Which is the shorter distance?

[Quantum Windbag]

Could that be because Democrats, when they break with the party, tend to go for more regulations, not less?

If your point is that Democrats tend to be more economically authoritarian than Republicans, then I certainly agree.

Nor quite the way I would have said it, but it sums up my point.

 

[dblack]

- Despite the example of Howard Stern (who as far as I can tell is at least as likely to criticize Democrats as Republicans) I remain unconvinced that the Libertarian Party is as likely to ally itself with Democrats as Republicans.

There are more and more of us. I'm convinced it's going to take a parallel effort, and that a Democratic libertarian wing to match the Ron Paul movement within the Republican party is the missing piece in a real, coordinated libertarian campaign

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey -- my favorite LadyLiberal. The one I want to feel closer to ---

Our recent selection of "pragmatic politicians" certainly doesn't help my argument -- I know. But as a realist -- it moves us from a debating society with no plan for governing into the status of a party that wants to solve problems. I'll wager that Bob Barr for instance has had a "revelation" in terms of choice and freedom once he was liberated from the Republican dungeon.. We've flirted with Howard Stern as well and would welcome ANY refugees from conventional politics that wanted to support the Platform.

THere are MANY pro-life Democrats in office. Just as we have a number of pro-life libertarians. And it's a recent source of friction for us because it HAS to be addressed. But I'm more concerned about the mess we're in from rebuilding countries other than our own and a Congress that incapable of managing the monster that they created.

We should really look more at the COMMON IMPORTANT issues that could end America as we know it. Because you CAN'T continue to address social welfare in a broke-butt country.
Even the far left and labor now knows how bleak things can get when the fiscal situation gets out of hand. And we are breeding a new type of "fiscal conservative" who will largely spring from YOUR side of table. (Once the insurrection and Collectivist Revolution is defeated in November)

THere's also the "leftist dissappointment" factor with finally electing a Progressive to the Prez and getting so little for their efforts. There's gonna be a lot of soul searching in the Dem ranks (and maybe some navel gazing and wrath towards their choice of party as well).

I believe you'll see a drift in mainstream Dems TOWARDs fiscal responsibility and a blowback against all the class warfare and market negativism.. And MAYBE -- that will move us a lot closer to our buds on the left.. The ones that don't really hate Capitalism and free markets. And believe that freedoms have to be INDIVIDUAL and not so much group identity and divisiveness.

I will take your own example as permission to wander somewhat afield from the original topic of this forum (which as I understand it was whether the Libertarian Party is "closer" to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party).

- Despite the example of Howard Stern (who as far as I can tell is at least as likely to criticize Democrats as Republicans) I remain unconvinced that the Libertarian Party is as likely to ally itself with Democrats as Republicans.

- There are certainly pro-life Democrats and Libertarians. But when you say that a certain issue (here, abortion policy) is not important to you, we are shifting from an at least nominally objective measure (the Nolan Chart) into the subjective measure of those issues that are important to you personally.

- Depending on what you mean by "social welfare" and "broke-butt" I think you can continue to address social welfare in a broke-butt country through government policy. Certainly, basic government services such as police forces impact the welfare of society. And I believe even very poor countries provide for the material needs of their citizens through government policy, such as by subsidizing staple foods. Still, if your essential point here is that we should try to avoid becoming broke-butt, then I certainly agree with that.

- If your claim is that the November elections will favor the Republicans, I don't find this terribly likely. Most predictors give a slim advantage to the Democratic Presidential ticket, and the Democrats will almost certainly see substantial gains in the House. If, however, the Republicans do take the White House and the Senate, and hold the House then this will almost certainly pull the Democrats to the right on economic issues.

- Discussing the trends in the Democratic Party on "fiscal responsibility" would require a common definition between us of what policies are responsible. I doubt that is attainable.

I feel obliged to at least convince you that libertarians are not just a wing of the Republican party.. (Ask them how they feel about us deciding close elections in favor of the Dems --- )

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

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

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

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

We have a large constituentcy in LGBT community -- because it's not hard to find fiscally conservative gays. And an increasing segment of Black support. Which is largely based on the solid stance on Search/Seizure, Drug War, anti-war, and educational choice issues.

So if those multi-cultural kind of things are weighty to you -- we do just fine with those "liberal" groups.

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

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

Republicans for instance can't decide if killing subsidies is a "tax increase" and are constantly confusing the public with where they stand versus Grover Norquist. Or how important it is to remain secular in your politics.

If for example there was a true Progressive party and the "Liberal" Libertarians, there would be 4 or 5 places for politicians to anchor down. The POWER of the parties on Capitol would diminish and dissenters within the ranks wouldn't be as WHIPPED and ABUSED as they are today by the Majority/Minority leadership. A lot of pent-up steam would be released.

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

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Given the fact many democrats are business owners, self-employed, or if employed by others also have a business ‘on the side,’ a considerable majority are as much advocates of free markets as individual liberty.

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

True, however some friction remains concerning Incorporation Doctrine; where libertarians should at least consider the logic of a consistent application of the Bill of Rights to all jurisdictions, that local jurisdictions can pose as much a threat to individual liberty as the Federal government.

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

Again, few if any democrats ‘mistrust’ capitalism, they correctly see it as imperfect – as with all creations of man – and appropriately subject to regulatory policy when warranted.

Sadly, however, there will forever be a schism between democrats and libertarians concerning Constitutional case law, the doctrine of judicial review, and the Supreme Court’s interpretive authority as to determining what the Founding Document means.

But the OP’s premise is fundamentally correct, of either democratic or republican party, libertarians are closer to democrats concerning foreign policy issues, corporate/government collusion, and individual liberties.

 

[The Rabbi]

Libertarians are intellectual descendents of Anarchists, just like the Bolsheviks. This is why they end up sounding like liberals much of the time.

 

[editec]

Libertarianism is a word with many meanings depending on what kind of libertarian you're talking to.

I actually known libertarians who weren't complete idiots.

 

[midcan5]

You are Proof positive of the ACCURACY of the Nolan Quiz...

I assume you scored HIGH statist no doubt. (BTW: statist is just an interpretation of answers INDEPENDENT of the chart or its axes. The questions are designed to answer two questions. One on social freedom the other on economic freedom)..

I am NOT going back to those cesspools of smears you posted in links. Not here -- not now. There's nothing to be gained between us by ridding you of misinformation and misinterpretation..

I'm really interested in finding the relative distance between Libertarians and the right-left camps. And which we have more actually in common that would move this country forward. My selfish reason for that is that I'm looking forward to elected 3rd party and Independent candidates being a lot more prevalent in the near future and I want to understand how coalitions will be made..

And you are a more perfect example of the narrow thinking of libertarian thought. You cannot even read well written and well thought out arguments concerning your belief system. You believe and in that believing is a loss of freedom to even think.

There is not a chance of a third party candidate or even party in America, not in our lifetime and not when money manages both political parties now. We would need a sea change just to remove money from the electoral process. You must have seen how the tea party was created by money, bought out, and became just another republican machine? But it does remind me of why three or more parties eventually create a system in which nothing gets done. See youtube below.

As for freedom, when people mention freedom I never know what they are talking about? Sounds fine, like isn't the weather nice, means nothing... http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50799-is-freedom-real.html

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0pZ9LTZW1g]David Deutsch on the AV Referendum (UK) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[asaratis]

it reminds me of a 'I got mine, F you' political philosophy.

Liberalism reminds me of "He got his, I didnt, take his and give it to me" political philosophy.

Conservatism reminds me of........Mine, mine....mine

As has been shown for the last few comparisons of charitable giving, conservatives out give liberals by a long shot.

Liberals like to give away treasury money and call it charity. Conservatives give of their own money.

Romney gave away all that he inherited from his father.

You generalize all too well.

 

[asaratis]

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

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

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

 

[Foxfyre]

I think both major political parties have become to corrupt and self serving that they have been reduced to "Statist heavy" and "Statist light" status. When we have a system that is designed to corrupt elected leaders who will soon compromise their personal convictions in order to be a 'member of the club' in Congress. They rationalize this as the only access to lucrative and important committee assignments and therefore they are better able to represent their constituents. Unfortunately this compromise makes it all to easy to slide into the next phase which is to increase their personal power, influence, prestige, and wealth by virtue of their office. Ditto for bureaucrats appointed to important positions.

It isn't any time that they are focused on their personal gain which requires them to focus on getting re-elected and is a powerful incentive to NOT seriously address fixing any problems or disturbing the status quo and thereby alienate constituents who don't want fixes to programs that benefit them. They figure they'll have their fortunes made by the time it all hits the fan and they will be long gone and therefore safe from culpability. Let those on down the line deal with it. They're interested in getting theirs for now.

So for me, I see Libertarianism as its own thing and not closer to either party. I am a fiscal conservative and so are libertarians. So most Republicans claim to be, but they never quite follow through on their claims. Democrats claim responsible government by 'paying' for it, but they want those who don't vote Democrat to do the paying and won't even hint at asking anybody who might vote Democrat to share in the process.

Libertarians are usually social liberals and so are a majority of Democrats. I am socially conservative but I am not at all concerned with the social views of anybody in elected or appointed office. What I am concerned with is what they see as government's role in social engineering. If they do not believe it is government's duty or prerogative to design or order society in any regard, I am okay with that no matter what they believe personally. But if they believe it is government's role to order society along precepts of social liberalism, then I do object to that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And you are a more perfect example of the narrow thinking of libertarian thought. You cannot even read well written and well thought out arguments concerning your belief system. You believe and in that believing is a loss of freedom to even think.

There is not a chance of a third party candidate or even party in America, not in our lifetime and not when money manages both political parties now. We would need a sea change just to remove money from the electoral process. You must have seen how the tea party was created by money, bought out, and became just another republican machine? But it does remind me of why three or more parties eventually create a system in which nothing gets done. See youtube below.

As for freedom, when people mention freedom I never know what they are talking about? Sounds fine, like isn't the weather nice, means nothing... http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50799-is-freedom-real.html

David Deutsch on the AV Referendum (UK) - YouTube

What well written and well thought out arguments? How does resorting to a personal attack make you right? Maybe the problem here is not that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid, maybe, just a possibility here, you are wrong. That is the true sign of the ability to think for yourself, admitting you might be wrong. Until you can do that you have no business telling others that their belief proves they are wrong.

 

[mamooth]

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

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

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

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

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[mamooth]

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

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

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

 

[dblack]

...
The current campaign finance system forever relegates libertarians to gadfly status.

It's not the campaign finance system that relegates libertarians to gadfly status. It's plurality based, winner-take-all elections. By now most voters have heard the Libertarian message and many favor it over the Republican and Democrat status quo. This is the case for most third parties in general; far more people express a preference for third party candidates than actually vote for them.

The reason for that is that most voters perceive (rightly or wrongly) that a vote for a third party candidate as a wasted vote. A third party candidate might actually represent their true preference, but since they only have one vote, casting it for the longshot takes them out the choice between the two most likely candidates. Third parties won't have much of a shot until we tackle that problem. (For one interesting proposal to do just that, check out approval voting.)

The effort to put campaign financing under government control is incestuous and, in any proposals I've seen, destined to make it harder for any real challenge to the status quo - not easier.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[flacaltenn]

You are Proof positive of the ACCURACY of the Nolan Quiz...

I assume you scored HIGH statist no doubt. (BTW: statist is just an interpretation of answers INDEPENDENT of the chart or its axes. The questions are designed to answer two questions. One on social freedom the other on economic freedom)..

I am NOT going back to those cesspools of smears you posted in links. Not here -- not now. There's nothing to be gained between us by ridding you of misinformation and misinterpretation..

I'm really interested in finding the relative distance between Libertarians and the right-left camps. And which we have more actually in common that would move this country forward. My selfish reason for that is that I'm looking forward to elected 3rd party and Independent candidates being a lot more prevalent in the near future and I want to understand how coalitions will be made..

And you are a more perfect example of the narrow thinking of libertarian thought. You cannot even read well written and well thought out arguments concerning your belief system. You believe and in that believing is a loss of freedom to even think.

There is not a chance of a third party candidate or even party in America, not in our lifetime and not when money manages both political parties now. We would need a sea change just to remove money from the electoral process. You must have seen how the tea party was created by money, bought out, and became just another republican machine? But it does remind me of why three or more parties eventually create a system in which nothing gets done. See youtube below.

As for freedom, when people mention freedom I never know what they are talking about? Sounds fine, like isn't the weather nice, means nothing... http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50799-is-freedom-real.html

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0pZ9LTZW1g]David Deutsch on the AV Referendum (UK) - YouTube[/ame]

How about I write and link eloquent and well thought verses on your beliefs? Think I'd be close? The Tea Party wasn't built on money. It wasn't invented by a "focus group". So NO -- I don't see it..

Just having a few Independents in Congress -- ones that aren't intimidated by Party bosses would make an EXCEPTIONAL check on the spin and the finger-pointing that has stalled this country quite efficiently with a Duopoly of liars, scam artists and frauds..

 

[flacaltenn]

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

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

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

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

Funny that we disagree on politics as well eh? Money would not be an issue for the Libertarian Party if we didn't have to fund raise, hire lawyers, and pay signature gatherings for 2 years prior to an election JUST TO GET ON 50 State ballots !!! Those are 50 different roadblocks that take A LOT OF MONEY just to get a candidate on a national ballot every election cycle. Even REP and DEM candidates occasionally get caught out in the cold by arbitrary deadlines, filings, declarations, and accounting. We'd be capable of running CLEAN fund-raising for campaigns if we were "allowed" in the debates. Any party that runs that gauntlet and puts a candidates on enough state ballots to theoretically win SHOULD be included in the debates.

And the last thing I want to see is politicians using public money to fund their own re-elections. They already have too much incumbent advantage. And the problem is NOT the $20K Pac donation -- it's the $500M dollar Solyndra handout. The bailouts. The favors from the Commerce and Ag Depts totalling BILLIONS of dollars. It's the $100 GE gets in GREEN tax credits for every dishwasher that they'd sell anyway..

Campaign cash is not CHANGING votes. They are electing folks who's opinions already favor their cause. That's free expression. And the problem is the Congressional POWER to meddle in market winners/losers and fork over huge sums of loot.

We're WAAAY off topic here -- but it brings to mind how old and tired the debate on essential issues has gotten. The REPs and DEMs are bad satirical black comedy of what campaigns SHOULD be about. Kinda like being forced to watch GroundHog Day every 2 years.

 

[flacaltenn]

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

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

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

I get weekly emails from the LP and MOST of the attacks are on Republicans. Although Obama has deservedly changed that statistic. And we attack on ISSUES, not on birth certificates or tax returns. Or haven't you noticed the difference in tone that a "gadfly" party can bring to the public discussion? We are NOT COVERED by the media because they WANT conflict and puff pieces. So you get what you sow..

 

[flacaltenn]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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