Libertarian Party v. RNC on RKBA

[matis]

The Libertarians have excellent principles.

But excellent principles that. because of political realities -- and because of the inexperience and even the naivete of Libertarians, will never become reality -- such principles are USELESS!


Like it or not, politics IS the art of the possible.


The trick is to learn what is possible and be realistic in working to implement THAT. Half a loaf is indeed better than none. Unless you like starving.

If you want to "educate" (actually meaning to push YOUR point of view) the voters to favor your principles, then work for that.


The problem with rejecting compromise in favor of theoretical "purity" is that you are setting yourself and/or your group up as an elite in sole possession of "the truth". It's a giant ego trip.

Whatever your point of view, there are others who differ. You think YOUR ideas are better, but so do they.


Principles can be likened to ideals. And by definition ideals can exist only in our thinking. If you achieve your ideals, then they are no longer ideal (ideas), but actual. Ideals and ideaologues (sp?) can actually be very dangerous and destructive, e.g. Nazism, Communism, socialism, Islamofascism.


Libertarians (I used to be one of them) are great at debating theory and many are good at local organizing. But when it comes to achieving election to office, their statistics reveal their incompetence.

They don't really know how.

Their excuses about the difficulty of getting on the ballot, media disinterest, etc. are just that -- excuses.

Get the job done -- or admit that you cannot and get out of the way.



Waiting for the Libertarians to safeguard my gun rights would be fatal.

I'll vote for Republicans who are more likely to protect the 2nd amendment and do whatever else I can to protect my rights.

But to the extent that I can have them, I want my rights in reality and not only in my imagination.


matis

 

[bjengs]

Michigander,

You have (probably inadverdently) proved my point. All of those achievements are paper successes: "on the ballot," "ran [x number of] candidates," and so forth. Carla Howell's success as well as Ed Thompson's are to be admired sure, but the entire Party strategy is to run for office to promote ideas. They ought to be focusing more on winning hearts and minds, then the elections would come to them easily. The LP keeps fielding candidates and they keep on losing. They throw out their corny campaign slogans every election cycle, and continue to connect with no one. To the average person, this says that these people are only interested in winning elections, i.e. seizing power.

And they suck at it anyways.

 

[Michigander]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Libertarian candidates have finished third in a presidential election twice
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That would be the loser to the loser, if my math is correct.

Yup, you're right fix. OK, that's it, all you Libertarians, hey, listen up! We're done! Just nevermind! Pack-up and call it a day! Just go back to voting for the lesser of two GUN-GRABBING parties.

The trick is to learn what is possible and be realistic in working to implement THAT. Half a loaf is indeed better than none. Unless you like starving.

Like the Dems figuring out just how many infringements of our rights they can get away with and making it work. Or the Reps figuring out just how many countries they can conquer and get away with it and make it work.

Principles can be likened to ideals. And by definition ideals can exist only in our thinking. If you achieve your ideals, then they are no longer ideal (ideas), but actual. Ideals and ideaologues (sp?) can actually be very dangerous and destructive, e.g. Nazism, Communism, socialism, Islamofascism.

OK everybody, the priniples and ideals found in the Constitution of the United States of America and the Declaration of Independence are now officially useless, totally open for interpretation by anyone and everyone and no interpretation is wrong and there is no "principle" that is worthy of the title!

 

[bjengs]

I want to discuss Ron Paul. Ron Paul is quietly despised by the Libertarians for two reasons: first, he was once their candidate for President and is no longer among their ranks ("Turncoat!"); and second, he is proof that there is infinitely more success to be had by working from within the system than by being a sleazy, stealing-from-its-constituency third party.

There are those who dismiss Congressman Paul as "the exception proves the rule," but exceptions don't prove rules. If anything, Mr. Paul proves that if you actually demand some accountability and principle, you will actually get it.

 

[Michigander]

bjengs,

A wise man once wrote, and I quote:

Any President, Congress, or Supreme Court which is not actively, aggressively repealing the onerous gun laws in this country should be regarded as anti-gun.

So who did you say you were voting FOR?

 

[Feanaro]

The Libs also want control - just their own form of:

How more easily can I explain it.

Libs want to make of our Consitution, a make-shift agenda what they'd like to see to make what they'd like to see happen.

Too, they'd like nothg less than to estaboish control over you.




They too, can't wait to slather their control over you?

Can't I make it anymore clear?

You could make it a lot more clear by saying something that made sense and backing it up with some proof.

 

[idd]

An interventionist foreign policy produces endless enemies

"According to the Pentagon's Defense Science Board, a strong correlation exists between U.S. involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States."

From "Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism? The Historical Record" by by Ivan Eland up on the web at http://www.cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-050es.html .

See _Endless Enemies: Americas Worldwide War Against Its Own Best Interests_ by Jonathan Kwitny and Hermann-Doig Edwards (McGraw-Hill/Contemporary Books: 1989). Kwitney was a journalist for The Wall Street Journal.

See
Ron Paul's speech in September 2001.

Ron Paul is quietly despised by the Libertarians for two reasons:

??? I've never heard *any* Libertarian despise Ron Paul - either quietly or loudly. Care to name even one such Libertarian?


-----
"[America] well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

"She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

"She goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

John Quincy Adams, 1823

 

[bjengs]

I thought we were discussing the LP?

I will take stock of all of the candidates' statements and voting records (for all of you Bush defenders) in October. I will vote for the candidate who best matches my principles.

Thank you for noticing my sig line. In no way does it even imply that I am single-issue voter, if that's what you are getting at. If I were a single issue voter not concerned about winning but about voting my conscience, I'm still not sure the LP candidate, whoever it turns out to be, would be the most stalwart advocate of gun rights.

 

[dischord]

Again someone assumes that guns are the only issue. The LP's policy on borders will ensure that I need that SHTF rifle.

Maybe so, but we should be so lucky as to worry about where our representatives are making laws too lax ... gun, border, tax or otherwise.

 

[bjengs]

??? I've never heard *any* Libertarian despise Ron Paul - either quietly or loudly. Care to name even one such Libertarian?

Easy there, big fella. "Quietly" as opposed to "publicly." Meaning in a variety of conversations I've had through the last decade with my LP friends (yes, I used to volunteer for and donate to the LP!) as well as on various message boards not unlike this. So I doubt the names would mean anything to you. But they are comments I have heard, from various origins, and frequently enough to make me wonder which is more important to some of these people: party loyalty, or principle?

 

[Standing Wolf]

"No more!. You may never again allow this to happen to us! & If you do, we will shoot you to death!"

There's an idea that probably hasn't been heard since 1777 or thereabouts.

 

[Moparmike]

While this may not be the most cordial way to say it...

except for the Libertarians wanted too much control & way too many laws/control/power.

That is the most retarded thing I have ever heard.


Yes, the Libertarians could do a lot more good by "thinking country-wide and acting county-wide", but they just havent realized that yet. Hopefully, they will soon.

 

[bjengs]

MoparMike said

the Libertarians could do a lot more good by "thinking country-wide and acting county-wide", but they just havent realized that yet. Hopefully, they will soon.

Precisely. Actually, they should think county-wide and act county-wide (no misspelling), and forget about being a big cheese for now. They have no base to speak of, only bureaucratic victories as I mentioned above.

I don't want anyone to misunderstand me here. I certainly believe that the Libertarian Party's stated principles are a really good starting place. It's just that their strategy is completely backwards, and from what I've seen, heard, and read (again, L. Neil Smith has exposed this as well as any), I believe this is by design. I believe the Party leadership is abusing the trust of its state-level and county-level constituents in a big way. There is way too much power-mongering in the ranks, and way too little establishment of principles.

So, I am not voting elsewhere because they are losers. I am voting elsewhere (and it might even be to a less popular candidate!) because they are losers by design.

Frankly, the clearinghouse for libertarian (note the lowercase "L") thought is over at lewrockwell.com. Ron Paul is a frequent contributor there, as it happens.

 

[SIC TRANSIT GLORIA MUNDI]

Matis nailed it. As long as the libertarians refuse to come out of the political ivory tower they have constructed for themselves they will always remain a fringe party, or, as some call them, "losertarians".

 

[GoRon]

I've posted in another thread that I basically am a Libertarian in the pure philosophical sense. I vote straight Republican now pragmatically.

If I were to vote Libertarian it would be a wasted vote, I might as well write in "Michigander". I agree with most of his positions and he stands as much chance as getting elected as what's his name.

Who is the Libertarian candidate?

Maybe I should just write in John Galt, that will teach those big govm't Republicans.

The problem is most of us reading and participating on this board never do anything in support of liberty, we just p*ss and moan about the loss of our liberties.

If there was a grass roots movement in favour of libertarian principles the Republican party would step up. They our giving the people what they want.

 

[tyme]

A vote for one of the two dominant parties is truly a wasted vote. If you think the two main parties have substantially unique agendas, you're fooling yourself. Sure, one might invade NK and the other might not, but there's no way to know which course of action will be best long-term. Sure, you can judge them philosophically, but realistically who knows what may happen. Invading may trigger massive terrorism; not invading may decrease fear of American power and lead to a bunch of rogue states with nukes -- who might then fund terrorism anyway.

In terms of real, useful policy, neither has any interest in mankind-improving programs. Trip to mars? Maybe in half a century. Genetic engineering? Let's spend years wasting money "investigating" the philosophical implications. Everyone knows the philosophical implications; some people just think they outweigh the scientific benefit, while others don't. Advanced physics research? Ha! Just remember what happened to the SSC. Fusion research? Alternative energy? Nope, they're all sidelined no matter what administration you pick. Recall that welfare was cut substantially underclinton. Recall that Bush has done nothing to curb SS or Medicare spending. Neither party seems keen on curbing the flow of U.S. contracts overseas.

I really see very little difference between the parties, and the differences that do exist aren't useful - the effects of their policies on my life are indeterminate.

The partisan majority in the Senate in 2005 will probably shape policy much more than who's in the cockpit of this hell-bound craft.

I don't see any major downside to "throwing away" a Republican vote, if that's in fact what I'll be doing. It's highly doubtful that the House will shift to a Democratic majority, which means that a Democrat-controlled Senate or Whitehouse will only result in gridlock - which at this point is almost certainly a good thing.

 

[Michigander]

echoing tyme to some degree...

I could have wrote in "Michigander" in 2000 and it would have resulted exactly the same as voting for Bush, which I am ashamed to say, I did last time. Now THAT was a throw-away vote! After all, Michigan went to Gore anyway and will probably go to Kerry this time around. So, all you Bush supporters, let not your hearts be troubled, my "throw-away" vote isn't worth anything to Bush anyway.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Anyone who really believes that the republicans are pro-freedom in any way, shape, or form, is simply deluding themselves. The republicans will not stand up for your gun rights; as a party, they care only about using the power of the state to inflict pain on people they don't like. The Democrats are the same. The only difference is the particular demographics they want to oppress, and in what way.

If you vote for republicans, you are voting against your freedom. You're also voting against MY freedom, which is why this issue continues to irritate me so much. Sell your own liberties if you like, but don't sell mine.

I'll likely continue to vote libertarian, simply because they're an alternative to the Mommy and Daddy parties. I don't harbor any particular illusions that the LP will ever win the presidency, but I don't really care. We're not going to vote our way out of the mess we're in. In that sense, any vote is a wasted vote. I just waste my vote in the least damaging way possible.

- Chris

 

[Thumper]

I would agree with you, Chris, except for one thing: I really don't feel that oppressed.

- I carry a gun all day, every day, with the government's blessing.
- I can (and have) own(ed) full auto weapons.
- I've never been treated badly by a law enforcement official (I'm sure it happens).
- I legally do pretty much whatever I want.
- I generally have a great life. No worries.

I've seen and lived among oppressed folk...in Africa, South America, even in Europe. I just don't feel oppressed.

I think it's important to note that if I did feel that oppressed, I would be morally obligated to raise Mencken's Black Flag.

 

[GoRon]

I heard a saying about Christians that are dogmatic in their beliefs to the point no one can stand being around them. "They are so heavenly minded they are no earthly good"

Same can be said about Libertarianism, what good is being "right" if no one knows or cares? Your precious conscience is clear and Kerry gets elected. If you honestly believe the GOP is not better than the Dems as far as 2nd amendment issues than you have not been paying attention.

The GOP is on defense constantly with the gun issue, the best they can do is slow the erosion of rights. The media, the Dems and the rest of the planet is against our right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Thumper -

It's good that you don't feel oppressed - in a very real way, freedom is merely a state of mind.

But, let's not forget that you have a tax load amounting to something like a third of your annual income, you have to ask permission before buying a gun (to say nothing of carrying it), and that you own your home only at the pleasure of your local zoning board. That's only off the top of my head - if I sat down and listed every way in which the government interferes with my life, it would be a hell of a list.

Besides, can you really have too much freedom? Exactly how many rules do you need to govern your life (and how many goons with statue books and billy clubs do you need to enforce those rules?)

- Chris

 

[Thumper]

Ah...and we get to your anarchic ideal. I don't have a problem with that, except for the national security aspect. Randian ideas don't address that very well. Just my opinion.

The bottom line is that I'm not that bothered by the Feds. If I were, I'd move or fight. Probably fight, 'cause I've been around, and a better place simply doesn't exist.

 

[Michigander]

Thumper,

- I carry a gun all day, every day, with the government's blessing.
- I can (and have) own(ed) full auto weapons.

emphasis added

You said a mouthful right there!

Also, perhaps you forgot to add, "with the government's blessing" at the end of that second one.

 

[Greg Bell]

Ralph Nader = Democratic spoiler
Whatever loser the Libertarians put up = Republican spoiler

The Libertarians have it pretty easy. Make grand statements about what you would do if you were in office--and rest assured that you will never have to act on them.

 

[Thumper]

You said a mouthful right there!

That's kind of the point. I pretty much do what I want.

Fair trade: They don't bug me and I don't practice small unit tactics (that I learned from "them"...ironic, eh?).

Your italics seem to point to an idea of what "they" might do. I can't get too worked up about that. Too slippery of a slope.

Am I completely happy with the situation? Of course not. There are lots of laws I neither like, nor agree with. But I don't get all lathered up because of some adolescent hatred of perceived authority.

My meandering point: If I felt as oppressed as some here seem to feel, I'd pick up a rifle.