Hello,
I am what I would call a "seeker" here rather than a full-blown libertarian. Maybe I'm a "libertarian conservative" or a "conservative libertarian." I am a 39-year-old christan, married 18 years, with 3 kids. I have always been a conservative, politically, with my primary concern (most recently) on smaller government. As a registered republican, I feel the Republican Party has left us and our core principles, and both of the primary parties are failing this country with their tit-for-tat squabbles and power-grabbing only for the sake of power itself. There remain a few good republican reps, but not enough. I REALLY fear for the future of this country!
I find myself looking to the Libertarian Party for setting a better direction for our government. I am troubled and torn, however, by what I see as the libertarian's desire to remove moral principle from government entirely. While it is certainly true that our founding fathers valued personal liberty, they also valued moral principles. As I read documents written by them, it becomes abundantly clear to me that this nation was founded not only on liberty, but on moral principles in the christian value system. I fear that libertarians remove that second component and would therefore lead us to failure in that regard. I believe, as George Washington suggested in his Farewell Address, that we cannot last without those values.
My ultimate hope and desire is to live in a society that upholds the principles of personal liberty guided by basic christian values. At the same time, I recognize that it is not the secular government's place to prohibit or punish other forms of worship. There has to be a balance in there somewhere.
I seek to understand learn here, not criticize. I would appreciate any comments in that spirit.
Thank you!!
Sarge,
I am very much like you, in that I too, hold Christian principles as important. My take in the Libertarian documents is not so much that they support abortion as they believe it to be a personal issue. They do go on to say that you and I shouldn't be forced to support it with our tax dollars. To me that's better than anything I can expect from the Dems. & Repubs. The philosophy of the Liberatarian Party leaves the moral monitoring to be done at a grass roots level. Like minded individuals tend to seek each other out. So, as true Liberty spreads various areas and regions will become known for their tolerance, or lack there of, with concern to personal and moral issues. You may find a community that is very conservitive while at the same time other communities will be much more liberal. But, at least in this model, we all get to choose for ourselves what is right.
Hey everyone -
This is a great topic, especially for Kentucky, and I apologize for not responding sooner. We're been busy working on a number of our websites that are spin-off projects from the LP.
My wife and I have been having this discussion recently, as well. The party stance is to leave these issues up to states and to individuals.
If you're considering the LP, but are concerned about joining because of one issue, you're not alone. This is a fairly common occurrence. When I joined the party in 1998, I had similar concerns over one particular issue. We'll never all agree on everything; people have different viewpoints and have different priorities in their own lives. We can't allow a disagreement on one issue to distract us from the overall goal of restoring freedom and liberty in America, or else we'll never get there.
Abortion:
Regarding Libertarianism and Abortion; there is a group (which I refer to as a caucus) called "Libertarians for Life", http://www.l4l.org/, who may be consistent with your particular views on abortion. Please understand that Libertarians, just like members of the Republicans and Democrats, are all over the place on this issue. As LPKY State Chair, I personally do not tell people my position on abortion, so that others can't keep trying to convince me of something else; I have better things to do with my time than argue abortion, day and night, when (as a State Chair) myself, and by extension the state party, have no say-so in a case that has been decided at the federal level.
In 1999, LP Presidential Candidate Harry Browne, speaking in Louisville, took a stance with which I believe most Kentuckians would agree. The decision in Roe v. Wade took away from the sovereignty of the states, by taking away the right of a state to decide what is, or is not, considered murder within its borders. Today, the different levels of murder (Manslaughter, Murder, etc.) are defined by states, and only when someone is illegally kidnapped and taken across state lines, does the federal government get involved.
Same-Sex Marriage:
The official position from LPKY on this is that the state shouldn't sanction marriage at all.
Marriage is a religious institution, and therefore, government should get out of its way. Couples can form a partnership, with a document not much more complex than a standard prenuptial agreement; explaining the purpose of the partnership, goals and mission of the partnership, and what happens if one or both parties wish to dissolve the partnership.
At this point, government basically uses marriage licensing as a means of revenue generation. When my wife and I married some years ago, the County Clerk's office didn't care about the STD tests. They didn't check to see if we were related, just made us "swear" that we weren't. I paid them $25, and off we went to get married in a Church, with a marriage license in-hand.
The reality is that same-sex couples do exist. While I, personally, would never be in that sort of relationship, some people will be, whether legally recognized by the state, or not.
I often like to remind those on the religious side of two things;
1. Republicans recently had complete control of the House, Senate, and White House for 4 year, yet they made no real effort or motions towards trying to overturn Roe v. Wade. The reality is, that Republicans don't want to overturn Roe v. Wade. If Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow, the Republican Party would lose half of its base almost immediately. The Republican Party uses abortion as a "wedge issue" to force people to take sides on a very emotional issue.
2. Legislating a particular brand of morality is a very dangerous, slippery slope. The demographics of America are changing. Based on population growth studies, in 30 years or so, whites will be the minority, and (I believe that it was in 50 years that we'll be fewer in number than both African-American and Hispanic. Do you want to open the door to allow for legislating a brand of morality as practiced by Reverend Wright? Do you want to open the door for legislating Catholicism (the majority of Hispanics are Catholic)? If you legislate morality, beyond the common sense items of "No Murder," "No Theft," etc., you open the door to have these positions changed by others in a few decades, with the precedent set that legislating morality is legitimate.
If, in the future, you would like to have a private conversation with me regarding these issues, I'll be happy to be a bit more open and honest about my personal viewpoints. As I mentioned before, I don't like to openly state my personal positions and viewpoints on social issues.
I may have overstated that a bit, sorry. But I do see a weakness in upholding moral principles. I am thinking primarily of the statements on the national website supporting abortion and same-sex marriage. Those are in serious opposition to my belief system, especially on abortion.