Libertarians

[Danimal]

The proof is in the pudding, Cordex.

How many got elected? You are responding emotionally to a distinctly academic problem. If you don't get elected, you don't get to implement an agenda, at least in this political system. Just sitting around rubbing your hands with all the ideas they might have is simply not enough. They must be able to sell those ideas to the voting public. Now, bitter Libertarians may call the voting public stupid for not embracing their ideas, but it is a telling thing when Libertarians who can't get elected to city council or dog catcher decide instead to launch a presidential campaign. A sad fact of politics is that it takes more than good ideas to get elected. Until Libertarians acknowlege that and prove they have some grassroots support with some local victories that can move up the food chain, their credibility as a sincere political movement will always be in question.

 

[rock jock]

I have always been confused by the LP message on drugs. Do they want to do away with all drug laws or just those on the federal level? The latter I would agree with, the former I don't.

 

[newman32]

There's a move to get a bunch of libertarians to move to a state in large enough numbers to influence local elections. Interesting concept. Here's the link. http://freestateproject.org/index.htm

 

[Scottmkiv]

I'm a Libertarian too.

 

[Poodleshooter]

Most active Libertarians that I've met in person (granted, only a handful here in the East) seem to be the curmudgeonly "leave me alone" type. That doesn't really lend itself to producing political candidates above the level of court clerks and dogcatchers. The lack of compromise inherent to their platform is also politically crippling.
For another look at "Libertarians" in my home state, look up "Gary Reams" and "Reams Reeferendum". An anti-gun "Libertarian" is about all we see around here....

 

[keederdag]

Libertarians at heart? Please, Pretty please, stop compramising; don't vote for the lesser of two evils, this outlook will take us all somewhere that we don't want to go. There are pleanty of LP candidates where I am every election; I vote for em every time, they lose every time. All I here is that " I would vote for them, but they dont have a shot" why is that do you think? We need your help, the Reps are Selling us out. Vote with your heart; I respect a socialist that votes socialist rather than an LP that votes Republican. I am guity as any one else of this at times, but we have to change or things WILL get worse.

 

[dustind]

Rock Jock: The answer is both. Libertarians really want to get the WOsD out of the fed's hands, and into the states. Libertarians also believe in personal choice and responsibility, thus oppose it all together in that sence.

 

[sctman800]

Another Libertarian Here

At one time when I was young I voted Democrat because I thought they were for the working man. Then I voted Republican because I thought they would be better about lower taxes and gun rights. Then I realized I was just throwing my vote away because I always voted against "the lesser of the two evils" and the correct name for them is Republicrats. I first go with pro-gun canidates and have not been dissapointed with Libertarians. jim.

 

[Danimal]

I would support Libertarians in a heartbeat if our political system was different - say either Plato's "Philosopher-King" or a benevolent dictatorship. But in a democratic republic, a person's effectivness relates directly with their ability to work with other people, compromise and collaborate. Even if a Libertarian could get elected, they would accomplish nothing because they would be marginalized by the other parties. There are some things I hate to see compromise on. On other things, compromise is necessary.

All Libertarians say in a campaign is "vote for me...I'm not the other guy." It didn't work for Rick Lazio, and it doesn't work for Libertarians. If they could spend less time begging people not to compromise, and more time intelligently articulating their ideas to voters while making solid gains amongst the grassroots electorate, they would gradually increase in strength. Voting is considered a sacred right in America, and those of us who take it seriously, don't relish the thought of a protest vote or throwing it away.

Here in Oregon, most of the LP candidates are kooks. They are nice people and I am sure they are smart, but they come across as kooks who couldn't make it work within the other two parties and are bitter and disaffected. They do not connect with the voters, and they don't have any emotional history. That's a huge hurdle to overcome, and even if they did everything right, it would still be a miracle to split the electorate into three viable parties. But unfortunately, people don't like taking a risk on angry, bitter candidates from a third party they don't understand. Most of all, people want to associate with winners, and that goes for any party. No one wants to be attached to a loser. Sure, you have that small group who finds nobility in getting their butt stomped in every single time, but overall, people want to see progress. It would be like asking a person to invest in a losing stock that never makes any gains, hoping against hope that one day, a profit would show.

The Repubican Party disappoints me on several things, but those things are never enough to make me want to try something completely different with a horrible success rate. I can get more accomplished working within the system than I can by smacking my head against a wall in principled protest.

 

[cordex]

*laugh*
And I'm the one responding emotionally to an academic issue?

 

[Danimal]

Yes, you are the one who seems bent out of shape when the facts were laid out. I'm not trying to make anything personal here, and stating that voters want an emotional attachment to their candidates and party is a demonstratable fact. It's still a largely academic discussion, and while you can "laugh" all you want, it doesn't change a thing.

 

[cordex]

Sorry, Danimal ... I don't see where I've gotten bent out of shape.
In fact, I heartily agree - the Libertarians need to work hard at selling themselves, especially since parties have become entrenched and people are often willing to vote for a party rather than a candidate.

However, you have gone to great lengths to backhand them under the dubious pretense of not intending offense.

"I don't mean to offend, but all Libertarians are naïve beatniks who can't get themselves elected dogcatcher."

"No offense, friend, but all Republicans are fat, rich, pigs who feed off of the blood of the working man."

"With all due respect, Democrats are simply grubby-handed welfare babies who will never amount to anything."

Doesn't fly with me.

By the way, which areas are you willing to compromise on?
Gun control?
Freedom of the press?
Property rights?
It is rare to find a Republican or Democrat who will not work to compromise on very important freedom issues.

 

[Danimal]

Fair enough. I am not trying to beat up on Libertarians. However, I see no reason to attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Everyone can see what the Libertarians need to do, but no one is doing it. To me, that's almost worse than the problems the Republicans are charged with. Who do you want to support? Someone who is morally flexible and compromising, or someone who is just incompetent? Neither one is attractive, but it really lets the air out of the "don't vote for the lesser of two evils" argument. Now it's just Evil, Less Evil, and Incompetent. Until someone actually makes the great leap from tough-talking candidate to credible elected official - or even better, re-elected official, this is all just fluff. Great ideas need action, and I'm not seeing any from the LP. But, the fatal flaws in the LP don't make Republicans morally superior, just more electable.


As for the compromise issues, the RKBA is at the top of my list of things I won't touch. That's my personal litmus test. All others follow that. No candidate is ever going to be perfect, and to me it just makes sense that if I can find a candidate who will vote with me 8 times out of 10, I would support that candidate instead of giving my vote to a candidate with whom I would agree 10 times out of 10 - but has no chance at being elected - and help to elect a person (usually a Democrat) who would only vote with me 2 times out of 10. To me, having 8/10 of a loaf is better than starving, while feeling really good about myself.

 

[AZLibertarian]

Here in Oregon, most of the LP candidates are kooks. They are nice people and I am sure they are smart, but they come across as kooks who couldn't make it work within the other two parties and are bitter and disaffected. They do not connect with the voters, and they don't have any emotional history. That's a huge hurdle to overcome, and even if they did everything right, it would still be a miracle to split the electorate into three viable parties. But unfortunately, people don't like taking a risk on angry, bitter candidates from a third party they don't understand. Most of all, people want to associate with winners, and that goes for any party. No one wants to be attached to a loser. Sure, you have that small group who finds nobility in getting their butt stomped in every single time, but overall, people want to see progress. It would be like asking a person to invest in a losing stock that never makes any gains, hoping against hope that one day, a profit would show.

Danimal,

Not to slam you as you're just stating your views, and quite civilly, IMO, but I have some disagreements with your paragraph above.

The issue of not connecting with the voters is not limited to L's. The problem is that the D and R parties have mechanisms to vete their candidates well before they run for office. In no party is it a cinch. AlGore was characterized as wooden, GWB was characterized as a dumb frat-boy. Neither was the complete truth, but one's own political viewpoint probably determined just how much you believed.

You're right that angry, bitter candidates shouldn't be elected. They do a disservice to their party and platform.

I'm under no illusion that I'll ever see a "L" behind a major office-holder here in AZ. But I continue to vote Libertarian, because I occassionally see R's take a L view (Jeff Flake, my current Representative is one example). Ross Perot got 19% of the vote in '92, and Bush lost to Clinton. Perot's main platform was to balance the budget. Guess what happened in '94? Newt Gingrich was able to lead the "Republican Revolution" and his "Contract with America" which had some very libertarian elements... abolition of the Dept. of Education, and a balanced budget. IMO, Perot's loss in '92 gave a wake-up call (however short lived) to the Republicans, and they profitted from it in '94.

And, to keep this thread related to gun issues, the D's are hopeless anti-gunners. Unfortunately, many R's (Sen. McCain--my most "un-favorite" Senator) are able to convince voters that have some interest in RKBA, while participating in "frog-boiling" the electorate.

 

[Seminole]

I'm another libertarian.

Danimal wrote:

I would support Libertarians in a heartbeat if our political system was different - say either Plato's "Philosopher-King" or a benevolent dictatorship.

Of course, in either Plato's system or a "benevolent dictatorship" (as if that oxymoron could actually exist), there would be no "Libertarians" to support. Libertarianism has indeed worked in the past in this republic--it just wasn't called that. The political philosophy known as "Libertarianism" was widespread at the founding of the United States and was adhered to by both Federalists and Anti-Federalists. In the 18th and 19th century it was known simply as "liberalism." Unfortunately, that term was co-opted by the political left in the early 20th century and is now associated with the antithesis of what the term originally meant.

 

[rock jock]

Rock Jock: The answer is both. Libertarians really want to get the WOsD out of the fed's hands, and into the states. Libertarians also believe in personal choice and responsibility, thus oppose it all together in that sence.

Well, that is perfectly fine if they want to adopt that as a campaign plank, but it is a serious barrier to ever expanding their base. It is one reason why I will personally never vote LP. They are simply no different than the big govt Dems. The cannot but help sticking their nose where it is not wanted. They should adopt a strictly Constitutional approach - the feds have control over what is provided them in the Constitution, the states have control over everything else, provided it is not prohibited by the Constitution. Problem is, the LP wants their philosophy to be the guiding principle of our country, not the Constitution.

 

[cordex]

I see no reason to attempt to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Exactly. Very well said.
Which is why I can't feel good about voting (R) or (D).

Who do you want to support? Someone who is morally flexible and compromising, or someone who is just incompetent?

Morally flexible simply means amoral.

If you can tell yourself that pragmatism is the order of the day and feel good about your decision, then voting for the slightly less evil major party is the way to go.

I can't.

 

[AZRickD]

Rock Jock says:

but it is a serious barrier to ever expanding their base. It is one reason why I will personally never vote LP. They are simply no different than the big govt Dems. The cannot but help sticking their nose where it is not wanted. They should adopt a strictly Constitutional approach

Non sequitor.

The LP position on possesson of drugs or guns or rugs is exactly *NOT* sticking their noses in other peoples' business.

Your premise assumes that a Libertarian would abandon principle to attract a few more votes. That is, Libertarians should then say, "Ya know, we don't believe people should be able to initiate force against people who are not violating another's rights ... unless it is to support the War On some Drugs."

Your premise is irrational. Sarah Brady might say, "... but their position on repealing the 1934 National Firearms Act is a serious barrier to ever expanding their base. It is one reason why I will personally never vote LP. They are simply no different than the NRA."

You would do well to study and rethink your position on this.

They should adopt a strictly Constitutional approach - the feds have control over what is provided them in the Constitution, the states have control over everything else, provided it is not prohibited by the Constitution.

Most Libertarians that *I* know *do* adopt a purely Constitutional frame work. And they are pilloried for that as well. The Constitution is mostly dead in this country. It is little more than window dressing. The Constitution calls for a Prez, a legislature, and a Judiciary. Everything else is *completely* up for grabs.

However, I do know several Libertarians who think the Constitution is bunk. They don't believe in Original Sin and they didn't sign any "Social Contract," let alone ratifying a Constitution that is approaching the status of dead letter.

Rick

 

[Combat-wombat]

The LP would take off like gangbusters if they would simply do one small thing -- drop the drug legalization plank from the platform

Yes, if it meant getting a LP candidate into office, I would support that because I care about our other freedoms more. However, I am strongly for the legalization of drugs, and I believe in their position.

 

[jimpeel]

Combat-wombat

The incrementalization of the drug war didn't happen overnight; and it is not to be expected that the undoing of that incrementalism will occur overnight.

The need is to get viable candidates in at the bottom of the ladder so they can become viable candidates at higher and higher levels. The problem with the LP is they refuse to realize that politics is a bottom up, not a top down, proposition.

 

[Seeker]

libertarian, and I usually vote Libertarian as I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, also because I agree with the LP platform.

 

[ravinraven]

Identity crisis?

One problem with liberitarianism up here hit me just this morning. The news nitwit was blabbering away about some political issue in a nearby village. I already forgot the issue. I think it had something to do with spending a government grant they had obtained.

The guy goes on about the percentages of people who were putting in their ideas. He read Democrats make up X% of the people who want to do whatever. Y% are Republicans. Librarians make up the rest. I nearly fell out of bed. That's what made me forget what the issue was. Librarians!

It's no secret that the LP has an uphill struggle.

rr

 

[telewinz]

A Rose by any other name

Anarchists have been using the term "libertarian" to describe themselves and their ideas since the 1850's. The revolutionary anarchist Joseph Dejacque published Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement social in New York between 1858 and 1861 [Max Nettlau, A Short History of Anarchism, p. 75]. The use of the term "Libertarian" by anarchists became more popular from the 1890s onward after it was used in France in an attempt to get round anti-anarchist laws and to avoid the negative associations of the word "anarchy" in the popular mind (Sebastien Faure and Louise Michel published the paper Le Libertaire -- The Libertarian -- in France in 1895, for example). Since then, particularly outside America, it has always been associated with anarchist ideas and movements.

Taking a more recent example, in the USA, anarchists organised "The Libertarian League" in July 1954, which had staunch anarcho-syndicalist principles and lasted until 1965. The US-based "Libertarian" Party, on the other hand has only existed since the early 1970's, well over 100 years after anarchists first used the term to describe their political ideas

 

[cordex]

telewinz,
The Nazi Party co-opted the word "socialist" to further their agenda. Do you mean to suggest that all Socialists are Nazis?
Third world hellholes including and especially dictatorial and communist nations around the globe use the term "People's Republic" or "People's Democratic Republic". Do you contend that any Republic or Democratic Republic is a third-world dictatorship, or communist society?

Your logic is fundamentally flawed.

I think you'll find that the Libertarian party (or is that the Librarian party?) doesn't desire anarchy. They fully intend to provide a less-intrusive government. Anarcho-Capitalists do want an anarchist system, after a fashion, but they are a completely different group.

(edit: added a question mark)

 

[BerettaNut92]

But Telewinz, the A with a circle around it looks so much cooler than 'LP'....