61 votes

George Will: "Next time, Republicans should tilt toward the libertarian side..."

Very interesting article and I'm surprised this is coming from George Will:

"Next time, Republicans need a more likable one. And one who tilts toward the libertarian side of the Republican Party’s fusion of social and laissez-faire conservatism."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-republica...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

we sat at home because republican weren't true enough to its

words on cutting spending and embracing a true free market, reform social security, and they want to fight too many wars.. that's why many of us sat at home. it's not because they didn't embrace feminism.. ain't got nothing to do with 'social libertarianism'.. hilarious attempt to spin it. never ceases to surprise me the skin of these groups

George

I am happy I have never purchased anything this guy has written about.

He is just writing this now to get some readership, the guy is at least about 40 years to late to the party.

Just ignore him lol

donvino

Why Can't We Seem

to be able to break out of the left/right/center paradigm? We have been programmed to think this way but I would like to think that DP people have risen above it. However, I see it here all the time. Frustrates me no end to see people here still stuck on "voting" and "sides" as the answer. We have GOT to break out of this train of thought if we are going to make REAL changes!

skippy

They don't mean coming

They don't mean coming towards us on civil liberties or foreign policy. Theyll throw us some corporate fascism and call it lassaiz faire. Be warned.

Ventura 2012

LIBERTY2ME's picture

For anyone out there

Sometimes I feel like I'm going through Ron Paul withdrawl. I feel like I just need to see him at one of his rallies again. a few times the feeling actually brought me to you tube to pull up some of the videos from the primaries. There is 1 video in particular that, no matter how many times I watch it, it gives me goose bumps and almost at the same time I get choked up. And I am not someone who gets choked up very often. Watching all of those people, so exceited and hopeful for our country and the election...just silenced. it didnt' matter how many we were or how loud we yelled, they silenced us. Watching the video you look at all of them and they have no idea that no one will hear them.
Just in case you haven't seen the video, here you go in case you need a little Ron Paul fix.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuTXPWec_LU

Why to dream?

Majority of Americans do not want capitalism because they undentify it a) with 19th century horror stories; b) with GOP religious collectivists who worry about fertilized eggs, charity and sacrifice more than about individual liberty.

Solution: growing Libertarian Party to break the two-party monopoly and, at the same time, confronting religious collectivist dogma among republicans.

Until GOP is cleaned from religious collectivists, it must be portraited as the same collectivist ideology as progressives. Allow GOP to incorporate some of Libertarian ideas while remaining a religious dogma is very dangerous for Libertarian idea itself. Same is true for the left - it is not a good idea to allow progressives to incorporate some of Libertarian ideas without debasing their progressive collectivist dogma.

In four years they may be a bit more open minded

I believe things will go very badly between now and 2016. There will be much pain. If we can come together, we can step into the chaos and have a real revolution.

"only a Sith deals in

"only a Sith deals in absolutes."
Obi-Wan, Revenge of the Sith

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Why

Star Wars when we have a recent example before us. GOP had incorporated Tea Party in order to get the popular vote in 2010, then to kill it in order to be able to keep unbalanced budget intact, every year. Romney openly preached that government regulations are good, they just need to be wise. Bush & Evangelicals were ecstatic about no child left behind, free prescription drugs program, record aid to Africa, etc. Catholic establishment is behind our illegal immigration from Mexico....

Tea Party, Inc.

Welcome

The art of tea is not lost at Tea Party Inc. Our loose teas are fresh, high quality teas that are sure to deliver a clear and enjoyable cup time and time again. Teas are available decaffeinated, blended, or single variety. Here at Tea Party Inc. we strive for our every customer to enjoy and hopefully learn a little about themselves with our teas. Take some time to get to know the different teas and blends that are offered for the ultimate tea experience. Watch the leaves unfurl in your glass or experience handmade flowers open up with flavor. Whatever your choice, you cannot go wrong.

From basic kettles to the traditional cast iron teapots, we can customize your personal experience. There are over a hundred loose teas offered and we have everything you need. ...

Sonya V. Crane

President
_______________

PS: Free Sample Request. Please contact our store directly.

757-234-0844

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

God I LOVE You

...Mark Twain. You are just a delight on the DP as you pop in when most unexpected and graciously deliver twain wit/wisdom which is almost always a thought provoking metaphor right on topic.

fonta

Rothbard

had played that game in 70's.

Rothbard tried to support socialist tea brand in exchange for their support of the gold standard tea brand. Rothbard, who mocked Ayn Rand after stealing some of her ideas, felt he was smart enough to fool socialists.

How does one steal an idea?

How does one steal an idea? Did Rand not have her ideas anymore? Were they stolen from her mind?

Good question.

Steal:
- to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal

A bit of mockery is in order

A bit of mockery is in order here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIk5C2qsRH8

Sigh. Ayn Rand was a

Sigh. Ayn Rand was a plagiarist. Her first line in Atlas Shrugged, used throughout the book, and many other things were taken from The Driver. The train, what drives man (the driver comes to a different conclusion), even the sister in The Driver is like Ayn Rand.

Likewise, the name objectivist is plagiarized (and changed to be opposite of what it was), the dedication in the original book is to her husband and the man Rand was having an affair with, she lied 4 or 5 times in her author background in the back of the book, etc etc.

You could go on for pages like this.

And by the way, it is either sloppy writing to the extreme for any of that to appear in the volume, or it was intended as farce.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Parroting

others is fine - it is even typical for many RP supporters. Have you read her book, that is the question.

This is a debate you can't

This is a debate you can't win. The longer it goes on, the more people are aware of the flaws in Ayn Rand, and the more foolish anyone that promotes it looks.

It's easily checked. Ayn Rand plagerized her first line, used throughout the book. She dedicated the book originally to her husband and the man she was having an affair with. She lied in her author background several times. The title is an impossibility in reality, and a misunderstanding of the Greek legend as used in the book, the sections are dedicated to the one person the actual promoters of the scientific objective method hated.

If you can't bother to know the FIRST FEW PAGES of a book, you haven't read any of it.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

False either or choices is the political system

Well, first off I'm an evangelical, and so are a lot of posters here, so you're clearly fighting a personal war that has nothing to do with liberty.

Second, that is exactly what the quote is about. Dealing in absolutes and false choices instead of what is actually true. Just like the bad guys in star wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and/or-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The options may be a position that is between the two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be a completely different alternative.
False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice (such as, in some contexts, the assertion that "if you are not with us, you are against us"). But the fallacy can also arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception.

false either or choices is a hallmark of how our political system is controlled. So the star wars quote is actually a good one for that.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Sometimes

dilemma is not false but real. One either relies on his mind (rational) or relies only sometime on his mind (partially rational, partially irrational.)

If one prays to gods in istances like illness, career, procreation, weather, parking space in a city, then there is no use to debate politics and individual freedom. The honesty is absent, a religious person goes long way to juggle the opposites - faith and rational thinking (no dichotomy here.)

You need to read up on the

You need to read up on the fallacy of the excluded middle. It's not just philosophy or sophistry, but is frequently used in politics, where it is playing both ends (or sides) against the middle.

If you don't feel like thinking about philosophy, or false philosophy today,or how it's gotten into politics itself - ie political theater, the Marxist farce, you could simply consider the objective.

Politically, the idea is to get as many people as possible to agree with your political beliefs. Turning allies against you, or trying to make your group smaller is what the opposition does. "helpful friends" that aren't.

Or you could go to history. All the signers of the declaration of independence were Christians - IE evangelicals. So the historic norm wasn't Christians are the enemy of liberty, But atheists are the enemy of liberty - soviet union, china, other states with atheist mandated governments.

But you don't see me proclaiming atheists are the enemy of liberty - because it's a pointless gesture that narrows the liberty movement.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Cool

but failed right at the core.

RE: " All the signers of the declaration of independence were Christians - IE evangelicals."

- The men responsible for building the foundation of the United States were men of The Enlightenment, not men of Christianity. They were Deists who did not believe the bible was true. They were Freethinkers who relied on their reason, not their faith." Many were Free Masons. See their quotes about religion and society.

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html

You also underestimate the power of ideas. If ideas work, no startegy and coalition is needed. For individualist ideas to work, people minds must be free from religious and collectivist dogmas. They should use their rational thinking to understand that free society and nature itself is just, not that justice is delivered by god or the majority. MEANING - relinquish Utopia and its peach-fuzzy feeling of a perfect society one imagines on the Earth or the Sky.

I'm fairly well known for

I'm fairly well known for writing long lists on this subject. Go search for them, I'm not rewriting for a come lately punk.

They were all professing Christians, they all went to churches. About 6-7 were pastors at one time, with sermons available, half had religious training. One was a music minister or the equivalent at that time, with published hymn books. Furthermore, the laws they wrote at that time required you to be a Christian to hold office or to become a citizen, including the 1776 constitution of Pennsylvania, which was presided over by Benjamin Franklin, a model constitution at that time.

There are over TWENTY VOLUMES of books written by the founding fathers on Christian topics. For a group of only 57 people, that is the most Christian gathering you can imagine.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Wrinting long blogs

may be your strong part, thinking is not. Glen Back would be your guy. The question is not whether they were atheists (they were not), but were they true Christians in line with today's Evangelical, Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, or Catholic churches. They were not. At the time of the founding fathers, Pope in Rome would call George Washington a child of a satan for being a Free Mason while Evangelicals were lobbying for total government control and compulsory state education to preach grace and salvation to children.

Writing about Bible to find some rational pearls, is not the same as to believe in Bible or adhere to its text.

"At the time of the founding

"At the time of the founding fathers, Pope in Rome would call George Washington a child of a satan for being a Free Mason "

It is so damn obvious when talking to any of you for any length of time when you aren't Americans. It's not good English. It's not even how an American says things.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Nice argument

I also mispelled Glenn Beck. Continue.

Ok, continuing. Your

Ok, continuing.

Your arguments aren't a search for truth, but they are carefully constructed along the Marxist style. Not a mutual search for truth, but division. That plus the consistently bad grammar, not knowing some very basic things about American history, manners, style, grammar etc, makes it obvious. The only other group it could be is Zionism, being foreign to American thought, but since there is overlap between communism and Zionism, and Marxism is a more inclusive, lets throw all the bad fish away together.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Clever

You have summed up your intellectual potential for the rest to see. Was nice chatting though, so many interesting thought-provoking arguments on your part. On the other hand, everything is in the Bible. And god works in mysterious ways. Let's just pray..... for Ron Paul and free America.

Trolling by insults only

Trolling by insults only works for a Marxist when they are trying to promote something by spamming.

Since you aren't promoting anything, it's pointless.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

You

take things personally. It shows your inner weakness. Somehow, you have reduced yourself to a hysterical woman. Looks like faith does not make you a wholesome man.