Why aren't more people Libertarian?

[bripat9643]

Once again, Fakey spews sanctimonious gibberish into the forum signifying nothing.

Are you opposed to people whining about the rules they were born to suffer under? Tell that to gays who don't like the marriage laws. Tell that Hispanics who don't like our immigration laws.

It appears only some groups are allowed to whine.

The amoral world is that of the libertarians, who whine about living in a We the People constitutional republic with minority protections.

These people wish to live their little fantasy lives independent of the social compact into which they were born and in which they have benefited significantly.

Their complaints are insignificant and dismissed without much regret.

 

[Oddball]

The amoral world is that of the libertarians, who whine about living in a We the People constitutional republic with minority protections.

These people wish to live their little fantasy lives independent of the social compact into which they were born and in which they have benefited significantly.

Their complaints are insignificant and dismissed without much regret.

"Amoral" is vastly different from "immoral"...You should do a little Google search on the two.

BTW, your "social compact" is a myth...Being born into obligations is the essence of tyranny.

 

[longknife]

.

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.

Well, the party can't seem to muster 2% of the popular vote. If that's okay with Libertarians, if their only reason for existing is to make a point, if they're content with that level of "success", that's fine, that's where we will leave them, no problem there at all.

If the Libertarians, on the other hand, were interested in becoming a serious national party and representing the people who believe in limited & efficient government mixed with relatively liberal social practices, then it seems pretty clear that they're doing a pretty lousy freakin' job.

They have a pretty clear option: They can remain a punchline, living up to their reputation as simplistic, hopeless theorists, or they can ease their way in by shit-canning the absolutism and tapping into the massive dissatisfaction Americans have with both major parties.

It may be too late anyway; the Libertarian brand has been screwed by its absolutists, even worse than the GOP. We'll probably have to find another alternate party that believes in limited & efficient government mixed with relatively liberal social practices, only one that isn't packed with simplistic absolutists.

It'll be a while, if ever. What a wasted opportunity.

.

I think Ron Paul is an example of this. He is a brilliant, caring individual who sees the danger the Democrat Party poses. I agree with many of his policies.

But, he's absolute about it and gives no indication of backing off from some of his extreme policies. That's what draws such rabid followers - while turning off the majority who prefer the comfort of old habits.

If the party would be slightly more moderate - while holding to the core values this nation was founded upon - I think it could greatly expand its base. Heck! Ever think that Tea Party types might be looking for a party like that?

 

[JakeStarkey]

My social compact is very much the cultural understanding and obligation to which American born are indebted.

Libertarianism claims to be amoral, which is a lie. You are, in fact, immoral.

But that is your problem.

The amoral world is that of the libertarians, who whine about living in a We the People constitutional republic with minority protections.

These people wish to live their little fantasy lives independent of the social compact into which they were born and in which they have benefited significantly.

Their complaints are insignificant and dismissed without much regret.

"Amoral" is vastly different from "immoral"...You should do a little Google search on the two.

BTW, your "social compact" is a myth...Being born into obligations is the essence of tyranny.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No real American is looking for anything like the Libertarian Party, longknife, except the sheeple followers.

 

[Oddball]

Who the fuck are you to decide what "real Americans" are looking for, you closet tin pot despot?

 

[Oddball]

My social compact is very much the cultural understanding and obligation to which American born are indebted.

Libertarianism claims to be amoral, which is a lie. You are, in fact, immoral.

But that is your problem.

Your "social compact "is a lie.

Your immorality lies in the imposition of your intellectually arrested notions of morality and "social compact" upon your neighbor, at gunpoint if necessary, with no more volitional assent on their part to such compact than being born.

You are a petty tyrant.

 

[konradv]

Who the fuck are you to decide what "real Americans" are looking for, you closet tin pot despot?

I agree. You have to go by the ballot box and, hey..., they're not going for libertarians. I guess we've got millions on "tin pot despots" around!!!

 

[Oddball]

Who the fuck are you to decide what "real Americans" are looking for, you closet tin pot despot?

I agree. You have to go by the ballot box and, hey..., they're not going for libertarians. I guess we've got millions on "tin pot despots" around!!!

Half of Americans don't even fucking vote...I guess they're not "real Americans", huh?

Besides that, you are no less a slave just because you suffer under the illusion that you have a choice as to who your master will be.

 

[Contumacious]

No real American is looking for anything like the Libertarian Party, longknife, except the sheeple followers.

Comrade Starkiev, I get your drift:

a real american from your standpoint is a non producing parasite

so "real americans" (wink, wink) look for welfare/warfare state politicians not LIBERTARIANS - there we concur.

.

 

[konradv]

Who the fuck are you to decide what "real Americans" are looking for, you closet tin pot despot?

I agree. You have to go by the ballot box and, hey..., they're not going for libertarians. I guess we've got millions on "tin pot despots" around!!!

Half of Americans don't even fucking vote...I guess they're not "real Americans", huh?

Besides that, you are no less a slave just because you suffer under the illusion that you have a choice as to who your master will be.

If we don't have a choice, it's because we allow our elections to be bought. If you're really as concerned as you sound, why aren't you pushing for public financing of elections? Oh yeah, you equate that with "government control". Sorry, but it really just means "paying the bills". If you're satisfied with the way we do it now, you're just as complicit in the slavery as anyone else. Your voice isn't heard because the real power is funding both sides.

 

[Oddball]

I agree. You have to go by the ballot box and, hey..., they're not going for libertarians. I guess we've got millions on "tin pot despots" around!!!

Half of Americans don't even fucking vote...I guess they're not "real Americans", huh?

Besides that, you are no less a slave just because you suffer under the illusion that you have a choice as to who your master will be.

If we don't have a choice, it's because we allow our elections to be bought. If you're really as concerned as you sound, why aren't you pushing for public financing of elections? Oh yeah, you equate that with "government control". Sorry, but it really just means "paying the bills". If you're satisfied with the way we do it now, you're just as complicit in the slavery as anyone else. Your voice isn't heard because the real power is funding both sides.

Oh, fuck...Not this shit again.

How is turning over whose candidacies are "legitimate" enough to be funded and whose are not, to the same people who can't even run the goddamn Post Office supposed to help anything?

No, the answer to rampant plutocracy is even more of it the funding of elections, fool.

 

[beagle9]

Bullshit, I never asked you to repeat to me your tired dogma and I damned sure am not going to just accept your absolute statements as the living gospel, if you have not seen my replies as substantive then just quit replying back to them, simple, otherwise quit acting like as if you have reached political perfection and join the fray with the rest of us flawed creatures who suspect that we probably do not know all the answers to every problem but would like to figure them out the right way rather than ignorantly hide behind a false front refusing to honestly examine your beliefs with the group.

That's the longest sentence I've ever seen in my life.

Beautiful isn't it?

Wow, you mean there is someone like me here ? LOL

 

[konradv]

Half of Americans don't even fucking vote...I guess they're not "real Americans", huh?

Besides that, you are no less a slave just because you suffer under the illusion that you have a choice as to who your master will be.

If we don't have a choice, it's because we allow our elections to be bought. If you're really as concerned as you sound, why aren't you pushing for public financing of elections? Oh yeah, you equate that with "government control". Sorry, but it really just means "paying the bills". If you're satisfied with the way we do it now, you're just as complicit in the slavery as anyone else. Your voice isn't heard because the real power is funding both sides.

Oh, fuck...Not this shit again.

How is turning over whose candidacies are "legitimate" enough to be funded and whose are not, to the same people who can't even run the goddamn Post Office supposed to help anything?

No, the answer to rampant plutocracy is even more of it the funding of elections, fool.

You keep posting the same shit all the time, too. So deal with it.

Candidacies would be determined by a separate level of elections. How is that "turning it over to the government"? Holding open mikes and debates should be enough for people to go out and vote to determine who can vie for party nominations or stand a legitimate chance to run an independent campaign. Set a threshold of say 5% of the vote in the first round. If the taxpayers are funding the process instead of special interests, we should come out ahead in the end, when the winners have fewer expensive promises to keep. Parties would become clearing houses for ideas instead of money gathering machines and our representitives might actually have some time to read bills, instead of spending so much of it at fund raiser after fund raiser.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

Well, the party can't seem to muster 2% of the popular vote. If that's okay with Libertarians, if their only reason for existing is to make a point, if they're content with that level of "success", that's fine, that's where we will leave them, no problem there at all.

If the Libertarians, on the other hand, were interested in becoming a serious national party and representing the people who believe in limited & efficient government mixed with relatively liberal social practices, then it seems pretty clear that they're doing a pretty lousy freakin' job.

They have a pretty clear option: They can remain a punchline, living up to their reputation as simplistic, hopeless theorists, or they can ease their way in by shit-canning the absolutism and tapping into the massive dissatisfaction Americans have with both major parties.

It may be too late anyway; the Libertarian brand has been screwed by its absolutists, even worse than the GOP. We'll probably have to find another alternate party that believes in limited & efficient government mixed with relatively liberal social practices, only one that isn't packed with simplistic absolutists.

It'll be a while, if ever. What a wasted opportunity.

.

I think Ron Paul is an example of this. He is a brilliant, caring individual who sees the danger the Democrat Party poses. I agree with many of his policies.

But, he's absolute about it and gives no indication of backing off from some of his extreme policies. That's what draws such rabid followers - while turning off the majority who prefer the comfort of old habits.

If the party would be slightly more moderate - while holding to the core values this nation was founded upon - I think it could greatly expand its base. Heck! Ever think that Tea Party types might be looking for a party like that?

Couldn't agree more. The Tea Party actually had my attention for the first couple of weeks there, before the Palin/Bachmann/Beck/Norquist brigade took it over. I just don't understand why they have to remain so absolutist.

It's almost as if they would prefer to remain on the fringe, rather than accept the responsibilities inherent in representing a wider swath of the electorate.

.

 

[Oddball]

Candidacies would be determined by a separate level of elections. How is that "turning it over to the government"? Holding open mikes and debates should be enough for people to go out and vote to determine who can vie for party nominations or stand a legitimate chance to run an independent campaign. Set a threshold of say 5% of the vote in the first round. If the taxpayers are funding the process instead of special interests, we should come out ahead in the end, when the winners have fewer expensive promises to keep. Parties would become clearing houses for ideas instead of money gathering machines and our representitives might actually have some time to read bills, instead of spending so much of it at fund raiser after fund raiser.

Right...Candidacies, and whose would be funded and whose would not, would be determined by the politicians who fuck up everything else they come into contact with....And the moment that your arbirarily arrived upon 5% number would become a threat to the establishment, we'd suddenly see it moved up to 10%.

I swear...The topic could be bass fishing and you'd find a way to make it about central planning of political campaigns being the cure from everything from the common cold to ring around the collar....

 

[konradv]

Right...Candidacies would be determined by the politicians who fuck up everything else they come into contact with.

Candidacies would be determined by the ballot box.

 

[HUGGY]

Seriously, why aren't there more Libertarians out there?

Is it because people don't know what Libertarians stand for?

Why aren't more people Libertarian?

Probably for the same reason there are not more people on Easter Island.

 

[Oddball]

Couldn't agree more. The Tea Party actually had my attention for the first couple of weeks there, before the Palin/Bachmann/Beck/Norquist brigade took it over. I just don't understand why they have to remain so absolutist.

It's almost as if they would prefer to remain on the fringe, rather than accept the responsibilities inherent in representing a wider swath of the electorate.

.

When half of those eligible to vote don't even show, how can you claim that they're the fringe?

 

[Oddball]

Right...Candidacies would be determined by the politicians who fuck up everything else they come into contact with.

Candidacies would be determined by the ballot box.

Suuuuuuuure they would.