Why aren't more people Libertarian?

[Mac1958]

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?

Because perhaps if those who voted thought they had a decent, credible, viable alternative to the Dems and the GOP, they would have voted for it.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course it was produced. You simply refused to accept it, Party Leader.

As to the original OP: those who read you and the other L-osers on the thread see exactly why the philosophy is such a failure.

 

[jwoodie]

Libertarians tend to support policies on a purely theoretical basis, akin to releasing all the animals from the zoo without any regard for the consequences.

 

[Oddball]

Libertarians tend to support policies on a purely theoretical basis, akin to releasing all the animals from the zoo without any regard for the consequences.

People aren't animals and the federal gubmint makes the worst of zoo keepers.

 

[Oddball]

Of course it was produced. You simply refused to accept it, Party Leader.

As to the original OP: those who read you and the other L-osers on the thread see exactly why the philosophy is such a failure.

No, you didn't produce it....But you continue lying in claiming that you did.

 

[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?

Because perhaps if those who voted thought they had a decent, credible, viable alternative to the Dems and the GOP, they would have voted for it.

.

Um, hate to bust your bubble here, but you cannot make claims about the people who didn't vote based upon the actions and opinions of those who did.

 

[konradv]

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

Because perhaps if those who voted thought they had a decent, credible, viable alternative to the Dems and the GOP, they would have voted for it.

Um, hate to bust your bubble here, but you cannot make claims about the people who didn't vote based upon the actions and opinions of those who did.

Sure you can. They don't count. If you can't bother to vote for a minor candidate or to write someone in, why should we care what someone who's either given up or is too lazy to bother thinks? Where's the personal responsibility that would make us care?

 

[Contumacious]

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?

Because perhaps if those who voted thought they had a decent, credible, viable alternative to the Dems and the GOP, they would have voted for it.

.

And that would be a party that provides even more handouts AND breakfast in bed, right?

.

 

[dblack]

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

Because perhaps if those who voted thought they had a decent, credible, viable alternative to the Dems and the GOP, they would have voted for it.

.

And that would be a party that provides even more handouts AND breakfast in bed, right?

Or just one that actually favors limited government and gives a shit about civil liberties.

 

[Contumacious]

Because perhaps if those who voted thought they had a decent, credible, viable alternative to the Dems and the GOP, they would have voted for it.

.

And that would be a party that provides even more handouts AND breakfast in bed, right?

Or just one that actually favors limited government and gives a shit about civil liberties.

And what do you consider "civil liberties"?

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Contumacious cares nothing about "civil liberties". He cares about only one thing, really. That is the government not forbidding him to do whatever he wishes to do, which was the major failure of the Roman Republic.

 

[HUGGY]

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

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

No... it's because the perfect "libertarian" is a party of one. As soon as you get two there are rules and obligations and you are not a libertarian.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Libertarianism, ipso facto, an atrophying organization.

 

[Contumacious]

Contumacious cares nothing about "civil liberties". He cares about only one thing, really. That is the government not forbidding him to do whatever he wishes to do, which was the major failure of the Roman Republic.

Comrade Starkiev, isn't it a fact that you consider food stamps and other welfare "benefits" as "civil liberties?
.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Party Leader Contumacious, I consider "civil liberties" as enshrined in the Constitution and the Amendments.

You may enlarge them if you wish.

 

[occupied]

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

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

No... it's because the perfect "libertarian" is a party of one. As soon as you get two there are rules and obligations and you are not not a libertarian.

You are correct, there is not a hardcore libertarian here that does not secretly wish to be an absolute emperor.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We cannot have individuals making their own determination of what are law and morality, then applying it to others.

For instance, consider the individual who wanted to have sexual relations with a young teenager and even younger children. We can't leave to deranged individuals to make those decisions.

 

[Oddball]

We cannot have individuals making their own determination of what are law and morality, then applying it to others.

For instance, consider the individual who wanted to have sexual relations with a young teenager and even younger children. We can't leave to deranged individuals to make those decisions.

That's why we have trial by jury, tyrant buttpipe.

 

[jillian]

We cannot have individuals making their own determination of what are law and morality, then applying it to others.

For instance, consider the individual who wanted to have sexual relations with a young teenager and even younger children. We can't leave to deranged individuals to make those decisions.

That's why we have trial by jury, tyrant buttpipe.

jurors don't determine the law. they determine the facts.

THAT is what the juries are for.

man you make a lot of noise

 

[PredFan]

The ignorance of the Libertarian party that is on display here by those who criticise it is stunning.