Which is the shorter distance?

[Si modo]

'Character is both developed and revealed by tests, and all of life is a test.' anon

Interesting I took this version (Nolan Chart Survey) of that test and ended liberal leaning towards statist. But I have to say the many qualifications in the questions was a problem. I would never have used those specific definitions as the choices. It may just be all ideologies are personal mixes as in many ways I am more conservative than most but today would never use that word to describe myself.

While your OP was reasonable I am not a fan of Libertarianism, it reminds me of a 'I got mine, F you' political philosophy. Every libertarian I know is a young person, usually upper middle to upper class, so it's easy to assume all you need is 'freedom.' I've written a lot about it and will link a few posts. Also see other tests, I am fascinated by the right left brain idea. Watching our grandchildren grow has been a nature/nurture lesson I missed with our own, being too busy with that thing called life and work.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/50564-libertarianism-in-a-nutshell-ii.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/189696-libertarian-flame.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/95300-serious-conspiracy-theorist-question-4.html


Why I Am Not a Libertarian
Why is libertarianism wrong?
http://robertlindsay.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/types_of_libertarian1.jpg

"You have the ability to use both creativity and reality to process the information you receive. This is a unique gift that allows you to both focus on rules and regulations but to also act with creativity. You are able to adjust to change, even though you might not like it, and you can become emotionally involved in your work if it interests you." Right Brain vs Left Brain Creativity Test at The Art Institute of Vancouver


Other tests:

OkCupid | The Politics Test
Left Right* Hemisphere Brain Processing
Search Search for
Morality Quiz/Test your Morals, Values & Ethics - Your Morals.Org


"Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them." Tony Judt in 'Ill Fares the Land'

A statist. Edited

So 1984.

 

[The Rabbi]

He is correct in that unless you address the money issue in a realistic fashion, you will forever remain only a fringe party.

"Realistic" is the keyword here. "Well, if we shrink government, there will be no incentive for anyone to bribe politicians!" is a fine utopian philosophy, but not a realistic solution, because it can't be accomplished with the current money rules.

That would be why I am a Democrat and push publicly funded campaigns. I go after the cause of the disease, not the symptoms. The only realistic chance of reforming the campaign finance system comes from the liberal side of the Democrats.

The ironic thing? My policies would help the libertarians become a viable party, while the libertarian policies prevent the libertarians from becoming a viable party. It's almost as if they want to remain powerless.

There is no "taking money out of politics." It is first off an abridgement of free speech. Second, it hands an unfair advantage to the incumbent, who gets free news coverage since he is the incumbent. Liberal Democrats pushing campaign finance reform are at least as poorly grounded as narco-liberterrorists in their unrealistic belief that money is corrupting in campaigns.
We have had over 30 years of campaign finance reform with increasingly stringent rules. The result has been campaigns are worse not better. Ronald Reagan got elected with about a dozen wealthy guys backing his campaign. He didnt need to go out and bundle about 50k small donations. It left him time to discuss issues with voters rather than being reduced to beggar or entertainer.

Now there ya go Rabbi -- agreeing with me -- a mere "Bolshevik anarchist"..

You really ought to ponder what the distance is between me and you.. Because if I believed the Republicans cared a twit about civil liberties, proper use of the military, fiscal sanity, cutting corporate subsidies OR any number of their other failings -- I wouldn't be stuck in such a loser congregation as the Libertarian Party..

Your words, not mine.

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't claim any party. I look at candidates and what they say they can do for this country...by way of preserving and enforcing the Constitution. I would have voted for Joe Lieberman but for the stupidity of the Democrats that nominated others.

I want smaller government, strongest military, least regulations necessary, term limits or a least make them skip a term now and then and win their seat back later. We need a mixture of government social programs and complete revamping of the US Tax Code to create a surplus of private sector jobs so the able-bodied on what we now call welfare can get a job. We should do away with the department of education (department of partisan propaganda) and leave education to private educators. We should engage our shipyards in the building of massive barges to float whatever we need wherever we need it. We should develop a mag-lev train for high speed ground travel.

The government should do as little as possible in this effort.

Those are all very noble goals. But -- you're in the position of a kid from the poor part of town with a very long list for Santa Claus. When there are only 2 parties, there is no incentive for either of them to perform to follow their platforms. Their philosophical backbone dissappears and it becomes a literal KinderGarten food fight over which party is currently the most screwed up.. The LEAST screwed up wins.. Talk about wasted votes..

I actually believe we should have a "policy wonk" party. One that goes in every 12 years or so and cleans up the lunchroom by paying attention to the broken stuff. Then the kiddies can have it back again..

 

[ladyliberal]

I've seen many polls and surveys of the party membership and they all are similiar to:

The Libertarian Party Stance - Lifestyle & Leisure - Tree.com

2004, the Pew Research Center published its findings about the Libertarian Demographic. The information was based on the research-related surveys the center generated. It was discovered that Libertarians are likely to:

•generate high incomes
•have college degrees
•identify themselves as secular
•originate from the west.
It is also interesting to note that 50 percent of Libertarians leaned toward the Republican philosophies, while 41 percent identified more with Democratic views.

...

I guess part of my motivation here is that EVERYONE needs choices. And besides the intra-party squabbles that Dems have (like the Clinton/Obama struggle) where can THEY go to get more focused results? On the civil liberties? -- no where. On military excursions? -- no where. On corporate/govt collusion? -- no where.

The kind of divisive and increasingly polarized politics we're seeing is (IMHO) because a LOT of that feuding would naturally resolved INTRA-party if there were more choices.

...

That's why I'm interested in the issues we have in common, rather than a few seemingly difficult issues. And I don't see a diff between our distance to Dem outreach or Rep outreach. Not that we NEED much of either. We could simply build on that large Middle of the Road demographic for the next decade.

I haven't seen very many polls on this subject, but those that I have seen have varied pretty widely. You cite a Pew poll from 2004 which found a 5:4::R: D split among libertarians. A Pew analysis from 2011 (Typology Group Profiles | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press), however, found a 7:1::R: D among libertarians (including leaners). And both studies were of a group with libertarian beliefs that makes up something like 10% of the population. That's a very different group than the Libertarian Party, which is of course much smaller.

I certainly agree that there are positions favored by many people, including some liberal Democrats, that are favored by the Libertarian Party but not by either major party. There is certainly room for cooperation (outreach) in this regard. But not in elections-- under our current system a liberal Democrat (or anyone else) voting strategically would have to support a major party rather than a minor one.

I think that the most important way to make third parties viable is to channel the growing popular discontentment with the major parties to change the election rules (beginning at the local level) to ones that don't tend towards a duopoly. My personal favorite is changing elections to incorporate instant-runoff voting (Instant-runoff voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

 

[flacaltenn]

I've seen many polls and surveys of the party membership and they all are similiar to:

The Libertarian Party Stance - Lifestyle & Leisure - Tree.com

2004, the Pew Research Center published its findings about the Libertarian Demographic. The information was based on the research-related surveys the center generated. It was discovered that Libertarians are likely to:

•generate high incomes
•have college degrees
•identify themselves as secular
•originate from the west.
It is also interesting to note that 50 percent of Libertarians leaned toward the Republican philosophies, while 41 percent identified more with Democratic views.

...

I guess part of my motivation here is that EVERYONE needs choices. And besides the intra-party squabbles that Dems have (like the Clinton/Obama struggle) where can THEY go to get more focused results? On the civil liberties? -- no where. On military excursions? -- no where. On corporate/govt collusion? -- no where.

The kind of divisive and increasingly polarized politics we're seeing is (IMHO) because a LOT of that feuding would naturally resolved INTRA-party if there were more choices.

...

That's why I'm interested in the issues we have in common, rather than a few seemingly difficult issues. And I don't see a diff between our distance to Dem outreach or Rep outreach. Not that we NEED much of either. We could simply build on that large Middle of the Road demographic for the next decade.

I haven't seen very many polls on this subject, but those that I have seen have varied pretty widely. You cite a Pew poll from 2004 which found a 5:4::R: D split among libertarians. A Pew analysis from 2011 (Typology Group Profiles | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press), however, found a 7:1::R: D among libertarians (including leaners). And both studies were of a group with libertarian beliefs that makes up something like 10% of the population. That's a very different group than the Libertarian Party, which is of course much smaller.

I certainly agree that there are positions favored by many people, including some liberal Democrats, that are favored by the Libertarian Party but not by either major party. There is certainly room for cooperation (outreach) in this regard. But not in elections-- under our current system a liberal Democrat (or anyone else) voting strategically would have to support a major party rather than a minor one.

I think that the most important way to make third parties viable is to channel the growing popular discontentment with the major parties to change the election rules (beginning at the local level) to ones that don't tend towards a duopoly. My personal favorite is changing elections to incorporate instant-runoff voting (Instant-runoff voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

I'm trying to respond without sounding arrogant -- but whattheheck.. The folks who migrate to Lib Party membership are NOT political rookies. They've invested quite a bit in their own political compasses. That's why I trust membership polls, not general pop. polls.

I doubt that more 20% of voters even KNOW about a 3rd party on the ballot in all 50 states. And Pew had us at 10% of voters, but the number of folks identifying with libertarian VIEWS is estimated to be between 20% and 30% of all voters.

What I'd like to see is a poll comparing all 3 parties with a list of issues asking which party best represents your views on (say Civil Liberties or Education Choice) and THEN extract how many "defectors" come from either side of the R/D fence. I would bet that folks who understood the awful implementations of Search/Seizure laws, indefinate detainment, corporate welfare would come LARGELY from the DEM ranks -- because these items are HIGH PRIORITY to them. Thus making a MUCH closer connection to the middle of the Dem party then to REPs because of their emphasis on giving national security and law enforcement the edge.

I'm really convincing myself that the distance to the middle of YOUR party is a lot closer than many think.. If you could just elect more Moynihans, O'Neils, and Conyers and JFKs and less Pelosi and Reids -- it wouldn't scare me as much...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Publicly funded campaigns were used for presidential campaigns for years, it didn't get a single libertarian elected. Thanks for proving you don't know history though.

So the libertarian candidate had the same amount of cash to spend as the (R) and (D)? In all races, not just the presidential race? Given your knowledge of history, I'm sure you can tell us which campaign that was.

The current campaign finance system forever relegates libertarians to gadfly status. But since those gadflies almost exclusively attack the left, the big money interests will pay a bit to keep them around. So long as they stay on their leash. (Yeah, I'm mixing metaphors badly.)

Ross Perot had more.

What relegates third parties to gadfly status, as you call it, is the fact that people are restricted from donating directly to the candidates they support.

 

[Borillar]

To most folks, libertarians are just the fussy cousins of Republicans. But the reality is when you measure the political distances, we are equi-distant to both the Republican and Democrat party animals. This is apparent on the 2 dimensional Nolan Chart ---

Nolan Chart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that is an improved locator of your political preference over the ultra trivial "left - right" stick chart. In fact, on the Nolan Chart -- we're a smidgeon closer to "moderate" but in reality -- anything but moderate.

It might get me uninvited from the "Conservative Clubhouse", but I believe the Lib Party is actually closer to the center of the DEM camp, than the REP camp. It's just that there is some INSURMOUNTABLE terrain between us because of the Collectivist leanings and general anti-free market feelings (ala "Occupy") in the DEM ranks.

Show me a DEM that believes in free markets and economic freedom being as important as social freedom and I contend we're connected.

We're connected because of the HUGE agreement on the proper use of projected military force, on issues of civil liberties like the Patriot Act, the concept of personal choices in medicinal, educational, personal and health matters, and the entire bill of rights. We also agree on ending corporate government collusion (tho probably disagree on which one causes the other).

So -- I don't buy the popular knowledge that we are just all Ron Pauls with additional social awkwardness. I see a lot of Moynihan, Feingold, Durbin, Conyers and Kucinich in there as well.

And except for the mistrust of Capitalism and the proximity to Collectivist solutions, most MAINSTREAM Dems make just as good neighbors as Republicans..

There are actually several libertarian leaning Democrats. Some are informally organized into the Democratic Freedom Caucus. I consider myself to be in this camp. I voted Libertarian in the 90's, but saw that it wasn't going anywhere. I thought the Democratic party was a closer match to my social values, so vote with them most of the time now. Republicans seem much too authoritarian and pro big business for my liking.

 

[Vidi]

To most folks, libertarians are just the fussy cousins of Republicans. But the reality is when you measure the political distances, we are equi-distant to both the Republican and Democrat party animals. This is apparent on the 2 dimensional Nolan Chart ---

Nolan Chart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that is an improved locator of your political preference over the ultra trivial "left - right" stick chart. In fact, on the Nolan Chart -- we're a smidgeon closer to "moderate" but in reality -- anything but moderate.

It might get me uninvited from the "Conservative Clubhouse", but I believe the Lib Party is actually closer to the center of the DEM camp, than the REP camp. It's just that there is some INSURMOUNTABLE terrain between us because of the Collectivist leanings and general anti-free market feelings (ala "Occupy") in the DEM ranks.

Show me a DEM that believes in free markets and economic freedom being as important as social freedom and I contend we're connected.

We're connected because of the HUGE agreement on the proper use of projected military force, on issues of civil liberties like the Patriot Act, the concept of personal choices in medicinal, educational, personal and health matters, and the entire bill of rights. We also agree on ending corporate government collusion (tho probably disagree on which one causes the other).

So -- I don't buy the popular knowledge that we are just all Ron Pauls with additional social awkwardness. I see a lot of Moynihan, Feingold, Durbin, Conyers and Kucinich in there as well.

And except for the mistrust of Capitalism and the proximity to Collectivist solutions, most MAINSTREAM Dems make just as good neighbors as Republicans..

I see myself as a social left libertarian. Modern "conservatives" simply do not practice what they preach and therefore do not put into action the policies that would protect liberty and freedom as I would like them to.


I vote democratic because THEY are the ones that are protecting individual liberties currently. If the Republicans would switch back to their once proud traditional Conservative policies, I would switch back to voting for them.

I am the Dem that believes that free markets, NOT what the Republicans are promoting but TRUE free markets, are just as important as social freedoms.

In fact , I would argue that social freedom cannot exist without economic freedom.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To most folks, libertarians are just the fussy cousins of Republicans. But the reality is when you measure the political distances, we are equi-distant to both the Republican and Democrat party animals. This is apparent on the 2 dimensional Nolan Chart ---

Nolan Chart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that is an improved locator of your political preference over the ultra trivial "left - right" stick chart. In fact, on the Nolan Chart -- we're a smidgeon closer to "moderate" but in reality -- anything but moderate.

It might get me uninvited from the "Conservative Clubhouse", but I believe the Lib Party is actually closer to the center of the DEM camp, than the REP camp. It's just that there is some INSURMOUNTABLE terrain between us because of the Collectivist leanings and general anti-free market feelings (ala "Occupy") in the DEM ranks.

Show me a DEM that believes in free markets and economic freedom being as important as social freedom and I contend we're connected.

We're connected because of the HUGE agreement on the proper use of projected military force, on issues of civil liberties like the Patriot Act, the concept of personal choices in medicinal, educational, personal and health matters, and the entire bill of rights. We also agree on ending corporate government collusion (tho probably disagree on which one causes the other).

So -- I don't buy the popular knowledge that we are just all Ron Pauls with additional social awkwardness. I see a lot of Moynihan, Feingold, Durbin, Conyers and Kucinich in there as well.

And except for the mistrust of Capitalism and the proximity to Collectivist solutions, most MAINSTREAM Dems make just as good neighbors as Republicans..

There are actually several libertarian leaning Democrats. Some are informally organized into the Democratic Freedom Caucus. I consider myself to be in this camp. I voted Libertarian in the 90's, but saw that it wasn't going anywhere. I thought the Democratic party was a closer match to my social values, so vote with them most of the time now. Republicans seem much too authoritarian and pro big business for my liking.

You think Democrats are not pro big business?

 

[uscitizen]

To most folks, libertarians are just the fussy cousins of Republicans. But the reality is when you measure the political distances, we are equi-distant to both the Republican and Democrat party animals. This is apparent on the 2 dimensional Nolan Chart ---

Nolan Chart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that is an improved locator of your political preference over the ultra trivial "left - right" stick chart. In fact, on the Nolan Chart -- we're a smidgeon closer to "moderate" but in reality -- anything but moderate.

It might get me uninvited from the "Conservative Clubhouse", but I believe the Lib Party is actually closer to the center of the DEM camp, than the REP camp. It's just that there is some INSURMOUNTABLE terrain between us because of the Collectivist leanings and general anti-free market feelings (ala "Occupy") in the DEM ranks.

Show me a DEM that believes in free markets and economic freedom being as important as social freedom and I contend we're connected.

We're connected because of the HUGE agreement on the proper use of projected military force, on issues of civil liberties like the Patriot Act, the concept of personal choices in medicinal, educational, personal and health matters, and the entire bill of rights. We also agree on ending corporate government collusion (tho probably disagree on which one causes the other).

So -- I don't buy the popular knowledge that we are just all Ron Pauls with additional social awkwardness. I see a lot of Moynihan, Feingold, Durbin, Conyers and Kucinich in there as well.

And except for the mistrust of Capitalism and the proximity to Collectivist solutions, most MAINSTREAM Dems make just as good neighbors as Republicans..

Why are most of the self professed Libertarains voting Romeny then?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To most folks, libertarians are just the fussy cousins of Republicans. But the reality is when you measure the political distances, we are equi-distant to both the Republican and Democrat party animals. This is apparent on the 2 dimensional Nolan Chart ---

Nolan Chart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that is an improved locator of your political preference over the ultra trivial "left - right" stick chart. In fact, on the Nolan Chart -- we're a smidgeon closer to "moderate" but in reality -- anything but moderate.

It might get me uninvited from the "Conservative Clubhouse", but I believe the Lib Party is actually closer to the center of the DEM camp, than the REP camp. It's just that there is some INSURMOUNTABLE terrain between us because of the Collectivist leanings and general anti-free market feelings (ala "Occupy") in the DEM ranks.

Show me a DEM that believes in free markets and economic freedom being as important as social freedom and I contend we're connected.

We're connected because of the HUGE agreement on the proper use of projected military force, on issues of civil liberties like the Patriot Act, the concept of personal choices in medicinal, educational, personal and health matters, and the entire bill of rights. We also agree on ending corporate government collusion (tho probably disagree on which one causes the other).

So -- I don't buy the popular knowledge that we are just all Ron Pauls with additional social awkwardness. I see a lot of Moynihan, Feingold, Durbin, Conyers and Kucinich in there as well.

And except for the mistrust of Capitalism and the proximity to Collectivist solutions, most MAINSTREAM Dems make just as good neighbors as Republicans..

I see myself as a social left libertarian. Modern "conservatives" simply do not practice what they preach and therefore do not put into action the policies that would protect liberty and freedom as I would like them to.


I vote democratic because THEY are the ones that are protecting individual liberties currently. If the Republicans would switch back to their once proud traditional Conservative policies, I would switch back to voting for them.

I am the Dem that believes that free markets, NOT what the Republicans are promoting but TRUE free markets, are just as important as social freedoms.

In fact , I would argue that social freedom cannot exist without economic freedom.

Democrats are protecting individual liberties? Do they do that by passing an extension of the PATRIOT Act and refusing to close Gitmo? Maybe they do that by expanding the warrantless wiretapping programs. Perhaps they do that by delegating the TSA to act as security at political events.

People really should get their heads out of their ass, the last thing either party cares about is individual liberty.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To most folks, libertarians are just the fussy cousins of Republicans. But the reality is when you measure the political distances, we are equi-distant to both the Republican and Democrat party animals. This is apparent on the 2 dimensional Nolan Chart ---

Nolan Chart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that is an improved locator of your political preference over the ultra trivial "left - right" stick chart. In fact, on the Nolan Chart -- we're a smidgeon closer to "moderate" but in reality -- anything but moderate.

It might get me uninvited from the "Conservative Clubhouse", but I believe the Lib Party is actually closer to the center of the DEM camp, than the REP camp. It's just that there is some INSURMOUNTABLE terrain between us because of the Collectivist leanings and general anti-free market feelings (ala "Occupy") in the DEM ranks.

Show me a DEM that believes in free markets and economic freedom being as important as social freedom and I contend we're connected.

We're connected because of the HUGE agreement on the proper use of projected military force, on issues of civil liberties like the Patriot Act, the concept of personal choices in medicinal, educational, personal and health matters, and the entire bill of rights. We also agree on ending corporate government collusion (tho probably disagree on which one causes the other).

So -- I don't buy the popular knowledge that we are just all Ron Pauls with additional social awkwardness. I see a lot of Moynihan, Feingold, Durbin, Conyers and Kucinich in there as well.

And except for the mistrust of Capitalism and the proximity to Collectivist solutions, most MAINSTREAM Dems make just as good neighbors as Republicans..

Why are most of the self professed Libertarains voting Romeny then?

I thought most of them were voting for Johnson.

 

[Borillar]

To most folks, libertarians are just the fussy cousins of Republicans. But the reality is when you measure the political distances, we are equi-distant to both the Republican and Democrat party animals. This is apparent on the 2 dimensional Nolan Chart ---

Nolan Chart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that is an improved locator of your political preference over the ultra trivial "left - right" stick chart. In fact, on the Nolan Chart -- we're a smidgeon closer to "moderate" but in reality -- anything but moderate.

It might get me uninvited from the "Conservative Clubhouse", but I believe the Lib Party is actually closer to the center of the DEM camp, than the REP camp. It's just that there is some INSURMOUNTABLE terrain between us because of the Collectivist leanings and general anti-free market feelings (ala "Occupy") in the DEM ranks.

Show me a DEM that believes in free markets and economic freedom being as important as social freedom and I contend we're connected.

We're connected because of the HUGE agreement on the proper use of projected military force, on issues of civil liberties like the Patriot Act, the concept of personal choices in medicinal, educational, personal and health matters, and the entire bill of rights. We also agree on ending corporate government collusion (tho probably disagree on which one causes the other).

So -- I don't buy the popular knowledge that we are just all Ron Pauls with additional social awkwardness. I see a lot of Moynihan, Feingold, Durbin, Conyers and Kucinich in there as well.

And except for the mistrust of Capitalism and the proximity to Collectivist solutions, most MAINSTREAM Dems make just as good neighbors as Republicans..

There are actually several libertarian leaning Democrats. Some are informally organized into the Democratic Freedom Caucus. I consider myself to be in this camp. I voted Libertarian in the 90's, but saw that it wasn't going anywhere. I thought the Democratic party was a closer match to my social values, so vote with them most of the time now. Republicans seem much too authoritarian and pro big business for my liking.

You think Democrats are not pro big business?

I suppose that the reality is that both parties are in the pocket of corporations. The difference being one of degree. At least the Democrats want some regulation, and support worker's rights. Republicans seem bent on a race to the bottom.

 

[Vidi]

To most folks, libertarians are just the fussy cousins of Republicans. But the reality is when you measure the political distances, we are equi-distant to both the Republican and Democrat party animals. This is apparent on the 2 dimensional Nolan Chart ---

Nolan Chart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that is an improved locator of your political preference over the ultra trivial "left - right" stick chart. In fact, on the Nolan Chart -- we're a smidgeon closer to "moderate" but in reality -- anything but moderate.

It might get me uninvited from the "Conservative Clubhouse", but I believe the Lib Party is actually closer to the center of the DEM camp, than the REP camp. It's just that there is some INSURMOUNTABLE terrain between us because of the Collectivist leanings and general anti-free market feelings (ala "Occupy") in the DEM ranks.

Show me a DEM that believes in free markets and economic freedom being as important as social freedom and I contend we're connected.

We're connected because of the HUGE agreement on the proper use of projected military force, on issues of civil liberties like the Patriot Act, the concept of personal choices in medicinal, educational, personal and health matters, and the entire bill of rights. We also agree on ending corporate government collusion (tho probably disagree on which one causes the other).

So -- I don't buy the popular knowledge that we are just all Ron Pauls with additional social awkwardness. I see a lot of Moynihan, Feingold, Durbin, Conyers and Kucinich in there as well.

And except for the mistrust of Capitalism and the proximity to Collectivist solutions, most MAINSTREAM Dems make just as good neighbors as Republicans..

Why are most of the self professed Libertarains voting Romeny then?

I thought most of them were voting for Johnson.

Ive been considering voting for Johnson. But he is falling into the same rhetoric as Romney on the "Government doesnt create jobs" nonsense. As nearly 60% of my machine shop business is government work, I disagree.

 

[dblack]

To most folks, libertarians are just the fussy cousins of Republicans. But the reality is when you measure the political distances, we are equi-distant to both the Republican and Democrat party animals. This is apparent on the 2 dimensional Nolan Chart ---

Nolan Chart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that is an improved locator of your political preference over the ultra trivial "left - right" stick chart. In fact, on the Nolan Chart -- we're a smidgeon closer to "moderate" but in reality -- anything but moderate.

It might get me uninvited from the "Conservative Clubhouse", but I believe the Lib Party is actually closer to the center of the DEM camp, than the REP camp. It's just that there is some INSURMOUNTABLE terrain between us because of the Collectivist leanings and general anti-free market feelings (ala "Occupy") in the DEM ranks.

Show me a DEM that believes in free markets and economic freedom being as important as social freedom and I contend we're connected.

We're connected because of the HUGE agreement on the proper use of projected military force, on issues of civil liberties like the Patriot Act, the concept of personal choices in medicinal, educational, personal and health matters, and the entire bill of rights. We also agree on ending corporate government collusion (tho probably disagree on which one causes the other).

So -- I don't buy the popular knowledge that we are just all Ron Pauls with additional social awkwardness. I see a lot of Moynihan, Feingold, Durbin, Conyers and Kucinich in there as well.

And except for the mistrust of Capitalism and the proximity to Collectivist solutions, most MAINSTREAM Dems make just as good neighbors as Republicans..

Why are most of the self professed Libertarains voting Romeny then?

Probably the same reasons most of the self-professed progressives are voting for Obama. They either aren't as "libertarian" (or "progressive") as they claim, or they're falling for the lesser-of-two-evils exploit.

 

[dblack]

Why are most of the self professed Libertarains voting Romeny then?

I thought most of them were voting for Johnson.

Ive been considering voting for Johnson. But he is falling into the same rhetoric as Romney on the "Government doesnt create jobs" nonsense. As nearly 60% of my machine shop business is government work, I disagree.

I can't speak to what Johnson has, or has not, claimed. But libertarian ideology is opposed to using government to "create jobs" on principle, regardless of whether or not it can do so effectively.

 

[Vidi]

I thought most of them were voting for Johnson.

Ive been considering voting for Johnson. But he is falling into the same rhetoric as Romney on the "Government doesnt create jobs" nonsense. As nearly 60% of my machine shop business is government work, I disagree.

I can't speak to what Johnson has, or has not, claimed. But libertarian ideology is opposed to using government to "create jobs" on principle, regardless of whether or not it can do so effectively.

Principles dont keep an economy moving. Principles dont feed my family.

 

[dblack]

Ive been considering voting for Johnson. But he is falling into the same rhetoric as Romney on the "Government doesnt create jobs" nonsense. As nearly 60% of my machine shop business is government work, I disagree.

I can't speak to what Johnson has, or has not, claimed. But libertarian ideology is opposed to using government to "create jobs" on principle, regardless of whether or not it can do so effectively.

Principles dont keep an economy moving. Principles dont feed my family.

Right. You want government to do that. And that's not the kind of government libertarians want. My point isn't that your view is wrong, but that it's the antithesis of libertarianism. I only bring it up because you said you consider yourself (at least in part) "libertarian". But freedom from being dependent on, and thusly controlled by, government is at the core of the libertarian ethos.

 

[flacaltenn]

To most folks, libertarians are just the fussy cousins of Republicans. But the reality is when you measure the political distances, we are equi-distant to both the Republican and Democrat party animals. This is apparent on the 2 dimensional Nolan Chart ---

Nolan Chart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that is an improved locator of your political preference over the ultra trivial "left - right" stick chart. In fact, on the Nolan Chart -- we're a smidgeon closer to "moderate" but in reality -- anything but moderate.

It might get me uninvited from the "Conservative Clubhouse", but I believe the Lib Party is actually closer to the center of the DEM camp, than the REP camp. It's just that there is some INSURMOUNTABLE terrain between us because of the Collectivist leanings and general anti-free market feelings (ala "Occupy") in the DEM ranks.

Show me a DEM that believes in free markets and economic freedom being as important as social freedom and I contend we're connected.

We're connected because of the HUGE agreement on the proper use of projected military force, on issues of civil liberties like the Patriot Act, the concept of personal choices in medicinal, educational, personal and health matters, and the entire bill of rights. We also agree on ending corporate government collusion (tho probably disagree on which one causes the other).

So -- I don't buy the popular knowledge that we are just all Ron Pauls with additional social awkwardness. I see a lot of Moynihan, Feingold, Durbin, Conyers and Kucinich in there as well.

And except for the mistrust of Capitalism and the proximity to Collectivist solutions, most MAINSTREAM Dems make just as good neighbors as Republicans..

I see myself as a social left libertarian. Modern "conservatives" simply do not practice what they preach and therefore do not put into action the policies that would protect liberty and freedom as I would like them to.


I vote democratic because THEY are the ones that are protecting individual liberties currently. If the Republicans would switch back to their once proud traditional Conservative policies, I would switch back to voting for them.

I am the Dem that believes that free markets, NOT what the Republicans are promoting but TRUE free markets, are just as important as social freedoms.

In fact , I would argue that social freedom cannot exist without economic freedom.

Democrats are protecting individual liberties? Do they do that by passing an extension of the PATRIOT Act and refusing to close Gitmo? Maybe they do that by expanding the warrantless wiretapping programs. Perhaps they do that by delegating the TSA to act as security at political events.

People really should get their heads out of their ass, the last thing either party cares about is individual liberty.

Gotta agree with the Windbag here. I TRIED to favor the DEMs on civil liberties but they consistently let me down on asset forfeiture, emminent domain, search and seizure and all those other battles.. There is only a handful heroes on BOTH sides for those issues.

And Dems seem to always be there nibbling away at personal choice issues. Treating our kids like Inmates in their schools with food and soda bans and backpack restrictions. Making hay of "energy drinks" or any other news item where "there ought to be a law". And wasting valuable time and energy persecuting the Boy Scouts and faith-based charities. They are some of the least tolerant politic personna that I know..

Republicans are more "predictable" in their sketchy concern for liberty and choice. But if the partisians of EITHER party CARED about the dive we've taken on search/seizure for instance -- if they understood the rulings on authorized entry when the cops hear a toilet flush --- they'd seriously start looking for politicians who placed these issues at a MUCH HIGHER priority than the Dems and the Reps have..

 

[Vidi]

I can't speak to what Johnson has, or has not, claimed. But libertarian ideology is opposed to using government to "create jobs" on principle, regardless of whether or not it can do so effectively.

Principles dont keep an economy moving. Principles dont feed my family.

Right. You want government to do that. And that's not the kind of government libertarians want. My point isn't that your view is wrong, but that it's the antithesis of libertarianism. I only bring it up because you said you consider yourself (at least in part) "libertarian". But freedom from being dependent on, and thusly controlled by, government is at the core of the libertarian ethos.

No. You are mistaken. You're making assumption about me that are simply not the case.

I don't want government to do that. But, Im not opposed to government doing that temporarily in times of economic crisis.

When things are back to normal, then the government should back the hell off and stay out of the way. When it comes to the economy, I see the government as a last resort only.

If one stands only on principle and never on practicality, then one is bound to starve.