Comments about ‘Libertarian wave wins big at CPAC’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, March 10 2014 3:09 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

airnaut,
See... we are both "libertarians" and we disagree on almost everything. That's what I'm talking about.

We aren't a party (like the Democrat or Republican party). We don't all vote in lock-step (like Democrats and Republicans do in Washington). Libertarianism is a philosophy... not a party... there's a difference.

Democrats represent a partisan "party". They vote alike, they talk alike, they walk alike, they seem to have a collective-brain (no individualism allowed). Same goes for Republicans.

When you really join one of these partisan groups (with your whole sole as many have)... you practically give up the right to have your own independent thoughts... you have to support the party dogma. It becomes your job to defend the party... even when it disagrees with your personal views.

Libertarians aren't like that. That's why they will never be a real "political party" (like the Rs and Ds).

airnaut
Everett, 00

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT
airnaut,
See... we are both "libertarians" and we disagree on almost everything. That's what I'm talking about.

=========

Would it make you "feel" any better to know that I registrured as a Republican, so I could attend the silly "closed" cacuses?

At my roots, ideologically --
I'm mostly Libertarian, but I do not march lock step with any one single group.
IMHO - nor should anyone.

I'm probably --
50% Libertarian,
25% Democrat,
15% Green,
and 10% Republican.

With a little Capitalism, and
a lot of Socialism/Communism stuck in there for good measure.

I vote for the person most in-line with ME, regadless of party.
Never the person most in-line with a Party, regadless of me.

freedomingood
provo, Utah

And that's why republicans will loose again. Libertarian-ism just doesn't have the votes.

Libertarian-ism is for a small group of adults that want the equivalent of not having to eat their broccoli.

They live here, but they don't want any rules or taxes. Eat your broccoli and put up your toys.

Gildas
LOGAN, UT

I liked the comment of one poster (2 bits?) about us truly having two minority parties rather than any majority party.

I don't think that either party's chosen presidential candidates, for example, gets fifty percent of the vote or more. They seem to each get between thirty and forty percent of the vote. The one that gets the most percentage points in the spread between thirty and forty percent of the voters "wins" and the winner takes all. That is true also for national polls on support for political parties. Neither "popular" party is getting a majority of the people saying "Yes!" but a lot saying "Whatever!" or "Here we go again!".

Polls show much popular consensus over many key issues, like illegal immigration and a balanced budget amendment for example. A third party that builds upon such consensus, if or when it gets off the ground, should build on those consenses and the popular repudiation of both parties.

Many nominal Republicans are actually 'liberals' not 'libertarians'. When I say liberal I do NOT mean Democrat, I mean liberal in the Jeffersonian sense of the word, in the eighteenth century sense of liberation from tyrannical political controls.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "airnaut" how to do you reconcile two opposing ideas.

You are like a Black Panther member who wants to join the KKK.

Please explain how you reconcile Libertarian (believe that there should be little government in our lives) with Socialism or Communism (believe that there should be a lot of government intervention, the more the better)?

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

@RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

Please explain how you reconcile Libertarian (believe that there should be little government in our lives) with Socialism or Communism (believe that there should be a lot of government intervention, the more the better)?
4:41 p.m. March 11, 2014

=======

Sure,
Right after you explain how you reconcile;

being pro-Life,
and pro-Death Penalty and Pro-War.

Being pro-business,
and anti-people.

Being Christian,
and shun the poor, sick and the needy.

Believing in Eternal Progression,
and being against Progression.

Being Pro-Family and looking forward to the Law of Consecration,
and
being Anti-Socialist and Materialistic.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "LDS Liberal" well, first of all, most of what you say is a lie about me.

First being pro-Death Penalty and Pro-War and being Pro-Life is easy. The Death penalty and War protect society as a whole, being Pro-life protects innocent life.

I am Pro-business and pro-people, I don't shun the poor, sick, or needy, I believe in Eternal Progression and I believe in Progress (not all change is progress some is regression but sounds new because it is called something different), I am Pro family, and do my best to live up to the Law of Consecration (Consecration is not collectivist ideals), I am not materialistic.

I am against Progressivism which seeks to force people to be good. Progressivism is just Satan's plan implemented on earth. Being Anti-Socialist is just following the words of the First presidency, President Kimball, President Benson, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, and other Prophets and church leaders.

Ok, now it is your turn.

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

and how many CPAC "winners" have ever been elected President?

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT
To "airnaut" how to do you reconcile two opposing ideas.
4:41 p.m. March 11, 2014
===========
Very well...

I don't think Government or other people should be allowed in our homes or our bedrooms.
I love and support our Constitution, and am willing to die defending it to ALL Americans – even for those I may disagree with, and particularly minorities without money or a say-so.
I’m against Republicans and their Patriot Acts, Wars, and trampling of others rights – all in the pursuit of Money and Gain.
I put people and our planet ahead of business, Corporations and Governments.
I’m against the Plutocracies, Corporcracies and other Gadiantons who threaten America, our people, our freedoms and our environment.
I whole hearted believe that the love of money is the root of ALL evil,
I believe in establishing the Kingdom of God on the Earth.
I believe in Liberty & Justice for all. beit - Legal, Moral, Economic, and Social.
and
I believe that we are Free to either choose to live in America and get along with others, or get out.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "LDS Liberal" that is nice, but that does not reconcile your belief that government should be as small as possible at the same time you believe that government should be intrusive and tell you how to run your life.

Based on what you say, you can't reconcile your beliefs. You say that you are for Socialism and Communism, but it is Socialism and Communism that breed the "Plutocracies, Corporcracies and other Gadiantons who threaten America, our people, our freedoms and our environment."

Isn't deciding who you will and will not help with your money a private issue that the government shouldn't have any say in, yet you want to use Government to come into my home and force me to give money to people that have learned how to use the welfare programs to avoid working.

Plase explain how you reconcile Libertarian (believe that there should be little government in our lives) with Socialism or Communism (believe that there should be a lot of government intervention, the more the better)?

Please try and actually explain that, and not just showing more how your beliefs are in conflict with eachother.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

I can't -- because you only see things in All-or-Nothing, Black or White, 2-dimensional flat0world thinking.
And I do not.

I see a little Capitalism, with a little Socialism as being good.
I see a Social Justice, with a little Mercy as being good.
I see a little work, play, family, and community service time as good.
I see my time on an LDS Mission, U.S. Military service, and Working Father and Husband as good.

You can only see things as one way or the other.
No middle ground, no compromise.
Absolutism. Totalitarianism.

I believe God who tells us to have moderation in ALL things.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "LDS Liberal" that is what I thought. You can't justify hypocrisy. I can explain my point of view, but the fact that you can't speaks volumes about you and your philosophies.

All I know is this, many of the modern Prophets and leaders within the LDS church have said quite clearly that Socialism is wrong. They have also been quite clear that the world is "All-or-Nothing, Black or White", which is confirmed by the scriptures. Read "Truth and Tolerance" from 2011 by Elder Oaks. He states that "We believe in absolute truth, including the existence of God and the right and wrong established by His commandments." He then proceeds to warn us on following the idea of moral relativism, which is what you believe.

So, the next question is why do you not follow the Prophets and leaders of the church you claim membership in?

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

Red Shirt: What about wanting a smaller government and believing that the government should keep gays from marrying? Or the government should keep marijuana from becoming legal?

Aren't those diametrically opposite views?

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Lane Myer" I don't see what the problem is with opposing the legal recognition of gay marriage and wanting a small government. Explain yourself. I don't want anarchy, I just want minimal government, and I want marriage to be encouraged in a way that provides the absolutely best possible conditions for raising the next generation.

It depends on what you want to use the marijuana for. Do you want to use is to get high, or is it for an actual medicinal purpose or industrial purpose?

Using marijuana for recreation should be illegal. The number of accidents and accidental deaths that occur by people that are high is enough to say that we should not legalize the recreational use of marijuana.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments