The dividing difference between Conservatives and Libertarians really comes down to the issue of freedom, and whether it be seen as a means, or an end.
Libertarianism is for the youngins. It’s noncommittal yet passes for serious political thinking. Like you say though, it doesn’t work at scale. Our “libertarian” legislators basically just vote “no” for everything and waste space and time.
Of course, small government and more freedom seem great, but this only seems to equate to abandoning important responsibilities to protect and support Americans while giving them the freedom to become mediocre losers. I’ll pass.
You bring this up like it proves me wrong. We don’t have any new wars, and Trump’s trying to end them. Releasing the names of Epstein co-conspirators, while it would be nice, doesn’t actually help today’s children one way or another. The DoE is being funded at this rate because Dems and RINO allies demanded it. These are Red Herrings, which libertarians bring up to distract themselves from attempting meaningful reform.
I suppose libertarians will have their weed (which was rescheduled), porn (if they can present ID), and cryptocurrency (which Trump endorses). As for domestic and foreign policy, I wouldn’t trust them with any of it.
Oh man, you got me, Ken. Then again, it’s arguable that what’s happening in Iran is even a war in the first place. I believe this whole action is being taken to eliminate conflicts in the future and allow for a lasting peace that has eluded the Middle East for generations. So long as you have a massive terrorist regime with oil reserves to fund its violence indefinitely, you will have periodic conflicts necessitating military intervention. Rather than treating the symptoms, Trump is finally treating the disease.
But I guess we can hope for quagmire so that libertarians can say “I told you so!” I doubt this will happen, but it’s always possible.
As a Gen Xer I would say we’ve been at war with Iran since 1979 just as real as the Cold War was a real war (just not always kinetic). Every President since Carter and placated the Iranian theocratic regime or kicked the can down the road. So in my book Trump is ending a war that should’ve been dealt many times before but never was.
Having said that, yes you can argue about timing and tactics. But he is ending a war, not starting one.
If Iran did to us what we did to them, we would declare it an "act of war".
If Yemen did to us what we did to them, we would declare it an "act of war".
If Venezuela did to us what we did to them, we would declare it an "act of war".
Congress's AUMF from 25 years ago might cover the Yemen bombings if you squint hard enough, it would be hard to stretch the scope of the AUMF to cover Iran, and the Venezuela operation is simply an outright violation of Article 1.
But silly little inconveniences like the constitution don't matter to MAGA.
The point of the article is not to praise the Republican party. But rather to say that Christians cannot and should not abide by common policies supported by Libertarians: gambling, drug use, pornography, open borders, free trade. Let's debate whether Christians should support those things and, if not, how aligned they can be with Libertarianism. That is the whole point of the essay. On the other hand, if one throws up their hands and just says "they all suck," it's a free country and one has that right. Whether that is constructive or not is up for the reader and voter to decide.
To the naive, libertarianism is about free choice. In reality, pure libertarianism would be a brutal return to feudalism. That's why it appeals to the wealthiest.
Some people think that America is slipping into Weimarization. That is, for the emergence of some form of authoritarianism - Left or the Right - perhaps a de facto corporate fascism producing material abundance (universal basic income?) while maintaining strict social control with a Chinese style social credit system. AI, and universal face recognition provide any future authoritarians with an ideal toolbox for managing the masses. A Benedict Option would offer some shelter from our future total state of tomorrow.
I remember working with some guy giving me a huge envelope filled with papers and pamphlets about Libertarianism and told me to read it and pass it on. To me it sounded cool and like, "Yeah this is totally 1776!" But as l matured I noticed one thing about the "Libs"- they always lost in elections. I admired Trump for going to their convention and when they booed him, he was like, "Hey if you want to keep on losing." Ha!
Later I began to realize that Libertarianism requires the kind of "moral and religious" people/nation that John Adams spoke about, not just to keep individual libertarians from turning into "libertine-ians" but also so that they are not just trampled underfoot from more totalitarian-minded people who will offer small personal liberties and freedoms in exchange for giving up larger more societal/collective freedoms. Look how he pardoned Ross Ulbricht and they are so happy- what can you say, an easy crowd to placate.
Libertarianism is for the youngins. It’s noncommittal yet passes for serious political thinking. Like you say though, it doesn’t work at scale. Our “libertarian” legislators basically just vote “no” for everything and waste space and time.
Of course, small government and more freedom seem great, but this only seems to equate to abandoning important responsibilities to protect and support Americans while giving them the freedom to become mediocre losers. I’ll pass.
The "no new wars" party just passed a $1.5 trillion budget for the military industrial complex.
The "protect the children" party is trying to oust Massie in the primaries, the only Republican trying to un-redact Epstein's co-conspirators.
The party of "abolish the department of education" just passed their biggest budget to date.
But go on about how the libertarians are the real problem.
You bring this up like it proves me wrong. We don’t have any new wars, and Trump’s trying to end them. Releasing the names of Epstein co-conspirators, while it would be nice, doesn’t actually help today’s children one way or another. The DoE is being funded at this rate because Dems and RINO allies demanded it. These are Red Herrings, which libertarians bring up to distract themselves from attempting meaningful reform.
I suppose libertarians will have their weed (which was rescheduled), porn (if they can present ID), and cryptocurrency (which Trump endorses). As for domestic and foreign policy, I wouldn’t trust them with any of it.
"We don’t have any new wars, and Trump’s trying to end them."
hmmmmm
Oh man, you got me, Ken. Then again, it’s arguable that what’s happening in Iran is even a war in the first place. I believe this whole action is being taken to eliminate conflicts in the future and allow for a lasting peace that has eluded the Middle East for generations. So long as you have a massive terrorist regime with oil reserves to fund its violence indefinitely, you will have periodic conflicts necessitating military intervention. Rather than treating the symptoms, Trump is finally treating the disease.
But I guess we can hope for quagmire so that libertarians can say “I told you so!” I doubt this will happen, but it’s always possible.
As a Gen Xer I would say we’ve been at war with Iran since 1979 just as real as the Cold War was a real war (just not always kinetic). Every President since Carter and placated the Iranian theocratic regime or kicked the can down the road. So in my book Trump is ending a war that should’ve been dealt many times before but never was.
Having said that, yes you can argue about timing and tactics. But he is ending a war, not starting one.
Looks like you've slapped an 8-Cylinder 5.3L Hemi on those goalposts; that's one heckuva resto-mod you've done there.
"We don’t have any new wars"
If Iran did to us what we did to them, we would declare it an "act of war".
If Yemen did to us what we did to them, we would declare it an "act of war".
If Venezuela did to us what we did to them, we would declare it an "act of war".
Congress's AUMF from 25 years ago might cover the Yemen bombings if you squint hard enough, it would be hard to stretch the scope of the AUMF to cover Iran, and the Venezuela operation is simply an outright violation of Article 1.
But silly little inconveniences like the constitution don't matter to MAGA.
The point of the article is not to praise the Republican party. But rather to say that Christians cannot and should not abide by common policies supported by Libertarians: gambling, drug use, pornography, open borders, free trade. Let's debate whether Christians should support those things and, if not, how aligned they can be with Libertarianism. That is the whole point of the essay. On the other hand, if one throws up their hands and just says "they all suck," it's a free country and one has that right. Whether that is constructive or not is up for the reader and voter to decide.
To the naive, libertarianism is about free choice. In reality, pure libertarianism would be a brutal return to feudalism. That's why it appeals to the wealthiest.
Your objection to libertarianism is a description of the status quo.
Some people think that America is slipping into Weimarization. That is, for the emergence of some form of authoritarianism - Left or the Right - perhaps a de facto corporate fascism producing material abundance (universal basic income?) while maintaining strict social control with a Chinese style social credit system. AI, and universal face recognition provide any future authoritarians with an ideal toolbox for managing the masses. A Benedict Option would offer some shelter from our future total state of tomorrow.
In some places more than others. However, there is an ambient amorality to life in America today that can easily be called evil.
I remember working with some guy giving me a huge envelope filled with papers and pamphlets about Libertarianism and told me to read it and pass it on. To me it sounded cool and like, "Yeah this is totally 1776!" But as l matured I noticed one thing about the "Libs"- they always lost in elections. I admired Trump for going to their convention and when they booed him, he was like, "Hey if you want to keep on losing." Ha!
Later I began to realize that Libertarianism requires the kind of "moral and religious" people/nation that John Adams spoke about, not just to keep individual libertarians from turning into "libertine-ians" but also so that they are not just trampled underfoot from more totalitarian-minded people who will offer small personal liberties and freedoms in exchange for giving up larger more societal/collective freedoms. Look how he pardoned Ross Ulbricht and they are so happy- what can you say, an easy crowd to placate.