The problem with Libertarianism

[Faster horses]

http://patriotupdate.com/articles/the-problem-with-libertarianism

 

[loomixguy]

Good article and some thoought provoking discussion following it. :tiphat:

 

[Steve]

Ron Paul is a purist, too often at the cost of real accomplishments on free trade, school choice, entitlement reform, and tort reform. It is perfectly legitimate, and in fact vital, that think tanks, free-market groups, and individual members of Congress develop and propose idealized solutions. But presidents have the responsibility of making progress, and often, Ron Paul opposes progress because, in his mind, the progress is not perfect. In these cases, although for very different reasons, Ron Paul is practically often aligned with the most left-wing Democrats, voting against important, albeit imperfect, pro-growth legislation."

I would say that about sums up where most concern is.. will Paul go from a unheard no vote in the congress to a loud no vote with little recourse in the White House?

 

[Steve]

Also, America was prepared to impose Constitutional governments on Germany and Japan, with rule of law and freedom of religion. This belief in the superiority of the American Way flies in the face of the current fad of cultural relativism. We see the problems in the Middle East now: the Ruling Class doesn't dare to say that a Constitutional Republic is superior to Sharia despotism. All they cared about was "Democracy", which has just meant ten Islamonazis and one Christian voting on who should be shot.

this is something that has bothered me since the Iraq war, why would we set up this type of government, and not a Constitutional Republic comparable to what we already have?

The South Korean government's structure is determined by the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. The Government of South Korea is divided into executive, judicial, and legislative branches.

The politics of Iraq takes place in a framework of a federal parliamentary representative democratic republic. It is a multi-party system whereby the executive power is exercised by the Prime Minister of the Council of Ministers as the head of government, as well as the President of Iraq, and legislative power is vested in the Council of Representatives and the Federation Council

The federal government of Iraq is defined under the current Constitution as an Islamic,[1] democratic, federal parliamentary republic..

our government may not be perfect, but it is better then the mess Iraq's politics is in...

 

[Anonymous]

In many Patriot columns, I have defended free market or libertarian economics. However, this is only one of the legs of the "three-legged stool of conservatism", as Ronald Reagan, the greatest 20th century American president put it. The other two are a strong national defence and good moral values, i.e. pro-life and pro-marriage/family. Take one leg away, and the stool collapses.

As I've argued before, Michele Bachmann is such a good candidate because she stands the most consistently for all three. My second preference, Newt Gingrich, is also strong on all three.

And you saw how far Bachmann made it.... :lol:

People are tired of the federal government coming into their private lives and telling them what their moral/religious values should be- and what their "family values" should be-- and how they should live their lives....
Especially when many of the government spokesmen preaching all this (like Newt) can't/don't walk the talk...

 

[redrobin]

pedophiles and drunks are tired of the federal government coming into their private lives and telling them what their moral/religious values should be- and what their "family values" should be-- and how they should live their lives....
Especially when many of the government spokesmen preaching all this (like Newt) can't/don't walk the talk...

 

[smalltime]

Thats a good point Steve.I wonder the same thing.Redrobin cant read or maybe your just mean spirited :shock:

 

[hypocritexposer]

In many Patriot columns, I have defended free market or libertarian economics. However, this is only one of the legs of the "three-legged stool of conservatism", as Ronald Reagan, the greatest 20th century American president put it. The other two are a strong national defence and good moral values, i.e. pro-life and pro-marriage/family. Take one leg away, and the stool collapses.

As I've argued before, Michele Bachmann is such a good candidate because she stands the most consistently for all three. My second preference, Newt Gingrich, is also strong on all three.

And you saw how far Bachmann made it.... :lol:

People are tired of the federal government coming into their private lives and telling them what their moral/religious values should be- and what their "family values" should be-- and how they should live their lives....
Especially when many of the government spokesmen preaching all this (like Newt) can't/don't walk the talk...

Traynham, an openly gay black man that used to be an aide to Santorum:

Traynham defended his former boss, saying that he was merely raising a Constitutional question, not a personal one. He acknowledged that, as an openly gay man, he disagreed with Santorum about his right to "fall in love and to be with whomever I choose to."

Things got a little awkward when Matthews asked whether Santorum agreed with "your right to have your orientation and to act on it." He wondered, "doesn't he go further and say that you should not be allowed to be gay in any actual way?"

"Absolutely not!" Traynham said, adding that if Santorum had ever felt that way, he would not have worked for him.

"This is ridiculous," he finally said. "This is absolutely ridiculous."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/06/chris-matthews-santorum-gay-robert-traynham_n_1188992.html