Honor for the President

[ElsiePeaRN]

a libertarian-leaning Democrat

 

[awatarius]

The two dimensional model you reference appeals to my intellectual side as well. And you might be surprised at how far to the libertarian extreme I am when it comes to my ideals. The problem is that our politics don't operate in that rarified model, the operate in a place where we usually just have two choices - this bad or that bad. When I have to take poison, I'll take the lesser dose every time.

But you ask, why take poison at all? Like Sophie's Choice, I can take the high road and lose both my children to the ovens, or I can choose one and lose the other. I'd love a real choice that didn't involve poison, but I'm afraid that has never existed, and never will.

If I measure George W. Bush against my ideal President, he looks an awful lot like Barack Obama. But when I measure W against Hussein in the real world where I live, they look a whole lot different to me.

So, I respect your POV, floating above in your purified air. Down here in the muck, I can tell the difference between one or the other.

Very nice!! I have talked to several Libertarians, researched online, and still have yet to come up with a unified message. Now of course many things are held by all libertarians. Can you, and Fletch explain what it means to you, and Fletch can you tell me why you chose that party. I ask because honestly I am very interested and this country does need a drastic change.

Thanks,
Matthew

 

[dross]

Maybe so, but I'll take a libertarian-leaning Democrat over an authoritarian Republican any day of the week. Granted, such beasts are rare as hen's teeth, but I've encountered one or two in my travels.

If you see one, point me at him. Unfortunately, I still couldn't vote for him - not because I might not agree with him more than his Republican opponent, and not because I drink the Republican cool-aid. Simply that because of the nature of our two-party system, party trumps person. I don't like it, but then sometimes I'm pretty unhappy with gravity. I still have to dance to gravity's tune if'n I want to stay upright.

 

[dross]

Very nice!! I have talked to several Libertarians, researched online, and still have yet to come up with a unified message. Now of course many things are held by all libertarians. Can you, and Fletch explain what it means to you, and Fletch can you tell me why you chose that party. I ask because honestly I am very interested and this country does need a drastic change.

Thanks,
Matthew

I'll sum it up in one sentence, my friend:

The only legitimate purpose of government is to discourage the initiation of force.

 

[awatarius]

I'll sum it up in one sentence, my friend:

The only legitimate purpose of government is to discourage the initiation of force.

Ill admit something on here I didn't think I would because I KNOW ill get butchered for this one.. I am a gay republican, and Christian/Bahai---I would vote for republicans 99% of the time if they could stop telling me what I can, or can not to. I have been with a partner for almost 11 years. I am not a threat to anyone. That's why I like Mitch Daniels so much! If we could kick the moral authority I would almost never vote for a Democrat (save for the rare ones I really like). Now you can see in part why I can't stand President Bush 2 (that and his support of Enron, Monsanto, and Fracking). I think as do many in my generation that if the Republicans could back of of "family value law" they would win a lot more elections, a lot more regularly. If Libertarians are more in line with that maybe I can start donating there.

Thanks,
Matthew

 

[dross]

Ill admit something on here I didn't think I would because I KNOW ill get butchered for this one.. I am a gay republican, and Christian/Bahai---I would vote for republicans 99% of the time if they could stop telling me what I can, or can not to. I have been with a partner for almost 11 years. I am not a threat to anyone. That's why I like Mitch Daniels so much! If we could kick the moral authority I would almost never vote for a Democrat (save for the rare ones I really like). Now you can see in part why I can't stand President Bush 2 (that and his support of Enron, Monsanto, and Fracking). I think as do many in my generation that if the Republicans could back of of "family value law" they would win a lot more elections, a lot more regularly. If Libertarians are more in line with that maybe I can start donating there.

Thanks,
Matthew

I don't like the Republican stance on social issues either. One of the reasons I can still support them is that they don't get that much done in that area, whereas the Dems are blazing trails - nay, highways - into our economic freedom. Lesser of two evils.

Gay marriage is really the only major gay issue on the table, and the Democrat party isn't even 100% behind that. On most issues, gay equality is here, and the Republicans know that, which is why they don't launch major battles in that arena. So if you put aside what they say and perhaps think (who cares) to me their actions on social issues cause less harm than the Dems against economic freedom.

Again, lesser of two evils.

 

[Fletch]

Fletch can you tell me why you chose that party. I ask because honestly I am very interested and this country does need a drastic change.

I am not a member of the Libertarian Party, and I never will be. I am a philosophical libertarian, by which I mean that my beliefs tend to coincide with the party, but I don't necessarily vote for their candidates (not that I have much opportunity to do so). Unlike members of the two major political parties (and occasionally the Libertarian Party), I believe that liberty is the highest political end, and that's what I aim for. Give me a choice between something that sounds really good but costs liberty, and something that sounds kind of awful but expands liberty, and I'll choose the latter every time.

 

[awatarius]

I don't like the Republican stance on social issues either. One of the reasons I can still support them is that they don't get that much done in that area, whereas the Dems are blazing trails - nay, highways - into our economic freedom. Lesser of two evils.

Gay marriage is really the only major gay issue on the table, and the Democrat party isn't even 100% behind that. On most issues, gay equality is here, and the Republicans know that, which is why they don't launch major battles in that arena. So if you put aside what they say and perhaps think (who cares) to me their actions on social issues cause less harm than the Dems against economic freedom.

Again, lesser of two evils.

I normally agree with you, and this is why I am happy when there is a gridlock in the powers that be. With a splash of Dems, most social issues fail, and with a splash of republicans (hopefully) most runaway spending is prevented (until recently). President Bush 2 tried for the national ban on gay marriage. BLEH that was fail, and after that I had the feeling republicans were backing off of that. But the most recent batch of republicans are bringing it up again such as the defense of DOMA. Bachman and her crazy ilk would love nothing more... but it's those crazies that make the rest of the republicans look bad. The Family Research Council is a very powerful organization and they wield tremendous money. So they will go down hard.. Glad to know that not everyone on here would butcher me!

Thanks,
Matthew

 

[dross]

I normally agree with you, and this is why I am happy when there is a gridlock in the powers that be. With a splash of Dems, most social issues fail, and with a splash of republicans (hopefully) most runaway spending is prevented (until recently). President Bush 2 tried for the national ban on gay marriage. BLEH that was fail, and after that I had the feeling republicans were backing off of that. But the most recent batch of republicans are bringing it up again such as the defense of DOMA. Bachman and her crazy ilk would love nothing more... but it's those crazies that make the rest of the republicans look bad. The Family Research Council is a very powerful organization and they wield tremendous money. So they will go down hard.. Glad to know that not everyone on here would butcher me!

Thanks,
Matthew

The problem I have with gay marriage is that it requires the involvement of the government and others. I get the argument that it is equality under the law but I think it's hard to make that a constitutional argument unless you believe in a "living" Constitution.

My preference would be that the government got out of the marriage business and just enforced marriage as a particular type of contract. Then it could be between any two or more people.

I also believe that private entities should be able to openly discriminate against any person or group they wish, including gay folks.

Going back to my first and last principle, the initiation of force, it's all about freedom.

 

[hornadylnl]

I normally agree with you, and this is why I am happy when there is a gridlock in the powers that be. With a splash of Dems, most social issues fail, and with a splash of republicans (hopefully) most runaway spending is prevented (until recently). President Bush 2 tried for the national ban on gay marriage. BLEH that was fail, and after that I had the feeling republicans were backing off of that. But the most recent batch of republicans are bringing it up again such as the defense of DOMA. Bachman and her crazy ilk would love nothing more... but it's those crazies that make the rest of the republicans look bad. The Family Research Council is a very powerful organization and they wield tremendous money. So they will go down hard.. Glad to know that not everyone on here would butcher me!

Thanks,
Matthew

I won't butcher you either. I used to be a diehard straight ticket voting republican. Over the course of the last 3 years, I've become a diehard philosophical liberatarian. Mostly due to this site and members like Fletch and Dross.

I used to support the gay marriage bans. I used to be against gays in the military. I don't agree or support that lifestyle due to my personal convictions but I've since come to the realization that a government powerful enough to tell you who your partner can't be is also powerful enough to tell me what liberties I can exorcise. I've also come to the realization that it's not my role to judge others. I have enough logs in my own eye to worry about, let alone a speck in anyone else's.

Since I've gotten older, I've became more curious in seeing the world through the eyes of others. I grew up off the paved road in a middle class family. I'm curious to know what life was like growing up in the projects. I'm Curious to know what life was like for black people prior to the civil rights act was passed. I'm curious to know what life was like growing up gay. It's not that I want to be or do those things, I'd just like to better understand those things to better understand the world view of others. But we've made these things so sensitive that it's hard to have that type of dialogue with "minorities" for fear of offending someone.

I don't think you and I would have much in common politically. If you're willing to not use the government gun in my life, I'm not going to use it in yours. If we can agree on that, l drink a beer with you any day and call you my brother.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

Very nice!! I have talked to several Libertarians, researched online, and still have yet to come up with a unified message.

This surprises me to hear this, as I think libertarians are quite clear on their message, although they may disagree on some of the specific applications of it. The basic, core belief is that each person owns her own life and property, and has the right to make her own choices as to how she lives her life – as long as she simply respects the equal right of others to do the same. Libertarians believe that all human relationships should be voluntary and the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against others.

Going a little further, libertarians believe in a high degree of freedom in both personal and fiscal matters This is where the conservative/liberal model breaks down for us, since conservatives have traditionally believed in fiscal freedom, but, as you know, are more authoritarian when it comes to personal matters. Liberals have generally positioned themselves as just the opposite.

Libertarians believe that the proper function of government is to protect the rights of its citizens against those who would use force against us. But when government itself uses force against those who have not violated the rights of others, then the government itself becomes the violator. Since almost everything our government does is done with the threat of force behind it, you can see why libertarians strive for small and limited government.

There are some general key concepts that unite libertarians in their views- individualism, individual rights, individual responsibility, the rule of law, limited government, free markets, peace and natural harmony of interests to name some of them.

One example of a libertarian approach to a problem I'd like to share with you is the "problem of gay marriage." We really don't see it as a problem at all. The libertarian approach is that government has no right to regulate marriage at all. Many libertarians believe that marriage is an agreement between two individuals, that marriage itself has religious roots, and the government has no place in defining, or regulating such a personal relationship at all. Now, will you find libertarians who disagree with this? Absolutely!

While I'm not as eloquent or knowledgeable as Fletch, I hope you don't mind another response

I am not a member of the Libertarian Party, although I used to be, but am certainly a philosophical libertarian. (Capital L generally refers to the party, lower case l to the philosophy.) One can imagine that with all this focus on individualism, getting libertarians to agree on the best approach to something is like herding cats. It's one of the reasons I am no longer a member of the Libertarian party. I just don't see them being able to get people elected. I have come to believe that libertarians can do more good by influencing members of the other two parties and by influencing social and political discourse outside of the partisan system. As an example, Ron Paul was once a Libertarian candidate for president. He has had far more success within the Republican party for sure.

You might like to read "Libertarianism A Primer" by the late David Boaz, if you'd like to delve deeper into the topic. Also, "What it Means to Be a Libertarian" by Charles Murray may also be a good place to start. Some lighter reading, (a little sensationalized perhaps) is the late Harry Browne's "The Great Libertarian Offer" (In the interest of full disclosure, I include it because I liked the man so much and I still miss him. The others are deeper and more complete. One of my prized possessions is a Statue of Liberty pin that was once owned by Harry Browne- a birthday gift from my husband

 

[Fletch]

You might like to read "Libertarianism A Primer" by the late David Boaz, if you'd like to delve deeper into the topic. Also, "What it Means to Be a Libertarian" by Charles Murray may also be a good place to start. Some lighter reading, (a little sensationalized perhaps) is the late Harry Browne's "The Great Libertarian Offer" (In the interest of full disclosure, I include it because I liked the man so much and I still miss him. The others are deeper and more complete. One of my prized possessions is a Statue of Liberty pin that was once owned by Harry Browne- a birthday gift from my husband

And as I stated in a PM, my favorite introduction to libertarian thought is Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression.

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

And as I stated in a PM, my favorite introduction to libertarian thought is Healing Our World in an Age of Aggression.

I haven't read that -- I think I'll order it! Thanks!

EDITED- Oops... I forgot-- Yes, I did read it Forgot all about it, but I agree it's agood choice.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Ill admit something on here I didn't think I would because I KNOW ill get butchered for this one.. I am a gay republican, and Christian/Bahai---I would vote for republicans 99% of the time if they could stop telling me what I can, or can not to. I have been with a partner for almost 11 years. I am not a threat to anyone. That's why I like Mitch Daniels so much! If we could kick the moral authority I would almost never vote for a Democrat (save for the rare ones I really like). Now you can see in part why I can't stand President Bush 2 (that and his support of Enron, Monsanto, and Fracking). I think as do many in my generation that if the Republicans could back of of "family value law" they would win a lot more elections, a lot more regularly. If Libertarians are more in line with that maybe I can start donating there.

Thanks,
Matthew

I don't think you'll get butchered quite as bad as you think. Considering we have an admitted gay furry on this site and I haven't seen much bashing.

For myself I don't want to see govt. sponsored gay marriage, I don't want to see govt. sponsored marriage of any kind.

The problem I have with gay marriage is that it requires the involvement of the government and others. I get the argument that it is equality under the law but I think it's hard to make that a constitutional argument unless you believe in a "living" Constitution.

My preference would be that the government got out of the marriage business and just enforced marriage as a particular type of contract. Then it could be between any two or more people.

I also believe that private entities should be able to openly discriminate against any person or group they wish, including gay folks.

Going back to my first and last principle, the initiation of force, it's all about freedom.

+1

I don't think you and I would have much in common politically. If you're willing to not use the government gun in my life, I'm not going to use it in yours. If we can agree on that, l drink a beer with you any day and call you my brother.

+1

 

[drobpk]

Reagan's Quote

I this President Reagan's quote is appropriate here:
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is. Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to ensure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path.

 

[semperfi211]

I do not honor or respect B.O. president or not.