Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wow. I actually have to say this? Okay then - Ron Paul is one person. He does not speak for all libertarians. His supporters do not speak for anybody but themselves.
And yes I'm sure about immigration. From Libertarian Answers:
You may wish to keep America to yourself — and you could easily, in a libertarian society, do so on the parcel that you own. As your neighbor, however, I may wish to host an immigrant, and would be free to open my home — or even sell it — to the guests of my choice.
still waiting for a definition of 'neocon.' If we can't define a word, why use it? The word has no meaning and neither do the posts wherein it is used.
I don't know that there is a single accepted definition of what a neocon is. But I think most people would agree the defining characteristics are that they are big government foreign interventionist types and often have strong social conservative values as well.
The original neocon was Irving Kristol, father of Bill. He was a liberal Democrat who studied economics and become a convert to free market ideas, hence 'neocon.' Beyond that the term became very muddled and useless.
If a word does not have a 'single accepted definition' it becomes a tool for those who seek to deceive by shifting meanings. OP, still waiting for your definition
So why do you support conservative politicians more than liberal politicians?
A lot don't. That's why there's a separate Libertarian Party.
However, it's also true that there are a lot of right Libertarians who do vote Republican.
It's a question of going with the side that matches up best with your views on those issues which are most important.
Would I prefer to see us not jailing people and spending huge sums of money on a silly war against pot smoking? Yeah. Am I more likely to find support for that among liberals than conservatives? Yeah.
But you know what I'd much rather prefer? I'd much rather see the Bill of Rights respected and the government not wrecking the free economy.
So I go Republican. Doesn't mean I like Bush. Sometimes it is more about the lesser of two evils than actually liking what the Republican Party is doing. But America is the most successful free society in the world. Which side wants to preserve the constitution that made it that way and which side wants to "fundamentally transform" it?
So why do you support conservative politicians more than liberal politicians?
Actually, I support neither. I have always compared voting for either as having to chose between someone urinating on your face or defecating in your mouth. Sure, you know which one you pick, but it's not something to be happy about.
Although, there are people who do pay good money for that.
The only reason I can think of is that sometimes conservative politicians cut taxes. I cannot think of any other reason to do so.
Liberal politicians rarely do anything libertarians could be proud of. You rarely hear about liberal politicians taking steps to end the Drug War. I haven't seen many liberal politicians take civil liberties seriously when they are in office. It seems the only things liberal politicians ever get done is passing more regulation and raising taxes. So what's the point.
That being said, I can think of few liberal politicians that I actually hate. But I can certainly think of a lot of conservative politicians that I genuinely hate.
By that definition then Obama, Clinton, JFK and LBJ are all neocons. Right?
Clinton, not so much. The other three, yep.
Both parties are puppets to the defense industry and the military industrial complex.
Let's add Reagan, both Bush presidents, Nixon to the list also.
Our military is half of all world wide military spending. The next largest single contributor is China at 7%.
If you account for our close allies, we are at over 75% of world wide military spending. All while going into debt, asking people to pay higher taxes and cuts to Medicare and changes to social security.
Stupid. But Romney is talking about increasing military spending. So is Obama, at a lesser rate.
Try educating yourself about libertarian beliefs and be less prone to lump anybody with different beliefs than you all as the same.
But that libertarians are getting criticized by both the far right and the far left is a good sign that their message is getting out there and being taken seriously.
The original neocon was Irving Kristol, father of Bill. He was a liberal Democrat who studied economics and become a convert to free market ideas, hence 'neocon.' Beyond that the term became very muddled and useless.
If a word does not have a 'single accepted definition' it becomes a tool for those who seek to deceive by shifting meanings. OP, still waiting for your definition
Correct, neoconservative is basically a foreign policy labeling, it is the opposite of paleoconservative e.g. Pat Buchanan, Robert Taft.
Most libertarians are paleoconservative in their views on foreign intervention with the exception of trade.
Every President since Ike has basically been a neoconservative.
I have to scratch my head everytime libertarians attempt to distinguish themselves from mainstream conservatives/neocons. Libertarians are not different. Libertarians always side with conservatives on 97% of issues. If you watch Reason TV on Youtube, most of the comments are from people who you would think are neocons. Same with the CATO Institute.
Aside from war mongering, face it. Libertarians are conservatives.
Ummm, wrong!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.