Gay Patriot Header Image

Libertarian helps me articulate why I’m a Republican

Over the weekend, Glenn quoted a comment from Matt Welch which helps explain why I stay with the GOP despite a number of concerns with the Republican Party, notably its imperfect record on gays and its often inadequate commitment to Ronald Reagan’s small government ideals:

MATT WELCH COMPLICATES WILL WILKINSON’S NARRATIVE: “But here’s the thing that non-Republican, gay-marrying, pro-immigration, pro-choice, anti-empire potheads like me (and Will) need to grapple with if we insist on talking about the relationship between ourselves and various large political blocs: The GOP has been more receptive to libertarian ideas these past couple of years.” And the Democrats, not so much, despite all the “liberaltarian” hype.

He’s right. At least the GOP has been more receptive to libertarian ideas in recent years.  Heck, even the establishment candidate is starting to sound like a Tea Partier, proposing major cuts in federal spending.

In his post (which is well worth your time), Welch adds:

honesty compels the observation that among the governing classes, if you find an economic libertarian he/she is more likely to be a social con than a RINO (or DINO). The Gary Johnson crossover dream is still just that. Which makes me no more likely to join Team Red, but it does suggest that certain libertarianish traditions within the broader right have staying power, at a time when the libertianish tendencies on the broader left seem to be receiving little or no expression in the governance by Team Blue. That I wished things were different doesn’t change the basic facts.

I have noticed the same thing among a good number of social conservatives; they hold libertarian views on a great many issues.  It’s why some gay people are willing to work with these folks in common purpose — reducing the size of the federal government.

Earlier this year, when I read Welch’s most excellent book The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What’s Wrong with America (written together with his Reason college Nick GIllespie), I agreed with their diagnosis of the problem, but lamented their failure to offer a framework on go around the two party-system to elect real libertarian reformers, men and women committed to shrinking the size of the federal government and reducing its role in our lives.

At present, electing Republicans is the best hope for reducing the size of government.  That’s why I stick with the GOP — despite its many flaws.  And heck, didn’t liberals tell us a few years back that hope was a worthy political aspiration?

So, until something better comes along, I’ll stick with the GOP warts and all.

Share

47 Comments

  1. I hear you. I’m a libertarian who’s made common cause with the Conservative movement for over a year now, because I saw the writing on the wall just as you have.

    However, I wouldn’t trust one word out of Mittens’ mouth. He’s saying what he thinks we want to hear, like he always does. While it is, in fact, what we want to hear, we want a candidate who will actually FOLLOW THROUGH on these concepts, and history shows that Romney won’t.

    Crackas for Cain 2102! :D

    Comment by Wraith — November 7, 2011 @ 2:26 am - November 7, 2011

  2. OOPS: 2012. My bad. :(

    Comment by Wraith — November 7, 2011 @ 2:27 am - November 7, 2011

  3. Wraith, please provide your history suggesting that Mitt won’t follow through. Look, I’ve got my issues with the former Massachusetts governor, but bear this one thing in mind: when he was governor of the Bay State, he faced an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature. If he wins the White House in 2012, he’s going to face a Republican Congress, with Paul Ryan helming the Budget Committee and Tom Coburn wielding considerable influence in the U.S. Senate. We’ll have to count on them to hold the president’s feet to the fire.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 7, 2011 @ 3:01 am - November 7, 2011

  4. One word: Romneycare.

    Yes, yes, he might have had the ‘Constitutional authority’ to pass it. Big fat hairy deal. Just because you CAN, doesn’t mean you SHOULD.

    Here’s what the perceived problem was: Some people don’t have adequate health care coverage. Faced with that, a Conservative would think, “How is government interfering in the market, prohibiting it from solving this problem?” A Liberal would think, “Holy crap, we need a top-down, big-government solution straight away!” Guess where Romney went? Yep…straight for the Big Government Solution.

    Want some more? How about his stellar 2nd Amendment record? Well, “stellar” in the view of the gun-grabbers, anyway.

    I could go on, but it’s all been said already. The last thing we need in the White House is another career politician, and that’s exactly what Romney is. No sale, bro.

    Comment by Wraith — November 7, 2011 @ 4:36 am - November 7, 2011

  5. The problem with Mittens is no one can tell if he’s a liberal who is pretending to be a conservative to win the Republican nomination; or if he’s a conservative who pretended to be a liberal to get elected in Massachusetts. What makes him untrustworthy is his claim that he was neither.

    I consider myself an economic libertarian and a social conservative. What puts me off about libertarians… at least the hard core ones… is a selfishness and indifference to human suffering that I just can’t get behind. It’s one thing to say that people who need help are better off being helped by someone other than the Government. I can support that case. But too many libertarians seem to embrace a more Nietzchean view; that those who find themselves in difficult straits should be mocked and disdain.

    I think the split came when Reason on-line commenters just piled on Rick Santorum’s family after he lost the 2006 election; cruelly mocking his young children and saying the nastiest things about them. And I just thought, what a bunch of a-holes.

    Comment by V the K — November 7, 2011 @ 5:44 am - November 7, 2011

  6. V the K wrote:

    I consider myself an economic libertarian and a social conservative. What puts me off about libertarians… at least the hard core ones… is a selfishness and indifference to human suffering that I just can’t get behind. It’s one thing to say that people who need help are better off being helped by someone other than the Government. I can support that case. But too many libertarians seem to embrace a more Nietzchean view; that those who find themselves in difficult straits should be mocked and disdain.

    From my own left of center perspective I see things similarly: conservatives tend to be angry toward the poor, but at least there’s still emotional engagement, including some sympathy. What you call hard core libertarians I call libertarian purists, and from them I see smugness and no sense of emotional engagement with the poor. They just don’t care what happens to them.

    Comment by Donny D. — November 7, 2011 @ 6:08 am - November 7, 2011

  7. How is it “smugness and emotional detachment” to want to give them a chance to make it on their own — by helping to make that actually possible — instead of condemning them to lifelong slavery? Which is certainly what a dependence on government “charity” really is?

    Would you want to live like that? If you can honestly say you do, then you’ve lost the faculty of being fully human.

    As for what “too many libertarians” do, refusing to associate with any because of how some are (and it is just some) displays the same sort of sixth-grade-girl’s-clique mentality that we see from so many gay liberals who hold their noses and shriek “EEEEW!” every time they hear the word Republican.

    Mirror, mirror, on the wall…

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 7, 2011 @ 7:58 am - November 7, 2011

  8. From my POV, the liberal left sees the poor as people who can be exploited for votes, but whom they don’t really give a sh-t about otherwise. But with libertarians, their indifference to suffering isn’t just against the poor… it’s against the unborn, the sick, the addicted… they’re as self-centered as liberals, they just don’t pretend otherwise. Conservatives argue about the best way to help those people and may question the Government’s effectiveness in attempting to provide such help (although not often enough for my tastes). But the prevailing attitude among libertarians seems to be “F— them!” I just can’t get with that.

    Comment by V the K — November 7, 2011 @ 8:01 am - November 7, 2011

  9. While I’m planning on supporting Not-Romney in the primary, even Romney is better than Obama. What gives me hope is that Milton Friedman clip I saw a couple of months ago. Paraphrasing: There are no perfect politicians, but they will do what the prevailing sentiment insists on. It is in their re-election self interest.

    Comment by ksevens — November 7, 2011 @ 8:03 am - November 7, 2011

  10. Ok, not wanting .gov involved in charity is not the same as not caring or ‘mocking’ the poor. I AM the poor. If I’m hungry I can get a meal @ any church in town. I can get a box of food that will last me a week at 3 different pawnshops. GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE SOLUTION. Human beings aren’t evil and heartless.

    Comment by BrianReno — November 7, 2011 @ 12:20 pm - November 7, 2011

  11. We have many GOP candidates and more may be added later. All would be far better than the one we have now. If we have one which we think is the best, then tell us why but STOP knocking the others. What is it that Reagan said?

    Comment by John R — November 7, 2011 @ 12:25 pm - November 7, 2011

  12. But the prevailing attitude among libertarians seems to be “F— them!” I just can’t get with that.”

    Really? And you’ ve polled a significant number of them, so you can state this from a position of expertise?

    The prevailing attitude “seems to be” what it seems to be because that is the prevailing meme in the media — both Left-leaning and Right. You might want to bother actually getting to know some real libertarians before making snap judgments about them.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 7, 2011 @ 8:30 pm - November 7, 2011

  13. Frankly, I have no respect for poor people whose sense of entitlement outweighs their willingness to improve their lives. I really couldn’t care less about them. But people with genuine misfortune, who perhaps suffered from a natural disaster or crime or something, I don’t disdain, and the government should probably step in if there is no other help available (which I would assume is sometimes the case in natural disaster situations, as private charities would likely be overwhelmed). Poor people who fall into neither of those categories shouldn’t really need help from the government; there is plenty of help around if they need it.

    Whatever the case, the government should not need to operate any charity (including welfare, other social programs, or even disaster relief), because the government is just so darn ineffective. It’s best left up to the private sector, in my opinion (but only if the government would allow the private sector to work properly).

    Comment by Naamloos — November 7, 2011 @ 9:25 pm - November 7, 2011

  14. Why I’m not a libertarian:

    gay-marrying, pro-immigration, pro-choice, anti-empire potheads

    There should be some structure to society. And morality is probably the best thing at providing that structure. When you lose your morals (and let go of your responsibilities, such as those you accept when you get married) and give in to pleasure, society starts to fail (as seen in inner city areas).

    Comment by Naamloos — November 7, 2011 @ 9:31 pm - November 7, 2011

  15. “There should be some structure to society. And morality is probably the best thing at providing that structure.”

    …And of course, this can ONLY happen if the threat of government violence makes it happen?

    Good Lord, can we really have sunk so low that we believe this?

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 7, 2011 @ 11:02 pm - November 7, 2011

  16. #15

    Huh?

    Comment by Naamloos — November 7, 2011 @ 11:47 pm - November 7, 2011

  17. “Huh?”

    What do you mean, “Huh?” Why the intellectual dishonesty?

    If you believe that human beings need government intervention into their lives — under the threat of violence (how in the hell do you really think all those laws are enforced?) — in order to be moral, or to provide structure to society, then why the elaborate act of innocence and perplexity?

    You’re not a libertarian because we can’t be moral without government, and because human life can have no structure without government.

    Huh?

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 8, 2011 @ 12:00 am - November 8, 2011

  18. I didn’t say anything about government intervening into peoples’ lives. And I don’t believe in classifying “victimless crimes” as crimes. In my opinion, the law should cover what does have victims (or cause demonstrable harm). What that would be, I really don’t know. As for enforcing morals, my idea of morality is not identical to that of a puritanical Christian. I really couldn’t care less if people engage in sodomy, or sadomasochism, in private. That doesn’t affect me at all, nor does it, per se, affect anyone but those involved.

    And I happen to think government itself is immoral, as it requires theft of peoples’ earned money (in the form of taxes) to sustain itself. So, really, it is about a balance that allows a moral society to propagate without immoral government intervention. So, churches, other non-government community organizations, but not government.

    If what I’m saying isn’t clear, that is because when “morals” are concerned, nothing is really clear. If you want to be hedonistic, go ahead. But do it in a way that is respectful to others and not harmful to their families. And if violence is necessary to keep society moral, then it’s not worth it (to keep society moral).

    I think you read stuff in my comment that wasn’t there. And I had absolutely no idea what you were talking about in comment #15. Honestly. The “act” of perplexity was neither an act, nor was it elaborate.

    Comment by Naamloos — November 8, 2011 @ 1:17 am - November 8, 2011

  19. Furthermore, the fundamental difference between government and non-government organizations is that government requires participation. I am not advocating for these non-government organizations to force anyone to do anything, or even have any (undue) influence over what the government does.

    Also, I should say that I’m probably one of least credible people that comments here because of my lack of life experience (I’m probably pne of the youngest people, if not the youngest, that reguarly comments here). I am not trying to sound smug or like I know everything, which I obviously don’t. And I’m better at theory than reality for the same reason. I just want to add my perspective, have a discussion, maybe a debate, or something. I am definitely not trying to lecture anyone.

    Comment by Naamloos — November 8, 2011 @ 1:32 am - November 8, 2011

  20. You might want to bother actually getting to know some real libertarians before making snap judgments about them.

    I think the people who post in the comments here are pretty reflective of the gay right and the gay left. I think the people who post in the comments at Reason.online are pretty reflective of the attitudes of libertarians.

    I didn’t say anything about government intervening into peoples’ lives.

    Of course you didn’t, and neither did I. But it’s easier for people to lash out against straw men than make real arguments.

    Like you, I believe morality is a better basis for society than the heavy hand of Government. I also believe that taking care of people is something that’s better done by communities of faith, charitable organizations, and local-level entities. However, I recognize there is a social consensus that Government should provide a safety net. I may not agree with this concept, but it’s part of the political reality. So, I am willing to join in the debate over the size, structure, and extent of this social safety net instead of flailing against the notion that there should be one.

    Comment by V the K — November 8, 2011 @ 9:55 am - November 8, 2011

  21. “If you want to be hedonistic, go ahead. But do it in a way that is respectful to others and not harmful to their families. And if violence is necessary to keep society moral, then it’s not worth it (to keep society moral).”

    How, Mr. Naamloos, there is nothing in any of my comments that imply either that I am hedonistic or that I wish to be that way. The fact that you read that into them says far more about yourself than it does about me.

    And as far as “lashing out at straw men” is concerned, V the K, you are projecting. I never said a word about the government totally transforming, overnight, into the Objectivist ideal of Utopia. A libertarian (and a pretty extreme one, at that) would have to be emperor for things to be transformed, overnight, into a Dickensian hell where the government provided no safety net.

    Take your meds. Not all libertarians believe that government should ever fail to provide a safety net. Those of us who do believe that some safety net should continue to exist understand how ill the poor are served when it is stretched so far it breaks.

    Think about that, please, in your superior compassion.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 8, 2011 @ 12:15 pm - November 8, 2011

  22. Following number 14… why I am not? I’m a nationalist, most libertarians I meet are globalists – no borders, no immigrations laws; most are libertines, I’m old fashion that way; most are violently anti-religion – I want to be allowed to practice my faith; There a few others but it’s still too idealistic for me. I think human evil is real: I am not sure at times libertarians do.

    Comment by Kevin — November 8, 2011 @ 4:03 pm - November 8, 2011

  23. “Most are violently anti-religion?”

    Well, I’m not. I’m an Episcopalian, and a pretty devout one. I know scores of other committed libertarians who are also committed Christians and Jews. Nor are most of them “libertines.” They tend to be as moral as anybody else.

    There are, I can assure you, more than “a few others.”

    What is being done here, in this big pile-on against libertarians, is very much the same thing that Leftists do to Republicans, and to conservatives in general. It is a guilt-by-association slander, and it is very unjust.

    We always know it’s wrong when it happens to us. We need to remember that it’s every bit as wrong when we do it to others.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 8, 2011 @ 4:12 pm - November 8, 2011

  24. You know what else bugs me about Libertarians? They don’t take criticism well.

    Comment by V the K — November 8, 2011 @ 5:49 pm - November 8, 2011

  25. “You know what else bugs me about Libertarians? They don’t take criticism well.”

    Well, V, when it’s criticism of imaginary people, applied to all libertarians in general, probably not. Any more than conservatives tend to take criticism well when it implies things about all of them that are actually true of only a few.

    Let the silly game go on. Maybe you’ll get the last word in after all.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 8, 2011 @ 6:09 pm - November 8, 2011

  26. How, Mr. Naamloos, there is nothing in any of my comments that imply either that I am hedonistic or that I wish to be that way. The fact that you read that into them says far more about yourself than it does about me.

    I wasn’t talking about you. I was talking about a hypothetical person. My choice of pronoun obviously wasn’t a good one.

    And obviously I said something that hit a nerve (in comment #14). I have no idea what that was, but perhaps it is you that should be taking your medication, Lori Heine. Unlike some leftists, I am able to respect someone with a differing viewpoint from myself. Nothing I said was meant to imply that I view libertarians as somehow inferior, nor was it an attack on libertarians. I was just trying to explain why I’m not one.

    V the K @#20, I agree completely. Thank you for explaining my viewpoint better than I could.

    Comment by Naamloos — November 8, 2011 @ 8:01 pm - November 8, 2011

  27. Naamloos, since I already addressed V’s comment in #20, I don’t feel I need to do it again. As far as your having “hit a nerve,” I’m simply getting tired of people hiding behind aliases and saying things to others, online, that would get them bitch-slapped into the middle of next month if they said them in person. Chalk it up to my being generally out of patience with rudeness — especially the anonymous online sort.

    You and V both dance around it, and very delicately and partially walk it back when it’s addressed, but your rhetoric has made it clear that (A) you think all libertarians think alike — something you most likely hate when non-conservatives and non-Republicans do that to conservatives and Republicans, (B) ascribe the thinking of the most extreme libertarians to all or most of them, and (C) refuse to acknowledge the obvious — that you believe morality and charity would cease to exist if the government didn’t use its muscle (and our taxes) to enforce them.

    I am quite aware that there are libertarians who are selfish and misanthropic. But because I believe very strongly in their basic philosophy, and think it’s more conducive to the development of morality and charity in the individual, I am committed to it. I can better change what I don’t like about something from the inside, by being part of it and influencing it for the better, than I can by standing outside of it and carping about it.

    It is simply dishonest to cherry-pick the worst examples of something to try and justify your dislike of it. Libertarians believe (rightly) that for the vast majority of human history, we didn’t need a huge, powerful and and oppressive government to make society function well. The problems that existed were not caused because people like Barack Obama weren’t there to enlighten people with their superior wisdom.

    So you’re rubber and I’m glue. How inspiring. Thanks so much for the trip back to third grade. It was a lot of fun. Evidently you liked it even better than I did.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 8, 2011 @ 9:00 pm - November 8, 2011

  28. I’m simply getting tired of people hiding behind aliases and saying things to others, online, that would get them bitch-slapped into the middle of next month if they said them in person. Chalk it up to my being generally out of patience with rudeness — especially the anonymous online sort.

    You’ve lost me again. What exactly was so rude about my comment?

    but your rhetoric has made it clear that (A) you think all libertarians think alike

    I do not think that. But, reading my comment #14, I think I can understand why you would think that. My bad. What I should have said was the sort of libertarian that agrees with what I quoted demonstrates why I don’t adhere to that specific ideology (not necessarily libertarianism in general).

    refuse to acknowledge the obvious — that you believe morality and charity would cease to exist if the government didn’t use its muscle (and our taxes) to enforce them.

    I already said what I think the government should do (through enforcing the law). Otherwise, I don’t think government is necessary for morals to exist.

    Libertarians believe (rightly) that for the vast majority of human history, we didn’t need a huge, powerful and and oppressive government to make society function well.

    Unless you believe enforcing the law is oppressive, then I agree with that.

    Comment by Naamloos — November 8, 2011 @ 9:39 pm - November 8, 2011

  29. Naamloos, I think it depends on the measures used to enforce the law, and on whether the law itself is just. I’m not an anarchist, so I’m not opposed to all government or all law.

    Throughout human history, oppressive governments have been “justified” with the claim that they are necessary to bring about morality, charity, prosperity or some other desideratum. And when people don’t study history and learn from the past, they believe this. It resulted in Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, the Taliban, etc. People who disagree that a powerful government is necessary to accomplish these wonders — people like me — are always accused of being immoral libertines or grumps who are opposed to charity.

    If you didn’t mean that, then I suppose you weren’t trying to be rude. But as a defender of libertarian principles, I hear it (and worse) all the time.

    People in this country are beginning to wake up to the fact that even when they like certain powerful leaders (like Bush), the powers they assume may open the door for others they don’t like (like Obama). I think this is why we’re seeing such a groundswell of interest in libertarian ideals. I also think it’s why the Republican Party is gravitating toward them. And I believe that this is very good news.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 8, 2011 @ 9:56 pm - November 8, 2011

  30. I basically agree with you, Lori. I would never support giving the government power that isn’t necessary. And I wasn’t accusing you of being immoral, but I do believe abortion (for example) is immoral. If you don’t, I respect that, and I don’t think that makes you an immoral person per se. And I don’t assume your opinion on abortion just because you claim to be libertarian. There is really nothing you’ve said that indicates what your opinion on abortion is (as far as I can tell). But it’s not relevant anyway, because very rarely, if at all, do I use “litmus tests” to judge people.

    For the record, I usually agree with your comments. Nothing I said was meant to be rude; I guess I’m just not very nuanced.

    Comment by Naamloos — November 8, 2011 @ 10:16 pm - November 8, 2011

  31. For the record, I don’t approve of abortion, either. I don’t believe a doctor should be prohibited from resorting to one to save a mother’s life, but that is such a rare occurrence that it hardly ever comes up — despite what the pro-choice movement tries to say. (And before Roe v. Wade, it did occasionally happen — without incident.)

    I don’t believe that abortion on demand should be legal. It is being used as a form of birth control, which is wantonly wasteful and disrespectful toward human life. The fact that taxpayers are ever forced to pay for abortions — when many consider abortion murder — is a violation of their religious freedom.

    There are libertarian organizations (like Libertarians for Life) that do oppose abortion — so I don’t need to give up my membership card just because I disagree with a lot of other libertarians on that issue. I don’t consider it “freedom” to be permitted to kill another human being, and I think that when it happens to an unborn child — who can’t defend him- or herself — I believe it is especially heinous.

    Also for the record, Naamloos, I usually agree with you, too.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 8, 2011 @ 10:59 pm - November 8, 2011

  32. [...] – I Can’t Say That I Am Surprised submitted by The Colossus of RhodeyGay Patriot – Libertarian Helps Me Articulate Why I’m A Republican submitted by Rhymes with RightThe Propagandist – The Rape Of Oslo submitted by Simply [...]

    Pingback by Watcher of Weasels » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Kettle Calling The Pot Black Edition — November 9, 2011 @ 2:32 am - November 9, 2011

  33. [...] Patriot – Helps Me Articulate  submitted by Rhymes with [...]

    Pingback by Blogpost Blogpost on the Wall | — November 9, 2011 @ 10:28 am - November 9, 2011

  34. [...] Patriot – Libertarian Helps Me Articulate Why I’m A Republican submitted by Rhymes with [...]

    Pingback by Watcher Council Nominations | therightplanet.com — November 9, 2011 @ 1:03 pm - November 9, 2011

  35. [...] Patriot – Libertarian Helps Me Articulate Why I’m A Republican submitted by Rhymes with [...]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations – Kettle Calling The Pot Black Edition | therightplanet.com — November 9, 2011 @ 1:29 pm - November 9, 2011

  36. #31
    That pretty much sums up my views on abortion…

    Especially the freedom part. If I woman doesn’t want to have a kid, she should have thought of that before she had unprotected sex. And even if she gets pregnant and doesn’t want the child, there are other options, such as adoption.

    This goes back to pleasure vs. responsibility. Why should people be able to yield their responsibilities for the sake of pleasure but not have to face the consequences?

    And sorry for bringing up abortion and thereby going off topic.

    Comment by Naamloos — November 9, 2011 @ 7:59 pm - November 9, 2011

  37. Lori,

    Above, after my post – pile on? This is my experience with professed libertarians. I can think of exceptions, but then again I know Roman Catholics who don’t oppose abortion. Hell, there are RCs who don’t beleive in the Virgin birth… As to the pile on, I should add overly defensive – The damned topic was “why the author was not a libertarian but instead a republican.” I could add overly purist too – about two thirds of those I know didn’t vote at all last time because the Republican Party was too soc cal. So I can thank them for Obama.

    And in number 25, are you saying my friends are imaginary or calling me a liar? Every single one of my objections is based on the libertarians I know and I know a fair number. It seems to be a popular claim among a certain segment of society…

    Finally, just like I can’t claim to be a small “r” republican (which I would, since like the founders I don’t trust unfettered democracy), I don’t think the claim of small “l” works with a Libertarian party. If your using the name, you got to deal with their principles. Lord knows that makes me cry enough as a Republican. The Libertarian Party- on the other hand – makes me twitchy, very twitchy.

    Comment by Kevin — November 10, 2011 @ 11:37 am - November 10, 2011

  38. So Kevin, you seem to be saying that my friends are imaginary and yours are not. The possibility that we simply hang out with different people does not, for some reason, seem to occur to you. I know some pretty selfish and boastful people who say they’re libertarians, but they’re also twenty or thirty years my junior.

    You sound pretty wet behind the ears, yourself.

    If you feel the need to judge the many according to the behavior of the few, then have at it. So, evidently, do a lot of other people in cyberspace. My experiences are as real as yours, and I’m not going to shut up about them just to simplify your little world.

    And by all means, have at the lie — once again — that people who don’t believe government should forcibly mandate charity and morality (using violence to back it up) are all Scrooges who hate the poor, or libertines.
    Every dictator and tyrant in history who took power claiming they’d improve society certainly made the same claim. You may have some questionable company, but it’s certainly a large one.

    The number of people in these commentary threads who scream and cry because life isn’t as simon-simple as they want it to be and it’s just not FAIR seems to be growing. Libertarianism is growing in popularity for a lot of very good reasons. Deal with it.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 10, 2011 @ 1:51 pm - November 10, 2011

  39. [...] Patriot – Libertarian Helps Me Articulate Why I’m A Republican submitted by Rhymes with [...]

    Pingback by Bookworm Room » The wonderful Watcher’s Council — November 10, 2011 @ 2:57 pm - November 10, 2011

  40. Well, Lori, I’ll add not good at handling disagreements with civility to the list. I count 3 or 4 insults in the last post, depending on what “wet behind the ears” is…

    Comment by Kevin — November 10, 2011 @ 8:35 pm - November 10, 2011

  41. Kevin, “wet behind the ears” means not terribly mature. You’re not doing too well with handling disagreements with civility yourself, if you care to make an issue of it.

    Your complaint seems to boil down to knowing some people who happen to be libertarians and whom you don’t like. Therefore — in your vast and limitless experience — ALL libertarians must be like that. Got it. That sort of thinking is not generally indulged in by mature people, who understand how many different people there are in the world.

    There are libertarians I don’t like, either. But since I understand that what really matter are the principles upon which this country are founded, I get over it. The only way I can make a difference is to be a part of a movement I basically agree with, and help steer it in a positive direction. I can’t do that by sitting on the sidelines and griping about other people who aren’t doing what I think they ought to do.

    It’s about responsibility. Taking ownership of one’s own convictions and how they are applied. If I wanted to sit around and complain about the libertarians who are horrible instead of joining with those who aren’t, I fail to see how that would be standing up for freedom.

    I’m not going to play children’s games of rubber-and-glue with you. You prefer to make excuses and complain, and that’s your problem. If you don’t like being treated like a child, then don’t act like one.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 10, 2011 @ 11:59 pm - November 10, 2011

  42. [...] U.S. submitted by GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnDThird place *t* with 1 1/3 vote -Gay Patriot – Libertarian Helps Me Articulate Why I’m A Republican submitted by Rhymes With RightFourth place *t* with 1 vote -Newsbusters/Noel Sheppard – CNN Runs [...]

    Pingback by Watcher of Weasels » The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watchers Council Results — November 11, 2011 @ 4:01 am - November 11, 2011

  43. [...] place *t* with 1 1/3 vote -Gay Patriot – Libertarian Helps Me Articulate Why I’m A Republican submitted by Rhymes With [...]

    Pingback by The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watchers Council Results - 11-11-2011 | Virginia Right! — November 11, 2011 @ 8:52 am - November 11, 2011

  44. [...] place *t* with 1 1/3 vote -Gay Patriot – Libertarian Helps Me Articulate Why I’m A Republican submitted by Rhymes With [...]

    Pingback by This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results | therightplanet.com — November 11, 2011 @ 9:18 am - November 11, 2011

  45. Lori, everything you accuse me of, you are doing. I stated why I wasn’t a libertarian, and you’ve pushed it from there with slurs and personal attacks. “By their works you shall know them.” Well, libertarians in general are not filling me with confidence by how they act.

    Comment by Kevin — November 11, 2011 @ 11:18 am - November 11, 2011

  46. Kevin, you stated you weren’t a libertarian because you don’t like the libertarians you know. That’s an immature reason not to commit to a political conviction. I stand by what I said.

    I intended what I said as simple statements of fact. If you took them as “slurs and personal attacks,” that’s your problem.

    Your complaint about the libertarians basically amounts to the fact that you can’t like everybody. You sound like a seventh-grader talking about so-and-so’s cooties. That’s childish.

    Either you know what you’re about, or you don’t. If the best reason you can come up with for not being something is because somebody you don’t like happens to be whatever it is, you need to grow up. Adults eventually learn they have to deal with all sorts of people they’d rather not deal with in the course of life, and they don’t expect every moment of it to be pleasant and fun. Get over it.

    The world is not going to tailor-make itself to suit your specifications. You either place a premium on liberty, and believe that government should be restricted to doing what it can do better than everybody else, or you do not. If you do believe that, you’re a libertarian. If you don’t, then you’re not. Take responsibility for your choices and stop blaming other people for them.

    Man up.

    Comment by Lori Heine — November 11, 2011 @ 8:05 pm - November 11, 2011

  47. Thanks for posting this one! Always enjoy visiting your site!!

    Steve
    Common Cents
    http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

    Comment by Steve — November 12, 2011 @ 10:04 pm - November 12, 2011

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.