as chattel or slaves. We want both men and women to accept responsibility for their behavior. It is REALLY SIMPLE”

Exactly. NO one forced you to have sex (rare circumstances notwithstanding. Rape is maybe 3% of all abortions. Repeat customers using it as birth control is 80%+) Even the most stupid person around knows sex can make babies. So, guys, you might want to give a passing thought to what happens if the condom breaks with tonite’s hottie and she’s prolife. You screw, you don’t get to say you weren’t ready to be a parent. Tough. Man (or woman) up and accept the consequences of your actions. Of course a fetus is human. What else would it be, a cow? A roach? It is a distinct creature from it’s mother from conception on. It’s not an extra finger, it has it’s own DNA.

I might could get behind the legalizing drugs thing. Except, how is that going to work exactly? Can you really picture a corporation making crack, with all the potential liability that entails? Where would one buy it? Or would everyone just make their own, leading to more exploding meth houses ruining neighborhoods? If libertarians hate the social welfare load now, imagine it when anyone who gets a curious urge can blast their brain away. I’ve never seen a productive meth or crack user. Cocaine users burn out pretty quick too as far as sustaining a productive life. Even if legal, it’s not going to be free, which means people will still commit crime for it.

Feb 19, 2009 - 6:14 pm 59. John Moore:

Okay, L(l)ibertarians…

Why the hell is gay marriage a libertarian issue? As I understand it, gays want the government to confer a status upon them.

Feb 19, 2009 - 6:45 pm 60. gcblues:

mom

no one thinks drugs being legal will solve everyone’s problems, or is a utopia. drugs, legal or illegal will always present problems. however, where did you get the idea that is governments responsibility to run a society? that is an antithesis to the founding of the usa.drugs should be legal, the income tax should not exist, the government has no right to anyone’s financial information, there should not be public schools acting as a state religion, there should not e mandatory social security ….. a host of infringements on personal liberty should be reversed ….. and then we can deal with the problems or not as they arise. to think the undoings of the laws above would have unintended consequences any worse than we have with the current system is folly. drugs are illegal, we have financial intrusion by the state, we have public schools, social security and a monstrosity of an income tax …… please show me the good any of this causes….. i must have missed it. maybe it is obscured by the ignorant uneducated masses of drug addicted citizens praying for government checks. the state, no matter who is in charge, what system is used, or where you are is not a good provider of service and is never your friend. like duh girl.

Feb 19, 2009 - 8:04 pm 61. Shef Rogers:

“I’ve never met a productive meth…user.” Oh, I bet you have; you just didn’t know it. If your house was built any time in past three decades, I guarantee at least some of the construction crew went to work tweaked. These are some of the most productive, hardworking people in the country. They just can’t come clean about how they get their energy.

Feb 19, 2009 - 8:36 pm 62. Lars:

In theory I am behind the idea that all drugs should be legalized, because people should be able to choose what to do with their bodies, and drugs do not directly harm people other than the user. But I’m not sure that it’s practical, given that drug abuse would probably lead to violence which would create a need for a larger police force.
As for abortion, I would argue that those would advocate for freedom would also respect a person’s right to be born, since scientifically it is a unique person. Also, I don’t agree with the idea that making abortion illegal is infringing on a woman’s freedom, since abortion can easily be equated with murder (obviously religiously but also scientifically. Basically I just figure that abortion ends the “process” of someone’s life, and even though it sounds a little corny that’s how it is. And there should obviously be no laws allowing a person to directly harm another.
Really though, since we are stuck with the two-party system, Libertarians should just vote for the lesser of two evils, IMO.

Feb 19, 2009 - 10:37 pm 63. Bob Campbell:

@Rachel Peepers # 47 — now I really liked what you had to say — excellent — no holds barred — can I reprint it on my blog? Seriously, I would like to post it as a feature article.. Cheers, Bob

Feb 20, 2009 - 3:35 am 64. John Galt:

Moshe Feiglin

http://www.jewishisrael.org/

has taken his Jewish Leadership movement into the Likud with the idea that the Likud historically is more natural fit for those on the right in Israel and that small parties never get anywhere. So far he has been met with a lot of resistance by Netanyahu.

Whether Feiglin and his Jewish Leadership Movment will ever be able to take control of the Likud and get him elected Prime Minister of Israel only time will tell.

The difference between Feiglin’s Jewish Leadership Movement and the Libertarian Party in America visa via moving into one of the mainstream parties is, the JLM has moved into the Likud which historically was very close to the JLM in ideology. The Libertarians have absolutely nothing in common with Frick and Frack. There is no ideological difference between the Democrats and Republicans in America. It is only a matter of degree of how far left or right they are on the scale of big government and violation of individual’s rights.

Libertarianism has absolutely nothing ideolgically in common with either the Elephants or Jackasses.

Feb 20, 2009 - 7:32 am 65. G Alston:

#55 — “I am merely saying that abortion should be argued on the basis of what we know through man’s study and what we as a society can come to a concensus about.”

You are merely saying that you can use science and logic to decide at what point a woman’s decision is hers no longer. Solve the “when it’s alive” problem and you still have the conundrum of *her* rights to her own decisions. This still boils down to a morality issue, regardless of any hand waving claiming otherwise.

This is why social issues do not belong as a party position. If the party has no official position whatsoever then there’s no need to discuss any of this. The party is free to concentrate on stuff that acually matters — e.g. defense of the free world. No sideshows.

#54 — “But abortion is not a make- or -break issue for most people.”

You speak as if this has been asserted. It has not. What has been asserted is that social issues in the aggregate take away votes; e.g. an anti-gay position automatically hands this voting bloc (gays, their parents, etc.) to the democrats. Bush pandering to evangelicals and halting stem cell funding handed countless votes to the other side. Not only was there no need for this, the move furthered the left’s propaganda claims that republicans are anti-intellectual. How many votes were completely and utterly lost due to this? I reckon a great deal more than anyone in this echo chamber is willing to admit to.

Having NO national position whatsoever on social issues doesn’t prevent the ’socon’ vote. Rather, it allows acquisition of votes. Gays who are otherwise strong defense/small gov minded are more likely to vote for the party that stands for that. “No position” brings painting the GOP as anti-science to a stop.

Get past the abortion stuff. It is the AGGREGATE of social issue fallout that’s the problem.

Feb 20, 2009 - 7:51 am 66. G Alston:

#58 — “Exactly. NO one forced you to have sex (rare circumstances notwithstanding. Rape is maybe 3% of all abortions. Repeat customers using it as birth control is 80%+)”

Liberty and freedom can sometimes be messy. People make their own choices based on their circumstance and for their own reasons. The fact that you disapprove and yet they can do this is testament to the fact that liberty is working.

Bringing up statistics to bolster your position is an interesting strategy. You seem to be saying that perhaps the basic tents no longer apply when enough statistics are brought to bear.

If you are asserting that your approval (statistically bolstered, of course) needs to be required for their choices, you are not advocating liberty.

Feb 20, 2009 - 8:22 am 67. GB:

I’m surprised it didn’t come up – either in the article or in the comments. Libertarians & conservative Republicans generally agree that the Second Amendment secures and guarantees a pre-existing Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Liberal Democrats, even after Heller, hang on to a convoluted interpretation of the Constitution where the ‘People’ in the Preamble, the Constitution and the rest of the Bill of Rights is different from the ‘People’ in the Second Amendment. According to their ideology, the ‘People’ mentioned in the 2A are really the National Guard or other government approved agents. Liberal Democrats are, even now, scheming to subvert the Second Amendment. The 2A is perhaps one of the most libertarian ideas in the Constitution – the Right of citizens to possess private arms for self-defense or mutual defense for the common good – and conservative Republicans and libertarians hold these rights dear. Contrast this with the liberal Democrats (the ones actually in control of the Democrat Party and its agenda) who disparage the 2A and think of all who treasure the 2A as ‘bitter clingers.’

Feb 20, 2009 - 8:30 am 68. Wally Lind:

Eric # 1-

Thanks for the info, I didn’t realize there was another wing to the libertarians. So you are for a government that will knock the crap out of out foreign enemies, but is weak on the domestic front. I think I’m coming around to your point of view. I spent 25 years as a police officer (retiring in 2003), and I have seen the laws proliferate and the body of laws become more complex and intrusive. Ther are dozens of domestic abuse laws, where one or two would do. We can protect women with fewer laws. The public safety and welfare have become the rallying cry for increasingly totalitarian control of our lives. You can’t go anywhere, these days, without being on camera. Nice for identifying and prosecuting bad guys, but the price is someone knows where you are and what you are doing, a lot of the time.

But we will have to wait until the worm turns. We lost the elections, big time, and they count.

Feb 20, 2009 - 9:03 am 69. Self-hating Boomer:

#59 – great point. A libertarian should be for separation of marriage and state, not for forcing gay marriage. The government should get out of the marriage business entirely, not continue to build fiat upon restriction.

In this case, both the left and the right want to regulate the bedroom; and the left wants to add goodies for groups on top of it. It’s a perfect metaphor for what’s wrong with the way government does things.

Feb 20, 2009 - 9:09 am 70. G Alston:

#69 — “The government should get out of the marriage business entirely, not continue to build fiat upon restriction.”

Isn’t the only reason the government is involved in the first place mostly to be able to oversee financial/legal entanglement?

As far as I can tell the gays merely want to be able to get spousal benefits, e.g. health insurance, benefits if the spouse dies, etc. If so, isn’t the government sorta required for the legality aspect?

Feb 20, 2009 - 9:30 am 71. David S:

@54. Donna V.:

All the GOP needs to do is return to first principles – lower spending, lower taxes, and limited government.

I am having trouble recalling the GOP lowering spending, or advocating limited government. Perhaps you could refresh my memory.

From what I can see, if the GOP returns to first principles as you suggest, it will drop the social issues, because all of them are a case of government not being “limited”. If you really believe in the first principles above, social issues need to be set aside.

Peace.

DS

Feb 20, 2009 - 9:37 am 72. momof3:

“People make their own choices based on their circumstance and for their own reasons. The fact that you disapprove and yet they can do this is testament to the fact that liberty is working.”

No one gets to make all their own choices. Never have. We don’t allow a myriad of choices that society has deemed infringing on the rights of another, God’s law notwithstanding. We don’t allow people to rape others, even if they personally really get off on that and like it. We don’t allow killing others, no matter how much you think they had it coming. We don’t allow you to take other’s belongings, even if your life is just not complete without that Lexus. People who are, for some reason, genetically hardwired to desire children sexually do not get to fulfill that need of theirs.

I disprove of homosexuality, but don’t want to end their right to do so. They hurt no one. Key difference there.

As far as I’m concerned, your personal choice is getting to decide to have sex or not, to use one or more forms of birth control or not, to raise the kid or to allow others to do so. That’s a lot of choice. Prochoice advocates aren’t prochoice. They are justifying laziness in not preparing for really well-known consequences of an action.

Why is it men who are the most vocal about a woman’s sacred right to abort? Maybe they don’t want to pay child support for casual flings? It sure gives them more freedom, doesn’t it?

Feb 20, 2009 - 10:02 am 73. G Alston:

#72 — “As far as I’m concerned, your personal choice is getting to decide to have sex or not, to use one or more forms of birth control or not, to raise the kid or to allow others to do so.”

I know this might be hard for you to believe, but some people get married and have sex and act responsibly and use birth control… and it fails.

Apparently your position reverts to a simple — “Oh, so the condom broke? Hahahahahahaha. Sucks to be you!”

Are you a troll? Nobody can advocate the position you do with a straight face.

Feb 20, 2009 - 10:14 am 74. G Alston:

#72 — “I disprove of homosexuality, but don’t want to end their right to do so.”

One more thing. I’m being really nice. I’m going to help you.

A professor named Greg Cochran made a buzz a few years back when he discovered that homosexuality appearance patterns followed evolutionary epidemology patterns in disease organisms, suggesting that a biological agent — a germ, if you will — could be responsible.

Now before you discount this out of hand, bear in mind that Cochran and others like him who bucked conventional wisdom were and have been instrumental in showing that many cancers are also biologically caused, e.g. HPV in cervical and skin cancers, H. Pylori in stomach cancer, and more associations are on the way. In other words, it’s patently unwise to discount the opinion of smartest guy in the room — and Cochran figures gays don’t have a choice.

The idea that gays aren’t gay by choice tends to obviate the whole “I disapprove of their behaviour” nonsense.

It’s all here: http://gc.homeunix.net/writings.html

This kind of stuff is how so many people perceive the GOP as being anti-science. It doesn’t pay for the GOP to have “positions” on social issues. Note that Cochran writes articles for American Conservative magazine.

Feb 20, 2009 - 10:55 am 75. Donna V.:

I know this might be hard for you to believe, but some people get married and have sex and act responsibly and use birth control… and it fails.

My mother once confined to me that my kid brother was an “oops” baby. She wasn’t all at happy to find herself pregnant. And yet once he came he was as loved and cherished as her other children – perhaps even more so, because he was the baby of the family.

There are an awful lot of people in the world who are here because mom had one glass of wine too many one night. I have two adopted nephews – the natural mother of one was a college student when she became pregnant, the other was a woman of 42 who didn’t want kids. My family members (especially the boys themselves)are forever grateful to those women for having the guts not to take the easy way out. There are two delightful young men in the world today who would not be here if those women thought like God Alston.

Why is it men who are the most vocal about a woman’s sacred right to abort? Maybe they don’t want to pay child support for casual flings? It sure gives them more freedom, doesn’t it?

Nailed it, momof3.

Feb 20, 2009 - 12:19 pm 76. Self-hating Boomer:

70,

If so, isn’t the government sorta required for the legality aspect?

That’s a self-fulfilling prophesy. If there were no such thing as legally married status, the government, health-care providers, and private employers would have to develop an alternate paradigm.

Feb 20, 2009 - 2:09 pm 77. momof3:

No, G Alston, I’m not a troll. This is, in fact, a conservative site. Look in your mirror for trolling. Every known form of birth control comes with an info packet stating it’s effectiveness and how to use it correctly. Don’t like the odds of a condom breaking? Use the pill too. Or the IUD. Or get sterilized. Yes, things can interfere with the pill. People that read the info book know that and plan accordingly. You know, use their brains? Be responsible?

I can disapprove of any behavior I want. Pedophiles have brain issues that make them that way. Should I accept they have no choice? I don’t give a rats ass who consenting adults have sex with as far as legislating it. Which was exactly my point in bringing up my disapproving of homosexuals-we don’t attempt to legislate against everything that bothers us. Just the things that harm others. Get it? And actually, there’s compelling research that homosexuality is rather like sickle cell, in that one copy of a gene actually makes you more fertile, but 2 copies makes you homosexual. Which would explain it’s persistiveness in populations over time. Gayness isn’t increasing, like virally-transferred illnesses like HPV are. Straight siblings of gays show much higher rates of fecundity than the general population. Really fascinating stuff.

The government probably could get out of the marriage business, if there weren’t so many jackasses running to the courts when their personal mating decisions go awry. Want to keep the marrying out of the government’s hands? Keep the ending of it out too. Which means no one to whine to about not seeing your kids enough or not getting enough money.

Feb 20, 2009 - 6:24 pm 78. John Moore:

As far as I can tell the gays merely want to be able to get spousal benefits, e.g. health insurance, benefits if the spouse dies, etc. If so, isn’t the government sorta required for the legality aspect?

In other words, they want the government to force private companies to extend these benefits.

Real libertarian, that.

Feb 20, 2009 - 6:58 pm 79. Andrew Ian Dodge:

Every time you have a discussion about libertarianism there is someone there to say we are nothing better than anarchists. The fact this assertion is patently false and silly does not seem to bother them at all. Think of this…if you are an anarchist then you would support no party at all as you don’t believe in elections?

Limiting government is not the same as eliminating government…why is this concept such a hard thing to grasp?

Feb 21, 2009 - 5:19 pm 80. G Alston:

#75 — “There are two delightful young men in the world today who would not be here if those women thought like God Alston.”

1) Me: People should make their own choices; whether I agree or not with their choice isn’t the least bit relevant.

2) You: No, I get to choose for them.

Using your crayon, circle the one who’s really playing god. (Helpful hint: it’s choice #2.)

#77 — blah blah blah … Be responsible?”

I posited that your argument could be simplified as “sucks to be you.”

I’ll take that as a confirmation.

#77 — “This is, in fact, a conservative site.”

Correct, but conservatives aren’t limited to your brand of dogmatic reactionary blowhards arguing against personal choice.

You may as well circle #2 above as well.

#78 — “Limiting government is not the same as eliminating government…why is this concept such a hard thing to grasp?”

It’s rarely clear what parts of government a given libertarian wishes to unwind. There seems to be numerous flavours of “libertarian.” Some tend toward isolationism. Not realistic.

Feb 21, 2009 - 11:23 pm 81. ChipD:

I can’t believe I am reading a discussion about libertarianism and not one word about the Unitary Executive Thoery advanced by the bush White House;
The notion that a President can simply declare anyone at all to be an “enemy combatant” and then that person instantly loses all constitutional rights- Yes, even American Citizens are included in this- and the relentless increasing scope of government spying power, secret prisons, warrantless wiretapping, etc….

Where are the Libertarians on all this?

Feb 22, 2009 - 4:37 pm 82. momof3:

#80, yes it does suck to be you if you are so f-ing stupid you can’t read and follow directions. It would suck worse to be your kid though, so please get fixed.

And again #80,”blowhards arguing against personal choice.” Again, your personal choice stops when it affects others rights to life, liberty, et al. Period. Why is that hard to understand? I guess it’s as confusing to you as unwrapping a condom…..

You have the syntax and word choice of a man, so I’m going to say…what if you created a kid you wanted? It is, after all, half you. And the woman decides to abort it? You get no say. What about your rights? Saying a woman can decide to kill a baby and no one can say boo is not libertarian.

Feb 22, 2009 - 7:55 pm 83. M. Simon:

Stephen,

The best argument against government meddling in abortion is simple: any government strong enough to outlaw abortion is strong enough to make it mandatory.

Mar 5, 2009 - 9:36 am 84. M. Simon:

But I’m not sure that it’s practical, given that drug abuse would probably lead to violence which would create a need for a larger police force.

There is one drug when consumed that absolutely has been proven to lead to an increase in violence by users. And that drug is: Alcohol. No other drug known to man (despite anecdotal evidence) fits that pattern.

So, outlaw alcohol?

Mar 5, 2009 - 9:49 am 85. MCostello:

Non-Interventionist is not Isolationist. Though to someone the authors Pith and apparent intellectual vigor the two terms are persistently merged. The reactions to acts of war with respect to Islamo-Fascism (a lovely construct) and Afghanistan are at least itemized, as opinions differ on those two.

Mar 9, 2009 - 3:03 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: