So you wanna claim to be a Libertarian do ya?

[uscitizen]

True, but when you're going to vote for Romney or Santorum you're also voting for statism. Thus the irony.

And we will still have statism if Paul was elected president.
Remember that silly little thing called congress that makes the laws and spends the money?

True. The difference is that Santorum, Romney and Obama are statists, whereas Ron Paul is not.

Except for his belief that industry should be free to regulate itself I like and agree with most of RP's ideas.
He will not however make an effective president considering the rest of our govt.

 

[Paulie]

Of course it does. If he voted for Obama, which he didn't, he's voting for statism and there is no irony in my pointing that out.

True, but when you're going to vote for Romney or Santorum you're also voting for statism. Thus the irony.

it would only be ironic if I claimed that I wasn't. I have always stated that I'm voting for less statism with the GOP than with Obama. if you'd done some reading, you'd know.

The point he's making is that there's no difference in the amount of statism you're going to get.

What's weird to me is that you admit the paradigm of an illusion of choice, but then say that somehow one of the choices would be better. This is contradictory.

 

[uscitizen]

No one is exploiting anyone and the environment has no rights.

but people impacted by a polluted environment have rights.
Or do you want a hog farm next door to you?
A chemical plant?
A baskin Robbins?

Do they? And what rights are those?

The right to not be negatively impacted by the waste, etc of others.

Or should your children play in a creek polluted by industrial wastes and such?

 

[Dragon]

If newby libertarians support libertarian ideas in respect to personal liberty from laws like the drug laws, and an end to empire abroad, then they support libertarian ideas exactly where those ideas are right, and reject them where they make mistakes.

 

[slackjawed]

Having been unaffiliated with any political parry since the reagan years it is my observation that both major parties as well as the minor parties all seek control through larger government and more legislation. The present libertarian party is no exception.

The different names is just a grand ruse as every politician out there seeks the same thing.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And we will still have statism if Paul was elected president.
Remember that silly little thing called congress that makes the laws and spends the money?

True. The difference is that Santorum, Romney and Obama are statists, whereas Ron Paul is not.

Except for his belief that industry should be free to regulate itself I like and agree with most of RP's ideas.
He will not however make an effective president considering the rest of our govt.

Depends how we're defining effective. He won't be able to get much of his platform through Congress. Ending the Fed is just not going to happen, and we all know it. He might be able to get a better audit, but that would be the extent of it. However, he would be fairly effective at stopping the growth of government in general. He could end the wars we have, not enter into any new wars, and veto any nonsense the Congress wants to pass. Those would all be good things.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I have been a Libertarian for at least 25 years. Longer, if you count the time I was a Libertarian without knowing there was such a thing.

In the past 10 years I have seen tremendous growth in the party's ranks. especially among the young. At first, this was very encouraging. However, the more I talked to these people and the more I observed their actions, the more disappointed I've become. 90% of these new, young, libertarians are only here because they think that Ron paul is going to let them do drugs legally. the extent of their knowledge of the economy, and fiscal issues is that the stopping the war on drugs will reduce government spending.

Many of the new Libertarians, also are aware that the LP promotes non-interventionalism, they like this idea too. "Don't die in a war, and you live to smoke more pot" sounds pretty good to them. They also love to point out how much money will be saved when we aren't fighting "over there".

Too many times I see these people doing and saying the stupidest things in the name of the Libertarian Party. Throwing things at Sean hannity during the 2008 GOP convention is a prime example. It has been said many times and it's true, that sometimes Ron Paul's worst enemy is his supporters.

The worst, in my opinion is their preference for the democrats over the GOP if they have to make the choice. I heard just last week, a person on a local libertarian talk show state that he's rather have Obama than rick Santorum. That's an exmaple of a person who is only a libertarian because of one or two issues, and listening to him, I'll bet he just wants to smoke pot unmolested. There is no way that a knowledgeable and rational libertarian would say such a thing. I have heard this same sentiment a few times before, and it's rediculous. Barack hussein Obama is the polar opposite of everything that the Libertarian Party stands for. no rational thinking libertarian can say that Rick Santorum is in the same category.

It's great that our political clout is slowly increasing and although Ron Paul will never be POTUS, I hope I live to see a Libertarian in the White House. but you people need to really look at the Libertarian Party's platform and payattention to the WHOLE thing.

And btw, Ron Paul, if he were to somehow get elected, would not be able to make drugs legal, not in any way shape or form. The POTUS is not Ceasar and he cannot just do whatever he wants to.

A lot of them are anarchists as well - they're only libertarians because the philosophy sounds cool. Most are anything BUT libertarians - Most are authoritarian lunatics that misguidedly believe they're libertarians.

Personally, for myself I prefer the term "classical liberal" when describing my philosophy.

 

[uscitizen]

True. The difference is that Santorum, Romney and Obama are statists, whereas Ron Paul is not.

Except for his belief that industry should be free to regulate itself I like and agree with most of RP's ideas.
He will not however make an effective president considering the rest of our govt.

Depends how we're defining effective. He won't be able to get much of his platform through Congress. Ending the Fed is just not going to happen, and we all know it. He might be able to get a better audit, but that would be the extent of it. However, he would be fairly effective at stopping the growth of government in general. He could end the wars we have, not enter into any new wars, and veto any nonsense the Congress wants to pass. Those would all be good things.

If Ron stuck to his guns you would see record numbers of presidential veto overrides by congress.

It would be interesting to watch though.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I have been a Libertarian for at least 25 years. Longer, if you count the time I was a Libertarian without knowing there was such a thing.

In the past 10 years I have seen tremendous growth in the party's ranks. especially among the young. At first, this was very encouraging. However, the more I talked to these people and the more I observed their actions, the more disappointed I've become. 90% of these new, young, libertarians are only here because they think that Ron paul is going to let them do drugs legally. the extent of their knowledge of the economy, and fiscal issues is that the stopping the war on drugs will reduce government spending.

Many of the new Libertarians, also are aware that the LP promotes non-interventionalism, they like this idea too. "Don't die in a war, and you live to smoke more pot" sounds pretty good to them. They also love to point out how much money will be saved when we aren't fighting "over there".

Too many times I see these people doing and saying the stupidest things in the name of the Libertarian Party. Throwing things at Sean hannity during the 2008 GOP convention is a prime example. It has been said many times and it's true, that sometimes Ron Paul's worst enemy is his supporters.

The worst, in my opinion is their preference for the democrats over the GOP if they have to make the choice. I heard just last week, a person on a local libertarian talk show state that he's rather have Obama than rick Santorum. That's an exmaple of a person who is only a libertarian because of one or two issues, and listening to him, I'll bet he just wants to smoke pot unmolested. There is no way that a knowledgeable and rational libertarian would say such a thing. I have heard this same sentiment a few times before, and it's rediculous. Barack hussein Obama is the polar opposite of everything that the Libertarian Party stands for. no rational thinking libertarian can say that Rick Santorum is in the same category.

It's great that our political clout is slowly increasing and although Ron Paul will never be POTUS, I hope I live to see a Libertarian in the White House. but you people need to really look at the Libertarian Party's platform and payattention to the WHOLE thing.

And btw, Ron Paul, if he were to somehow get elected, would not be able to make drugs legal, not in any way shape or form. The POTUS is not Ceasar and he cannot just do whatever he wants to.

A lot of them are anarchists as well - they're only libertarians because the philosophy sounds cool. Most are anything BUT libertarians - Most are authoritarian lunatics that misguidedly believe they're libertarians.

Personally, for myself I prefer the term "classical liberal" when describing my philosophy.

There are libertarian anarchists, however. Murray Rothbard, for example.

 

[Paulie]

If newby libertarians support libertarian ideas in respect to personal liberty from laws like the drug laws, and an end to empire abroad, then they support libertarian ideas exactly where those ideas are right, and reject them where they make mistakes.

At the end of the day it's about rejecting authoritarianism. Both parties infringe upon individual liberties in an extremely authoritarian way. It's almost inevitable that whoever rejects that would align with libertarians.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Except for his belief that industry should be free to regulate itself I like and agree with most of RP's ideas.
He will not however make an effective president considering the rest of our govt.

Depends how we're defining effective. He won't be able to get much of his platform through Congress. Ending the Fed is just not going to happen, and we all know it. He might be able to get a better audit, but that would be the extent of it. However, he would be fairly effective at stopping the growth of government in general. He could end the wars we have, not enter into any new wars, and veto any nonsense the Congress wants to pass. Those would all be good things.

If Ron stuck to his guns you would see record numbers of presidential veto overrides by congress.

It would be interesting to watch though.

They couldn't override them all though. Probably not even a majority of them.

 

[uscitizen]

The majority of people in the USA desire to be led by authoritarians.

Me no way, I have NO heroes nor idols.

 

[dblack]

Having been unaffiliated with any political parry since the reagan years it is my observation that both major parties as well as the minor parties all seek control through larger government and more legislation. The present libertarian party is no exception.

Care to back that up? Can you cite anything from the Libertarian platform that amounts to larger government or more legislation?

 

[uscitizen]

Depends how we're defining effective. He won't be able to get much of his platform through Congress. Ending the Fed is just not going to happen, and we all know it. He might be able to get a better audit, but that would be the extent of it. However, he would be fairly effective at stopping the growth of government in general. He could end the wars we have, not enter into any new wars, and veto any nonsense the Congress wants to pass. Those would all be good things.

If Ron stuck to his guns you would see record numbers of presidential veto overrides by congress.

It would be interesting to watch though.

They couldn't override them all though. Probably not even a majority of them.

yes they can. I expect both parties would turn on him and he would become the most ineffective president ever, beating out Carter and others in the past.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Having been unaffiliated with any political parry since the reagan years it is my observation that both major parties as well as the minor parties all seek control through larger government and more legislation. The present libertarian party is no exception.

The different names is just a grand ruse as every politician out there seeks the same thing.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

Are you kidding me?

Look at Ron Paul's voting record. The guy seriously despises the idea of a big federal government and has voted against every attempt to grow the federal government.

The guy walks the talk...

The idea that real libertarians are just like progressives and conservatives is downright loony..

 

[Dragon]

If newby libertarians support libertarian ideas in respect to personal liberty from laws like the drug laws, and an end to empire abroad, then they support libertarian ideas exactly where those ideas are right, and reject them where they make mistakes.

At the end of the day it's about rejecting authoritarianism. Both parties infringe upon individual liberties in an extremely authoritarian way. It's almost inevitable that whoever rejects that would align with libertarians.

While changing the policies advocated by libertarians where they make no sense, which is exactly what PredFan was complaining about.

But please, let's not confuse the Democrats with liberals. For the most part, they're not. Both parties are corporate-captured defenders of privilege, and that's as anti-liberal as you can get without bringing back the Inquisition.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If Ron stuck to his guns you would see record numbers of presidential veto overrides by congress.

It would be interesting to watch though.

They couldn't override them all though. Probably not even a majority of them.

yes they can. I expect both parties would turn on him and he would become the most ineffective president ever, beating out Carter and others in the past.

In theory they can. I don't see it happening.

 

[uscitizen]

Ron needs to bring back his blimp.

 

[Paulie]

True. The difference is that Santorum, Romney and Obama are statists, whereas Ron Paul is not.

Except for his belief that industry should be free to regulate itself I like and agree with most of RP's ideas.
He will not however make an effective president considering the rest of our govt.

Depends how we're defining effective. He won't be able to get much of his platform through Congress. Ending the Fed is just not going to happen, and we all know it. He might be able to get a better audit, but that would be the extent of it. However, he would be fairly effective at stopping the growth of government in general. He could end the wars we have, not enter into any new wars, and veto any nonsense the Congress wants to pass. Those would all be good things.

Not only that, but he could appoint a cabinet that has sanity. Maybe he couldn't end the Fed, but he could appoint a successor to Bernanke that treats the USD with respect.

Whether or not Congress confirms these appointments is up to them. At least he would have a bully pulpit to take them to task and expose them for the frauds they are.

 

[uscitizen]

They couldn't override them all though. Probably not even a majority of them.

yes they can. I expect both parties would turn on him and he would become the most ineffective president ever, beating out Carter and others in the past.

In theory they can. I don't see it happening.

Big money/lobbyists is what runs our govt. And cutting govt spending hurts big business in the pocket.

Except what may go to illegal drugs virtually every welfare, medicaid, food stamp, military, etc dollar the govt spends winds up in businesses pockets. And even the drug dealers buy stuff besides drugs with their profits.

You think they will take kindly to cutting 1 trillion or so of their income out?