Why don't "libertarians" support the libertarian candidate?

[PredFan]

I vote for libertarian candidates whenever possible. I have voted for them in all local elections.

My philosophy is this: The Libertarian Party cannot grow from the top down. We need to grow the party from the bottom up. The more LP politicians there are, the more respect we will get. WE won't see a LP POTUS any time soon, but we are seeing more and more LP politicians. We ARE making progress.

In the meantime, we don't allow the country to fall completely into the hands of the progressives or there won't be a country left for the LP to gain a foothold in. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Vote LP in all elections where they can win, especially in local elections then vote for the most conservative candidate who can win if no LP candidate is there.

When republicans nominate a Scott Walker on the national ticket, I'll be back.

Until then, they can suck a big fat chili dog.

Big Fat Chili Dog? Yum!

 

[bayoubill]

I vote for libertarian candidates whenever possible. I have voted for them in all local elections.

My philosophy is this: The Libertarian Party cannot grow from the top down. We need to grow the party from the bottom up. The more LP politicians there are, the more respect we will get. WE won't see a LP POTUS any time soon, but we are seeing more and more LP politicians. We ARE making progress.

In the meantime, we don't allow the country to fall completely into the hands of the progressives or there won't be a country left for the LP to gain a foothold in. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Vote LP in all elections where they can win, especially in local elections then vote for the most conservative candidate who can win if no LP candidate is there.

lol... I probably still have an LP mailout from 25 years ago that says that very same thing...

 

[PredFan]

I vote for libertarian candidates whenever possible. I have voted for them in all local elections.

My philosophy is this: The Libertarian Party cannot grow from the top down. We need to grow the party from the bottom up. The more LP politicians there are, the more respect we will get. WE won't see a LP POTUS any time soon, but we are seeing more and more LP politicians. We ARE making progress.

In the meantime, we don't allow the country to fall completely into the hands of the progressives or there won't be a country left for the LP to gain a foothold in. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Vote LP in all elections where they can win, especially in local elections then vote for the most conservative candidate who can win if no LP candidate is there.

I guess you're just more of a conservative than a libertarian. And that's your right to be. But libertarians who aren't shouldn't vote for a conservative candidate just because a libertarian candidate isn't likely to win. When they do, it only makes it less likely that liberty will prevail, and encourages conservatives to disregard it when they govern.

Libertarians are true conservatives.

Liberty will fail when people don't do something about it. I am doing something about it. And btw, you don't get to choose who the Libertarians are.

 

[dblack]

for more'n 20 years, I was a hard-core trench fighter for libertarianism and LP candidates...

under the premise that, if you fight hard enough and long enough, the rest of the country will eventually come around to your way of thinking...

but I've come to accept that that's not gonna happen...

that the two-party system is entrenched... and, while they may be slightly swayed by outside popular forces, they're pretty-much gonna go their own way regardless of what we think...


we have an imperfect system that gives us imperfect choices...

and we've gotta make the best of it with the hand we've been dealt...

I think this is the conclusion that Ron Paul came to after his experience with the Libertarians, and I can't say I disagree with it. He's trying to work the system and change the Republican party from the inside and I applaud his efforts. But voting for candidates who oppose the reforms he's promoting isn't the way to support that cause. The only way to persuade the party to get serious about limited government is to vote against their candidates if they don't represent our values.

That doesn't mean vote against all Republicans (there are some who genuinely care about liberty) and it doesn't mean we give up the effort to gain more control of the party at all levels. But it does make it imperative that we vote against Romney - even if it means Obama gets re-elected. The fight for the future of the party is more important than who wins this election.

 

[dblack]

Libertarians are true conservatives.

Liberty will fail when people don't do something about it. I am doing something about it. And btw, you don't get to choose who the Libertarians are.

Sure. We can all define the labels however we want I suppose. But libertarians aren't the same as conservatives. I certainly don't consider myself 'conservative' in the way most people use the term. It makes a good selling point for RP in his efforts to win over old-school Republicans, but there's a wide gulf between core libertarian values and core conservative values. Conservatives and libertarians sometimes agree on similar policies, but usually for different reasons - and that's important.

I think it's wrong to 'strategically' vote for a Republican if there is a libertarian candidate you think is better. But if you genuinely think it's important to have a conservative in power, rather than a liberal, then I can't fault your reasoning. I just don't share that assessment. In balance, I find mainstream conservatives just as much a threat to liberty as liberals.

 

[bayoubill]

for more'n 20 years, I was a hard-core trench fighter for libertarianism and LP candidates...

under the premise that, if you fight hard enough and long enough, the rest of the country will eventually come around to your way of thinking...

but I've come to accept that that's not gonna happen...

that the two-party system is entrenched... and, while they may be slightly swayed by outside popular forces, they're pretty-much gonna go their own way regardless of what we think...


we have an imperfect system that gives us imperfect choices...

and we've gotta make the best of it with the hand we've been dealt...

I think this is the conclusion that Ron Paul came to after his experience with the Libertarians, and I can't say I disagree with it. He's trying to work the system and change the Republican party from the inside and I applaud his efforts. But voting for candidates who oppose the reforms he's promoting isn't the way to support that cause. The only way to persuade the party to get serious about limited government is to vote against their candidates if they don't represent our values.

That doesn't mean vote against all Republicans (there are some who genuinely care about liberty) and it doesn't mean we give up the effort to gain more control of the party at all levels. But it does make it imperative that we vote against Romney - even if it means Obama gets re-elected. The fight for the future of the party is more important than who wins this election.

These past couple of years, Ron Paul's done an incredibly admirable and successful job of promoting his point of view within the confines of the GOP...

people who disrespected him and wrote him off four years ago have subsequently had to eat a huge shit sandwich... which delights me to no end...

 

[PredFan]

for more'n 20 years, I was a hard-core trench fighter for libertarianism and LP candidates...

under the premise that, if you fight hard enough and long enough, the rest of the country will eventually come around to your way of thinking...

but I've come to accept that that's not gonna happen...

that the two-party system is entrenched... and, while they may be slightly swayed by outside popular forces, they're pretty-much gonna go their own way regardless of what we think...


we have an imperfect system that gives us imperfect choices...

and we've gotta make the best of it with the hand we've been dealt...

Bill, every election it seems that there are more and more LP politicians. We are making gains, don't judge our progress by the presidential elections.

 

[PredFan]

I think this is the conclusion that Ron Paul came to after his experience with the Libertarians, and I can't say I disagree with it. He's trying to work the system and change the Republican party from the inside and I applaud his efforts. But voting for candidates who oppose the reforms he's promoting isn't the way to support that cause. The only way to persuade the party to get serious about limited government is to vote against their candidates if they don't represent our values.

This idea fails. The exact opposite effect happens. The more that the GOP loses, the more to the center it tries to move. It NEVER says, "hey, we didn't get any LP votes, let's start listening to them" it always says "hey, we need those middle of the roaders, those independants, and what they are is the center of the left-right spectrum." The more the GOP loses, the harder it will be for the LP to change them.

That doesn't mean vote against all Republicans (there are some who genuinely care about liberty) and it doesn't mean we give up the effort to gain more control of the party at all levels. But it does make it imperative that we vote against Romney - even if it means Obama gets re-elected. The fight for the future of the party is more important than who wins this election.

If Obama wins, there will be much less of a future for the Libertarian Party.

 

[PredFan]

Sure. We can all define the labels however we want I suppose. But libertarians aren't the same as conservatives.

Note that I said true conservatives. SoCons and NeoCons are not true conservatives. Libertarians are true conservatives.

I certainly don't consider myself 'conservative' in the way most people use the term.

"In the way most people use the term" is the key phrase. That is why I said true conservatives.

I think it's wrong to 'strategically' vote for a Republican if there is a libertarian candidate you think is better. But if you genuinely think it's important to have a conservative in power, rather than a liberal, then I can't fault your reasoning. I just don't share that assessment. In balance, I find mainstream conservatives just as much a threat to liberty as liberals.

I'm not talking about voting for "mainstream conservatives" over Libertarians every time. Romney is certainly less of a threat to liberty than Obama but most certainly a threat. There is too much riding on this election to sit on my hands. Obama has to go.

Sure. We can all define the labels however we want I suppose. But libertarians aren't the same as conservatives. I certainly don't consider myself 'conservative' in the way most people use the term. It makes a good selling point for RP in his efforts to win over old-school Republicans, but there's a wide gulf between core libertarian values and core conservative values. Conservatives and libertarians sometimes agree on similar policies, but usually for different reasons - and that's important.

I think it's wrong to 'strategically' vote for a Republican if there is a libertarian candidate you think is better. But if you genuinely think it's important to have a conservative in power, rather than a liberal, then I can't fault your reasoning. I just don't share that assessment. In balance, I find mainstream conservatives just as much a threat to liberty as liberals.

 

[dblack]

I think this is the conclusion that Ron Paul came to after his experience with the Libertarians, and I can't say I disagree with it. He's trying to work the system and change the Republican party from the inside and I applaud his efforts. But voting for candidates who oppose the reforms he's promoting isn't the way to support that cause. The only way to persuade the party to get serious about limited government is to vote against their candidates if they don't represent our values.

This idea fails. The exact opposite effect happens. The more that the GOP loses, the more to the center it tries to move. It NEVER says, "hey, we didn't get any LP votes, let's start listening to them" it always says "hey, we need those middle of the roaders, those independants, and what they are is the center of the left-right spectrum." The more the GOP loses, the harder it will be for the LP to change them.

The biggest difference in our views seems to be your conviction that libertarians are 'conservatives' or 'right-wing'. The Republican party moving to the 'center' doesn't seem like a 'fail' to me. In my view, libertarian values are in the center (at least when confined to the one-dimensional left/right spectrum).

If Obama wins, there will be much less of a future for the Libertarian Party.

On what do you base this prediction?

I'm more concerned presently with the future of Ron Paul's efforts to convert the Republican party toward more libertarian values - I think that's a more likely route that trying to wedge a third party into the picture. But the GOP establishment IS "conservative" and subsequently resistant to change. They won't do it unless we force their hand.

In my view an Obama victory would be less damaging to the cause of liberty than a Romney win. Romney will pursue essentially the same policies as Obama and have much less resistance from Congress. He be more likely to do lasting damage. As long as authoritarians are running things, gridlock is a best case scenario. Romney would also, potentially, be in there for eight years. Obama would have four at most. Most importantly, a Romney loss - especially if it is perceived that he might have won with more libertarian support - will make it clear to the old guard Republicans that they can't continue to ignore our concerns.

The only real power Ron Paul has in all this is the threat that his supporters won't support the Republican candidate if he doesn't embrace libertarian values. In nominating Romney, the party has utterly rejected those values. If we fail to follow through on the threat, and meekly vote for Romney anyway, we are guaranteed to be ignore the next time around.

 

[PredFan]

I think this is the conclusion that Ron Paul came to after his experience with the Libertarians, and I can't say I disagree with it. He's trying to work the system and change the Republican party from the inside and I applaud his efforts. But voting for candidates who oppose the reforms he's promoting isn't the way to support that cause. The only way to persuade the party to get serious about limited government is to vote against their candidates if they don't represent our values.

This idea fails. The exact opposite effect happens. The more that the GOP loses, the more to the center it tries to move. It NEVER says, "hey, we didn't get any LP votes, let's start listening to them" it always says "hey, we need those middle of the roaders, those independants, and what they are is the center of the left-right spectrum." The more the GOP loses, the harder it will be for the LP to change them.

The biggest difference in our views seems to be your conviction that libertarians are 'conservatives' or 'right-wing'. The Republican party moving to the 'center' doesn't seem like a 'fail' to me. In my view, libertarian values are in the center (at least when confined to the one-dimensional left/right spectrum).

No, I never said they were right wing. It is wrong to look at it as right/left in a linear line. It's more like a diamond shape left and right plus Top (Authoritarian) andBottom libertarian (small L). BUT that said that is the way that the GOP and most of America looks at it. When the GOP moves to the center they are not looking more at how can they support liberty more, they are looking at how far toward liberal can they dare go. When the GOP loses, they never ever go toward liberty. It has never happened and it won't.

If Obama wins, there will be much less of a future for the Libertarian Party.

On what do you base this prediction?

On quite a lot of things, but I can make it simple with the most important thing: Whomever wins this election will likely get another SCOTUS pick or maybe two. If Obama gets to pick then he will appoint two liberals who will not have the slightest interest in liberty. Then, if the Libertarians make strides they will have to fight a liberal SCOTUS to get anything that's important changed.

On my statement above, I would have been better off adding: "..or anyone else."

I'm more concerned presently with the future of Ron Paul's efforts to convert the Republican party toward more libertarian values - I think that's a more likely route that trying to wedge a third party into the picture. But the GOP establishment IS "conservative" and subsequently resistant to change. They won't do it unless we force their hand.

There is more than one definition of conservative and using that definition I will agree with you.

In my view an Obama victory would be less damaging to the cause of liberty than a Romney win. Romney will pursue essentially the same policies as Obama and have much less resistance from Congress. He be more likely to do lasting damage. As long as authoritarians are running things, gridlock is a best case scenario. Romney would also, potentially, be in there for eight years. Obama would have four at most. Most importantly, a Romney loss - especially if it is perceived that he might have won with more libertarian support - will make it clear to the old guard Republicans that they can't continue to ignore our concerns.

You have a right to your opinions but I disagree. An Obama victory would be far more damaging to the economy. Romney will have a VERY different approach to the economy than Obama and the effect will be almost immediate. Again, a Romney loss will make it much harder for us to change the GOP. They will not go toward liberty, they will go more toward Liberal statism. We have been seeing that every election.

The only real power Ron Paul has in all this is the threat that his supporters won't support the Republican candidate if he doesn't embrace libertarian values. In nominating Romney, the party has utterly rejected those values. If we fail to follow through on the threat, and meekly vote for Romney anyway, we are guaranteed to be ignore the next time around.

The fact that they rejected Ron Paul's values proves my point. They believe that to win they must go in the direction of people like Romney. That is why they stayed away from Paul. If they lose they will not wish they had been like Ron Paul. You have to face the fact that the GOP isn't going to decide on it's own to go in the direction of Liberty. It isn't like everyone in the US is a Libertarian, and the GOP just hasn't figured that out. They will try to apply to the largest number of people. The Libertarians are not a majority.

 

[Katzndogz]

I have listened to Gary Johnson and noted that he got in some good lines during the debate. He is not qualified to be a national leader.

 

[Seawytch]

Pragmatism is pragmatism. I like Kucinich (and love his wife) but I know he ain't gonna be President.

 

[dblack]

When the GOP loses, they never ever go toward liberty. It has never happened and it won't.

You're assuming a loss will inspire the party to move the 'center' (though I don't see why - how they react depends entirely on their perception of why they lose), but you also seem to be assuming the inverse - that a victory would inspire them to be more libertarian. What's the reasoning behind that? It certainly hasn't worked that way in the past. Being in power seems to have the opposite effect on the Republican party. They're pretty jazzed about big government when they're running the show.

On quite a lot of things, but I can make it simple with the most important thing: Whomever wins this election will likely get another SCOTUS pick or maybe two. If Obama gets to pick then he will appoint two liberals who will not have the slightest interest in liberty. Then, if the Libertarians make strides they will have to fight a liberal SCOTUS to get anything that's important changed.

The court appointments are a concern. But Romney is a moderate conservative, not a limited government libertarian. I'm not convinced his appointments would be substantially better than Obama's. And again, they'd be less likely to face congressional challenge.

They believe that to win they must go in the direction of people like Romney.

Exactly. It's up to us to persuade them that they are wrong. We won't achieve that by conceding.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

It's simple. When Obama is in such stark contrast to Libertarian views then most of us are pragmatic enough to not settle for that f'ing d-bag.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I have listened to Gary Johnson and noted that he got in some good lines during the debate. He is not qualified to be a national leader.

I don't know anything about him but I'd have to absolutely disagree. Libertarianism is the answer. And you don't get to be the guy without adhering to those philosophies.

 

[konradv]

I have listened to Gary Johnson and noted that he got in some good lines during the debate. He is not qualified to be a national leader.

I don't know anything about him but I'd have to absolutely disagree. Libertarianism is the answer. And you don't get to be the guy without adhering to those philosophies.

Libertarianism is the flip side of Marxism, in that they'd both require a basic shift in human nature to work. Good luck with that. I'd bet on public financing of elections passing before a libertarian ever gets a sniff at the WH.

 

[PredFan]

You're assuming a loss will inspire the party to move the 'center' (though I don't see why - how they react depends entirely on their perception of why they lose), but you also seem to be assuming the inverse - that a victory would inspire them to be more libertarian. What's the reasoning behind that? It certainly hasn't worked that way in the past. Being in power seems to have the opposite effect on the Republican party. They're pretty jazzed about big government when they're running the show.

I do not for a moment believe that a victory will inspire them to move toward Libertarian. A victory ONLY get's rid of Obama, the worst threat to liberty and economic prosperity the US has seen.

On quite a lot of things, but I can make it simple with the most important thing: Whomever wins this election will likely get another SCOTUS pick or maybe two. If Obama gets to pick then he will appoint two liberals who will not have the slightest interest in liberty. Then, if the Libertarians make strides they will have to fight a liberal SCOTUS to get anything that's important changed.

The court appointments are a concern. But Romney is a moderate conservative, not a limited government libertarian. I'm not convinced his appointments would be substantially better than Obama's. And again, they'd be less likely to face congressional challenge.

I don't see how you can come to that conclusion, I really don't. Romney will not pick a liberal judge, Obama will.

They believe that to win they must go in the direction of people like Romney.

Exactly. It's up to us to persuade them that they are wrong. We won't achieve that by conceding.

You won't acheive that by not voting for them. The way we achieve that is by making Libertarianism a dominant political school of thought. In the meantime, we don't let the country fall into the hands of the progressives or it will be too late, for all of us.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Just as I thought, looks like there aren't any real Libertarians on this board.

Oh, but in our hearts, we are. But people like myself had to vote for the most conservative candidate we feel can beat Obama. That's it. The country is not ready for radical change, such as with a true Libertarian....Maybe in a few years, depending upon how well "hopeful" president-elect Mitt Romney does, with his cost cutting and job creating policies.

Excuses. I'll be voting Johnson, and I really don't care that he has no chance the win. I think if you don't vote for who you think is the best person to be president-that that's the real way to waste your vote. If anybody's a "real" Libertarian-they'd vote for somebody who has Libertarian beliefs-and not Romney.

I completely respect that. I am almost tempted to vote for him myself, just to vote for someone other than Obama or Romney. The problem is I completely disagree with the the Libertarian philosophy so voting for him would be even more hypocritical of me.
I really wish there was a Common Sense third party out there.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Oh, but in our hearts, we are. But people like myself had to vote for the most conservative candidate we feel can beat Obama. That's it. The country is not ready for radical change, such as with a true Libertarian....Maybe in a few years, depending upon how well "hopeful" president-elect Mitt Romney does, with his cost cutting and job creating policies.

Excuses. I'll be voting Johnson, and I really don't care that he has no chance the win. I think if you don't vote for who you think is the best person to be president-that that's the real way to waste your vote. If anybody's a "real" Libertarian-they'd vote for somebody who has Libertarian beliefs-and not Romney.

I completely respect that. I am almost tempted to vote for him myself, just to vote for someone other than Obama or Romney. The problem is I completely disagree with the the Libertarian philosophy so voting for him would be even more hypocritical of me.
I really wish there was a Common Sense third party out there.

You don't have common sense. You have your self righteous ways and that's it.