Watch Live: Congressional Hearing on IRS Scandal

Live Now on TheBlaze Radio: ‘The Buck Sexton Show’

Politics

Can You Be a Libertarian and a Conservative at the Same Time?

Feb. 27, 2013 10:29pm Tiffany Gabbay

In recent decades, the major U.S. political parties — Democrat and Republican — have changed greatly from what they initially set out to be.

With the rise of progressivism on the left and religious fundamentalism on the right, America’s core parties have also gone through a metamorphosis in terms of how each are perceived, respectively. For example, when someone says he or she is a “conservative,” an outside observer may take that to mean that the person is socially conservative or traditional in the vein of Rick Santorum or Sarah Palin. Likewise, when someone identifies him or herself as a “liberal,” there tends to be an implied connotation that he or she might be secular or at least holds views which are ideologically opposed to traditional Judeo-Christian principles.

On his Wednesday evening broadcast, Glenn Beck hosted a panel of libertarians including Jacob Hornberger, founder of the Future of Freedom Foundation, Jack Hunter, a radio host and columnist, and Zachary Slayback of Students for Liberty to discuss how libertarians can come together despite its members harboring divergent views on certain issues. For instance, Hunter believes that Sen. Rand Paul is both conservative and libertarian and that the two ideologies can be compatible with each other, while Slayback disagreed. The conversation continued in the same vein throughout the segment and offered insight into this unique political philosophy.

In the broader sense, libertarianism is a political philosophy whose core tenets emphasize limited government (both state and federal) involvement, individual liberty, and increased personal and political freedoms. While the actual definitions vary, and indeed there are even varying degrees within the libertarian spectrum as well, author and historian George Woodcock defined the philosophy as one that holds an inherent mistrust for authority, while libertarian philosopher Roderick Long explained it as “any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals.”

Serving as the third-largest and fastest-growing political party in the U.S., the Libertarian Party claims its beliefs are rooted in the “American heritage of liberty, enterprise, and personal responsibility,” and maintains that its adherents desire a political system “which encourages all people to choose what they want from life; that lets them live, love, work, play, and dream their own way.”

To this end, libertarians tend to even fall to the left of Democrats on social issues, championing for increased civil liberties and freedoms including the legalization of marijuana and same-sex marriage, LGBT rights, abortion, immigration, and separation of church and state policies, among others.

Of course some libertarians, like Ron Paul, are more socially conservative and harbor strong pro-life views. Paul does believe, however, that the issue should be left to the states to be handled directly.

On the conservative end, libertarians tend to fall to the right of Republicans, favoring minimally regulated markets, low taxes, decreased bureaucracies, and at times even advocate the privatization of public works and institutions including the police force and fire department.

Libertarianism supports the right to bear arms and according to the political platforms on the official party website, states that the party “agrees with the majority of Americans who believe they have the right to decide how best to protect themselves, their families and their property.”

Libertarians are also ardent defenders of the First Amendment, favoring the “rights of individuals to unrestricted freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right of individuals to dissent from government itself.” Libertarians oppose censorship as well as state regulation of media, including laws pertaining to obscene content.

In terms of health care, most libertarians believe that the federal government has, with the advent of Medicare, Medicaid and HMOs, as well as increased regulations on doctors and insurance companies, ruined what was once a relatively efficient health system in the U.S.

“Today, more than 50 percent of all healthcare dollars are spent by the government” and insurance costs are “skyrocketing,” the Libertarian Party notes.

To solve the health care problem, libertarians support free-market solutions such as 100 percent tax deductible medical savings accounts, deregulation and privatization of health care systems.

When it comes to entitlements, small government libertarians support the idea that Americans should be allowed to opt out of Social Security and that poverty in the U.S. can best be addressed by reforming costly Welfare programs as they currently stand, by creating more privatized options.

“To get from today’s big government to a small, constitutional government, it is paramount that we prioritize the order of cuts humanely and fairly,” an official statement from the Libertarian Party reads.

“Remove big government taxes, spending, regulations and restrictions first – cut subsidies that people are dependent upon last. Allow the free market and charities the time they need (which won’t take long) to develop alternatives — both low cost goods and services and free charities.”

In terms of education, libertarians seek to ”break up the public education monopoly and give all parents the right to decide what school their children will attend.”

“Only a free market in education will provide the improvement in education necessary to enable millions of Americans to escape poverty,” the official party platform states.

Where libertarians tend to diverge from conservatives is on issues related to foreign policy and militarism. Some libertarians believe in a greatly reduced military and harbor a more isolationist view regarding America’s role on the world stage, while others believe in U.S. military involvement abroad, but only in rare circumstances.

Indeed, this is only a small cross-section of general libertarian platforms and by no means speaks for every individual libertarian, whose views on a range of issues is often as nuanced as it is multi-layered. Libertarianism isn’t a monolith, which is why some of its adherents can identify themselves as both conservative or even liberal at the same time.

As a political party

The Libertarian Party was created in 1971 as an answer to what was considered the politics as usual meme perpetuated by Democrats and Republicans. The goal was to create a party that would adhere, as closely as possible, to the liberties which the Founding Fathers held in such high regard.

Currently, there are over 300,000 registered as Libertarians and there are a growing array of political candidates who, while affiliated officially with the Republican Party, harbor strong libertarian-ideals. Some of these lawmakers and political leaders include former governor and presidential candidate Gary Johnson, former Congressman Ron Paul, Sens. Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Jeff Flake, Pat Toomey, and governors Nikki Haley and Scott Walker, among others.

With many prominent lawmakers leaning libertarian, Carla Howell, executive director for the party, noted that some 15 million votes were cast for libertarian candidates in 2012 — the highest number ever.

“The Libertarian Party is forging a whole new conversation in America for dramatically less government,” an official statement read. “Not just opposing more big government. Dramatically reducing, downsizing big government.”

“The Libertarian Party departs from both Democratic and Republican Party politicians, 99% of whom consistently vote for more Big Government – bigger budgets, more debt, higher taxes, fewer freedoms, more laws and regulations, and more foreign intervention.”

Among its myriad initiatives, the Libertarian Party seeks to repeal “Obamacare,” reform the current tax code and drastically reduce taxes, and obliterate thousands of restrictive laws and regulations. “In short, make government small.”

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (224)

calmandcents
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 3:46am
I have leaned toward libertarianism for nearly 30 years.

However, last weekend I watched John Stossel and a bunch of indoctrinated kids bombast Ann Coulter because her highest priorities were NOT gay rights, marijuana, and abortion. If these new ideologues are the new new libertarians, count me OUT.

At the very least, the program was so bad and insulting that I now have Stossel blocked from my programming. Damn, we’re running out of TV shows.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- LDLLDL
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 3:54am
  I’m sorry this isn’t what happened. A bunch of people blasted here because she misrepresented the reasons for their support of these policies.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 7:21am
  ann coulter acted like a complete jerk and insulted everyone in that audience multiple times…..she should have been ran off the stage
  
  Report this comment
- lordjosh
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:26am
  I have not commented in a while and now visit this sitemuch less frquently. I could resist to comment here.
  Lets point out the “spectrum” chart Beckians like to reference. This chart makes no sense whatsoever.
  You certainly cannot be both “left” and libertarian at the same time. Forcing your idea of liberty through government on everyone else has nothing to do with promoting liberty. This is complete nonsense(like republicans who don’t know the difference between a republic and an oligarchy). Nor, can you be on the right of the spectrum(less government) if you need that government to support a military and press conservatism on the population.(the liberal left loves their military too).
  The true spectrum is linear. Left being totalitarian control, the right is anarchy, i.e. no government(does not equate to violence). The more you need government to press your ideas on everyone else (violence), the more left you are, regardless of the nature of those ideas.
  
  Calmandcents, shut the tv off.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:33am
  Quite frankly, i dont believe calmandcents. Anyone who has leaned towards certain principles for 30 years would not be so swayed by a few college kids and a brash guest (coulter)
  
  Report this comment
- 13th Imam
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:34am
  That box chart above was a great example of why right leaning libertarians will help the DEMOCRAT side win all future elections. Progressive L’s band together, not caring who they band with, anything goes, just to win. As you continually see here the R leaning L’s brand ALL non L’s as progressive’s.
  No just Conservative, R leaning moderate, or non-L is good enough to stand with. Their insults are continual and the only people they don’t insult are the lefties. And when they finally do insult or demean a leftie, they always add, But R’s do it too. Welcome to the new America.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:36am
  @Lordjosh
  Yea, it is a poor chart. This is a better one….
  http://www.politisite.com/2011/09/30/take-the-nolan-chart-survey-where-do-you-really-fall-in-the-political-universe/#.US9dTlfB_To
  
  Report this comment
- Trance
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:45am
  That was Ann Coulter using a very weak straw man argument that Libertarians are sucking up to the Democrats by making pot smoking their highest priority. I like Ann in general, but she was completely wrong on this.
  
  Report this comment
- naughtycal
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:50am
  Yes,God forbid we allow people the liberty to make the wrong choices and learn through trial by fire.
  Extreme libertarians are anachist that won’t work. But moderate libertarian/conservatives in D.C.would be the best possible out come to rebuild this nation to it’s once greatness. He77 if we just amended the Constitution to remove the broad definition that congress and the white house uses in the commerce clause we could cut the government off at the knees.
  We could end taxation without representation,re-establish businesses,and re ignite the fight of industrialism that brought great economic growth we had in the mid-20th century.
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:02am
  “and harbor a more isolationist view”
  
  This old cannard again I see.
  
  Not going out and fighting other nations, without a Congressional declaration of war as is MANDATED by the Constitution, is not “isolationist”. Good lord almighty, can somebody put this tired old chestnut to bed once and for all?
  
  Report this comment
- UNALIEN
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:08am
  this is the craziest debate, the problem is the language and defining these vague terms in context,, Libertarianism is not a perfectly defined term… the way I have come to understand this is Idealistic Libertarianism aka Libertopianism, the strict adherence to an idealistic version of libertarianism. This is unrealistic. Conservatism is founded on libertarian values, but is pragmatic. Libertopianism, or idealistic libertarianism can never and will never exist.. WHY screams the crowd,,, simple, first it is a paradox, it is extreme individualism and being so the collectivists will always have power. Second, America is an open society, an open society has a weakness, infiltration from outside. Ideological libertarianism would require a closed society which would defeat the libertopian ideal. In other words, Idealistic Libertarian would only work in a society that has all members as libertarians and is closed from outside influence. This is impossible today.. Conservatism takes libertarian values and applies them to the reality of the world and the limitations of a society. So, Conservatism is pragmatic libertarianism or applied libertarianism. Conservatism is reasoned while libertopians are idealists.
  
  Idealistic libertarians need to understand that by requiring 100% submission they are not being libertarian, they are being Fascists.. Conservatism understands that getting part is better than zero.
  
  Report this comment
- lordjosh
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:08am
  @Soybomb
  
  Yeah, it’s better. It still serves to divide the suppossed left and right and keep them fighting so they don’t realize that they are all on the left. For example, at the bottom of the chart, it shows the communist symbol of the hammer and sickle at the bottom left portraying extreme left authoritarianism. While using the swatsika(now associated almost exclusively with Nazism) as an example of extreme right auhoritarianism. I ask, what is the difference? Yes, Hitler’s Nazis and the Soviet Empire clashed, but only to the extent that they had different perogratives as to what the government was going to destroy that day. More correctly, who is going to control the beast. Both want the beast’s collar, not to destroy it.
  At the top of the chart, economic and personal liberty are again seperated on the left right spectrum. How can you have personal liberty without economic liberty? They are one in the same.
  
  Report this comment
- lordjosh
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:11am
  @nuaghtical
  
  “Extreme libertarians are anachist that won’t work.”
  
  I am an anarchist, and I work. What do you mean by this declaration?
  
  Report this comment
- RANGER1965
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:18am
  Here is the reality.
  
  Libertarians for the most part are thought of as the nutball fringe of the extreme right, by the Left. This is of course completely false, but there it is.
  
  So the Left does what the Left does best. They attack Libertarians as extreme Right nutballs. The Libertarians rather than telling the Left to go suck eggs, falls all over themselves to show solidarity, to somehow prove that they are not what the Left is characterizing them to be.
  
  “Look, we like Marijuana! Look we don’t like War! Look we believe every woman should be able to have an abortion!!”
  
  So….instead of defending Libertarian values, many of them get caught up in a morass of trying to prove to the Left that they are not the extreme Right, and prove to the Right that they are not one of them.
  
  Once again the Left controls the argument, and the definitions.
  
  Report this comment
- termyt
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:26am
  That canard and many others will never rest. Folks assume the Blaze is Conservative. It is not. It is a mix of folks allowed to think for themselves. It is mostly conservatives and libertarians. Many of the articles contain off-hand comments that reveal right or left bias.
  
  I am a Libertarian leaning Conservative. I can’t go all the way Libertarian for two reasons:
  
  1. Abortion is not a personal choice or a states rights issue. It is about the right to life – the most sacred of our God-given rights, which the government only exists to protect.
  
  2. Anyone who votes for removing all US troops from all foreign countries votes to fight the next war here. I’m with you on Congress having to authorize all military action, and I agree we should reduce our presence overseas, but not eliminate it.
  
  I don’t care about drugs, except that we live in a welfare state. Since I will have to pay for the hospitalization and rehab of folks who have ruined their own lives with drug use, I would rather they not do drugs. Dismantle the welfare state first, then we can discuss legalizing drugs. Right now, drug use as a personal choice fails the “if it doesn’t pick my pocket” Jefferson test.
  
  Report this comment
- lordjosh
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:42am
  @unalien
  “Idealistic libertarians need to understand that by requiring 100% submission they are not being libertarian, they are being Fascists.. Conservatism understands that getting part is better than zero.”
  You cannot force a negative. I can’t force you not to supress me. I can only respond to your dictates. If you leave me alone, you’ll get no response.
  
  Report this comment
- lordjosh
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:48am
  @Termyt
  
  “1. Abortion is not a personal choice or a states rights issue. It is about the right to life – the most sacred of our God-given rights, which the government only exists to protect.
  
  2. Anyone who votes for removing all US troops from all foreign countries votes to fight the next war here. I’m with you on Congress having to authorize all military action, and I agree we should reduce our presence overseas, but not eliminate it.”
  
  Your opinions notwihstanding, it’s when you vote for people to rob me at gunpoint to pay for your military overseas, or throw me in jail for making a decision not consistant with your moral bearings, is hwenyou overstep your bounds.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:59am
  The Right Wing Christians can not be Libertarians. When you demand that a government impose your moral views on the nation as a whole you are wishing for a theocracy, not a free state. When you demand women must undergo needless medical procedures so that can excerise their rights over their own bodies or when you demand that the state follow your interpetation of your holy book’s diffintion of marriage to deny citizens a basic civil right, you ar enot a libertarian.
  
  Report this comment
- naughtycal
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:18am
  Josh,
  Anarchism isn’t a person it’s a belief in no government. If our country was founded under anarchism….America wouldn’t be here today. The priamry reason the founder saw a government had to be created was DEFENSE. An Anarchist would not create a WELL OILED MILITARY. We would be speaking german today.
  That being said I do aspire to a water down version of anarchism/libertarianism in that I believe the government role in our daily lives should be almost non-existant.
  
  Report this comment
- Silvertruth
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:36am
  Lordjosh is correct, the chart is wrong, very wrong.
  
  The strictest Libertarians are slightly to the left of anarchy. The furthest left is total government dominance of everything. “Republicans” run the gamut of from just right of Socialism to pretty solidly in the middle of Libertarianism. The Democratic party has purged almost everyone right of center.
  
  You might make the “Y” axis are how intense you are as a political person with no negative values possible. You could also make the Y axis your social stance.
  
  Ghost-
  
  Isolationism and going to war are not the same thing. If you are unwilling to go to war for anything but an invasion of your homeland, then you are isolationist. Some strict Libertarians take that viewpoint and try to let the world ‘take care of itself’. WWI taught us this was a bad idea. Things go on globally now that can destroy us without ever being ‘invaded’. We’re doing a good job of committing National suicide anyway, but we certainly don’t need help from anyone else to go under at this point.
  
  Also, the President has had a great deal of leeway to do military actions that are short of war, sometimes to prevent war, sometimes just to protect national security. You might not agree with that and cite Constitutional arguments but even the earliest Presidents have exercised this power to varying degrees. Sometimes you cannot declare war since it is not a Nation you are fighting against.
  
  Report this comment
- Brother Winston Smith
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:40am
  calmandcents DISSECTED…
  
  DOUBTFUL:
  “I have leaned toward libertarianism for nearly 30 years.”
  TRUTH:
  Fake-conservative REPUBLICANS will claim to be MANY, MANY things. In Beck’s case, it’s “libertarian-leaning” – which is an ABSOLUTE LIE, as he ENTHUSIASTICALLY SUPPORTED AND PROMOTED FLAMING LEFTIST REPUBLICAN Rick Santorum (just a few months ago), while claiming he was a “George Washington” sent to us through “divine intervention.” Calmandcents is claiming the same thing. BUT THE KEY TO DISCERNING TRUTH… is the “however” or “but” that INEVITABLY FOLLOWS. THAT’S where the REPUBLICAN Alinskyite smearing will happen. And the REPUBLICAN is ONLY claiming to be “libertarian-leaning”… in order to make their propaganda more believable and palatable. Lying REPUBLICANS did the same thing during 2012 to Constitutional Libertarian Ron Paul. The lying and smearing ALWAYS started with “I’ve supported Ron Paul for years… BUT…”
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:52am
  @Ranger
  
  I can’t recall begging for any acceptance from the left. On topics where the subject comes up of, say, the WOD (or whatever) I’ll register my thoughts, but I certainly could give two sh*ts what any given Leftist thinks, given as they don’t rightly think to begin with. That the right may or may not agree with my thoughts also doesn’t enter the equation. And both sides, as you demonstrate proves not only with your examples of the left, but by your own analysis of libertarians; both sides accuse us of being jolly bedfellows with their “enemy”.
  
  Bother and balderdash. I’m about out of patience for both the left and the right. You people keep yourselves on the path of collectivism by choice, whether you know it or not, and God forbid anybody try to show you a different way.
  
  Your perceptions of libertarians are based on little more than your own anecdotal experiences at best.
  
  Report this comment
- Shiroi Raion
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:55am
  I did the Nolan Chart questionnaire and pinged at the very top of of the Libertarian sector, but I side with the Conservatives on most issues. Democrats have become the party of totalitarianism and oppression.
  I think a better question is…. can you be a Liberal and a Libertarian when the Democratic party has obviously been overtaken by Marxists, radicals and extreme corruption.
  
  Report this comment
- lordjosh
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:56am
  @Naughtical
  
  A “well oiled military” for “defense”, huh? What planet do you live on? We would be much better served by bringing our people home. Sorry my opinion differs from yours. The major difference being is I don’t have to take from you to supply no forces.
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:00am
  @Silver
  
  Words have meaning. You don’t get to invent your own word meaning, substitute it for the actual meaning, and then claim victory.
  
  “i·so·la·tion·ism
  [ahy-suh-ley-shuh-niz-uhm, is-uh-]
  noun
  the policy or doctrine of isolating one’s country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one’s country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.”
  
  Since libertarians are not against foreign economic commitments nor international agreements, one finds your rebuttal lacking. The “lesson” we learned from WWI is that progressives destroyed the entire Classical Liberal camp in one fell swoop, then inserted their own interventionalist ideology and economic meddling as a cure for the problems of the world.
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:03am
  @Lordjosh
  
  You might find my site interesting. You’re welcome to come on over and sit a spell in the Discussion area if you’d like.
  
  http://www.patriotsdonotcomply.com
  
  Report this comment
- UNALIEN
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:07am
  LORDJOSH
  
  yes, you can force a negative,,
  
  it is the political system,, a minority supporting a minority position can empower another 100% contrary position. Pragmatism is NOT part of ideological Libertarianism, it really is a form of suicidal fascism, by sticking to what you want, you lose what you realistically can achieve. It is a paradox, you can’t get what you want unless you drop your idealism. If you drop your idealism you are a Conservative, ergo the conundrum…
  
  Libertopianism is a Paradox…
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:58am
  I find the word being used right now, “pragmatism”, interesting.
  
  It is the word which has helped the progressives more than any other word in these united States. I won’t say why, I’ll leave it to people to actually research the foundational premise of philosphical pragmatism and come to their own conclusions, which will likely mirror the same conclusions I came to about this “philosophy” a couple of decades ago.
  
  There’s your homework. Figure out why the word keeps being tossed around today instead of “practical”. Veritas vos liberabit.
  
  Report this comment
- Zipit
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:04pm
  Oh GOD! We’ve awaken Bro Winston…… And Encinom, that was funny! Can we get a clip of you saying that again while doing the “robot dance”? “you ar enot a libertarian.” Bwaaaa!!!!!
  
  Report this comment
- GetRight
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:29pm
  Some really good comments here. I agree with what you say RANGER1965 and others here discussing the socially liberal tenants of Libertarianism. I have been so betrayed and disappointed by the Republicans and have been leaning toward the Libertarian party. I think the founding fathers were mostly aligned with this viewpoint but where my problem arises is with this social liberal pandering. I have heard it said that this form of liberty only works with a moral people. I do not think the founders could foresee this absolute moral decay. I mean we are discussing people being free to sell their bodies, use hardcore drugs, marry the same sex, and murder their babies in the womb! Is this the freedom we want? The freedom to destroy our society and blur the lines of morality for our children? I just don’t know what to think. I think Libertarianism only works for the moral not the people we have become. I have described myself as a Conservative Libertarian because I mostly agree but am uncomfortable with some of the kooky far left ideas. I guess I should just consider myself a Conservative, Christian, Constitutionalist. Idk
  
  Report this comment
- naughtycal
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:45pm
  Josh,
  I never said I agree with pumping billions into foriegn countries to set up bases or fight other cultures wars.
  I’m talking about defense the true purpose of our military. Not the current application in which our military is being used as muscle for the U.N. I agree with Ron Paul in the idea that our military should be brought home and more bases be opened up along our borders. A defensive military .
  But that’s not what I was responding to . I merely pointed out the huge effing elephant in the room reguarding you anarchist belief system. The fact that with no government(anarchy) comes no NATIONAL DEFENSE.
  Just say I’m right(because I am) and leave it at that. Maybe read the federalist papers,or the writing of our founders who considered and anarchist approach but found the same fatal flaw I just pointed out.
  
  Report this comment
- Norm D. Plume
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 1:08pm
  @CalmAndCents:
  
  You have successfully completely mischaracterized the entirety of the meeting between Stossel, Coulter and the crowd of young libertarians.
  
  *THAT* is why conservatives *MUST* join *US*. Leave behind your baggage, for it is too heavy when we need to move fast.
  
  Report this comment
- lordjosh
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 1:50pm
  @unalien
  “Libertopianism is a Paradox…”
  Pragmatism is a parodox…..
  
  @Naughtycle
  Yeah, I get it. Let me know when you find an example of that working.
  
  Report this comment
- faithkills
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 1:53pm
  Ann Coulter called libertarian kids ‘psusies’ because they had principles that they won’t compromise. They were the adults in that room. No one insulted HER.
  
  Ann Coulter is a statist. You CAN be a conservative and a libertarian. You can be a liberal and a libertarian.
  
  A conservative libertarian has traditional values, but insists that social change be brought about by social means. You win the ‘culture war’ by demonstrating the superiority of your culture.
  
  A statist conservative however thinks that it is desirable to toss people in jail if they disagree or shoot them if they resist being caged.
  
  PLENTY of conservative libertarians do not approve of homosexual relationships or drug use. They nevertheless think the greater immorality is using government guns to enforce their beliefs on other people when the different beliefs of other people does not directly harm them.
  
  “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous
  servant and a fearful master.” George Washington
  
  Libertarian conservatives agree with Washington. Fire is the VERY LAST RESORT to solving problems.
  
  Statist conservatives have bought into the progressive lie that voting is the way to solve social problems. Progressive conservatives, like progressive liberals think that fire is the best, even only, tool. The FIRST thing they do is run to the government to SOLVE PROBLEMS FOR THEM. Especially when the ‘problem’ is someone who disagrees
  
  Report this comment
- UNALIEN
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 3:02pm
  LORDJOSH
  
  you are playing with semantics to ignore the argument, reformulate the argument in your terms then try to refute the logic… you can’t
  
  idealistic libertarianism is impossible in the culture today, period, for it to work everyone would need to be a libertarian and only libertarians allowed into the country, the American culture has been perverted, it would take decades and generations to fix that and you can’t do that by being idealistic, a cultural shift is like turning around a ship, you need to just get it going in the right direction. Naive idealism will mean that you never get to steer..
  
  Report this comment
- USANUMBERONE
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 3:19pm
  I feel the same.
  
  Report this comment
- A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:59pm
  True. Nazism and Communism are both left. After all, Nazism was the Nationalist socialist party.
  
  A great book on this exact thing is “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg.
  
  @NAUGHTYCAL
  
  Do you believe that ONLY governments can provide services? If so I would highly recommend reading “The Voluntary City.”
  
  Report this comment
- A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:07pm
  Mussolini’s Italian Fascism was all about the state…”everything in the state, nothing outside the state.”
  
  Nazism was about uniting under one “race” (the German race. Racism is not inherent to totalitarianism).
  
  Communism united around the working class. “Workers of the world, Unite!.”
  
  All were on the left and totalitarian in nature.
  
  Report this comment
- RationalMan
  Posted on March 1, 2013 at 12:31am
  soybomb315_II,
  I looked at the chart, but, what happen to “Individualism”? All he is showing a certain parties!
  
  Why should I, you and others have to “Join” a party?
  
  This is not against you soy, I’m just making a statement!
  
  Report this comment
- libertarianchristian
  Posted on March 1, 2013 at 9:38am
  @josh….you are actually wrong. the left right scale is purely economy. right is capitalism and the left is socialism. the north south scale is political/social control. with north meaning no individual liberty and south being anarchy. and technically there is a third scale the should come out of the cross section making it a 3d model that is moral with one end being altruism and the othr end being selfish. the difference between complete anarchy and the kingdom of jesus on earth is the moral standing of the people.
  
  Report this comment
- Allseasonangler
  Posted on March 1, 2013 at 11:49am
  You are no libertarian. If you sided with Ann Coulter you are a closet conservative masquerading by your own mistaken self identification of being libertarian.
  
  Do not fear as Glenn Beck suffers from the same problem. Beck has disdain and contempt for libertarians just Coulter.
  
  Did you know Beck’s buddy Judge Napolitano has called himself an anarchist and by Beck’s definition a 9-11 truther?
  
  Just goes to show you the hypocrisy of Glenn Beck who makes Ron Paul out as a kook when Ron actually believes the official 9-11 fable while Napolitano rejects it.
  
  Report this comment
- lordjosh
  Posted on March 1, 2013 at 12:01pm
  @Libertarianchristian
  
  What I am saying is that it does not matter what is the object of control for a particular government. I would think any that controled one aspect would thirst to control more. More importantly, the enslaved would thirst for more enslavement. If you don’t have economic freedom, you can’t be in control of your moral freedom. Jesus’ kingdom on earth will be realized when his Father’s gift of free will is realized.
  
  Report this comment
Nabuquduriuzhur
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 3:42am
If drug legalization had worked anywhere where it had been tried, I might agree with the idea. I grew up in (and still live in) a state where pot was legal from 1973-1997. The results were horrendous. Most of the girls I went to high school with got into drugs. And most are still into drugs. Drug-addicted kids, skid row, etc. At least 5 I knew personally went into porn movies to support their habits.

When Canada legalized, there was a ten-fold increase in addicts and an explosion in meth, smack, coke, etc. The highway near my home became a drug highway from mexico to feed Vancouver. All day long, every day. California’s and Washington’s legalizations are doing the same.

In 2011 and 2012, more than 100,000 mexicans each year were killed to meet the demands for drugs created by legalization. That is up from about 30,000 before legalization. Some 8,000 of 11,000 homicides in this nation are gang-related, and gangs are kept in business by drugs. Legalization was a windfall for them.

so, when libertarians want to legalize drugs, what does that say about them?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- LDLLDL
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 4:17am
  >If drug legalization had worked anywhere where it had been tried, I might agree with the idea. I grew up in (and still live in) a state where pot was legal from 1973-1997. The results were horrendous. Most of the girls I went to high school with got into drugs. And most are still into drugs. Drug-addicted kids, skid row, etc. At least 5 I knew personally went into porn movies to support their habits.
  
  What state was this because I don’t know of a single one that had pot legal and I’d like to look into this more. Why doesn’t alcohol turn people into these immoral she-beasts?
  
  >When Canada legalized, there was a ten-fold increase in addicts and an explosion in meth, smack, coke, etc. The highway near my home became a drug highway from mexico to feed Vancouver. All day long, every day. California’s and Washington’s legalizations are doing the same.
  
  Here are stats on Canada provided by the conservative party there. Not a single thing you say seems based in fact.
  
  http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/bills_ls.asp?ls=c10-04&Parl=41&Ses=1
  
  >In 2011 and 2012, more than 100,000 mexicans …
  
  I can’t find this anywhere because drugs aren’t legal in Mexico…
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/mexico-marijuana-legalization_n_2140116.html
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:01am
  What state did you live in, Fantasytopia or Pretendstadt?
  
  You just told a lie, or you really didn’t understand the age you grew up in to the point of being likely held in a basement during those years against your will and having no contact with the outside world.
  
  “Pot” was legal throughout most of our history, and people smoked it, until the early 1900′s when the, yes, progressives got ahold of the issue, injected their racist bullcrap, and badda bing, we had a war on drugs. Same thing happened regarding the start of “gun control” as well, which predictably, was also based on racism and progressive ideologies.
  
  Report this comment
- Atrum Angelis
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:07am
  Pot also wasn’t “legalized.” It was decriminalized when found in small quantities. There is also a difference in the legal terms of “legalized” and “decriminalized.”
  
  Report this comment
- Jadedfate
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 11:50am
  You should try looking into Portugal. It’s working wonderfully there.
  
  Report this comment
Nabuquduriuzhur
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 3:34am
The chart is wrong.

Sigh. More revisionist goop.

Before the 2000s, the traditional meaning of “left” was some branch of Socialism, from Communism, to National Socialism to Maoism to Parliamentary Socialism, etc.

The right was defined as representative democracy/representative republic, with the ideas and ideals that go with them.

Today, we have a plethora of folks who ignore the history of the terms. In the media, it’s deliberate, with the attempts to change “right wing” from its former meaning to casually calling it “nazi” despite the nazis ascribing to 6.66 Planks of the Communist Manifesto, the Soviets 8.83, the 2012 Democrat Platform 9.0, Republicans 2.17, Libertarians 0.5.

Unfortunately, the Libertarians’ ideas can’t work. The fundamental ideology of the party is that of the Democrats if one could remove the Socialism from the Democrats— no morals at all. The closest thing to a Libertarian ideology as actualized would be the law of the jungle. “I’ve got mine, the hell with you; I can do whatever I want without regard to anyone else.” As such, it is not a viable idea for government of any sort, lacking the Rule of Law.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- LDLLDL
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 3:54am
  >Before the 2000s, the traditional meaning of “left” was some branch of Socialism, from Communism, to National Socialism to Maoism to Parliamentary Socialism, etc.
  
  How does that make the chart wrong? I mean I prefer the more diamond shaped version myself. I’ve seen a million variety of these. Ok lets get this straight. Left comes from the french revolution from the body that sat to the left of the king while the right were the traditionalists and the clergy sat in the center. Take this post american revolution. And you had classical liberals and the traditionalists. The traditionalists of the day to the right and the classical liberals to the left. Classical liberalism is closest to today’s modern libertarian of any. They sought many of the founding ideas but the principle that making the greatest number of people happy was achievable through socially liberal policies and fiscally conservative ones. The problem came truly with Glenn’s progressives and they corrupted this into thinking government could make the greatest number of people happy. But when you are stealing and pillaging the village you but paying people in bread you might be able to hide it for a while…eventually people will notice you are paying them with their own stuff.
  
  As far as these charts. none are whole adequat unless you make a 3 based pyramid but that becomes very difficult to see. Our problems are just not easily defined in this manner.
  
  Report this comment
- LDLLDL
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 4:00am
  >Unfortunately, the Libertarians’ ideas can’t work. The fundamental ideology of the party is that of the Democrats if one could remove the Socialism from the Democrats— no morals at all. The closest thing to a Libertarian ideology as actualized would be the law of the jungle. “I’ve got mine, the hell with you; I can do whatever I want without regard to anyone else.” As such, it is not a viable idea for government of any sort, lacking the Rule of Law.
  
  That is incorrect as well. The underlying moral principle of the libertarian party is do no harm, or the non-aggression principle. Second it is treat others as you wish to be treated. or Matthew 7:12
  
  Report this comment
- NoSleeper
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 4:25am
  I would agree the chart is wrong, but for the reasons you mention. Our simplistic one-dimensional view of the political spectrum, based on the two party system, tries to overly simplify the issues into simple ‘left’ and ‘right’. As we have seen for decades, there is no significant differences between the two parties actions on the major issues.
  
  A better representation is provided by the 2-D Nolan chart which depicts the spectrum in a diamond rather than a square, with the size of Government on the vertical axis (Anarchy at the top Statism at the bottom). In this context, the differences between “left” and “right” shrink as one moves up or down the chart since limited Government lacks the power to take action and large government denies the people the ability to take action.
  
  True Fascism and Communism require large Government and, as a result, appear near the bottom of the chart and are very close to each other based on the limited differences between Left and Right; basically, two sides of the same coin.
  
  Keep this chart in mind when listening to the rhetoric of the Progressives and think which is more likely: that the advocates of limited government fascists? (no, they want to move in the opposite direction); or that the advocates of more government via healthcare, taxation and gun control are Communists (maybe not, but they are heading in that direction).
  
  Report this comment
- Jadedfate
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 11:57am
  You’re completely wrong..it’s I can do whatever I want as long as I’m not harming others or infringing on their liberty. You seem to have a very skewed view of what being a libertarian is. You should do some research.
  
  Report this comment
LDLLDL
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 3:31am
I just wanted to say I think that was a well written article Tiffany. Journalistic in a manner one doesn’t see too much of these days anymore. She just stuck to facts!?

As for Glenn’s question should we make Heroin legal tomorrow? My principles say yes. The evidence of Spain says yes. On the other hand in a consequentialist manner why don’t we take the battle we can win. So I ask Glenn this: Can we get you to agree maybe it is time to work on the Pot question? I say this like you, as a reformed alcoholic, that has no intention of using it.

Thanks and peace be with all of you.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- sta
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:18am
  Until the Welfare system is reformed, I can’t go along with legalizing anything. My reasoning is simple. If one chooses to use a drug and cannot “Pick my pocket”, it’s fine.
  If there are dogooders that will say, “WE have to help the addict” while picking my pocket to do it, that is bad.
  Until we change the culture, both Beck and Coulter are right. Libertarians will get no where. Their message needs to resonate with people again because they have gotten bad PR. What is the first question asked of a Libertarian? It’s either about the legalization of drugs or sex laws. Libertarians have such good ideas, they need to tone down the big changes until they have an audience that doesn’t see them through evil glasses.
  
  Report this comment
- LDLLDL
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:52am
  >Until we change the culture, both Beck and Coulter are right. Libertarians will get no where. Their message needs to resonate with people again because they have gotten bad PR. What is the first question asked of a Libertarian? It’s either about the legalization of drugs or sex laws. Libertarians have such good ideas, they need to tone down the big changes until they have an audience that doesn’t see them through evil glasses.
  
  Well I agree that we need to take a reverse progressivism approach. I mean I’m entirely against taxation. I see it as theft. Right now much of the country will go for MJ legalization. It isn’t a big idea anymore. Again I say is the person able to use your money on alcohol? I mean we can be rational people and devise ways to avoid that. I supported the drug testing approach that was recently rule unconstitutional in FL, but if such things are legal we can monitor at the site of sale.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 4:55pm
  @STA
  When things like marijuana are illegal – that also picks your pocket. Half the police force is dedicated to drug enforcement – that costs money. And it costs about $20,000 per year to keep someone in jail. Do you consider those costs in your “pick my pocket” math?
  
  Report this comment
- LostInTheSpin
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 6:15pm
  Ouch…well played, Soybomb
  
  Report this comment
- Norm D. Plume
  Posted on March 1, 2013 at 4:39pm
  @Soy:
  
  Brilliant point. Kudos, sir.
  
  Report this comment
drgermain
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 2:07am
a true libertarian should say that the government has no right to define marriage, it is and has been defined and the government has no business change it. you marry oil and vinegar, you don’t marry oil and oil example: ” vinaigrette is a marriage of oil and vinegar” . the wost thing about this gay marriage thing is it’s about money, that’s where the equal rights needs to be resolved. gays are trying to gain monetary rights through the back door ( oh look we’re married now where’s my benefits) just be honest fight for you benefits

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- 13th Imam
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:58am
  Nice Pun.
  
  “Through the back door” (for those of you in Rio Linda)
  
  Report this comment
- cgnick
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:31am
  No! A true Libertarian would say that the government should not recognize marriage at all. There should be no marriage license given by the state, there would be no tax benefit. They would say that if you or your pastor say you are married then you are married. It would carry no benefit, penalty or recognition from the state. If you want to divorce than that can be done however you want to do that.
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:03pm
  @CGNick
  
  Correct and agreed. Of course, there should be no income tax in order to give anybody, of any status or connection, a benefit. As a libertarian would say. :)
  
  Report this comment
RationalMan
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 1:43am
lc_102,
Sir I agree with you what you have stated above.
I love the “Constitution”, but, it’s about “inalienable Rights”. or
should it say “Inalienable Individual Rights”? Or does it mean something else?

I do agree with you, the fundamental of our government is to protect our country from foreign invasion and to protect individualism from crime!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Jedrin
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 1:15am
Authoritarian; the all-encompassing word for Commies, Marxists, dictators, etc.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Jedrin
Posted on February 28, 2013 at 1:12am
Freedom of speech. Speech is regulated; you cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater, right? Yes you can. If the people in the theater are too stupid to NOT trample each other on the way out then Darwin is there to lead them to wherever. The person yelling would have a responsibility IF there were injuries or damage but that is only IF.

Gay marriage. The state should keep out of it. A man and woman with child is the future of the country and the human species so the state has a vested interest in supporting that. But if it came down to it then get the state out of all questions of marriage and leave it to the community. Gay Marriage and Gay rights are a political philosophy of political correctness and forced thought control and even infringement of freedom of speech.

Free enterprise. The small businesspersons and individuals need to be protected from the mob that is a large corporation bonded with government. Force is used through regulation, laws, taxation, armed IRS agents and LEO/Regulators willing to use deadly force to protect the corporation.

Strict adherence to the Constitution of the USA is the solution to the problems of Excessive Government.

Thank you Glenn for this discussion. It would be nice to get the cats onboard to roll back some 100 years of almost overwhelming Federal and State excess then the USA may have an chance.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- LDLLDL
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 1:13pm
  @johnoforegen
  
  So progressives are big government socialist. What republicans keep voting for more government?
  
  Well lets look to spending under Bush-Medicare D, the patriot act, the militarization of police, the drug war, the fight against gay rights
  
  >SE Culp just proposed a whole new layer of thought police and run Christians out of the party. Is that not progressive? She attacked CPAC for being conservative, I know she is not elected but is that conservative or progressive?
  
  Here is the libertarian look on this. Ok, it is your right to disclude gays from your club. But if I take issue with that I can tell people that is why I won’t go there. I can encourage others not to do so. Now furthermore progressivism would be if she encouraged the government to pass a law saying you have to take the gays. This is social pressure. There is a strong difference as one reflects the people’s moral stance and the other reflects force of some groups version. Also how does this run Christians out of the party. Your values are your own. You just don’t get to legislated them. Keep your CPAC if you want.
  
  Report this comment
DLV
Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:51pm
This is a cool discussion. I like when Glenn brings in a bunch of different minds together like this.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- RationalMan
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:56pm
  I agree!!!
  
  It sure keeps our mind “Active” !…(an Active mind)
  
  Report this comment
- JohnofOregon
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:58pm
  As a conservative, I am very happy to see. As a republican I constantly am let down with the limited vision and uncreative minds of republican leaders. They always disrespect their base.
  
  You can always have an intelligent and interesting conversation with a libertarian. This is something good. I just wish they would join the Republican Party in mass.
  
  Report this comment
- lc_102
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:05am
  couldn’t agree more. Most in the Republican party that spew unwarrented and negative things about libertarians seem to be so angry and stuck in their ways to anything but hurl personal attacks and paint everyone with the same brush. I applaud anyone who is willing to actually talk about why they believe a certain way is MORE than welcome to share their beliefs and ideas (what a novel thought for civilized debate) The young generations of conservatives live in a society where asking questions is important, and the typical arrogant American response of “thats just the way it is” Isn’t good enough for us.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:21am
  i think the republican party should disband and join the Constitution Party, which is not full of progressive establishment
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:16am
  @John
  
  Why would we join a party we split from back in 1971? At the time we knew, even then, that they were too “Progressive”. Now it’s 1,000 times worse to the power of ten. Traditional conservatives, what few remain in that party, are there simply to pull levers on command, they don’t care about your ideas. If they did, you’d find your ideas being implemented. When was the last time that happened?
  
  Report this comment
- JohnofOregon
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 11:00am
  @ghost, because the current version of the republican vision is bigger government, libertarians are opposed to this. Current republicans promote more regulatory interference, libertarians oppose (dhs is a republican idea along with tsa). Current republican leaders support regulation of religion through gay rights, libertarians do not believe in regulating religion. Current republican leaders do not believe in a balanced budget amendment, libertarians do. Current republican leaders do not believe in civil liberty, libertarians do.
  
  I judge politicians on not on what they say. I judge them on actions. The only action they have is the vote. Check Thomas.gov. The establishment republicans can’t stand tea party republicans because of those votes. My gosh, imagine people who run for office and do what they say. Aloft he’s outrageous budgets have republicans that vote for them. Each time they borrow, the more enslaved children are. Strange view for a party founded to fight slavery.
  
  So progressives are big government socialist. What republicans keep voting for more government?
  
  SE Culp just proposed a whole new layer of thought police and run Christians out of the party. Is that not progressive? She attacked CPAC for being conservative, I know she is not elected but is that conservative or progressive?
  
  Report this comment
- Eastinfection
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 5:41pm
  i agree, DLV.
  
  This is a conversation that is BADLY needed right now.
  
  The way i look at it is this: Libertarians are ultra-conservative about defending the Constitution- which is a relatively Liberal doc_ument.
  
  Report this comment
GoodStuff
Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:46pm
A libertarian is someone who only talks about pot, homosexual “marriage”, and the Jews running the world.

Maybe if they expanded their discussion beyond these three issues, and got rid of their anti-Semitism, the world might take them more seriously.

Coulter was right, anarcho-libertarians only talk about pot and homosexual “marriage” because they want the Left to like them.

Limited government conservatism is the answer….not anti-Semitic, dope-smoking, anarchist rejects who worship RuPaul.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DLV
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:47pm
  Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm nooooooooo fail.
  
  Report this comment
- resme
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:51pm
  heh.
  
  “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. “
  
  Report this comment
- lc_102
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:56pm
  Wow, talk about an awful lot of hate in one post. These are the issues the Republican party needs to have a healthy discussion about. So long as you keep legislating bigotry against blacks, mexicans, gays and people who smoke pot – you will Never win back the white house. I find it fairly hilarious that all the people you just tried to marginalize, do what they want whether you say or think its right or wrong anyway (and always have, always will). Your generation of social conservitvies didnt sell your grandchildrens futures out like you like to say in talking points. YOU sold OUR generation of hardworking, taxpaying individuals out by voting Fiscally irresponsible Rhinos who have spent more than a liberal Democrat Obama in the last 10 years. By all means, keep hating people that have never done a single thing that hurts your personal way of life – It exposes you as morally and intellectually bankrupt, and the sooner we can leave people with these views in the 19th century where they belong, the sooner we can actually get SOMETHING DONE in government thats GOOD for Americans
  
  Report this comment
- RationalMan
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:13am
  GoodStuff stated…
  Limited government conservatism is the answer…
  ——————————————————————
  Let me see here…
  * The religious conservatives are seeking to tie capitalism to mysticism
  * Conservatives say they are against higher taxes, but, doesn’t “Abolish taxes”.
  * To have limited government, we have to “Abolish taxes”, it’s been done before through “Volunteer
  donations’! Don’t believe me read about “American Revolution and War of Independence”!
  
  Report this comment
- LDLLDL
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 1:32am
  >A libertarian is someone who only talks about pot, homosexual “marriage”, and the Jews running the world.
  
  First off a libertarian care about not spending billions on a drug war that one cannot do anything about. Most libertarians want the government out of marriage all together, but as long as you make it a state thing equal access should exist. I think a antihomosexiual should be allowed to keep gays out of his store, but if that store is owned by the state that gay person is paying for that including. Here’s a hint on the jews aspect. Rothbard, Mises, and Walter Block are some of the most universally respected libertarians around. They are also all Jews. Sorry don’t care about this. You will as the article says find them talking about a series of issues besides these things. Check out http://www.reddit.com/r/libertarian. You currently don’t find a single one of these as an active new topic.
  
  >Coulter was right, anarcho-libertarians only talk about pot and homosexual “marriage” because they want the Left to like them.
  
  I’m sorry that you feel that way. Unfortunately the but if the right is like you and close minded then no I don’t want anything to do with you. Fortunately most the commenters here aren’t like you.
  
  Report this comment
- Jedrin
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 1:44am
  It is true that a lot of “Libertarians” are really Liberals. The war on drugs has destroyed three big countries since the eighties, Columbia, Mexico and the USA. If you look at the result of the war on drugs it has pushed the Authoritarian agenda along quite well. For the cost in money alone all the drug addicts in the world could have gone through rehab twice every year and it would have cost a fraction of what the war on drugs has cost, let alone the loss of Liberty.
  
  Report this comment
- LDLLDL
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 3:38am
  @JEDRIN in the words of Frederic Bastiat “When goods don’t cross borders armies will.” This is our issue with the drug war.
  
  Report this comment
- Norm D. Plume
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 1:41pm
  @LDLLDL:
  
  The issue I have with the drug war, as a libertarian-leaning guy, is that I don’t think the government has any authority to tell me what I can and cannot put into my body. I toke a little bud, and drink a beer now and then, and I don’t think that’s bad — in fact, the weed has helped me drop a lot of weight and takes away pain sufficiently that I am going to start a little farm soon, and get the Hell out of the system as entirely as I can.
  
  Want to stop people who use drugs from leeching off of the welfare system? Get rid of the welfare system. Obviously, we will not get rid of drugs. Having them illegal has not made them disappear, and people on welfare are still using them. Legalize drugs, and nothing will change on that front. What will change, is that we’ll be spending less money to incarcerate people who, by their actions smoking reefer, have harmed nobody. Instead of ruining their lives, we could rehabilitate those using hard drugs, teach them life skills, and let them be productive.
  
  Conservatives MUST leave their baggage behind and join US, if they want to save the republic.
  
  The difference is this:
  
  The libertarians want YOU to live the way YOU see fit, and we want YOU to obtain the blessings of your creator in whatever measure He sees fit to bestow them upon you. But we do not want YOU to force US to live the way YOU want US to live.
  
  Report this comment
- Eastinfection
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 6:13pm
  GOODSTUFF…
  
  “A libertarian is someone who only talks about pot, homosexual “marriage”, and the Jews running the world.”
  
  As a Libertarian i’d gladly have a discussion with you about any of those issues, or any others that interest you but, unfortunately, your post proves that you lack the capacity to discuss anything.
  
  Report this comment
- Jadedfate
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 1:44pm
  Funny, I don’t think the jews run the world, and have never heard that on any serious discussion in the Libertarian party forums…in fact, I see that only from the fringe folks that are into conspiracies. Def not a core element of the party or view. I don’t smoke pot, never have, but I do think people should be free to do what they want with their own bodies. And gay marriage shouldn’t be a left/right issue. Human rights never should be. My key concerns, as a libertarian, are the size of government and the scope, and the gay rights and drug policy falls into that. If there is a small, limited government, it wouldn’t be involved with either of those things.
  
  Report this comment
HOOT_OWL
Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:39pm
The ideology of wanting to have the freedom with little to no Government intrusion and to stay with in the confines of the Constitution.

But just like everything else ,it has been high-jacked by a godless bunch ,that say they don’t want my pushy beliefs anywhere in sight, as they try to shove their beliefs down my throat.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- lc_102
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:47pm
  Please explain to me how someone telling you that living YOUR life HOWEVER YOU see fit is “shoving their beliefs down your throat” No libertarian says Christians (or anyone else for that matter) have to live a certain way. Your beliefs are for your life, your household, and your family. Your free to do, say and believe whatever you want and no Libertarian wants to change that. I don’t get whats so hard to understand. Stop acting as though this movement wants you to change anything about your personal life (which is the only life, aside from your children, you have a say over), Its simply not true
  
  Report this comment
- HOOT_OWL
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 6:42am
  OK, Here you go . Do today‘s ‘libertarians’ believe in
  
  Freedom OF religion….OR ….Freedom FROM religion..?
  
  Report this comment
- Norm D. Plume
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 1:49pm
  As a libertarian who is currently starting to get a little religion, I’d have to say “Freedom *OF* Religion”.
  
  But I don’t care if someone else does *NOT* want to believe. I believe they can stand right beside me in the town square and hand out atheist literature, while I hand out Christian literature and, at the end of the day, we can go and have a beer together. I don’t want the government to pay for religious displays in the park, but I also don’t think the government has any place banning such things.
  
  Just take responsibility for *YOURSELF* — not *ME* — and we’ll be fine. Believe how you want to believe, and let me believe the way I want to believe, or not believe, and we’ll be fine.
  
  Force me to live the way *YOU* want me to live, and we’re fighting. Even if we’re REALLY-REALLY-REALLY close together in our beliefs and lifestyles.
  
  Report this comment
AUsername
Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:34pm
Mind your own damn business, that is libertarianism.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GoodStuff
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:46pm
  Libertarian = pot, homosexual “marriage”, and the Jews run the world.
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:50pm
  Goodstuff- That’s incredibly narrow minded.
  
  Report this comment
- AUsername
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:53am
  Neo Consevatism – sacrficing our troops to die for israel, murdering muslims and stealing their resources from their lands.
  
  Report this comment
- Norm D. Plume
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 1:54pm
  @Goodstuff:
  
  That is why the Republican party, and the “conservatives” therein are so wildly successful at election time, is it not?
  
  Keep on going the way you are, and we will never restore the republic. Put your holier-than-thou arrogance right straight up your @55 and join us, and we can all be free.
  
  Report this comment
Zorch
Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:28pm
The premise that man can govern himself, and others by associating themselves with varying political parties or beliefs is a misnomer. First, one HAS to unite with others on a religious platform. GOD, is always the unspoken criteria to any law, regulation, or reason for how men will treat one another. There HAS to be a set of unchanging standards from which we get our sense of right and wrong, good and bad. Society will legislate from its perceived point of “justice” and “rightness”, but if that point is always evolving, chaos will follow; it has to because the goal-posts keep moving as culture changes. Libertarianism is more closely associated with Godly guidance, because the righteous have no obligation to be the remedy for the unrighteous, but they can be a very real example that they practice what they preach. Some think Communism is closer to Godliness, and that can true to some extent. But, firstly, it has to be determined what simple, basic rules we want to be governed by, like the 10 Commandments, and from there, as few as possible daily rules or laws come into play. It is not a “live and let live” mentality, rather a sense of “these are the rules and as long as you live here, you will comply”…there are other places which you may want to go if you don’t like it here or if you wish to change what the people have decided will be their morality and set of laws. It is ludicrous to live in a place you want to be different than what it is.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- scarydave
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:43pm
  Pure libertarianism is closer to anarchism than any other political ideology. This reason alone is enough to keep me from welcoming them with open arms.
  Another reason I have a negative opinion of libertarianism has to do with the Libertarians I have met personally. Each and every one of them has a dim view of Conservatives, which is a name I proudly call myself every chance I get.
  
  Report this comment
- lc_102
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:00am
  @ScaryDave – you really should get out and talk to more Conservative Libertarians, basing what you believe millions of Americans believe from the experience you’ve had with a few, is very naive
  
  Report this comment
- Norm D. Plume
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 2:02pm
  @ScaryDave:
  
  You preach intolerance, bigotry and hatred.
  
  I don’t hate gays. I don’t like them. I don’t care one way or another about them. Some are good people, and some are bad. Just like everyone other grouping of people on Earth. They are people, QED, and therefore have their rights, just like me. I don’t have to accept their lifestyle, or advocate for it, but I do have to tolerate their pursuit of it, whether or not I like it. It is, quite frankly, none of my business.
  
  You want to shove YOUR belief and mode of believing in YOUR deity down MY throat, and that’s where I gag.
  
  Theocratic progressivism is every stinking bit as bad as political and economic authoritarianism.
  
  It really is “Live and let live”. If you don’t live and let live, we’re never going to be free.
  
  Report this comment
RationalMan
Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:22pm
As a political party

The Libertarian Party was created in 1971 as an answer to what was considered the politics as usual meme perpetuated by Democrats and Republicans. The goal was to create a party that would adhere, as closely as possible, to the liberties which the Founding Fathers held in such high regard.
————————————————————————————————————————————

What does Libertarian Party meant by, “closely as possible”?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- lc_102
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:13am
  Closely as possible means we want to live by the values of the founding fathers, first and formost being liberty from an overbearing government. We want The society the founded back, however this isnt the 1760′s, the world is a different place. I’ll give you a few for instances, the modern military is somthing that the founders could never even have fathomed, therefore its us to up to keep the spirit of their principals alive in this aspect, but still be able to deal with real world situations involving that Military. Or another instance, the founders believed in liberty for all, unless you were black. Society now sees all people as the same, so our views of liberty must adapt to that societal change. It means One nation under God, with Liberty and Justice for ALL
  
  Report this comment
- RationalMan
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:31am
  lc_102 stated….
  One nation under God, with Liberty and Justice for ALL
  ————————————————————————–
  
  What happens to me and others who don’t believe in God, but, understand “Liberty and Justice for all”?
  
  America’s founding ideal was the principle of individual rights!
  
  Why is it that Liberals, Conservatism and Libertarianism never talk about “Capitalism and Reason”?
  
  Report this comment
- lc_102
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:56am
  Rational Man, I too am Closer to being Agnostic than anything. They constitution is stated as giving GOD given rights. You don’t have to believe that those rights were God given, but thats how the constitution was written and those words hurt you not so much in the least. The founders had the Liberty to write the constitution how they saw fit. No one says you have to believe in God to uphold the founders ideals. There is absolutely ZERO reason to attack traditional Christian values when it has no impact on your personal life or beliefs. This is why there is so much animosity between Christian conservatives and Non-Christian conservatives. All they want to do is attack one another over God, when in reality, someone choosing to believe or not believe has Zero effect on the other person (thats how it should be). Where problems come into play, is people trying to belittle/Marginalize/make criminals out of others (through legislation in the federal government) because they believe in god and you dont, or you believe in god and they don’t. This doesnt have to be some adversarial relationship, If you don’t want to believe in God, no one is going to make you. People have a right to tell you what they think you should do, just as you have that same right to tell them what you think they should do. But you (or they) have no right to legislate (force) those individual beliefs about what they think you should or shouldn’t believe/follow ect…..
  
  Report this comment
- Norm D. Plume
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 2:08pm
  @LC:
  
  Well said.
  
  Report this comment
- Jadedfate
  Posted on March 6, 2013 at 2:05pm
  Actually, the word God is never used in the Constitution. You’re thinking of the Declaration of Independence, and even then it doesn’t say they are God given. This was very deliberately done, as it was written by a man who was a Deist, referring not to a Christian god, but able to be interpreted various ways, as in his belief in natures god. Jefferson didn’t put much stock in the mystical aspects of Christianity. But this is why it does not say God..it says endowed by their creator. Lots of ways to read that.
  
  Report this comment
- RationalMan
  Posted on March 11, 2013 at 12:49am
  LC stated…
  But you (or they) have no right to legislate (force) those individual beliefs about what they think you should or shouldn’t believe/follow ect…..
  —————————————————————————–
  
  Really LC?
  Can I say “TAXES” and yes it’s done by force!!!!!
  
  And yes “TAXES” was taken out of the “Holy Bible” and made into law!!!!
  
  I see you don’t have a problem with this LC?
  
  Nice writing or shall I say well said!!!! (I’m vomiting on your statement)!!!
  
  Report this comment
Brother Winston Smith
Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:17pm
God help me, I CAN’T DO IT! I could NOT make through the entire NAUSEATING VID!

Glenn Beck, you DISGUSTINGLY ask how to get folks to embrace Libertarianism?

Well… all you have to do… IS TALK ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!!!! But if you (like you’ve been doing for YEARS) BLACK IT OUT OF PUBLIC DISCOURSE AND SMEAR LIBERTARIANS DURING ELECTIONS, WHILE SHILLING FOR LEFTIST REPUBLICANS… people tend to NOT KNOW about the Libertarian Party… but for your DISHONEST caricatures of pot-smoking, homosexual, prostitute-enjoying, anarchists. Same with the Constitution Party.

And again, Jack Hunter IS REPUBLICAN, NOT “libertarian.” Just like Glenn. REPUBLICAN and NOT, IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, libertarian.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- LDLLDL
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 1:38am
  Jack Hunter is a paleocon from my understanding, which if we could at least get republican’s there… That is a start. Now towards the rest… I managed to get through this just fine. I don’t see what the issue is. Yes Glen endorsed Santorumn last time around but look how many people are here talking about libertarianism. Engage them talk to them rather than ranting. Think like Molyneux. Act the way you want people to perceive you.
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 2:00am
  LDL is right BWS. Are you a masochist by chance? You seem to have a fetish for torturing yourself. You say you can’t make it through the video but yet you keep coming back to this site so you certainly seem like a masochist. You need to stop adopting such a hard line or GTFO.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:17am
  BWS brings balance to the force
  
  This country is a long way from the principles of the founders and so is glenn beck. It will take a real change of heart (again) for him to come back
  
  Report this comment
mrwolfy
Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:14pm
for a fresh in college, he seems pretty arrogant. typical libertarians though- they have a moral superiority complex

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- lc_102
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:43pm
  Please stop showing your ignorance by painting everyone in a party or whatever with one large brush. No two people in this world are identical, this guys speaks for himself, and his opinion is no more or less important than yours.
  
  Report this comment
- TIME_2_END_THE_PAUL_CAMPAIGN_IN_12
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 6:19am
  MRWOLFY. You are pretty accurate in your assessment. Libertarianism has been screwed by Ron Paul pushing his diseased Rothbard/Rockwell brand of Paleo-Liberal-tarian (half man/half horse) panty waisted isolationism repleat with racism (Ron Paul Newsetters) and anti-Semitism (blame the Jews for our warmongering) on America for years and especially young White college age Americans most recently.
  
  Libertarianism (due to the Ron Paul R3volution) as a whole has come across to most of America as a uselessly abstract ideology of privilege for socially obtuse adolescent White kids. Based on reading the comments from 9 out of 10 Libertarians and former Ron Paul supporters on The Blaze for well over a year… it’s hard for them to counter that charge.
  
  Report this comment
- sta
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:25am
  Are you talking about Zachary Slayback? You pegged it. He reminded me of my Libertarian BIL who what the first person I ever knew that literally tilted his head back and looked down his nose at you when he spoke. BIL naturally assumed that the person he was speaking to knew nothing and he knew everything. Zack needs to find some humility.
  
  Now Jack Hunter knew how to sell his ideas. He was brilliant. I have to look him up and see where I can listen to his show.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:02am
  It’s easy to develop a superiority complex when the other two parties don’t stand for any real principles other than hypocrisy and minding other peoples’ business.
  
  Report this comment
- Brother Winston Smith
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:19am
  TIME_2_END… DISSECTED…
  
  LIE:
  “Libertarianism has been screwed by Ron Paul”
  TRUTH:
  Ron Paul’s CONSTITUTIONAL Libertarianism is sweeping the nation, AND HAD TO BE CHEATED OUT IN 2012, in order to reelect Obama by CHEAT-nominating Romney. And King Soetoro THANKS “better” evil voters for his throne.
  
  LIE:
  “isolationism”
  TRUTH:
  The republican/democrat (same thing) ISOLATIONIST (making people HATE YOU) foreign policy of welfare, warfare, propping up and tearing down, has but an UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BLOODY, BANKRUPTING DISASTER.
  
  LIE:
  “racism”
  TRUTH:
  Ron Paul’s most vocal and enthused supporters are blacks – who laugh at the baseless republican/democrat (same thing) Alinskyite accusations of racism.
  
  LIE:
  “anti-Semitism”
  TRUTH:
  Ron Paul’s CONSTITUTIONAL foreign policy of NONINTERVENTION actually STRENGTHENS ISRAEL!
  
  LIE:
  “young White college age Americans”
  TRUTH:
  Young college age America”… THE FUTURE!
  
  LIE:
  “Libertarianism (due to the Ron Paul R3volution) as a whole has come across to most of America as a uselessly abstract ideology of privilege for socially obtuse adolescent White kids.”
  TRUTH:
  Ron Paul’s CONSTITUTIONAL (notice how LIARS always OMIT the “Constitutional” part) Libertarianism is helping America rediscover her Constitutional roots and is showing the nation WHAT A LEFTIST SCAM the republican/democrat (same thing) party is.
  
  Report this comment
Dudley Do-Right
Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:12pm
What Exactly Is Libertarianism Anyway? The God given right to do anything you damn well please, as long as you’re not harming another.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Stoic one
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:36pm
  sounds good to me.
  
  Report this comment
- S-O-B-E-R
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:42pm
  Help me out here, I’m honestly trying to understand… Isn’t the “as long as you’re not harming another” part where it gets tricky? If you, say, burn tires for heat at your house but me as a neighbor has to also ingest your fumes, what do we do about that? Let me do what I want sounds good to me, I just get kind of hung up on some possible repurcussions to other’s behaviors. Thanks.
  
  Report this comment
- lc_102
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:24am
  Sober, thats a perfect example actually. Someone whose living in close proximity to you burning tires, and its effecting your way of life or property, you have a right to call the police and come to a resonable resolutions (IE, the guy needs to either find a place to burn his tires where he’s not bothering anyone in a negative way, or cease doing so if he can’t do that)
  
  My family once ran an electrical company before the recession (thanks alot dumbas* libs for destroying our lives with the housing acts you pushed on everyone) and I would take the scrap out to the country and burn the insulation off. I hurt no one and made three times as much money doing so as I would taking it to the scrap yard still covered in plastic insulation. I hurt no-one, bothered no one, and no one bothered me. Are you telling me that as a Conservative, you would support the fascist EPA (Big Government) coming into my life and arresting me? If so, that stands in DIRECT Contradiction to conservative principals, Its purely hypocritical (not that You believe this way, its just an example of the hypocrisy I run into in our party) If you were my neighbor out in the country, and came up to my fence while I was doing it and said the smoke was bothering you, I would have gladly quit and arranged for a time you wouldnt be home to be bothered, to finish my work. Rational people can comprimise
  
  Report this comment
- Jedrin
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 1:43am
  It takes responsibility and actually caring about the rights of others as much as you care about your rights. That is the break down in the system; a lot of people only care about their rights with complete disregard for the rights of others.
  
  Report this comment
- S-O-B-E-R
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 7:35am
  LC_102 and Jedrin, Thanks. Good example. I totally agree, compromise and working together and taking responsibility for our own actions, sounds good to me. Live and let live… Thanks again.
  
  Report this comment
- Norm D. Plume
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 2:14pm
  @Sober:
  
  Help your neighbor set up a wood stove.
  
  Report this comment
environmentalandawake
Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:11pm
Personaly I identify with Libertarianism the most. Here’s the rub; at some point our very arguement breaks down upon itself. For us to practice true Libertarianism we have to step on someone elses liberties at some point. I have many examples. but will use the subject Da Jour. Soem individual wants to practice their Second Amendment rights, only problem is they want to do so in a highly populated area, say a main street in Los Angeles. You can see where this is headed. Yes I understand that we advocate responsibility; however not everyone is responsible…..We need to create a derivative of Libertarianism and go for Broke!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:17pm
  thats why we have local government to make laws about the things you mentioned. And you can move to a liberal area, a conservative area, or an area where there is hardly any local government at all….
  
  we dont need to look to the federal government to solve everything. Decisions should be made at the level of government closest to the people – that is a libertarian (and founding) principle
  
  Report this comment
- lc_102
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:31am
  The beautiful thing about America, is you are free to live in a society of likeminded thinkers. If your a liberal you don’t have to live in the bible belt. If your a social conservative you don’t have to live in southern california. However when you elect individuals at the federal level to write laws that force someone to do things they don’t want to, there is no escape from that, because its a heavy handed, one size fits all “fix” to whatever the problem is you perceive. What you perceive as a problem may not be perceived as a problem by others. And your opinion is no more or less important than anyone elses. Big government one size fits all policy’s Don’t work, have Never worked, and are the OPPOSITE of what true conservatism is all about. State and local governments can write the laws that there communities see fit so long as they don’t infringe on the constitution. The federal government is NOT the place for such law making
  
  Report this comment
- LDLLDL
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 1:49am
  >Personaly I identify with Libertarianism the most. Here’s the rub; at some point our very arguement breaks down upon itself. For us to practice true Libertarianism we have to step on someone elses liberties at some point. I have many examples. but will use the subject Da Jour. Soem individual wants to practice their Second Amendment rights, only problem is they want to do so in a highly populated area, say a main street in Los Angeles.
  
  This is a nice example actually now lets talk about the right to do with what is called the “nonaggression principle”. You are right I can’t aggress against your right to own that gun. If you bring it to main street, i have a right to be safe on what I’m paying for…the street. So yes there is some point where I can tell you you can’t fire that here. I think this comes down to applying the “golden rule” that comes to responsibility and treating others property as you’d want yours. This is government property. Now if it was a private road the owner can make that judgement. I think these are part of what Glen is seeking. He wants moral underpinnings as well as connsequentialist how do we do it. These strike me as the two underpinnings with the NAP being the primary.
  
  Now can I just fire on my property if it is going to yours… I think this article by Walter Block could be good
  
  http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/theory_gun_control.pd
  
  Report this comment
- Norm D. Plume
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 2:20pm
  One needs to use common sense. Practicing your Second Amendment rights in a crowded place is fine — so long as you don’t open fire, unless defending yourself or someone else. Want to fire that weapon in a practice situation? Go to a range, where it can be done safely.
  
  It’s about personal responsibility, as well as personal freedom. Freedom+Responsibility=Liberty.
  
  Report this comment
Brother Winston Smith
Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:06pm
REPUBLICAN Jack Hunter, along with REPUBLICAN Rand Paul and REPUBLICAN Glenn Beck are currently trying to CO-OPT Ron Paul’s Liberty Movement for the LEFTIST republican party. Just like Palin, Beck, Bachmann, West, Rubio, Cain, etc, CO-OPTED AND DESTROYED the Tea Party Movement for the LEFTIST republican party.

ANYTHING… ANYTHING associated with the LEFTIST republican party… IS LEFTIST REPUBLICAN. Nothing more. NOT “liberty-minded,” NOT “Libertarian,” NOT “Tea Party” OR ANYTHING ELSE!

Republican. NOTHING more.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- DLV
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 2:02am
  Stop whining and leave if you have such a problem. Such an easy fix to such an easy problem.
  
  Report this comment
Brother Winston Smith
Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:01pm
Oooops. No, Jack Hunter is a REPUBLICAN, POSING as a “libertarian.” Kinda like Glenn Beck.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
soybomb315_II
Posted on February 27, 2013 at 10:59pm
Just like Ann Couler, Glenn sits down with some libertarians for an honest discussion and what is the very first thing he thinks about……DRUGS. Dear God that is embarrassing to watch – even for me.

Does it occur to glenn that not every libertarian is a card-carrying member of the libertarian party? Why does he make such gross generalizations. There is a lot of things we could do about drugs – making them legal overnight is the most extreme position and glenn is using it as a straw man argument….Again, embarrassing himself

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- mrwolfy
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:16pm
  go to work in DC. I never met a libertarian there that didnt have pot on the top of their list of priorities
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:16pm
  It was like 10 seconds before he moved on Soy. It’s kind of one of the first thing people think of when they hear the term libertarianism correctly or not.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:45pm
  perhaps the question glenn should ask his audience is whether you can dislike libertarianism and still be a strict constitutionalist….That would get at the heart of the matter
  
  Report this comment
- Smokey_Bojangles
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:56pm
  Being that I am Right of Soy…Maybe slightly … I think the hate/Fear/Disgust with the drug issue is from the association they have with Godless smelly hippies,anarchist, and The Grateful Dead.That is what fuels the contempt that people like Glenn have of actual Libertarians. IF I had the money,I would drink Crown Royal,Eat Bacon,Take 20 Alka Seltzers, and have Target Practice with an MG-43 machine gun every day. I can’t,but I want the right to do so. The BIG problem I have with legalizing drugs is not the drugs themselves. The problem I have is, we will never live in a truly libertarian society. To many Commies,Unions, and Blue Noses around for that. Legalizing drugs or even just marijuana will only lead to Bigger Government,More Regulations,More Taxes,More People to Collect Those Taxes,and MADD will have Police Road Blocks at every Cross roads.
  Any Way … I rambled. I think the drug issue is the only thing in their limited minds that can be used against Libertarians. Everything else They/We stand for makes to much sense so they just go straight to the “Godless Smelly Hippies” knee jerk reaction about Drugs,Gay Marriage,and Abortions. Forgetting that not all Libertarians are for abortions.Like Myself.
  
  Report this comment
- lc_102
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 1:19am
  @MrWolfy ” I never met a libertarian there that didnt have pot on the top of their list of priorities” did you ever stop to think that there is damned good reason for that (even though its not true) Previous generations didnt initiate a war on drugs, you declared war on a generation of people by passing stalinesque laws that destroy the lives and futures of untold millions. You take away job opportunities from good, hardworking people because they prefer to smoke a joint after work rather than cracking open a bottle of jack daniels. People who have done absolutely ZERO to harm you in your personal life, you’ve felt the need to throw in prison….. and yet you wonder why these people who have been abused by a police state want to see those policy’s changed. Marijuana, Just like a guns, when prohibited turn good people into criminals. We are taking our lives back from out of control government (A government who’s policy’s were directly set into place by social conservatives) People want freedom, No body that wants to smoke marijuana is going to not do it because you don’t think its ok, and if you want to get into statistics that back up how backwards it is to throw people in jail, take away their freedoms and livelihoods, over a non-addictive plant that grows in the ground that is about a tenth as intoxicating as alcohol, I would gladly get into that debate. Alcohol has prematurely ended the lives of millions of Americans, No one has ever OD’d on Marijuana, because its
  
  Report this comment
- LDLLDL
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 1:52am
  DC libertarians for those curious…primary topic right now don’t fear the sequester
  
  http://www.cato.org/
  
  Report this comment
- Norm D. Plume
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 2:30pm
  @Smokey_Bojangles:
  
  You complain that we’ll never live in a libertarian society, because of welfare and so forth.
  
  Conservatives keep hauling their own baggage around, and tying it around the neck of our country like an albatross. The effect that this will have is an economic and societal collapse. Authoritarianism eventually collapses under its own weight. In the end, we WILL have a libertarian system, because no government will have the resources to govern us. The authoritarians and progressives, left and right, will TRY, but they’ll eventually fail.
  
  That can happen voluntarily, or by happenstance, but it WILL happen. And you and I both know it.
  
  It would be a lot better, and would save a lot of lives, if it were voluntary.
  
  How do we make that happen, then?
  
  The answer is, conservatives must live THEIR OWN lives the way they see fit, and let others live THEIR lives the way THEY see fit. Conservatives (and, believe it or not, I *am* pretty conservative) *MUST* leave their baggage at the station.
  
  Report this comment
media-bias-steals-elections
Posted on February 27, 2013 at 10:46pm
Acting “government infiltrators” (Establishment Zombies?) frequently target political parties if they stand up for US Constitutional rights?

If you have to have conversations, what is Libertarianism, your “brand” was diluted a long time ago? I’m not convinced. The real question is do we WANT it diluted? Mark Levin reminded us today, Ronald Reagan said, “I hope I am remembered for spreading the message of hope, rather then the message of fear” (paraphrased).

The Democrats latched on to what Ronald Reagan said, that’s why they are in continual campaign mode, even if it means “water boarding” the public with appearances with celebritites, press conferences, comedian jokes, social media “stalkers”, regarding issues that actually destroy civil liberties to benefit the rich? There’s a difference betwen real and false hope?

When you cross the line from “I hope this works, but know it will not” to the practice of “water boarding the public” with a barrage of non-stop accusations, then you threaten a journalist, because he exposed your political strategy that did not fit the “water boarding template” (a template is another way of looking at the “optics” of something according to Rush Limbaugh)?

Honestly, I did not think about Libertarianism until Glenn Beck got on the air, thank you Fox News and Premiere Radio Networks. Thank you Glenn for not quitting.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Locked
Posted on February 27, 2013 at 10:42pm
” Glenn Beck hosted a panel of libertarians including Jacob Hornberger, founder of the Future of Freedom Foundation, Jack Hunter, a radio host and columnist, and Zachary Slayback of Students for Liberty”

You know, you might try Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, and… I don’t know, a random celebrity like Dave Barry instead?

Perhaps people who actually embody the modern ideology of “libertarianism?” And are not completely unknown to EVERYONE?

I don’t identify as “Libertarian” myself, but if I had Beck’s clout and popularity, you can rest assured that I wouldn’t invite three random no-names if I was to talk about the ideology. This smacks more of “let’s see what random Joe Shmoes we can find off the street!”

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 10:52pm
  i met jack hunter last weekend at an event for ron paul folks – jack hunter is OK with me!
  
  Report this comment
- Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 10:54pm
  I love Dave Berry, great writer.
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:18pm
  I don’t know locked. I like new faces every now and then to get something fresh. I like Ron Paul but new guys especially young college students like me should have their voices heard like in this video.
  
  Report this comment
- mrwolfy
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:24pm
  YAL and SFL are the two largest groups for young libertarians. To say they are unknown is to not know much about the movement, or who the players are in influencing the up and coming generation/s . YAL is more traditional values oriented, while SFL is the typical libertine-pro anarchy organization that mainly focuses on pot, and often works together with communists groups. There have been actual conferences were SFL folks have made the case for a communist system.
  
  Report this comment
- sta
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 9:27am
  I had never heard of Jack Hunter, but I’m a registered Independent.
  I hope to hear more from him.
  
  Report this comment
soybomb315_II
Posted on February 27, 2013 at 10:40pm
libertarian is basically economic and social freedom. After the results of the last 100 years, the non-aggression principle has become a necessity for anyone that believes in either of the first two things.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- resme
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:07pm
  I sailed right past libertarianism the past few years. I’m a anacho-capitialist now. The state causes nothing but suffering… I’d rather take my chances under the mafia, tbh.
  
  “Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It is better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
  
  Report this comment
- Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:15pm
  Hey Soy:
  I get kind of torn with that stance, I don’t think we need to be the worlds police, but on the other hand, isolationism got us into 2 world wars after tyranny had spread enough to the threatening level. By then millions had died and would die. So, I believe we need to find a balance of looking out for the US interests and not meddling in others affairs. It is something I do struggle with at times and I do agree with Ron Paul on about 90% of what he says on this issue. The Nukes is something I disagree with, I don’t believe the world should let Iran get a Nuke. There are people that won’t use it unless they are attacked, and then there are the Bat Shite crazies, like Iran.
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:20pm
  Resme- I can’t see how anything anarchy could work in any way.
  
  Dar- I completely agree with your foreign policy.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:25pm
  @Darmok
  The first thing you need to understand is that non-aggression is not isolation. Isolation means you do not trade or care what happens around the world. Non-aggression means you dont attack other countries per-emptively and you dont meddle in their internal affairs.
  
  If you say we were “isolationist” before WWI and WWII, you would be wrong but even if you are correct….Isolation didnt lead to WWII, nazism and facism did.
  
  Report this comment
- resme
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:39pm
  “Resme- I can’t see how anything anarchy could work in any way. ”
  
  Amish and the Quakers. You hear anarchy and think chaos.. It couldn’t be farther from the truth. Right-wing anarchy is about freedom, mutual peaceful trade, and no centralized law. We do not deny law, nor morality. It’s a peaceful movement based on non-coercion and peace. We strongly believe in the community with laws voluntary agreed upon.
  
  Report this comment
- Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:45pm
  Hey Soy:
  We didn’t want to get involved in Europes affairs before WWI, Woodrow Wilson ran on not getting us involved, and then one month after being reelected, jumped the US into WWI and then had to sell it to the people.
  WWII, the US people did not want to get involved, even with the Nazi and Facist expansions, but Pearl Harbor changed out minds, and of Course, Hitler declared war on us. If that hadn’t happened, historians agree we may have entered the war, but it probably would have been too late to stop Hitler.
  
  Since then, we have steadily got involved to stop the spread of communism, but I agree with Ron Paul, it’s time to stop taking the lead, and let countrys to their own affairs.
  
  So, I look at history and see sometimes staying out of things can lead to a big mess, and sticking our noses in everyones business isn’t getting us anywhere. So, I don’t have an answer, but I think it is time we take a step back and get ourselves healthy as a country.
  
  Am I making sense?
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:47pm
  Resme- Maybe but I can’t see how that would work with such a huge population like America. Amish and quakers have small communities which I can see working.
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:49pm
  Soy- At the very least in the 1800s the U.S. was quite isolationist. The Monroe doctrine stated, we will keep to the western hemisphere.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:54pm
  we shouldnt have gotten involved in WWI. We got involved and altered the balance of power – we ultimately pushed the powers to invoke harsh treaty terms which ultimately led to the collapse of germany and subsequent rise of nazism.
  
  It was always the goal of progressives to be heavily involved in the affairs of other countries. Yes, Wilson ran on a platform of “keep us out of war” but as we know, he was a lying POS
  
  Report this comment
- resme
  Posted on February 27, 2013 at 11:57pm
  “Resme- Maybe but I can’t see how that would work with such a huge population like America. Amish and quakers have small communities which I can see working.”
  
  Agreed, Cesspools like California and New york can keep bloomberg.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:00am
  Oh dear, they are using the word ‘isolationist’ as if it is the mark of the beast.
  
  You saw how vietnam, korea, and iraq worked out – why doesnt interventionism invoke the same negative emotions????
  
  America was not isolationist – never was. Japan was isolationist for a period of time but never america
  
  Report this comment
- DLV
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:31am
  Soy we certainly were isolationist for a time. Washington was neutral too. Here is a link. Isolationist was not bad either.
  
  http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1601.html
  
  Report this comment
- Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 12:36am
  Soy, I do agree with you on the interventionist, but we were isolationist, in fact Charles Lindbergh was a huge isolationist and was the leader of a political movement. in 1930 we passed the Smoot/Hawley tariff act that tried to force people to buy only american goods and choke out foriegn goods, just like Japan does now (I lived there for 3 years). I agree with you though, why isn’t both looked at with the same amount of gasping shock.
  
  Report this comment
- LDLLDL
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 2:04am
  @ DLV anarchy is confused by most modern people. There are still community standards and the like. It should be better named as polycentric law.
  
  If anyone is interest in this topic I’d start here:
  
  http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp
  
  http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf
  
  They are some of my favorite books on the subject. They can be lengthy.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 8:20am
  @Darmonk
  You mention smoot-hawley as proof of isolation. You are partially correct. But people like rick santorum were campaigning on reducing imports of foreign products…..Were you calling rick santorum isolationist???
  
  Report this comment
- Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:49am
  Soy:
  I am against starting a trade war, that was one of the contributing factors that started the Great Depression. I do believe we need to ensure there are FAIR trade agreements between countries, and what Rick Santorium was talking about was getting countries like China to “Play” fair and agree to better trade laws, and obey the trade agreements we already have. We don’t need to get to where Japan is, the way they operate is, you can buy a buick, BMW, etc, in Japan, but their inspectors will literally tear the car apart and rebuild it to inspect every singel nut and bolt. That hikes to price of a buick to over $50,000, and you can buy a Honda for $30,000, so the Japanese will just buy Japan products. That is something that is very bad for the people and their economy.
  
  Report this comment
- A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE
  Posted on February 28, 2013 at 10:14pm
  @RESME
  
  Great quote by C.S. Lewis.
  
  Report this comment
- RationalMan
  Posted on March 1, 2013 at 12:18am
  Resme stated,
  Right-wing anarchy is about freedom, mutual peaceful trade, and no centralized law
  __________________________________________________________________
  
  Really?
  Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare.
  
  Is this what you want?
  
  Report this comment
- A_CALL_TO_CONSCIENCE
  Posted on March 1, 2013 at 10:47am
  Anarchy as most people see it (no order, pure chaos, do what you want with no accountability) is different than simply wanting no government. Wanting no government doesn’t = wanting no order or no system that can provide justice, security and freedom.
  
  Aren’t we already ruled by criminals? Men and women using the pseudonym “Government” to provide services on a violent basis.
  
  Report this comment
RIDEMODELS
Posted on February 27, 2013 at 10:40pm
Less Taxes….Sounds like a great plan……just dont wipe your arse with the Bill of Rights and it may be a deal.

We need to get back to state by state constitutional rights.
I am actually an artist so I can kind of see the side of the libertarian, but I am not wacko left by no means….I believe that every person in this country should have some sort of accountability and responsibility…..But Obama has no accountability.

Less Bloated Government sounds like a real plan to me.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.