Constitutionalist over Libertarian?

[Survivalist12]

Why do people consider the constitutionalist party over the libertarian party, cause i though they were always the same.



Some people say the libertarians have a lot of liberal ideas. Which ones?

[Skeptical]

dunno,...

I'm a God fearing christian republican fundamentalist!

Love my God, Family and Country!

[scipio337]

Do you mean the "Constitution Party"?? Chuck Baldwin was their candidate in '08??

[ActionJackson]

Originally Posted by Skeptical

dunno,...

I'm a God fearing christian republican fundamentalist!

Love my God, Family and Country!

That was me for many, many years until the Rebubs turned their back on the immigration problem and signed secret agreements with Mexico and Canado when nobody was looking. So, I'm now a freedom loving, Constitution-loving, Christian Independent fundamentalist.

The Libertarians embrace a couple of very liberal ideals. One is a topic that we can't discuss on this forum. The other is acceptance of "gay marriage." Libertarians are generally for smaller government and fewer laws. I agree in general but I do believe we need to live by an ethical standard as well. That's where the L Party and I part company.

[adams0960]

I would have to say that I fear fundamentalists of all faiths number one, but I don't know enough about constitutionalists to speak ill of them. I would say that the reason some people say that libertarians have liberal ideas is because of the belief in ultimate freedom to do as you choose as long as it doesn't harm anyone. That being said the freedom would then apply to drug use, marriage, and a host of other social issues that many freedom loving Americans are simply hypocritical on. It is hard to be a libertarian because to gain ultimate freedom for yourself you have to allow it for everyone, and not just for the “God fearing Christians” or “people who think like me” crowd. This message is not often well received and may be one reason people don’t like the Libertarian message.

[Canyon Cat]

Libertarianism is pretty easy to understand. It is about PERSONAL liberty. Some say that it is socially liberal and fiscally conservative. [Probably why die-hard dems and repubs inevitably find something to dislike about libertarians.]

Of course there are shades of gray (where libertarians often disagree) when it comes to things like immigration, ********, foreign policy, and the free market.

I think that it's pretty easy to mingle libertarianism with being a Constitutionalist (not necessarily the Constitution Party). Both support abiding by the Constituion and the Bill of Rights.

Where some so-called libertarians and Constitutionalists sway from the path is when they try to "improve on" the Constitution with gay marriage bans, their support for the War On Drugs, wanting to promote a particular religion at the expense of others, and supporting wars of aggression.

The primary problem I have with most libertarians is their "the free market will fix it" mantra for everything. Any libertarian worth their salt knows that Utopia is not an option in politics.

[Canyon Cat]

Originally Posted by Survivalist12

Why do people consider the constitutionalist party over the libertarian party, cause i though they were always the same.



Some people say the libertarians have a lot of liberal ideas. Which ones?

LIBERAL: Wanting to repeal drug laws is a biggy. Laissez-faire attitudes about sexual orientation and sexual practices. Anti-discrimination. Open borders. Eliminate victimless crime laws. Freedom of the press, speech and assembly. Coercion and force opposed in most instances. Limit police powers to search and seize personal property. Jury nullification.

CONSERVATIVE: Oppose taxation, support honest money, ban the Federal Reserve, right to keep and bear arms, right to work laws, Constitution-based government, separation of powers, states rights, limited government.

Something for everyone to hate, right?

[SMM123]

Why does one feel the need to pick a party at all? I am not part of any party, nor will I ever be. When you follow "party" lines, you become a sheep - why do it?

I have conservative, personal liberty, stick to the damned Constitution, beliefs. That makes me an individual.

[ExecuteQuery]

I consider myself a libertarian. Note the lower case l. That is to differentiate from a person who belongs to the Libertarian Party, which I do not. Not that I have anything against their platform, just that I believe that having a Libertarian Party at all is a losing tactic.

As a libertarian, I believe that government is a necessary evil, which must be constantly held in check to ensure that it doesn't exceed its responsibilities, which consist ONLY of protecting the rights of the people. This is a good time to define what a right is: to me, it is anything you want to do which does not infringe upon anyone else's rights.

As government is a necessary evil, one must always remember the evil part. There is a saying that "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance". A libertarian believes that the purpose of that vigilance is to keep government in check. The biggest threat to liberty is not some ephemeral outside enemy, it is our own government, by FAR.

I think that a lot of people have the wrong idea about what libertarians believe. For example, on the gay marriage issue, it's not that we want to force people to accept gays getting married. In fact, the stance is quite the opposite. We want to completely remove the question of marriage from government control. It is not up to the government to say who can or cannot get married, regardless of what the majority of the people decide. The question of whether or not to allow gays to marry should be completely in the purview of each religion. sect, or church body. I believe that the very concept of a "marriage license" is unconstitutional.

For an issue like prayer in school, most people again misunderstand what libertarians are trying to accomplish. As long as the government is running schools, then it is unconstitutional for the school to do anything that could be considered in support of any particular religion, god, or even non-religion. HOWEVER, the bigger issue is WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT RUNNING OUR SCHOOLS?!?!?! Cut government involvement in schools, and libertarians won't have any issue with any school choosing to allow or disallow prayer, as they see fit. Parents could then decide for themselves if they wanted their children to attend a school where prayer is held or not. So really, the issue isn't prayer in school, it's government in school. The religious right holds that prayer should be allowed in public school. Libertarians hold that public school shouldn't exist at all. See the difference?

As far as the difference between the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party, the CP is pretty close to the Libertarians, except in one area, and really, it makes them less "constitutional". It is clear from their stance on certain issues, that they do not agree with the establish clause of the first amendment. Libertarians believe that it is just as important or even more so than the freedom of religion clause.

[letsgetreal]

Originally Posted by Survivalist12

Why do people consider the constitutionalist party over the libertarian party, cause i though they were always the same.



Some people say the libertarians have a lot of liberal ideas. Which ones?

This is easy, if you just research history. Libertarians are not Constitutionalists and want alot of things to be legal that are in line with liberals and really have nothing to do with the Constitution. Constitutionalists want the govt to be restrained within the confines of the Constitution, in a conservative fashion( as it was designed). It's really an interpretation thing...

[letsgetreal]

Originally Posted by ExecuteQuery

I consider myself a libertarian. Note the lower case l. That is to differentiate from a person who belongs to the Libertarian Party, which I do not. Not that I have anything against their platform, just that I believe that having a Libertarian Party at all is a losing tactic.

As a libertarian, I believe that government is a necessary evil,.

Nice presentation, however, this is the first difference between the L and the C . Govt is a proven thing all thru history, as an acceptable way to govern a mass of people. Kings have ruled, churches have ruled, etc. History shows that people cannot just hang out and govern themselves, willy nilly on daily issues. They end up killing themselves out or splitting up and then warring. The Romans had a long reign by representation, but officials became corrupted, which has proven to survive to this day, but one thing that's been proven, is governing by representation, which our Fore- Fathers realized and designed our Constitution for, works, but retained the right for the citzens to ovethrow any govt of oppression.

[tiecuando]

Originally Posted by letsgetreal

Nice presentation, however, this is the first difference between the L and the C . Govt is a proven thing all thru history, as an acceptable way to govern a mass of people. Kings have ruled, churches have ruled, etc. History shows that people cannot just hang out and govern themselves, willy nilly on daily issues. They end up killing themselves out or splitting up and then warring. The Romans had a long reign by representation, but officials became corrupted, which has proven to survive to this day, but one thing that's been proven, is governing by representation, which our Fore- Fathers realized and designed our Constitution for, works, but retained the right for the citzens to ovethrow any govt of oppression.

Any part of the "citizenry" that is capable of overthrowing something like a government is by default, capable of self governance.

WHICH PEOPLE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

[ExecuteQuery]

Originally Posted by letsgetreal

Nice presentation, however, this is the first difference between the L and the C . Govt is a proven thing all thru history, as an acceptable way to govern a mass of people. Kings have ruled, churches have ruled, etc. History shows that people cannot just hang out and govern themselves, willy nilly on daily issues. They end up killing themselves out or splitting up and then warring. The Romans had a long reign by representation, but officials became corrupted, which has proven to survive to this day, but one thing that's been proven, is governing by representation, which our Fore- Fathers realized and designed our Constitution for, works, but retained the right for the citzens to ovethrow any govt of oppression.

Yeah, that's the necessary part of necessary evil. Perhaps you missed that.

I never advocated having no government at all, merely placing extreme constraints on it, and watching it like a hawk. Remember, I believe that government DOES have a purpose: that of protecting the rights of the people (see the Declaration of Independence). When someone violates my rights, it is the place of government to cause it to cease, and possibly, to punish them. Without government, if someone violates my rights, my only recourse is to try to stop them myself.. and if they felt they could violate my rights in the first place, it's probably unlikely I would be able to stop them.

The problem with government is that it has an innate property of trying to grow- this is because governments are made up of people, and being people, when they acquire a little power, it is in their nature to try to increase it.

So yes, government is important for protecting our rights, but this comes with a price, as by FAR government is the most common violator of rights.

[onemoreday]

Originally Posted by letsgetreal

This is easy, if you just research history. Libertarians are not Constitutionalists and want alot of things to be legal that are in line with liberals and really have nothing to do with the Constitution. Constitutionalists want the govt to be restrained within the confines of the Constitution, in a conservative fashion( as it was designed). It's really an interpretation thing...

You're going to have to name those things that are "in line with the liberals and have nothing to do with the Constitution". I'm not finding them.

Constitutionalists want the government to be run through the eyes of Christian fundamentalism. Which is NEVER how it was intended to be run. Ever. There is no argument to be given here that would justify that stance and that is exactly what the "Constitutionalist Party" represents and desires.

[METALHEAD1]

I'm a Libertarian who votes Republican out of necessity and reality. Third parties have zero chance and the Libertarians have done nothing in the past thirty years but run one unelectable moron after another. I vote Republican simply because they at least are correct 80% of the time, compared to the Democrats who are right 20% of the time.

Constitutionalists tend to be just the extreme religious right kooks who want to have rule by Pat Robertson. I'll pass on that.

[Steverino]

hmmm... I consider myself a Constitutionalist... but only in the sense that I want the Constitution strictly adhered to...

I believe religion has no place in government and more importantly government has no place in religion....

hmmm.... I need a new moniker... it seems even the Constitutionalist one doesn't work for me...