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

[bryjcom]

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......

[Artema]

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]

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]

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."

[Irving]

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."

Ummm what? People seriously say that? What does that even mean?

[Artema]

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]

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]

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]

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).

[Artema]

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.