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

[ghettodub]

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!



Facebook event link here: https://www.facebook.com/events/278291349026541/

[Justin]

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.

[Jer]

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?

[Ronin13]

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]

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)

[Ronin13]

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.

[cstone]

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]

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]

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...

[tim-adams]

I normally see my republican vote against the Stupid progressive BS that wants to make America just like Europe