SHOCK: Have Liberals infiltrated the Libertarian Party and the Libertarian movement?!
Submitted by grassleaves73 on Fri, 10/12/2012 - 19:48Several Ron Paul supporters seem to forget the good doctor's stances on the following issues:
Pro-Life: The good doctor, while he believes this issue should be handled at the state level, also believes strongly that every conceived and unborn child should be guaranteed the right to life. After all, they are the most vulnerable and most precious of all life, being the future of our country and our world.
Marriage/Religious Freedom: He also believes that churches and individuals should be the one defining what marriage is and not government. If government recognizes and defines either traditional or gay marriage as legitimate, what is going to stop them from overriding our constitutional right to religious freedom and either force churches, religions or individuals to accept something that is against their religious beliefs or persecute them for failing to do so? Get Government out of that religious business altogether! That is what Dr. Paul has stated he believes.
Drugs: The good doctor believes government prohibition of things such as drugs and alcohol will never work, but has never advocated people to use substances which will harm them or to abuse those substances which can harm them if they use too much of them or for the wrong reasons. Rather he has advocated that people and their families should be responsible for determining what is helpful and hurtful to themselves.
With this in mind, is talk show host Jason Lewis correct in suggesting that certain brands of liberals have infiltrated the Libertarian Party and the Libertarian movement and so helped turn off mainstream America to their message as a whole?
Jason Lewis: Liberals have seeped into the Libertarian Party
In discussing with a caller the Libertarian Party and its presidential candidate Gary Johnson, talk show host Jason Lewis analyzed what he felt was the problem with the Libertarian Party and a significant portion of the Libertarian movement.
“The problem with the Libertarian Party per se is they get sidetracked on a lot of social stuff” said Lewis
Read More at: https://subsidiaritytimes.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/jason-lew...
- Login to post comments
Fiscal conservatism, social
Fiscal conservatism, social tolerance and adherence to the N.A.P.
S'bout it.
Non-Initiation of Force
The only requirement to be a member of the LP is to pledge not to advocate the initiation of force to change others. It's basically the same with the freedom movement as a whole.
Liberals and conservatives are both welcome. That's what confuses people. No, we aren't all potheads, we simply oppose the drug war.
Also, it is possible to be liberal or conservative and be an authoritarian in one's social or work life, and still be libertarian, politically. That is, one could voluntarily join an authoritarian church, be an authoritarian parent, send one's kids to military school or live in a commune that won't let you own anything, etc., and still want a libertarian government that will allow you to do so.
Freedom brings us together, haven't you heard?
What do you think? http://consequeries.com/
Weird thought of the day...
A system of strong property rights necessarily creates a federation of dictatorships once all land is owned and population continues to grow. :>
UPDATE: whoever voted me down.. you suck
I merely made a random philosophical musing. If you've detected a defect in my assertion then grow some nads and explain. Or, get a life! Minimally, quietly stop being sociopathic. :p
.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~
Seriously,
Ron Paul's views DO NOT define libertarianism. There are more branches of libertarianism than there are accents in the English language. Nearly 20% of Americans claim to be libertarians. But, a recent poll by the New York Times found that less than 10% of the population agrees with a substantial amount of Ron Paul's political positions.
Yes, there are liberals that consider themselves libertarians. Yes, there are conservatives that consider themselves libertarians. I don't worry about it because I don't consider myself a libertarian.
I almost choked on my pasta..
..when you cited the New York Times. More than any publication, it is the mouthpiece of big government, warmongers and Zionists, all natural enemies of Libertarianism.
As I recall, in the early 90's Zogby was saying 22% of the country was libertarian minded, Conservatives a bit over 30% and Liberals just under 20%.
I believe the rest were just plain apathetic.
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" TJ
There's no reason to believe the NYT poll was biased.
It would certainly match Americans' voting patterns. If 22% of the country was really libertarian minded, Ron Paul would be the Republican nominee. All you need is 20% of the voting population to win the nomination of either major party. The fact of the matter is most self-described "libertarians" don't define libertarianism beyond two or three issues. When you've got Bill Maher and Neil Boortz claiming to be libertarians, I can fully accept the premise that one-fifth of Americans describe themselves as libertarians, but, only about 7-8% would agree with Ron Paul's political positions to the extent that DPers do.
Yes, but only if you use statist principles
We have been battling the false left/right paradigm for many years now....Why are Ron Paul people still sucked into the media/RNC/DNC BS?
Yes, there are "liberals" in the libertarian movement - but only if you define them on the, incredibly stupid and overly simplified, single right/left political scale. Only if you define them the same way that Rush Limbaugh and Chris Matthews do.
It is stupid.
We are killing little brown children daily, the private bank that owns our government is turning us into a third-world nation, we are about to have a military dictatorship, the very people they are trying to divide are in danger of being thrown into prisons and being tortured, and the very fabric of our Constitution is about to be completely burned forever.....
So yes, let's argue about a couple topics that effect 2% of the population because they make some Christians uncomfortable. Very smart.
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain
infiltrated??
libertarians have been begging and pleading with conservatives and liberals to come join the cause of liberty. And many have! There's going to be a lot of rough edges, long held ideologies that will need adjusting, and just a plain lot of learning and relearning that will need to be done.
In the meantime try not to alienate the new comers seeking refuge from the various other ideologies and false choices they have before them. Instead welcome and teach them correct principles. Over time they will come around.
Good grief ....
C'mon, please don't waste people's time.
We have much, MUCH more important things to worry about that this social liberal v. social conservative nonsense. (I thought that was for the BS two-party system!)
If you think that's what this movement is about, then you're not paying attention.
It's the CONSTITUTION, remember?!
Your mistake is
Your mistake is assuming that Ron Paul's views define the Libertarian movement.
Libertarians have been split on the abortion issue for a long time. One faction holds that the woman's right to control her body is most important. The other faction holds that the baby's right to life is most important. The disagreement stems from differing opinions on when life begins. Abortion cannot be used as a defining issue for Libertarians one way or the other.
On the gay marriage issue, I don't think that Libertarians have ever supported anything other than marriage equality.
I have heard no one disagree with the third point on drugs. People should be responsible for what the put in their bodies, the government should not be involved. Perhaps I didn't understand your point on that issue.
It should be noted that I am a life-long Republican, starting to understand my libertarian leanings, but I believe that I've got the positions right.
Haven't they long been?
I think they've long been. In that we've long disagreed on these issues.
The difference is we're split between rights and freedoms. Statists are split between the opposing views they want to force upon us.
except you misrepresent his stance.
How exactly does the morning after pill guarantee the right of life of "every conceived and unborn child"?
He doesn't care if two men live together, say they are married, and smoke pot all day either.
Socially liberal, fiscally
Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. That has been the mantra for decades. What's with the headline?
www.gunowners.org
the social conservatives have arrived
.
Ron Paul, Rockwell and Rothbard...
are/were all social conservatives. They just don't want to shove it down your throat at the barrel of a gun or enshrine prohibitions on a federal level.
.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~
Which functionally...
makes them socially liberal.
I don't play, I commission the league.
"functionally"
at a governmental or locally social level(face-to-face)?
.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~
I mean...
their role in the political process or the movement. Although their personal views may be socially conservative, the fact that they don't want to use the law to force those views on others is social liberalism in action, which I'm all for.
I don't play, I commission the league.
Sure..
I was just contemplating that relatives, work associates, friends can be quite annoying. :)
.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~