Conservatives and Libertarians need to be allies

[Pete7469]

Thanks to William F. Buckley I rejected liberalism decades ago. Mostly because I read an op ed with the headline "A Plea to Legalize Marijuana". Being a dedicated stoner at the time I was delighted to read the column, and astounded to find out he was a "conservative". It allowed me to consider the possibility I had been misled about what conservatism was.

I quickly found out I was wrong about a lot. I now reject liberalism in all it's forms. What few things I agree with liberals about has more to do with libertarian principles, because I don't believe liberals support these ideas because they're concerned with individual rights. Liberals only support "freedom" when it undermines religious morality and destabilizes social normality.

I'm a big fan of Penn Jillette, and I think Glen Beck represents a wholesome conservative perspective. I enjoyed this video below.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3LnVa7zXgc]Glenn Beck talks to Penn Jillette, author of "Every Day is an Atheist Holiday! More Magical Tales" - YouTube[/ame]

I think Chris Christie is a douchebag. The libertarian wing of the republicrat party needs to become dominant. The divisions among the right need to focus on defeating the collectivist PC thugs. Make their lives so miserable they decide to flee to Cuba. Libertarians and conservatives and even atheists are concerned about freedom. I think Penn makes a great argument that if these perspectives drag the republicrat party in that direction, we'll all end up agreeing most of the time on most every issue.

Focus on freedom, defeat the collectivist bed wetters. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

 

[Oddball]

"Conservatives" (whatever the fuck that's suppsed to mean anymore) need to knock it off with the Wilsonian international warmongering and nation building, "war on terror" nonsense, drug war thuggery and general police state bullshit to have a prayer of attracting libertarians.

Then they need to quit campaigning like fiscal libertarians and governing like socialists.

IOW, they don't have a prayer.

 

[Avorysuds]

Na, no thanks. I don't really care for Progressive liberal policies.

 

[Katzndogz]

Not gonna happen here. Libertarians have never learned the difference between freedom and license.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Conservatives and Libertarians need to be allies

Not going to happen.

Neo-con foreign policy alone will keep both apart.

 

[Avorysuds]

Conservatives and Libertarians need to be allies

Not going to happen.

Neo-con foreign policy alone will keep both apart.

Correct, and that is the same reason we can't get on board with Democrats/Progressives/Liberals. Odd, huh?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Liberals only support "freedom" when it undermines religious morality and destabilizes social normality.

What constitutes ‘religious morality,’ and what religion, exactly?

And who determines what constitutes ‘social normality’? Conservatives?

This is yet another example of conservative authoritarianism, where most on the right seek to impose their subjective moral and religious beliefs on society as a whole.

And indeed liberals advocate for individual liberty by opposing conservative efforts to legislate morality, by supporting the Framers’ original intent that church and state remain separate.

The Liberty Clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees every American the right to realize his own personal liberty, to define himself as an individual as he sees fit, free from government interference, despite what conservatives might perceive to be ‘social normality.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Interestingly, in the wake of Snowden/NSA surveillance programs, it’s liberals and libertarians who have become allies.

 

[NightFox]

Interestingly, in the wake of Snowden/NSA surveillance programs, it’s liberals and libertarians who have become allies.

ROFLMAO!!!!, thanks for the laugh, much appreciated.

Libertarians and "liberals" becoming "allies" is about as feasible as The Pope publicly agreeing to dine in hell with Satan. When "liberals" disavow all the methods, practices and purpose of the leviathan authoritarian state then maybe an alliance can be formed, but that ain't happened yet, not even close.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Conservatives made it very clear in the last election that they want nothing to do with libertarians as they went on to lose in spectacular fashion.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Interestingly, in the wake of Snowden/NSA surveillance programs, it’s liberals and libertarians who have become allies.

ROFLMAO!!!!, thanks for the laugh, much appreciated.

Libertarians and "liberals" becoming "allies" is about as feasible as The Pope publicly agreeing to dine in hell with Satan. When "liberals" disavow all the methods, practices and purpose of the leviathan authoritarian state then maybe an alliance can be formed, but that ain't happened yet, not even close.

It's about as true as libertarians and conservatives being allies, really. You have some liberals and libertarians in support of Snowden like Ron Wyden and Justin Amash, and some liberals not in support of Snowden like Nancy Pelosi.

 

[NightFox]

Interestingly, in the wake of Snowden/NSA surveillance programs, it’s liberals and libertarians who have become allies.

ROFLMAO!!!!, thanks for the laugh, much appreciated.

Libertarians and "liberals" becoming "allies" is about as feasible as The Pope publicly agreeing to dine in hell with Satan. When "liberals" disavow all the methods, practices and purpose of the leviathan authoritarian state then maybe an alliance can be formed, but that ain't happened yet, not even close.

It's about as true as libertarians and conservatives being allies, really. You have some liberals and libertarians in support of Snowden like Ron Wyden and Justin Amash, and some liberals not in support of Snowden like Nancy Pelosi.

Agreed, more "conservatives" just pay better lip service to *some* libertarian principles ,not that it really means anything, since invariably as soon as those principles get in the way of votes & bribes they suddenly become targets for marginalization.

 

[Pete7469]

"Conservatives" (whatever the fuck that's suppsed to mean anymore) need to knock it off with the Wilsonian international warmongering and nation building, "war on terror" nonsense, drug war thuggery and general police state bullshit to have a prayer of attracting libertarians.

Then they need to quit campaigning like fiscal libertarians and governing like socialists.

IOW, they don't have a prayer.

I'm on the same page with you regarding "Wilsonian international warmongering", we have troops all over the world in many places our citizens don't even know exist. I will point out that we didn't declare the Jihad, and even if it happened because we support Israel, we didn't deserve what happened on 9/11, either one. I'm a vet of OIF, and I'm proud of what we did. I still have Iraqi contacts online who are struggling to keep their country together. They've always been appreciative that Saddam is no longer standing on their throats.

I do agree however it's time for us to withdraw as "world police". We can't afford it first of all, but it's time for the rest of the world to pitch in. Conservatives will argue that without such "strong global presence" we risk having another "hitler" rise to power and start a 3rd world war. That may even be true, but stalin was worse than hitler. Pol Pot didn't try and conquer the entire continent either, but we didn't stop him from killing 2 million people. So there has to be a happy medium.

The drug war is complete bullshit. I think conservatives could get behind ideas such as decriminalizing pot. I think as long as they didn't see deadbeat hippies laying around all over the parks doing bong hits all day they'd be fine. Arguing for legalization across the board though? Not so much. I'll never believe unregulated dispensing of shit like heroin and meth is a good idea. I've known too many people who were addicts. However just like anything else, the libertarians need to incrementally advance these ideas. If they work in small steps, they'll eventually be accepted. This all or nothing approach serves to alienate people who are otherwise in agreement on a lot of other issues.

Conservatives share your frustration with republicrats pandering to their agenda, and then becoming democrooks when they get into office. I think guys like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz can help push the party in the right direction. Libertarians could be extremely helpful in that endeavor.

If conservatives would STFU about insignificant shit like gay marriage, abortion and drugs, so we can find common ground with people who are extremely protective of individual liberty, they can only help empower themselves. Then they can advance all their pet issues at a state level.

 

[NightFox]

"Conservatives" (whatever the fuck that's suppsed to mean anymore) need to knock it off with the Wilsonian international warmongering and nation building, "war on terror" nonsense, drug war thuggery and general police state bullshit to have a prayer of attracting libertarians.

Then they need to quit campaigning like fiscal libertarians and governing like socialists.

IOW, they don't have a prayer.

I'm on the same page with you regarding "Wilsonian international warmongering", we have troops all over the world in many places our citizens don't even know exist. I will point out that we didn't declare the Jihad, and even if it happened because we support Israel, we didn't deserve what happened on 9/11, either one. I'm a vet of OIF, and I'm proud of what we did. I still have Iraqi contacts online who are struggling to keep their country together. They've always been appreciative that Saddam is no longer standing on their throats.

I do agree however it's time for us to withdraw as "world police". We can't afford it first of all, but it's time for the rest of the world to pitch in. Conservatives will argue that without such "strong global presence" we risk having another "hitler" rise to power and start a 3rd world war. That may even be true, but stalin was worse than hitler. Pol Pot didn't try and conquer the entire continent either, but we didn't stop him from killing 2 million people. So there has to be a happy medium.

The drug war is complete bullshit. I think conservatives could get behind ideas such as decriminalizing pot. I think as long as they didn't see deadbeat hippies laying around all over the parks doing bong hits all day they'd be fine. Arguing for legalization across the board though? Not so much. I'll never believe unregulated dispensing of shit like heroin and meth is a good idea. I've known too many people who were addicts. However just like anything else, the libertarians need to incrementally advance these ideas. If they work in small steps, they'll eventually be accepted. This all or nothing approach serves to alienate people who are otherwise in agreement on a lot of other issues.

Conservatives share your frustration with republicrats pandering to their agenda, and then becoming democrooks when they get into office. I think guys like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz can help push the party in the right direction. Libertarians could be extremely helpful in that endeavor.

If conservatives would STFU about insignificant shit like gay marriage, abortion and drugs, so we can find common ground with people who are extremely protective of individual liberty, they can only help empower themselves. Then they can advance all their pet issues at a state level.

You might find this recent article by Lew Rockwell interesting as it does relate to the subject you are talking about and might shed some additional light on the fundamental divisions that exist between libertarians and conservatives.

The Libertarian Paradox - Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. - Mises Daily

Enjoy!

 

[Pete7469]

Interestingly, in the wake of Snowden/NSA surveillance programs, it’s liberals and libertarians who have become allies.

ROFLMAO!!!!, thanks for the laugh, much appreciated.

Libertarians and "liberals" becoming "allies" is about as feasible as The Pope publicly agreeing to dine in hell with Satan. When "liberals" disavow all the methods, practices and purpose of the leviathan authoritarian state then maybe an alliance can be formed, but that ain't happened yet, not even close.

Liberals have to use a leviathan federal force to advance their agenda. Take gay marriage for instance. If most of the people in a state do not want it to be allowed, why would libertarians want to take that power away from them? The individuals who do want to marry other gays can do so in other states. Yet the bed wetters get the federal government to dictate that the state has too accept what the voters do not want.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What is it with this thread zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wake me up when Libertarians are a political force to be rekon with.

 

[NightFox]

Interestingly, in the wake of Snowden/NSA surveillance programs, it’s liberals and libertarians who have become allies.

ROFLMAO!!!!, thanks for the laugh, much appreciated.

Libertarians and "liberals" becoming "allies" is about as feasible as The Pope publicly agreeing to dine in hell with Satan. When "liberals" disavow all the methods, practices and purpose of the leviathan authoritarian state then maybe an alliance can be formed, but that ain't happened yet, not even close.

Liberals have to use a leviathan federal force to advance their agenda. Take gay marriage for instance. If most of the people in a state do not want it to be allowed, why would libertarians want to take that power away from them? The individuals who do want to marry other gays can do so in other states. Yet the bed wetters get the federal government to dictate that the state has too accept what the voters do not want.

Libertarians don't want to "take that power away from them" since from a libertarian perspective the majority doesn't have the power to vote away the natural rights of the minority, which would include the right to "marry" whomever you please, the majority doesn't grant rights and thus the majority cannot (in a free and just society) take them away.

 

[Pete7469]

What is it with this thread zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz wake me up when Libertarians are a political force to be rekon with.

I disagree with your dismissal my friend.

Libertarians may only account for a marginal % of the overall votes indeed because they're dedicated to extreme liberty that many people don't want the responsibility of. They're not going to vote for anyone but a libertarian. I usually vote libertarian in elections close to home, because they have a better chance at winning that a federal candidate. I never vote democrook, and I never take poison.

People like myself who adhere to most of the libertarian philosophy tend to vote republicrat because it's the half of our political establishment that panders to Constitutional liberty.

The democrooks clearly oppose individual liberty, unless it irritates Christians.

For whatever insignificant % libertarians represent, adopting certain ideas into the conservative agenda would draw not only libertarians, but liberals who don't regularly soil their mattresses at night. Decriminalization of pot would be a significant step. Withdrawing from being the worlds cop, placing social issues in the hands of the states and limiting federal power to regulate all of the many things it does would bring more people into the fold.

Once I found out that most conservatives opposed massive gov't intrusion, and that my libtard friends actually endorsed gov't dictating PC thuggery I jumped ship with a quickness. So I'm dedicated to the belief libertarians and conservatives have far more in common than bed wetters and libertarians.

 

[UnbiasedAmerica]

Republicans and democrats follow platforms that are publicly defined in many high profile ways, including televised conventions, powerful national committees, and constant media coverage. Libertarians, on the other hand, don't get much exposure in America's two-party system.

As well, followers of the ideology don't often register with the Libertarian Party. Most estimates of registered Libertarians put the total lower than half a million people. This reflects the fact that those who consider themselves libertarian are often independent, unaffiliated, or registered Democrat or Republican.

In fact, when surveys ask people specifically about their political leanings, 59% of Americans said they are "fiscally conservative and socially liberal"! [1] Which is the general description of a libertarian: fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Of course this begs the question, why don't the two major parties make some attempt to include libertarian ideology in their platform? It speaks to the inflexible nature of national democrat and republican machines that neither party has shifted much in response to the public's shift.

Libertarians themselves have recently chosen to infiltrate the Republican Party rather than promote itself as a third party. Ron and Rand Paul have had good success engaging the party and pushing libertarian ideals.

So what are libertarian ideals? "We defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings," reads the Libertarian Party platform [2]. It goes on to lay out the party's official stance on many specific issues.

Full freedom of speech without censorship.

Oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

No government surveillance of personal records, emails, etc.

Legalize recreational drug use.

Legalize same-sex marriages, gays in the military, and all gay rights.

Abortion choices should be left up to individuals without government interference.

Fully support Second Amendment rights to bear arms.

Individuals free to trade, buy, sell, engage or refrain from economic activities without being controlled by the government.

Push environmental responsibility through advocacy and social pressure.

No corporate welfare or subsidies.

Abolish the IRS and the current tax code.

Oppose government debt.

Promote competition among businesses.

Allow parents to decide how education funds should be spent.

Full, open competition in the healthcare industry. Allow purchase of insurance across state lines.

Make social security voluntary.

A military that is prepared to fully defend the country.

Foreign policy that promotes peace, avoids conflict, and seeks free trade.

No gerrymandering, no prohibition of political parties, no restrictions on the right to engage in politics.


Overall, it's a very compelling set of beliefs. Socially, it says 'do not tell people how to run their personal lives.' And economically, it establishes the most efficient, beneficial economic system possible (I know that is a significant claim, but I am certain about it).

Yet very few people know what 'libertarian' means, and there are a lot of misconceptions about it.

 

[speedy]

Actually, conservatives are anti liberty, so not a natural fit.

I associate conservatives more with a prison state than I do liberty.