Courtesy of Your Newly Registered Libertarian Friend
I’ve released the shackles, now should you. Both sides know Libertarians have it right, they just can’t seem to get away from their corrupt Parties.
Take, for instance, Oatney and E. In their most recent dispute, Oatney fights for the government’s right to meddle in the personal affairs of individuals. E deems it stifling and disagrees. And yet, both remain in opposition to those views in the stances they have chosen on the issue. Perhaps the two were merely reflecting on their economic viewpoints when they considered the question. After all, Oatney does want the state kept away from his money (the more he is can give to the church), and E has a tendency to dabble favorably in the waters of social programs.
The solution, my friends, as I’ve argued for months, is in libertarian philosophy. You both agree that state intervention is bad for freedom. It matters not whether policies limit opportunities in the way of finances or sex; it’s still a bulwark to a free society.
whereIstand Tags
- oatney
- Does the government that governs least govern best?
- Is it necessary to sacrifice liberty for security?
- Should a couple live together before getting married?
- Are religious beliefs vital to society?
- Can doubt be part of faith?
- Is God infallible?
- Is God just?
- Is man infallible?
- Is there convincing evidence that a higher being exists?
- Does sex education in schools affect the incidence of abortion?
- Is the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act constitutional?
- Is there a fundamental disparity between genders on the issues of sexuality and reproduction as manifested in law and policy?
- Should a woman in the first trimester have unrestricted legal access without exceptions to terminate her pregnancy?
- Should pharmacists be required to fill birth-control prescriptions?
- Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?
- What is the appropriate standard for courts to judge the constitutionality of state constraints upon abortion?
- What is the most correct way to describe the main adversaries in the debate over abortion?
- What parental involvement should be required in the abortion decision of a minor?
- What percentage of the women that would have had legal abortions will still have abortions if they are illegal?
- When should the government permit late term abortions?
- Will Roe v. Wade be overturned?
- Are there persuasive non-religious reasons to prohibit same-sex marriage?
- Should marriage be defined as a union between one man and one woman?
- Should the U.S. Constitution be amended to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman?
- What legal rights to a relationship of consenting adults should be available for same-sex couples?
May 6th, 2007 at 9:07 am
will you be able to vote in a primary? i think it makes more sense to preserve your right to vote than to label yourself as a particular party member.
May 6th, 2007 at 11:00 am
indeed. it’s out of principle.
May 7th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Tennessee does not have Party registration, but I am a Republican precinct delegate and I do have friends in Nashville-switching to the Libertarian Party (especially when I do not agree with its stances on a number of issues) would effectively mean that I would lose what small amount of influence over the process that I actually have. The same would be true for Adam, a GOP precinct captain in Idaho.
If you really want to have any say in how things are done on a local or State level, the power lies in the two parties. If you just want to get caught up in good feeling, and surrender what little influence you might otherwise have, I’d say joining the Libertairian Party is the thing to do for you.