View Full Version : Serious Question...how can you possibly NOT be a libertarian?
PugnacAutMortem
10-28-2014, 12:14
I am curious. What do people have against libertarianism? I just don't see how anyone could be against anything on the libertarian platform. And the argument "because it takes votes away from republicans and allows democrats to win elections" has been proven completely false so that doesn't count.
I genuinely want to know.
I am curious. What do people have against libertarianism? I just don't see how anyone could be against anything on the libertarian platform. And the argument "because it takes votes away from republicans and allows democrats to win elections" has been proven completely false so that doesn't count.
I genuinely want to know.
I am a libertarian, but not a Libertarian. The Libertarian party is almost as organized as a herd of cats on Adderol, and their public platform is naively utopian, in many ways relying on the noble nature of mankind to ensure the prevention of tyranny. Many persons possess such a noble mentality, but PEOPLE as a group do not. I want nothing more than for my government to intrude as little as possible into my affairs, while fulfilling the duties explicitly laid out in the Constitution. I want good value for my taxes, so that they are levied at the lowest possible level. The current major parties fail miserably at this; the Libertarians espouse lofty goals in this respect, but offer little in the way of substantive alternatives.
Honestly I just wish both sides of the major parties leaned far less authoritarian. As it is neither are worth a vote, and this third party thing will take forever to get off the ground. I just hope I see libertarian leanings in real offices abundantly before I die.
But to answer your question, people hate other people who are different, and want the law to do their dirty work. Result is everything gets made illegal and for-profit prisons and drug lords reign.
Libertarianism sounds good in theory; as does Communism.
However, it overlooks human nature which makes it untenable.
Here is a lengthy article that explains my view in greater depth:
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/18/libertarians_reality_problem_how_an_estrangement_f rom_history_yields_abject_failure/
I am not defined by any political label. I have voted for Candidates in 5 different parties based on their platform, record, what I can glean about their personal integrity, leadership potential. In most cases, it is simple and the comparisons are obvious. That said, most of the people I end up voting for, I would not let watch my dog (well, maybe my big dog). Voting for Judges is a little more difficult. But as I read the history of our Nation, and of the various parties, I will continue to call myself an American. The political parties change and their platforms have switched, some have gone by the wayside.
The number of laws on the books are promulgated by people whose income is based on their creation, argument about, and control of the people, not what is best for America.
Libertarianism sounds good in theory; as does Communism.
However, it overlooks human nature which makes it untenable.
Here is a lengthy article that explains my view in greater depth:
http://www.salon.com/2014/05/18/libertarians_reality_problem_how_an_estrangement_f rom_history_yields_abject_failure/
I believe you don't understand what libertarianism is. You can be left, you can be right, but you just stop banning sh!t and allow people you don't like to live their lives freely.
I believe you don't understand what libertarianism is. You can be left, you can be right, but you just stop banning sh!t and allow people you don't like to live their lives freely.
I believe you didn't read the article.
On an individual basis, libertarianism is fine by me (not necessarily for me).
As a form of government, it is impossible to sustain.
Unfortunately, it seems libertarian is synonymous with surrender. It's for the people that have given up on the 2 party system and throw their vote away. Not saying that's how it should be...just how I see it. It's that guy that says "Hey, I voted libertarian so don't blame me for anything".
I'm a Libertarian, the argument that government is needed to keep the population under control is illogical when you face the fact that the government is created and staffed by the same population. Government control will only grow and become more corrupt.
Its the gene pool.
There will always be people who want to control others.
There will always be people who have more power than others (military, financial)
Without some way to inhibit powerful controlling people from stomping on others, tyranny will result.
The United States has (had) a constitution to set limits on government to prevent tyranny.
What does Libertarianism provide to limit a powerful and control minded person or group from imposing their will on the people?
If it weren't for the fact that there will always be powerful controlling people, Libertarianism could work.
If it weren't for lazy people, Communism could work.
I would consider myself to be a Jeffersonian, which means that I am pretty close to most Libertarians in my political beliefs although I do believe there are very specific purposes to government that should be limited by a very specific set of rules, which is the rightful intent of those who founded this country. The winner of an election should not have a fundamental impact on me, my family, or my community if those rules were currently observed. The felt impact of politics today is only a testament to the perversion of authority in this country. My biggest issue I have with Libertarians as a party is that they refuse to understand the necessity for coalitions. Regardless if the elections were two party or multi party, power is wielded by a coalition of those who come together (the impact of which would be far less if our constitutional limits were still functioning as intended.) The green, labor, socialist, etc. have stopped bickering and are unified (for the most part) under the Democrats. As long as those right of center continue to bicker amongst each other, the left will continue to win elections and take this country down a dark road...this is the reality of modern politics in America.
To answer the question in short (as I know I can get long winded). I consider myself a "conservative libertarian." Some would see me as a liberal on many social issues, when in fact, I'd be more libertarian. Just butt out. That's how I see a lot of this. If what you do doesn't infringe upon anyone else, then go ahead and do it. Where I don't agree with Libertarians (the party) is on many aspects of foreign policy practice. We cannot be isolationist, and we cannot be reactionary 100% of the time. It's for this reason that I have reservations about both of the Pauls. For the most part, and it's probably because I did serve in the military during the Bush (W) admin and believe in the merits of my actions, that I oppose the Libertarian party's stance on the two wars as of late. Many Libertarian party members saw both wars as evil, unjust, or just plain abuse. Having studied the road to war in both cases, I stand firm that we did the right thing. The exercise of which may have been misguided (such as entering into Iraq before being complete with Afghanistan), but in the Iraq case, the Libertarians calling upon the demonization of an act-first (preemptive) policy is just wrong. Why should we only act if attacked? Rather than get punched, shouldn't we make it so the actor cannot punch us in the first place? Clear and convincing evidence should be present before action, I agree on that, but the Libertarian ideology of "we shouldn't attack unless we, ourselves, have been attacked first" is just ignorant.
But for the most part, I agree, smaller government, less regulation, stay out of my business is a great policy. For these reasons and many others, I find myself supporting the Tea Party a lot as well. So I guess I'm a "Conservative Libertarian Tea Party" individual.
And the argument "because it takes votes away from republicans and allows democrats to win elections" has been proven completely false so that doesn't count.
There are clear models of this actually happening, here in CO. So your assumption that the above is false is not entirely accurate. A third party, without viable backing to actually garner 20-30% of the vote, is in fact able to remove 8-11% of votes that could have gone R. It's happened much more than you think. And currently, as much as I would like to have an election where a L candidate could have a fighting chance, it's just not going to happen between now and 2016.
"Without some way to inhibit powerful controlling people from stomping on others, tyranny will result" GOT GUNS? .The Constitution and Bill of Rights is part of the Libertarian thought process. Ending the handouts and support by political means.
Actually were collectively screwed due to the corruption and short sighted views of people who vote for benefits or think the lessor of two evils will turn into a better future.
The education system has turned the population into government loving drones.
I believe you didn't read the article.
On an individual basis, libertarianism is fine by me (not necessarily for me).
As a form of government, it is impossible to sustain.
That article is full of misrepresentations. I can probably guess which of the two authoritarian parties he belongs to, not that it matters.
51445
Goodburbon
10-28-2014, 16:05
I'm libertarian.
With the current system I get to choose between a party that will repress people socially (anti gay, anti marijuana) or one that will repress them with endless regulations ( type of light bulbs and other energy policy, guns, land use, etc.)
Both choices will spend us into oblivion, both take our liberty a little at a time, both believe that the only way to prevent war is to constantly be at war.
Then I'm called a whiner, a loser, or someone who wastes a vote because I don't believe in any of that. Tada.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
I'm libertarian.
With the current system I get to choose between a party that will repress people socially (anti gay, anti marijuana) or one that will repress them with endless regulations ( type of light bulbs and other energy policy, guns, land use, etc.)
Both choices will spend us into oblivion, both take our liberty a little at a time, both believe that the only way to prevent war is to constantly be at war.
Then I'm called a whiner, a loser, or someone who wastes a vote because I don't believe in any of that. Tada.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
+1
mcantar18c
10-28-2014, 19:53
To answer the question in short (as I know I can get long winded). I consider myself a "conservative libertarian." Some would see me as a liberal on many social issues, when in fact, I'd be more libertarian. Just butt out. That's how I see a lot of this. If what you do doesn't infringe upon anyone else, then go ahead and do it. Where I don't agree with Libertarians (the party) is on many aspects of foreign policy practice. We cannot be isolationist, and we cannot be reactionary 100% of the time. It's for this reason that I have reservations about both of the Pauls. For the most part, and it's probably because I did serve in the military during the Bush (W) admin and believe in the merits of my actions, that I oppose the Libertarian party's stance on the two wars as of late. Many Libertarian party members saw both wars as evil, unjust, or just plain abuse. Having studied the road to war in both cases, I stand firm that we did the right thing. The exercise of which may have been misguided (such as entering into Iraq before being complete with Afghanistan), but in the Iraq case, the Libertarians calling upon the demonization of an act-first (preemptive) policy is just wrong. Why should we only act if attacked? Rather than get punched, shouldn't we make it so the actor cannot punch us in the first place? Clear and convincing evidence should be present before action, I agree on that, but the Libertarian ideology of "we shouldn't attack unless we, ourselves, have been attacked first" is just ignorant.
But for the most part, I agree, smaller government, less regulation, stay out of my business is a great policy. For these reasons and many others, I find myself supporting the Tea Party a lot as well. So I guess I'm a "Conservative Libertarian Tea Party" individual.
There are clear models of this actually happening, here in CO. So your assumption that the above is false is not entirely accurate. A third party, without viable backing to actually garner 20-30% of the vote, is in fact able to remove 8-11% of votes that could have gone R. It's happened much more than you think. And currently, as much as I would like to have an election where a L candidate could have a fighting chance, it's just not going to happen between now and 2016.
+1
I think we've had a discussion on the "conservative Libertarian" thing before.
I would consider myself to be a Jeffersonian, which means that I am pretty close to most Libertarians in my political beliefs although I do believe there are very specific purposes to government that should be limited by a very specific set of rules, which is the rightful intent of those who founded this country. The winner of an election should not have a fundamental impact on me, my family, or my community if those rules were currently observed. The felt impact of politics today is only a testament to the perversion of authority in this country. My biggest issue I have with Libertarians as a party is that they refuse to understand the necessity for coalitions. Regardless if the elections were two party or multi party, power is wielded by a coalition of those who come together (the impact of which would be far less if our constitutional limits were still functioning as intended.) The green, labor, socialist, etc. have stopped bickering and are unified (for the most part) under the Democrats. As long as those right of center continue to bicker amongst each other, the left will continue to win elections and take this country down a dark road...this is the reality of modern politics in America.
Kinda sounds like you're a constitutionalists?
Libertarianism and constitutionalism go hand in hand. Libertarians generally believe that "government" should be limited in its authority, but sometimes even libertarians forget that not all regulations and laws are bad things. They tend to associate all "regulations" as federal authoritarianism when in fact, local communities are supposed to come together and create laws that fit their society and lifestyle.
When you look at the way the constitution was set up, it had very specific rules for the federal government. If you read the 10th amendment you'll see that every thing that is not outlined in the constitution specifically, is reserved for the people and states respectively. Constitutionalists are usually libertarian in nature while at the same time recognizing that some regs and some laws are necessary, but are better served and enforced at the local levels.
DavieD55
10-28-2014, 21:21
I'm libertarian.
With the current system I get to choose between a party that will repress people socially (anti gay, anti marijuana) or one that will repress them with endless regulations ( type of light bulbs and other energy policy, guns, land use, etc.)
Both choices will spend us into oblivion, both take our liberty a little at a time, both believe that the only way to prevent war is to constantly be at war.
Then I'm called a whiner, a loser, or someone who wastes a vote because I don't believe in any of that. Tada.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
X2
I don't have anything against libertarians and agree with the libertarian party platform on many many issues. I am a classical liberal/constitutional conservative though, somewhere in between libertarians and conservatives.
I'm libertarian.
With the current system I get to choose between a party that will repress people socially (anti gay, anti marijuana) or one that will repress them with endless regulations ( type of light bulbs and other energy policy, guns, land use, etc.)
Both choices will spend us into oblivion, both take our liberty a little at a time, both believe that the only way to prevent war is to constantly be at war.
Then I'm called a whiner, a loser, or someone who wastes a vote because I don't believe in any of that. Tada.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
But you haaaaave to vote "R". Cause this time is "different" and all......
I really don't see how the argument of removing an individual's value on another person's life from law is ever a bad thing. Just sounds like freedom.
Goodburbon
10-28-2014, 22:33
Don't forget, that as a libertarian your views are "exclusive". Meaning that somehow the belief in personal freedom and liberty for everyone does not include democrats and republicans.
Know why the big tent Democratic Party works? They are inclusive of their sub groups agendas.
Know why the republicans aren't working? Because the core of the party is big government, bigger military, and we'll legislate our personal morals onto you.
So in truth, the libertarians, while being accused of being exclusionary, are worlds more inclusive than the Republican Party.
As for foriegn policy. Non interventionist does not mean "isolationist" which is a word establishment republicans throw at us quite often. What's that mean to me? Walk softly and carry a big stick. For the last 30 years we've walked loud and proud and carried the biggest stick ever....wrapped in bubble wrap.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
HoneyBadger
10-28-2014, 22:57
I'm libertarian.
With the current system I get to choose between a party that will repress people socially (anti gay, anti marijuana) or one that will repress them with endless regulations ( type of light bulbs and other energy policy, guns, land use, etc.)
Both choices will spend us into oblivion, both take our liberty a little at a time, both believe that the only way to prevent war is to constantly be at war.
Then I'm called a whiner, a loser, or someone who wastes a vote because I don't believe in any of that. Tada.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
+1
I am somewhere in the realm of Constitutionalist and Libertarian, but the two are certainly not mutually exclusive. Libertarianism deals primarily with the principles of government and Constitutionalism is a form of government. The two can absolutely coincide, and ideally, they would. As written, Our constitution was intended to be quite libertarian (or classically liberal, if you prefer). If our government did it's job as strictly laid out by the constitution, I would be a very happy camper.
What always gets me in these conversations is when some ignorant bonehead says "if you're really a libertarian, why don't you go live in Somalia." [facepalm]
What always gets me in these conversations is when some ignorant bonehead says "if you're really a libertarian, why don't you go live in Somalia." [facepalm]
Ummm what? People seriously say that? What does that even mean?
Ummm what? People seriously say that? What does that even mean?
People, as observed also in this very thread, do not understand what freedom is, and think a country like Somolia is somehow libertarian, when in fact it is farther authoritarian than the USA by a great measure. Republicans and Democrats wouldn't know liberty if it bit them in the ass.
DavieD55
10-28-2014, 23:33
Ummm what? People seriously say that? What does that even mean?
I think some people tend stereotype libertarians as people who promote a society of anarchy and chaos with no rule of law.
milwaukeeshaker
10-29-2014, 08:03
This!
I'm libertarian.
With the current system I get to choose between a party that will repress people socially (anti gay, anti marijuana) or one that will repress them with endless regulations ( type of light bulbs and other energy policy, guns, land use, etc.)
Both choices will spend us into oblivion, both take our liberty a little at a time, both believe that the only way to prevent war is to constantly be at war.
Then I'm called a whiner, a loser, or someone who wastes a vote because I don't believe in any of that. Tada.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
68Charger
10-29-2014, 09:35
I'd also fall under Libertarian in my beliefs- I agree with the whole philosophy of smaller government, limited intervention, etc...
but the problem is that the Libertarian "party" (as an organization) is practically irrelevant- nobody in power within the government wants to back them, because they represent limited power.
That is why they are used as a pawn to pull votes from one party or another (generally it is the D's that play this up, because they will literally do anything to win- lie, cheat, steal)
Not saying the R's are completely honest (they are politicians after all)
I don't think we'll see a significant change in the right direction towards smaller government until the 2-party system is somehow broken/destroyed. They have both really become self-serving, and do not have any regard for the Serfs that they are governing... which is really apparent when Democrat groups have internal projects called "educate the idiots" campaign.
If I'm forced to choose the lesser of two evils, I believe the R's are less evil- at least many of their positions are based on morality (even if they want to force that morality on others), where I see many of the D's stances on issues as just pure evil (and they want to force that evil on others).
If I'm forced to choice the lesser of two evils, I believe the R's are less evil- at least many of their positions are based on morality (even if they want to force that morality on others), where I see many of the D's stances on issues as just pure evil (and they want to force that evil on others).
Not true. It is a choice, and a blessing to be able to choose. You are not forced to vote for evil.
68Charger
10-29-2014, 09:45
Not true. It is a choice, and a blessing to be able to choose. You are not forced to vote for evil.
No, I'm not forced by anyone else, but to be more accurate: I am compelled to vote AGAINST evil.
When a major contributor to the Libertarian candidate is the Democrat candidate (because they want to have the L take votes away from the R), then voting for the R is the vote against Evil- voting for the L is voting the way the evil candidate wants me to vote.
That make it more clear?
No, I'm not forced by anyone else, but to be more accurate: I am compelled to vote AGAINST evil.
When a major contributor to the Libertarian candidate is the Democrat candidate (because they want to have the L take votes away from the R), then voting for the R is the vote against Evil- voting for the L is voting the way the evil candidate wants me to vote.
That make it more clear?
Yes, it has become transparent.
So what's the libertarian party's plan to take control of the political landscape? Just keep pounding the street in hopes it one day gains enough momentum to overturn the current 2 party system?
So what's the libertarian party's plan to take control of the political landscape? Just keep pounding the street in hopes it one day gains enough momentum to overturn the current 2 party system?
Therein lies the problem: The libertarian movement is too small to be taken seriously by most voters, but the movement needs voters to consider them a viable choice to grow. The other alternative is that the major parties finally put forth such horrendous candidates that a significant number of voters can no longer stomach voting for the lesser evil, and choose instead to take a chance on the unknown quantity.
Here is an historical list of all the countries throughout the world that currently have or have had a Libertarian form of government:
Therein lies the problem: The libertarian movement is too small to be taken seriously by most voters, but the movement needs voters to consider them a viable choice to grow. The other alternative is that the major parties finally put forth such horrendous candidates that a significant number of voters can no longer stomach voting for the lesser evil, and choose instead to take a chance on the unknown quantity.
You're confusing the libertarian movement with the Libertarian Party. Most libertarians want all politicians to move to a less authoritarian stance, not have a party for it. A real libertarian probably doesn't even like the concept of political parties.
wctriumph
10-29-2014, 12:19
At present I am a single issue voter: The Second Amendment. Until "they" leave it alone I really don't care for the most part what the other issues are. I vote for the candidates that will stand and protect the Constitution, all of it. Unfortunately this means that in some election for some persons I must compromise myself to make sure that the Second Amendment will be upheld.
Otherwise ...
TEA
III
You're confusing the libertarian movement with the Libertarian Party. Most libertarians want all politicians to move to a less authoritarian stance, not have a party for it. A real libertarian probably doesn't even like the concept of political parties.
I think that many of us have libertarian leanings, but like me, are pretty disenchanted with the Libertarian party, so we resign ourselves to voting for one of the big 2. If a viable third party (Liberty party, American Constitution Party, whatever) were to come up with a good candidate, and a viable, realistic platform that included a PLAN to reduce government influence in our day-to-day affairs, the libertarian movement might gain some steam.
This is the current (2014) platform of the Libertarian Party: http://www.lp.org/platform
I pretty much agree with most of their points, but their foreign policy is somewhat unrealistic in this day and age.
Aloha_Shooter
10-29-2014, 13:16
... the argument "because it takes votes away from republicans and allows democrats to win elections" has been proven completely false so that doesn't count.
Actually, it has been proven true. The only reason John Morse got in office in District 11 was because the Libertarian running gave him a plurality. The Dems might actually keep a Senate seat they would otherwise lose -- and thereby hurt all of us by decreasing the bulwark against Obama's Maoist/Stalinist "reforms" -- because of a Libertarian candidate.
I am for many libertarian principles but not all, just as I'm against some Republican platform statements or legislation. The biggest problem I have with Libertarianism as a political movement is that it divides the anti-Marxist segment and thereby allows the Marxists to win. If you're genuinely against Socialism but don't want to give in to some of the Establishment Republicans then work INSIDE the GOP to takeover the Republican Party the way the out-and-out Communists and anti-Westerners have taken over the Democrat Party.
Actually, it has been proven true. The only reason John Morse got in office in District 11 was because the Libertarian running gave him a plurality. The Dems might actually keep a Senate seat they would otherwise lose -- and thereby hurt all of us by decreasing the bulwark against Obama's Maoist/Stalinist "reforms" -- because of a Libertarian candidate.
I am for many libertarian principles but not all, just as I'm against some Republican platform statements or legislation. The biggest problem I have with Libertarianism as a political movement is that it divides the anti-Marxist segment and thereby allows the Marxists to win. If you're genuinely against Socialism but don't want to give in to some of the Establishment Republicans then work INSIDE the GOP to takeover the Republican Party the way the out-and-out Communists and anti-Westerners have taken over the Democrat Party.
A vote for an authoritarian is a lost vote. I don't see that an authoritarian Republican is different than a different authoritarian. Maybe both sides will see enough lost elections due to good candidates screwing things up that they'll attempt to get good candidates themselves one day.
PugnacAutMortem
10-29-2014, 15:21
Therein lies the problem: The libertarian movement is too small to be taken seriously by most voters, but the movement needs voters to consider them a viable choice to grow. The other alternative is that the major parties finally put forth such horrendous candidates that a significant number of voters can no longer stomach voting for the lesser evil, and choose instead to take a chance on the unknown quantity.
The only other way (besides your scenario) is for someone exceedingly famous to run on a 3rd party ticket. Your scenario is the most likely, as unfortunate as that is.
PugnacAutMortem
10-29-2014, 15:22
Here is an historical list of all the countries throughout the world that currently have or have had a Libertarian form of government:
https://achoels.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/strawman-light.jpg
68Charger
10-29-2014, 15:55
The only other way is for someone exceedingly famous to run on a 3rd party ticket. Your scenario is the most likely, as unfortunate as that is.
who's doing the strawman here? Name ONCE that has happened.
DenverGP
10-29-2014, 16:27
You know, strawman, whatever, the reason that most of us are on this website is because we appreciate and embrace our 2nd amendment rights. Every vote that allows dems to stay in power, in colorado in particular, just empowered and encourages the left to push for more gun control. Their fear of losing power is what has kept new gun control off the the agenda since the recalls. Hick retains office, Bloomberg and the left see it as a sign that they can shove more gun control down our throats, and we won't stand up united against them.
PugnacAutMortem
10-29-2014, 16:42
who's doing the strawman here? Name ONCE that has happened.
Jesse Ventura immediately comes to mind.
who's doing the strawman here? Name ONCE that has happened.
H. Ross Perot, 1992. His bid is often cited as a factor in Clinton's win, as he beat Bush in a number of states.
So what's the libertarian party's plan to take control of the political landscape? Just keep pounding the street in hopes it one day gains enough momentum to overturn the current 2 party system?
The libertarian party would have more votes if people stopped voting for the lesser of two evils.
The "two evils" are what gives us the current system. Until people realize that, we're fucked.
Just a small observation I'd like to point out:
Many here throw around terms like "authoritarian" and "lesser of two evils." But answer me this: which is more effective and easier to accomplish- voting in a Libertarian among a mix of democrats and Republicans? Or trying to push in libertarianism among a republican majority? I see many more correlations with Republicans (err conservatives) and libertarians than I do with progressives and libertarians. Call me crazy.
Just a small observation I'd like to point out:
Many here throw around terms like "authoritarian" and "lesser of two evils." But answer me this: which is more effective and easier to accomplish- voting in a Libertarian among a mix of democrats and Republicans? Or trying to push in libertarianism among a republican majority? I see many more correlations with Republicans (err conservatives) and libertarians than I do with progressives and libertarians. Call me crazy.
See, the thing is, if the Democrats and Republicans were more libertarian leaning, then both sides would support the constitution, including 2A, and I honestly feel like either of the two parties was very evil, and we could focus on real politics, rather than anti-American laws all over the place.
Aloha_Shooter
10-30-2014, 00:26
A vote for an authoritarian is a lost vote. I don't see that an authoritarian Republican is different than a different authoritarian. Maybe both sides will see enough lost elections due to good candidates screwing things up that they'll attempt to get good candidates themselves one day.
Any vote that allows for continued election of Marxists is a lost vote. I'd rather oppose Establishment Republicans from within than give Socialists who have already taken over the education and judicial systems more "official" powers to invoke "change". There are certainly bad statist Republicans but even the worst of them isn't as bad as the mildest Democrat who continues to enable the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda.
Goodburbon
10-30-2014, 06:35
But We've GOT to do it this time or the world will end.
68Charger
10-30-2014, 07:16
Jesse Ventura immediately comes to mind.
He was Independent, not Libertarian... But an example nonetheless
I take it back, he was reform party... So he is an example of a 3rd party exploiting pop culture..
Now we just need a famous Colorado resident to run for Gov under the Libertarian party, shouldn't be too hard to find, right?
H. Ross Perot, 1992. His bid is often cited as a factor in Clinton's win, as he beat Bush in a number of states.
Perot was not very famous until he ran, AND he lost... We're looking for examples where a Libertarian won because they were famous.
Aloha_Shooter
10-30-2014, 07:23
He was Independent, not Libertarian... But an example nonetheless
Perot was not very famous until he ran, AND he lost... We're looking for examples where a Libertarian won because they were famous.
Dude, I don't know what rock you were living under but H. Ross Perot was pretty damned well known before he played the spoiler and gave Clinton the plurality. I supported him for the Republican primary over Bush I but once he went third party, he gave the election to the Dems and they knew it. Evidence came out later that the Dems pulled some dirty tricks to make Perot believe the Bush's had run some dirty trick against his family in order to keep him separate and sucking away Republican votes.
It's not a matter of Libertarians winning, it's a matter of them or other independents sucking away or depressing GOP votes and thereby handing the elections -- and power -- to the Socialists Communists anti-Americans Democrats.
To flip the OP, I can't see why any thinking person would vote Libertarian in an election where their vote could actually count (i.e., if you're in San Francisco, LA, Detroit, or NYC then it probably doesn't matter so go ahead and make your protest).
68Charger
10-30-2014, 08:42
Dude, I don't know what rock you were living under but H. Ross Perot was pretty damned well known before he played the spoiler and gave Clinton the plurality. I supported him for the Republican primary over Bush I but once he went third party, he gave the election to the Dems and they knew it. Evidence came out later that the Dems pulled some dirty tricks to make Perot believe the Bush's had run some dirty trick against his family in order to keep him separate and sucking away Republican votes.
It's not a matter of Libertarians winning, it's a matter of them or other independents sucking away or depressing GOP votes and thereby handing the elections -- and power -- to the Socialists Communists anti-Americans Democrats.
To flip the OP, I can't see why any thinking person would vote Libertarian in an election where their vote could actually count (i.e., if you're in San Francisco, LA, Detroit, or NYC then it probably doesn't matter so go ahead and make your protest).
Very would be the operative word- he was well known in business circles, but as pop culture goes, your average Jane/Joe didn't know him until he started using his catch phrases in debates.
The American public has the attention span of a gnat on crack. Unless he was on something like a reality show, probably 50% of the population won't know who he is.
I'd also submit that the "very famous" part has to come from OUTSIDE politics, and probably from outside business...
I could name a dozen very famous politicians that would have zero chance of winning on a 3rd party ticket... and any businessman is going to be doomed by the "he's one of the 1% fat cats" game that the Dems play, and apparently the American public will play into class warfare easily.
PugnacAutMortem
10-30-2014, 08:52
To flip the OP, I can't see why any thinking person would vote Libertarian in an election where their vote could actually count.
If you want change in the way our government is currently set up (two party system), and you don't vote for the change (3rd party..Libertarian or anything else) then you continue to perpetuate the problem. I despise the idea that a vote not for R or D is a wasted vote. How in the hell do you ever expect anything to change if you aren't willing to put your nuts on the line and vote for who you believe will actually bring change? I actually should use the word reform instead of change.
Artema actually said it best...if the Republicans and Democrats as institutions would just lean more libertarian then I wouldn't have any problem with the setup we have now. It's not possible unfortunately because there has to be division in order for things to function in this system.
68Charger
10-30-2014, 09:08
If you want change in the way our government is currently set up (two party system), and you don't vote for the change (3rd party..Libertarian or anything else) then you continue to perpetuate the problem. I despise the idea that a vote not for R or D is a wasted vote. How in the hell do you ever expect anything to change if you aren't willing to put your nuts on the line and vote for who you believe will actually bring change? I actually should use the word reform instead of change.
Artema actually said it best...if the Republicans and Democrats as institutions would just lean more libertarian then I wouldn't have any problem with the setup we have now. It's not possible unfortunately because there has to be division in order for things to function in this system.
And if you think that a few votes for a libertarian candidate will change anything, you're badly fooled- and playing into the Demoncrat play book...
you think the Democrats look at election results, see a double-digit vote for the Libertarian and say "Damn, we'd better move our policies towards the center"? [facepalm][hahhah-no]
They look at those results, and will say "great, that helped us win that election"
Or do you believe that the general population will see those results, and decide that maybe the Libertarians are popular enough to start paying attention to?
Because your average American doesn't give 3rd parties a second thought without something to grab their attention.
Let's discuss the farce that is the Electoral College. Electors are not constrained to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their state, nor are they apportioned in accordance with that vote. Under the current system, a candidate can win as few as 12 key states, and still accumulate the 270 votes necessary to win the presidency. Perot garnered over 20% of the popular vote in 1992, but received not a singe electoral vote. Somehow this is a representative republic?
Let's discuss the farce that is the Electoral College. Electors are not constrained to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their state, nor are they apportioned in accordance with that vote. Under the current system, a candidate can win as few as 12 key states, and still accumulate the 270 votes necessary to win the presidency. Perot garnered over 20% of the popular vote in 1992, but received not a singe electoral vote. Somehow this is a representative republic?
True. But the Libertarian party has received an (one) electoral vote for President/Vice President. And the first woman to receive an electoral vote (for Vice President) was a Libertarian. Not that it's likely to happen again- the two big parties vet their electors much more now.
If you want change in the way our government is currently set up (two party system), and you don't vote for the change (3rd party..Libertarian or anything else) then you continue to perpetuate the problem. I despise the idea that a vote not for R or D is a wasted vote. How in the hell do you ever expect anything to change if you aren't willing to put your nuts on the line and vote for who you believe will actually bring change? I actually should use the word reform instead of change.
Artema actually said it best...if the Republicans and Democrats as institutions would just lean more libertarian then I wouldn't have any problem with the setup we have now. It's not possible unfortunately because there has to be division in order for things to function in this system.
Unfortunately, I don't see any evidence our two party system is going away any time soon. Therefore, why not work on changing the platform of the party you most align with.
Welcome to the Tea Party.
Party platforms have drastically shifted over time. Work within the party to shift it in the direction you would prefer. It may never reach full-on Libertarian, but a third party candidate will never win a major election in our lifetime.
Wasted vote.
Unfortunately, I don't see any evidence our two party system is going away any time soon. Therefore, why not work on changing the platform of the party you most align with.
Welcome to the Tea Party.
Party platforms have drastically shifted over time. Work within the party to shift it in the direction you would prefer. It may never reach full-on Libertarian, but a third party candidate will never win a major election in our lifetime.
Wasted vote.
Are you kidding? Tea Party is full of bat-poop insane wackos. The original informal Tea Party with Ron Paul is not what exists today. If they pretended to do what they claim to do a fraction of a percentage of the time I still wouldn't vote for many of those nutjobs. And Rand Paul is a PINO. Paul In Name Only! As of now I vote based on the candidate, not the party, so I wouldn't be against voting for someone affiliated with them, just not the main wackos.
I am curious. What do people have against libertarianism? I just don't see how anyone could be against anything on the libertarian platform. And the argument "because it takes votes away from republicans and allows democrats to win elections" has been proven completely false so that doesn't count.
I genuinely want to know.
People are different and they often do not agree on goals or methods to achieve those goals. When they do agree, they form alliances of like minded people to accomplish goals using methods they can agree upon. When those goals and/or methods clash, alliances are broken. Political parties are just one such example of these alliances. Political parties are not empowered by or required by the US Constitution. I have never sworn allegiance to or ceded any of my authority as a citizen to any political party.
I do not believe everyone will ever agree on any one thing. If such a thing were ever to happen, I personally would expect that the apocalypse was imminent.
Libertarian is not the same as libertarian. You probably already know that one is a party and the other is an idealogy. I assume that not all Libertarians are libertarians.
The Electoral College is defined and authorized by the US Constitution. This is the Constitution that many of us have sworn to uphold and defend. The role and make up of the Electoral College has been redefined over time through the amendment process and I would hope that if citizens have ideas on how to make the process better, they work within the Constitutional methods as provided to do so.
Be safe.
Are you kidding? Tea Party is full of bat-poop insane wackos. The original informal Tea Party with Ron Paul is not what exists today. If they pretended to do what they claim to do a fraction of a percentage of the time I still wouldn't vote for many of those nutjobs. And Rand Paul is a PINO. Paul In Name Only! As of now I vote based on the candidate, not the party, so I wouldn't be against voting for someone affiliated with them, just not the main wackos.
I believe you don't understand what l̶i̶b̶e̶r̶t̶a̶r̶i̶a̶n̶i̶s̶m̶ the Tea Party is.
All this party talks reminds me of this scene:
http://youtu.be/KnpnYAId6dU
I believe you don't understand what l̶i̶b̶e̶r̶t̶a̶r̶i̶a̶n̶i̶s̶m̶ the Tea Party is.
I know what it IS, and what it is supposed to be. I'm a fan of the tea party movement, not the Tea Party.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. So yes, the republican party has work to do but if we dont all join our efforts, dems will continue their pathway. Let's work on defeating the dems first, then focus on the republicans.
I know what it IS, and what it is supposed to be. I'm a fan of the tea party movement, not the Tea Party.
You've just proven my point.
You've just proven my point.
Congratulations?
ChadAmberg
10-30-2014, 23:17
Let's discuss the farce that is the Electoral College. Electors are not constrained to vote in accordance with the popular vote in their state, nor are they apportioned in accordance with that vote. Under the current system, a candidate can win as few as 12 key states, and still accumulate the 270 votes necessary to win the presidency. Perot garnered over 20% of the popular vote in 1992, but received not a singe electoral vote. Somehow this is a representative republic?
The alternative is countries with parliaments, where after the election they do all the horse trading to see who gets to form the government. Works well in smaller countries, not so sure it would work here. Often it fails and it's election day again.
Although, you always do seem to get the fights that break out and generally bad behavior which can be really funny to watch.
Goodburbon
10-31-2014, 06:59
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. So yes, the republican party has work to do but if we dont all join our efforts, dems will continue their pathway. Let's work on defeating the dems first, then focus on the republicans.
I did not leave the party, the party left me, and I will not back a party because they're only half bad and the other party is HALF bad.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Aloha_Shooter
10-31-2014, 10:12
I have joined the Republican Party solely to vote in primary elections where it seemed like there was a shot at influencing those primaries. I did the same thing with the Democrat Party a couple times although my primary selections generally lost. I'm a pretty firm independent but it is generally most logical and effective to steer the GOP toward independence and smaller government than to keep giving the reins to the ultimate big statist government types by "voting conscience." For that matter, I don't accept the premise that the Libertarian Party is necessarily the choice of conscience. Many of the planks appear to be more anarchist than anything else and while the Founding Fathers did not envision or want a huge statist government, neither did they believe in complete anarchy. The Constitution set up laboratories of freedom and empowered states to set their own rules but left freedom of travel so the best ideas would eventually win. Furthermore, the 19th century national security view of many Libertarian candidates like Ron Paul is unworkable in an environment with the quick and free travel available since the mid-20th century.
As far as "the party left me", that's true for moderate Democrats like Ronald Reagan in the 1950s and 1960s but the GOP has never been for the Libertarian wet dream advocated so claiming the GOP "left me" is utter BS. In fact, the reason TR was hated so much by Establishment Republicans in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was that he led the fight to break down totalitarian and winner-takes-the-spoils corrupt government. Sound familiar?
ghettodub
11-03-2014, 11:53
Side note here for any of the Libertarian folks on here: we are having an election night event at the Fox and Hound in Lone Tree (9239 Park Meadows Dr, Lone Tree, Colorado 80124) starting at 1800, so come on by and have a drink and watch results, meet some of the candidates (including myself), eat foods. Whatever. I'm the guy with a scruffy regrowing beard and plugs in my ears!
51737
Facebook event link here: https://www.facebook.com/events/278291349026541/
I am a libertarian, and I find neoconservatives and RINOS offensive, and the people who populate the religious right to be creepy and weird.
That said, for the first time since I voted for GWB I put aside my animosity for the Republican party and voted for that sad collection of pachyderms, bedside for the first time since the left wing take over of Colorado, it feels like there's a chance of throwing the leftists out of power.
And if the recall elections taught me anything, its that there's nothing quite like the sense of schadenfreude one gets from reading the twitter feed of a leftist authoritarian the day after they're tossed out of office.
I have joined the Republican Party solely to vote in primary elections where it seemed like there was a shot at influencing those primaries. I did the same thing with the Democrat Party a couple times although my primary selections generally lost. I'm a pretty firm independent but it is generally most logical and effective to steer the GOP toward independence and smaller government than to keep giving the reins to the ultimate big statist government types by "voting conscience." For that matter, I don't accept the premise that the Libertarian Party is necessarily the choice of conscience. Many of the planks appear to be more anarchist than anything else and while the Founding Fathers did not envision or want a huge statist government, neither did they believe in complete anarchy. The Constitution set up laboratories of freedom and empowered states to set their own rules but left freedom of travel so the best ideas would eventually win. Furthermore, the 19th century national security view of many Libertarian candidates like Ron Paul is unworkable in an environment with the quick and free travel available since the mid-20th century.
As far as "the party left me", that's true for moderate Democrats like Ronald Reagan in the 1950s and 1960s but the GOP has never been for the Libertarian wet dream advocated so claiming the GOP "left me" is utter BS. In fact, the reason TR was hated so much by Establishment Republicans in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was that he led the fight to break down totalitarian and winner-takes-the-spoils corrupt government. Sound familiar?
Curious, what is your opinion on pure Anarchy (assuming that's what the Libertarian party is built off on as you surmise) versus what we currently have or where we are trending towards?
I need to preface my post: Now, while I align much more Libertarian these days than republican, one thing I keep seeing constantly from libertarians (especially libertarian groups on FB that a friend of mine constantly shares) is this whole idea that D and R are both different sides of the same shit sandwich. I always thought this was the most stupid, lazy thing ever. If both parties are essentially the same, then how come they can't agree on anything? How come they both stand for different things? I understand that there are several repubs (McCain, Graham, etc) that it seems are less and less right-leaning these days, but give me a break! There are actually a lot of republicans who want smaller government, want us to butt out of people's lives, and really truly give a rats ass about securing the border. Meanwhile, saying they're the same as the dems, when clearly, if the dems took over completely, this country would be fucked in a week; whereas I honestly don't think we'd be too bad if we had an R takeover (I mean completely unopposed- not enough D votes to stop any legislative decisions)... I feel there are enough of us that are conservative enough, and liberty minded enough, that IF republicans ever got back full control, both house and senate, and the White House, we would be able to keep them in line. Because we all know that demonrats don't listen to conservative constituents.
68Charger
11-04-2014, 15:41
whole idea that D and R are both different sides of the same shit sandwich. I always thought this was the most stupid, lazy thing ever. If both parties are essentially the same, then how come they can't agree on anything? How come they both stand for different things? I understand that there are several repubs (McCain, Graham, etc) that it seems are less and less right-leaning these days, but give me a break! There are actually a lot of republicans who want smaller government, want us to butt out of people's lives, and really truly give a rats ass about securing the border.
It's because the parties themselves both grow government- what they SAY is irrelevant when their actions lead to more laws, growth of the government (in budget, power, and actual number of departments and employees)
It's because the parties themselves both grow government- what they SAY is irrelevant when their actions lead to more laws, growth of the government (in budget, power, and actual number of departments and employees)
True, but that's a very narrow idea there. On the whole, yes, they both grow government, but the thing is they both don't grow it in the same ways. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for shrinking government, and ideally this will happen before it gets too big and to a massive tipping point to where it will be impossible to reduce the size. Conversely, if we're going to have government grow I'd rather it be in the direction of R instead of D... I seriously see more minimum wage BS and crap like that coming if the D's continue to win. At least we won't be paying for everyone else as much under more right-leaning rule.
It's because the parties themselves both grow government- what they SAY is irrelevant when their actions lead to more laws, growth of the government (in budget, power, and actual number of departments and employees)
Which is why at the federal level, I support the divided government. As long as neither party has enough power to pass legislation, the government growth and interference is kept at a minimum. Eventually, something will have to change the course of this train because I believe there is a cliff somewhere down the tracks. I just don't know how far, but I sure don't want either party adding coal to the fire.
tim-adams
11-04-2014, 15:57
I am a fiscally conservative with more libertarian social policies... but firm belief in the constitution and the bill of rights as our founding, and guiding document.. (throw those out and I am loading firearms)
68Charger
11-04-2014, 16:02
True, but that's a very narrow idea there. On the whole, yes, they both grow government, but the thing is they both don't grow it in the same ways. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for shrinking government, and ideally this will happen before it gets too big and to a massive tipping point to where it will be impossible to reduce the size. Conversely, if we're going to have government grow I'd rather it be in the direction of R instead of D... I seriously see more minimum wage BS and crap like that coming if the D's continue to win. At least we won't be paying for everyone else as much under more right-leaning rule.
Basically, their roads lead to the same place- but the scenery is different along the way...[dig]
tim-adams
11-04-2014, 16:04
I normally see my republican vote against the Stupid progressive BS that wants to make America just like Europe
tim-adams
11-04-2014, 16:05
the governments primary job is to increase the tax's/power of the government...
sorry to say red and blue mater not, only green $$$$$
Basically, their roads lead to the same place- but the scenery is different along the way...[dig]
Well said!
Red or blue does matter on some issues. Generally, republicans protect the 2A rights. At least by protecting that, we know that we'll always have plan B if they go too crazy (more so than they already have). Democrats want to take that away so by the time we reach their destination, we won't have options.
So we may end up at the same destination but at least with the red, we have a roadside policy to help when we break down.
Red or blue does matter on some issues. Generally, republicans protect the 2A rights. At least by protecting that, we know that we'll always have plan B if they go too crazy (more so than they already have). Democrats want to take that away so by the time we reach their destination, we won't have options.
So we may end up at the same destination but at least with the red, we have a roadside policy to help when we break down.
I've seen many "great" Republicans attack 2A, so I'd believe it if they had a better track record.
Great-Kazoo
11-04-2014, 18:03
Easy.
I've seen many "great" Republicans attack 2A, so I'd believe it if they had a better track record.
And now you see the democrat track record personally here in CO. A few cycles of 3rd party votes from "R"s and a major coming together of democrats has put us where we are today. I appreciate what libertarians are trying to do but, for me, it's more important to suppress the progressive agenda before trying to dismantle the 2 party system.
tim-adams
11-04-2014, 19:01
And now you see the democrat track record personally here in CO. A few cycles of 3rd party votes from "R"s and a major coming together of democrats has put us where we are today. I appreciate what libertarians are trying to do but, for me, it's more important to suppress the progressive agenda before trying to dismantle the 2 party system.
^^^^^^^^
yeah afraid voting L is just splitting the R vote and guaranteeing you something you don't want
yeah afraid voting L is just splitting the R vote and guaranteeing you something you don't want
This statement assumes that the libertarian you're talking with holds the same views you do, and to the same level of belief.
That's simply not the case.
And now you see the democrat track record personally here in CO. A few cycles of 3rd party votes from "R"s and a major coming together of democrats has put us where we are today. I appreciate what libertarians are trying to do but, for me, it's more important to suppress the progressive agenda before trying to dismantle the 2 party system.
Again, libertarian leanings have nothing to do with parties. You can be left, you can be right, but you don't have to be authoritarian and evil like BOTH the top two parties. You can have both sides consider allowing their citizens to be ruled by the constitution and subject them to a thing called Freedom, while still being conservative and liberal.
SamuraiCO
11-05-2014, 08:46
For libertarians to have any hold it will take some large money people to put in the same framework the Dems and Repubs have in every state. Maybe the Facebook/Twitter/Google/Cisco/Apple/Microsoft will wise up with supporting Dems who just see them as a cash cow and reject their current masters. Until then I vote Rep and support the most conservative member in our state and nationally. It will take some time to move the R's to a more conservative platform.
Most of our issues will become moot if our fiscal house is not taken care of. At least we will be prepared when the collapse comes.
PugnacAutMortem
11-05-2014, 10:37
Easy.
Thanks for the well thought out, thoroughly explained response to my question. I really appreciate what you've added to this discussion, and I think we will all be better people going forward if we can keep your wisdom and insight close to our minds and our hearts.
hurley842002
11-05-2014, 10:49
Thanks for the well thought out, thoroughly explained response to my question. I really appreciate what you've added to this discussion, and I think we will all be better people going forward if we can keep your wisdom and insight close to our minds and our hearts.
You question why many of us are bitching about the election, yet you have one of the most disgruntled and hateful attitudes towards people here. Seriously, what IS your problem?
centrarchidae
11-05-2014, 10:51
In my heart, I'm a libertarian. I favor MJ legalization, treating the Fourth Amendment as though it were dictated from a burning bush, TABOR and limited government in general, strangling the EPA, removing government from healthcare and education, etc.
I register as a Republican for the same reason that cruise ships register in Panama: a flag of convenience. Declaring a party affiliation allows you to participate in that party's closed caucuses and primaries. That means getting a voice in who that party's candidates are, and the platform that those candidates are expected to support. And from my precinct, there were a whopping THREE LOUSY PEOPLE in attendance! THREE!
Something different might have happened had every libertarian who voted Big-L showed up to their major-party caucus to argue (and vote!) in favor of small-government candidates and small-government principles. There are so few people who show up and participate that each individual voice and each individual vote carries a lot farther than it does in the primaries and the general elections.
Picture it: a bunch of RINOS sputtering on fudd-guns-colorado.com about how the Republican Party keeps putting up those dangerous small-government candidates because those damn libertarian people hijacked the party machinery, when the RINOs got outnumbered and out-shouted at the caucus.
The two-party system isn't going anywhere in my lifetime. That's the terrain we're stuck with. We can either fight on the ground that we have, or we can stamp our feet, yell that it's not fair, and take our bats and balls and go home. You don't win any games by going home in the second inning.
tim-adams
11-05-2014, 11:00
This statement assumes that the libertarian you're talking with holds the same views you do, and to the same level of belief.
That's simply not the case.
no politician I have seen lately has even 75-80% of what I want... but I settle for the basics.. fiscal conservancy, less government, stay out of people's lives.
perhaps a bit of integrity..
PugnacAutMortem
11-05-2014, 11:04
You question why many of us are bitching about the election, yet you have one of the most disgruntled and hateful attitudes towards people here. Seriously, what IS your problem?
Jim gave a smart ass response to my question, so I responded in kind. So I can't respond in kind when someone is a smartass?
Jim gave a smart ass response to my question, so I responded in kind. So I can't respond in kind when someone is a smartass?
No [rules]
In my heart, I'm a libertarian. I favor MJ legalization, treating the Fourth Amendment as though it were dictated from a burning bush, TABOR and limited government in general, strangling the EPA, removing government from healthcare and education, etc.
I register as a Republican for the same reason that cruise ships register in Panama: a flag of convenience. Declaring a party affiliation allows you to participate in that party's closed caucuses and primaries. That means getting a voice in who that party's candidates are, and the platform that those candidates are expected to support. And from my precinct, there were a whopping THREE LOUSY PEOPLE in attendance! THREE!
Something different might have happened had every libertarian who voted Big-L showed up to their major-party caucus to argue (and vote!) in favor of small-government candidates and small-government principles. There are so few people who show up and participate that each individual voice and each individual vote carries a lot farther than it does in the primaries and the general elections.
Picture it: a bunch of RINOS sputtering on fudd-guns-colorado.com about how the Republican Party keeps putting up those dangerous small-government candidates because those damn libertarian people hijacked the party machinery, when the RINOs got outnumbered and out-shouted at the caucus.
The two-party system isn't going anywhere in my lifetime. That's the terrain we're stuck with. We can either fight on the ground that we have, or we can stamp our feet, yell that it's not fair, and take our bats and balls and go home. You don't win any games by going home in the second inning.
http://media.giphy.com/media/ijoJB1vGhLdde/giphy.gif
Bailey Guns
11-05-2014, 21:35
I've avoided this thread for lots of reasons. I'll just say this... Read the party platform. That should answer any question as to why most people aren't libertarian. Most people don't live in that sort of fantasy world.
I've avoided this thread for lots of reasons. I'll just say this... Read the party platform. That should answer any question as to why most people aren't libertarian. Most people don't live in that sort of fantasy world.
Touche! Some of their principles are great, and I support them, but others are just way too far off in la la land.
While I align with a lot of Libertarian ideals, I will never vote for a libertarian candidate UNTIL they can garner at least 20% of the vote. Otherwise, it's basically the same as not voting.
Bailey Guns
11-05-2014, 21:58
The ideals in the libertarian party platform aren't bad in and of themselves. They're just not workable or realistic. I love all of the talk of taking responsibility for one's actions but come on...take a look around. How do you think that's working out in our society?
The ideals in the libertarian party platform aren't bad in and of themselves. They're just not workable or realistic. I love all of the talk of taking responsibility for one's actions but come on...take a look around. How do you think that's working out in our society?
I like the part about them wanting to do away with income tax and getting rid of the IRS... I want a solid platinum, full-auto AK-47, for free... I just don't think it's in the cards.
I like the part about them wanting to do away with income tax and getting rid of the IRS... I want a solid platinum, full-auto AK-47, for free... I just don't think it's in the cards.
The last time I did the math(been a few years) we could completely eliminate the income tax, and have a balanced budget...... As long as you're comfortable with the size of the federal government in 1990.
Its not out of the realm, it would just require the ideas of what a federal government should look like, to change....
With the way things are going with society, I say we just keep voting republican and hope for a miracle.
Great-Kazoo
11-06-2014, 00:03
The last time I did the math(been a few years) we could completely eliminate the income tax, and have a balanced budget...... As long as you're comfortable with the size of the federal government in 1990.
Its not out of the realm, it would just require the ideas of what a federal government should look like, to change....
With the way things are going with society, I say we just keep voting republican and hope for a miracle.
A challenger has risen
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTzQOgK2P165YEQSYLFXRQjVX7oIXDyx dWD9Ly19LXiqCGV1IouBw
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTdj6RvhLLbQYFlyxJLaftfWtfdfV2R-pkPAPlDxtBbacakUfo7
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRq14QBR3ueOydSXLEP3e0PHe3zr7CuR KVxfKC3fMXAUZhW5aQSHg
no politician I have seen lately has even 75-80% of what I want... but I settle for the basics.. fiscal conservancy, less government, stay out of people's lives.
perhaps a bit of integrity..
This has nothing to do whatsoever with agreement with politicians.
I said "you" with the intention of making it understood that the reason you get so many libertarians telling you to go fuck yourself is the result of a fundamental misunderstanding of why someone who's libertarian chooses to vote that way.
Many Republicans, including the most vocal anti-libertarian ones who post on this forum, seem to labor under the delusion that political fear mongering and appeals to political partisan victory are things likely to motivate libertarians.
They quite frankly, aren't, and I find it remarkable that, after years of using those tactics here, the libertarian haters haven't clued in to the fact that if you want to get the vote of someone who's libertarian, you can't motivate them with the same psychological impulses that motivate the average Republican*.
While there may be significant crossover in the beliefs of conservatives and libertarians, the underlying mindset motivating why those beliefs are held and how their expressed are completely different, and some would argue, ultimately incompatible.
*The other likely option is that the libertarian haters here aren't actually interested in a discussion likely to convince a libertarian to vote for their side so much as they are just looking for a convenient target to lash out at because that's way easier than actually examining and meaningfully addressing the epic amounts of stupidity that appears to be endemic to the Colorado GOP.
Bailey Guns
11-06-2014, 07:23
It's also possible, maybe even likely when considering the (lack of?) support libertarians get election after election, that the libertarians are the delusional types. That's also supported by some of their pie-in-the-sky platform planks.
Thank you for proving my point.
Bailey Guns
11-06-2014, 08:19
Yeah...that's it. Exactly. You're absolutely right. So there's no need for you and I to continue. Pick your fight with someone else.
PugnacAutMortem
11-06-2014, 10:20
My question is why in God's name would libertarians want to support republican candidates when a large sector of their supporters do nothing but name call and insult libertarians for being "stupid", "lazy", "utopian" and "delusional"?
Feelers just got hurt. IBTL
68Charger
11-06-2014, 10:43
My question is why in God's name would libertarians want to support republican candidates when a large sector of their supporters do nothing but name call and insult libertarians for being "stupid", "lazy", "utopian" and "delusional"?
Because they're against the other party that wants to take away more of their rights?
loaded question, you're not going to accept any answer- but I'm going with the lesser of 2 evils argument.
Yeah...that's it. Exactly. You're absolutely right. So there's no need for you and I to continue. Pick your fight with someone else.
I'm sorry, Bailey. I didn't mean to huwt youw feewings.
:-(
Feelers just got hurt. IBTL
It's not so much an issue of feelings as one of basic human nature.
Why would libertarians ally with republicans when republicans offer them no incentive other than "we're not as bad as the other guy!"
When it comes to libertarians, the republican party is all stick, no carrot.
I mean, election after election, republicans bend over backwards to cater to social conservatives, a group who's political power has been waning for over a decade.
Then they lose the election, and point the finger at libertarian voters who have exactly zero positive reasons to change their vote, and who are, so far as I can tell, the only constituency that republicans think they can win over by constantly and publicly bad mouthing.
Because they're against the other party that wants to take away more of their rights?
loaded question, you're not going to accept any answer- but I'm going with the lesser of 2 evils argument.
Other than firearms... are they? The stuff the Republicans have wanted to take away is kind of a big deal too and just the mention is what makes it so easy for the common citizen to pull the lever for the Democrat candidate. It's always impressive how a D or a R supporter doesn't see their own party affiliation as being an equal part of the problem. Each election that goes by I'm less inclined to vote FOR 2A rights and more inclined to vote for the right man for the job, regardless of who that is or what party he affiliates with. It just so happens that the most sane and sincere people don't have a D or R next to their name anymore. That's more a problem of the D & the R than the independents.
Bailey Guns
11-06-2014, 11:22
I'm sorry, Bailey. I didn't mean to huwt youw feewings.
If you were someone whose opinion I valued and whom I respected, you might be capable of hurting my feelings. You're neither of those so feel free to continue being yourself. That's more insulting than anything I could possibly say.
Bailey Guns
11-06-2014, 11:24
My question is why in God's name would libertarians want to support republican candidates when a large sector of their supporters do nothing but name call and insult libertarians for being "stupid", "lazy", "utopian" and "delusional"?
The only people that have done any name-calling in this thread are supporting the L side of the argument.
If you were someone whose opinion I valued and whom I respected, you might be capable of hurting my feelings. You're neither of those so feel free to continue being yourself. That's more insulting than anything I could possibly say.
The finger-wagging school marm act doesn't suit you.
The bottom line is this (two party system that gets rewarded for bad behavior so long as it's not worse than their competitor) is yet another reason why our once-great nation is doomed since we can't escape from the very oversight that's sinking it no matter how much we wish we could. Some of us are at least making an effort to enact change and while it may only be 1% think of how many of our society actually make us the world power and the free nation that it is. I think you'll find that 1% of any segment can be capable of great things. But if that 1% isn't willing to make some sacrifice it's just business as usual as we edge towards the cliff. I generally rest well at night knowing that I voted for the right person for the job. This is the one election where I held my nose in an attempt to slow the march towards the cliff and now not only did the bigger scum bag win anyway but I didn't use my vote to vote for the best person for the job of those available to me and that's something I have to live with; compromising my own ideals.
PugnacAutMortem
11-06-2014, 13:16
The only people that have done any name-calling in this thread are supporting the L side of the argument.
Actually if you just scroll up to post #105 you will find that you were in fact the one that called libertarians delusional.
Bailey Guns
11-06-2014, 13:26
Actually, if you'll scroll up to post #105 I was saying it was a possible scenario that libertarians were delusional in response to another poster saying republicans were delusional.
PugnacAutMortem
11-06-2014, 13:44
Actually, if you'll scroll up to post #105 I was saying it was a possible scenario that libertarians were delusional in response to another poster saying republicans were delusional.
...
Soooooo...because you said it was a possible scenario it ceases to be name calling? Is that what you are trying to say?
Bailey Guns
11-06-2014, 13:56
Oh, FFS. I said it was possible the libertarians might be the delusional types. Happy? You really wanna pick out that one statement out of all the others to prove your point? Knock yourself out.
One big authoritarian thing I've noticed is how both of the big parties don't consider voting to be a right or an honor, they only see it as a way to game the system to get what they want. That is the epitome of authoritarian way of thinking. As a person who likes freedom I don't see an authoritarian party system losing votes because a small number of people vote for good candidates to be a bad thing.
One big authoritarian thing I've noticed is how both of the big parties don't consider voting to be a right or an honor, they only see it as a way to game the system to get what they want. That is the epitome of authoritarian way of thinking. As a person who likes freedom I don't see an authoritarian party system losing votes because a small number of people vote for good candidates to be a bad thing.
I don't see the two things as being exclusive of one another. Having the honor and right to vote does not exclude that people are doing so only to get what they want. I believe most if not everyone who casts a vote is doing so to get something that they want. If we never got anything we wanted from the voting process (a disincentive) eventually, intelligent people would stop voting.
Gaming the system, which could alternately be described as using strategy (good or bad) to get elected is sort of like using scientific principles to improve your advertising campaign.
I have no dog in this argument Libertarian vs Republican vs Democrat vs Green vs MLP party. I vote for candidates who will do what I want them to do (like that ever happens). Right now, I want the party most likely to not destroy my country, state, and community quickly, to control the government. I don't for a minute believe that any candidate actually believes or supports all of the things on their party's platform. I don't like election campaigns but I am happy to have a say about who gets to represent me.
If you aren't in it to win it, you won't.
Or you can whine, moan, have a chip on your shoulder, and act like you "teach anybody a lesson" which has been real successful in the past.... forever, for you. Yeah, getting 1% of the vote makes people respect you, clearly. Your candidates will never be electable and your arguments will never change. Basically, you have the same logic as progressives. But hey, at least you believe in something.
The math is very simple.
Republicans have lost in Colorado, and in many cases the number of votes cast for libertarian candidates has been larger than the vote spread between the loser Republican and the winner Democrat.
Clearly there is an impasse here. Republicans want to win.
Libertarians want to vote for candidates who represent their views.
It strikes me as patently obvious that many Republican candidates could easily pick up a significant number of libertarian-minded voters by reaching out to them directly, interacting with libertarian groups and leaders, and, I know this is probably expecting too much, but even adopting some of their stances on policy issues.
This isn't exactly rocket science. Political candidates catering to the interests of a particular constituency in order to earn their votes is, so far as I can tell, a pretty time-honored tradition in the United States. That some Republicans need to be told this doesn't strike me as something likely to engender confidence in the GOP.
It strikes me as patently obvious that many Republican candidates could easily pick up a significant number of libertarian-minded voters by reaching out to them directly, interacting with libertarian groups and leaders, and, I know this is probably expecting too much, but even adopting some of their stances on policy issues.
This isn't exactly rocket science. Political candidates catering to the interests of a particular constituency in order to earn their votes is, so far as I can tell, a pretty time-honored tradition in the United States. That some Republicans need to be told this doesn't strike me as something likely to engender confidence in the GOP.
lol, too true.
The last time I did the math(been a few years) we could completely eliminate the income tax, and have a balanced budget...... As long as you're comfortable with the size of the federal government in 1990.
I honestly don't believe such a thing is really possible... Gipper did put it best: "The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program." - Ronald Reagan.
And to all these folks who continue voting for Libertarian candidates thinking it will somehow one day change... How's that been working out for you? Again, Gary Johnson .9% of the vote, Hess 1.8% of the vote. Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over expecting different results? When one way doesn't work, it's probably time to step back, reassess your tactics, come up with a new plan and give that a shot. I think throwing a candidate on the ballot, and then saying "You republicans aren't winning us over by insulting us," isn't working. I don't think you'd ever allow the republicans to win you over. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Tough, both sides of already thrown rocks. The Libertarians are claiming that the republicans are calling them lazy and delusional. Are you guys so free from fault? I think it was the libertarians that continue to spout "The lesser of 2 evils is still evil." So when someone calls someone else evil, getting called lazy and delusional in return somehow makes them the ones who are at fault? I hear criticism on both sides. But one thing I don't hear from the libertarians (don't get me wrong, who I support) is any attempt to try new tactics or even try to work with the republican party to make things better.
And what will the libertarians accomplish once they do finally get someone elected? You think the Rs and the Ds are just going to welcome them into the fold with open arms and listen to what they have to say? I doubt we'll see a Libertarian president or governor anytime in my lifetime, but I don't doubt they'll make it into congress... at which point they'll be 1 vs 99 who don't see things the same way in the senate, and 1 vs 434 in the house. What exactly will they accomplish? They'll be that one voice of dissent, silenced by the rest.
HoneyBadger
11-07-2014, 09:15
And what will the libertarians accomplish once they do finally get someone elected? You think the Rs and the Ds are just going to welcome them into the fold with open arms and listen to what they have to say? I doubt we'll see a Libertarian president or governor anytime in my lifetime, but I don't doubt they'll make it into congress... at which point they'll be 1 vs 99 who don't see things the same way in the senate, and 1 vs 434 in the house. What exactly will they accomplish? They'll be that one voice of dissent, silenced by the rest.
You make some pretty bold assumptions and are jumping to impossible-to-make conclusions here. You really think that Libertarians just don't agree with anyone about anything? lol
Zundfolge
11-07-2014, 09:48
The last time I did the math(been a few years) we could completely eliminate the income tax, and have a balanced budget...... As long as you're comfortable with the size of the federal government in 1990.
So how many taxes and regs could we eliminate to get the Federal Government the size it was in 1890 ... or better yet 1790? :D
Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over expecting different results?
Since you're a card carrying member of the GOP you should be able to answer this yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjGsLmAXTYs
I honestly don't believe such a thing is really possible... Gipper did put it best: "The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program." - Ronald Reagan.
And to all these folks who continue voting for Libertarian candidates thinking it will somehow one day change... How's that been working out for you? Again, Gary Johnson .9% of the vote, Hess 1.8% of the vote. Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over expecting different results? When one way doesn't work, it's probably time to step back, reassess your tactics, come up with a new plan and give that a shot. I think throwing a candidate on the ballot, and then saying "You republicans aren't winning us over by insulting us," isn't working. I don't think you'd ever allow the republicans to win you over. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Tough, both sides of already thrown rocks. The Libertarians are claiming that the republicans are calling them lazy and delusional. Are you guys so free from fault? I think it was the libertarians that continue to spout "The lesser of 2 evils is still evil." So when someone calls someone else evil, getting called lazy and delusional in return somehow makes them the ones who are at fault? I hear criticism on both sides. But one thing I don't hear from the libertarians (don't get me wrong, who I support) is any attempt to try new tactics or even try to work with the republican party to make things better.
And what will the libertarians accomplish once they do finally get someone elected? You think the Rs and the Ds are just going to welcome them into the fold with open arms and listen to what they have to say? I doubt we'll see a Libertarian president or governor anytime in my lifetime, but I don't doubt they'll make it into congress... at which point they'll be 1 vs 99 who don't see things the same way in the senate, and 1 vs 434 in the house. What exactly will they accomplish? They'll be that one voice of dissent, silenced by the rest.
The things you say, to me and many others, are just horrible realizations of how much the current authoritarian parties are, and how much they need to go if this is really their viewpoint. This is disgusting.
buffalobo
11-07-2014, 12:13
When was the last time a Republican candidate showed up at Libertarian function to recruit support?
Appears to me that Republican's have no interest in working with Libertarians in mutually beneficial manner. They appear to want Libertarians to fall in line supporting them and then complain that Libertarians who do not fall in line are the reason Republican's lose elections.
PugnacAutMortem
11-07-2014, 17:17
I think people mistake people's support of libertarians with the dogma that republican and democrat supporters have. The cool thing about libertarians is that I am as likely to vote for a libertarian candidate as I would be to vote for a republican or a democrat. I haven't seen a republican or a democrat that I would like to vote for in awhile, but I can tell you that if Rand Paul or Ted Cruz run in 2016 you can defintiely count my vote in the R column for the Presidential race. And yes, I would vote for them over the libertarian candidate (which sounds like it's going to be Gary Johnson again).
That's the interesting thing though...it would be like looking for a needle in a haystack to try and find a republican that would vote for a democrat or a libertarian and equally as difficult to find a democrat that would vote for a republican or a libertarian.
I can't speak for all my libertarian brothers and sisters (?) on here...but I don't hate republicans or democrats in any way, shape or form. Most of my family are republicans and most of my friends are democrats with the exception of a couple of libertarians sprinkled in there. But it seems pretty darn clear that there are people on here who hate libertarians, and just because of the type of forum this is, it's coming exclusively from republicans. Which brings me back to my earlier point, if libertarians make you so angry...why not try and catch flies with honey instead of the vinegar you've been throwing our way?
What is this "honey" you speak of?
Bailey Guns
11-07-2014, 17:44
I seriously doubt anyone here hates libertarians. The "dissenters" don't understand/agree with the logic of voting for libertarians or agree with all the libertarian ideals...it's not a matter of hating them. At least that's how I feel.
Hell...I don't even hate democrats. I do hate their methods, ideals and policies most of the time, though.
I mean, granted, L and R viewpoints are not terribly far off
Woah, what? Are you feeling alright? This is the biggest lie I've ever heard. I don't believe you know you're being dishonest here even. Authoritarian and Libertarian are on complete opposite ends of the spectrum.
Bailey Guns
11-07-2014, 18:09
Guess you didn't see the (Heavy sarcasm) disclaimer at the end of the paragraph... Blinded by outrage?
Zundfolge
11-07-2014, 18:10
Woah, what? Are you feeling alright? This is the biggest lie I've ever heard. I don't believe you know you're being dishonest here even. Authoritarian and Libertarian are on complete opposite ends of the spectrum.
THIS is why conservatives and Republicans don't want to have anything to do with you Libertarians ... y'all are just disconnected from reality.
You would rather live in a world where Progressives control everything just so you can claim "At least we didn't join up with them goddamn Republicans!"
The simple fact is that Libertarian and Conservative Republican viewpoints ARE very close, there's only a handful of issues we differ on and frankly we can have honest debate about those (can't have honest debate on these issues with Democrats). And despite the fact that the Establishment GOP types (aka Rockefeller Republicans, aka RINOs) have way too much power in the party it doesn't mean the entire party is nothing more than "conservative progressives" nor that we couldn't (especially with the help of you L's) push the party back where the rank and file are (constitutional conservationism).
We're stuck with a two party system for now ... if you want to dismantle that and replace it with the chaos of a multi party system where we end up being ruled by coalitions of parties that only represent 20% of the people then fine, but for now the only way to implement your ideology is through this two party system. That's not an endorsement of the system that's simply an acknowledgement of objective reality (which as a side note I find it funny how libertarians, many of which are Randian Objectivists have such a hard time with objective reality and instead rely on magical thinking).
But instead y'all tilt at windmills (while high on weed and not wearing a helmet).
Bailey Guns
11-07-2014, 18:14
Bingo.
Right, the Republicans are ALMOST like the guys who want freedom and liberty. I get it.
Right, the Republicans are ALMOST like the guys who want freedom and liberty. I get it.
This is why I stated what I did earlier. Most of you libertarians on here want absolutely nothing to do with the Republican party. We suggest trying to help fix the party, you throw insults and names around. We say we should be working together to defeat progressivism, you come back with "to hell with those authoritarians." Who is slinging mud here? Conservatism and libertarianism is very close, I don't know why some of you think they're on opposite sides. If conservatism is not for freedom and liberty then I guess a large portion of us on here are just complete liars. Gimme a break.
This is why I stated what I did earlier. Most of you libertarians on here want absolutely nothing to do with the Republican party. We suggest trying to help fix the party, you throw insults and names around. We say we should be working together to defeat progressivism, you come back with "to hell with those authoritarians." Who is slinging mud here? Conservatism and libertarianism is very close, I don't know why some of you think they're on opposite sides. If conservatism is not for freedom and liberty then I guess a large portion of us on here are just complete liars. Gimme a break.
Not to hell with you. I want you to be able to be free like everyone else. I want you to have the liberty to make all choices in your life. I just know your chosen masters do not allow that.
This is why I stated what I did earlier. Most of you libertarians on here want absolutely nothing to do with the Republican party. We suggest trying to help fix the party, you throw insults and names around. We say we should be working together to defeat progressivism, you come back with "to hell with those authoritarians." Who is slinging mud here? Conservatism and libertarianism is very close, I don't know why some of you think they're on opposite sides. If conservatism is not for freedom and liberty then I guess a large portion of us on here are just complete liars. Gimme a break.
Libertarians believe in freedom for the people to live their lives & make their own decision. Conservatives believe you should be free to make your own decisions so long as they're the same ones they would make. That's a pretty drastic difference on the most important aspect of both parties. They may agree on a few issues but they're all secondary to that one despite what the latest campaign talking points might have you believe. If the discussion was on freedom & liberties both the (R) & (D) would lose. That's why both parties are trying to distract with all this other BS.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.