For reasons surpassing understanding the “Republican” establishment has made eliminating the libertarian wing of its own party priority No. 1 heading into the 2014 elections.
Rather than joining pro-freedom, pro-free market leaders like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Justin Amash in standing up to the increasingly radical administration of U.S. President Barack Obama and his congressional allies, the GOP establishment has continued to demonize the handful of elected officials actually standing for the ideological principles articulated (if not acted upon) by generations of GOP politicians.
Why is the GOP establishment doing this? Well, we all know why … don’t we? Because in Washington, D.C. the two major parties differ on very little of real substance – a view lent eloquent expression in this guest column by former S.C. Treasurer Thomas Ravenel.
The same special interests pull the strings of both establishment parties … which in turn have pulled our purse strings to the tune of trillions of dollars in deficit spending under the previous two administrations.
Nonetheless this week two establishment Republicans who served the administration of “Republican” president George W. Bush posted a lengthy rebuke of rabble rousing libertarians like us – arguing that our “negative approach to the question of the role of government is not only electorally insufficient – it is unbecoming of conservatism and of the deep commitment that conservatives claim to the nation’s founding ideals.”
Really? Are “Republicans” seriously lecturing us about electoral insufficiency?
Because the last time we checked that term defined the GOP.
Anyway Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner – the authors of this heaping word turd – would have you believe that the GOP has been championing the best interests of taxpayers since it reclaimed the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010 (on the strength of the Tea Party movement, it’s worth recalling).
“Republicans have argued that unrestrained spending, and particularly unreformed entitlements, will burden the nation with unmanageable levels of debt in the coming decades and starve the budget of funds for other essential purposes,” they wrote. “They further contend that a large, meddlesome, intrusive state not only undermines the private economy but also crowds out civil society and enervates civic character.”
Really?
Then what’s this … and this … and this.
In one sense Gerson and Wehner are correct. The GOP has done plenty of “arguing” and “contending” in Washington, D.C. in recent years – especially as it relates to their ostensible disdain for Obama’s socialized medicine monstrosity.
The problem? They’ve done next-to-nothing in support of all that bloviating.
But that doesn’t stop Gerson and Wehner for attacking those who are standing firm against the Obama agenda – painting all of us as fit for straightjackets (not to mention inconsistent with the founding wisdom of the country we are fighting to defend).
“It is historically erroneous to regard America’s founders as proto-libertarians,” they write. “(Alexander) Hamilton warned about ‘a zeal for liberty more ardent than enlightened,’ while (James) Madison cautioned that ‘liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as by the abuses of power.’ Similarly mistaken are exaggerated claims of galloping tyranny and utopian visions of a wholesale dismantling of much of the modern state. None of this lays a foundation for an appealing public philosophy. American citizenship has evolved around the exercise of liberty in a complex, mutually dependent web of institutions. One of those institutions is and must be government — effective, respected, and limited.”
Huh?
No one at this website has ever argued against the existence of government – or subsidizing it in perpetuity as a valuable (if not vital) institution of a free society. We have merely stated its reach should be confined to core functions – which are performed with maximum efficiency, transparency and accountability (i.e. cost-effectiveness and a lack of corruption). For example the protection of private property – and of our individual lives – is a core function of government. Thus law enforcement – police, courts, prisons, etc. – are necessary features of government and should be funded commensurately.
But what about crony capitalism? Welfare statism? Global interventionism? Bureaucratic bailouts? Domestic spying? Socialized medicine? These are all things “Republicans” have supported every bit as blindly (in some cases MORE blindly) than Obama and his legions in recent years – but they are in no way, shape or form “core” functions of government.
Unfortunately, according to establishment “Republicans” like Gerson and Wehner – and to the special interest-fed politicians they work for – opposing such non-core functions makes one an anarchist.
More to the point: To conclude that America is not currently home to a galloping tyranny is an incredibly naïve view of things … one which (using the authors’ words against them) is “unbecoming of conservatism and of the deep commitment that conservatives claim to the nation’s founding ideals.”
To say nothing of common sense …
Libertarian-leaning voters are not “nuts.” In fact in most cases they are simply articulating support for ideologies claimed – rhetorically, at least – by the GOP. Why, then, does the GOP continue to demonize them? Who knows … but if alienating the fastest-growing segment of the American electorate in a desperate bid to wrestle control of a dying party is Gerson and Wehner’s objective, all we can say is “job well done.”
As we’ve noted before none of these labels matter at the end of the day … all that matters is what elected officials do. And every day it becomes harder for the leaders of both major parties to hide their shared failure.
155 comments
The establishment is embracing John McCain and Lindsay Graham. They are moderates and consider themselves libertarians.They HATE Conservatives….
These “Mavericks” love the prosperity that the morality of work and success bring..but they hate the ideas of anti-abortion, pro-Christian freedom and the right to defend America…
Libertarians, or Liberal-Tarians, are in bed w/ the democrats on most social issues. Liberal-tarians are actually the most Greedy and selfish who will vote GOP when leftwing failure is blatantly obvious and the left starts to ask for libertarians’ money.
Conservatives understand that w/o honesty and truth…there is no prospeity. We will fall w/o morality…and we are in a fight for the soul of the party, vs the establishment and the liberal-tarians…
Dude … no one is fighting for your party. You can have the GOP. It’s yours.
Then you need to tell your boys and girls, like Graham, McCain and Mace to quit putting an “R” beside their mnames when they run….Quit fundraising as Rs, and claiming Conservtism, too…
Yall need to run as an “L” and see how far you get w/ that….
None of the people you are saying are libertarian are libertarian. They don’t even claim to be libertarian and libertarians don’t like them. Learn about the subjects you are commenting on before posting. Thanks.
LIBERTarian. Wouldn’t their fundamental premise be LIBERTY? That seems like a far cry from your “definition”.
Just a note – in your witty retort, please don’t forget to call me a DUMB@$$. Apparently, you can’t seem to type ‘dumbass’ and I’m not sure why. It’s less effort and you seem to use it in 98% of your posts. It may save you some time so you can get back to your computer games and cats. Dumbass.
Mama takes the keyboard when she catchs him cussing on it.
YOU BETCHA!
YOU BETCHA!
Sorry, Conservatives are as much to blame for the mess this country is in as the liberals…and Fits is correct when he says that their is little difference between the two parties. As much as it pains me to say this…I have to agree with T-Rav in his recent editorial. We absolutely need a viable 3rd Party that represents of the those of us that want to keep the Government out of the way of small business and out of the business of legislating morality.
Under an ‘R’ president (when he governed at his best) the unemployment rate was one-half or more what it is now, salaries were high and ascending, taxes were low, healthcare worked better and gas prices were a dollar or more less for EVERY gallon…
Yeah: I’ll take the blame for that, you F^*kin idiot….
You Sir are living in the past. I did not leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party me. It is so far away from the days of The Gipper that it is unrecognizable.
The fact that you prefer to respond in name calling and labeling is an indicator of your maturity.
“left” me. Sorry for the gross gramatical error. Trying to type on my phone is a pain. Now it is time for my cruises ship to leave so that I can spend some of the hard earned money my business made last year…something GT apparently does not understand.
John McCain and Lindsay Graham has as much libertarian philosophy in them as a bowling bowl has radioactive helium inside of it.
Graham and McCain are your Libertarian poster boys. They despise Conservatives, as does FITS…
Liberal-tarians want fiscal riches so the government will have lots of money to spend to empower them. They believe in free enterprise because it’s the only way there is prosperity…
And they are in lockstep w/ Obama on immigration, Obamacare, abortion and immorality….etc…
Conservatives understand that w/o honesty and truth…there is no prospeity. We will fall w/o morality…and we are in a fight for the soul of the party, vs the establishment and the liberal-tarians…
Ronald Reagan thinks you are a DUMB@$$!
The truth of the matter is people are tired of the Koch brothers running our country to fatten their wallets….businesses understand that when you shut the government down it stops peoples paychecks which hurt their profits and they are not going to support candidates that continue this behavior to appease high powered donors.
The biggest financial backers of “Libertarianism” absolutely, positively do not want a libertarian system. They like certain parts of the ideology, namely the parts that let them keep their money, but ultimately they like it when government serves them.
Both the Kochs and the Cato/ALG hacks Wilson and Rich are exactly like this.
I agree, the Kochs, Rich, etc. believe what is a “proper government function” should be decided by the highest bidder.
While I agree with you, every time the Koch’s are brought up so should one include Soros, Buffet and a host of other crony capitalists.
When I hear Koch brothers or Soros mentioned, I pretty much dismiss anything else said in the post.
Why is that?
The GOP would love to erect its own galloping tyranny if it were elctable, and it is increasingly clear that it bound for self-destruction. It will at least become a regional while old man party.
Their tyranny would centered around destroying the poor and middle class, elevating capitalism to the point where we would have robber barons and monopolies like in the late 1800s and early 1900s, eliminating income taxes so the rich can become ever more rich and find no need for a sense of social responsibility to those with less, the list is endless.
We are in a liberal moment in the US with marijuana available in Colorado, gay marriages abounding everywhere, and a black man elected twice as POTUS.
The Ted Cruz gasbags on the right will blowup inevitably as will the Tea Party.
I think conservatism would be viable and I might even vote for some of yall if you werent so dang crazy and anti-intellectual.
Exactly! Ted Cruz is a gasbag for sure but he is much worse than that…
http://2big2fall.wordpress.com/2013/11/02/ted-cruz-jive-talking-with-eddie-munster-on-gilligans-island/
How much does Amazon want for his new coloring book ?
He’s got a coloring book?
On the market at Amazon.com.
Me no know…
What’s the difference between Ted Cruz and the Hindenburg?
One is a flaming Nazi gasbag and the other was an airship.
LOL… Robber Barrons? Hahahahaha people still believe that mythology?
In the day and age of the internet, where you can research the actual history instead of what your professor spoonfed you, there is just no excuse to believe in myths.
You know, you’re right. With the internet why do we even need schools at all. Why should we trust trained historians over Joe at historyasiseeit.com. If its on the internet it must be true!
This post is indeed evidence the internet has not become so simple even the dumbest among us can use it.
Conservatives don’t give a rat’s ass what women do with their bodies. It’s the wanton murder of defenseless little unborn babies that pisses us off.
If you’re going to pretend to be an intellectual you might want to brush up on your spelling, punctuation and sentence construction. Methinks you is a dumb ass.
In theory, libertarians are for freedom in all facets of life, not just the economic ones. Unlike conservatives, they do not presume to tell women what women can do with their bodies, and they certainly do not support the disastrous war on drugs. As long as social conservatives chime in on issues such as abortion, the center and left should not have a problem getting candidates elected.
One of the reasons I don’t understand the Republican Liberty Caucus – their party doesn’t want them because they’re libertarian, but they refuse to leave and join the Libertarian party, with whose ideals they much more closely align, because at the end of the day they are still blinded by party loyalty even though their party is no longer loyal to them. Give up trying to “save” the party already! Republicans don’t want you – they hate you, in fact.
The RLC actually grew out of people who left the Libertarian Party,concluding it wasn’t electorally viable.They were led initially by Roger MacBride,the LP presidential candidate in 1976 who himself had been a Republican activist.
The LP would be electorally viable if all the misguided RLC-ers would join it instead of believing the establishment lie that the only way to win is to be one of the two major parties. The RLC needs to stop clinging to their nostalgia for a Republican party that never was and recognize that it has always been that of tax-and-spend Reagan, fiscal-disaster Nixon, big-government Hoover, and – let’s not forget that great champion of American Imperialism – Abraham Lincoln, who manipulated the North’s sympathy for the slave to maintain support for a war against the very fabric of republican government this nation was founded on and against the liberties of his own people. By at once trying to take advantage of and perpetuating the myth of the two party system – the tyranny of which is evident to anyone with an eye and which was clearly warned against by the founders – they are undermining themselves and ensuring that the Republican establishment will always be able to count on the votes of the “libertarian wing” when it comes down to it, because, as the old saying goes, “At least he’s not a damn Democrat!”
Here we go again.
Fits on one of faux anti Republican rants.we have come to expect them.Seems to make the ol boy feel good letting off a little steam.
However, as we all know, at the end of the day ,Fits will support the Republicans because all the smoke blowin aside, thats what he is.
Really? Like when we endorsed Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson for President? https://www.fitsnews.com/2012/10/25/gary-johnson-for-president/ … oh right, you’re just saying stuff w/ no justification.
Who you endorsed is irrelevant. No one really cares. The question is who did you vote for? That tells us if you are just blowing smoke.
This is SC. It doesn’t matter who you vote for, the state votes red regardless.
He’s no Republican, just as Ron Paul was never a Republican. His views are unlike any major GOP candidates we’ve ever had, or any seriously successful political candidate from the last 100 years. The more shrill the “libertarians” are, the less anyone cares about them. Every cycle they threaten to form a third party, but it never amounts to anything, so they go back to grousing about the GOP. Yawn.
Damn, you managed to get a lot of wrong squeezed into a fairly short comment!!
Well shit TBG. Everyone knows Jefferson was a pot smoking hippie now. Come On.!! ??
would that be so wrong?
What makes it correct or incorrect?
The quality of the pot, I’d say.
Oh, he said 100 years. I digress.
FITS claims a lot of $#!* then lies through his teeth. If dishonest politicians are a F*$kin disease, so is more lying-@$$ so-called media.
Libertarians give us Obama…Only F*#king idiots are still in his corner…
Give a Conservative a chance. When bush governed right (taxes, energy, free enterprise) he was a gigantic success. Karl Rove, the Libertarian ruined all the good Bush did.
Self-censorship is useless. This may be your stupidest fucking post yet.
You may be right, but to determine this post was stupid would require it be in a language we could understand. This looks to me to be some type of code whereby you use English words but give them a different meaning and you need a cipher wheel to interpret.
This may be your stupidest fucking post yet.
This may be your stupidest fucking post yet this year.
Fixed it for ya!
No, there have been far more stupid ones. He used to outdo himself on Fish Wrap’s comment section.
Ding, Ding, Ding – We have a winner for the ” Darwin Award ” 2014 , less than 1 week into the new year ! Friend, that is some badass shit your’e smoking. Where’d you get it ?
No justification?Yeh right.
Hell this whole site is mostly consumed with you bitching about fellow Republicans.You even label them “RINOS” implying that they are not Republicans but people who think lije you really are!
And your obsession with Thomas Ravenel ,another faux non Republican Republican is amusing,acting like he has “discovered” something.Hell George. Wallace was mouthing that line about no difference between the two parties almost Fifty damn years ago!
Face what you are Fits!A Republican!Occassionally disgruntled, certainly contrary,often off the wall(see the GaryJohnson”endorsement”) ,but a Republican nonetheless.Nothing wrong with that.Lots of em here in SC and,like you, they bitch and whine and then on Election Day vote that GOP line 90 of so percent.
So you supported some unknown in an election the Republicans were going to lose anyway…so what.
How Libertarian will you claim to be when you come out an endorse Haley for re-election in 2014?
You have spent over 3 years documenting why people should not vote for her only to ultimately endorse her in 2014?
Quit runing liberal-tarians w/ an ‘R’ by their name for president. And we may be able to kick the @$$#$ of the miserable and failure-based democrats…
Liberal-Tarians are half-democrat. Let’s run a Conservative for president, and fix this disaster the liberals and the libertarians have made of this country…
So based off of what you said, you are for economic freedom (which is also what libertarians want), but at the same time you are all for social tyranny….you know, pro-societal control with a holy book that’s been perverted thru-out the ages. Yep, you sound like a Republican alright.
I don’t think filthy, immoral b@$*ards, like you, should have rights of free speech, to perpetuate kiddie-porn, yet Christians are told their speech is dis-allowed because liberal-tarians and liberals are afraid of being reminded that their greed, lust and hate…
Laws that protect the decent are not Control…you are controlled by the tyrants who promise you freedom to steal and kill…only to figure out the people you want to harm are paying for your sorry @$$ to breathe….
Free speech to perpetuate kiddie-porn? What the hell?
If anybody needs Jesus, it’s you. Jesus, and maybe some prescription strength medication.
Isn’t Jerry Sandusky a homosexual???…Liberals LOVE homosexuals, don’t you…he assaulted children…
But you always lie or run when your Filth comes home to roost….
Jerry Sandusky was a Republican. So from that I guess we can discern that all Republicans assault children.
I bet you would love a christian theological based gov’t. That way you could force everybody to live within your preconceived view of the world. Whats right for you is good enough for everybody else because of your ordained, superiority. You know there are another group of people who share a similar way of thinking…they are called liberals.
I don’t think filthy, immoral b@$*ards, like you, should have rights of free speech, to perpetuate kiddie-porn, yet Christians are told their speech is dis-allowed because liberal-tarians and liberals are afraid of being reminded that their greed, lust and hate…
——-
Immmoral? Really?
so you don’t think people should be able to write books about having sex with children (without their parent’s consent, of course), but you do approve of reading about letting a woman’s breasts inebriate you – to children??
You don’t have a problem with children having access to harlots – “Then went Samson to Gaza, and saw there an harlot, and went in unto her.” ?
When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face. And he turned unto her by the way, and said, Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee; (for he knew not that she was his daughter in law.) And she said, What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me? And he said, I will send thee a kid from the flock. And she said, Wilt thou give me a pledge, till thou send it? And he said, What pledge shall I give thee? And she said, Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thine hand. And he gave it her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him. ”
If it’s good enough for Samson and Judah….
You have no problem with condoning incest:
“And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.”???
How are you going to keep kids from experimenting with sex,, when you tell them it’s ok to have sex with your maid?
“And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine: and Israel heard it. Now the sons of Jacob were twelve”
How about “taking her?” when you find a good looking woman, just “go in to her”
“and Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah; and he took her, and went in unto her”
You have no problem teaching children to masturbate?
“And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.”
Normally I give a pertinent answer, even to the vapid name-callers. But you present yourself as some sort of detached nutjob. Not sure what you’re trying to say…but it does seem you may have your lines crossed.
You could be a textbook sychopath, who kills, or rapes children, and you use your bent theology to justify it. Not sure I can chance any connection to that.
Hey I can respect that.
Communication is over valued anyway.
When someone is crazy, you can
ignore them
make fun of them
ask them something simple and watch how they implode
explain things to them and enjoy their confusion
psychoanalyze them
But if you’re the crazy one, you can
spill out all of your crazy paranoid fantasies about the world
become righteously indignant when your views are challenged
curl up in a ball and pretend to be afraid
bark like a chihuahua from a safe distance and really be afraid
reassure yourself that you’re the sane one because you’re the sane one
me? I’m detached. I just use logic and reason to present the logical consequences of the absurd positions that people present me with.
Unlike crazy people, I don’t harbor any illusions that exposing the absurd will have any effect.
I am passionate about reality, and find it amusing how few people bother to consider it when forming an opinion.
You’re a fucking (not “F*@kin'”) dumbass (not “Dumb@$$”). Don’t forget to bring all your cats inside your trailer tonight. It’s going to be cold.
Get rid of the Teanutarians and the GOP will have new life.
The GOP simply does not have enough supporters, they are going the way of the Whigs. Tossing the right leaning members of the their party only speeds their demise, which is good.
Libertarians (true tea partiers)aren’t the right wing…they are too sociailly liberal.
The right wing derailed the true tea party and corrupted it to their own use.
Sorry, I have to disagree. The exodus from the party is from the left not the right. The Teanutarian take over has pushed former moderate Republicans to become independents. There is no where else for the teanuts to go if they want to participate in government. But the moderate has a choice.
There’s simply not enough of them, together or apart regardless of where you think they lie on the political spectrum to make a difference.
It’s like debating which type of dinosaur has more impact on ecology today…it’s not relevant.
“Why are there no libertarian countries? If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early twenty-first century is organized along libertarian lines?
It’s not as though there were a shortage of countries to experiment with libertarianism. There are 193 sovereign state members of the United Nations—195, if you count the Vatican and Palestine, which have been granted observer status by the world organization. If libertarianism was a good idea, wouldn’t at least one country have tried it? Wouldn’t there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?
When you ask libertarians if they can point to a libertarian country, you are likely to get a baffled look, followed, in a few moments, by something like this reply: While there is no purely libertarian country, there are countries which have pursued policies of which libertarians would approve: Chile, with its experiment in privatized Social Security, for example, and Sweden, a big-government nation which, however, gives a role to vouchers in schooling.
But this isn’t an adequate response. Libertarian theorists have the luxury of mixing and matching policies to create an imaginary utopia. A real country must function simultaneously in different realms—defense and the economy, law enforcement and some kind of system of support for the poor. Being able to point to one truly libertarian country would provide at least some evidence that libertarianism can work in the real world.”
Charlie Riedel
Why are there no libertarian countries?
——-
Because the cosmic libertarian god hides the truth from the proud, and reveals it to fools.
In a libertarian universe, at least it would be my choice to buy mystery meat at 10 cents a pound, and let my estate try to recover the damages if I die from eating it.
In a libertarian universe, I could pay a thousand a year for a security service to drive by my house once a month, and chip in with some other folks to hire a bulldozer to clear wrecks off the roads I use to get to work.
And I could smoke heroin in the bar of my choice without having to worry about some privatized police harassing me from the table next to me.
I responded previously,but it was deleted.So much for FITS fake ‘Liberty’
I saw that – what did you do to get on moderation? Certainly smoking heroin being “your thing” can’t be grounds for a muzzle.
I know how hard it is to moderate a forum when people are trying to destroy the conversation instead of contribute to it, so I don’t want to criticize.
Also, it may be a bad thing to talk about moderation, since it uses up bandwidth that could be used to communicate.
I only ask so I can avoid the same pitfall, not to raise the rabble.
Howard Rich keeps Fits in a cage. When Howie reads a post he doesn’t like he rings a bell and Will rushes to remove it. Howie then drops a treat into a bucket in the cage. Will rushes over to gulp it down then rolls on his back for a good old fashioned tummy scratch.
in a libertarian universe there would be multiple organizations like the consumers union that would be payed by consumers, telling you to eat your own rat meat, instead of one fda that takes payola from your filthy rat meat corporation.
in a libertarian universe there would be multiple organizations like the consumers union that would be payed by consumers
—-
like the boyscouts? Spontaneous creation and cooperation?
Sounds like communism – just stand back, and all the things you need just “happen.”
It’s magic!
Or is there a metaphysical book that contains the relationships between customer and corporation that is a direct consequence of human behavior that explains the sequence of events that keeps San Francisco from sealing off its borders, buying tanks and levying a tax?
No like The consumers union that publishes the Consumer Report that many people trust to decide which projects they use.
No magic…. just people deciding which evaluation groups they individualy trust instead of having one imposed by a government that has knowingly been sold to the corporations.
consumersunion.org do you really trust the fda more?
If the consumer’s union was the only way a person could find out the quality of products, why would they be honest, rather than be taken over by profiteers that simply parrot what the corporations tell them? Because honesty pays?
There is corruption in government by the people, but not in private enterprise by independent corporations because…
Any organization can be changed internally by the people – except government – because…
Greed will have different results when “private” people are price fixing and creating their own quality standards than, say, GM – because…
Big Pharma will not release drugs faster than they do now, but unregulated, drugs will become cheaper and corporations held more accountable – how?
in a libertarian universe there would be multiple organizations like the consumers union that would be payed by consumers
multiple – so that when one becomes corrupt it looses its members that want good data.
So you believe there’s a magical force that will keep “good” organizations from disappearing in a hostile environment, without some kind of policing.
There is no “magical force”, there are simply degrees of coercion and the fact the world is ruled by economic scarcity. There is not, nor will there ever be, a perfect system for the world.
I just don’t like the notion that “the ant colony” is a good model for development of civilization – the instinctual motion of thousands will statistically, over time, organize into a self-sustaining colony.
You don’t have to poke a very big hole into the empty balloon of social Darwinism to see the dumbass blowing into it.
There are indeed Libertarian countries. South Sudan is a good example of what we could achieve under Libertarian Rule.
You inherently misunderstand what it is to be “libertarian” in thinking. It is understandable that you would, as “libertarian” has become nothing more than a buzzword for those still accepting the “state”(both pro and against).
It’s a mostly meaningless word now, just like “liberal” and “conservative”.
But, if you wanted to pretend South Sudan represents a “Libertarian country” I suppose you’d have to respond to this:
“Although the conflict began as a political power struggle, it has taken on an ethnic dimension and includes evidence of ethnically targeted killings, according to the United Nations mission in South Sudan.”
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/04/world/africa/south-sudan-conflict/
When one realizes that the state is nothing more than monopolized violence by an organization in a geographic region, then the definition of the “state” becomes quite clear. Someone claiming to be a “libertarian” yet pro state in any sense is pretty much a fraud.
I’m ever hopeful that the (L)s will break off into their own viable, standalone party.
With the (R)s excoriating the (L) wing of their party, and several folk already in congress and the senate that are legitimately (L)s, it may be time for them to change the letter behind their name…it would give legitimacy to the party.
86 millionaires in the Senate.
295 millionaires in the House.
Whom;s interest do you think they are representative of?
Correct. This is not a party issue. This is about money. Plain and simple.
It would be “Who’s interest do they represent?” or “Whom do you think they are representative of?” But the important thing is we got the point, and you are correct.
No.’Who’s’ translates to,’who is’,so it should be,’Whose’.
Possessive pronouns never take apostrophes,As with, ‘its and it’s’.
It’s as immoral to HATE a man because he has more than you, as it is to hate the poor. Same is true of race-based or gender-based hate…
But the left and Liberal-tarians, who base their existence on the crusade to be fair and equal…seem to be the most racist and discriminatory if one does not fall into their special interest group of idiot voters….
Is it immoral to hate a man for being a sociopathic pig, intentionally making a living on the suffering of others?
Are you speaking of Obama or Clinton?
Bush
Which do you perfer ?
BS. Bushy was an ass, but he was not more a sociopath than any other POTUS we’ve had to date. XP
You’re right, of course.
He was just an idiot.
Fair enough
Grand Tango missed the point, anyway. I was talking about Congress – he converted it to POTUSusses
I would say, Pawn, in someones game.
The Bishop has the better imagery and literary props.
Would it be OK if I just hate you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxxPLDZnqwA
I agree T, if the man has earned it. I don’t think taking money out of my pocket to put some in his and some in other peoples is earning.
You are correct to say that this is an abomination against God. So is Theft.
Define “earned it.”
Occupy a Desk, Occupy a Wrench, Occupy a Computer. Something other than Welfare, SSI or anything that does not involve the government TEET excepting those core functions of government.
So as long as I have it in my possession and it did not come from the government I “earned it”?
One would think that if it has to be explained that it might be a waste of time.
A sociopath would say “yes.”
Bye Bye Libitard
You forgot the millionaire President.
LOL, knew I would get a down vote for posting the truth.
The irony is that before he became a Senator, his credit card was getting declined at airports and his wife close to leaving him.
Now he’s a super genius worth millions. Politics is both enriching/lucrative and reputation enhancing.
Not once ounce of productivity required either.
Bush was a worthless drunken moron before his daddy expunged his records.
Now he’s a worthless moron worth millions.
I don’t think *anyone* thinks Obama is a genius, or is courageous. He’s a likable guy with good intentions, but he’s got raisins for balls.
“He’s a likable guy with good intentions”
The same thing was said about Bush the Dumber.
I know.
Comparing a disappointing friend with an idiot enemy.
The problem with your friend is said, “Fuck it, let’s spend more and keep the wars rolling”.
It was disappointing for sure, that he didn’t completely shut down the Afghanistan war, but every gear was reversed. The Republicans are *still* trying to open the door to war with Iran, and are carping like Iraq is one of our own states that we never should have left.
The difference between the Republican perpetual war machine, and Obama, is striking – though not as striking as I’d like. His problem isn’t that he’s liberal – it’s that he’s not liberal *enough*.
I’m able to tell the difference between someone who’s incompetent at starting new wars, and one who’s slower than I’d like at backing out of them.
Israel is a *VERY* strong lobbyist, and you know what happens when you go against them. The warlords in Israel won’t be happy until we are at war with everyone in the Middle East but them.
BTW, we should give Pakistan to India.
Hasn’t the House and Senate always been composed of the wealthy though?
Butler Derrick, South Carolina, has not been considered wealthy.
I am not sure, but I don’t think Lindsey graham or Sam Nunn would be considered wealthy.
That would certainly explain the ongoing march towards plutocracy.
It seems to me they have always been well-off, especially the Senate – but not like today. The same with news anchors.
That whole “nobeless-oblige” thing seems to be completely dead.
If you got those problems, I feel for you son,
I got 99 problems but the rich ain’t one.
Will, If TRav is your model libertarian, you’re doomed before you even start. I’m not sure if your paying off some political patronage, getting paid or just deluded. Why in the world would you even mention “admitted drug dealin’ felon” Thomas Ravenel if you are serious here?
I am convinced that neither party has any credibility anymore and just as convinced that your average Libertarian has about zero chance of getting elected nationally as things stand. Other than bloviating here, what do you say about the unelectability of most Libertarians, how do you propose a Libertarian get elected nationally?
I also have to second 9′ point about Libertarian utopias globally – is there a national model you’d care to point us towards. I can think of one or two who might qualify but that have other fundamental flaws so egregious that they won’t survive.
He’s trying to attract the Dumb@$$#$ smart enough to know Obama is a large F*@kin’ failure…but stupid enough to blame Republicans for the mess Obama has made of the country…it’s their only hope after Obamacare…
I left off a fourth option – that you’re trolling for hits because it’s time to renegotiate ad rates…
Hell Its a great life!
Fits, Pytel you, the whole bunch can sit around denouncing Democrats, denouncing Republicans, belittling the libertarians, then wash your hands of the whole thing,
Of course, the blunt reality is the next President is going to be a Democrat or a Republican.The next Congress is going go be controlled by Democrats or Republicans.The next Governor is going to be a Democrat or a Republican.etc etc.
We all know this and we also know that ,whatever Fits and your disagreements with individual GOPers,when all is said and done, you are going to support the Republicans.
Nothing wrong with it.The real mystery is why you and your type feel the need to claim otherwise.Must have something to do with your psyche.
Well we agree so what’s your point? I generally vote Republican but once voted for Jimmy Carter. John Spratt has been a friend for 25+ years. I’ve hung signs and done scut work on a number of campaigns, in fact, I worked on TRav’s daddy Arthurs’s last campaign for gubernoor. I voted for the uniquely named Ashley Cooper in 2010 because he was a much better candidate than Ard (though that’s not saying much). I haven’t washed my hands of anything but a label – at one time I would have said I was a Republican, now I think I am just a republican, i.e. one who believes in the republic.
I’ve worked “off and on” on a number of campaigns and as my career draws to a close, I plan to get far more involved. I haven’t washed my hands at all, in fact, I’m planning on getting them a little dirtier.
My very clear point to Fits is the same as yours – “you ain’t gonna get a Libertarian elected” so what’s your real plan? The best “Porcupine Party showing to date is slightly less than 1% in the presidential election. No porcupines in the Senate, none in the house and a handful in state legislatures. The Democrat Farm Labor party has 3 members in the House and the vast Libertarian party has none?!? Even the New Progressive Party has a delegate…
So you’re a guy who votes usually for the Republican ,but who has on a few occassions voted for a Democrat.
Fine I call that person a Republican(just like I who vote usually for Democrats but have voted for an occassional Republican ) call myself a Democrat.
Why you, Fits and the other Republicans here feel the need to jump through all these hoops disclaiming what you obviosly politically are is beyond me.
But hey, at least youre willing to call yourself a “republican” (little r).Thats progress!
I noticed when Bush was elected to office all the Republicans claimed to be independents,.
Textbook leftwing strategy being implemented by FITS. It’s a sign they know Obama has severely damaged the democrat party.
The left’s only chance now is to try to pull off the liberal-tarian vote and stop them from voting R. (See Va.)
FITS knows the only way he can keep Ds in office after the disaster of Obama, is peel off the moderates (liberal-tarains) away from the Conservatives.
Michelle, learn to knit and leave your hubby alone — before he cuts off your movie privileges…………
The Republican Party hates libertarians because they will do and have done what Republicans have only promised and have never done.
Looks like Biggums has his underoos in a bunch.
Hell, if they keep this up – crazy town will need a new mayor.
Libertarianism is not conservatism. Strong defense is a key conservative principle. My biggest problem with he likes of Rand Paul/Gary Johnson is that their foreign policy is more like Jimmy Carter’s than Ronald Reagan’s.
I think libertarians want strong defense, but that part of the strong defense strategy is “mind your own business.” If you’re not walking all over the world sticking your nose into everyone else’s business, you’ll have less of a chance of needing to use your strong military.
Example- you can have a strong defense in terms of nukes, conventional weapons, ships, tanks, etc., but that doesn’t mean you need to have military bases in Japan, Germany, Korea, Philippines, UK, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, and on and on the list goes. The odds of the U.S. fighting another full scale war with any country is so slim, investing more money on the military that the next 5 countries spend combined doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Correct, what she is railing for a strong offense, whether she realizes it or not is another question.
You can (in-effect) de-elect Obama by giving Conservatives a BIG-BIG -Majority win in the Senate and House in 2014. That scares the H#!! out of FITS, the moderates and the liberals…
Obamacare is the biggest Threat to our economy and our freedom since The Depression and the Nazis of WWII……
Conservatives are ALREADY desperately trying to FIX the mess Obama has made, and Liberal-Tarians are in bed with the Devil who did…
That’s the issue…Make your choice on that. Just don’t let pieces of $#!* media people. like FITS try to fool you…so you leave H#!! in place to destroy us…which is what they want…
Your idea of conserativism is electing some bible thumpin’ nutjob.
Big R is not much different from Big D – “As through this life you travel, you meet some funny men, Some will rob you with a six gun and some with a fountain pen…” Woody Guthrie.
I can’t wait to see the so called Conservative Republicans spanked again. The Dinosaur’s died in Iraq and there ain’t going back. Pipe dreams, you do get 1 consolation, the wonderful, bottom of the pile state of SC. Ain’t it Grand – a, Tango ?
The issue is that politicians like of Cruz, Paul, Amash and others do not stand for the time honored principles of the Republican party. They stand farther to right on these principles. It is these farther right positions that have cost the Republican party in elections larger than a house district. Mainstream republicans understand that in order to win important national and statewide races, these far right leaning politicians do more harm than good. This is the reason why many republicans want to eliminate the libertarians from the party and why many simply say that libertarians should run in the Libertarian party and quit attempting to hijack the Republican party.
Mainly they stand for themselves, like Nikki, you’ve seen it. You know, Bush wasn’t so bad, he was just lied to by the new ” Movement ” of corruption.
“Bush wasn’t so bad?” At a minimum, he was a dupe of the neocons resulting in a needless “preemptive” war — and that doesn’t address tax breaks for the rich, gutting of financial regulations, “Heck of a Job” Brownie, the $1.8 billion “lost track of” in Iraq by the Pentagon, ENRON, the Plame Affair and Scooter Libby, the U.S. Attorney purges, Alberto Gonzales trying to force the bedridden AG to sign off on overturning a DOJ ruling against illegal domestic intelligence gathering, and so on and so on and so on..
The GOP is much like the old Communist Party of the Soviet Union. It insists on ideological purity and conformance to the “party line.” Any deviationism is punished by a purge so factionalism is suppressed.– that’s just basic Leninist principle..
To call the Obama administration “radical” is to reveal no conception of radicalism or the current situation in DC. America could use a little radicalism, but you won’t see it from Obama. If anything, he is Wall Street’s friend.
Politics indeed does make strange bed fellows.
Nothing like the impending doom that will come soon.
This 5 minute news talk show nails it.
http://www.liveleak.com?i=52b_1329796059
Fuck the GOP.
I don’t understand the headline. As a Conservative, I don’t reject libertarians.
It is the RINO Establishment who rejects both of us.
Then, vote for ‘conservative’ or ‘libertarian’ candidates and leave the real Republican Party the hell alone.
The ‘conservatives’ and ‘libertarians’ are the RINOs because they are not Republicans.
Just because you steal a party’s name doesn’t mean you get to decide what it stands for. The real Republicans are finally fighting back. Good for them.
Yes, fighting for an ever shrinking piece of their pie…
Boehner and the Establishment GOP are NOT Republicans. They are Progressives. Not the same thing.
Just as the Democrats of today are not Democrats but Communists.
The main difference between the ‘conservatives’ and the ‘libertarians’ is that the ‘conservatives’ have moved out of the 18th century and understand that a country of 314 million requires more ‘government’ than a country of 2.5 million did in 1776.
The ‘libertarians’ are stuck in a nostalgic wet dream for a time that never existed the way their revisionist history tells them it did.
I kid libertarians but it’s an actually a great way to spend a summer when you’re fifteen.
FORGET, PLEASE, “conservatism.” It has been a failure because it has been, operationally, de facto, Godless. In the political/civil government realm it has ignored Christ and what Scripture says about the role and purpose of civil government. Thus, it failed. Such secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God they are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:
”[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn.
“American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.”
In any event, “politics,” for the most part today, is whoring after false gods. It will not save us. Our country is turning into Hell because the church in America has forgotten God (Psalm 9:17) and refuses to kiss His Son (Psalm 2.) See, please, 2 Chronicles 7:14ff for the way to get our land healed.
John Lofton, Recovering Republican
Dir., The God And Government Project
Active Facebook Wall
https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-God-And-Government-Project/494314250654693?fref=ts
JLof@aol.com