Hey Republicans, Libertarian Is Not A Dirty Word

0 Shares
168764524

Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie are certainly, deliberately or not, acting as exhibits A and B in illustrating for the American public what the establishment Republican Party’s true values really are: big surveillance, big foreign intervention and big deals with Democrats that are anathema to conservatives.

And the rhetorical battles that both men have had in recent months with Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) further reiterate the point that there is no room in the party for anyone who disagrees with the sort of big-government phony conservatism that appeals to voters with cheap moralizing on social issues only to win elections. Once those elections have been won, however, conservative voters are all too often swiftly reminded that the Republicans they voted in have no power, no business and no real willingness to spend their time in Washington crusading for moral righteousness by putting a stop to abortion, gay marriage, drugs or even, in a bygone era, lewd literature.

And here’s the problem: If you cast a vote for a politician in the hopes that that the power of political office can legislate morality, you cast a vote with the understanding that you are enabling big government. After all, a government powerful enough to dictate what drugs (traditionally a conservative issue), food (usually a liberal issue) or sexual organs may interact with your physical being is also powerful enough to mandate universal healthcare.

The Republicans — or at least those elected because of a conservative fixation on using government as a tool by which to legislate the moral order of church teachings on a public containing some people who have long since accepted a moral code that largely disregards certain religious mandates — realize the gift they have been given. Thus, lip service is paid to moral issues whenever a distraction is needed, while elected officials — Republican and Democrat — work to expand the power and reach of the Federal government and feather their own nests.

One could comfortably argue that there is no hope for a return to traditional moral values based on religious teachings gaining a foothold in the United States, unless a bloody rebellion were successful and a theocratic government installed. But at that point — setting aside any arguments over the difference in the doctrines of world religions — the U.S. would be in no better shape than many of the Mideast nations that have foolheartedly handed power to whoever is the loudest Muslim fanatic when upheaval begins.

Thomas Jefferson once said, “In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.”

America is a Nation of many faiths. And if you must argue that the Nation was predominately founded on Christian teachings, modern America is a Nation of many Christian denominations that, incidentally, often vehemently disagree on certain moral matters. However, the Nation has but one Constitution.

As a population, it would be helpful to think of religious matters in the United States as those of style. And they always have been; many colonists made their way to the new land for religious freedoms not afforded in the King’s Church.

The principle matter that binds Americans as a population is adherence to the mandates, liberties and limits set forth in the Nation’s Constitution. That’s because, while a Methodist may be unconcerned with breaking a Mormon rule and a Catholic may have no problem drinking a glass of wine in the same restaurant where a group of Baptist preachers have convened to launch a local prohibition effort, the Constitution protects the right of each to believe another is making a poor decision in the eyes of God.

Conservatives’ primary concern in electing national leaders should be whether the person asking for a vote has a record that indicates loyalty to the Nation’s Constitution. Everything else is simply a distraction.

The reason the GOP isn’t packed with politicians like Paul, Ted Cruz (Texas) and Justin Amash (Mich.) is because establishment Republicans are fond of accusing any lawmaker who dares question government’s power of having “libertarian ideas.” And it’s certainly an effective strategy, packing a one-two punch that makes foreign policy hawks balk at the idea of a Federal government unwilling to stick cannon in the face of any nation brazen enough to question American imperialism and giving religious right conservatives nightmares about a GOP moving toward accepting gays, abortions, drugs and all-out godlessness.

If you’re a foreign policy hawk, small government advocate or a member of the religious right, it’s time to take a serious look at where the largely un-libertarian GOP has gotten you. Because the Libertarians watching from the dugout are keeping score, and your team of establishment GOP lawmakers has brought the conservative team to two outs in the bottom of the ninth. There was the moral fastball you were sure they’d smack. Strike One: Gay marriage, gay military, abortion pills for teens. And then came the chance to knock that big government ball out of the park. Strike Two: National Security Agency spying, militarized cops, trillions of dollars in debt.

Put the two misses behind you and focus squarely on the Constitution — before conservatism strikes out for good.

Sam Rolley

Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After covering community news and politics, Rolley took a position at Personal Liberty Media Group where could better hone his focus on his true passions: national politics and liberty issues. In his daily columns and reports, Rolley works to help readers understand which lies are perpetuated by the mainstream media and to stay on top of issues ignored by more conventional media outlets.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • Dave

    Gov Chris Christie just slammed Rand Paul over spending… It was hilarious… Paul has the nerve to talk about spending when KY gets $1.51 cents back for every dollar they pay into the Fed Gov. New Jersey gets .63 cents. the blatant hypocrisy is apparent. Mr Paul can talk when his state gives back all the excess pork they get from the Fed Gov. Why isn’t Paul on that crusade?
    Today, many people who call themselves libertarians are merely conservatives who changed “brands”

    • WTS/JAY

      You know, there is one big difference between genius and your stupidity, Dave; genius has limits!

      • Dave

        Inconvenient facts always flummox dumb conservatives like you.

        • Troy Wilson

          It’s nice to see we can have a respectable, civil, adult debate here. Oh wait…..

          • Troy Wilson

            And this is why we can’t have nice things.

          • Dave

            Troy,
            You must not realize where you are. This is the place where birthers, conspiracy theorists, gov haters, “Obama is a Muslim” types can come together and feel at home.
            If you are looking for a respectable debate… I suggest PBS or NPR… that is as close as we get.

          • Ringgo1

            So go to PBS or NPR already!

          • Dave

            I do… but I come here to see what the lunatic fringe is up to.
            How are you doing today fringe boy?

    • BALONEY TONEY MAHONEY

      If N.J. got back $1.51 for every dollar, they would just misspend it….Christie has proven himself to be a big blowhard phony! It’s Paul who wants to change the system & become fiscally solvent & stop bestowing billions of dollars in foreign aid upon military & other types of dictatorships! Paul wants to cut down this federal monster & give power back to the states, they way it was supposed to be!
      Paul has more integrity in his pinkie than Christie has in his whole big body!!!

      • Dave

        Yeah, believe that as he is in the pockets of the Coal and Gas lobby….
        Paul is simply doing the same thing the GOP has always done but Paul hates the GOP “brand” so “libertarian” sounds better.

        • momo

          All politicians are owned by some group, even the liberal politicians you seem to favor.

          • Dave

            I want all big money OUT of the political process. You want Gov to be more responsive to the people? Make it happen… I support politicians to push to get the corrupting influence of big money OUT of the process.

          • Nadzieja Batki

            But it is your Leftist/Marxist ideology which created this devious pandering to government. Now go back in time and have your ideologues undue the mess they created.

          • Dave

            Really? Proof of that assertion?

          • Oldmonkey

            If that is what you really want, repealing the 17th Amendment would solve that problem handily. If local political hacks in each state appointed US Senators, again they would pay dearly for bad choices.

            With each state acting in its best interest interest, the Senate again would be a deliberate body. My thought is in competitive states, term limiting.

        • BALONEY TONEY MAHONEY

          There has never been any link to Big Coal to Paul, or any other big lobbyists…..Hey, how’s Obummer’s transparent, no lobby policies going??? What you imply is rancid baloney!!

          • Dave

            Really?

            http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/industries.php?cycle=2014&cid=N00030836&type=I&newmem=N

            Wesley,
            Charles R Mr III
            Lexington, KY
            40503
            Alliance Coal/Executive VP
            $12,400
            P
            08/10/2010

            Wesley,
            Nancy W Mrs
            Lexington, KY
            40503
            NA/Housewife
            $12,400
            P
            08/10/2010

            Nope, no link whatsoever… Again, any donation by any one person or group to a political party or candidate should be limited to $50. The elite need to be put on the same playing field as the custodian or the trash hauler. then you might get better government.
            At least you have the right term in your name.

    • Sarah Conner

      Kentucky has 2 military bases which is why the larger % back for them…time to do some research,dude…

      • Dave

        Oh, thats right… NJ has no military presense at all… I keep forgetting… Time to pay for your own way dudette…

        • Sarah Conner

          Oops…my bad…sorry,Dave…

    • Doc Sarvis

      Great post Dave. Most Red states get more back from our tax dollars than they contribute.

    • Michael Shreve

      That ANY state “gets” back more than is EXTORTED from it residents is PROOF that the, not legitimately ratified, 16th amendment is HORRENDOUSLY abusive to the PEOPLE of the U.S.

  • IsThisAmerica

    I’m about to the end of my rope. I’m tired of seeing all this in fighting against one another. I do believe in fighting for the constitution and God, that’s about it.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      What fighting are you talking about? Your Pastor or Rabbi forgot to impress on you that if you live among people there is butting of heads and hurts and slights.

  • Warrior

    The “gubmint” has perfected the “recipe” to run “WrestleMania” 24/7. The ONLY candidate that had it right in the last election was Rick Perry. “I want to make DC inconsequential in your everyday life”. Hmmm, I wonder if he really meant it? Guess we’ll never know now will we? Bozo is dead, but there are plenty of clowns in DC to continue the “entertainment”. FORWARD!

  • Vigilant

    “…the Republicans they voted in have…no business…to spend their time in Washington crusading for moral righteousness by putting a stop to abortion, gay marriage, drugs or even, in a bygone era, lewd literature.”

    Mr. Rolley, you’re fighting a windmill if you truly believe you’re going to convert any religious Conservative to the Libertarian Party with rhetoric such as that.

    You don’t win hearts and souls by either marginalizing the religious community or insisting that moral issues are mere “distractions.” You have severely misjudged the spirit of the religious Right if you think that you can invite them to compromise on issues that are absolutely central to their political sentiments.

    The natural “home” for the religious Right is not the Libertarian Party, it is the Constitution Party. They will find there a robust defense of Christian values and stances on the issues of drug abuse, homosexuality and abortion for which the Libertarian Party remains lukewarm at best.

    As stated at their website (http://constitutionparty.com/OurPrinciples/2012Platform/tabid/127/Default.aspx),
    “The sole purpose of government, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, is to secure our unalienable rights given us by our Creator.” That is a position not universally held by Libertarians.

    • Iris D. Lynch

      You are correct. The Constitution is the first document (after the bible) to outline in carefully chosen words, the psychology of SELF POWER and it does all possible to outline and defend that principle. My book The Miracle of Self Power explains in detail how to grow the selfpower that we already were endowed with and thereby thwart the Democrats takeover of so many lives! Go to the website for a looksee: wwwthemiracleofselfpower.com

    • Rb

      I am a highly conservative member of what would be called the “religious right”. I am also a Libertarian. The problem with the Libertarians is they have successfully failed to educate the public on what they stand for. They have also failed to back a candidate on a national level that can raise the 4 or 5 billion dollars needed to front a real campaign. While our country was founded by those who had Christian back grounds for the most part it was not founded as a Christian or any other religious nation. It was founded as a nation where it was the Feds job to leave us alone. We need to start fighting for everyone’s freedom not just our own narrow minded agenda. True freedom for all will create true religious freedom for those who wish to practice their faith. What ever that faith may or may not be.

      • Nadzieja Batki

        You cannot force anyone to be educated if they choose to be ignorant and they choose to be willful and ignorant.
        You are in error as to saying that this nation is not a Christian nation and you with eyes wide open walked into the Leftists/Marxists world. The nation is a Christian Nation BUT IT IS NOT OF ANY ONE DENOMINATION. We will be a free people as long as the memory of being a Christian Nation remains. Why do you think the Leftists/Marxists are busy destroying that memory.

    • Michael Shreve

      You are correct ONLY in that those things are NOT within the powers of the FEDERAL government but rather the STATES and the PEOPLE.

    • Michael Shreve

      You are correct ONLY in that those things are NOT within the powers of the FEDERAL government but rather the STATES and the PEOPLE.

  • denise0513

    I have no party affiliation. I don’t believe in either party. I have always voted for the person I felt could best handle the job. With that said, I have a question for any one willing to answer without name calling. Why is it so important that the people of America, born with rights and freedoms, be ruled one set of moral standards? Morality cannot be legislated, just as common sense cannot be legislated. While I do not agree with some lifestyles or choices, where in the Constitution of the United States does it say NO ABORTION or GAY MARRIAGE IS ILLEGAL or DO DRUGS AND YOU GO TO JAIL? I am trying to understand all points of view. I believe the federal government has gotten WAY TOO BIG and MUCH TOO INTRUSIVE on the people.

    • Vigilant

      Please understand that the Constitution was never intended to be a statute of detailed proscriptive laws. It was a foundation for government, and its main purpose was to give but very few powers to the central government while allowing the states great latitude in how they conducted their affairs.

      The Constitution neither legalizes nor prohibits gay marriage, nor does it either proscribe or prescribe drug usage. It was not intended to do so in the first place. That was left up to the states. You won’t find premeditated homicide in the Constitution either, for the same reasons.

      On the other hand, a powerful argument could be made that abortion subverts the very basis of our natural rights by denying life and liberty to the unborn fetus. The very foundation of the Constitution is the Declaration of Independence, without which it would become an empty shell. And that document eloquently states the basis in natural law for preservation of human life.

      • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

        Dear Vigilant,

        Well said.

        Best wishes,
        Bob

        • Vigilant

          Thank you sir!

      • Dave

        Another arguement is having many unwanted children burdens the infrastructure of the country. Which is why we should educate children in schools about sex and their responsibilities as they become sexually active. We should also make contraception readily available for anyone who needs it (even via insurance). We should also deal with the social/economic reasons why abortion happens in the first place..
        But what am I saying? All the conservatives are lining up to adopt all these children right?
        The US Constitution is a living, breathing document. As a country we have changed somewhat since we were a country of 3 million people who were mostly farmers before the industrial revolution. We are now a country of over 300 Million people, the largest economy in the world and we are interconnected to the rest of the world like never before.
        We have amendments to the Constitution for that reason. When the Constitution was written, slavery was legal, women could not vote. Society, through liberal and progressive thinking changed that in society through law. That is the betterment of society through education and Gov doing what it is supposed to do.
        Some conservatives believe that Gov’s only reason to exist is to protect from outside threats. Taxation is theft and that Gov should have no role in the marketplace. I disagree with that assessment. Our society would be much worse off if Gov did not play a part… notice that I said part in making our society better.

        • Michael Shreve

          The US Constitution is NOT a living, breathing document. It was NEVER intended to be. The PRINCIPLES withing it are NOT time sensitive but BASIC to human existence. Indeed, that is WHY it has limited scope. It is a CONTEXT within which a FREE society MUST operate to REMAIN free.

          • Dave

            So humanity/ US Constitution can’t progress as new information and attitudes emerge?

          • Michael Shreve

            PRINCIPLES never change. Wrong never becomes right. 2+2 ALWAYS equals 4. The Bill of Rights only CODIFIES our rights. OUR RIGHTS always exist, even when WE are oppressed and must FORCIBLY retrieve them.

        • Oldmonkey

          The Constitution is not a living breathing document, and does allow for reform, but not fundamental charge.

          Paraphrasing Bastiat: Law is organized liberty preventing injustice by denying some the freedom to commit injustice upon others. This neither prevents parental control of children teaching them morals and self control, or handing out contraceptives. It doesn’t arrest individuals for prostitution, dug use, or their choice of a spouse, or decision to express opinions.

          • Dave

            Was going from a country that ok’d slavery to ending slavery not a fundemental change? I’d say so…
            In the beginning the Co0nstitution said all MEN were created equal… leaving out 50% of the population… another fundemental change.

          • Vigilant

            “In the beginning the Constitution said all MEN were created equal… ”

            The Constitution says no such thing.

          • Dave

            http://www.usconstitution.net/declar.html
            In our Declaration of Independence is certainly does.

          • Ringgo1

            Quick switch, eh Dave? You were WRONG.

          • Vigilant

            Got him dead to rights and he still can’t admit he was wrong. LOL

          • Dave

            The Declaration of Independence (the beginning document) is the reason why we broke away from England. The Constitution itself outlines the “how’s” about what our principals are.
            I was wrong in my wording but the Declaration clearly states “All men are created equal” Does it say anything about women? No…

          • Vigilant

            “I was wrong in my wording but the Declaration clearly states “All men are created equal” Does it say anything about women? No…”

            If you had a smidgeon of the common sense you claim to have, you’d know that “men” in that context means “human beings.”

            That the imperfect original Constitution did not address the inequities of freedom for slaves, women, Indians, loyalists and “Jews, Turks and infidels” is another subject. The body of persons who constituted themselves into a republic (“We the People”) did not include those groups.

          • Ringgo1

            Aw, it’s easy. ‘Appreciate your posts. I don’t comment that often, but I DO read every day. Thank you and keep up the good work.

          • Vigilant

            “In the beginning the Constitution said all MEN were created equal… ”

            The Constitution says no such thing.

          • Nadzieja Batki

            You are a Phony,Manipulative, Stupid Marxist, plain and simple. You would not recognize a slave if one had passed you on the street.

          • Dave

            Ad hominem and a liar

          • Oldmonkey

            Fundamental Change is change by fiat with total disregard of what works, simply for the sake of different because of an identified flaw. Reform is identifying a flaw, and correcting it.

            The concept of reform is American in inception. America was the first country in the world to REFORM criminals with the objective of returning them to society. FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE would demand their permanent incarnation at best, if not execution.

            Are you aware after the French Revolution France sent representatives to study the American penal system? Alexis de Tocqueville and Gustav de Mon spent over a year studying US prisons. Upon return to France Alexis wrote “America” which today is still considered insightful by most politicians. Most prophetic was his insight the dangers of equality becoming shared poverty, and the consequences of an electorate voting itself a raise

          • Dave

            Was going from a country that ok’d slavery to ending slavery not a fundemental change? I’d say so…
            In the beginning the Co0nstitution said all MEN were created equal… leaving out 50% of the population… another fundemental change.

          • Nadzieja Batki

            What the Leftists/Marxists want is to completely abandon the Constitution and create for themselves one to their ideology.

        • Oldmonkey

          The Constitution is not a living breathing document, and does allow for reform, but not fundamental charge.

          Paraphrasing Bastiat: Law is organized liberty preventing injustice by denying some the freedom to commit injustice upon others. This neither prevents parental control of children teaching them morals and self control, or handing out contraceptives. It doesn’t arrest individuals for prostitution, dug use, or their choice of a spouse, or decision to express opinions.

      • Wiley2

        What makes the human animal special? If it’s intelligence, then who decides what level of intelligence makes an animal’s life inviolate? If the argument is that humans have a soul, then it’s a religious issue that no government or individual has business butting into. Either way it comes down to individual beliefs, and those who are truly libertarian would be willing to leave the issue to the conscience of the individual.

        There’s a good argument that when a fetus is capable of living independent of its mother’s body it then becomes an individual that should be guaranteed the same rights to life and liberty as anyone else. Before that time, to dictate to the mother how she must live her life and what she must do with her body, of which the fetus is an integral part, robs her of her liberty and makes her a slave to the whims of those who presume to be her masters.

        The truly libertarian view requires that others be allowed to live their lives according to their own conscience, even if we would make different choices.

        • Michael Shreve

          When a woman is AWARE she is pregnant she is no longer free to be SELFISH, as she is RESPONSIBLE for the welfare of another INDIVIDUAL.

          • Wiley2

            Again, it’s a question of at what point a fetus becomes an individual, and it can be argued that it’s not an individual until it can survive individually, independent of the mother. Who’s to say if a woman is being selfish in her choice of whether to bring a fetus to term, and who has a right to judge her if she is being selfish? Many parents, perhaps most, have primarily selfish motives in choosing to have children. Many children are born into circumstances and with disabilities that condemn them to truly horrible lives, and a woman may be acting responsibly, compassionately and unselfishly in terminating a pregnancy. Who can say with certainty whether it’s better for those children to be born than not to be? That determination is best made by the people most intimately involved and according to their own beliefs about the purpose and sanctity of life.

          • Vigilant

            “Again, it’s a question of at what point a fetus becomes an individual, and it can be argued that it’s not an individual until it can survive individually, independent of the mother.”

            No, that’s the way YOU and the secular humanists would like to frame the argument.

            The Declaration of Independence does not qualify the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by adding “it’s not an individual until it can survive individually, independent of the mother.”

            HUMAN life, the kind talked about in the Declaration and for whom the Constitution was written, does not begin in the womb. .It began many thousands of years ago and continues as a thread through each generation, not dying but being passed. It is a continuous chain, and to say that the human fetus is some inferior form of life is to say that ANY phase of the chain can be labeled as unfit as any other.

            ” Who can say with certainty whether it’s better for those children to be born than not to be?” PRECISELY! Who can say with certainty that the abortion of a single child will not deprive the world of a great leader, pioneer in medicine or a benefactor in other ways?
            If you’re going to pin your argument on uncertainty, then the wisest move is to err in favor of life, not death.

            .

          • Wiley2

            Were we better off with “a great leader” like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot? More predictably, there are many unwanted children born into squalid or otherwise horrific conditions without love or guidance and with little chance of a productive life. Should thousands of such children be forced through hell on earth on the chance that there might emerge one “great leader”? Some may think so, while others may not. The libertarian view is that it’s up to each of us to use our own best judgement in our own lives, and allow others the freedom to do the same. And, like it or not, a fetus that’s not yet viable outside the womb is part of the mother’s life. Those who want to dictate what she must do with her life are authoritarian, not libertarian.

          • Vigilant

            The usual shopworn arguments in favor of premeditated homicide. How utterly unconscionable to treat human beings as numbers and statistics. Your next step is certainly to include euthanasia as a “humane” act.

            And, like it or not, a pregnant woman is part of the life of the fetus. Those who want to authorize the murder of a human being are criminals, not libertarian.

          • Wiley2

            You wrote, “Your next step is certainly to include euthanasia as a “humane” act.”

            You assume too much, and you haven’t offered anything but an emotional outburst.

            You wrote, “a pregnant woman is part of the life of the fetus.”

            The fetus doesn’t produce the woman and the woman’s life doesn’t depend on the fetus. But whether “a pregnant woman is part of the life of the fetus” or vice versa, you acknowledge that they are one at that stage of gestation, and therefore the fetus is not a separate human being that can be “murder”ed.

            Opinions vary about when a new life becomes a realized human being rather than a potential one. As long as that issue remains unprovable and therefore a matter of opinion, I think the abortion issue should be left to the discretion of those directly involved.

          • Vigilant

            “Again, it’s a question of at what point a fetus becomes an individual, and it can be argued that it’s not an individual until it can survive individually, independent of the mother.”

            No, that’s the way YOU and the secular humanists would like to frame the argument.

            The Declaration of Independence does not qualify the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by adding “it’s not an individual until it can survive individually, independent of the mother.”

            HUMAN life, the kind talked about in the Declaration and for whom the Constitution was written, does not begin in the womb. .It began many thousands of years ago and continues as a thread through each generation, not dying but being passed. It is a continuous chain, and to say that the human fetus is some inferior form of life is to say that ANY phase of the chain can be labeled as unfit as any other.

            ” Who can say with certainty whether it’s better for those children to be born than not to be?” PRECISELY! Who can say with certainty that the abortion of a single child will not deprive the world of a great leader, pioneer in medicine or a benefactor in other ways?
            If you’re going to pin your argument on uncertainty, then the wisest move is to err in favor of life, not death.

            .

          • Dave

            Where does the man’s responsibility lie here? Does it not take two to tango? All these conservatives talk about is the women… but what about the man in the equation? If men had the babies… You would have abortion drive-thru clinics

          • Vigilant

            “All these conservatives talk about is the women… but what about the man in the equation?”

            No, all that the progressives talk about is the women. It is the Conservatives who say, “what about the man in the equation?” As soon as that’s mentioned, the progressives say, “no, it’s the choice of the woman and the man has no say in the matter.”

            Better decide which side of the fence you’re on before you start that kind of argument.

          • Dave

            Vigilant,
            Its a women’s choice because in most cases its the women left holding the bag after the child is born. care to check out FL’s laws on child support?
            I am on the common sense fence… I want to see abortions end… that is accomplished by dealing with the social and economic factors behind why women seek them in the first place.

          • Nadzieja Batki

            It takes two people in heat/Love to create a new life. Marriage creates the boundary and curtails irresponsible behavior. Humans behaving like animals in heat bring in government intrusion and restrictive laws. Get over being stupid. And no, you are not interested in ending abortions because you have no idea why women/men choose to create the messes for themselves and then wait for others to clean up after them. It’s peculiar why methods of clean up are always brutal.

          • Vigilant

            “Its a women’s choice because in most cases its the women left holding the bag after the child is born.”

            No logical connection there. One does not relate to the other.

            And why in the high heavens would I wish to check FL’s child support laws? It has NOTHING to do with the argument and you have no common sense at all.

          • Vigilant

            “that is accomplished by dealing with the social and economic factors behind why women seek them in the first place.”

            Good God, another leftist social engineer.

          • Vigilant

            “All these conservatives talk about is the women… but what about the man in the equation?”

            No, all that the progressives talk about is the women. It is the Conservatives who say, “what about the man in the equation?” As soon as that’s mentioned, the progressives say, “no, it’s the choice of the woman and the man has no say in the matter.”

            Better decide which side of the fence you’re on before you start that kind of argument.

          • Nadzieja Batki

            I will use your example of “woman”.
            Who will make her be responsible if she chooses not to be?
            One thing you miss in your comment, is that if a woman chooses to be irresponsible she knows that there will follow behind her “persons or agencies” who will clean up the messes she makes.
            One woman making an irresponsible choice is easy to deal with, but multiply this by the hundreds and thousands and millions and it has a cost

        • Vigilant

          “If the argument is that humans have a soul, then it’s a religious issue that no government or individual has business butting into.”

          The “religious issue” is what this country was founded upon. As I mentioned before, the Constitution means nothing when divorced from its foundation, the Declaration of Independence.

          “The Constitution acts to guard the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence. As the embodiment of the Declaration’s principles, the Constitution created a frame of government with a clear objective. The Constitution is not a collection of
          compromises, or an empty vessel whose meaning can be redefined to meet the needs of the time; it is the embodiment of an eternal, immutable truth.” (https://online.hillsdale.edu/document.doc?id=279)

          That truth: “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

          That’s right, not endowed by a human being, a committee, a municipality, or a government. By The Creator. Now I’d called that a ‘religious issue,” wouldn’t you?

          • Wiley2

            Consent is the most basic element in libertarianism, and is a primary idea that inspired the Declaration of Independence. Those who try to force others to do something without their consent demonstrate a disbelief in the idea “that all men are created equal,” and show that they believe themselves to be “more equal” and superior.

            Allowing people the freedom to make their own choices is a matter of objective ethics that doesn’t require belief in a Creator. Those who wrote the Constitution believed in a Creator and believed that certain ideas were true, but they were wise enough to recognize that they couldn’t prove the truth of those ideas, so they included the guarantee of freedom of religion.

            The basic issue is that those who insist on imposing their beliefs on others are opponents of liberty and self-determination.

          • Vigilant

            ” Those who try to force others to do something without their consent demonstrate a disbelief in the idea “that all men are created equal,” and show that they believe themselves to be “more equal” and superior.”

            And the moment in human history when the first fetus gives consent to be aborted, you let me know so we can have a conversation about it.

            “The basic issue is that those who insist on imposing their beliefs on others are opponents of liberty and self-determination.”

            Then I counsel you to read your own words and quit trying to impose your beliefs on us.

          • Wiley2

            Expressing my opinion is simply an effort to stimulate thought about the issue, far different from advocating to impose that opinion on others through legislation or other means.

            Those who advocate for laws regulating abortion, homosexuality, drug usage, etc. are attempting to impose their opinions and to force those who have different opinions to change their behavior. Some people believe that until a fetus becomes a viable individual it’s the responsibility solely of those whose actions resulted in its creation, and no other person should assume authority in the matter. Those who disagree are welcome to do so and to govern their own lives according to their beliefs and conscience, but only to the extent that they leave those who have different views alone to do the same. That attitude is the essence of liberty and libertarianism.

            For the record, abortion, homosexuality and drug use are not things I would choose in my own life, but I’m quite willing to let others make different choices.

          • Vigilant

            “Those who advocate for laws regulating abortion, homosexuality, drug usage, etc. are attempting to impose their opinions and to force those who have different opinions to change their behavior.”

            (1) We’re not discussing homosexuality and drug use.

            (2) Every proscriptive law is the imposition of opinions and values upon an unwilling segment of the population. Always has been that way, always will be.
            Many millions of people in this country believe that abortion is homicide. You don’t believe that. That’s your right to take that position, but it is nonetheless an opinion or value judgment.

            “Expressing my opinion is simply an effort to stimulate thought about the issue, far different from advocating to impose that opinion on others through legislation or other means.”

            Sorry, that doesn’t meet the smell test. There is no “stimulation of thought” possible on an issue that has been debated for decades and for which opinion boils down to whether abortion is murder or choice.
            Even its advocates are disingenuous to the point of euphemizing by calling it “pro choice” in lieu of pro-death, pro-murder or even pro-abortion.

          • Wiley2

            I mentioned homosexuality and drug use because those are referenced in the article and are as relevant to the discussion about libertarianism as is abortion.

            I personally know people who changed their opinion on abortion when they took a more rational look at the reality of life on a planet of limited resources or when their philosophical beliefs changed. So yes, it’s a demonstrated fact that stimulation of thought in some people is possible, with the result that they alter their opinion on this issue.

            The major point of argument appears to be that you think it’s okay for one group of people to forcibly impose their opinions on others, while I disagree. You wrote that imposing opinions through laws “Always has been that way, always will be.” That prediction reflects the authoritarian, statist point of view, not the libertarian one. I prefer to believe it’s possible to build a society free of coercive man-made laws, where people make their own choices and run their own lives as they see fit and according to their understanding of natural and universal laws, not as some supposed authority dictates. Since it’s clear that you aren’t receptive to the idea of such a society I’ll refrain from further response to your comments.

          • Vigilant

            “You wrote that imposing opinions through laws “Always has been that way, always will be.” That prediction reflects the authoritarian, statist point of view, not the libertarian one.”

            No sir, that reflects the Constitutional rule of law point of view. The world is not black and white as you pie eyed idealists try to paint it.

            “I prefer to believe it’s possible to build a society free of coercive man-made laws…”

            Thank you for finally showing your hand. You are not a Libertarian, you are an anarchist. And you certainly do not believe in the Constitution.

          • Wiley2

            Although I didn’t intend to respond further to your comments, I think it’s important to point out that constitutionalism is statism. Statism is the doctrine or practice of giving sovereignty or control to a centralized government. Parts of he U.S. Constitution do just that, and although it makes a good attempt to limit the power of government, it is an authoritarian, statist document nonetheless. Giving any coercive power to governments is dangerous because, as history shows, once given a little power they invariably use it to gain more.

            Further, you interpret “a society free of coercive man-made laws” to mean anarchy. Perhaps I can be faulted for including that phrase without a detailed explanation of the difference between arbitrary man-made laws and natural or universal laws like, for example, the right of self defense, which may or may not involve government. But you can research that difference yourself if you’re interested, since it would take too much space to explain it here.

            Concerning your “The world is not black and white as you pie eyed idealist try to paint it” comment, your previous comments show much more black and white
            thinking than mine, as does your juvenile attempt at an insult with “pie eyed”. The “And you certainly do not believe in the Constitution” comment illustrates that all-or nothing thinking. There are many ideas in the Constitution with which I agree and some I do not, like “The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes,” which is authorization to steal.

          • Vigilant

            stat·ism
            /ˈstātˌizəm/

            Noun
            A political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs.
            (Wikipedia)

            “concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry.” (Mirriam Webster)

            Unless you’re going to argue that legitimate definitions by recognized authorities are wrong, then you have made it obvious that you don’t have a clue regarding the non-statist nature of the Constitution. Your (personal) definition of statism confirms that you are an anarchist.

            You say, “Further, you interpret “a society free of coercive man-made laws” to mean anarchy.”
            Egregiously wrong again. That is not my personal interpretation, that is the ESSENCE of anarchy. You may again refer to Merriam Webster or any other credible dictionary. And, thank you, I am in no need of a discussion of Natural Law, of which I probably have greater knowledge than you.

            Hobbes describes the natural law state of man very succinctly by calling life under such a Hell as “nasty, brutish and short.”

            The tenor and direction of your comments leads to the conjecture that you are a proponent of Utopian anarchy, a nice thing to talk about, but having as much chance of success as a snowball in Hell.

            I would call the adjective “pie eyed” not a juvenile insult but a mature, robust and accurate assessment of one who laughably believes in the legitimacy of anarchy, Utopian or otherwise.

          • Wiley2

            If you want to nitpick, as just one example Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” That meets the definitions of statism by your selected “authorities”.

            Estimates are that deaths by democide, or death by government, exceed 250 million in the 20th century. I know of no historical example of a large society without government, so it’s unknown whether anarchy would have a worse record, though I seriously doubt it based on its success in small societies. The fact that it hasn’t been tried on a large scale doesn’t prove it’s unworkable, and the fact that something would be hard to accomplish is a poor argument for not trying it. Many great innovations were due to efforts that had “as much chance of success as a snowball in Hell”. Personal attacks, innuendo and attempts to ridicule those with whom you disagree are also poor arguments and do nothing to advance your case.

      • Michael Shreve

        Indeed, a woman who is AWARE she is pregnant is not longer free to be SELFISH.

    • Michael Shreve

      Libertarianism does not IMPOSE moral standards, it merely OPPOSES the violation of the rights of OTHERS, actions HARMFUL to OTHER individuals or to THEIR freedom to pursue THEIR objectives withing those constraints.

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Have you considered why the government got involved in restraining people’s behaviors in the first place? The American people who would not govern themselves opened the door for government to step in. Churches and Synagogues, the newspapers and books peddling morality plays could not make people be good. Even the heavy stomping boot of government force cannot make anyone good.
      You leave yourself open to being called a name even when you think you will forestall this because it is your attitude which will let the government become more oppressive in restraining the populace.

  • Bill

    The republican party shoots itself in the foot every chance it gets. And they have also lost their cajones. Libertarianism and the policies of Reagan are the only hope to save this nation. Or… Repeat after me, Hello Comrade

    • Dave

      Which policies of Reagan?
      The tripling of the debt? the expansion of the Fed Gov? or the deregulation that laid the groundwork for the 2007-8 economic collapse?
      Reagan was part of the problem, never the solution.

      • Bill

        Dave,
        You are just making stuff up to promote your socialist agenda. I was referring to the policies of promoting the private sector, having GDP’s of in the 6-8% range and creating the largest peacetime economy in the last century.
        But then again, he promoted capitalism and you promote socialism. It is understandable that you would lie to make a point

        • Dave

          No Bill, its a fact. and you are lying that I promote socialism. I promote competition, (fair) competition in the marketplace and smart Gov that is responsive to the people and puts this country first.
          Reagan laid the groundwork for the massive debt we have today and the economic collpase of 2008. Reagan and Clinton’s presidencies are the major catalyst for why the collapse of 2008 happened… their administrations and their Congresses.

          • Bill

            No Dave,
            You are very misinformed. That was not what set the stage for the bubble market to crash and bring down the financial markets that encouraged it.

          • Dave

            Reagan deregulated credit markets and the banks… (the S&L debacle happened on his watch if you remember)
            the crash did not happen because of too much regulation, it was too little along with lack of enforcement of the rules that were there. Gov during the Reagan and Clinton eras certainly did have something to do with it.
            I used to be a Republican in the 1980’s… then I wised up.
            Now, I am an independent because I know both parties are garbage.

          • Dave

            Reagan deregulated credit markets and the banks… (the S&L debacle happened on his watch if you remember)
            the crash did not happen because of too much regulation, it was too little along with lack of enforcement of the rules that were there. Gov during the Reagan and Clinton eras certainly did have something to do with it.
            I used to be a Republican in the 1980’s… then I wised up.
            Now, I am an independent because I know both parties are garbage.

    • Dave

      Reagan was an actor with Don Regan and Alan Greenspan working his strings in the background. I don’t care about likable. I care about competency and doing the right thing by the United States and its people. Reagan and Obama did/are doing far too little and Congress is worse.

      • Dave

        What has Obama actully done in the face of a GOP dominated House of Representaives and record filibuster Senate?
        But no doubt big money in the political process causes a conflict in loyalties… The big banks should all be broken up.

        • Dave

          1) Hes continued the multiple illegal unending useless wars bankrupting the US.

          Iraq is over, Afganistan is coming to an end… You can’t just stop a war cold turkey.

          2) war on the middle class

          the middle class has had tax cuts under Obama. Further relief was noted NO by the GOP in the House and Senate.

          3) the economy/middle class killing ridiculous EPA regulations.

          tell me the regulations and their impact on jobs in real numbers.

          4) the War on Drugs

          This is Obama’s doing? Nixon started it but you are right, it needs to end

          5) campaigned AGAINST the Patriot Act but has since signed extensions on its illegal unConstitutional powers.

          I agree. I have serious prob,ems with Obama here.

          6) Hes watched Americans die at Benghazi and covered it up along w/ the hundreds of murdered due to Operation

          Covered what up? There was no cover-up and seeing how hundreds of embassy workwers died under Bush and 3000 Americans died in 9/11. I will chalk that up to partisan hackery.

          7):Fast and Furious and covered that up too…
          Really? What exactly did Obama cover up? F&F was a Bush era operation and Obama say that “co-operation” with the Mexican authorities meant tip offs and no arrests. That agent would have been dead with or without that operation.
          Obama broke alot of promises but some are beyond his control but Obama has shown himself to be an Avg president and a corporatist. If you believe Obama should be impeached after George W bush allowed 3000 Americans to die in 9/11, then using 9/11 to waste 5000 American lives and 3 T dollars in Iraq so China can get the oil, outing a CIA operative to keep her husband quiet, putting the Patriot Act out in the first place, then you have issues with scale.
          Bush should be charged with war crimes… Him Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearle, and Rice should all be behind bars.
          The fact is Obama can’t be this horrible person you clame because the GOP have made it their ONLY goal to make Obama fail and its cost us jobs, our credit rating and productivity.

          • Dave

            And your whole post tells me that you NEVER voted for Obama in 2008, that you are a 9/11 conspiracy theorist that have been refuted in many publications including Popular Mechanics.
            Did you read the S&P report on why our credit rating was lowered? Of course you didn’t.
            You clearly parrot anything from a conspiracy site and Fox news. You have no clue what you are talking about.

          • Davr

            Yet you are lying and I did read the S&P report. You are just another mentally unbalaced conservative. Luckily you have plenty of company here so you don’t feel all alone.

          • ChiefBoring

            No point in talking to you, Dave. You’ve got your talking points and won’t hear the truth.

          • ChiefBoring

            Hardly, Just. You still are name calling instead of carrying on a discussion. I don’t see Dave and I have a lot in common, but at least he argues his points, unlike you. Good night.

          • ChiefBoring

            Just, you should keep talking to yourself, as you are the only one you’ll listen to. Have a nice life.

          • ChiefBoring

            I did the research long ago, Just. Keep on talking to your self. I’m done.

        • ChiefBoring

          The first two years BHO had both houses of Congress. That’s how he got Obamacare passed. Since then he has just ignored Congress and ruled by fiat and Executive Orders. He has done everything he wanted, They just were all the wrong things. He is rapidly ruining our economy. If he’d OK the XL pipeline and grant drilling leases, we could get out of debt and have good lives, but that’s not what he wants. He wants a dependent population who thinks Government is God. But at some point he’ll run out of other people’s money.

          • Dave

            Not completely acurrate….the GOB abused the filibuster in the senate and the only reason Obamacare got passed is because the two moderate GOP senators from Maine allowed the legislation to come to a vote in the Senate.
            The Keystone pipeline: you do know that the reason Obama halted it is because of the same reason the GOP dominated legislature in Nebraska voted it stopped. It was going through an area that affected 30% of the states drinking and farm water.
            Do you really think we can get out of debt just by drilling for oil??? Really? You have numbers to back that claim up?
            The rest is just a lie.

          • ChiefBoring

            Those Mainers might as well be democrats. Like Brown of Massachusetts. He was supposed to be the fortieth vote to stop Obamacare. Didn’t happen. The same complaints were made about the Alaska pipeline. It was going to melt the tundra and kill the caribou. The tundra is still frozen, and there are more caribou. All the estimates by those who know indicate we could do just that. I don’t know what you are referring to as a lie. I may be wrong sometimes, but i don’t lie. Please don’t be like Just..who calls people names and derides their intelligence.

  • MaloneLavey

    I do not identify as a Constitutionalist. Why? Because the Constitution, while arguably better than most of the world’s basic law documents, still contains flaws. For example, the same Constitution that protects certain of your rights also allows the government to tax you. Your rights aren’t granted by a piece of paper, they exist a priori by virtue of your being a living human individual.

    • Michael Shreve

      THOSE amendments were NOT part of the ORIGINAL U.S. Constitution, they were added later in a INANE attempt to keep it “current” to the NEEDS of “modern” society. INEPT at best.

      • Vigilant

        Original Constitution, Article I, Section 9: power of government to tax the people.

  • Michael Shreve

    A Libertarian is someone who believes PERSONAL liberty is is ONLY constrained by the U.S. Constitution and the RIGHTS of others. Also, the STATES and the PEOPLE are MORE powerful than the U.S, government EXCEPT as to the limited and ENUMERATED powers of the U.S. government.

    The U.S. Constitution contains NO implied FEDERAL powers, THOSE were INTENTIONALLY reserved to the states and the people.

    • Oldmonkey

      Exactly! Indeed the 9th and 10th Amendments make the Eagle fly

    • Oldmonkey

      Exactly! Indeed the 9th and 10th Amendments make the Eagle fly

  • Rocketman

    I’ve heard this said and it’s dead on, that the real battle is not between anti-gun and pro-gun, not between liberal and conservative, not between pro or anti abortion or anything else you might think. The real battle is between who owns your life, do you or does the government? If you think that the government is the owner then your either a liberal, conservative, communist, facist, socialist, progressive, marxist or some other name for a slave. If you think that you do then your a libertarian.

  • Nadzieja Batki

    I will disappoint you and tell you that even if people saw the horrors of these murders it would not stop abortions.
    Remember that contraceptives were created to stop pregnancies if woman chose to use them. Contraceptives even if bought cheap or given for free led to abortion industry being created, there are children still unwanted and discarded or abandoned.

  • Dead_Right

    They did not crusade against “gay marriage”. The have been responding to a well funded and well planned out assault by the homo-cummunity to erect a parallel universe. Now that “gay marriage”” exists, they will find that they will be paying more in taxes then single so it was not for the government benefits as argued.

    This was about all of the homo-attracted agenda of sexualizing kids in schools that have a decade or more to even wonder about sex. and creating doubt and new victims of the homo-attracted. Social-issue republicans saw it for what it really is. A search for the right to sue churches and others for not liking them and their behavior.

    So again it was no crusade but a response to an attack on culture, churches and children.

  • ChiefBoring

    W is a better man than BHO will ever be. And Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK on his own. No conspiracy. When I was stationed in D.C. we made movies of State Visits for Kennedy. Despite his faults and wandering eye, he was a better man that BHO, too.

    • ChiefBoring

      Dear “Just”: That’s not a “handle”; It’s my name and rate in the Navy. When one resorts to insults and name calling, it denigrates the level of discourse. A forensic pathologist wrote a book explaining exactly how Oswald, a Marine rifleman, did just that. I can’t remember the name of the book, but the author’s name was Fackler. It has also been demonstrated on TV at least twice, using an identical Caecano rifle, as used by the Italian Army back then. The distances and angles were carefully recreated, using ballistic dummies. If you really believe Bush and BHO are “identical twins”, then you don’t know either of their records as well as you think.

    • Dave

      LOL…. W a better man….Lol!!!!

  • ChiefBoring

    Just, if you truly believe all the garbage you posted, there is no point in our having a discussion. Have a nice life.

    • ChiefBoring

      There you go again, Just. If you have no response, resort to name calling. Again, the author’s name was Fackler. YOU do a little research. As for what I see on TV, I was a Navy motion picture director and cinematographer for 20 years, including a year’s course and certificate from the unIversity of Southern California. I also did that work in the private sector, til cameras got too heavy to tote around. I also know a bit about firearms and ballistics. What’s your background, besides reading conspiracy stories? Bye, bye.

  • ChiefBoring

    All true except the first sentence. And yet you say he and W are twins? Not hardly.