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

[Gh34]

And thus the Libertarian movement fractures itself, with a number of libertarians saying they'd support Bernie, etc. over a conservative.

Ron and Rand were potentially unifying forces for Libertarianism, but trying to force people under the Libertarian umbrella which includes many Social Liberals who favor non-interventionism to vote for conservatives with neocon leanings (like Rubio/Cruz) is not going to work, hence why the movement is now fracturing. And who benefits from this fracturing? The Neocons. They succeed in destroying the Libertarian Movement in this process by breaking up the coalition, as was intended from the beginning.

 

[fisharmor]

When I was a kid, my father explained that all a conservative is, is someone who wants to preserve the status quo. And even liberals turn into conservatives once they get what they want.

I'm the exact opposite of conservative. There is literally nothing about the current system I think is worth saving.

 

[nobody's_hero]

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.

 

[AuH20]

Define conservative. The neoconservatives have entirely redefined what conservatism entails. Harry Jaffa and Irving Kristol have polluted the minds of millions.

 

[Brett85]

Define conservative. The neoconservatives have entirely redefined what conservatism entails. Harry Jaffa and Irving Kristol have polluted the minds of millions.

You know, if Trump were actually a paleoconservative, I would be quite excited about him. I think that Pat Buchanan would've been a great President overall. But please explain how someone who supports abortion, a ban on assault weapons, universal healthcare, eminent domain, Obama's stimulus, the bank bailouts, the auto bailouts, etc. is actually a paleoconservative. Thanks.

 

[Gh34]

You know, if Trump were actually a paleoconservative, I would be quite excited about it. I think that Pat Buchanan would've been a great President overall. But please explain how someone who supports abortion, a ban on assault weapons, universal healthcare, eminent domain, Obama's stimulus, the bank bailouts, the auto bailouts, etc. is actually a paleoconservative. Thanks.

The Fascists or 'Far Right' replaced the Paleos in Europe. The Paleos put an emphasis on tradition, hierarchy and order in the world and protection of organic communities. You have different priorities, but it explains why Paleos are more receptive to the Far-Right.

You are part of the split that is destroying the Libertarian movement that I'm talking about in the OP.

 

[Brett85]

The Fascists or 'Far Right' replaced the Paleos in Europe. The Paleos put an emphasis on tradition, hierarchy and order in the world and protection of organic communities. You have different priorities, but it explains why Paleos are more receptive to the Far-Right.

You are part of the split that is destroying the Libertarian movement that I'm talking about in the OP.

I'm open to voting for both paleo conservatives as well as pro life libertarians. I have no trouble supporting liberty people in Congress like Amash and Massie, but would never support Gary Johnson. So yes, we probably do look at things from a slightly different perspective. But with all due respect, this split isn't really what's killing the liberty movement. What killed the liberty movement was the rise of ISIS, because it caused people to become scared and start supporting more authoritarian candidates who they felt would protect them.

 

[Gh34]

I'm open to voting for both paleo conservatives as well as pro life libertarians. I have no trouble supporting liberty people in Congress like Amash and Massie, but would never support Gary Johnson. So yes, we probably do look at things from a slightly different perspective. But with all due respect, this split isn't really what's killing the liberty movement. What killed the liberty movement was the rise of ISIS, because it caused people to become scared and start supporting more authoritarian candidates who they felt would protect them.

Again, you're a conservative, not a libertarian. The Libertarian 'big tent' movement was crated to unify both liberal and conservatives who are libertarian, hence issues like abortion, etc. were put on the back-burner. By emphasizing them, you're playing into the conservative narrative. There was always terrorism, even in 2004, Ron Paul had a ton of support from both the right and left branches. The fact that you expect pro-choice libertarians to vote for pro-life libertarians, but you won't do the same, is part of the problem.

 

[Brett85]

Again, you're a conservative, not a libertarian. The Libertarian 'big tent' movement was crated to unify both liberal and conservatives who are libertarian, hence issues like abortion, etc. were put on the back-burner. By emphasizing them, you're playing into the conservative narrative. There was always terrorism, even in 2004, Ron Paul had a ton of support from both the right and left branches. The fact that you expect pro-choice libertarians to vote for pro-life libertarians, but you won't do the same, is part of the problem.

Well, I'm a mix of both conservatism and libertarianism. I'm not exactly a standard conservative when I support ending the war on drugs, support bringing the troops home from overseas, and support rolling back the surveillance state. The thing that Ron always said though is that freedom brings people together, which is why more conservative libertarians like myself and more liberal libertarians all united and supported his Presidential runs.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Again, you're a conservative, not a libertarian. The Libertarian 'big tent' movement was crated to unify both liberal and conservatives who are libertarian, hence issues like abortion, etc. were put on the back-burner. By emphasizing them, you're playing into the conservative narrative. There was always terrorism, even in 2004, Ron Paul had a ton of support from both the right and left branches. The fact that you expect pro-choice libertarians to vote for pro-life libertarians, but you won't do the same, is part of the problem.

Even by libertarian standards (which I'm not one) if abortion really is murder than its apporpriate to want to ban it and to put a high priority on banning it.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

When I was a kid, my father explained that all a conservative is, is someone who wants to preserve the status quo. And even liberals turn into conservatives once they get what they want.

I'm the exact opposite of conservative. There is literally nothing about the current system I think is worth saving.

+a bunch

 

[Gh34]

Even by libertarian standards (which I'm not one) if abortion really is murder than its apporpriate to want to ban it and to put a high priority on banning it.

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

 

[Gh34]

Well, I'm a mix of both conservatism and libertarianism. I'm not exactly a standard conservative when I support ending the war on drugs, support bringing the troops home from overseas, and support rolling back the surveillance state. The thing that Ron always said though is that freedom brings people together, which is why more conservative libertarians like myself and more liberal libertarians all united and supported his Presidential runs.

And then your boys Cruz/Rubio betray those 'freedom' principles by turning their back on nsa spying, etc. and you still expect liberal libertarians to support them. That's why your efforts are futile. Those Bernie, etc. supporters don't share your values in the first place, there's no point in trying to convince them when the common liberty platform on issues on which you can both agree upon is dead.

 

[Brett85]

And then your boys Cruz/Rubio betray those 'freedom' principles by turning their back on nsa spying, etc. and you still expect liberal libertarians to support them. That's why your efforts are futile. Those Bernie, etc. supporters don't share your values in the first place, there's no point in trying to convince them.

I'm not really trying to convince people to support Cruz at this point. I think his comments in favor of increasing defense spending and praising John Bolton are too much for libertarians to support. (I also think his campaign is basically over after coming in 3rd in South Carolina) I was just defending Amash for his endorsement of Cruz because I think people need to try to understand where Amash was coming from in his endorsement.

 

[Gh34]

I'm not really trying to convince people to support Cruz at this point. I think his comments in favor of increasing defense spending and praising John Bolton are too much for libertarians to support. (I also think his campaign is basically over after coming in 3rd in South Carolina) I was just defending Amash for his endorsement of Cruz because I think people need to try to understand where Amash was coming from in his endorsement.

Well, hopefully you now understand why various libertarians are supporting 'non-conservative' candidates, because those libertarians weren't necessarily conservative in the first place, they were libertarians. With the common platform of libertarianism removed and the unifying umbrella gone, they go back to voting on non-libertarian issues, just like you do with your conservatives.

 

[Brett85]

Well, hopefully you now understand why various libertarians are supporting 'non-conservative' candidates, because those libertarians weren't necessarily conservative in the first place, they were libertarians. With the common platform of libertarianism removed and the unifying umbrella gone, they go back to voting on non-libertarian issues, just like you do with your conservatives.

Sure, and many of the people who supported Ron really weren't pure libertarians either but were anti war liberals or libertarian-leaning liberals. Ron had a lot of support from the left, much of which is going to Bernie Sanders. I'm not saying that it's not possible for a pure ideological libertarian to vote for someone like Bernie Sanders, but I think most of his support among those who supported Ron comes from those who are at least left leaning.

 

[Gh34]

Sure, and many of the people who supported Ron really weren't pure libertarians either but were anti war liberals or libertarian-leaning liberals. Ron had a lot of support from the left, much of which is going to Bernie Sanders. I'm not saying that it's not possible for a pure ideological libertarian to vote for someone like Bernie Sanders, but I think most of his support among those who supported Ron comes from those who were at least left leaning.

Going by that logic it wouldn't be possible for a 'pure ideological libertarian' to vote for an interventionist who supports government spying, etc. either. That's the point, when the common platform of libertarianism that both liberal and right-wing libertarians can agree to is dead, people will vote on other issues unrelated to libertarianism, since libertarianism would no longer be in the picture. That the defeat of the libertarian platform is exactly what the neocons wanted, and so you're playing into that game, because you put your conservatism first, you're not going to convince non-conservatives of anything, no matter how hard you try here by bashing other candidates.

 

[Brett85]

Going by that logic it wouldn't be possible for a 'pure ideological libertarian' to vote for an interventionist who supports government spying, etc. either. That's the point, when the common platform of libertarianism that both liberal and right-wing libertarians can agree to is dead, people will vote on other issues unrelated to libertarianism, since libertarianism would no longer be in the picture. That the defeat of the libertarian platform is exactly what the neocons wanted, and so you're playing into that game, because you put your conservatism first, you're not going to convince non-conservatives of anything, no matter how hard you try here by bashing other candidates.

I just wanted AUH20 to explain to me how Trump is a paleo-conservative, because he's given that label to him before. I do like some of Trump's foreign policy positions like opposing the Iraq War, opposing nation building, opposing overthrowing dictators in the Middle East, opposing entangling alliances, etc. But, I don't see his views on domestic issues as being conservative and wanted AUH20 to try to explain how Trump can accurately be labeled a paleoconservative in light of his more liberal views on domestic issues.

 

[Libertas Aut Mortis]

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

I wouldn't really say anything that "Christian States" ever did was very "Christian".

It doesn't really matter what a Tyrannical Dark Ages Theocracy thought....all that matters is that somehow, a "clump of cells", that happens to have a heartbeat, separate DNA, its own organs and body parts, whose body is literally living, growing, and kicking inside of a womb...can be aborted, or stillborn, or miscarried; in which that "clump of cells" no longer has a heart beat, is no longer producing DNA, or developing organs and body parts, whose body is no longer living, growing, or kicking, and is then expelled from the womb.....

what matters is how you can have that, but not come to the realization that the "clump of cells" in question, make up a living human being, just currently unborn. And with the knowledge that the unborn is living, how the hell can we be indifferent or supportive of his or her murder?

See, I don't know about you...but i would rather see every single person who uses drugs in America voluntarily go to prison for the maximum sentence as established by the law....than allow one unborn child, completely guiltless and innocent of any wrongdoing, be murdered by his or her own parents.

If the body has different DNA than yours, then it isn't your body. And if the body can be killed, then it must be living. And if you kill someone elses body....that is called murder. I'm very against murder, and I will never vote for someone who isn't.

 

[Gh34]

I just wanted AUH20 to explain to me how Trump is a paleo-conservative, because he's given that label to him before. I do like some of Trump's foreign policy positions like opposing the Iraq War, opposing nation building, opposing overthrowing dictators in the Middle East, opposing entangling alliances, etc. But, I don't see his views on domestic issues as being conservative and wanted AUH20 to try to explain how Trump can accurately be labeled a paleoconservative in light of his more liberal views on domestic issues.

Again, see how in Europe, paleoconservativism is dead, and what has replaced it is Fascism and Third Party's like FN Jobbik, etc. Because the core of Paleoconservative ideology is anti-egalitarian, it's based on hierarchy, order, tradition and protecting national communities. That's also why the paleocons allowed Hitler to rise to power in Germany, with the Monarchists backing the Nazi Party in the coalition. They have other priorities on the issues and a different view of the world otherwise, same goes for Bernie supporters, etc. You're not going to convince them by hammering on like this.