Obviously I’m as sick of conservative brushes-off of libertarians as anyone, but this jab seems reasonable given that one of the LP front-runners, Mary Ruwart, wrote this (from Short Answers to Tough Questions):

“Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if it’s distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.”

Crazy, of course, and that’s why reasonable folks like you and me have to put up with the insults of Klein, et. al.

Pam,

They help protect us from an encroaching tyrannical government. It’s easy to take our freedom for granted. It’s also easy to forget that, throughout history, the liberty that we enjoy has far and away not been the norm. It may seem paranoid, but it’s naive to think that it can’t happen here in the US.

Sorry, but you lost me there. Gun ownership is an essential part of living in a free society (which is why the Founding Fathers put it immediately after the amendment guaranteeing free speech), which is why libertarians oppose gun laws.

Guns are a huge problem in our society

People who kill other people are a huge problem in our society. The only thing that gun laws do is make it easier for criminals to kill law abiding people by removing an option from self-defense from the law-abiding (case in point, Washington D.C., which has some of the most restrictive gun laws, is among the top cities for murders every year).

Guns have no purpose except to kill. What is so useful about that?

Ask a hunter who uses game to feed his family. Or a woman defending herself from a would-be rapist who is more powerful than she is. Or someone defending their home against multiple intruders. Violent actions are sometimes justifiable, even when those actions have sometimes lethal consequences.

Pam,

Chicago already has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. What makes you think that more government intervention is the answer to the violent crime problem?

Also, libertarian ideals and “reasonable” Chicago gun laws are like oil and water.

#16 UCrawford
She’s not talking about choosing the message, she’s talking about selling the message. There’s a difference.

“…Reasonable gun laws would go a long way to advancing the Lib agenda…”

I rest my case.

I don’t know if I would ever call myself a compassionate conservative, kind of makes me gag, cause I’m about as liberal as one can get, but not in a political sense, in a openminded way.. IN a sense of being broad minded and caring. Probably what actually keeps me from voting Liberterian is the gun issue, I have children, guns are dangerous and in the Chicago area, 24 school aged children have died in gun blasts this school year, that is 4 a month and I’m f-ing sick of it altogether and I don’t feel safe with all these guns floating around this country and I feel like that infringes on my right to have peace of mind. Owning a gun myself would only make me feel even less safe. Reasonable gun laws would go a long way to advancing the Lib agenda. IMHO. And I mean it is humble!

She’s not talking about choosing the message, she’s talking about selling the message. There’s a difference.

#13 Pamela
Liberterians need a new message and a Barack Obama. I think the total package is too much for most people.

We don’t choose the message based on it’s likely popularity. You must have us confused with Republicans and Democrats.

So you’d refer to yourself as the libertarian version of a “compassionate conservative” then? :)

Seriously, I see where you’re coming from and I agree. Often the way libertarians portray themselves tends to create the image of money-obsessed sociopaths or cranks because we harp so much on the anti-government angle and not enough on the positives that are achieved in a society that doesn’t have a government safety net…where private individuals can step up for charity and outreach and do a better job. It’s a really good point.

Liberterians need a new message and a Barack Obama. I think the total package is too much for most people. Talk of doing away with the Federal Reserve and taxes is just way too scary for most people. I believe the people of this nation can do what the government tries but fails to do only much much better. I believe in the people, not the government. If every well off family or even middle class family (if there is still such a thing) would “adopt” a “poor” family and take care of that family and their needs getting involved personally with them, it would be a much better place. The government is lame in every way, but Liberterians go too far and scare the crap out of people because they need to feel a safety net. Maybe start slow and see how it goes. I truly believe we can take care of our own better and with compassion and caring than any corrupt government buracracy(sp) can and we would rise to the occasion just as we did with katrina. The government should be put out of business in my opinion, but not in the scary way Libs advocate. Ya know?

I’ve gotten personally involved in saving a 15 year old from life in prison. He had a government paid PD. It was an utter failure. If he talked to that boy for 15 minutes over the course of 9 months, that would be an overestimation. When a private citizen came along, me, things got done., and it didn’t exactly break the bank. But the difference was I cared, I was devoted, I was personally involved by choice, I was not being paid. I have no regrets and feel if more private citizens would find someone who needs help and help that family or person to the best of their means and ability, it would be a wonderful world. And we could get out from under the massive burden of government intruding into our lives. And we wouldn’t be so fucking lazy, cause we wouldn’t have the do nothing government to fall back on. I wrote this in a hurry, so not sure if it came out right, but anyway… there it is.

They don’t like being reminded of their betrayal of conservative principles.

Actually, I think it goes beyond that…it’s more that conservatives don’t like it being pointed out to them that they don’t really have any principles. A lot of conservatives consider themselves devout Christians, and yet many conservatives’ responses to 9/11 were pure racist bile and advocacy of unconstrained violence, a betrayal of the “turn the other cheek” admonishment of real Christianity. A lot of those conservatives are adamantly opposed to government repression of their beliefs, but they’re ecstatic when Bush earmarks funding for one of his “faith-based initiatives” that forces taxpayers to subsidize their religion (basically theft). A lot of conservatives are strict law and order types…so long as it’s not people who look like them getting the shaft when the cops bust down the wrong door or when Steven Hayne or Mike Nifong decide to railroad a defendant.

Basically, I’m increasingly of the opinion that many conservatives (primarily Christian conservatives) hate libertarians not because we point out a few instances of hypocrisy on their part but because we do an excellent job of pointing out how completely full of shit many of their core beliefs really are.

But certain people in our society do need government help, which both Liberterians and Conservatives seem to be opposed to. That’s not really fair.

I’m not opposed to helping people. I am opposed to forcing others to help people, especially with the threats of violence and financial ruin. I’ll even argue that I personally am less likely to go out of my way to help someone in need because I figure, “Hey, the government takes over 1/3rd of our household income, let them help this person, I’ve already done my part.”

And consider that taxes are determined on a basis of income not ability to pay. There is little or no consideration to my situtation when the politicians get up there and say, “We are going to raise your taxes because I want to take your money and spend it on these people over here.” And lets not get into the whole issue of rotten incentives that result of government acting as a safety net. Sure sounds nice when you are up there on the high-wire of trapeze to have a safety net….but maybe you shouldn’t even be up there in the first place. The “safety net” government provides can and indeed does induce people into taking actions that they otherwise might not if the safety net were not there.

Pam:
I’m not opposed to people in need receiving help. I’m opposed to the government using the threat of violence to finance said help.

Is there any group, movement, or organization of any kind that doesn’t include supporters that are “whack jobs”?

I think you’re right, Dave. They don’t like being reminded of their betrayal of conservative principles.

Conservatives are the new liberals. They almost all believe that “if we just get the right person to lead government” everything will be spiffy. They used to reject this idea, but now they embrace it wholeheartedly betraying some of their most fundamental and oldest beliefs.

Maybe we’d be more credible if our supporters weren’t such whack jobs.