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

[Donald H]

We won't get anywhere until the voting system is changed, or people finally give up their lesser-of-two-evils delusion. As long as people are voting out of fear, instead of for the candidate the think is the best, it doesn't really matter what agenda a third party has.

I'll talk about the 'fear' you mention if you like.
What is this 'fear'?

 

[dblack]

I'll talk about the 'fear' you mention if you like.
What is this 'fear'?

LO2E

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

We won't get anywhere until the voting system is changed, or people finally give up their lesser-of-two-evils delusion. As long as people are voting out of fear, instead of for the candidate the think is the best, it doesn't really matter what agenda a third party has.

You think libertarians aren't "the lesser of two evils"

There are all kinds of people calling themselves libertarians.

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

I despise most "libertarians" as much as liberals. They are the evil of 2 lessers

 

[dblack]

You think libertarians aren't "the lesser of two evils"

There are all kinds of people calling themselves libertarians.

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

I despise most "libertarians" as much as liberals. They are the evil of 2 lessers

Don't worry. I'd never confuse you with a libertarian.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Don't worry. I'd never confuse you with a libertarian.

I appreciate that

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

I keep thinking this says "I'm a librarian"

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I keep thinking this says "I'm a librarian"

I have often found librarians to be very helpful individuals.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

It's really simple. We're Americans that support ALL of Constitution and BillORights. We believe that freedom not only includes speech and religion, but your ECONOMIC freedom as well. That's why Institute of Justice is so important. Because ACLU generally never takes cases protecting "mom and pop" biz owners against onerous regulations and rules.

We understand that 200 Million working Americans have MORE expertise in running things than govt and there's no excuse for ever EXPANDING and onerous "Govt rights" to centralize decisions on everything from lightbulb design to the National Power system.

Been right on crap 30 years ahead of America, Like legalizing marijuana, not for OUR benefit, but to tamp down the War on Drugs. Was right on School Choice, we basically designed "medical savings accounts" back in the 90s. Been TEACHING states how to survive their Pension crises. Our 1st candidate for Pres, was an openly gay man BECAUSE, he was the BEST to represent us in the 70s.

But most importantly we ALWAYS spoke about "freedom and liberty" as being challenged by bigger more muscular (and inept) govt.. THAT didn't become favorable amongst Republicans until maybe Reagan.

One thing about the now extinct Dem Liberals. THEY were not fans either of bigger, more powerful govt that serves themselves rather than us.

 

[flacaltenn]

They're at least searching for 'another' solultion. If they can make their agenda suitable and rational enough to draw a crowd then they'll be on their way to finding real freedom.

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.

 

[flacaltenn]

But if we’re talking about Presidential candidates, the Libertarian Party is at an even bigger disadvantage. T

2016 -- I voted for the BEST EVER Libertarian ticket. TWO - 2 term governors with ACTUAL Governing experience. Johnson/Weld were undeniably qualified to lead the country compared to Biden/Harris or Hillary/Whatever. And in THAT year, I had no concept how Trump as a Republican was gonna be any kind of agent of change.

 

[BackAgain]

2016 -- I voted for the BEST EVER Libertarian ticket. TWO - 2 term governors with ACTUAL Governing experience. Johnson/Weld were undeniably qualified to lead the country compared to Biden/Harris or Hillary/Whatever. And in THAT year, I had no concept how Trump as a Republican was gonna be any kind of agent of change.

The woman who ran at the head of the Libertarian ticket in the last election was a nearly unknown at the time. And after the election? Still virtually unknown.

Her name was Jo. Her running mate went by the Name of “Spike.” I believe it was a National stealth campaign.

 

[flacaltenn]

The woman who ran at the head of the Libertarian ticket in the last election was a nearly unknown at the time. And after the election? Still virtually unknown.

Her name was Jo. Her running mate went by the Name of “Spike.” I believe it was a National stealth campaign.

Mistake being made in most Libertarian Prez tickets is to ignore actual expertise in governing. Johnson/Weld HAD that expertise, Jo/Spike did not.

Governing is NOT practicing political philosophy, it's a matter of (excuse the steal) draining the swamp. You need immaculate credentials in problem-solving and quick thinking in "end-arounds".

That's why if we can field and win even 6 to 10 seats in Congress with Indies who DO have the patience and skills to whack at the swamp and its creatures and GOVERN -- they will stand out as a reminder what Congress WAS LIKE until maybe the late 60s. EVEN BETTER -- if they are displaced and abused FORMER Congress critters. Say like Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii or Harold Ford of Tenn and MAYBE even notables like Trey Gowdy. These folks have had their parties LEAVE THEM or even attack them for being less than stooges/parrots. And they'd all look and act smarter and more engaged to the media and the public as Indies.

 

[flacaltenn]

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

I oppose all those things also. BUT -- freedom/liberty is based on TOLERANCE for what others choose to do. So -- you're on the WRONG track as far being anti-marijuana legalization, NOBODY except the 10 Dem candidates for Prez in 2020 raises their hands for OPEN BORDERS. There are NUANCES there. Like in the Constitution to "provide immigration and naturalization" services or EVEN for fuck's sake. a health/criminal check on ANYONE entering as a potential citizen.

Prostitution being ILLEGAL creates MORE human suffering in terms of human trafficking, criminal profiteering and abuse. There is a MIDDLE road here as well.

Abortion should not BE a govt decision PERIOD. You win that battle in hearts/minds. And with laws that MIGHT vary a bit between states. All govt does is FUEL the anger and polarization on that issue and kick-back funding to the major organizations RUNNING the battle in the public sphere.

You dont have to SUPPORT ANY OF THOSE things to have the tolerance neccessary to GIVE people choices on those matters. Not a pothead, never hired a prostitute, think abortion should be VERY rare. Fight those battles on your own, without using power of the state to FORCE decisions.

 

[BackAgain]

Mistake being made in most Libertarian Prez tickets is to ignore actual expertise in governing. Johnson/Weld HAD that expertise, Jo/Spike did not.

Governing is NOT practicing political philosophy, it's a matter of (excuse the steal) draining the swamp. You need immaculate credentials in problem-solving and quick thinking in "end-arounds".

That's why if we can field and win even 6 to 10 seats in Congress with Indies who DO have the patience and skills to whack at the swamp and its creatures and GOVERN -- they will stand out as a reminder what Congress WAS LIKE until maybe the late 60s. EVEN BETTER -- if they are displaced and abused FORMER Congress critters. Say like Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii or Harold Ford of Tenn and MAYBE even notables like Trey Gowdy. These folks have had their parties LEAVE THEM or even attack them for being less than stooges/parrots. And they'd all look and act smarter and more engaged to the media and the public as Indies.

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.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

I oppose all those things also. BUT -- freedom/liberty is based on TOLERANCE for what others choose to do. So -- you're on the WRONG track as far being anti-marijuana legalization, NOBODY except the 10 Dem candidates for Prez in 2020 raises their hands for OPEN BORDERS. There are NUANCES there. Like in the Constitution to "provide immigration and naturalization" services or EVEN for fuck's sake. a health/criminal check on ANYONE entering as a potential citizen.

Prostitution being ILLEGAL creates MORE human suffering in terms of human trafficking, criminal profiteering and abuse. There is a MIDDLE road here as well.

Abortion should not BE a govt decision PERIOD. You win that battle in hearts/minds. And with laws that MIGHT vary a bit between states. All govt does is FUEL the anger and polarization on that issue and kick-back funding to the major organizations RUNNING the battle in the public sphere.

You dont have to SUPPORT ANY OF THOSE things to have the tolerance neccessary to GIVE people choices on those matters. Not a pothead, never hired a prostitute, think abortion should be VERY rare. Fight those battles on your own, without using power of the state to FORCE decisions.

Too bad you don't "tolerate" people who oppose activity that is harmful to society.

It is your OPINION that legalizing drugs or prostitution or baby killing gives you LESS crime. It absolutely leads to more "social" crime. But I really don't care to debate this. I will continue to not support these valued beliefs of misguided libertarians.

The Founders supported freedom, not anarchy. They were NOT "libertarians." Neither am I

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

I also say you Libertarians can’t win congressional seats until a firm foundation is laid

They will never win because so much of their beliefs are fantasy, and they don't understand human nature any better than liberalism.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

The Libertarian Town that Went Feral

The Town That Went Feral

When a group of libertarians set about scrapping their local government, chaos descended. And then the bears moved in.

newrepublic.com

 

[Donald H]

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.

The idea of 'qualified' people is something i've mentioned on a few occasions with others. That in the context of a democracy sometimes not being able to do that, while some other system of government can appoint the best and brightest. Not that they necessarily do, but they can.

In effect, America may already have a 'handful' of people who shun both political parties, albeit most likely not your choice of renegades. Actually I see the tea party as the founders of that attempt even though they have apparently taken the entire party with them on their experiment.

I see little doubt that you are proposing what is needed. But the 'substance' of what you propose needs to be popular with the people or it dies. You hint at 'independent' or 'libertarian' but you haven't expanded on what you consider to be your political platform.

I'm interested in further discussion on your ideas because 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.

 

[Donald H]

It's really simple. We're Americans that support ALL of Constitution and BillORights. We believe that freedom not only includes speech and religion, but your ECONOMIC freedom as well. That's why Institute of Justice is so important. Because ACLU generally never takes cases protecting "mom and pop" biz owners against onerous regulations and rules.

We understand that 200 Million working Americans have MORE expertise in running things than govt and there's no excuse for ever EXPANDING and onerous "Govt rights" to centralize decisions on everything from lightbulb design to the National Power system.

Been right on crap 30 years ahead of America, Like legalizing marijuana, not for OUR benefit, but to tamp down the War on Drugs. Was right on School Choice, we basically designed "medical savings accounts" back in the 90s. Been TEACHING states how to survive their Pension crises. Our 1st candidate for Pres, was an openly gay man BECAUSE, he was the BEST to represent us in the 70s.

But most importantly we ALWAYS spoke about "freedom and liberty" as being challenged by bigger more muscular (and inept) govt.. THAT didn't become favorable amongst Republicans until maybe Reagan.

One thing about the now extinct Dem Liberals. THEY were not fans either of bigger, more powerful govt that serves themselves rather than us.

I wrote a reply to your other post and so I'm a bit swamped with so many points you're making. I'll leave it at that for now unless there are more important points in this post which you would rather pursue?

 

[flacaltenn]

Too bad you don't "tolerate" people who oppose activity that is harmful to society.

Sure I do. THey're just INTOLERANT to personal choices that folks make. Like smoking marijuana. Were you RIGHT about the harm in legalizing marijuana? Go pull me all the criminal acts in those states where folks ALLOWED the personal use of marijuana.

Same with prostitution. Nevada figured it out. Not much criminal activity associated with the Nevada brothels. IN FACT -- the FEDS ended up being LANDLORDS for the famous Mustang Ranch for awhile when they got them on tax evasion or something.

It is your OPINION that legalizing drugs or prostitution or baby killing gives you LESS crime. It absolutely leads to more "social" crime.

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.