Move over republicans and make way for Libertarians

The GOP is dead it has lost touch with its roots and what made it great and now it is way left wing even more so then past democrats. I mean if JFK were to run today he would be considered a right wing radical. I use to be a republican and I didn't leave the republican party the republican party left me. We need candidates with a strong back bone true fiscal conservatives and a respect for the constitution and the freedoms it provides to the people and God knows that is not the republican party as it stands today that put up a candidate that is virtually a carbon copy of Obama in the last election

your time is up and you need to step aside

 

I would love to see the Libertarians take over. Social Conservatism is dead. The only real debate is over economics.

 

There are aspects of Social Conservatism that are alive and well. They might do well arguing for renewed de-centralization. They used to have the right to regulate what they thought evil and socially corrosive act of abortion. Blue states attacked, and now they don't. They want that right back. Instead, under Obamacare, they'll be forced, at the gunpoint of taxation, to help pay for them. There are many other issues that could be considered socially conservative that have pockets of great support. Traditional marriage, a swift and relatively certain death penalty for capital criminals and an over-all rejection of radical egalitarianism. They are never going to achieve these things for themselves with the radically centralized government we have today.

A natural marriage of social cons. and Libertarians at the Federal level could achieve much.

And if you hate the social cons in a highly decentralized nation? Easily move to a state with differing party control. The libertarians at the Federal level won't bother you. All you'd lose is the right to invade the lives of others in other states.

 

same difference .....

 

Social Conservatives and Libertarians would not make a good "marriage". Libertarians want to follow the letter of the law, and attain as much "freedom" as possible, of course this culminates mostly in get rich schemes. SoCons do not understand the freedom because they on the one hand want a hands off economy but want to oversee all social aspects, like abortion, marriage, etc. You must either choose which freedoms you support, or stop throwing the word freedom around like confetti when you don't actually understand it.

 

Libertarians are nothing more than wanna-be anarchists. They eschew the very reasons for government.

 

Unless there are Libertarians who can be likewise bought and corrupted by the elites, they will face a monumental battle in wresting any measure of influence and control from the establishment conservatards. People of integrity either don't get far or don't last long in our government.

 

I have always found the dialogue of the "libertarians" slightly confusing....

They want freedom from Government and low taxes etc. but what about corporate giants run by a select few private individuals for profit. Cant that then stifle the "freedom and liberty" of people working for that particular non Governmental Elite?

I always found it strange those who claim to be Libertarian and be for freedom whilst at the same time advocating Right Wing survival of the fittest principles. Freedom to be superior to one another it seems...

 

What separates Constitutional Conservatives from Libertarians are certainly Social issues. Conservatives believe in structuring a moral nation. Libertarians feel that anything goes, so long as it doesn't harm them. I personally feel that a morally depraved society can condemn a nation into failure.

 

I don't see this as confusing. Libertarians are typically free market capitalists, as well. The ones I've met have often quoted Mises, Hayek and Rand. It's a choice to work for a corporation. You don't have to work there... and competition in the free market will keep wages and work load fair.

 

History shows its taken worker action and public outrage as well as regulation to keep work fair and payed fair not "free market economics".

 

I agree, not all of the "social agenda" of conservatism need be tossed. The concept of the small, united community, localized decision making especially in education. Some of the agenda needs to be tossed yes; the world is not going to be reversed on some issues, and I think even the rapid Christian right is coming to see that "morality" is a matter between the individual and his faith and/or world view, that government cannot regulate it and has no business trying to do so.

Some of the "liberal" agenda, though needs to be rolled back. The trend to "teach" tolerance" for gays and lesbians has backfired in many areas, the curicculum is simply ugly.

But, the core values coupled with the principles of the Bill of Rights and Canada's Charter of rights need to be brought back into play. In the US the executive has become too powerful, Obama has taken "executive order" to near royalty levels, his Obamacare scheme is the worst of the worst, a cobbled together fascist mutation. That thinking, the ability of a mere majority, 60 senators can carve into stone such a powerful, life changing law without any hope of altering it, delaying it, even taking a pause is the reason some people started heaving crates of tea into Boston harbor 228 years ago. It is the same arrogance as a guy named George who could not speak English and considered a few colonies an ocean away to be "inferior" and treated them arrogantly too.

So long as Amerika is glued to reality TV, however, and informed via a 50 word crawl across the bottom of the screen, it ain't going to happen. So long as the nation chooses to believe a man because of skin color, status, looks, and charisma, Obamacare, the never-ending war on terror, Benghazi, Gitmo and being caught going through allies undies is what you're to have to expect in "leadership"....bungling community organizers with a great smile and never ending bull(*)(*)(*)(*)

 

OH?

is that why I have to pay 60% to 80% higher than legislated rates to keep good people?

Is that why I chose to supply my workers with bus passes and personal safety gear, so that I have an advantage in hiring the best over my competitors?

It was true in the days when unskilled labor drove everything. today, you want someone who thinks, has experience and training, you pay the going rate. Offering minimum wage means you'll be standing along at your dishwasher.

The secret to liveable wages and good benefits is in a strong, vibrant economy. Over regulating it, like the socialists did here in the 90's, kills it.

 

Seems like a million years ago, Jerry Falwell (And I am not a fan of the man) stated he'd done through politics what he thought he could. He raised topics and now, he believed Americans needed to focus on their own behavior rather than legislate for others. Politics had run it's course.

The worst part of the "liberal" (scare quotes, because fascism is not really liberal) is how compulsory it all is.

A real problem is our Congress. When the Hamden decision came down, deciding that when the Congress wrote the courts can't have that case, they actually meant the courts COULD have that case, they weren't interpretting some ancient writ from long dead minds. This was something real, living, breathing people had written. Where were they to slap down this over-reach? Where were they when our President, without approval or rationale bombed a foreign power with which we were not at war?

I think they'll largely continue to slumber. Spending other people's borrowed money is more fun than doing your duty. They do have to worry about re-election, so they'll pass "comprehensive immigration reform" and have lots more voters voting for handouts and not holding them accountable till things have gotten intollerably bad. Supposedly an endless cycle. From liberty to complacency to tyranny to the fight for liberty again.

All the rest of us can do in the meantime is be the best we can be.

 

Some of us, like myself, are definitely anarchists - but in my experience the majority of libertarians merely want a change in government policy toward low taxes, low interference in people's lives, and non-interventionism in foreign policy.

- - - Updated - - -

Some of us, like myself, are definitely anarchists - but in my experience the majority of libertarians merely want a change in government policy toward low taxes, low interference in people's lives, and non-interventionism in foreign policy.

 

Revisionist history, maybe.

 

Very insightful stuff, thank you and not anything I dare disagree with. On the latter point, I suggest the core problem is one of the inherent failures of the US Constitution [let's face it, not all of it was perfect - read the works of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.] is the one party system.
So now, the inevitable. With mass media, even less informed masses, we have a one party system with a "heads" and a "tails", but neither willing to do much more than, as you say, slumber; or kick the can down the road as we Canadians call it. When neither side of that coin has any real answers, or at least answers that will be palatable to the public, they don't tend to get overly focused on the really hard to solve issues; undocumented aliens, social security, the debt, being prime examples.

And now the coin has been split in two, two half coins, not two parties, defying each other, combative and intransigent, fighting over "wedge issues" while the country has been without a budget for five years and no one cares, drones bomb villages in how many countries killing whomever, and no one even wants to ask, let along demand civilian oversight.

Enter a third party. Simply because it has not succeeded to date, does not mean that it cannot be effective. The problem has always been whack jobs like H. Ross Perot and Ralph Nader who go for the gold medal when they haven't qualified for the finals. Most of Canada's best legislation, its best initiatives and in the last decade and a half, world class fiscal management has been the result of minority parliaments; where neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives hold a majority, and the socialist NDP holds the trump card, just enough votes to defeat a given bill and/or the entire government, triggering a general election.

To Americans this sounds like chaos. They go nuts at the idea of a small band of rogues determining the fabric of government, but forget it was a small band of rogues, rich and powerful rogues, who set up the First Continental Congress, an act of war against the king at the time.

The refusal of both sides to negotiate worked this time, as it suited the purposes of both Cruz and company and the White House. But, I suspect Mr. Cruz is a lot smarter than his enemies give him credit and this was a test, that he will again use what he initiated on a new and different file. and while the masses go nuts about "obstruction" and the surface issues, what you are really witnessing is the birth of a third party as it learns and flexes its new found muscles.

 

Only if you've never studied the labor movement.

 

I don't see the rich/elites or the mega corporations supporting a libertarian, and since they own the government it is highly unlikely, even if the majority of voters, or they unanimously voted libertarian, that enough would get in to the skewed system to actually make a difference.

The plutocracy rules.

 

lol, studied from what sources?

 

Any, apparently.
Start with one of the great books of American history ever written, "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn.
One thing you will learn is why Teddy Roosevelt was actually a guy that should be a hero of yours.

 

It is funny that Cruz et. al. were blamed for the shutdown. At a minimum, what did they want? A delay in the implementation of Obamacare. It ends up, at a minimum, such a delay would have been advisable: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_1...ts-got-off-to-very-slow-start-documents-show/

 

Not only advisable, but much less costly. Imagine if they had actually said, OK, we will let you **********s have your way. And then spent 6 months fixing it. No one would have ever known, the "if you want your plan, you can keep it" would have simmered and died with no "scandal" to feed it.

Obama's arrogance may be his undoing.

 

Ahh, yes... History written by a well-known liberal. I'd rather read "A Patriot's History of the United States."

 

What are you afraid of? Well documented history by a noted scholar?