• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why "Fusionist" Libertarian-Republicans Aren't Really Libertarians At All

This is why I don't buy Lindsey's view of a Liberaltarian. I see libertarians as rejecting the shared view of both Democrats and Republicans that government is there to serve them and to grow their power based. By throwing in Libertarians in with Liberals - I see that as an inherent contradiction to what Libertarians and their platform want and stand for. This part of the OP:


...doesn't sit right with me and I only have some libertarian leanings.

I viewed that as stating classical liberalism. Libertarians are very closely related to classical liberal political philosophy. I view the Republican and Democrat parties as two sides of the same coin. They actually want the same thing. Preservation of the status quo. And the pretend "two sides" makes it seem like there is choice and that choosing R over D or vise versa will make a difference. And in that pretend choice, you placate enough people. Particularly if you can strongly polarize the political arena. I don't see how one supports the Republicans without supporting the Democrats. The Republocrats ensure that they're never truly out of power, we just teeter totter between the two. Support of the status quo will not change the status quo.
 
Last edited:
I viewed that as stating classical liberalism. Libertarians are very closely related to classical liberal political philosophy. I view the Republican and Democrat parties as two sides of the same coin. They actually want the same thing. Preservation of the status quo. And the pretend "two sides" makes it seem like there is choice and that choosing R over D or vise versa will make a difference. And in that pretend choice, you placate enough people. Particularly if you can strongly polarize the political arena. I don't see how one supports the Republicans without supporting the Democrats. The Republocrats ensure that they're never truly out of power, we just teeter totter between the two. Support of the status quo will not change the status quo.

I see that as well, which is why my views of Republicanism have converted more to Conservatism. I still view myself as a Republican but a very wary one for the reasons you've outlined. If things will ever improve, the root of that improvement must be a rejection of the status quo.
 
To suggest that libertarians can't or shouldn't do that is silly. In fact, some blurbs from tea partiers I hear are "we want to change the republican party to be more libertarian". How would you do that without interfacing with the Republican party?

I just think it's a pipe dream. The Republican party has made it abundantly clear that they value the populist, nativist, and discriminatory (see the New York mosque threads) Tea Party movement more than civil liberties and laissez faire economics. Just because some Tea Partiers style themselves libertarians, which may or may not be accurate, doesn't mean that the Republican party is going to listen to them.
 

Yes, damn those facts, indeed. Only it seems they're always mussing you up Rev, because your link just confirms precisely what I'm talking about.

All those Dixiecrats who were opposed to civil rights became Republicans after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. When LBJ passed it, he said the Democrats had lost the south for a generation. And he was right, because the Republicans swooped in and courted all that racist hatred. Kinda like they're doing now with the Tea Party, and with the NYC Islamic Center.

It is this M.O. that is counter to libertarian principles.
 
Hey, that's cool, we're on the same page. I don't view the Tea Party as anywhere close to libertarians, either. They're about as authoritarian as you can get.
You mean anarchic?
 
You mean anarchic?

Not at all. I think the Tea Party vision of closed borders and heavy restrictions on the Islamic faith bear a closer resemblance to fascism than anarchy.
 
Not at all. I think the Tea Party vision of closed borders and heavy restrictions on the Islamic faith bear a closer resemblance to fascism than anarchy.
???

What is the tea party platform? I can get the borders deal, but restrictions on the islamic faith? I've been to numerous tea party-parties in texas and florida, i've never even heard of anyone talking about Islam!
 
???

What is the tea party platform? I can get the borders deal, but restrictions on the islamic faith? I've been to numerous tea party-parties in texas and florida, i've never even heard of anyone talking about Islam!

I wish I was making it up! But I'm talking about the Palladino-type Tea Partiers who want to use eminent domain to condemn the Islamic Center near ground zero, that sort of thing. It's part of the whole anti-Islamic undercurrent of the Tea Party, particularly with Glenn Beck.
 
Yes, damn those facts, indeed. Only it seems they're always mussing you up Rev, because your link just confirms precisely what I'm talking about.

All those Dixiecrats who were opposed to civil rights became Republicans after the passage of the Civil Rights Act. When LBJ passed it, he said the Democrats had lost the south for a generation. And he was right, because the Republicans swooped in and courted all that racist hatred. Kinda like they're doing now with the Tea Party, and with the NYC Islamic Center.

It is this M.O. that is counter to libertarian principles.



Like Al gores father? Byrd and all that. Please.


You want to redistribute my wealth, you sir are no libertarian.
 
I wish I was making it up! But I'm talking about the Palladino-type Tea Partiers who want to use eminent domain to condemn the Islamic Center near ground zero, that sort of thing. It's part of the whole anti-Islamic undercurrent of the Tea Party, particularly with Glenn Beck.




Theres more of your lies. Paladino is not a tea party canidate. :failpail:
 
???

What is the tea party platform? I can get the borders deal, but restrictions on the islamic faith? I've been to numerous tea party-parties in texas and florida, i've never even heard of anyone talking about Islam!




He's resorting to slander.
 
I wish I was making it up! But I'm talking about the Palladino-type Tea Partiers who want to use eminent domain to condemn the Islamic Center near ground zero, that sort of thing. It's part of the whole anti-Islamic undercurrent of the Tea Party, particularly with Glenn Beck.

So is this just a hit job trying to get people to see things your way and that faux LEAN in your description is just a ploy or what?
 
Theres more of your lies. Paladino is not a tea party canidate. :failpail:

Rev's favorite debate tactic: when backed into a corner, redefine words to get out of it.

Paladino is generally considered part of the Tea Party, whether you think he is or not:
Paladino accepts Tea Party coalition support - Capitol Confidential
Cuomodino Update: Cuomo Attacks "Paladino's Tea Party" - Gothamist
Carl Paladino's ill-informed Tea Party rage will spell doom for GOP's credibility in NY
 
So is this just a hit job trying to get people to see things your way and that faux LEAN in your description is just a ploy or what?

What a peculiar (and rude) way to phrase it. I am trying to get people to see things my way, but all that other stuff you said there is BS.
 
Rev's favorite debate tactic: when backed into a corner, redefine words to get out of it.

Paladino is generally considered part of the Tea Party, whether you think he is or not:
Paladino accepts Tea Party coalition support - Capitol Confidential
Cuomodino Update: Cuomo Attacks "Paladino's Tea Party" - Gothamist
Carl Paladino's ill-informed Tea Party rage will spell doom for GOP's credibility in NY




He is still not a "tea party canidate". Sorry, the :failpail: stands.
 
So is this just a hit job trying to get people to see things your way and that faux LEAN in your description is just a ploy or what?



He's one of those "left-libertarians".... Which is an oxymoron.
 
Rev's favorite debate tactic: when backed into a corner, redefine words to get out of it.

Paladino is generally considered part of the Tea Party, whether you think he is or not:
Paladino accepts Tea Party coalition support - Capitol Confidential
Cuomodino Update: Cuomo Attacks "Paladino's Tea Party" - Gothamist
Carl Paladino's ill-informed Tea Party rage will spell doom for GOP's credibility in NY
Many are politicians througout the country are endorsed by the tea party, including democrats. Does that make them "tea party candidates"?

The only tea party candidates I know about, are all running for the senate.+
 
What a peculiar (and rude) way to phrase it. I am trying to get people to see things my way, but all that other stuff you said there is BS.

I'm asking the question to you... so this isn't just a hit job against tea party members FOR the Democrat party then? Yes or no?
 
As long as they don't have any big party support, I'm happy.
 
I wish I was making it up! But I'm talking about the Palladino-type Tea Partiers who want to use eminent domain to condemn the Islamic Center near ground zero, that sort of thing. It's part of the whole anti-Islamic undercurrent of the Tea Party, particularly with Glenn Beck.

Then your arguement is illogical. This is the tea party platform:
Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the U.S. Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)
Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control carbon dioxide emissions by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of carbon dioxide. (72.20%)
Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%)
Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the Internal Revenue Code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution. (64.9%)
Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities. (63.37%)
Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)
Repeal the healthcare legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%)
Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%)
Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%)
Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend current temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%)

Anything else is fair game. Some people want to throw muslims out, some want to build a mosque at ground zero, the tea party, as a body, doesn't care. That's purely Palladino's position.
 
Last edited:
I'm asking the question to you... so this isn't just a hit job against tea party members FOR the Democrat party then? Yes or no?

This is not for the benefit of a party, it's for the benefit of libertarianism itself.
 
Back
Top Bottom