Conservatism, Libertarianism, and the Future of Limited Government.

[JackDaniels]

Full story: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2131179/posts

Found this interesting. Thoughts?


Conservatism, Libertarianism, and the Future of Limited Government.

Gov. Mark Sanford made probably the most correct assesment on the 2008 election. From CNN:

Beyond the presidential race, it goes without saying the Republican Party took a shellacking nationally. Some on the left will say our electoral losses are a repudiation of our principles of lower taxes, smaller government and individual liberty. But Tuesday was not in fact a rejection of those principles — it was a rejection of Republicans’ failure to live up to those principles.

That concise paragraph sums everything up perfectly. But perhaps the problem isn’t articulating conservative principles, it’s running candidates who actually believe in them.

When is the last time any Republicans picked up a copy of The Conscience of a Conservative?

When is the last time any Republicans spoke out against the fact that the Bush Administration has increased government at a gigantic rate, moreso that his predecessors?

When is the last time any Republicans remember that Barry and Peggy Goldwater supported the first branch of Planned Parenthood in Phoenix.

When is the last time any Republicans acknowledged what Ronald Reagan put so eloquently: “If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”

We, as Republicans, need to step away from the idea of “we will use big government when it suits us” and move toward being intellectually honest and move forward with the proposition that we oppose an increase in government at any level for any purpose and support less government across the board.

You can count on one hand the amount of Republicans in Washington DC who actually believe in limited government. If the Republican Party is going to survive, we need to change that.

[Monkeybone]

Good post JackD and I agree with it.


You can count on one hand the amount of Republicans in Washington DC who actually believe in limited government. If the Republican Party is going to survive, we need to change that. This is the part that gets me. And it has been said on here before I believe (if not, apologies) there really aren't any more Conservs DC. They all have that taste of money and power and try to think how they can get more. That is why they didn't speak up. To add, that previous sentence is both sides and all politicians.

This is why there should be term limits, not that they would ever really do that. It won't really change until you get those guys in there since dinosaurs were roaming the Earth out of there. But then, the pessimisstic side of me just says that the cycle will just start over again, if we make it that far.

[5stringJeff]

This article is exactly why the GOP finds itself out of power in DC and unpopular at home. The only party that currently runs on small-government principles is the Libertarian Party.

[AlbumAddict]

I believe that one of, if not THE, biggest problem in government is our two party system. If we want to see change, Real change, not talked about change, we should start at the beginning, with the process. If we were to pass campaign finance laws, limiting the amount of money a candidate can SPEND (not just receive), then the door will truly be opened for anyone to run. Once we have multiple candidates with and EQUAL CHANCE for campaigning and ultimately at winning, the candidates will HAVE to more clearly define their exact platform and not stand on a Party Platform they don't even agree with most of the time. Our country isn't a black and white society, so we do we insist on running our political parties as such. Citizens don't just want options, we want viable options. Not many are willing to throw away their vote on a candidate they know won't win and why should they? Especially in close elections.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!! (At least for now, until someone gives me a better argument)

[Immanuel]

I believe that one of, if not THE, biggest problem in government is our two party system. If we want to see change, Real change, not talked about change, we should start at the beginning, with the process. If we were to pass campaign finance laws, limiting the amount of money a candidate can SPEND (not just receive), then the door will truly be opened for anyone to run. Once we have multiple candidates with and EQUAL CHANCE for campaigning and ultimately at winning, the candidates will HAVE to more clearly define their exact platform and not stand on a Party Platform they don't even agree with most of the time. Our country isn't a black and white society, so we do we insist on running our political parties as such. Citizens don't just want options, we want viable options. Not many are willing to throw away their vote on a candidate they know won't win and why should they? Especially in close elections.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!! (At least for now, until someone gives me a better argument)

Something else that is important is term limits. We must remove the career politician from Washington. Unfortunately that is easier said than done.

Immie

[Kathianne]

Something else that is important is term limits. We must remove the career politician from Washington. Unfortunately that is easier said than done.

Immie

I've come around to that. I thought it a bad idea for many reasons, for many years. I was wrong.

My take: Representatives 2 or 3 terms. Senators, 2.

[Immanuel]

I've come around to that. I thought it a bad idea for many reasons, for many years. I was wrong.

My take: Representatives 2 or 3 terms. Senators, 2.

I was against it for a long time too but now, I see the value of it.

I'm not sure that term limits would accomplish what needs to be done, but it could not hurt. The reason it might not accomplish what needed to be done, is that once their terms had expired and they could not run again, there is always a good lobbyist firm that will welcome those in the know.

But, term limits would hinder the political control they have and the ability to put a lock on things for life.

Immie

[AlbumAddict]

Something else that is important is term limits. We must remove the career politician from Washington. Unfortunately that is easier said than done.

Immie

I'd go for that. My only hesitancy is that it takes SOOOO long to accomplish anything in DC, that there'd be a lot of starts and not too many finishes, but that leads to my OTHER reform...

...Simplified Laws...I know it sounds crazy, but the point of the law, should be the law. It should be illegal to throw in all the extra crap that makes people have to vote against a good piece of legislation.

For example (and this isn't a real law to the best of my knowledge): You can not murder dogs, unless the dog is already dead, in which case the dog in question must be taken by the founder of said dead dog to an emergency vet for proper pronouncement of death. The emergency vet shall not be allowed to charge for death pronouncement services except in the case of a dead dog being brought my law enforcement personnel. If the dead dog brought in for prounouncement is found to be not dead, the individual bringing in the alleged dead dog shall be required to pay for all services required to bring the formerly dead dog back to its pre-death state and health.

Why can't we just say "don't kill dogs" and move on with it?

[avatar4321]

I'd go for that. My only hesitancy is that it takes SOOOO long to accomplish anything in DC, that there'd be a lot of starts and not too many finishes, but that leads to my OTHER reform...

...Simplified Laws...I know it sounds crazy, but the point of the law, should be the law. It should be illegal to throw in all the extra crap that makes people have to vote against a good piece of legislation.

For example (and this isn't a real law to the best of my knowledge): You can not murder dogs, unless the dog is already dead, in which case the dog in question must be taken by the founder of said dead dog to an emergency vet for proper pronouncement of death. The emergency vet shall not be allowed to charge for death pronouncement services except in the case of a dead dog being brought my law enforcement personnel. If the dead dog brought in for prounouncement is found to be not dead, the individual bringing in the alleged dead dog shall be required to pay for all services required to bring the formerly dead dog back to its pre-death state and health.

Why can't we just say "don't kill dogs" and move on with it?

I completely agree with simplifying the law. Let's start with the Tax code.

[5stringJeff]

I'd be for term limits, although I think I'd say two terms (12 years) for senators, and six terms (12 years) for representatives.

But the real issue is drawing the lines for districts. The two parties currently draw the lines so that each party has a couple of "safe" districts in every state, and only a few where the balance of power might shift. Lines for legislative districts ought to be drawn by people with no political affilitation (say, a non-partisan, out-of-state non-profit group) around 1) existing political borders, like county/city/neighborhood boundaries, and 2) geographic borders, like rivers or valleys, first. Then, they could do the "fine tuning."

[AlbumAddict]

I completely agree with simplifying the law. Let's start with the Tax code.

You've inspired me...new thread coming...mwaaa haaaaaa haaaaaa