Libertarian but not Libertarian Party?

[owebo]

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"...

I haven't seen him act as POTUS yet like you and democrats apparently have.....

His pronouncements and ideas are downright scary. A Repub who LOVES deficit spending? A guy who wants to TAKE Iraqi oil and GIVE it to Exxon Mobil? (this is before he put the KING of Exxon Mobil in charge our diplomacy ) The arrogance and lack of principles is SOOO far from the humble qualified governors that the LParty ran that America deserves to be sweaty and worried for the next 4 years. They could have had an intervention between your 2 warring tribes and put all this partisan dick poking on hold...

i don't find his pronouncements scary at all....

There were two choice this past election...

Slam the brakes on the speeding car (no guarantee it won't go over the cliff)

Slam the gas on the speeding car...

And you choose to get out of the car and jump off the cliff....

I'll wait and see if the brakes are good or not.....

Yeah. You see RIGHT THERE ^^^^^ is why I left retail tribal politics 20 years ago and became a BigL Libertarian.

And your big L led you over the cliff....

I may see you at the bottom, and may not....but enjoy the bottom.....

 

[Picaro]

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.

 

[Picaro]

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.

None of those terms as they are used today mean anything. why do you feel a need for a label anyway? Is there something wrong with being a paleo-conservative, moderate, or paleo-liberal? Unless you're going to shill for some Party/cult you don't need to jump on anybody's Band Wagon Of Lunacy.

 

[dblack]

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.

How was it a disaster? How is prohibition better?

 

[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.

None of those terms as they are used today mean anything. why do you feel a need for a label anyway? Is there something wrong with being a paleo-conservative, moderate, or paleo-liberal? Unless you're going to shill for some Party/cult you don't need to jump on anybody's Band Wagon Of Lunacy.

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.....Liberty demands you stand for Liberty.....

 

[Picaro]

The 'Libertarian Party' was just a Koch franchise, not a genuine indie Party, and when it went bankrupt, apparently there aren't any Libertarians who can balance a check book, it was bought by Richard Viguerie and became one of his franchises. Nothing there, really, just assorted potheads who hate cops and think anarchy is grand or something.

 

[Picaro]

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.

None of those terms as they are used today mean anything. why do you feel a need for a label anyway? Is there something wrong with being a paleo-conservative, moderate, or paleo-liberal? Unless you're going to shill for some Party/cult you don't need to jump on anybody's Band Wagon Of Lunacy.

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.....Liberty demands you stand for Liberty.....

So you're saying we all have to join weird cults and babble gibberish, or somebody will call us names n stuff?

 

[Picaro]

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.

How was it a disaster? How is prohibition better?

How was it not better? The only sniveling about it now is some argument whining about how it ended up locking up more black scum than white scum, which isn't a real argument.

 

[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.

None of those terms as they are used today mean anything. why do you feel a need for a label anyway? Is there something wrong with being a paleo-conservative, moderate, or paleo-liberal? Unless you're going to shill for some Party/cult you don't need to jump on anybody's Band Wagon Of Lunacy.

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.....Liberty demands you stand for Liberty.....

So you're saying we all have to join weird cults and babble gibberish, or somebody will call us names n stuff?

You apparently fell over what I said.....

 

[aaronleland]

As a conservative

You aren't a conservative.

 

[owebo]

As a conservative

You aren't a conservative.

I'm a leftist actually.....just to the left of the articles of confederation.....

 

[dblack]

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.

How was it a disaster? How is prohibition better?

How was it not better? The only sniveling about it now is some argument whining about how it ended up locking up more black scum than white scum, which isn't a real argument.

That's not an answer. But I didn't really think you had one, which is why I asked.

 

[ScienceRocks]

As a conservative

You aren't a conservative.

I'm a leftist actually.....just to the left of the articles of confederation.....

So you don't believe in democracy, you don't believe in America being a respectable power in anything and you just wish to be left alone to your state. Got it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

 

[dblack]

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.

Equally "funny" when a person can convince theirself we've made no mistakes.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

Equally "funny" when a person can convince theirself we've made no mistakes.

You know a person like that?

 

[dblack]

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.

Equally "funny" when a person can convince theirself we've made no mistakes.

You know a person like that?

Do you know a person who thinks there have been no improvements? You're trying to sell the false notion that libertarians are reactionaries who want to go backward. Just calling bullshit on bullshit.

 

[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

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

Equally "funny" when a person can convince theirself we've made no mistakes.

You know a person like that?

Do you know a person who thinks there have been no improvements? You're trying to sell the false notion that libertarians are reactionaries who want to go backward. Just calling bullshit on bullshit.

Read the OP.

Thanks.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I am the opposite of the libertarian as I want more money for infrastructure, science, r&d and education.