Liberals should be threatened by the libertarian wing of the Republican Party

[pollyrobin]

Originally Posted by VTHokieFan

"I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state,"

That sounds like a sound libertarian position to me. You say that a libertarian would want a repeal of that act. But why? If that act were repealed, that would open legislation that would force states to recognize same-sex unions from other states. If the law were repealed, then a law would be passed to legalize gay marriage. That too is an ant-libertarian position because it places the federal government in the realm of private relationships. We're opposed to both. Also, Ron Paul is a libertarian, not an anarchist so he isn't opposed to laws, he states he supports DOMA so that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state.

Now, would you please comment on the fact that Ron Paul was one of 15 republican representatives to vote to repeal DADT, if he's such a stereotypical republican on gay rights?

I didn't say he was a stereotypical republican on gay
rights - I just said the supporting of the Defense of
Marriage Act is not a Libertarian Party position.

I remember when Rand Paul made comments about
the Civil Rights Act legislation that the media jumped on and everyone assumed he's a libertarian - that's got to be a libertarian view. Well, that wasn't. The Libertarian Party supports the Civil Rights Act - and I believe, so does
Rand Paul

I like Both Ron and his son Rand. But not everything
they say and do is going to be 100 percent representative
of the Libertarian Party. And guess what, it shouldn't
be - they aren't running as such - they are running as Republicans.

Being a Republican, isn't always a dirty word

It's just this automatic knee jerk reaction the press has, that everything they say is Libertarian Party platform.
It's not.

But most of what Ron and Rand Paul believe in,
the good stuff has its roots in our party.

[VTHokieFan]

Here's Ron Paul's stance on gay marraige


YouTube - Ron Paul on gay marriage

by the way, there is a difference beween libertarian and Libertarian. I mean I disagree with the Libertarian Party because I'm pro-life. I'm not saying they are Libertarians like the party, I am saying they are libertarian, lower-case "L."

[miyu]

Originally Posted by VTHokieFan

Fiscal conservatism, economic liberalism, social libertarianism and non-interventionism are far more attractive than anything you have to offer.

1. No IRS
2. No welfare state
3. No more wars.
4. No more legislation of morality
5. No more corporatism.
6. No more war on drugs
7. No more hand outs
8. No more ineffective regulations.
9. No more Federal Reserve
10. No more unsound money.
11. No more business cycles.
12. No more dead soldiers.
13. No more national debt.
14. No more fiscal deficits.
15. No more income tax.

I actually would be cool with all of these - except for a couple of things. I think it's been shown that capitalism unfettered causes a lot of "legal fraud". Do we leave that alone? Also, some services (i.e. emergency, security) are better organized when they are rendered by a large and standardized entity. The only problem with government run entities at the moment is not that they are large or government run - it's that they are run by people who are unscrupulous.

What do you do with violent crime / fraud? They also fall within the realm of legislating morality - should we not regulate that? Do we get rid of our police force? Or should we all go for street justice?

Also I don't like libertarians because they assume they are at the top of the Darwinian food chain. Reality is, they probably aren't. Anyone who is actually smart might be able to realize that they belong with the other 95% of the bell curve.

[creepy]

yes sounds like Ron Paul is a Republican in many regards now. Legislating morality is not Libertarian. Whether it be gay marriage or abortion.

[creepy]

VTHokieFan, Ron Paul is not Libertarian if he supports this act. Liberatrians do not support legislation that is morality based. Now some modern day Liberatrians that want things both ways will have hypocrisy and I ams sorry to hear Ron Paul is such a case now. You brought up Anarchy which is relevant-true Libertarians are very close to Anarchists and making a lwaw to protect straught marrigae is not anarchy nor libertarian.

[creepy]

to Miyu,

you wrote "They also fall within the realm of legislating morality - should we not regulate that? "

no I don't think we should for adults.

[creepy]

Interesting. So he wants to go to States rights. Have you thought about what our country might be like in 20 years if we keep moving towards states rights? Could be very odd indeed. Using some info from my past-In 1988 I went to Ireland and was told they did not allow abortion so girls who wanted one went to England or had the baby. The law said no abortion but the reality was that rich and middle class women could get the money to go to England and have this done anway.

Flash forward 20 years in the future. the US could be more like 50 small countries. One state allowing abortion, one not, one state allowing gay marriage one not. A girl in Tennesse may have to travel 3 states over to get her abortion, having to heal afterwards alone in a hotel room.

Will people only live in the progressive states if they are progressive and the conservatives live in conservative states? Will we become more polarized over time because we no longer have to work and live near others like us so that we become alineated? So alienated that one day we declare war on the other states like Israel and Palestine or North and South Ireland?

Are we a country or are we 50 seperate countries?