Why aren't more people Libertarian?

[dblack]

republican primary q to ron paul went something like this...

q: should you die if you dont have health insurance?

a: [audience] YEA !!! applause

a: [ron paul]..well...

Try again. This quote is incorrect. Paul's answer was clearly "No, ...."

See if you can make your point without lying.

Here, googled it for ya:

 

[Mac1958]

.

I still think that if the Libertarian party would wise up and moderate on its absolutist positions it would attract a significant portion of the electorate.

.

Not a ******* chance. None.

We support individual rights - 100% FREE - Capitalism -Free Enterprise, No ifs, buts or however.

You want compromise, you want fascism/socialism/parasitism ? well you have the democrats and the republicans.


.

Well, good luck with that.

One good thing is, with that approach, the party will never need to worry about the responsibilities of actual governance.

.

 

[Mac1958]

I still think that if the Libertarian party would wise up and moderate on its absolutist positions it would attract a significant portion of the electorate. Limited, efficient, effective government combined with moderate to liberal approaches to social issues -- I'd bet that's where a large portion of the country is.

Unfortunately, the party is controlled by wild-eyed loons who demand even more purity than the GOP does at this point. All or nothing is stupid. And now the Libertarian brand is so badly damaged by these schmoes that they won't be able to attract enough leaders to make any headway.

Again, I have to wonder if the Libertarians really want to win. They may just prefer to scream from the margins, like the guy I see downtown every morning on a street corner with a sign.

What a waste..

I've been fighting this battle for thirty-some years. We need people like you Mac. Third parties provide a natural refuge for iconoclasts and curmudgeons, and the Libertarian party is no exception. These "true believers" (and I count myself among them) have kept the movement alive when no one else was paying attention. But we aren't the messengers required to take the freedom movement to the next level.

Thanks, much appreciated.

Strangely enough, I was contacted a couple of years ago by a couple of people from the state party. I talked with them for the hell of it, but they were the "all or nothing" types who will simply never understand what it takes to move the party in a more credible, viable direction. If I see them moving into a more pragmatic approach in the future, I may contact them. But right now they're not even close.

Frustrating, though. Right now you could drive a freakin' truck through the hole between the two "major" parties, but the Libertarians simply aren't prepared to do so.

.

 

[konradv]

I still think that if the Libertarian party would wise up and moderate on its absolutist positions it would attract a significant portion of the electorate. Limited, efficient, effective government combined with moderate to liberal approaches to social issues -- I'd bet that's where a large portion of the country is.

Unfortunately, the party is controlled by wild-eyed loons who demand even more purity than the GOP does at this point. All or nothing is stupid. And now the Libertarian brand is so badly damaged by these schmoes that they won't be able to attract enough leaders to make any headway.

Again, I have to wonder if the Libertarians really want to win. They may just prefer to scream from the margins, like the guy I see downtown every morning on a street corner with a sign.

What a waste..

I've been fighting this battle for thirty-some years. We need people like you Mac. Third parties provide a natural refuge for iconoclasts and curmudgeons, and the Libertarian party is no exception. These "true believers" (and I count myself among them) have kept the movement alive when no one else was paying attention. But we aren't the messengers required to take the freedom movement to the next level.

Thanks, much appreciated.

Strangely enough, I was contacted a couple of years ago by a couple of people from the state party. I talked with them for the hell of it, but they were the "all or nothing" types who will simply never understand what it takes to move the party in a more credible, viable direction. If I see them moving into a more pragmatic approach in the future, I may contact them. But right now they're not even close.

Frustrating, though. Right now you could drive a freakin' truck through the hole between the two "major" parties, but the Libertarians simply aren't prepared to do so.

Common problem when you have people tied to an "ism". I feel like nothing would be better for libertarians getting their message out than public financing of elections breaking up the Republicrat duopoly. Every time I bring it up though, all they think about is "government control" and "tax money going to my enemies". I feel they cut their own throat in that regard, because in the present system those they feel are keeping them down are funding both sides and keeping libertarian voices on the margins. I'm no libertarian fan, but I really can't see why we couldn't be allies on this issue. Not only would new people be able to break into the political scene, but it should cost us less in the long run, when politicians have fewer expensive promises to keep. Seems like a goal most libertarians would support, if they weren't blinded by ideological correctness.

 

[dblack]

I feel like nothing would be better for libertarians getting their message out than public financing of elections breaking up the Republicrat duopoly. Every time I bring it up though, all they think about is "government control" and "tax money going to my enemies". I feel they cut their own throat in that regard, because in the present system those they feel are keeping them down are funding both sides and keeping libertarian voices on the margins. I'm no libertarian fan, but I really can't see why we couldn't be allies on this issue. Not only would new people be able to break into the political scene, but it should cost us less in the long run, when politicians have fewer expensive promises to keep. Seems like a goal most libertarians would support, if they weren't blinded by ideological correctness.

Because it's an impossible fantasy konradv. Our system naturally gravitates to two powerful parties. This fact of political life is an inevitable outcome of plurality, winner-take-all elections. There's no question our government will be dominated by one, or at best two, mainstream parties. The only question is, how much control will they have? Public financing gives them much more control, not less.

You've not (yet) outlined any system for preventing a public financing scheme from becoming politicized itself, and that's the Achilles' heel of your proposition. Public financing requires that we give up our right to support politicians that we agree with, and instead let government pick them out for us. It seems even a dyed-in-the-wool statist would see the potential for abuse in such a system.

 

[Paulie]

.

I still think that if the Libertarian party would wise up and moderate on its absolutist positions it would attract a significant portion of the electorate. Limited, efficient, effective government combined with moderate to liberal approaches to social issues -- I'd bet that's where a large portion of the country is.

Unfortunately, the party is controlled by wild-eyed loons who demand even more purity than the GOP does at this point. All or nothing is stupid. And now the Libertarian brand is so badly damaged by these schmoes that they won't be able to attract enough leaders to make any headway.

Again, I have to wonder if the Libertarians really want to win. They may just prefer to scream from the margins, like the guy I see downtown every morning on a street corner with a sign.

What a waste.

.

You give the intelligence and awareness of the people in this country too much credit. The LP doesn't have much support because no one ******* knows it exists. The majority of people only know there's 2 parties. And out of them, many of them don't even have a clue what's going on with just those 2.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I want libertarians to use proper terms and definitions instead of their silly cauterwalling.

 

[Oddball]

I want bigoted poseurs like you to quit lying about what libertarians do and don't stand for, and go play out on the freeway instead....But I know that's not going to happen.

 

[Paulie]

In response to the OP, I think it has 3 reasons.

1. People innately understand the individual is always the weakest position.

One of the best reasons in the world to be a libertarian, so the individual doesn't become a plaything of the mob.

2. When the only rights recognized are property rights, the man with the least property has the fewest rights.

The best reason to get up off you ass and acquire property....Lack of ambition should have its drawbacks...After that, every one of your rights starts and ends with you being your own property.

3. The only force recognized is physical violence.

Where did you come up with that?...What does that even mean?

Other than that, I'm a Libertarian sympathizer and vote almost exclusively for Libertarian candidates on the local level. Which is where the party really needs to get it's game going. Thanks to Beck et.al. you could get a lot of candidates in before the hate the fed faction realizes it doesn't mean social conservative.

Problem being that the demopublicraticans erect some pretty onerous regulations on all other political parties, that make it difficult in a lot of places to just get on the ballot...After which you have a complicit media-industrial complex that has a virtual coverage blackout of any candidate who doesn't have an (R) or (D) by their name, with the notable exception of the "colorful" candidates.

Yeah the colorful candidates whose sparse coverage consists mainly of marginalization at best.

 

[beagle9]

Isn't capitalism all about taking risks? There are two solutions: over the long term they should be diversified, so something like that doesn't wipe them out and in the short term, they should work harder to keep the company from going under. If you allow insider trading to occur, you can't talk about the "Invisible Hand" of the market anymore. It'd be more like a "Hidden Hand".

Well someone needs to tell this to Pelosi and crew, because didn't they make it where government officials could commit insider trading fraud legally ?

You're behind the times! Pelosi & crew passed legislation to make the practice illegal and sent it to the president who signed it back in July. Don't you check your facts before you post?

That's why I was asking a question based on memory instead of stating a fact, in which was one that you cleared up for me, but didn't they get accused or someone get accused of insider trading as government officials, and then next it was somehow attempted to be covered up by suggesting that it was ok in some situations for government officials to do this sometimes? Wasn't Pelosi & others involved in this as I recall maybe ? Yes I do need to catch up when trying to think back on what goes on over time... I mean I don't write this stuff down ya know, and that is why I phrased it as a question in the post. Why are you so defensive anyway ? Why not just answer the question in a decent & patient manor?

 

[Paulie]

I still think that if the Libertarian party would wise up and moderate on its absolutist positions it would attract a significant portion of the electorate. Limited, efficient, effective government combined with moderate to liberal approaches to social issues -- I'd bet that's where a large portion of the country is.

Unfortunately, the party is controlled by wild-eyed loons who demand even more purity than the GOP does at this point. All or nothing is stupid. And now the Libertarian brand is so badly damaged by these schmoes that they won't be able to attract enough leaders to make any headway.

Again, I have to wonder if the Libertarians really want to win. They may just prefer to scream from the margins, like the guy I see downtown every morning on a street corner with a sign.

What a waste..

I've been fighting this battle for thirty-some years. We need people like you Mac. Third parties provide a natural refuge for iconoclasts and curmudgeons, and the Libertarian party is no exception. These "true believers" (and I count myself among them) have kept the movement alive when no one else was paying attention. But we aren't the messengers required to take the freedom movement to the next level.

Thanks, much appreciated.

Strangely enough, I was contacted a couple of years ago by a couple of people from the state party. I talked with them for the hell of it, but they were the "all or nothing" types who will simply never understand what it takes to move the party in a more credible, viable direction. If I see them moving into a more pragmatic approach in the future, I may contact them. But right now they're not even close.

Frustrating, though. Right now you could drive a freakin' truck through the hole between the two "major" parties, but the Libertarians simply aren't prepared to do so.

.

But I bet you vote for Republicans by default, even though they haven't been pragmatic for decades. Right? I mean what has the GOP done in recent memory that's been hugely prosperous for the nation?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Libertarians are of course anti-human because they are essentially "it's all about me" people.

They no more understand human nature than did the communists.

I want bigoted poseurs like you to quit lying about what libertarians do and don't stand for, and go play out on the freeway instead....But I know that's not going to happen.

 

[Mac1958]

I've been fighting this battle for thirty-some years. We need people like you Mac. Third parties provide a natural refuge for iconoclasts and curmudgeons, and the Libertarian party is no exception. These "true believers" (and I count myself among them) have kept the movement alive when no one else was paying attention. But we aren't the messengers required to take the freedom movement to the next level.

Thanks, much appreciated.

Strangely enough, I was contacted a couple of years ago by a couple of people from the state party. I talked with them for the hell of it, but they were the "all or nothing" types who will simply never understand what it takes to move the party in a more credible, viable direction. If I see them moving into a more pragmatic approach in the future, I may contact them. But right now they're not even close.

Frustrating, though. Right now you could drive a freakin' truck through the hole between the two "major" parties, but the Libertarians simply aren't prepared to do so.

Common problem when you have people tied to an "ism". I feel like nothing would be better for libertarians getting their message out than public financing of elections breaking up the Republicrat duopoly. Every time I bring it up though, all they think about is "government control" and "tax money going to my enemies". I feel they cut their own throat in that regard, because in the present system those they feel are keeping them down are funding both sides and keeping libertarian voices on the margins. I'm no libertarian fan, but I really can't see why we couldn't be allies on this issue. Not only would new people be able to break into the political scene, but it should cost us less in the long run, when politicians have fewer expensive promises to keep. Seems like a goal most libertarians would support, if they weren't blinded by ideological correctness.

Holy crap, "ideological correctness", I love it, consider THAT one STOLEN.

I like the "foot in the door" approach, but you're right, the party (such as it is) simply isn't willing to budge an inch. My guess is that the "leaders" of the "party" have a great deal invested in it, and their egos simply won't allow for any kind of intellectual elasticity.

Being the guy with a sign on the street corner appears to be their only aspiration.

.

 

[Mac1958]

I've been fighting this battle for thirty-some years. We need people like you Mac. Third parties provide a natural refuge for iconoclasts and curmudgeons, and the Libertarian party is no exception. These "true believers" (and I count myself among them) have kept the movement alive when no one else was paying attention. But we aren't the messengers required to take the freedom movement to the next level.

Thanks, much appreciated.

Strangely enough, I was contacted a couple of years ago by a couple of people from the state party. I talked with them for the hell of it, but they were the "all or nothing" types who will simply never understand what it takes to move the party in a more credible, viable direction. If I see them moving into a more pragmatic approach in the future, I may contact them. But right now they're not even close.

Frustrating, though. Right now you could drive a freakin' truck through the hole between the two "major" parties, but the Libertarians simply aren't prepared to do so.

.

But I bet you vote for Republicans by default, even though they haven't been pragmatic for decades. Right? I mean what has the GOP done in recent memory that's been hugely prosperous for the nation?

Ugh, no, I couldn't bring myself to vote for either whacked-out "major" party, too many differences on too many issues.

So, strangely enough, I had to settle for the guy who came closest to my two biggest issues - war and the various elements included in Political Correctness, Identity Politics and the damage they cause - so I voted for Johnson. Yep, even though I give the Libertarians grief on a daily basis, even though I flat out disagree with them on so many things.

Go figure, huh? My guess is that following contemporary American politics has caused me significant brain damage. But I'm definitely not a Libertarian, not in their current incarnation.

.

 

[Samson]

Ugh, no, I couldn't bring myself to vote for either whacked-out "major" party, too many differences on too many issues.

So, strangely enough, I had to settle for the guy who came closest to my two biggest issues - war and the various elements included in Political Correctness, Identity Politics and the damage they cause - so I voted for Johnson. Yep, even though I give the Libertarians grief on a daily basis, even though I flat out disagree with them on so many things.

Go figure, huh? My guess is that following contemporary American politics has caused me significant brain damage. But I'm definitely not a Libertarian, not in their current incarnation.

.

You are not alone.

I'm considering quitting my job and applying for mental disability associated with Post Election Trauma Disorder.

Also, I voted a Libertarian ticket, with the only exception being Romney/Ryan.

Delilah threatened to cut more than my hair if I voted otherwise.

 

[Oddball]

Libertarians are of course anti-human because they are essentially "it's all about me" people.

They no more understand human nature than did the communists.

I want bigoted poseurs like you to quit lying about what libertarians do and don't stand for, and go play out on the freeway instead....But I know that's not going to happen.

Shove it up your ass, you bigoted liar.

Being pro-human starts with the smallest minority of humanity: The individual.

 

[Mac1958]

Ugh, no, I couldn't bring myself to vote for either whacked-out "major" party, too many differences on too many issues.

So, strangely enough, I had to settle for the guy who came closest to my two biggest issues - war and the various elements included in Political Correctness, Identity Politics and the damage they cause - so I voted for Johnson. Yep, even though I give the Libertarians grief on a daily basis, even though I flat out disagree with them on so many things.

Go figure, huh? My guess is that following contemporary American politics has caused me significant brain damage. But I'm definitely not a Libertarian, not in their current incarnation.

.

You are not alone.

I'm considering quitting my job and applying for mental disability associated with Post Election Trauma Disorder.

Also, I voted a Libertarian ticket, with the only exception being Romney/Ryan.

Delilah threatened to cut more than my hair if I voted otherwise.

Nice to know - must be the thin Colorado air, huh?

.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Libertarians are of course anti-human because they are essentially "it's all about me" people.

They no more understand human nature than did the communists.

I want bigoted poseurs like you to quit lying about what libertarians do and don't stand for, and go play out on the freeway instead....But I know that's not going to happen.

Shove it up your ass, you bigoted liar.

Being pro-human starts with the smallest minority of humanity: The individual.

What a shit stripe you are. Libertarianism is all about social darwinism. To simpletons like yourself, the market is always right, and if you get fucked by it, it's your fault.

 

[Samson]

Libertarians are of course anti-human because they are essentially "it's all about me" people.

They no more understand human nature than did the communists.

I want bigoted poseurs like you to quit lying about what libertarians do and don't stand for, and go play out on the freeway instead....But I know that's not going to happen.

Shove it up your ass, you bigoted liar.

Being pro-human starts with the smallest minority of humanity: The individual.

Its not so much that I'm "all about me," as it is......


.....that I'm so much against the vast majority of others.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oddball is out of touch with the human condition, for sure.