I'm libertarian, but you may not believe it.

[Donald H]

baby killing leads to MORE "social" crime? REALLY? I had to be witness to a pre-natal ultrasound of a baby developing without a brain. You really want to force folks to endure 6 more months of pregnancy for that decision? IT BOTHERED ME that I was a "baby killer". But the choice was made by FAMILY, not YOU, not the Govt.

That's an important statement because it clearly indicates that there are exceptions.

But it also tells us tha no abortions is the most desirable outcome. Now, if Americans would get together and work toward that outcome.

Did our other discussion leave you cold?

 

[flacaltenn]

In effect, America may already have a 'handful' of people who shun both political parties, albeit most likely not your choice of renegades.

There are MORE registered voters SHUNNING both parties today than the number you get by adding the Elephants and Donkeys together. INDIES are determining elections now. Which is why polls are so crappy. And Indies aren't "middle of road kill" types by and large. They have STRONG feelings and principles about issues.

The problem with getting QUALIFIED people to lead has a few main components.
One being that "qualified" doesn't neccessarily mean "career politician". Along with that is an ability to problem solve and trouble shoot in the REAL world. Which no career politician ends up having after 10 years even if they came in as a doctor, businessperson or administrator of some other responsibilities.

 

[flacaltenn]

to the extent your goal is to get national candidates who can govern, that’s good but I suspect quite inadequate. The best candidate in terms of ability to govern is worthless if he or she cannot win the office.

Outsiders and underdogs CAN win if they stick to ISSUES and show some unique proposals. You/I both know, that most horrendous mountains of campaign cash go for USELESS and polarizing ads. And debating skills are KEY. Because the media WILL be forced to cover you if you dont sound like a cyborg and SAY and propose interesting concepts. More often in the FUTURE -- we're gonna see common sense become the KEY qualification for office. NOT -- loyalty and adherence to a "party line".

 

[BackAgain]

Outsiders and underdogs CAN win if they stick to ISSUES and show some unique proposals. You/I both know, that most horrendous mountains of campaign cash go for USELESS and polarizing ads. And debating skills are KEY. Because the media WILL be forced to cover you if you dont sound like a cyborg and SAY and propose interesting concepts. More often in the FUTURE -- we're gonna see common sense become the KEY qualification for office. NOT -- loyalty and adherence to a "party line".

I agree that candidates tend to SAY whatever shit they think needs to be said to win the office. Then, in office, the degree of separation between what they said and what they even try to DO is quite often vast.

I am not however as optimistic as you are about the future. But if you seek to get some Libertarian candidates into higher national offices so they can prove themselves by doing what they say, then I still maintain you’re going to have to start much closer to the roots.

If they can talk the talk AND walk the walk locally and in the states, then maybe they will gain some prominence and get a chance to show that they can do so on the national stage.

 

[percysunshine]

I love to ridicule the flawed thinking of both of the twoparties. So, if you are a Democrat, you will probably think me a Trumper. If you are a Trumper, you will probably accuse me of being a Trump-bashing liberal. If you are a never-Trumper Republican/conservative, you will probably think I'm a pro-Trump liberal. Or something.

Libertarianism is on life support at the moment, due to COVID being used as an excuse for authoritarianism. I'm not an anti-vaxxer, I am fully vaxxed and I'll get the booster when I can. But I'm an anti-vaxx mandate guy, so that may get some of you torqued up.

Anyway, it's all in good fun for me. I don't expect to change the world on a message board, so I don't get in a twist about it. Look forward to friendly (hopefully) debates with you all.

Actually, you sound confused.

 

[Seymour Flops]

most important is that you're grasping at a solution that lies outside of the two major parties!

Libertarianism means many different things to so many different people and so the mention of it leaves others bewildered as to what you mean to promote.

I've heard lots of different versions but I can't ever remember hearing anything that could work in a large civilized country for very long. In general, the libertarian seems to be wanting to live in isolation with rights that are impossible to be granted because of the greater demands of the many.

I'm always interested in hearing something about the libertarian agenda that could be workable and possible? Where would the population start with ideas to solve the problems in America?

Oh, you want an actual agenda of things that could work and be possible? Come on, man!

Just kidding, that's what we need to do, alright.

It's not easy to come up with something that would a) work and b) be possible, given our entrenched twoparty system that so many people have become willingly dependent on.

We would need a shift in attitudes about the role of government, which could only come either gradually, though persuasion or suddenly, due to our bloated system collapsing under its own weight. Unfortunately, in history, a collapsed authoritarian system has led to takeover by an even more authoritarian system, not a less authoritarian system.

My first steps would be

1) close the border and I mean really close it, like all other countries do with their borders.

2) Eliminate the artificial minimum wage, while at the same time eliminating all welfare to the working class. Giving health benefits, housing assistance, and cash to people with full times jobs is only a subsidy that allows giant corporations to pay poverty wages and still have millions of workers. These steps must be done in tandem. When working people see wages rise naturally to a living wage, they will be much happier than as forty hours per week, but still no dignity "working poor."

3) Once wages start rising, start shifting welfare dolees who still refuse to work to a group home system in stead of cash and prizes for not working. Give them three hots and a cot, with counseling and encouragement to go get a job on the now freer economy. Have them get sterilized, at least temporarily. If they refuse, stamp their meal card
"no desert."

4) The above may cost a little more at first as some workers will go from part-worker/part dolee to full dolee. Use the money saved by not being the world's no-cost (to the world) security forces. Again, a gradual drawdown, starting with Japan. Tell Japan they might want to get ready to take on China again. This time, we won't bother crossing the Pacific to help either side.

That's a start.

Someone upthread or on another thread said WTTE of: being libertarian means not having to defend anything.

Bull.

We don't have to defend Presidents who use their office to get blowjobs from overweight early twenty-somethings, nor men married to supermodels who still ride porn stars bareback. We don't have to defend our own party doing what they called "racist," less than a year ago. We don't have to pretend we don't know that our politicians are bought and paid for. It's a relief not to have to be a hypocrite so often.

But we have to defend the NAP, that "taxation is theft," and that we don't need another aircraft carrier when we can already blow up the world many times over.

 

[ClaireH]

I was (once upon a time) a young liberal Democrat. Over time my views modified. I reluctantly considered what guys like Rush and Hannity were saying back then. I struggled with the idea of admitting to myself that I valued the principles of our Framers more than I valued clinging to my old belief system. So, I registered as a Republican.

Time marches on and I recalled thinking that the GOP was effectively a Dem Party lite. So, I busted the move and joined the Conservative Party. But I quickly realized that in NY the Conservative Party is politicly a neuter. So, without real conviction, I rejoined the GOP.

My goal is to change the culture of the GOP. They need to be refocused on the precepts of the Constitution. Right now, with few exceptions, they aren’t.

to the extent your goal is to get national candidates who can govern, that’s good but I suspect quite inadequate. The best candidate in terms of ability to govern is worthless if he or she cannot win the office.

I also say you Libertarians can’t win congressional seats until a firm foundation is laid. Start winning local and state offices. Change the entire structure. Ground up.

BA- What is your opinion about requiring potential presidential candidates to take a battery of tests, to prove their worth IOW?

 

[BackAgain]

BA- What is your opinion about requiring potential presidential candidates to take a battery of tests, to prove their worth IOW?

Not a fan. We have managed — in recent elections — to get some poor candidates as things are. I don’t want to incentivize the better prospective candidates to simply toss up their hands and say “screw it. I don’t need this crap.”

With men like Trump, we see that most aren’t in it for the money. The pay isn’t all that great. Free use of the House for 4 to 8 years is good. Lots of special perks. Like the plane.

If it ain’t for the pay and perks, hopefully they’re looking for the gig for more substantive reasons. Those are the folks I want running. If I don’t share their particular goals or methods, I don’t vote for them. But if they choose to not even run, I lose that option.

 

[flacaltenn]

We would need a shift in attitudes about the role of government, which could only come either gradually, though persuasion or suddenly, due to our bloated system collapsing under its own weight. Unfortunately,

I think that's the primary value of sticking together. Since we're not ALLOWED to govern due to rigging ballot access and the tendencies of the media to be partisan, the role is to caution everyone else to keep their eyes on liberty and make strong cases for smaller models of govt that FOCUS on their basic duties.

Actually I support IJ, Cato, Reason Foundation -- a LOT more than I support Lib campaigns, BECAUSE they ARE effective at the "gradual" thing you mentioned.

Serious RED LINES exist out there where we CAN make a diff. One, off the cuff, is this new Big Brother Domestic Spy System that was created to find jihadis on our soil, but is BETTER KNOWN to be used on political opponents and making lists of "threatening people". If you want to prevent a collapse/takeover scenario with totalitarian results -- you best convince the "party animals" that ABUSING the World's Greatest Spy Machine HAS to stop.

Pick the issues. Make the contributions. EVERYONE is better for our efforts.

 

[San Souci]

Maybe it's never occurred to most folks born and raised in the 2 party duopoly, but having good ideas and principles doesn't help you govern. Libertarians as a PARTY never really appeal to their "governing abilities". And they probably should not given that the 2 parties have "nested" in Congress so long that it doesn't resemble anything that COULD DO "the people's work".

ANYONE attempting to dismantle the corruption, govt/corporate/media collusion, self-serving, and top down control of Congress by just FOUR POWERFUL party people -- will be creamed if they are NOT independent of party.

The reason I'm pushing QUALIFIED people to run as Independents right now is that if you INNOCULATE Congress with just a HANDFUL of people who SHUN BOTH PARTIES, -- you stand a better chance of killing the "virus" that way.

Those folks wont stand for a majority/minority leader TELLING them what they can say or do. So to the PRESS and the PEOPLE, that "vaccination squad" will appear smarter, harder working and SANER than the other 531 irrelevant parrots in that body.

That sounds like Donald Trump.

 

[flacaltenn]

That sounds like Donald Trump.

Right direction, wrong demeanor. All of the entrepreneurs I worked with in Silicon Valley were basically primadonnas with clinical raging ego issues. The "ultimate outsider" is gonna be attacked by the established swamp creatures. How you REACT to those attacks matters. And from personal experience, you never wrestle with the gators on THEIR TERMS..

LOL...

 

[San Souci]

Right direction, wrong demeanor. All of the entrepreneurs I worked with in Silicon Valley were basically primadonnas with clinical raging ego issues. The "ultimate outsider" is gonna be attacked by the established swamp creatures. How you REACT to those attacks matters. And from personal experience, you never wrestle with the gators on THEIR TERMS..

LOL...

Silicon Valley? They are all Globalists. Trump actually took on the Swamp. His biggest success was exposing the MSM for the Phonies they are. Almost NOBODY nowadays trusts the Media.

 

[PinktheFloyd88]

I love to ridicule the flawed thinking of both of the twoparties. So, if you are a Democrat, you will probably think me a Trumper. If you are a Trumper, you will probably accuse me of being a Trump-bashing liberal. If you are a never-Trumper Republican/conservative, you will probably think I'm a pro-Trump liberal. Or something.

Libertarianism is on life support at the moment, due to COVID being used as an excuse for authoritarianism. I'm not an anti-vaxxer, I am fully vaxxed and I'll get the booster when I can. But I'm an anti-vaxx mandate guy, so that may get some of you torqued up.

Anyway, it's all in good fun for me. I don't expect to change the world on a message board, so I don't get in a twist about it. Look forward to friendly (hopefully) debates with you all.

Hello

 

[DudleySmith]

I call the Founding Fathers "Conservatarian," and I support candidates close to that position.

I OPPOSE the liberal variety who support drug legalization, open borders, prostitution, child killing/abortion

Same here; despite their claims of 'original intent', they don't much resemble the Founders much at all.

 

[ClaireH]

Not a fan. We have managed — in recent elections — to get some poor candidates as things are. I don’t want to incentivize the better prospective candidates to simply toss up their hands and say “screw it. I don’t need this crap.”

With men like Trump, we see that most aren’t in it for the money. The pay isn’t all that great. Free use of the House for 4 to 8 years is good. Lots of special perks. Like the plane.

If it ain’t for the pay and perks, hopefully they’re looking for the gig for more substantive reasons. Those are the folks I want running. If I don’t share their particular goals or methods, I don’t vote for them. But if they choose to not even run, I lose that option.

I understand your train of thought that upping the criteria could result in potential candidates not running. In my humble opinion, that would mean they really weren’t that interested.

If campaign finance laws would be enacted (yes, similar to pushing a mule up a hill) that contain sensible solutions not corruptive PAC maneuvering (think H. Clinton) voters would have the kind of leaders they actually want to have in charge. Every voter has a unique perception about what a “good” presidential candidate looks like. Some voters categorize leadership over
intelligence while others reverse those priorities. A qualified presidential candidate should contain both of these elements along with many other positive characteristics.

As you know, we currently vote from a limited group of candidates who are either wealthy themselves or have big donors to weigh in to be able play politics. In 2024, no longer will access to $400,000,000 plus be enough to run for president (as well for various congressional races) as it will soon be required to have access to $1,000,000,000- a mere billion.

Our founding fathers never intended for presidential candidates to be required to have great wealth. Note the word ‘required’ as I have no ill will toward wealthy individuals who have worked hard to earn their money. More power to all of the honest ones. Massive wealth should not be a requirement to run and taken out of the equation completely. Corporations and foreign entities that donate large sums of money to specific candidates are legally playing politics. That is a crock in itself. Corrupt PAC funding is hurting our election process and of no value to the country.

Bottom line- voters deserve better candidates, it’s no longer the 1900’s, and better candidates would run without the wealth requirement. Voters would instantly become more informed comparing the candidates by their test results. I don’t think it’s asking too much that someone who is going to lead the country be required to prove they’re qualified, beyond their words and false campaign promises.

 

[BackAgain]

I understand your train of thought that upping the criteria could result in potential candidates not running. In my humble opinion, that would mean they really weren’t that interested.

If campaign finance laws would be enacted (yes, similar to pushing a mule up a hill) that contain sensible solutions not corruptive PAC maneuvering (think H. Clinton) voters would have the kind of leaders they actually want to have in charge. Every voter has a unique perception about what a “good” presidential candidate looks like. Some voters categorize leadership over
intelligence while others reverse those priorities. A qualified presidential candidate should contain both of these elements along with many other positive characteristics. As you know, we currently vote from a limited group of candidates, who are either wealthy themselves or have big donors to weigh in to be able play politics. In 2024, no longer will access to $400,000,000 plus be enough to run for president (as well for various congressional races) as it will soon be required to have access to $1,000,000,000- a mere billion.

Our founding fathers never intended for presidential candidates to be required to have great wealth. Note the word required as I have no ill will to wealthy individuals who have worked hard to earn their money. More power to all of the honest ones. Massive wealth should not be a requirement to run and taken out of the equation completely. Corporations and foreign entities that donate large sums of money to specific candidates are legally playing politics. That is a crock in itself. Corrupt PAC funding is hurting our election process and of no value to the country.

Bottom line- voters deserve better candidates, it’s no longer the 1900’s, and better candidates would run without the wealth requirement. Voters would instantly become more informed comparing the candidates by their test results. I don’t think it’s asking too much that someone who is going to lead the country be required to prove their qualified, beyond their words and false campaign promises.

I get your pov, too. Frankly, I’m surprised that anybody wants that job. Look what the evil Democrap Party and its apparatchik media did relentlessly to Pres. Trump starting even before he took the oath of Office.

maybe there is already so much shit to Wade through, some qualified candidates have already opted out of even running. My ongoing concern is that adding even more hurdles will only serve to further dilute the candidate pool. And again, I’m tired of a choice of tweedle Dee or tweedle Dee. (Not a typo). And the 3rd Party option has historically been no real option at all.

I like your thinking process. I’m just not persuaded that it won’t make matters worse. Plus, there is something to be said in favor of a candidate who isn’t willing to do anything for the job. Maybe such candidates are too desirous to be qualified. Like: I don’t want any club that would have me as a member. (Sorry Groucho Marx)

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

I see this as a critical time. But as always, my opinion is that by some method the American people need to demand a government that will serve the interests of the working class

The Founding Fathers created the presidency as the opportunity to allow ONE OF US to SERVE as a sort of LIMITED king for a LIMITED period of time.

The idea of appointing "qualified" individuals is anathema to our Founding principles.

The same with the House and Senate. Both institutions have been fully corrupted by greedy and lustful men and women who abuse their office to become "career politicians" and make THEMSELVES extremely wealthy in the process.

We need to return to the principles the Founders established for us.

 

[ClaireH]

I get your pov, too. Frankly, I’m surprised that anybody wants that job. Look what the evil Democrap Party and its apparatchik media did relentlessly to Pres. Trump starting even before he took the oath of Office.

maybe there is already so much shit to Wade through, some qualified candidates have already opted out of even running. My ongoing concern is that adding even more hurdles will only serve to further dilute the candidate pool. And again, I’m tired of a choice of tweedle Dee or tweedle Dee. (Not a typo). And the 3rd Party option has historically been no real option at all.

I like your thinking process. I’m just not persuaded that it won’t make matters worse. Plus, there is something to be said in favor of a candidate who isn’t willing to do anything for the job. Maybe such candidates are too desirous to be qualified. Like: I don’t want any club that would have me as a member. (Sorry Groucho Marx)

I couldn’t agree more with your take about how LSM and most left-leaning leaning bobbleheads instantly threw Trump to the wolves, even from day one without even giving him a chance. Not many would have fared as well from their non-stop harassment.

Another layer of corruption- LSM orgs telling voters how to think instead of sticking to facts. Mixing news with commentary is the new standard- much worse than the old. Another reason voters need candidate transparency via testing, not only will voters see candidates’ positions on the issues to compare, but would learn their unique motivations. That would be a huge win for American voters!

Speaking of candidates who are “too desirous” for the job- the ones who appear overly polished, as if they practiced smiling in the mirror over and over and over again and various facial posturing- Romney comes to mind lol

Yes, there is a lot to be said about outer appearances, one’s words and actions revealing sometimes a false image. That’s the main issue I have that a candidate’s superficial appearance including words and actions, versus the “true self” or character underneath. A battery of tests would uncover character flaws and highlight exceptional qualities. A win-win!

 

[Donald H]

The Founding Fathers created the presidency as the opportunity to allow ONE OF US to SERVE as a sort of LIMITED king for a LIMITED period of time.

The idea of appointing "qualified" individuals is anathema to our Founding principles.

The same with the House and Senate. Both institutions have been fully corrupted by greedy and lustful men and women who abuse their office to become "career politicians" and make THEMSELVES extremely wealthy in the process.

We need to return to the principles the Founders established for us.

You need to do something but I don't know what you mean by the principles of the founding fathers.
What was done differently?

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

You need to do something but I don't know what you mean by the principles of the founding fathers.
What was done differently?

Career politicians were never part of the plan for America.

Professional politicians were never part of the plan.

Biden has never held a job outside of elected government.