Libertarian but not Libertarian Party?

[LoneLaugher]

Please get a grip. We are more free now than we at any time in our history.

and yet we have more laws and more regulation than any time in history

What are you prevented from doing that you'd wish to do? Use a shit light bulb that is less efficient? You got me.

yes and toilets that don;t flush properly

less choice equals less freedom

You are so oppressed! How can you stand it?

I am told what I can and can't do on my own land and in my own home where in the world does that mean I am more free than ever?

You are? You still talking toilets?

You are talking up all this America and within our borders shit but what you really want is your own personal nation.

Sorry. You don't get that unless you want to forfeit all the he good stuff too.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Please get a grip. We are more free now than we at any time in our history.

and yet we have more laws and more regulation than any time in history

What are you prevented from doing that you'd wish to do? Use a shit light bulb that is less efficient? You got me.

I like much of the libertarian platform but I dislike just as much especially their open border stance

IMO our freedoms and liberties are reserved for American citizens only. We have no obligation to extend those rights, privileges and protections to anyone who is not an American citizen.

Now as for citizens I am for more personal liberty even if it means that people must suffer the consequences for their bad choices.

This point of view fails to recognize that individual liberty transcends nations. It's not a grant from government, Thats sort of the point of 'inalienable rights' in the first place.

True but we cannot afford to assure that liberty for the entire world can we?
We can however do that here within our own borders

It doesn't cost anything to refrain from violating liberty.

it does if we extend protection to people who are not citizens and who do not contribute to the tax base of the country

Not doing something is a null-op. The point of view the government is a service providing benes for subscribers is the what we're fighting against.

government is necessary to protect the liberties you want.

If someone violates your rights there has to be an entity to provide recourse.

That is the most legitimate reason for government to exist and it costs

 

[Care4all]

I've been seriously contemplating what I actually AM lately. In light of this crazy-ass election, the likes of which we've clearly never had; and hopefully, will never have again in my lifetime. You see, I had always thought that I was a Conservative. Apparently, I am not a Conservative, or at least not one representing the new 'Trump Conservative' position. So if that's now "Conservative" then that's not who I am.

I have a strong belief in our Constitution. I think our framers were geniuses. They devised such a flawlessly perfect system for building a strong prosperous nation, filled with diversity and freedom of spirit and individual. Every word of that document was pondered and considered with incredible thought and strong philosophy. It's not out-dated, it's timeless.

This is the foundation of where my 'Conservative' philosophy centers. I think of Conservative as more of a philosophy than some specific ideology. It's never "Liberal vs. Conservative" for me... it's Conservative vs. Extreme or Radical. My personal ideological leanings are more Libertarian than anything else. But am I a Libertarian Conservative? A Constitutional Conservative? Or does "Conservative" not even apply anymore?

I know that I am not ready to hitch up with the Libertarian Party at this time. I think they are pretty much a running national joke at this point. It seems that with "Extreme" Libertarianism you get a lot of nutbags and fruitcakes. No, I don't want to make Heroin legal nationwide... and yes, I do still believe in religious freedom. So I guess you could say I am a "Moderate" Libertarian?

In most social cases, I think the states and people of the state should have the option to decide. Unless it is specifically a fundamental and inalienable right question, it should be up to the state and people to decide. I don't want the Federal government establishing all these one-size-fits-all laws governing our society. No one is happy like that. We shouldn't put up with our pursuit of happiness being thwarted that way. We should all have the right to establish our own societal limitations and boundaries based on our own cultures and traditions.

There are a LOT of libertarian Republicans. In fact, there has been a "Liberty Caucus" in Congress for 20 years. I lot of very talented and principled folks hang out there. And on the Dem side, we agree with Bernie on about 50% of the issues. At least the ones that don't involve math or economics. Like on asset forfeiture, less foreign intervention, a strong defense and support of all TEN of the Bill of Rights. Also agree with the "bernie left" on ending govt/corporate welfare and collusion.

It's a really simple leap actually. Nothing that requires you to endorse "legalizing heroin". On drugs, the LParty supported marijuana reform primarily because packing our prisons with weed offenders, which we have carried to astronomical proportions, just is NOT a good use of the criminal justice and prison system.

You don't HAVE to ENDORSE liberties that you grant to others. In fact, you can despise their choices. But TOLERANCE of other choices is a fundamental prereq to living in a truly free country. And without tolerating the decisions of others -- you can't keep the state from usurping powers that it should not have.

What party does NOT have a fringe group of whackos and undesirables? They are attracted to platforms that are CLOSEST to their thinking. So MOST of the Libertarian fringe are anarchists. Who are confused about Libertarianism. And don't understand that we LOVE the Constitution as fundamentally interpreted, the justice system and vibrant political system. We strive for ballot access and to be on ballots to offer choice, not to gain power. And don't mind losing when we stick to principles.

Here's the thing....it matters naught that any third party has access , and on the ballots...

DRUM ROLL.....because of the way states finagled the elector votes in to a WINNER TAKE ALL....

a third party candidate can't get a single electoral vote....

Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote, without gaining one itty bitty electoral vote! NOT ONE ELECTOR

THAT is not the intent of our founders for electors, but due to the two parties legislating within their States a FIX, Winner Takes ALL, so that no one but the 2 parties can have a chance to be president and obtain any electors.

It can be fixed without a constitutional amendment....electors vote as their congressional district votes, or allot electors to the candidates proportional to the State's pop vote cast, then the 2 extra electors every state gets representing their US Senators... cast their vote for the overall winner of their State popular vote.

 

[LoneLaugher]

and yet we have more laws and more regulation than any time in history

What are you prevented from doing that you'd wish to do? Use a shit light bulb that is less efficient? You got me.

This point of view fails to recognize that individual liberty transcends nations. It's not a grant from government, Thats sort of the point of 'inalienable rights' in the first place.

True but we cannot afford to assure that liberty for the entire world can we?
We can however do that here within our own borders

It doesn't cost anything to refrain from violating liberty.

it does if we extend protection to people who are not citizens and who do not contribute to the tax base of the country

Not doing something is a null-op. The point of view the government is a service providing benes for subscribers is the what we're fighting against.

government is necessary to protect the liberties you want.

If someone violates your rights there has to be an entity to provide recourse.

That is the most legitimate reason for government to exist and it costs

And....if your wasteful toilet wastes everyone else's good water you don't give a shit. It is your right to waste water. Right?

So lame and stupid.

 

[dblack]

and yet we have more laws and more regulation than any time in history

What are you prevented from doing that you'd wish to do? Use a shit light bulb that is less efficient? You got me.

This point of view fails to recognize that individual liberty transcends nations. It's not a grant from government, Thats sort of the point of 'inalienable rights' in the first place.

True but we cannot afford to assure that liberty for the entire world can we?
We can however do that here within our own borders

It doesn't cost anything to refrain from violating liberty.

it does if we extend protection to people who are not citizens and who do not contribute to the tax base of the country

Not doing something is a null-op. The point of view the government is a service providing benes for subscribers is the what we're fighting against.

government is necessary to protect the liberties you want.

If someone violates your rights there has to be an entity to provide recourse.

That is the most legitimate reason for government to exist and it costs

Yep. I'm not contradicting that. But I am arguing against the idea that non-citizens have less rights than citizens. Or that our government has less responsibility to protect their rights.

 

[Skull Pilot]

and yet we have more laws and more regulation than any time in history

What are you prevented from doing that you'd wish to do? Use a shit light bulb that is less efficient? You got me.

yes and toilets that don;t flush properly

less choice equals less freedom

You are so oppressed! How can you stand it?

I am told what I can and can't do on my own land and in my own home where in the world does that mean I am more free than ever?

You are? You still talking toilets?

You are talking up all this America and within our borders shit but what you really want is your own personal nation.

Sorry. You don't get that unless you want to forfeit all the he good stuff too.

Not just toilets

I own and pay taxes on land that I am not allowed to do many things on because some asswipe reclassified it as
protected wet lands even though it's dry as a ******* bone and just 50 years ago it was 100% cleared farmland

And as far as I'm concerned the good stuff is my personal freedom to do what I want on my own property and in my own home that's the reason one owns private property in the first place. I understand that there are restrictions on public behavior and even believe they are necessary but what I want to do to my own property is none of anyone else's business.

 

[owebo]

I've been seriously contemplating what I actually AM lately. In light of this crazy-ass election, the likes of which we've clearly never had; and hopefully, will never have again in my lifetime. You see, I had always thought that I was a Conservative. Apparently, I am not a Conservative, or at least not one representing the new 'Trump Conservative' position. So if that's now "Conservative" then that's not who I am.

I have a strong belief in our Constitution. I think our framers were geniuses. They devised such a flawlessly perfect system for building a strong prosperous nation, filled with diversity and freedom of spirit and individual. Every word of that document was pondered and considered with incredible thought and strong philosophy. It's not out-dated, it's timeless.

This is the foundation of where my 'Conservative' philosophy centers. I think of Conservative as more of a philosophy than some specific ideology. It's never "Liberal vs. Conservative" for me... it's Conservative vs. Extreme or Radical. My personal ideological leanings are more Libertarian than anything else. But am I a Libertarian Conservative? A Constitutional Conservative? Or does "Conservative" not even apply anymore?

I know that I am not ready to hitch up with the Libertarian Party at this time. I think they are pretty much a running national joke at this point. It seems that with "Extreme" Libertarianism you get a lot of nutbags and fruitcakes. No, I don't want to make Heroin legal nationwide... and yes, I do still believe in religious freedom. So I guess you could say I am a "Moderate" Libertarian?

In most social cases, I think the states and people of the state should have the option to decide. Unless it is specifically a fundamental and inalienable right question, it should be up to the state and people to decide. I don't want the Federal government establishing all these one-size-fits-all laws governing our society. No one is happy like that. We shouldn't put up with our pursuit of happiness being thwarted that way. We should all have the right to establish our own societal limitations and boundaries based on our own cultures and traditions.

There are a LOT of libertarian Republicans. In fact, there has been a "Liberty Caucus" in Congress for 20 years. I lot of very talented and principled folks hang out there. And on the Dem side, we agree with Bernie on about 50% of the issues. At least the ones that don't involve math or economics. Like on asset forfeiture, less foreign intervention, a strong defense and support of all TEN of the Bill of Rights. Also agree with the "bernie left" on ending govt/corporate welfare and collusion.

It's a really simple leap actually. Nothing that requires you to endorse "legalizing heroin". On drugs, the LParty supported marijuana reform primarily because packing our prisons with weed offenders, which we have carried to astronomical proportions, just is NOT a good use of the criminal justice and prison system.

You don't HAVE to ENDORSE liberties that you grant to others. In fact, you can despise their choices. But TOLERANCE of other choices is a fundamental prereq to living in a truly free country. And without tolerating the decisions of others -- you can't keep the state from usurping powers that it should not have.

What party does NOT have a fringe group of whackos and undesirables? They are attracted to platforms that are CLOSEST to their thinking. So MOST of the Libertarian fringe are anarchists. Who are confused about Libertarianism. And don't understand that we LOVE the Constitution as fundamentally interpreted, the justice system and vibrant political system. We strive for ballot access and to be on ballots to offer choice, not to gain power. And don't mind losing when we stick to principles.

Here's the thing....it matters naught that any third party has access , and on the ballots...

DRUM ROLL.....because of the way states finagled the elector votes in to a WINNER TAKE ALL....

a third party candidate can't get a single electoral vote....

Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote, without gaining one itty bitty electoral vote! NOT ONE ELECTOR

THAT is not the intent of our founders for electors, but due to the two parties legislating within their States a FIX, Winner Takes ALL, so that no one but the 2 parties can have a chance to be president and obtain any electors.

It can be fixed without a constitutional amendment....electors vote as their congressional district votes, or allot electors to the candidates proportional to the State's pop vote cast, then the 2 extra electors every state gets representing their US Senators... cast their vote for the overall winner of their State popular vote.

They can get every electoral vote...

 

[Skull Pilot]

What are you prevented from doing that you'd wish to do? Use a shit light bulb that is less efficient? You got me.

True but we cannot afford to assure that liberty for the entire world can we?
We can however do that here within our own borders

It doesn't cost anything to refrain from violating liberty.

it does if we extend protection to people who are not citizens and who do not contribute to the tax base of the country

Not doing something is a null-op. The point of view the government is a service providing benes for subscribers is the what we're fighting against.

government is necessary to protect the liberties you want.

If someone violates your rights there has to be an entity to provide recourse.

That is the most legitimate reason for government to exist and it costs

And....if your wasteful toilet wastes everyone else's good water you don't give a shit. It is your right to waste water. Right?

So lame and stupid.

I have a private well and septic. And water cannot be wasted. If it's flushed it ends right back up in the water cycle where it started. That's something you should have learned in 8th grade science

 

[owebo]

What are you prevented from doing that you'd wish to do? Use a shit light bulb that is less efficient? You got me.

True but we cannot afford to assure that liberty for the entire world can we?
We can however do that here within our own borders

It doesn't cost anything to refrain from violating liberty.

it does if we extend protection to people who are not citizens and who do not contribute to the tax base of the country

Not doing something is a null-op. The point of view the government is a service providing benes for subscribers is the what we're fighting against.

government is necessary to protect the liberties you want.

If someone violates your rights there has to be an entity to provide recourse.

That is the most legitimate reason for government to exist and it costs

And....if your wasteful toilet wastes everyone else's good water you don't give a shit. It is your right to waste water. Right?

So lame and stupid.

What the **** business is it of yours what I do with my water I pay for?

 

[Skull Pilot]

What are you prevented from doing that you'd wish to do? Use a shit light bulb that is less efficient? You got me.

True but we cannot afford to assure that liberty for the entire world can we?
We can however do that here within our own borders

It doesn't cost anything to refrain from violating liberty.

it does if we extend protection to people who are not citizens and who do not contribute to the tax base of the country

Not doing something is a null-op. The point of view the government is a service providing benes for subscribers is the what we're fighting against.

government is necessary to protect the liberties you want.

If someone violates your rights there has to be an entity to provide recourse.

That is the most legitimate reason for government to exist and it costs

Yep. I'm not contradicting that. But I am arguing against the idea that non-citizens have less rights than citizens. Or that our government has less responsibility to protect their rights.

they don't have less rights we just don't have to pay to protect them

 

[gipper]

I think it's funny when a person looks back at the past 230 years and tries to convince himself that we haven't made vast improvements in the way this nation is governed.

Vast improvement in governance. You have got to be kidding right?

You think a HUGE OMNIPRESENT UNLIMITED debt ridden central government run by a bunch of elitist criminals, is improvement.

WTF is wrong with you?

The worst evils which mankind has ever had to endure were inflicted by bad governments. The state can be and has often been in the course of history the main source of mischief and disaster. - von Mises

Please get a grip. We are more free now than at any time in our history.

That wins the Most Ignorant Post of all time.

Merry Christmas!

 

[gipper]

I think it's funny when a person looks back at the past 230 years and tries to convince himself that we haven't made vast improvements in the way this nation is governed.

Vast improvement in governance. You have got to be kidding right?

You think a HUGE OMNIPRESENT UNLIMITED debt ridden central government run by a bunch of elitist criminals, is improvement.

WTF is wrong with you?

The worst evils which mankind has ever had to endure were inflicted by bad governments. The state can be and has often been in the course of history the main source of mischief and disaster. - von Mises

Please get a grip. We are more free now than we at any time in our history.

That there is the stupidist post of the day so far....

Maybe of ALL ******* TIME!!!

 

[gipper]

Vast improvement in governance. You have got to be kidding right?

You think a HUGE OMNIPRESENT UNLIMITED debt ridden central government run by a bunch of elitist criminals, is improvement.

WTF is wrong with you?

The worst evils which mankind has ever had to endure were inflicted by bad governments. The state can be and has often been in the course of history the main source of mischief and disaster. - von Mises

Please get a grip. We are more free now than we at any time in our history.

and yet we have more laws and more regulation than any time in history

What are you prevented from doing that you'd wish to do? Use a shit light bulb that is less efficient? You got me.

yes and toilets that don;t flush properly

less choice equals less freedom

You are so oppressed! How can you stand it?

If no one is oppressed in America, why is the Left always bitching?

 

[gipper]

and yet we have more laws and more regulation than any time in history

What are you prevented from doing that you'd wish to do? Use a shit light bulb that is less efficient? You got me.

This point of view fails to recognize that individual liberty transcends nations. It's not a grant from government, Thats sort of the point of 'inalienable rights' in the first place.

True but we cannot afford to assure that liberty for the entire world can we?
We can however do that here within our own borders

It doesn't cost anything to refrain from violating liberty.

it does if we extend protection to people who are not citizens and who do not contribute to the tax base of the country

Not doing something is a null-op. The point of view the government is a service providing benes for subscribers is the what we're fighting against.

government is necessary to protect the liberties you want.

If someone violates your rights there has to be an entity to provide recourse.

That is the most legitimate reason for government to exist and it costs

The only reason for it to exist.

The problem is that government is always run by criminals...and as such, never limits itself to protection of liberty.

 

[owebo]

I think it's funny when a person looks back at the past 230 years and tries to convince himself that we haven't made vast improvements in the way this nation is governed.

Vast improvement in governance. You have got to be kidding right?

You think a HUGE OMNIPRESENT UNLIMITED debt ridden central government run by a bunch of elitist criminals, is improvement.

WTF is wrong with you?

The worst evils which mankind has ever had to endure were inflicted by bad governments. The state can be and has often been in the course of history the main source of mischief and disaster. - von Mises

Please get a grip. We are more free now than we at any time in our history.

That there is the stupidist post of the day so far....

Maybe of ALL ******* TIME!!!

Santa must have given him a labotomy for Christmas....

 

[Care4all]

Small "l" libertarian here.

I wouldn't say you're a libertarian, moderate or otherwise, not yet at least. Take your heroin example. The question shouldn't be whether or not heroin should or should not be legal. The question should be why should anyone have the right to tell a free man what he can or cannot put into his own body? If our bodies are not free, surely we are not free.

I vote more freedom.

Yes, well, heroin was de facto 'legal' in black communities for rnany years, simply via the police never going into those communities, and the results didn't in any resemble 'freedom' or 'paradise on Earth', in fact it was Charles Rangel and the Congressional Black Caucus and many urban black leaders who lobbied for and got the 'War on Drugs' pushed through. It was a horrible disaster to ignore it.

And, a lot those clowns locked up in prison are not in for just 'having weed', they're gangbangers and many have previous violent records before they got caught with it, the reason they got such apparently 'stiff' sentences, so that myth needs to go away as well.

they are in prison LONGER because of the weed... cops/prosecutors use this minor offense of weed, as a ''second offense'' to get longer sentences for the thief etc....

 

[gipper]

It is said that Americans, on average, unknowingly break the law at least THREE TIMES A DAY. All thanks to an oppressive government...but apparently some libs find this to be an IMPROVEMENT!!!

An article in the Economist (July 22, 2010) entitled "Too many laws, too many prisoners" states,

Between 2.3m and 2.4m Americans are behind bars, roughly one in every 100 adults. If those on parole or probation are included, one adult in 31 is under "correctional" supervision. As a proportion of its total population, America incarcerates five times more people than Britain, nine times more than Germany and 12 times more than Japan.

By contrast, in 1970, less than one in 400 Americans was incarcerated. Why has the prison population more than quadrupled over a few decades? Why are you, as an average person and daily felon, more vulnerable to arrest than at any other time?
Decriminalize the Average Man

 

[gipper]

Small "l" libertarian here.

I wouldn't say you're a libertarian, moderate or otherwise, not yet at least. Take your heroin example. The question shouldn't be whether or not heroin should or should not be legal. The question should be why should anyone have the right to tell a free man what he can or cannot put into his own body? If our bodies are not free, surely we are not free.

I vote more freedom.

As a conservative, I vote Liberty.....

Sure you do.. But you praise a prez-elect who's most likely to EXPAND surveillance on the general American population. Trump also knows no limits to the powers he's inherited to intimidate and FORCE his deals on people and companies. And he LOVES to deficit spend. He made a big deal about that. Which means your wallet and your children's wallets are gonna be a lot "less free"...

but...but...but...where was the outrage from the Left when Dear Leader expanded the US police state? They rightly bitched about W's Patriot Act, then fall silent when Big Ears renewed and expanded it.

Hypocrites...no?

 

[gipper]

Small "l" libertarian here.

I wouldn't say you're a libertarian, moderate or otherwise, not yet at least. Take your heroin example. The question shouldn't be whether or not heroin should or should not be legal. The question should be why should anyone have the right to tell a free man what he can or cannot put into his own body? If our bodies are not free, surely we are not free.

I vote more freedom.

Yes, well, heroin was de facto 'legal' in black communities for rnany years, simply via the police never going into those communities, and the results didn't in any resemble 'freedom' or 'paradise on Earth', in fact it was Charles Rangel and the Congressional Black Caucus and many urban black leaders who lobbied for and got the 'War on Drugs' pushed through. It was a horrible disaster to ignore it.

And, a lot those clowns locked up in prison are not in for just 'having weed', they're gangbangers and many have previous violent records before they got caught with it, the reason they got such apparently 'stiff' sentences, so that myth needs to go away as well.

they are in prison LONGER because of the weed... cops/prosecutors use this minor offense of weed, as a ''second offense'' to get longer sentences for the thief etc....

They must grow the power of the state.

 

[eflatminor]

Small "l" libertarian here.

I wouldn't say you're a libertarian, moderate or otherwise, not yet at least. Take your heroin example. The question shouldn't be whether or not heroin should or should not be legal. The question should be why should anyone have the right to tell a free man what he can or cannot put into his own body? If our bodies are not free, surely we are not free.

I vote more freedom.

Yes, well, heroin was de facto 'legal' in black communities for rnany years, simply via the police never going into those communities, and the results didn't in any resemble 'freedom' or 'paradise on Earth', in fact it was Charles Rangel and the Congressional Black Caucus and many urban black leaders who lobbied for and got the 'War on Drugs' pushed through. It was a horrible disaster to ignore it.

And, a lot those clowns locked up in prison are not in for just 'having weed', they're gangbangers and many have previous violent records before they got caught with it, the reason they got such apparently 'stiff' sentences, so that myth needs to go away as well.

Never claimed freedom is 'paradise on earth'. Those are your words.

I also call bullshit on implying heroin is or was legal for Blacks. If a product was legal, defacto or otherwise, there would be recourse against unscrupulous sellers and inferior products. Not the case. Plus, PLENTY of black men have been jailed for using and selling the drug. Stated differently, they were incarcerated for engaging in consensual activity between adults, and that I cannot support.

Lastly, if a man is committing violent crimes, he clearly is infringing on another's rights. Lock him up for that.

Sorry, you really don't know what's best for others, any more than the lefty statists know what's best for you and your family.