Sarah Palin is now officially a libertarian!

[clb09]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=104524

 

[ItsTime]

yup that is the Republican plan to destroy the Libertarian party with Beck and Palin.

 

[Kludge]

What's "libertarian" about state sovereignty? That's a conservative/liberal issue.

 

[LibertyEagle]

What's "libertarian" about state sovereignty? That's a conservative/liberal issue.

Since when? Are you saying that libertarians do not care about states' rights?

 

[Brown Sapper]

Haha. They're going to have the same effect as when they moved to the left. Why vote for a pseudo-libertarian/pseudo-democrat when you can vote for the real thing. If the Libertarian Party plays this right they can take a good chunk of Republicans. Its too late for pandering this late in the game. The sheep are waking up.

 

[erowe1]

Since when? Are you saying that libertarians do not care about states' rights?

If you're libertarian you're against state's rights by definition. The state is the libertarian's enemy. Maybe when you say "libertarian" you actually mean Constitutionalist, or conservative or something, kind of like when people call Ron Paul and Bob Barr libertarians.

 

[HOLLYWOOD]

The only key point I liked about this info: Alaska's House passed HJR 27 by a vote of 37-0, and the Senate passed it by a vote of 40-0. 77-0 not bad, eh.

 

[acptulsa]

If you're libertarian you're against state's rights by definition. The state is the libertarian's enemy. Maybe when you say "libertarian" you actually mean Constitutionalist, or conservative or something, kind of like when people call Ron Paul and Bob Barr libertarians.

[Facepalm]

Um--if you're libertarian you'd far, far rather have individual states calling the shots than the federal government. Period.

Haha. They're going to have the same effect as when they moved to the left. Why vote for a pseudo-libertarian/pseudo-democrat when you can vote for the real thing. If the Libertarian Party plays this right they can take a good chunk of Republicans. Its too late for pandering this late in the game. The sheep are waking up.

A brilliant observation. Now, moderates have traditionally done well, and we shouldn't discount this. Also note that the Democrats are going off the deep end in many ways, which could make a middle of the road party look better. But in the end, Dubya & Co. proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 'middle ground' the neocons occupy is the worst of both worlds. We need to keep pressing that point home, lest the many voters with short attention spans forget.

 

[Kludge]

Since when? Are you saying that libertarians do not care about states' rights?

Libertarians care about individuals' rights. The government that is oppressing them is irrelevant.

Going to the logical end of libertarianism, states do not have rights without true consent of the government granting that government right to rule over them. Unless 100% of individuals in the state of Alaska consent to be governed by the State of Alaska, it does not have consent of the governed.

Thus, since this does not involve individuals' rights, but rather how rights are distributed among governments, the decision is not relevant to libertarianism/authoritarianism.

 

[LibertyEagle]

If you're libertarian you're against state's rights by definition. The state is the libertarian's enemy. Maybe when you say "libertarian" you actually mean Constitutionalist, or conservative or something, kind of like when people call Ron Paul and Bob Barr libertarians.

Are you sure? That sounds like what Ancaps believe; not libertarians.

Because if that is so, I guess it would follow that all libertarians are anti-Constitution.

 

[Kludge]

Because if that is so, I guess it would follow that all libertarians are anti-Constitution.

Libertarian purists (anarchists) should be anti-Constitution, unless they're supporting it for the sake of gradualism.

Semantics at this point, I guess. "libertarian" is becoming a vague watered-down word, just like "conservative". Maybe libertarians should stick with "anarchist".

 

[acptulsa]

Libertarian purists are anarchists now. Well well well.

And I say if anarchists don't like their soiled label they should come up with their own, not hijack others. Libertarian purists haven't defended our honor all these years for the benefit of others.

Well, actually we have, but not in the sense that it was for allowing others to steal our good reputation.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Libertarians care about individuals' rights. The government that is oppressing them is irrelevant.

Going to the logical end of libertarianism, states do not have rights without true consent of the government granting that government right to rule over them. Unless 100% of individuals in the state of Alaska consent to be governed by the State of Alaska, it does not have consent of the governed.

Thus, since this does not involve individuals' rights, but rather how rights are distributed among governments, the decision is not relevant to libertarianism/authoritarianism.

Under the form of government our Founders laid out for us, states' rights were important in supporting our individual rights. They were not distributing rights, as you suggest. They were pushing the power down to the states and to the people (self-government), so the limited government that we did have, would be more readily watched over by the people.

We have lost liberty for a number of reasons; the almost complete dissolution of states' right and the states' representation at the federal level, not being the least of those reasons.

I'm not sure if I said this the best way, but hopefully you get the point.

 

[Kludge]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/libertarian

1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

What's more "minimum" than non-existent?

 

[LibertyEagle]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/libertarian

1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.

What's more "minimum" than non-existent?

It says, "minimizing the role of the state". Not dissolving it completely.

It sounds to me that libertarians and ancaps do not agree on this issue, while agreeing on a lot of others.

I don't think it's accurate at all to imply that libertarians are anti-Constitution.

 

[Kludge]

We have lost liberty for a number of reasons; the almost complete dissolution of states' right and the states' representation at the federal level, not being the least of those reasons.

Yeah, but I think that's why we need to use more than a liberal-conservative-only or libertarian-authoritarian-only line to describe one's politics, because libertarianism/authoritarianism deals with individuals' rights, and isn't related to which governments secure those rights.

A republic probably better secures rights (than a direct democracy), and thus is more favorable to libertarians, who want the most liberty possible, but that doesn't mean a conservative republic is necessarily favorable to a libertarian. "Republicanism vs. Liberalism" and "libertarianism vs. authoritarianism" are relevant, but aren't synonymous; a republican ("conservative") isn't necessarily a libertarian.

 

[erowe1]

Are you sure? That sounds like what Ancaps believe; not libertarians.

Because if that is so, I guess it would follow that all libertarians are anti-Constitution.

Correct. Ancaps are consistent libertarians. Constitutionalists may be relatively more libertarian than the average Republican or Democrat. But they are clearly not driven by a philosophy that is libertarian in its essence or they would not believe in states.

I'm not a libertarian/ancap btw, just in case it appeared that I was coming from that perspective.

 

[LibertyEagle]

A republic probably better secures rights (than a direct democracy), and thus is more favorable to libertarians, who want the most liberty possible, but that doesn't mean a conservative republic is necessarily favorable to a libertarian. "Republicanism vs. Liberalism" and "libertarianism vs. authoritarianism" are relevant, but have their own distinction.

It's called a Constitutional republic.

 

[acptulsa]

Yeah, but I think that's why we need to use more than a liberal-conservative-only or libertarian-authoritarian-only line to describe one's politics, because libertarianism/authoritarianism deals with individuals' rights, and isn't related to which governments grant those rights.

The rights are inalienable. And not all libertarians are convinced that the only threats to them are governments.

Go redefine someone else.

 

[Stary Hickory]

It says, "minimizing the role of the state". Not dissolving it completely.

It sounds to me that libertarians and ancaps do not agree on this issue, while agreeing on a lot of others.

I don't think it's accurate at all to imply that libertarians are anti-Constitution.

Exactly, Anarchists seem to think that the same forces that create massive government will not exist and operate in an Anarchist state. In this sense Anarchists are just as foolish as the communists who thought they could create a "Socialist Man". It simply will never happen.

I am for smaller government, up to the limits of our constituion and even beyond. I think I would fit in an Anarchist utopia, but let's be honest it will never happen. The best that we can ever achieve is a place in the struggle for small government and greater freedoms. The forces that create oppressive government and massive states will always exist, even in an Anarchist state, so the only thing we can do is commit ourselves to the constant struggle for more freedom.

There is no end game, no final defeat of statism, but only a endless struggle. That is why the end goal Anarchism is simply not feasible. However I am commited to helping those who want to see it happen in their struggles.