Why aren't more people Libertarian?

[bripat9643]

There would be no public assistance in a classical liberalism built society. So competition wins the day.

Yeah and disease and starvation would keep the population down so it's a win-win for you.

Yeah, right, before we had welfare people were dropping in the streets from starvation, and welfare also prevents epidemics!

The stuff liberals expect people to believe is utterly absurd.

 

[bripat9643]

Most them are in government, turd.

. . . because it has sought freedom and protection of the dangers and evils of bad men and bad women.

There aren't a lot of libertarians because "The contemporary world has gone astray, in sum, because it has sought freedoms from the dangers and risks of liberty."

 

[bripat9643]

Wouldn't it be that creating money or printing money as long as it has backing behind it (i.e. gold, land resources, mineral resources, oil, aggricultural resources, oceannic resources, technology resources, infrastructure in order to carry it all forward, quick mobility, human resources, a strong military and etc.), I ask then how is it such a problem when pushing money into the nations pocket books in order to stimulate it, as over see'ers of the bigger picture always at or near to the top, whom see's the bigger picture in it all, in order to make more money with it and/or to stimulate the economy when needed with it, just as long as it is backed up by the many things this nation has to offer for long term sustainability reasons, and long term stability reasons in which it has to back it up with or prove it for when doing so ?

There's nothing backing our money. It's a fiat currency. When the fed prints more of them, the ones you posses become worth less.

 

[bripat9643]

You're behind the times! Pelosi & crew passed legislation to make the practice illegal and sent it to the president who signed it back in July. Don't you check your facts before you post?

Pelosi made plenty off of inside information before that bill was passed.

Where were all the libs who think insider trading is morally reprehensible before then?

 

[PretentiousGuy]

"Why aren't more people Libertarian?"

The success of support groups and deprogramming therapy?

Hi my name is PretentiousGuy and Im a recovering Libertarian; it has been 2yrs since I took Ayn Rand seriously.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Good for you, Pretentious Guy.

 

[Duped]

The only issue I have with the libertarians is I would stickup for our allies to the bitter end if necessary - it's a short list.

 

[aSeattleConserv]

He is fraudulent in that he tells the story he wants while ignoring the totality of evidence. That is why his publisher pulled back his last book.

I know this probably sounds absurd in the God-hating/atheist circles that you run in Jake, but (are you sitting down?) where I come from there is two sides to every story.

Here's Barton's:

The Jefferson Lies: Taking on the Critics

"...I have penned numerous best-selling history works, and characteristic of each is a heavy reliance on primary-source documentation. Across the past twenty years, I have amassed a collection of some 100,000 originals (or certified copies of originals) predating 1812, including hand-written documents and works of those who framed and signed the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Not many individuals in America have read more original works (or fewer modern ones) than I have; and the general public has responded enthusiastically to this history based on original documentation.
In fact, notice how these types of history books regularly appear on the New York Times bestseller list. Whether it is David McCullough’s John Adams, Glenn Beck’s Being George Washington, Newt Gingrich’s Valley Forge, or my own The Jefferson Lies, people are willing to pay good money to learn the simple uncomplicated history that used to be taught in school..."
WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Jefferson Lies: Taking on the Critics

 

[snjmom]

In response to the OP, I think it has 3 reasons.

1. People innately understand the individual is always the weakest position.

2. When the only rights recognized are property rights, the man with the least property has the fewest rights.

3. The only force recognized is physical violence.

Other than that, I'm a Libertarian sympathizer and vote almost exclusively for Libertarian candidates on the local level. Which is where the party really needs to get it's game going. Thanks to Beck et.al. you could get a lot of candidates in before the hate the fed faction realizes it doesn't mean social conservative.

 

[editec]

I think many people ARE libertarians.

There are just so many ways to be a libertarian.


The word essantially means whatever the user wants it to mean.

Like liberal and conservative the words lost any understood meaning a long time ago.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's because libertarians tend to be the worst kind of advertisement for their ideology, they swing wildly from incredibly permissive on big business to downright fascist on things like labor unions. American libertarians even seem to hate the ideology of the European libertarians on which they are based. In short they seem to be mainly engaged in disavowing all social responsibility and have zero regard for anyone's freedom other than their own.

Um, how about NO?

We don't have a problem with unions. Workers are free to unite however they want. What we have a problem with is government colluding with them.

There would be no labor unions without the government providing them with the legal protection where they can exist without being beaten in the streets. Take a look at the early history of the labor movement, before the government protected them strikes were violent, bloody affairs, now they are much more peaceful and hardly anyone gets killed by management goon squads.

Yet you give union thugs a pass?

Talk about a biased sentiment. For one striking "workers" blocking access to a plant and stopping the business owner from doing business are trespassing and should be removed with force if necessary.

The fact that any government agency allows an attack like that on the rights of private property is appalling.

So a libertarian would say yes you are free to walk off your job if you want but your employer is also free to terminate your employment and have you arrested for trespassing if you do not vacate the premises.

 

[PretentiousGuy]

I think many people ARE libertarians.

There are just so many ways to be a libertarian.


The word essantially means whatever the user wants it to mean.

Like liberal and conservative the words lost any understood meaning a long time ago.

Yeah that is quite sad really the American use of these words have become quite twisted.. When people think of libertarians in the us they think of right wing libertarians or the tea party nuts. Im still technically a libertarian in the true sense of the word but I find it best to avoid its use because of the connotations it has.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I still think that if the Libertarian party would wise up and moderate on its absolutist positions it would attract a significant portion of the electorate. Limited, efficient, effective government combined with moderate to liberal approaches to social issues -- I'd bet that's where a large portion of the country is.

Unfortunately, the party is controlled by wild-eyed loons who demand even more purity than the GOP does at this point. All or nothing is stupid. And now the Libertarian brand is so badly damaged by these schmoes that they won't be able to attract enough leaders to make any headway.

Again, I have to wonder if the Libertarians really want to win. They may just prefer to scream from the margins, like the guy I see downtown every morning on a street corner with a sign.

What a waste.

.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Most them are in government, turd.

. . . because it has sought freedom and protection of the dangers and evils of bad men and bad women.

There aren't a lot of libertarians because "The contemporary world has gone astray, in sum, because it has sought freedoms from the dangers and risks of liberty."

That's right. The people you are referring to are govt. officials. Yet you want them to protect you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are not a Christian.

And The Jefferson Lies have been pulled back by the publisher. Barton fails to use ALL of the primary sources, particularly those that put his selected material into doubtful conclusion.

You obviously, unlike many Christians including me, are afraid of critical thinking skills.

He is fraudulent in that he tells the story he wants while ignoring the totality of evidence. That is why his publisher pulled back his last book.

I know this probably sounds absurd in the God-hating/atheist circles that you run in Jake, but (are you sitting down?) where I come from there is two sides to every story.

Here's Barton's:

The Jefferson Lies: Taking on the Critics

"...I have penned numerous best-selling history works, and characteristic of each is a heavy reliance on primary-source documentation. Across the past twenty years, I have amassed a collection of some 100,000 originals (or certified copies of originals) predating 1812, including hand-written documents and works of those who framed and signed the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Not many individuals in America have read more original works (or fewer modern ones) than I have; and the general public has responded enthusiastically to this history based on original documentation.
In fact, notice how these types of history books regularly appear on the New York Times bestseller list. Whether it is David McCullough’s John Adams, Glenn Beck’s Being George Washington, Newt Gingrich’s Valley Forge, or my own The Jefferson Lies, people are willing to pay good money to learn the simple uncomplicated history that used to be taught in school..."
WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - The Jefferson Lies: Taking on the Critics

 

[Oddball]

In response to the OP, I think it has 3 reasons.

1. People innately understand the individual is always the weakest position.

One of the best reasons in the world to be a libertarian, so the individual doesn't become a plaything of the mob.

2. When the only rights recognized are property rights, the man with the least property has the fewest rights.

The best reason to get up off you ass and acquire property....Lack of ambition should have its drawbacks...After that, every one of your rights starts and ends with you being your own property.

3. The only force recognized is physical violence.

Where did you come up with that?...What does that even mean?

Other than that, I'm a Libertarian sympathizer and vote almost exclusively for Libertarian candidates on the local level. Which is where the party really needs to get it's game going. Thanks to Beck et.al. you could get a lot of candidates in before the hate the fed faction realizes it doesn't mean social conservative.

Problem being that the demopublicraticans erect some pretty onerous regulations on all other political parties, that make it difficult in a lot of places to just get on the ballot...After which you have a complicit media-industrial complex that has a virtual coverage blackout of any candidate who doesn't have an (R) or (D) by their name, with the notable exception of the "colorful" candidates.

 

[Contumacious]

.

I still think that if the Libertarian party would wise up and moderate on its absolutist positions it would attract a significant portion of the electorate.

.

Not a fucking chance. None.

We support individual rights - 100% FREE - Capitalism -Free Enterprise, No ifs, buts or however.

You want compromise, you want fascism/socialism/parasitism ? well you have the democrats and the republicans.


.

 

[dblack]

I still think that if the Libertarian party would wise up and moderate on its absolutist positions it would attract a significant portion of the electorate. Limited, efficient, effective government combined with moderate to liberal approaches to social issues -- I'd bet that's where a large portion of the country is.

Unfortunately, the party is controlled by wild-eyed loons who demand even more purity than the GOP does at this point. All or nothing is stupid. And now the Libertarian brand is so badly damaged by these schmoes that they won't be able to attract enough leaders to make any headway.

Again, I have to wonder if the Libertarians really want to win. They may just prefer to scream from the margins, like the guy I see downtown every morning on a street corner with a sign.

What a waste..

I've been fighting this battle for thirty-some years. We need people like you Mac. Third parties provide a natural refuge for iconoclasts and curmudgeons, and the Libertarian party is no exception. These "true believers" (and I count myself among them) have kept the movement alive when no one else was paying attention. But we aren't the messengers required to take the freedom movement to the next level.

 

[Neurotika]

republican primary q to ron paul went something like this...

q: should you die if you dont have health insurance?

a: [audience] YEA !!! applause

a: [ron paul]..well...

 

[Contumacious]

republican primary q to ron paul went something like this...

q: should you die if you dont have health insurance?

a: [audience] YEA !!! applause

a: [ron paul]..well...

The media should have asked that question to the motherfuckers who have controlled health care since the 1840's.

The media should have asked LBJ that question when in 1967 he implemented medicare/medicaid.

.