A number of people here are Conservatives first, and Libertarians second

[CPUd]

 

[Gh34]

Why is it that you have to be pro choice on abortion in order to be a libertarian or not care about the issue at all in order to be a libertarian?

Because you go on and hypocritically whine about other libertarians supporting other candidates that you disagree with.
This is what I'm talking about, people like you end up choosing the neocon warmonger candidate who says he is more anti-abortion, while also hypocritically complaining when other people do it for Bernie for other reasons. Once the common platform of libertarianism is abandoned, then people won't vote for libertarian reasons, but for other reasons, and you can't hold them accountable for that. You can't expect libertarians to not support Bernie, if you go ahead and support Rubio, etc., despite neither candidate being libertarian candidates.

 

[Cleaner44]

Meh, the neocons are done, at least for a while. Trump just up and rode in out of nowhere and pretty much poured a hot kettle of diarrhea and piss in their cheerios. It would be nice if we could permanently drive them back to the democratic party because it would at least make it easier for someone with libertarian leanings to rise within the GOP.

Reading the 'reluctant case for trump' thread makes me think there is some good that can come from his campaign, if we could manage to survive his presidency.

This and I think we have done a good job of nudging the GOP in a more libertarian direction. The Ron Paul R3VOLUTION has improve the Republican party to some degree.

 

[ProBlue33]

I don't think Ron was converting people to libertarianism, based on the reactions in 2008/2012/2016, I think he got a coalition of people that heard him speak and they were logically minded people, that all respected him and agreed with his world view, and they came from all political backgrounds blue and red.

After 2012 things began to go back to the way they were before, how else can you explain how 2 genuine people that signed up to RPF in 07 and voted for Ron in both primaries and wrote his name in the generals....now one supports Sanders and one supports Trump. Ron was like the lead singer in a band that held the band together, when he retired the band broke up, and they all went their separate ways.

Sorry guys libertarianism is right back where it was in 2006.

 

[Dianne]

This and I think we have done a good job of nudging the GOP in a more libertarian direction. The Ron Paul R3VOLUTION has improve the Republican party to some degree.

I think this election clearly shows the Ron Paul movement has effected the future of the republican party. It was Ron that created the new "tea party" movement, although later hijacked by mini neocons. We have some great people that are jacking them up in Washington right now. And the people are rejecting the establishment candidates. Four years ago, Ron Paul was right in the middle of this Nevada caucus. If I remember correctly he was #3 going into the cause. I think Rand should stay in the Senate.. He is not his Dad. If he were, he would be in the Trump shoes this time as the anti establishment candidate, rather than Trump. The country is saying "enough", but Rand was not the man to lead the revolution. I actually think Ron might have run this time, had his son passed on it.

 

[RJ Liberty]

A number of people here are Conservatives first, and Libertarians second

Yes. Witness the fact that about 8% of the forum-goers here believe that homosexuals should be punished by the death penalty. Eight percent actually are calling for state executions based on someone's sexuality. Another 5% believe homosexuality should be a felony. This is, of course, fascism, not liberty at all.

It's a credit to the great Ron Paul that four years ago, his message was able to cross over and influence the bible-thumping Religious Right, but make no mistake: the people who are (for example) calling for state executions of gays were never actually small-L libertarians (much less big-L Libertarians). They would never vote for, say, Gary Johnson, who actually ran on the Libertarian Party ticket, and who won the largest number of voters in LP history. To these guys, Gary Johnson is a "hippy clown".

 

[Ronin Truth]

"The problem with American conservatism is that it hates the left more than the state, loves the past more than liberty, feels a greater attachment to nationalism than to the idea of self-determination, believes brute force is the answer to all social problems, and thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy. It has never understood the idea of freedom as a self-ordering principle of society. It has never seen the state as the enemy of what conservatives purport to favor. It has always looked to presidential power as the saving grace of what is right and true about America." -- Lew Rockwell

 

[Brett85]

Yes. Witness the fact that about 8% of the forum-goers here believe that homosexuals should be punished by the death penalty. Eight percent actually are calling for state executions based on someone's sexuality. Another 5% believe homosexuality should be a felony. This is, of course, fascism, not liberty at all.

It's a credit to the great Ron Paul that four years ago, his message was able to cross over and influence the bible-thumping Religious Right, but make no mistake: the people who are (for example) calling for state executions of gays were never actually small-L libertarians (much less big-L Libertarians). They would never vote for, say, Gary Johnson, who actually ran on the Libertarian Party ticket, and who won the largest number of voters in LP history. To these guys, Gary Johnson is a "hippy clown".

Those people are theonomists. They agree with libertarians on a large number of issues but still support enacting Biblical law at a local level. You don't necessarily have to be a theonomist to not be a fan of Gary Johnson. Johnson basically seems like a liberal with a few libertarian leanings to me. He's for abortion, for forcing Christian businesses to participate in gay marriage ceremonies, for humanitarian wars, etc. I don't consider him to be a libertarian. People like Tom Woods, Peter Schiff, etc are libertarians. Gary Johnson is "fiscally conservative and socially liberal," but that's not libertarianism. That's not what the term means. If being fiscally conservative and socially liberal is all that's required in order to be a libertarian, then people like Rudy Giuliani and John Bolton would be libertarians.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Abortion was never classified as murder historically when we had actual Christian states, and guess what?, infanticide wasn't either.

That's egalitarian/humanism which was adopted in the modern era of post-enlightenment, and this was derived from platonic principles, not Judeo-Christian ones. Same thing with Women's rights, etc.

Wait, WHAT? Not murdering unborn children is a post-enightenment innovation? I guess I've heard it all now.

Didn't you say you were leaving? I don't care if you stay, just asking.

I'm trying to post less to limit my frustration... I'm a little conflicted about things like this... its complicated and not easy to explain.

Those people are theonomists. They agree with libertarians on a large number of issues but still support enacting Biblical law at a local level. You don't necessarily have to be a theonomist to not be a fan of Gary Johnson. Johnson basically seems like a liberal with a few libertarian leanings to me. He's for abortion, for forcing Christian businesses to participate in gay marriage ceremonies, for humanitarian wars, etc. I don't consider him to be a libertarian. People like Tom Woods, Peter Schiff, etc are libertarians. Gary Johnson is "fiscally conservative and socially liberal," but that's not libertarianism. That's not what the term means. If being fiscally conservative and socially liberal is all that's required in order to be a libertarian, then people like Rudy Giuliani and John Bolton would be libertarians.

Indeed.

 

[hells_unicorn]

Those people are theonomists.

I'm not a theonomist, I've stated my divergence with that school of thought on MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. How many times do I have to say it? The only thing required of a Christian in order to find the point in Leviticus regarding sodomy to be eternally binding is a clear understanding on the distinction between natural/moral law vs. ceremonial/positive law. Theonomy tends to conflate the 2 on several key points actually, though not regarding the spirit of said prohibition on this particular point.

 

[Cabal]

I'm not a theonomist, I've stated my divergence with that school of thought on MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. How many times do I have to say it? The only thing required of a Christian in order to find the point in Leviticus regarding sodomy to be eternally binding is a clear understanding on the distinction between natural/moral law vs. ceremonial/positive law. Theonomy tends to conflate the 2 on several key points actually, though not regarding the spirit of said prohibition on this particular point.

 

[otherone]

Gary Johnson is "fiscally conservative and socially liberal," but that's not libertarianism. That's not what the term means. If being fiscally conservative and socially liberal is all that's required in order to be a libertarian, then people like Rudy Giuliani and John Bolton would be libertarians.

What is required to be a libertarian?

 

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not a theonomist, I've stated my divergence with that school of thought on MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. How many times do I have to say it? The only thing required of a Christian in order to find the point in Leviticus regarding sodomy to be eternally binding is a clear understanding on the distinction between natural/moral law vs. ceremonial/positive law. Theonomy tends to conflate the 2 on several key points actually, though not regarding the spirit of said prohibition on this particular point.

We should discuss this on the phone sometime.

Theonomists vary among themselves on some issues and the term is somewhat loose. I know that some theonomists like Greg Bahnsen said that the law is binding "in exhaustive detail" but if you really look at the details of what he said, he did at least believe in something close to a Westminster tripartite division. I'm still learning some of the divisions but I thinkin practice a covenanter such as yourself would disagree with some of the closer to confessional theonomists (like Bahnsen) more on a spectrum of how broad "general equity" is than having a clear disagreement on principle.

Basically just because someone is a theonomist doesn't necessarily mean they agree on every single point regarding the application of the OT civil law in the NT area, as it is true some portions thereof were either ceremonial in nature or particular to Israel's situations. I think the terms are somewhat fuzzy.

 

[Brett85]

What is required to be a libertarian?

I would say to believe in life, liberty, and property. Gary Johnson doesn't believe in any of those principles. He opposes life since he supports legalized murder, opposes liberty since he opposes freedom of association for Christians as well as all other individuals, and opposes private property rights since he believes that people should be forced to allow others onto their own private property.

 

[otherone]

I would say to believe in life, liberty, and property.

Besides "I would say"....is there a group that espouses these ideas? They are vague...purposefully? Do you consider yourself classically liberal rather than libertarian, considering your Locke quote?

 

[Brett85]

Besides "I would say"....is there a group that espouses these ideas? They are vague...purposefully? Do you consider yourself classically liberal rather than libertarian, considering your Locke quote?

The Constitution Party is probably the best political party for the cause of liberty. I'm not a member of the party, but they're probably better than the other parties. They at least believe in Constitutionally limited government and don't believe in baby murder. There's some disagreement on some of the other social issues, but they at least believe in federalism and believe that social issues should be decided at the state level.

 

[otherone]

The Constitution Party is probably the best political party for the cause of liberty. I'm not a member of the party, but they're probably better than the other parties. They at least believe in Constitutionally limited government and don't believe in baby murder. There's some disagreement on some of the other social issues, but they at least believe in federalism and believe that social issues should be decided at the state level.

The Constitution party is paleo-conservative, not libertarian. It's a great party for Christians. Frankly, if there was an anti-federalist party, I'd probably join it.

 

[Christian Liberty]

'life, liberty, and property' hey if we're defining that way theonomists are libertarians too

 

[specsaregood]

//

 

[otherone]

I'm not Christian or religious and I prefer the CP and their past candidates over the LP.

why?