 |
Progressive Nation Proud to be Progressive |
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “The Growing Rift Between Libertarians and Republicans”.
Five Ways You Can Help Pakistan (and the Rest of Us) http://bit.ly/dk3DV5 #Truthout #p2 #p2b Davis Case Reignites Death Penalty Debate http://bit.ly/8YfrfL #Truthout #p2 #p2b
Via @Politicususa: The Tea Party’s Success May be Sarah Palin’s Demise http://bit.ly/bW21Es | #p2 #p2b
Speaking in Yellow: The Crisis in Our Politics http://huff.to/cx3jsp via @huffingtonpost #Media #p2 #p2b // Must read article. Via @ThinkProgress: Poll: 71 Percent Of Americans Still Blame Bush For The Current Economic Woes http://bit.ly/aRZWbz | #p2 #du1 #dnj #p2b Via @ThinkProgress: Dick Armey Advances Bizarre Voter Fraud Theory: 3 Percent Of Democratic Vo... http://bit.ly/ahsfi3 | #p2 #du1 #dnj #p2b Via @ThinkProgress: Ryan Knocks GOP Tax Cut Fantasy: ‘I’m Not One Of These People Who Says Th... http://bit.ly/b4D1te | #p2 #du1 #dnj #p2b
RT @PanchoVillaAli: bedbugs found in Google's NYC offices.@Google ,you lie down w/corporate dogs @Verizon you wake up with bed bugs.Preserve Net Neutrality #p2b
I agree with the description of party differences, with maybe one exception; it's my understanding that most Libertarians and Ron Paul were for closed borders and legal immigration.
[Reply]
[...] note: This is a first hand account of something going on behind the scenes in the Growing Rift Between Libertarians and Republicans, as first reported by [...]
[...] over the Tea Parties and purging genuine libertarians from the leadership roles, leading to a growing rift between the two. The claim of non-partisanship has been rocked recently by open sponsorship of [...]
[...] the 2009 Tea Parties. This pledge is also likely to cause even greater friction in already strained relations between Republican conservatives and the Libertarians who originally started the Tea [...]
This is a pretty good description of the policy differences between republicans and Democrats.
I think there is some misunderstanding implying that the Libertarion position on gay marriage is closer to the Democrat position then it really is. I am not an expert but I will try to outline my understanding of the Libertarian position on this issue.
It is true the libertarians want Government out of marriage this does not mean they will show much interest in extending a government mandate for gay marriage or civil unions. Keep in mind the libertarians want less government. The libertarians might characterize the Democratic position as an extension of priviliges only granted to individuals who have sex with the official approval of the government. Still discriminatory to everyone left and a reaffirmation of the governments power to meddle in a person's sex life.
While I believe the libertarians are unlikely to show much enthusiasm for either the Democratic or Republican positions on this issue, I expect some reciprocity from either party on other issues could obtain some token support from libertarians. I say token because most libertarians like to think of themselves as unwilling to compromise their principles. This is not strictly true as previous seductions by the Republican's has proved. However, once bit twice shy and they have recently been bit hard.
If it was up to the Libertarians, they would just leave it up to you and the churches, sea captains, a shamman or whomever you felt had the authority to marry you. I imagine they expect most people would get married in a church just like now. However, this doesn't mean the Libertarians think the churches should have any legal authority over what constitutes a marriage. If you think it requires a priest, then fine. For you it does.
This of course would make heterosexual, and LGBT couples equal. As well as unmarried people, I might add. What about insurance? They would say that's between you and your employer. Filing jointly and other legal perks of marriage? They would say there shouldn't be any. Not from the government anyway. Keep in mind they wouldn't advocate removing tax deductions, inheritance allowances, etc from married couples. Instead they would advocate expanding those things to everyone regardless of marital status. As far as the Libertarians are concerned you shouldn't even have to tell the government if you are married or not.
Divorce would be sticky under a Libertarian approach. I mean if the government doesn't even now your married how are they supposed to referee a divorce? It would probably lead to many people adopting very formal legal contracts entered at the time of marriage spelling out any future division of assets in case of divorce.
Of course this position is easily attacked, “What! You mean polygamy would be legal?” Yup. If you and a bunch of other people all want to say you are married, then most libertarians would have no problem with this. In the most extreme cases, (underage marriage, beastiality, etc.) I think you would find some split within libertarians. The majority of libertarians would probably come down on the traditional side of these cases even though an argument could be made following libertarian principles that even these cases should be legal.
Finally, I also think the description of libertarians being for seperation of church and state is a little misleading as well. They do support the seperation of Church and State. But they also support the seperation of school and state. Thinking that libertarians are going to find common cause with Democrats in keeping religion out of schools is misleading. Libertarians would privatise all schools then let the parents send their kids to schools with as much or as little in school religion as they wanted and could find.
If this is a mischaracterization of the libertarian position forgive me, I follow quite a few libertarian blogs but this may still only represent a slice of libertarian opinion.
[Reply]
I go back to 1980 when I was first involved in the Libertarian Party. I campaigned for Ed Clark that year. Very tough since my parents were for Reagan and so were most voters. But even back then, the “Moral Majority” had too much clout. Since then, social conservatism seemed to take precedence over fiscal conservatism. Reagan was the least destructive Republican president to free enterprise. But he was honest. He always said he is trying to cut the rate of increase in deficit spending. I give him a lot of credit for that.
There are a lot of well-meaning Republicans who hold up the book “Atlas Shrugged,” and say we should be like the heros (Rush Limbaugh), but they turn around and support The Patriot Act, tracking sexually active young women to make sure they don't get an abortion, and prosecuting customers of prostitutes in voluntary consensual activities to the fullest extent of the law.
The battle for individual liberty is not won in the Republican Party. Just one year ago there was one in the Oval office who was anything but capitalist. Just three years ago the Congress was led by Republicans who pushed through the socialist Prescription Medical Benefit. The word is out: The talk is Capitalism. The walk is the religious agenda. And the average American sees the hypocrisy.
[Reply]
As a Libertarian, I find it incredibly irritating that the FIRST point of contention between Republicans and Libertarians that is listed is legalizing marijuana. Yes, I absolutely agree that laws prohibiting use of marijuana are invasive, however, it is NOT the first point of contention. I would think that the ever exanding role of government in our daily lives oppressive tax rates would be first. For Libertarians to be taken seriously, our first 'point of contention' cannot be about legalizing drugs. It has to be about the larger issues that more of our fellow Americans are worried about. Making 'legalizing marijuana' #1 on the list just makes us look crazy.
[Reply]
sorry. this 2 party system is stale, worn and irrelevant to the interests of today. i'll give the libertarians a subtle nod…as much as i can.
until people can wrap their heads around the concept of free-association and voluntary cooperation (stateless, socialist-libertarianism. or anarchism if you need it spelled out for you.) and realize they're effectively the pawns of authoritarians and capitalist blood-suckers, this country will never become anything more than a finger pointing childs argument.
but i'm sure you'll just laugh at me.
[Reply]
I identify with your post. However, you're missing the boat on a few things with us Libertards. LGBT folks – We could care less, which means we support no role for the government to legislate more rights that every man or woman already hold. Most of us do support capital punishment and a strong national defense. We shudder to think what will happen with the public option, remember we're for small or no government.
Other than that, you're spot on!
[Reply]
Teabagging for jesus baby!
[Reply]
Teabagging for jesus baby!
[Reply]
i'm a little confused, it seems that the libertarian party has turned sour, alot of what they so called “support” kinda seems outta wack. am i wrong?
[Reply]
I consider myself to be a libertarian (not a Libertarian because the Libertarian party has lost its founding principle and become closer to neo-con lite) i did like how fair the piece was toward people of a liberty mindset and while i disagree with some of it would like to thank the author for his/her portrayal of libertarianism which is something i seldom see from either side again thanks
[Reply]