[ReadyontheRight]

http://www.lp.org/

Do you support the entire platform of the Libertarian Party? Or will the LP need to make a "bigger tent" and compromise on some issues?

[Chris Rhines]

I voted "I do not support the Libertarian Party." And I don't; they desire way, way too much government. :D

- Chris

[ReadyontheRight]

I was thinking the same thing reading their website Chris.

I did vote that I support 100% of their platform, but they seem almost apologetic in their platform issue descriptions.

[Quartus]

I don't support the Libertarian party, and I am quite sure that the FF would not have, either. They understood the proper role of government, which is something the Libertarians do not.

[Felonious Monk]

Lots of excellent theoretical concepts within the LP, but I doubt that, short of the majority of Americans having their bodies taken over by the Pod People, their platform will EVER be able to successfully wage a winning campaign.

The BEST hope for libertarianism is to affect reform from within the established parties. It's a noble thing to "vote your convictions", just like we did for Perot back in the day. Ultimately, that thinking influenced enough of us young, politcally passionate folks to to "vote our conscience", enabling Billy Jeff Klintoon and his Travelling CornPone Review to occupy the White House for eight years.

Never Again. :fire: :cuss:

[Glock Glockler]

Ultimately, that thinking influenced enough of us young, politcally passionate folks to to "vote our conscience", enabling Billy Jeff Klintoon and his Travelling CornPone Review to occupy the White House for eight years.

Ok, but you didn't tell me what would have happened if Bush the Elder had been reelected. Would he have raised taxes again? Would he have pushed for gun control? You cant necessarily say that Clinton getting elected was better because you can only speculate about what would have happened if Bush was elected.

I do know that Bush the Younger was elected and I don't like the nonsense he's been pulling one bit and if he's signs gun control legislation into law I have absolutely no reason to support him one iota. I'd much prefer to have a ton of socialist nonsense rammed down the throat of America so they should vomit it up and dispose of these petty tyrants than to be slowly poisoned in a manner I cannot detect until it is far too late. Since Bush has been in office the conservative/republican part of the population has been completely asleep to the garbage Bush has been pulling, though they would be protesting in the streets if it was Clinton doing the same thing.

[ctdonath]

My only complaint (aside from their excessive apologizing leading to far too much focus on the "drugs & prostitutes" issue) is that they do not recognize the unborn as being humans having full rights (don't wanna argue that point now, it's just answering the poll's question).

[keederdag]

I'm a registered LP, I could care less about abortion ( I have mixed thoughts there, but I dont think it's my buisness either way) I support all other LP platform ideals with the exception of open borders. I don't think I am educated enough on this issue to agree/disagree. I for one am tired of selling out, and if the best we can do is a wishy-washy Rep., I'll vote idealistic every time. The way I see it, at least I'm trying to change thing's in our favor.:D

[Moparmike]

If the Government-funded (hence THE PEOPLE-funded) reasons for illegal immigrants to come here went away, I would support a limited open-border idea. I just cant bring myself to believe that having an open border with people flooding my country to be a good idea.

I also cant bring myself to believe that getting .gov regulation completely out of corporations and buisiness is a wonderful idea. I just cant.

Most everything else, I fully support.

[Billll]

They are not without their redeeming virtues, but they are the living embodiment of the phrase "reducto ad absurdum", which means to take a position or arguement to its last logical extreme, untill the position becomes absurd.
You have to think for a bit to get your mind around the concept of an "extremist libertarian", but if you remind yourself that the noisest people in any party are the extremists, they begin to make a bit more sense (philosophically, not politically). It explains why the Democratic party tends to nominate left-wing whackos, but I'm still working on why the Repubs keep nominating plodding apparatcheks.
A moderate libertarian who could keep his partys loonies at arms length, while not losing their votes could take the country by storm.

[AZRickD]

The fundamental principle of the LP is that "initiation of force is immoral." I reserve the right to First Strike.

Also, their reliance on the judicial system (a subset of the above) to punish evil-doers is very inefficient.

Let's say (from local Phoenix recent news) the Sumitomo integrated chip manufacturer wanted to come and build a manufacturing plant in north-north Phoenix but could not really guarantee that they wouldn't be dumping tons of cadnium etc into Cave Creek wash.

The LP solution would be to sue them after a generation had been contaminated through the water supply.

Not so good.

I use this example because I posed it at a LP function. I was told that they would have to think about that. They may be thinking, but they haven't gotten back to me, and I see the County Chair about once a month or so.

Rick

[swifter]

A moderate libertarian who could keep his partys loonies at arms length, while not losing their votes could take the country by storm.

Possible, but it would doom the LP. If the Libertarians ever gain any serious power, the party will be hijacked by the same power-seeking bottom-feeders that have ruined the DemocRat and Gumplibican parties. political power draws these types like fecal matter draws flies, and for the same reason... I think its hopeless, tell ya the truth. Government is like cancer, it will not cease its mindless growth until it is excised, killed, or the host dies.:what:

Tom:evil:

[Standing Wolf]

Open borders? No way in @#$%^&!

[LawDog]

Do you support 100% of the Libertarian Platform?

I don't support 100% of the platform of any political party.

LawDog

[antsi]

Lots of people are willing to take a Libertarian position on 8 or 9 out of 10 key issues, but there's always those one or two sticky ones where we are not willing to leave people to their liberties. In other words, most of us have our one or two issues where we demand strict authoritarian control and such 'hot button' issues make it hard to accept the whole LP platform. Whether it's drugs or prostitution or abortion or foreign policy, most of us have one or two key areas where we really strongly *want* the government to intervene.

[AZRickD]

Actually, about 40% of LP members are "Pro-Life" and they use the "non-initiation of force doctine" to support it.

The fetus is natural and has not harmed the mother. If the mother's life is truly in dangered by the fetus, fine. Mom wins. Otherwise, no.

A recent Arizona LP primary candidate used just this argument. He lost to the eventual LP candidate (Barry Hess), but a couple dozen votes. Barry went on to win a gargantuan 1.5% of the vote.

GOP Matt Salmon loses to Janet Napolitbureau in a close one.

Rick

[Pinned&Recessed]

I pretty much agree with them on everything except open immigration.

[2dogs]

Almost everything.

I don't agree with illegal immigration stance.

WARNING: The following statement may be distasteful to some.

I believe that every woman has the right to ONE abortion, because, well mistakes happen. The second time around the woman should be aborted as she has shown herself too brainless to be of any possible use in furthering the development of the human race. Since natural selection has not weeded her out, and she has demonstrated no capacity to learn, direct action needs to be taken.*:eek:




* (Which is just my friendly way of saying that, IMHO, 99.9% of the time there should be no need to consider abortion as a means of birth control.)

[Dorrin79]

Isupport the LP's platform about 95%

I'm iffy on 'open borders' with regards to immigration... although if all of the perverse incentives (welfare, etc.) were removed as well, maybe not a problem. To be fair, I was a huge open-borders advocate until 9/11 reminded me of the little problem of terrorism.

I'm also not as isolationist as the LP platform is - I think that assymetrical non-state warfare may require us to take a more intervention-based stance in the years to come. I do believe in ending our foreign aid programs, all of our trade barriers, and closing some, maybe even most, of our foreign-soil military bases.

So, there you have it.

[stevelyn]

I have a problem with the totally open borders concept, and I'm not certain how far beyond the legalization of marijuana I'm willing to go. Other than for those two issues I pretty much support the Libertarian platform as it stands.

And what 2dogs said.

[telomerase]

Nobody supports 100% of the Democratic or Republican platforms either. But no one ever SEES major-party platforms, because they don't mean anything anyway.

(I read both ten years ago; the Democratic platform was straight Maoism, and the Republican platform was the Libertarian economic platform... too bad they don't actually support it!)

[Keith]

I'm with them 90%, but open borders is insane!

I vote libertarian almost as as a "protest" - just to let the other parties know they have lost me.

I suspect that if more people joined the party, some of the extreme positions would have to change. Or maybe the extreme positions have to change to attract more people? Which came first; the chicken or the egg?

Keith

[BigG]

They seem to have purged Lyndon LaRouche from their "history." :scrutiny:

[Partisan Ranger]

I have a problem with the apparent tendency for isolationism in the LP. I'm all for beating the terrorist savages who want to kill us into bloody vapor, so maybe I don't belong in the LP?

[Bill Hook]

I'm w/ MoparMike about the border issue.

I would never support anything 100%, as that sounds too uncritical, and there should always be some intellectual criticism with anything you support, otherwise you're a drone.

[telomerase]

>They seem to have purged Lyndon LaRouche from their "history."

Which wasn't hard, since LaRouche was a Democrat, not a Libertarian. (Time magazine called LaRouche a Libertarian once... possibly as a favor to the Democrats, but probably just because they're not very accurate generally).

[dustind]

How do closed borders keep out terrorists? It does not make it much more difficult it just takes more time or energy, it is one more thing to think about. Closed borders are sort of like rolling up the windows and locking the doors on a car parked out in the middle of no where. With any system you can freely spend time and look it over and think of ways to penetrate it. Russia and Germany could not close their borders and they killed anyone who tried, how can we close ours? That does not even mention all of the people we freely let in without much of a check.

Even if you do not agree with everything a party does, or where it will stop. Ask yourself which one is currently moving in the direction you want to go and hitch a ride.

[Gary H]

2dogs

These political conversations can get a bit sticky and beyond the scope of THR. Of course, I'm guilty of this myself...

Do we also abort the male? Women don't (usually) get into that state by themselves.... I think that men need to take some responsibility and stop fathering children that they subsequently abandon.

I disagree with respect to open borders. Libertarianism is like an open flask and we each fill it with slightly different liquids.

[Glock Glockler]

Russia and Germany could not close their borders and they killed anyone who tried, how can we close ours?

They could not be closed 100% but they were much tighter than ours. Do you really think it would be a good thing if we threw up our hands and allowed anyone in? We would be flooded with people while having a nice welfare state to get them on the dole. How lovely? Look where that got France with their Algerian immigrants, now that worked out great.

[dustind]

I was assuming we ended welfare and the like. I was also just stating that terrorism is not a great reason because terrorists have enough desire that any boarder would just be an inconvenience to them. I wish politicians would stop aiding and abetting Mexicans for money and votes, but without welfare that would be a non issue. Right now our boarders might as well be open for how well they work, if we killed welfare I think we would be alright.

Gary H, 2 Dogs, and others: careful, I would not touch that topic with a ten foot pole, maybe state what side you are on, but reasons why are pushing it.

[Waitone]

I think it a mistake to have a Libertarian Party. Party implies politics. Politics implies compromise. Compromise implies a willingness to accept a half loaf. A half loaf implies a willingness to come back tomorrow and try it again. All characteristics I've seen lacking in LP advocates.

Smartest play for libertarians (small L) is to infiltrate the dominant political, play the political game, assume influence, gain power, and steer the party toward libertarian (small l) principals.

The Libertarian Party (capital L) as currently constituted will never achieve governance because some stated policies are simply nonsensical. Rule one for any group trying to achieve political control is to assume the voter has some residual common sense.

[telomerase]

The Libertarian Party (capital L) as currently constituted will never achieve governance because some stated policies are simply nonsensical.

Read the Democratic Party platform; it's nonsensical all the way through. Stated policies have nothing to do with acheiving power; it's all in the exchange of subsidies and other favors for campaign contributions.

Of course that means that the idea of a political party that opposes all subsidies and favors may have a flaw or two...:D

[Gary H]

dustind:

I agree completely...that was the point I was trying to make. That topic can be as heated as the "caliber wars", or the "Glock Rules" threads.

[Mike Irwin]

I don't support 100% of anyone's political platform.

[corncob]

They have it all wrong about abortion. It is not a pollitical issue--it is a biological issue. Either a fetus is tissue until its head is delivered and has the rights and priviledges of a tumor, or it is human from day one (conception) and has all the same rights we do, especially the right to not be killed by our parents. The question is which is it, and only science can tell us that. I think the LP's stance on abortion is a misapplication of the principles for which they supposedly stand, and a ploy to draw in people who slept through their college biology class but are committed to the idea of personal freedom.

I will say this for those libertarians, though. Even though I don't agree with 20 % of what they believe, we have a long way to go from what we have in this country today toward what they want before we get to the kind of government I want.

If that makes any sense.

[Art Eatman]

IMO, the fundamental flaw in the Libertarian philosophy is that it requires a strong belief in personal responsibility for a very large majority of the populace.

IMO, that's never been the case; it will never be the case.

That doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of good ideas emanating from the Libertarians. I agree with many of them. As a way to govern a country, however, I'd envision a sorry state of failure.

Art

[telomerase]

I don't support 100% of anyone's political platform.

Neither does anyone else, Mike. Nobody supports 100% of anyone else's religion, either. But there's a lot of people lazy enough to SAY that they do.

Which is a great thing, otherwise it would be really hard to get enough people together for wars.

[MaterDei]

I only vote for candidates who are pro life. If forced to choose I would vote pro life BEFORE I voted pro RKBA.

No compromises, no apologies.

I have voted for Libertarians as a protest vote before but only when a pro life candidate was for sure going to win. If a pro life candidate is in a close race with a pro choice candidate I don't care what else he believes, I will vote for him/her.

No compromises, no apologies.

MaterDei