That's an interesting comment from a Libertarian. Libertarians do have several things in common with Liberals--an aversion to government intrusions on social conservative issues and a reluctance to intervene militarily in the affairs of other countries. Mainly where we differ is on the extent of government regulation needed in a modern industrial society.
Interesting read. Too bad the big bullies took over that movement.
And, dam if those ralliers don't sound just like the Baggers here!!
Every libertarian I've talked to hates the Tea Party because people are too stupid to see the difference between the two.
Here's the difference:
Tea Party = neo-cons.
Libertarians = libertarians.
Just for the record:
The Tea Party started off very Libertarian. In fact, the reason why it's called the tea party is because of the grassroots money bomb effort in 2006 to donate a massive amount of money to Ron Paul's Presidential campaign effort on December 16.
After that, Karl Rove and many others found a chance to corrupt it. That's exactly what they did, and Ron Paul has been calling them out ever since.
Every Libertarian I know and have talked to WAS at some point very interested in the Tea Party, but has come to their senses and left the movement.
The TP declared goals of small government and low taxes would seem a natural fit for libertarians.
The rude, sometimes racist, sometimes Islamaphobic, frequently evangelical overtones of TP groups would not sit well with most libertarians.
For clarification - I am not suggesting there are no evangelical libertarians. However, the concept of imposing any religious viewpoint through legislation goes against the libertarian grain. Ron Paul spoke out clearly against the anti-islamic wave correctly citing the views of the founding fathers on freedom of religion.
Wurd to that. I'm merely using this "Libertarian" forum to clear up some possible misconceptions about libertarian ideology. You haven't misconstrued anything, that's for sure! (At least not on this forum! )
Exactly: the idea that one group of individuals, no matter their religion, could possibly tell you what to do is not consistent with libertarianism.
If Ron Paul were the pope of the church, yet he were some how elected as the president of a libertarian presidency, it would be 100% inconsistent for him to demand that people worship Jesus (or whatever.)
Of course, he's taken some flack for wanting abortions to be illegal, but this stance can easily be seen as consistent with a minarchist-libertarian view point. Once again, the question that has yet to be answered to everyone's satisfaction is "is a fetus a human being". If a libertarian answers "yes", then he must be against murdering fetus-humans. If a libertarian answers "no", then they must be pro-choice.
Anyway, Ron Paul is only being used in this post because he has become somewhat the poster-child for libertarianism.
I don't think that the question is "Is a fetus a human being?" Nobody can deny that a human fetus is a human, just as a cat fetus is a cat, and a chimpanzee fetus is a chimpanzee.
The question to ask is: does a human being have the right to live off the life blood of another human being and inhabit the inner recesses of another human being's body, without the permission of the human off whom he is living?
This would apply even if the baby were a fully grown adult living inside a woman's womb.
Well, now you're venturing into the "trespasser" argument of abortion rights.
I like the trespasser argument better than "pro-life" or "pro-choice".
The problem is just that, for whatever reason, people refuse to reach an agreement.
I would put my own argument up here, but it would clearly just degenerate this post into a "roe v. wade" debate. ...
The problem with pro life or pro choice is that they do not address the issue.
Whether or not abortion should be legal, is not the root problem.
On the one hand, freedom of choice to do with your body as you wish should be unquestioned. On the other hand, if you use your body to shoot someone, should that be legal? After all it is your body.
The bottom line is, while abortion should be legal, the focus should be preventing oneself from putting themselves in the position to have to make that choice. Education and morals beat ignorance and amorality every time.
P.S. You don't have to be religious to be moral.
Yeah. I know. I didn't mean for it to degenerate into that. But if this principle isn't mastered, then it comes back and bites us in a thousand other places: is it okay to let a sick person die, if he can't afford to buy the medicine he needs in order to live? Is it all right for children of better off people to get a better education? It's all the same principle, and it is at the crux of the struggle with both social conservatives and liberal economists.
Yes, but they also sent tea-bags to Democratic members of Congress as a means of saying: we revolt against you.
Maybe the Libertarians should send tea-bags to the Baggers?
"However, the concept of imposing any religious viewpoint through legislation goes against the libertarian grain. Ron Paul spoke out clearly against the anti-islamic wave correctly citing the views of the founding fathers on freedom of religion."
THIS ^^^ was the last deciding factor and is why I went ahead and voted libertarian (Bob Barr was the candidate so abortion wasn't as much of an issue as it is with Ron Paul) in the last election. **People can believe whatever garbage they want - just keep it OUT of my government and schools.**
(didn't want dems health care reform - not that there doesn't need to be reform, just not sure it was thought through enough)
(didn't want repubs because they think people like Sarah Palin are the best leaders they can find- shudder).
by Don W6 years ago
Would a free market have prevented this from happening?I'm guessing the libertarian argument would be that the failings of state regulation was a contributing factor. Those failings stemming from the fact that the...
by James Smith3 years ago
The modern left/right dichotomy is essentially a scam - an identification as either one is incoherent, and to say that cherry-picking from each 'side' is somehow 'moderate' is patently absurd. Every 'moderate' I've ever...
by Tony Lawrence5 years ago
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/2 … oesnt-WorkTruth. Why are so many of our young people so enthralled by this very dangerous idea?
by steveamy5 years ago
If Republican/Libertarian Ron Paul changed his position on the legality/illegality of recreational drugs how much would his support drop? Or would it, his support, increase?
by Gary Anderson4 years ago
Hey Even, Mises said big business was not evil. To be fair, he did not live to see the TBTF banks, but I am waiting for his libertarian followers duped by this stuff to say the TBTF banks ARE evil. Say it Evan!Here is...
by Doodlehead4 years ago
According to Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul has plans to lead the Liberty Caucus Republicanswhen he resigns in December. Lew says Dr. Paul has kept his typical low profileuntil he is out of Congress. ...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.