Can you give one reason why you would NOT vote for a Libertarian?

Below is a link to Libertarian issues. Click for details.​

Issues | Libertarian Party

libertarian-party.png

Because I vote for candidates not parties?

oh, and the LP supports the slaughter of the unborn...

hell, let me quote myself:

jbeukema said:
This, too, has come up. It is true that many of my views are in agreement with the Libertarian platform. However, it is the litmus test issues that seperate us.

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.



If I take my child and I do not want to continue to provide for this child and surrender my personal life, and I kill my child- am I not a murderer? If I kill my child an hour or a year after her birth? Why not half-an-hour? or just before my child sees the light of the outside world? Why is it that if I assault s pregnant woman, and her child dies, I am a murderer- yet if she does the job herself, it is her right? Do not our children have rights? Are they not men and women (boys and girls?) with the same basic human rights as any other? What if it is the day before she is due? or week? Two days before or an hour before that? What changed the week or the month before that? For long before the last two months her child's heart beats. The month before, during the sonogram, she had the hiccups.... and two months before, when she finally asked what color to paint the room- after debating so long whether to ask, she would have sworn she were waving... Is it not murder if i then kill this child? Two weeks ago, she began to ponder the world around her- building 250,000 new neurons every minute as she got ready for the outside world... Last week, she started to move around- she still has trouble with the vulcan hand sign, though. It'll be a while...Three weeks from now I would be a murder; what about today? tomorrow? two days from then? another 48 hours? the day after that? Why not yesterday?

for those keeping tack, we're at 9 weeks...


suffice to say I am- dare i say it- a 'right-to-lifer'. Our founding fathers realized that life is the first thing we must defend. Depriving a man of his life is the single greatest violation of rights possible. If we fail to protect to the lives of our children, how can we be expected to protect any other of a man's right?


(I've been known to go minute-by-minute until a month and second-by-second until conception before, but that'd be a a LOT of repetitive text, and I think you get the idea)




Yet they refuse to enforce the right of a child to live... they condone murder of our most defenseless while daring to claim to defend life.




Anyone with common sense can reason that in order for the Federal government to perform its duties, it must have funding. Taxation is the only viable means of achieving this. The only other means with any chance of success if the government takeover of business- the results of which have been seen around the world.




define which impediments are unacceptable. After the Opium Wars, China was forced to allow imports of cheap goods from the British. This detroyed their economy and the livelihoods of their people. We are stupid if we allow ourselves to do the same thing... with the Chinese, to boot...

as a Nationalist, I recognize the need to secure our interests.




I was against going in. We are their, however. If we leave, we create a power vacuum as we have in Central and South America in the past. Due to our meddling, the shit has hit the fan. Our only option is to take responsibility and stay aide the Iraqis until they are able to take the reins. Reality, not politics, must define determine the timeline.



This is the title of their section on Immigration. It is blatant catering. Immigration and security policies should reflect our sovereignty and be determined by our best interests.




Then the market must adapt and dynamically evolve with the changing American market.







... what?@! What about Temporary Employment Visas (or Temporary Work Permits)?



H-2B classification applies to temporary or seasonal nonagricultural workers. This classification requires a temporary labor certification issued by the Secretary of Labor (66,000);

(MORE)




Legally, it's a civil offense. In reality, it is at best trespassing and at worst a blatant sign that one has no intentions of obeying our laws.



Yes.. by making rape legal, I can drastically reduce the arrests for rape, as well. One not call surrender victory



ICE: How long have you live here illegally?
Pablo: I just got here, esse
ICE: You just said you've worked here for two years
Pablo: No, Senor
ICE: Do you want to stay hee?
Pablo: Yes, Senor
ICE: You've been here at least the mandatory two years?
Pablo: yes, Senor.
ICE: How long?
Pablo: I just get here, Senor...

Am I getting the problem across?

The fatal flaw of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act was not that it offered legal status to workers already here but that it made no provision for future workers to enter legally.

The fatal flaw with the pardon of Weinberger is that it fails to protect future arms dealers, traitors, international criminals, and crooks...

the problem with the pardon on Nixon is that- well, you get the idea...



everything else I like, though...


sources
Libertarian Party | Smaller Government | Lower Taxes | More Freedom
Fetal development: What happens during the first trimester? - MayoClinic.com
Temporary Workers

:eusa_whistle:
 
What's in it for me??

Something more substantive than the latest manure than you yank out of your ass when you make false assertions about me if you win.

they don't? So what does that m,ake your calls for a federated system of Democracies with a free market? :lol:

Why do you fuck up every single quote? Do you not know how to use BB code? :eusa_eh:

I haven't referred to a federated system of democracies with free markets; I specifically referred to communism, and therefore, the abolition of markets. Try to pay attention. However, it's still a reality that the free market is not existent in the capitalist economy.

Denial is spreading ... like a disease.

I see I was right about the glaucoma...damn.
 
What's in it for me??

Something more substantive than the latest manure than you yank out of your ass when you make false assertions about me if you win.
"Nothing" takes fewer keystrokes.

But to this point, direct and forthright communication doesn't seem to be your strong suit, so a smoke-blowing answer was pretty much expected.
 
Last edited:
[
I haven't referred to a federated system of democracies with free markets; I specifically referred to communism, and therefore, the abolition of markets.

you called for a confederation (with a federated power structure) of independent Democratic communes (democracies)

Try to pay attention. However, it's still a reality that the free market is not existent in the capitalist economy.
.

That's not what you said before. Now you're trying to clean it up and you're changing your assertion when challenged :lol:
 
[
I haven't referred to a federated system of democracies with free markets; I specifically referred to communism, and therefore, the abolition of markets.

you called for a confederation (with a federated power structure) of independent Democratic communes (democracies)

Try to pay attention. However, it's still a reality that the free market is not existent in the capitalist economy.
.

That's not what you said before. Now you're trying to clean it up and you're changing your assertion when challenged :lol:

No, Agna has been very consistently against the free market.
 
This is not correct.

The analysis of the "Libertarian" (read: propertarian) being a conservative looking for an exotic label has been suggested to me before, and it's certainly true that they seek to emphasize their rightist tendencies far more than their leftist ones. If we really wanted to be attacking, we could refer to Tilman (2001, Ideology and Utopia in the Social Philosophy of the Libertarian Economists, London: Greenwood Press), which was recommended to me by the same person who spoke of the "propertarian as conservative with an exotic label" concept. For a quick summary of that, have a look at Toruño's (2002, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 36 Issue 1, pp 211-213) book review:

The Libertarians, Tilman argues, are driven by a vision of society that is so unrealistic that it can only be defined as utopian, while at the same time providing such elaborate rationalizations for the distribution of material privilege that one has no choice but to define them as ideological. What's more, and contrary to their professed commitment to freedom and democracy, the Libertarians are actually elitists who are unsympathetic to majority rule, hostile to political movements that push for the expansion of civil rights, and predisposed to support right-wing dictatorships...Perhaps his most damaging criticism is that Hayek's and Friedman's "road-to-serfdom" thesis is imprecise, tautological, and inaccurate. Both of them argue that expanding government beyond the minimal, night watchman, functions, would have the effect of eroding economic freedom and, consequently, all the other freedoms they believe depend upon it. But the problem with this argument is that they never specify the thesis by making it amenable to empirical testing. At what point does government expansion begin to erode freedom?...The most delicious part of this book is when Tillman turns the tables on the Libertarians by exploring the role which self-interest has served in their own lives. After all, since Libertarians insist that behavior must be explained in terms of self-interest, the same should apply to them. Yet, when explaining their own motives they often claim that they're driven by a sense of civic duty, desire to influence public policy, or aesthetic pleasure, suggesting that self-interest applies to everyone but the Libertarians. But a more telling inference can be made by noting that the lucrative fellowships, grants, and endowed chairs in free market economics are overwhelmingly funded by wealthy individuals, conservative foundations, and rightwing corporations.

I don't necessarily hold that this analysis is true of all rank-and-file propertarians, of course, and neither does he. A significant amount of the drones are simply economically ignorant individuals confused by Henry Hazlitt and who feel the need to scream about government being "socialism."
 
[
I haven't referred to a federated system of democracies with free markets; I specifically referred to communism, and therefore, the abolition of markets.

you called for a confederation (with a federated power structure) of independent Democratic communes (democracies)

Try to pay attention. However, it's still a reality that the free market is not existent in the capitalist economy.
.

That's not what you said before. Now you're trying to clean it up and you're changing your assertion when challenged :lol:

No, Agna has been very consistently against the free market.

Agna hates the fact that his lack of skills won't get him anything more than ditch digger as a career, so he wishes everyone else to pay for him to have more toys with which to annoy the rest of us.
 
Since I'm a Libertarian, I obviously would. But I could see how some people would find us to be close to anarchism. We also tend to come on very strong, and we're pretty upfront about touchy issues, like marijuana legalization. We tend to not try and bullshit everybody, we just come out and say it. I guess that's too much for some people.
 
This is not correct.

The analysis of the "Libertarian" (read: propertarian) being a conservative looking for an exotic label has been suggested to me before, and it's certainly true that they seek to emphasize their rightist tendencies far more than their leftist ones. If we really wanted to be attacking, we could refer to Tilman (2001, Ideology and Utopia in the Social Philosophy of the Libertarian Economists, London: Greenwood Press), which was recommended to me by the same person who spoke of the "propertarian as conservative with an exotic label" concept. For a quick summary of that, have a look at Toruño's (2002, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 36 Issue 1, pp 211-213) book review:

The Libertarians, Tilman argues, are driven by a vision of society that is so unrealistic that it can only be defined as utopian, while at the same time providing such elaborate rationalizations for the distribution of material privilege that one has no choice but to define them as ideological. What's more, and contrary to their professed commitment to freedom and democracy, the Libertarians are actually elitists who are unsympathetic to majority rule, hostile to political movements that push for the expansion of civil rights, and predisposed to support right-wing dictatorships...Perhaps his most damaging criticism is that Hayek's and Friedman's "road-to-serfdom" thesis is imprecise, tautological, and inaccurate. Both of them argue that expanding government beyond the minimal, night watchman, functions, would have the effect of eroding economic freedom and, consequently, all the other freedoms they believe depend upon it. But the problem with this argument is that they never specify the thesis by making it amenable to empirical testing. At what point does government expansion begin to erode freedom?...The most delicious part of this book is when Tillman turns the tables on the Libertarians by exploring the role which self-interest has served in their own lives. After all, since Libertarians insist that behavior must be explained in terms of self-interest, the same should apply to them. Yet, when explaining their own motives they often claim that they're driven by a sense of civic duty, desire to influence public policy, or aesthetic pleasure, suggesting that self-interest applies to everyone but the Libertarians. But a more telling inference can be made by noting that the lucrative fellowships, grants, and endowed chairs in free market economics are overwhelmingly funded by wealthy individuals, conservative foundations, and rightwing corporations.

I don't necessarily hold that this analysis is true of all rank-and-file propertarians, of course, and neither does he. A significant amount of the drones are simply economically ignorant individuals confused by Henry Hazlitt and who feel the need to scream about government being "socialism."

Damn that Henry Hazlitt and his Economics In One Lesson which I would recommend to anyone.
 
Since I'm a Libertarian, I obviously would. But I could see how some people would find us to be close to anarchism. We also tend to come on very strong, and we're pretty upfront about touchy issues, like marijuana legalization. We tend to not try and bullshit everybody, we just come out and say it. I guess that's too much for some people.

There are some Libertarians that would call for anarchism. Namely the anarcho-capitalists.
 
"Nothing" takes fewer keystrokes.

But to this point, direct and forthright communication doesn't seem to be your strong suit, so a smoke-blowing answer was pretty much expected.

Your bluster has been showing quite a few cracks as of late. The fact that you're too weaselly to show off your alleged skills and my own deficiency even after bragging of them speaks volumes. :eusa_whistle:

you called for a confederation (with a federated power structure) of independent Democratic communes (democracies)

That has no necessarily relation to markets.

That's not what you said before. Now you're trying to clean it up and you're changing your assertion when challenged :lol:

I've always maintained that the capitalist economy is characterized by mixed rather than free markets. The only possible means of implementing free markets would be in the socialist economy, and these markets would not be considered free in the laissez-faire meaning of the term.

as opposed to screaming that all government is authoritarian and capitalism is the devil? :eusa_eh:

It's not necessary to make morality comment; I only do so because anti-socialists insist on it. However, focusing on capitalism's mere inefficiency highlights a far more obvious reality.

Agna hates the fact that his lack of skills won't get him anything more than ditch digger as a career, so he wishes everyone else to pay for him to have more toys with which to annoy the rest of us.

Humor isn't your strong suit. My analysis of capitalism has revolved around its inclinations toward unemployment, underemployment, and underpayment. The concept of socialists merely being "jealous" and having no serious analytical skills is merely a low-brow inanity utilized by the economically ignorant.

Since I'm a Libertarian, I obviously would. But I could see how some people would find us to be close to anarchism.

So could I. They'd still be wrong, of course. Anarchism, as with broader libertarianism, requires anti-capitalism. However, the typical member of the Libertarian Party is unaware of that. For example, consider this video:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsrgf2mdEno&feature=related]YouTube - Anarchism and the Libertarian party[/ame]

When the LP official is asked about the Party's connection to anarchism of the vein of Murray Bookchin, he indicates a complete ignorance of the tenets of anarchism and of who Murray Bookchin is, as JB has done here. As is so sadly commonplace, he knows nothing of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kroptokin, Malatesta, or Goldman; he's merely familiar with a popular misconception of anarchism involving chaotic disorder and a "law of the jungle."
 
You stick with Bookchin, I'll stick with Rothbard. ;)

Well, if Brian Doherty's to be believed, the latter kicked the former out of his house. But this isn't an "either/or" concept. I advocate the expropriation and collectivization of the means of production, a state of affairs that will simply render capitalism and socialism incompatible.
 
Easy, I do not believe their concept of a Central Government is sound. Further we can NOT go back to isolationism, it does not work, never has and would see our destruction if we try to return to it. I do not believe that civil courts are the way to go for crimes either. Suing someone for a violent attack is ignorant, if they are not also being charged under a criminal code and facing jail time.
 
You stick with Bookchin, I'll stick with Rothbard. ;)

Well, if Brian Doherty's to be believed, the latter kicked the former out of his house. But this isn't an "either/or" concept. I advocate the expropriation and collectivization of the means of production, a state of affairs that will simply render capitalism and socialism incompatible.

And I advocate the free market.
 
Easy, I do not believe their concept of a Central Government is sound. Further we can NOT go back to isolationism, it does not work, never has and would see our destruction if we try to return to it. I do not believe that civil courts are the way to go for crimes either. Suing someone for a violent attack is ignorant, if they are not also being charged under a criminal code and facing jail time.

I don't know of any libertarians that support isolationism.
 
And I advocate the free market.

The free market can't exist in a capitalist economy. The realities of market and wealth concentration create forms of market power (namely, monopoly and oligopoly) that are anything but free. Ultimately, that's why capitalism has such an anti-libertarian element; it involves the creation of thoroughly authoritarian institutions.
 

Forum List

Back
Top