Why aren't more people Libertarian?

[Mac1958]

.

The posts on this thread are illustrative of the damage the Libertarians have done to themselves.

Instead of advocating smart, efficient, effective limited government, they've pushed WAY too far. Instead of advocating moderation on social issues, they've pushed WAY too far. Sure, it gets them a little attention, but is this really the kind of attention they want?

Efficient, effective government and moderation on social issues would win a ton of votes. Absolutism will not.

.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That's fine for you but politics involves consensus, teamwork and compromise, without that you are not involved in politics, merely a detached critic.

As far as I'm aware Paulie isn't involved in politics, aside from possibly campaigning for candidates he supports. Regardless, nobody on this board is likely involved in politics, and we're all merely critics.

At it's most basic level politics is simply the activity of getting people to rally to your position on an issue possibly by deal making and compromise, being an ideological purist is to reject this. I wonder at the "my way or the highway" attitude of many self described libertarians, I do not see any respect for the ideas and ideals of others there at all, one of the pillars of a free society.

A free society has nothing to do with whether or not we reject the ideas of others. Obviously we think we're right. It's free in the sense that we have no interest in forcing you into our way of thinking.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kevin, I wish to believe that, but when I read some of the so-called libertarian postings, I have the feeling some would be quite willing to force others to submit.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

.

The posts on this thread are illustrative of the damage the Libertarians have done to themselves.

Instead of advocating smart, efficient, effective limited government, they've pushed WAY too far. Instead of advocating moderation on social issues, they've pushed WAY too far. Sure, it gets them a little attention, but is this really the kind of attention they want?

Efficient, effective government and moderation on social issues would win a ton of votes. Absolutism will not.

.

I don't think this thread is evidence of anything libertarians have done wrong. All I'm seeing is demagoguery, straw men, and nonsense from people who don't understand libertarianism, or are simply interested in smearing it. Either way, that says nothing about us.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree that so-called libertarians here are engaging in "demagoguery, straw men, and nonsense from people who don't understand libertarianism" to demean those of us with whom they disagree.

You are one of the few libertarians of honest worth here.

 

[occupied]

As far as I'm aware Paulie isn't involved in politics, aside from possibly campaigning for candidates he supports. Regardless, nobody on this board is likely involved in politics, and we're all merely critics.

At it's most basic level politics is simply the activity of getting people to rally to your position on an issue possibly by deal making and compromise, being an ideological purist is to reject this. I wonder at the "my way or the highway" attitude of many self described libertarians, I do not see any respect for the ideas and ideals of others there at all, one of the pillars of a free society.

A free society has nothing to do with whether or not we reject the ideas of others. Obviously we think we're right. It's free in the sense that we have no interest in forcing you into our way of thinking.

Really? Don't you want the country ran in a certain way? That involves selling your ideas in ways that do not make you sound like self obsessed pricks, it's the vibe I get most from people who make a big deal of being a libertarian.

 

[Contumacious]

.

The posts on this thread are illustrative of the damage the Libertarians have done to themselves.

Instead of advocating smart, efficient, effective limited government, they've pushed WAY too far. Instead of advocating moderation on social issues, they've pushed WAY too far. Sure, it gets them a little attention, but is this really the kind of attention they want?

Efficient, effective government and moderation on social issues would win a ton of votes. Absolutism will not.

.

excuse moi Vern.

The Founding Fathers set up a Constitutional Republic where the federal government had specifically enumerated powers.

Nowadays the federal government is a behemoth which treats the states like provinces and which controls every aspect of our lives.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Contumacious has no idea that more than 225 years have passed since Sep 1787.

His personal pathology tis pitiful.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

At it's most basic level politics is simply the activity of getting people to rally to your position on an issue possibly by deal making and compromise, being an ideological purist is to reject this. I wonder at the "my way or the highway" attitude of many self described libertarians, I do not see any respect for the ideas and ideals of others there at all, one of the pillars of a free society.

A free society has nothing to do with whether or not we reject the ideas of others. Obviously we think we're right. It's free in the sense that we have no interest in forcing you into our way of thinking.

Really? Don't you want the country ran in a certain way? That involves selling your ideas in ways that do not make you sound like self obsessed pricks, it's the vibe I get most from people who make a big deal of being a libertarian.

Please. Get off your high horse and look around. Who doesn't sound like a "self obsessed prick" around here?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kevin, almost every "libertarian" on the board sounds like a self-absorbed prick. Only the far lefties come close to them.

 

[occupied]

A free society has nothing to do with whether or not we reject the ideas of others. Obviously we think we're right. It's free in the sense that we have no interest in forcing you into our way of thinking.

Really? Don't you want the country ran in a certain way? That involves selling your ideas in ways that do not make you sound like self obsessed pricks, it's the vibe I get most from people who make a big deal of being a libertarian.

Please. Get off your high horse and look around. Who doesn't sound like a "self obsessed prick" around here?

So you can't sell libertarianism in the terms of how it will be good for everybody? No wonder it is an unfunny joke on the nation's politics. It almost sounds as if you do not want your ideas tested in the real world and risking their inevitable failure, as long as they are untested you never have to defend them.

 

[Contumacious]

Contumacious has no idea that more than 225 years have passed since Sep 1787.

His personal pathology tis pitiful.

Comrade Starkey's state supremacy fanaticism blinds him to the fact that Liberty means the same today as it did 225 years ago.

FREEMAN. One who is in the enjoyment of the right to do whatever he pleases, not forbidden by law. One in the possession of the civil rights enjoyed by, the people generally. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 164. See 6 Watts, 556:

Bouvier's Law Dictionary
1856 Edition

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Our constitutional republic operates for We the People in our elected legislatures and our federal judiciary.

You corrupt the terms "freedom" and "liberty". You can't even define them.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Really? Don't you want the country ran in a certain way? That involves selling your ideas in ways that do not make you sound like self obsessed pricks, it's the vibe I get most from people who make a big deal of being a libertarian.

Please. Get off your high horse and look around. Who doesn't sound like a "self obsessed prick" around here?

So you can't sell libertarianism in the terms of how it will be good for everybody? No wonder it is an unfunny joke on the nation's politics. It almost sounds as if you do not want your ideas tested in the real world and risking their inevitable failure, as long as they are untested you never have to defend them.

It sounds like you're just grasping at straws trying to come up with any reason at all to justify dismissing libertarianism. "Oh, you're not selling it good enough, you must not really believe in it." Get real.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Libertarianism, in fact, cannot be packed well, because it is insufficient for a free, American people.

 

[occupied]

Please. Get off your high horse and look around. Who doesn't sound like a "self obsessed prick" around here?

So you can't sell libertarianism in the terms of how it will be good for everybody? No wonder it is an unfunny joke on the nation's politics. It almost sounds as if you do not want your ideas tested in the real world and risking their inevitable failure, as long as they are untested you never have to defend them.

It sounds like you're just grasping at straws trying to come up with any reason at all to justify dismissing libertarianism. "Oh, you're not selling it good enough, you must not really believe in it." Get real.

No I am directly attacking the image I have of your pathetic little movement of sad, surly loners, so far you are doing nothing to change my mind and claim not to care. This attitude of yours and others strikes me as pretty odd for a political movement, most of them know instinctively that they get no following by acting exclusive and refusing to sell their ideology. so far you are demonstrating that American libertarianism is a refuge for political cowards who never want to ever be put on the defensive.

 

[bripat9643]

Our constitutional republic operates for We the People in our elected legislatures and our federal judiciary.

You corrupt the terms "freedom" and "liberty". You can't even define them.

Yeah, defining "freedom" as absence of government coercion is the ultimate corruption!

You sure are an entertaining clown, Fakey.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sorry, buddy. Some of us kill zombies, and your type is dinner for them.

You are degrading yourself and your friends now.

Our constitutional republic operates for We the People in our elected legislatures and our federal judiciary.

You corrupt the terms "freedom" and "liberty". You can't even define them.

Yeah, defining "freedom" as absence of government coercion is the ultimate corruption!

You sure are an entertaining clown, Fakey.

 

[bripat9643]

Libertarianism, in fact, cannot be packed well, because it is insufficient for a free, American people.

Yeah, a free people needs big healthy servings of coercion, regulation, regimentation and control, right Fakey?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So you can't sell libertarianism in the terms of how it will be good for everybody? No wonder it is an unfunny joke on the nation's politics. It almost sounds as if you do not want your ideas tested in the real world and risking their inevitable failure, as long as they are untested you never have to defend them.

It sounds like you're just grasping at straws trying to come up with any reason at all to justify dismissing libertarianism. "Oh, you're not selling it good enough, you must not really believe in it." Get real.

No I am directly attacking the image I have of your pathetic little movement of sad, surly loners, so far you are doing nothing to change my mind and claim not to care. This attitude of yours and others strikes me as pretty odd for a political movement, most of them know instinctively that they get no following by acting exclusive and refusing to sell their ideology. so far you are demonstrating that American libertarianism is a refuge for political cowards who never want to ever be put on the defensive.

That's because I don't care about changing your mind, and that's because I know that I can't. You've already stated that libertarianism is an "inevitable failure." So what exactly am I supposed to say to convince you that it's not? And why should I bother to try? First you complain about libertarians because some Republican losers claim to be libertarians, which has nothing to do with actual libertarians at all. Now your complaint is that we're not adequately convincing you we're right, or something. I'm not even sure. Regardless, you're going to dismiss us no matter what we say or do, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't take you as seriously as you'd like.

I also like how you're sticking with your "American libertarianism" descriptor, as opposed to "European libertarianism." Of which you can't name a single adherent.