nice post man!

check out my predictions for the republican 2012 candidates and the future of the republican party! thanks
http://liberamerica.blogspot.com/

dont forrget comments ;D

omar's site has nothing to do with anything libertarian.

I agree we need the "Serenity" party or maybe "Independents" from the series Firefly.

Problem is that if you desire to be left alone, you generally aren't inclined to impose your views on others, which makes for a weak political constituency.

Political parties are all about changing things to your way of thinking and most certainly not leaving people alone. We lost the hope of being left alone when Washington figured out how to get all the cash they have from us. In the end, most people are whores, willing to take money all the while knowing at some point they are going to get screwed.

I think that what is happening could make not a "leave me alone party" but a "go eff yourself" party as we get more and more angry at the intrusiveness of gov't.
Most Americans don't like the gov't or other people messing with them and our gov't is heading toward getting way to involved in far too many aspects of everybody's life.

And here would be the beginnings of the results of not voting:

http://www.carolinajournal.com/articles/display_story.html?id=5081

Which is why one of the policy initiatives the Gingrich/Thompson headed NRCC will be pushing is federally decriminalizing marijuana.

Seriously - this issue might pull many leave-me-aloners back to the right (as a symbolic issue for many and as a practical issue for the editorial board of Reason Mag). It ought to please the econ conservatives in the party (-cost of drug war + increased revenue from taxation of legally sold pot). The religious conservatives won't like it but by emphasizing federal decriminalization individual states can make up their own minds...

Yeah, I'm fantasizing here...

metapundit,

Damn. You had me going for a while.

But that is exactly what I suggested to a socon I was having a conversation with. If the socons would champion Federal legalization it would change their image as oppressors.

But the First Lady isn't going to let Obama leave us alone! Remember her "liberal fascist" rhetoric about how we will not be allowed "business as usual." Maybe we should make the GOP the "Leave Us the ---- Alone, Lady" party just so she doesn't miss the point.

I'm a Leave-me-aloner, and I have a personal morality that corresponds highly with many of the standard socon positions. I've found it critical--in discussions and self-reflection--to consider the question, "What is the proper role of government?" Usually, the answer is, "Leave me alone."

I'm also on a private email discussion list which is mainly socons. I've had some success in arguing against the current "war on drugs". I don't think that legalization (or, at least, decriminalization) is going to be a show-stopper: your proposal, IMNSHO, has a good chance of success on that ground.

However, there are two issues which may or may not be show-stoppers, in which the show-stopping (if any) would come from the non-socon side.

1. Most libertarians would agree that a proper role of government is to prevent one individual from using force to harm another. So . . . if an unborn baby is an individual, then the government has a proper role in preventing someone stronger from using force to kill him or her, no? That's the heart of the abortion issue, and, like it or not, one which needs to be faced. I don't have any sure-fire solutions on this one.


2. Most (not all) socons accept "civil unions" of homosexual couples--unions which provide roughly the same legal relationship as in a marriage--albeit not particularly liking the idea. (Believe it or not, many socons have homosexual friends, and tend to treat it the same way they treat the divorce of friends.) However, they strongly object to the state forcing them to define the word "marriage" to include this sort of union. Had prop.8 said placed in the constitution a definition of such homosexual "civil union" along with the definition of "marriage", my guess is that the socon vote would've been about the same as the actual vote for prop.8.

Can these particular divides be overcome? I don't know, but I'm interested in seeing what the more thoughtful commenters have to say.

Oh, perhaps it would be best to say Leave People Alone rather than "leave me alone", in order to convey that liberty goes two ways.

color,

The difficulty with abortion is that many birth control methods do not prevent conception. They prevent implantation.

Second different religions have different ideas about abortion. Jews for instance consider it permissible until about the 40th day.

Third it is politically unpopular.

The trimester system is not an unreasonable compromise.

In any case a reasonable position (for now) is: "Don't want an abortion? Don't have one."

That takes it out of the realm of politics and leaves it up to the individual. I'd like to make the coalition as large as possible. Making abortion an issue is not the way to do it.

Palin has an 80% approval rate in Alaska. Why? She does not govern on cultural issues. It is about economics and sound governance. A good economy will encourage family formation way more than any anti-abortion program ever could.

Another point: people who don't want children shouldn't have them. People who want children make better parents.

I wouldn't be adverse to making adoption easier and cheaper.

You don't advance your political goals by starting off with huge swaths of the population against you. So kick the can on abortion and focus on sound economics, honest government, and ending the culture war.

Effective politics starts with: what can we agree on.

Another thing to think about is this: any government strong enough to prevent abortion is strong enough to make it mandatory: see China.

"Any government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it all away"

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1426190

A Republican said that.

Note: the Republican Party in California is about as socially conservative as they come. It barely exists as a political force in that state.

Also check out the undervote of Keyes vs Bush in the 2004 Illinois election.

Social conservatism is nearly a spent force in politics in America. Look at the last election map. All those who have been oppressed by social conservatives have joined the Democrats. And what are we getting out of the deal: suppression of economic liberty. Not a good deal.

One problem, foo--the democrats don't believe in live and let live. Ask any citizen who wishes to allow smoking on his own property.

Nor have the democrats made one move toward ending the drug war.

Brett,

Obviously the mapping is not perfect. People are involved. The general outline is there.

Thanks for your comments, Simon. I actually agree with much (not all) of what you have to say, including about compromise in any coalition.

Perhaps at the least such a coalition could have as a major point that the abortion issue belongs not at the federal level, but at the state level. The federal government will neither force pro-abortion or anti-abortion legislation on any state.

At the state level, I think that compromise is possible to a point, but only to a point. How disagreements are handled--by both sides of the issue--is important. A libertarian or classical liberal can legitimately claim to be on either side of the issue.

• Against abortion? Don't have one.
• Against slavery? Don't own one.
• Against murder? Don't kill anyone.

I am encouraged that there seems to be more talking nowadays on the matter than there used to be. I hope it helps in reestablishing a more free country.