Libertarian Party

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

Any other Libertarians love watching democrats and republicans argue over how government should be wielded against us? Socialized healthcare, marriage, gun control, drug prohibition, socialized retirment programs, sex laws, etc.

To me it’s like watching two parties argue who can rule us better. Each side has their own (and they share some) ideas of how government should encroach upon the free individual.

Hopefully, more and more people will continue to become disqusted by both parties, and decide it’s best for government to get out of their private lives and wallets.

2

There’s a ruling elite in this country that will use any means necessary to keep the current system in place, up to and including violence. The law has already been sufficiently altered to make this perfectly “legal”, should it ever occur. No ruling class has ever abdicated voluntarily.

3

The Libertarian party needs to makes some aggrisive moves while people are disenchanted with both parties. This is a golden moment. I personally loath both main parties. I do vote for them when I can, not that I love them completly, but it’s the best thing going right now.

4

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Any other Libertarians love watching democrats and republicans argue over how government should be wielded against us? Socialized healthcare, marriage, gun control, drug prohibition, socialized retirment programs, sex laws, etc.

To me it’s like watching two parties argue who can rule us better. Each side has their own (and they share some) ideas of how government should encroach upon the free individual.

Hopefully, more and more people will continue to become disqusted by both parties, and decide it’s best for government to get out of their private lives and wallets. [/quote]

I really don’t know why the Libertarian party isn’t more popular, so many people I talk to seem to agree with Libertarian principles bet yet the party seems to make no progress. I would especially think that they would be more popular in the states.

5

The LP isn’t more popular because Libertarianism isn’t for dummies, unlike the mainstream parties (or any other party, for that matter). You have to understand and appreciate the significance of certain economic realities before you can call yourself a true Libertarian.

Many people have expressed the sentiment that it’s a wonder why more people aren’t LPers. On the surface, there’s something on the platform that appeals to virtually everyone. Unfortunately, agreeing with certain LP viewpoints does not a Libertarian make.

The defining characteristic of Libertarianism is steadfast consistency to the principles of small government – in all areas, at all times. Anything less, and it’s not Libertarianism.

The left and the right both occasionally trumpet the virtues of “small government” and make token political gestures in this area that have no real impact on the size of the Federal Leviathan.

The people who are “Libertarian on one issue” do far more harm to the party than good. They fail to recognize that they are absolutely no different from the mainstream Democrats and Republicans, in that they believe the government can be used to some good in one area while staying out of others.

Libertarians recognize the realities of power and it’s corrupting effect on humans. They understand that every major porkbarrel project started out as a simple and innocent little proposal with only the best of intentions.

Most people aren’t Libertarians because most people have some token government service which they cherish or view as “essential”, and couldn’t stand living without. The only thing that could change such a mentality is a thorough understanding of free market economics. Libertarianism is a science, whereas other political affiliations are cults, aimed at satiating the thirsts of the vulgar masses. Needless to say, millions of people aren’t going to get an education in economics overnight – or ever, for that matter.

Libertarianism will never gain a real foothold in this country’s political or economic system. The economy will collapse long before that has a chance to happen.

You can’t have a nation of geniuses; it violates the law of natural selection. It’s only natural that as a nation’s population expands, and the generations pass, the general populace will be further and further enslaved by the minority ruling class, the freedoms originally granted to them stripped away over time, until they are completely enslaved.

No political system is ever going replace the natural social hierarchy, the class system, and Darwinism. Egalitarianism doesn’t exist, never has and never will. Thank God.

6

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
The LP isn’t more popular because Libertarianism isn’t for dummies, unlike the mainstream parties (or any other party, for that matter). You have to understand and appreciate the significance of certain economic realities before you can call yourself a true Libertarian.

[/quote]
That and the fact that it isn’t realistic to expect people to not want protection from those with more power than themselves. I certainly don’t trust the masses to decide what is right. The irony is that the only way to be more protected from the government is to have more regulation by the government. Catch 22.

If you trust that most individuals fall into the average intelligence category and you also think that libertarianism isn’t for “dummies” then how can you expect that libertarianism would work if those that are expected to participate aren’t qulaified to do so? Isn’t this also kind of elitist?

7

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
That and the fact that it isn’t realistic to expect people to not want protection from those with more power than themselves. I certainly don’t trust the masses to decide what is right. The irony is that the only way to be more protected from the government is to have more regulation by the government. Catch 22.
[/quote]

It’s exactly this type of thinking that libertarians need to combat in order to win over support.

(Note the subtle interchanging use of masses with Government showing the automatic legitimising viewpoint of ‘Governments’ position)

8

[quote]tmay11 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Any other Libertarians love watching democrats and republicans argue over how government should be wielded against us? Socialized healthcare, marriage, gun control, drug prohibition, socialized retirment programs, sex laws, etc.

To me it’s like watching two parties argue who can rule us better. Each side has their own (and they share some) ideas of how government should encroach upon the free individual.

Hopefully, more and more people will continue to become disqusted by both parties, and decide it’s best for government to get out of their private lives and wallets.

I really don’t know why the Libertarian party isn’t more popular, so many people I talk to seem to agree with Libertarian principles bet yet the party seems to make no progress. I would especially think that they would be more popular in the states. [/quote]

A big part of the problems with the libertarian party is that it is highly exclusive. I am pretty much a libertarian myself, yet I refuse to subscribe to the NAP, a requirement to be a member. That little Non Agression Policy is a HUGE hangup. An aquaintance once put it best:

During April 19th, 1775 the minutemen didn’t just sit there on the bridge and quote John Locke to the brits, (this is libertarianism) they fucking shot them! Another pointed out that libertarians cannot be trusted with our liberty because they will stand idly by as tyrants march on until they are pummelled with their tattered copy of Atlas Shrugged in their hands.

Libertarianism is by FAR the best thing on the American political landscape. That unfortunately doesn’t bode well for liberty.

Mike

9

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
A big part of the problems with the libertarian party is that it is highly exclusive. I am pretty much a libertarian myself, yet I refuse to subscribe to the NAP, a requirement to be a member. That little Non Agression Policy is a HUGE hangup. An aquaintance once put it best:

During April 19th, 1775 the minutemen didn’t just sit there on the bridge and quote John Locke to the brits, (this is libertarianism) they fucking shot them! Another pointed out that libertarians cannot be trusted with our liberty because they will stand idly by as tyrants march on until they are pummelled with their tattered copy of Atlas Shrugged in their hands.

Libertarianism is by FAR the best thing on the American political landscape. That unfortunately doesn’t bode well for liberty.

Mike[/quote]

Well no, Libertarianism doesn’t exclude force. It excludes the aggressive use of force. I’m not sure how that would have forced the minutmen to quote John Locke.

The inclusion of a non-aggression platform is central. I’m a free individual with noone to answer to. That is, until I use aggression to achieve my wants and needs. In short, once you force your way upon someone else’s liberty (aggression), government has a legit reason to intervene (mediate).

It also calls for a non-aggressive foriegn policy. Strong home defense, yes. But, S. Korea could outspend N. Korea on defense many, many times over. Why are we still spending the wealth of our taxpayers in thier dispute? Etc.

In a Libertarian society, a proffessional military, backed by a widely armed citizenry, would defend the homeland from a foriegn attack.

10

[quote]jacross wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
That and the fact that it isn’t realistic to expect people to not want protection from those with more power than themselves. I certainly don’t trust the masses to decide what is right. The irony is that the only way to be more protected from the government is to have more regulation by the government. Catch 22.

It’s exactly this type of thinking that libertarians need to combat in order to win over support.

(Note the subtle interchanging use of masses with Government showing the automatic legitimising viewpoint of ‘Governments’ position)
[/quote]

In this country the government is the masses. That’s what a democracy is. This is the core concept of self governance. Government is not a boundless entity with unlimited power–if the ruling government has too much power it is because we allowed it to happen.

In a libertarian society what is the role of government? I hear all the ideas of what the government is not or shouldn’t be but I don’t hear people speak to what it is.

Some ideas in libertarianism–such as the idea of not legislating morality–are spot-on; however, how do we distinguish between morality and the safety and protection of the people? Does the implied threat to safety of an individual out-weigh an obligation to ambiguous moral code?

For example, abortion can be argued either way. Do the people not have a right to decide how such matters are to be legislated–meaning, are we not our own legislators?

As much as I do not like the arguments that right leaning individuals make against such matters as abortion and stem cell research, etc., if these moral issues are decided in a way that is not to my liking do I have an obligation to follow the laws I don’t agree with in a libertarian society even though the framework of libertarian dogma says that my own liberty out-weighs the masses?

Democracy and libertarianism, though related to each other in the concept of liberty, have ideas of liberty that contradict each other. Liberty in a democracy speaks to egalitarianism whereas liberty in a libertarian society speaks to elitism.

In a society cut off from the rest of the world having to deal only with its own culture and values libertarianism may indeed be the best solution, however, it is unrealistic in a global society.

11

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

The defining characteristic of Libertarianism is steadfast consistency to the principles of small government – in all areas, at all times. Anything less, and it’s not Libertarianism.

[/quote]

I agree with you on this–as do I with the rest of your post–however, given the above, what do you make of this years’ emaciated LP platform? The “party of principle” went from having 70-80 planks (I can’t remember the exact number) down to 15; this all done in an effort to, “allow our candidates to express their own viewpoints while holding true to our statement of principles” (whatever that means).

12

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Democracy and libertarianism, though related to each other in the concept of liberty, have ideas of liberty that contradict each other. Liberty in a democracy speaks to egalitarianism whereas liberty in a libertarian society speaks to elitism.[/quote]

Elitist? Libertarians may not like unfettered democracy, but that’s because democracy (majority rule) is not a safeguard, in and of its self, against tyranny–nor does it guaranty an egalitarian society, for that matter.
That hardly makes it an elitist philosophy. Far from it, in fact.

13

That’s an innacurate analysis of the non-aggression policy. It prevents the initiation of force. If the Brits come across the bridge they have initiated force, as such libertarians would use their second amendment.