Redstate

That's all greed and lust.  Instead, lets move towards socialism.  Then we can all be forced to "do good".

That Ryan apparently missed the official co-sponsorship of CPAC by both the Libertarian Party and the Log Cabin Republicans. Not to mention the National Taxpayers Union, not exactly socially-conservative stalwarts.

That some good can be done through government activity. Not much, mind; but some.

Keyes used to be great. I'd've voted for him in 2000 without hesitation.

"when you strip away the good from the Democrats, you have nothing but lust"

I have no idea what the heck this is supposed to mean.  Can you clue me in?

Thanks -

The apparent dogma of the left that "if it feels good do it" coupled with government subsidies for the activity.

"The apparent dogma of the left that "if it feels good do it" coupled with government subsidies for the activity"

Do you find that to be an accurate characterization of the left and/or Democratic point of view?

Thanks -

I think that is a stereotype, but I do think that when you strip away a lot of what the left does and says, from drugs to abortion to gay rights to a host of generally social issues, "if it feels good do it" does capture the message when stripped to its very core.  But, that said, I think the message is tempered by other ideas.

In the same way, yeah, when you strip Republicans of all the good and get to very core without the other ideas around it to temper it, making money is it.

Now, I for one would rather greed than lust as my deadly sin, but that's just me.

would probably be sloth.  ;-)

Cheers -

I suppose gluttony is really mine.

...what the government does, quite a lot of, now.  Libertarians want less of it.  I also assumed conservatives did too.

Which actually answers both sentences.

Do you mean libs and cons only want a little less, the government doesn't do that much, or the government doesn't do that much that is helpful.  Help me out here :)

Tax cuts are one of the most libertarian of libertarian issues.

I never thought I'd see a brand of Republicanism that thinks libertarians are so evil (and even attacks the Republican party). Well, ok, maybe I just thought we were past such nonsense when Pat left the party.



So now RedState would be better off if libertarians did not apply? I'm not one entirely, but they certainly are on the right track in thinking Government is evil.

You mean you couldn't figure out his well-articulated statement?  Geez. :-)

As a moderate libertarian and an editor, might I restate that partisan Republicans of a libertarian bent are definitely welcome here.  We have internal debates on immigration and other issues here.  Gay marriage will become more divisive in the future (in the party) but there is a dominant wing on that issue at present.  Similarly, Christianity makes up a supermajority of Republicans, but there is no litmus test for members.  I think respecting all religions (including Christians) helps one be an effective team player, but non-believers should be and are welcome on RedState and in the Republican party.

Well, one of many.

Answers the first and second sentences.

First and third. I'm getting old, and almost as dumb as Jefferson.

I certainly have no problems with libertarians (well, with the official party I do, but not the ideology).  But, I do have a problem when libertarians become so convinced of their own self rigtheousness that they want to parody conservatives a Bible thumping right wing nut jobs.

I certainly don't want to parody the libertarians when we have so much in common, but I still think that taken to its unrestrained ends, Keyes did have a point.

. . . since when did defining "civil marriage" as being between a man and a woman become "religious extremism"?  Does that mean that the overwhelming majority of the American people (including an atheist like yours truly) who support this definition of "civil marriage" and oppose allowing the courts to redefine it have all become de facto "religious extremists"?

Seems to me that an event like CPAC ought to present quite a terrific opportunity for sensible libertarians within the conservative movement to move the ball forward on all sorts of important issues like Social Security reform, health care reform, regulatory reform, etc.  If your goal is to advance your agenda, the best way is to usually find people who agree with you 80 plus percent of the time and focus on the areas of common ground.  

Sager's polemic regarding CPAC is almost as bizarre as Erick's quoting of an ignorant hatemongering deadbeat piece of garbage like Alan Keyes as if that jackass had some moral authority to lecture the rest of us on "greed" or "lust."  

Sager's polemic regarding CPAC is almost as bizarre as Erick's quoting of an ignorant hatemongering deadbeat piece of garbage like Alan Keyes as if that jackass had some moral authority to lecture the rest of us on "greed" or "lust."

I said I disagree with Keyes.  I certainly don't care for the man, but even people like Keyes, Kos, and others can, on rare occassion, say something worth repeating.  It may only happen once, but it just might happen.

...that this post has riled up us libertarians. :)

I think you lost us at:

When you mere the worst of both, greed and lust, you have the libertarian.

If that's what CPAC was missing, more power to it.

I think we're justified in perceiving this as Erick, the Bible thumping right wing nut job, telling us we need not apply.

PS Obviously kidding about the right-wing nutjob thing :)  Just remember that communication isn't what you meant others to perceive, but others' perception.

You had a terrific opportunity to actually try and refute some of things that Sager wrote in his column.  You could have gone through and said "this isn't true" or "Sager is mischaracterizing this speaker's comments and this is what really happened" or "this is what happened at CPAC that Sager didn't talk about and ought to get libertarians on board" etc.

Instead you chose to respond in kind by mindlessly regurgitating Alan Keyes' hateful, ignorant, and unproductive demonization of libertarians.

And this promotes a Republican majority, how exactly?

. . . there is nothing about being a libertarian the precludes anyone from being a conservative Christian nor a socially conservative atheist.  Nor is there any requirement that one must be a Christian or any kind of theist to be a conservative.

There were any number of productive ways to refute Ryan Sager's little polemic about libertarians being unwelcome at CPAC.  Saying that libertarian represent the worst aspect of both modern conservatism and liberalism only serves to alienate those libertarians that are your allies or on the sidelines.

as a culturally moderate Democrat, I never knew we had a pro-drug image.  I can't say I've ever heard a Democrat voicing pro-drug-legalization looniness - only libertarians and some greens.

but as to the rest of the comment, no real argument.

I meant elected Democrats, or Democratic candidates, along with libertarian/green candidates, because sure some Democrats of the tens of millions out there surely favor drug legalization, but hardly a majority.

Was this post a parody of something and I missed it?  I don't care what the hell people do in the privacy of their own homes and certainly think it is no concern of government.  So much for this site being the home of "individual freedom and the value of every human life". Erick- maybe you need to check up on that individual freedom section again before you say something else as silly as what you just wrote.

How on earth does this site have a front page poster that would turn away people who think that individual freedom is the most important value in shaping the form of government?

don't you think, to show up and immediately begin chastising a front page writer?

Reading comprehension is our friend. He may not be all that friendly with the libertoids policy wise, but in a big tent, it's ok to throw some elbows.

I have been reading this site for a while.  I look at the big "Mission" link of the left and I see that this guys post is completely at odds with it.  If the mission page is what this site is about then I think it can be a great tool for people like me.  If Erick made a really rediculous post given what the rest of this site claims to be about.  If no one else is going to say anything about it then I will.    And if what Erick said is representative of what this site wants to be then I will just move along.  But if someone says something stupid they should get called on it even if it is on the front page- especially if it is on the front page.

Examples please.  

I'm not trying to be snarky but I would like to get an idea of what a conservative considers to be the "good" that can be done through "government activity."  I'll stipulate to the military and police (which all non-anarchist libertarians agree is a proper function of government), providing a court system, conducting foreign policy, some regulatory oversight to deal with fraud and negative enternalities, and roads.

What else of the remaining $2 Trillion being spent by the federal government plus whatever your State is spending (minus roads, State courts, and police) do you believe that government ought to do that qualifes as "good"?

stronger points.

This is a Republican site, not a libertarian site. There is more than a semantic difference there.

I don't see where Erick said anything stupid and you certainly didn't say anything cogent or coherent enough to change anyone's mind.

If your ego was a tiny bit smaller you might step back and think, Gee, it just isn't polite to walk into someone's house and crap in their sink without offering diddly squat in return.

Fortunately, it is, of course, a free country. No one has locked your browser to this site.

I am someone who has voted for a democrat only once in my life (and that was in the democratic primary for Magette so that McKinney would lose).  Would I prefer the republican party be more libertarian?  Absolutely.  But I also believe that time will take care of this little demographic problem for me.  I found this site originally on a post talking about the 06 senate races.  But if this site is only for religious conservatives who worship the bible then it is not the site for me.  I found this because I am passionate about getting republicans elected and I really like the scoop system.  But if this site is just for people like Erick who only want religious points of view to be heard and have no place for libertarian leanings then I be more than happy to wait for a site that will be more effective in getting republicans elected and won't waste my time or energy here.  

Maybe this comment wasn't clear enough.  I'll repeat it.  I'm a moderate libertarian and editor on RedState.  

We have internal debates on immigration and other issues here.  Gay marriage will become more divisive in the future (in the party) but there is a dominant wing on that issue at present.  Similarly, Christianity makes up a supermajority of Republicans, but there is no litmus test for members.  I think respecting all religions (including Christians) helps one be an effective team player, but non-believers should be and are welcome on RedState and in the Republican party.

It's a fairly big tent site. Erick's not a libertarian. Neither am I. We're, neither of us, moderates. But Lord knows we have both of those around here. Being sneezy about Erick's views (1) overlooks how important they are in the party and (2) overlooks that there are others around here with different views.

This ain't rocket science.

So the next front page post talking about how Christians are morally corrupt would be accepted because its such a big tent?  

You might want to decide what opinions belong in the diaries and which belong on the front page.  If the purpose of the site is to encourage the election of republicans then comments like Ericks on the front page are exceptionally counterproductive.

They don't censor my front page posts nor do I censor theirs.  But agree with you that an all out attack on libertarianism in general shouldn't seem to be endorsed by the site at large.

Okay, I just HAD to register when I saw this thread.  For the past dozen years, I've been a Republican.  My views are probably considered traditional conservative with a libertarian bent, sort of like McCain.  I haven't always agreed with the neocons, paleocons, theocons, etc, but my feeling was always that we were all part of the same coalition and all shared the common goals of getting the state off our backs.  Naturally, I was ecstatic when, in the wake of 2004, the GOP had comfortable command and control of every lever of the federal government for the first time in two generations.

But within the past few weeks, I've been getting this nagging feeling that a group of conservatives at the party base have decided that certain folks are no longer welcome in the party.  At first I thought it was just me, that I was just being paranoid, but then I started to see my feeling echoed throughout the old and new media.  Christie Whitman's book came out.  Bush supporter Dennis Miller admits he is uncomfortable with the FCC cracking down on "indecency" on the airwaves.  Andrew Sullivan laments the return of a call for the gay marriage amdt.  And then there was CPAC.  All in all, libertarian conservatives and moderate Republicans everywhere are getting the message that we're no longer welcome in the governing coalition, which is at best ungrateful and politically insanely stupid after an election that was decided by 120,000 votes in a single state.

Here's the kicker, fellas.  When you win a close election, and you finally have a chance at building a sustainable majority, the first thing you should do is try your hardest to expand the number of people who are part of your majority.  That way, the next election could see a ten point win instead of a three point one.  Instead, conservatives all over the blogosphere have been snidely dismissing those who disagree with them and indicating through their words and actions that certain groups need not apply.  In so doing, those conservatives who are practicing the politics of exclusion are endangering the GOP majority and making a Democrat victory in the next election more likely.  

For those who are not yet convinced, think of it this way.  The GOP currently boasts a 55-45 Senate.  Take away the liberal Republicans (Snowe, Collins, Chafee, Specter) and you're down to 51.  Purge the moderates, mavericks, and pro-choicers from the party (McCain, Hagel, Graham, Voinovich, Smith, Murkowski) and you end up with a 55-45 Senate --- with the Democrats in charge.  We're on the verge of a 55-45 Republican country.  Let's not screw it up by laying the foundation for the New Democrat Majority.  Treating the GOP as solely the party of Dixie or as the vehicle for a societal religious revival will do just that.

My biggest worry with republicans is now that they control the keys to government that they are going to completely abandon the states rights platform and embrace an intrusive federal government.  That they will stop looking to federalist society judicial nominees and start looking for judges who will impose their own biblical values on the constitution.  I greatly fear that the minority party will always be the one looking for less federal control.

    The electoral success of the Republicans has been in large part due to the alliance between libertarians and conservatives.  I was very upset to read a comment arguing that libertarianism = greed and lust.  This is so false and stupid I decided it didn't even deserve a reply, but since others have decided to not ingnore this ignorant screed I will express my opinion.

    Libertarianism does not equal greed and lust.  Oh, there are a few self-proclaimed "libertarians" who use our philosophy to justify their sinful behavior, but they are no more represenative of libertarian thought than people who shoot abortion doctors represent Christian behavior.  

    The philosophy of a true libertarian is that virtue must come from within a man, rather than being imposed by force.  Furthermore, attempts to impose virtuous behavior upon men is usually ineffective, and often counter-productive.  Therefore, gov't (legalized force) should be limited to essential areas that require force, rather than being the solution to every problem.  

   Libertarians disagree about how much gov't is too much, but most accept the idea of promoting a common defence, protection of rights to life liberty, and property, and so forth.  Obviously this is not greed, since a greedy person would advocate using the gov't to steal other peoples money to pay for things they want. (Which is a delightful objection to liberalism's holier than thou attitude.  Just make this comment in a debate with a liberal and watch them turn bright red). Nor is it lust, although I will admitt that many try to use this philosophy to justify their lust. However these is just adults childishly taunting: "I can do whatever I want to, and you can't touch me."  The best thing to do with those people is to ignore them and let them learn life's lessons the hard way.

(small "l") .  I have no problem with Erick's front page post - there are many editors on RedState and many of them have diametrically opposite views. RedState is a big tent blog, if you will, and I would never take the existence of a front page post to mean that all the editors agree on the post itself. Rather, it's well written enough and important enough to merit attention.

Erick's a great guy. Chill.

I didn't realize how sensitive some of the libertarians around here are.  I think just about everybody missed my point, which was not that libertarians have no place in the conservative movement, but that Sager thinks that is the case and it is not.

Okay, perhaps egging everyone on with the Keyes quote was over the top, but my point (not Keyes's) remains the same.

Sager strongly implies that there were only Christian fundamentalists and tax cutters at CPAC.  There were actually lots of those and lots of others, from gays to open borders types.  If Sager wanted to lodge a really fair criticism at CPAC instead of tarring and feathering it with the "fundamentalist" label, he should have complained about the crowd being too white, not too Christian.

This sounds like a lefty parody more than a rational concern.

Actually, it was yanking the social conservatives from the Democrats. This is why, for example, Goldwater went down in flames; Goldwater-ism, for lack of a more precise term, has such limited appeal nationally and electorally; and why Reagan conservatism is ascendant.

My point was that Conservatives need Libertarians as much as Libertarians need Social Conservatives.  Sure Social Conservatism wins the South, but what about the West?  Libertarians are a big part of the Republican party out here.  Also, in the battle ground states, yes social conservatives provide the margin of victory, but so do the libertarians.

Buckley and Reagan understood that we share common interests and both forged a union between conservatives and libertarians.

Thorley -

An excellent question.  I'm happy to offer a very small handful of examples, however note that I would not be considered "conservative", at least here on RS.

1.  Setting and enforcing standards for food and drug safety.  I include in this the various inspection regimes, and also the process by which drugs are approved for sale.
   
2.  Setting and enforcing standards for financial markets.  I'm not talking about running financial markets, I'm talking about things like requirements for timely disclosure of information, funding reserves, etc.
   
3.  Funding for basic science and (perhaps) other types of research.  Specifically, for things that do not have an immediate or obvious market application.
   
4.  Oversight and (perhaps) funding for large-scale systems that are more or less essential to a modern, first-world information/industrial economy -- power, transportation, communications.  Again, I'm not talking about the government being the direct provider of these things, but rather of a role for government in setting and enforcing standards for quality of service, availability, etc.

I'm interested in your take on if, and how, these types of things can be effectively addressed purely through market activity.

CHeers -

Sorry I got a little heated, but being told your full of greed and lust can do that to you.

I do agree with your main point that there where libertarian ideas expressed at the convention.  I've read some of your other posts, and I think your a nice guy.  You approach things from a more conservative point of view, rather than libertarian, but that's fine by me I've got nothing against conservatives. I even like Alan Keyes, (though sometimes I groan at his tendancy to commit a faupax).  I just get riled when Bill Maher's ideas are depicted as the American libertarian philosipher, it's a slander on the ideals expressed by Paine, Jefferson, Hoover, and Goldwater.

Amos,

Some of your suggestions seem to largely fall within what I thought I had stipulated with regards to "some regulatory oversight to deal with fraud and negative externalities." However the phrase was ambiguous enough (and not really emphasized in my last post) that it's understandable that it might have slipped by.

1) There are a number of libertarians for whom abolishing the FDA out of concern that it delays or prevents potentially life-saving or enhancing drugs or devices from going to market. I'm not one of them and tend to agree that making sure that a consumer is aware of the risks of a drug, device, or consumable falls within the acceptable boundaries of regulations in a free society. Moreover, while there is certainly room for improvement (e.g. meat inspections, delays in approving new drugs and devices particularly generics, etc.) I tend to think that the benefits of the current system outweigh the detriments. If someone has a working suggestion (as some libertarians have suggested but not in great detail) for replacing the FDA with a market-system of competitive inspectors I'm willing to consider it. I do however think we should look more at an "informed consent" system (which we already have in some ways) for drugs or devices that are not yet approved for dying patients who really don't have any other viable options and are willing (or have a competent guardian) and able to assume the risk.

2) I have no problem with most disclosure requirements (falls under the prevention of fraud) nor do I quibble much with reserve requirements as they do promote a sound financial system and prevent negative externalities like bank failures.

3) Here I disagree as there is already a lot of basic research funded by the private sector (which remember is not merely the for-profit sector but includes non-profit private groups as well). IMO we would have more privately-funded basic research if companies knew that they could not count on the taxpayer to under write it. I also think private groups ought to be able to pool their R&D efforts without worrying about anti-trust statutes. That being said, I recognize the positive externalities that come from basic research and as it is a relatively small portion of the federal budget, I'm not going to lead the charge to eliminate it. I do think we ought to look at (if we don't have something like this in place, Von's the resident patent attorney) some sort of royalty scheme so that the taxpayer is reimbursed for the expense of funding basic research and make it self-supporting.

4) If I'm reading you correctly it sounds like your talking about public utilities. I don't necessarily have a problem with them so long as they're self-supporting and open to competition. I'm open to the merits of privatization depending on the specifics but not really that well versed in the area.

Thorley -

You are correct, #'s 1 and 2 are pretty well covered by your "fraud and negative externalities" comment.  My mistake in missing it.

Re: #4, you are correct, I'm basically talking about things like utilities.  I agree with the conditions you mention, i.e., self-sustaining and open to competition.  I'm not necessarily interested in having the government be the provider, rather I see a role for government in mandating the requirements for providers, and in making sure that necessary services -- water, power, etc -- are available to everyone.

Thanks much for your reply.

Cheers -

I think Keyes is well a worthless sack of something we can't say on this site because we aren't Kos.  I have no use for him, though I contend that when the stars and planets all align on rare occasions, he can say something worthwhile.

Yeah, his point was extreme, but I just wanted to use it to make a point about CPAC.  It wasn't as bad as Sager said it was, but it was really, really white.

I agree with Amos.

I agree with him here. When I look at things like federalizing education and the Real ID act I want to find a new party. It ain't the democrats, but what is it? At some point I'll post a lengthy diary on this.

The Keyes quote was amplified by the "if that's what its missing more power to it." Which can easily be taken to mean you'd rather not have libertarians here either.  

I know you're just trying to aggravate - but if someone made a good case, then we'd look at it, of course.

You hear the phrase, "reagan democrats"

We're a conservative site. In those areas where we find common ground with libertarians - outstanding. Even when we disagree, they often act as our conscience when it comes to government spending/intrusion/etc.

But if you want to talk about 3rd party efforts as a serious solution to the problems in our politics -  or other such nonsense - yes, probably point and laugh. We certainly won't hand over the keys to RedState.

Are we a conservative site or a Republican one?

The difference is real and should be determined.

Libertarians are part of the Republican tent even if conservatives don't always agree with them.

..cuz if we are a conservative one vs. a Republican one quite a few of us would be very very sad. :-(