Serious Question...how can you possibly NOT be a libertarian?

[MED]

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.

[MarkCO]

^ Great Post.

[Ronin13]

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.

[earplug]

"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.

[Artema]

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.

[Goodburbon]

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

[def90]

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]

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.

[bryjcom]

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]

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.