[Thumper]

Ok...even if all the closet libs refute the Republican Party and come out in droves, is it possible for a Libertarian candidate to win in 2004...or 2008?

[MrAcheson]

Candidate for what? US president? No, I don't see it happening. If the closet Libertarians come out and vote Libby, the Dems might win and the Repubs will move back toward the right. Libbys have the same problem the greens do, all they can do if they get popular enough is spoil the election for one of the major parties.

[Thumper]

Oh sorry, yeah...Pres.

[JohnBT]

No.

John

[Skunkabilly]

Possible, but not probable...I think the closest we'd get is a libertarian leaning Republican.

[Felonious Monk]

No.

Perot was the closest to a 3rd party reform candidate USA will ever see.
What was it? 21% of the popular vote he got?

Never happen.
Don't waste your idealistic vote.
Vote the lesser of the 2 evils/stupids, and work like heck for change within the party.

[Brett Bellmore]

No. I've been a Libertarian since the late '70's, (It's darned hard to have been one longer than that! :D ) and I always knew that the LP's only chance was to grow really, REALLY fast, and displace one of the major parties before they had a chance to mount real defenses.

Well, it didn't happen. They got their ballot access laws in place. Their Election News Service that doesn't report on our candidates. We're excluded from the debates and the polls. They've seen to it that we'd have to spend a fortune to be competative. And now they've got campaign finance laws that make it illegal for us to have that fortune.

Game over.

The only chance now is if both major parties screw up REALLY badly. As in NYC leveled by a nuke badly. 10% of the population killed by smallpox badly. Anything less, they can fend off the competion. And I can't wish for anything like that.

For all practical purposes third parties are now illegal. Their members won't be rounded up into camps, but we won't be permitted to win except as occasional flukes in lower offices. Inside the major parties is where it's at now, for somebody who wants to influence government.

[Marko Kloos]

Vote the lesser of the 2 evils/stupids, and work like heck for change within the party.

The only wasted vote is one where you don't vote your conscience.

A vote for the less damaging anti-freedom candidate is still a vote against freedom. They may shear me after the election, but I'll be damned if I hand them the clippers.

[BigG]

The only wasted vote is one where you don't vote your conscience.

Marko, imho, this is getting as hackneyed a saying as any in my remembrance. And it just ain't true. It's an example of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, plain and simple.

A guy named "The Little Feller" spoiled the election and allowed WJC in. You would spoil an election and let Wooden Al or Her Hilryness in, with your advice.

The truth is, you waste your vote when you help the greater of two evils get in because you stupidly withhold your support from the lesser of two evils. Got it?

Gloating over your reputation for integrity in this one little area while overlooking the log jam of irresponsibility you thrust on society is a bit of self righteousness that will cause any normal person to heave.

[Marko Kloos]

Gloating over your reputation for integrity in this one little area while overlooking the log jam of irresponsibility you thrust on society is a bit of self righteousness that will cause any normal person to heave.

Excuse me?

I thrust irresponsibility on society, because I fail to vote for a candidate I don't want?

It couldn't be the fault of the millions of lemmings voting for candidate A.

It couldn't be the fault of candidate B for setting himself apart from candidate A enough so that my itty-bitty vote won't make a difference to his getting elected.

It couldn't be the fault of the millions of lemmings voting for candidate B, because he is a little less rabid when it comes to taking away their pet freedoms.

No, it's *my* fault, because my vote for candidate C "takes away" from candidate B.

Well, excuse the hell out of me. If candidate B wants my vote, he damn well better earn it. Excuse the hell out of me for refusing to choose between two dung piles for dinner.

This "lesser of two evils" voting is what has caused the "log jam of irresponsibility" you bemoan. It has turned the Republicans and Democrats into a big party with two different mascot animals. You can keep your freakin' candidate B, and don't tell me any more of this "cut my nose off to spite my face" baloney. I have principles from which I will not depart. If you choose to give your vote to candidate B not because you really want him in office, but because he'll give you a little less of a shafting than candidate A, then you're the one running around without a shnozz, not me.

With supporters like you, what reason do the Republicans have to ever become pro-freedom again? If your attitude takes hold, then they merely have to be a little less anti-freedom than the Democrats to secure the vote from people like you.

The only way to make them see the light is if they lose enough votes to the Libertarians that they take notice and adjust their platform to appeal to those voters.

[Illuminate]

So voting for the person you want to win has turned into a "log jam of irresponsibility"? Or were we not intended to vote for the best candidate in the first place?

[stevelyn]

Libertarians will never win until the American sheeple decide they are no longer content in their comfortable slavery and illusion of freedom and decide that liberty is most important above all else. Unfortunately we will probably never see it in our lifetime. The sheeple enjoy not having to think or be responsible for themselves.:banghead:

[BigG]

Boy, it is great to be in the hallowed presence some of the lions of political thought today. I am in awe.

BTW, Write when you get work! :rolleyes:

[Boats]

These threads are always hilarious, but there are too many of them.

If I may summarize:

Libbie Detractors--"You Libbie voters are dumb vote wasters who undermine Republicans. Get over yourselves, you've never even won for county tax assessor anywhere."

Libbie Supporters--Yeah, we're unpopular, but that's only because people are too stupid and too blind to see that we should be popular. It's all the fault of you idiotic Republican voters, the media, and the socialist school system. It has nothing to do with our positions or the flakes that gravitate to us."

That about sum it up? You're welcome.

[MrAcheson]

Voting for the candidate you want to win is great. Glad you sleep well at night voting for someone who has no chance of getting elected. Just don't bemoan it when the guy that does get elected fails to represent you at all.

In an ideal world a candidate would represent everyone in his district equally no matter whether they voted for him/her or not. But this is the real world and the constituencies which elect a candidate get priorities over those dominated by his/her political opponents. Which means if you vote 3rd party, why should the candidate bother to work to represent you? You didn't buy into them with your vote and a 2 party dominant system that means you might as well have voted for the other person in their eyes.

This voting to get influence issue is especially a problem for libertarians. Most of the big L voting Libertarians I have met have shown themselves to be ideologically incapable of compromise. Its either all the libby platform or nothing. So why bother to try to embrace them, when it will never be enough to earn their vote?

While I agree with Libbys on many issues, I have a fundamentally different concept of the role of government. I think many libertarian government reforms are great ideas, but I don't agree with much of the paranoid "statist conspiracy" theory, or drug war is evil propoganda, or the oversimplistic economic assumptions.

[BigG]

George Washington said: Gomt is like fire - a dangerous servant and a fearful master -

Any lib who got into power would have to compromise his ideals to the point he would be no more credible than the one he was replacing. Not only that, he would p($$ off the "true believer" libs who are never satisfied with anything anyway. :uhoh:

[Illuminate]

Boy, it is great to be in the hallowed presence some of the lions of political thought today. I am in awe.

BTW, Write when you get work!

That's not very nice.

Funny thing is, the votes are only being "stolen" because you assume we would vote Republican instead of Democrat. What of the people who vote Libertarian (or some other third party) instead of Democrat? Would you ask them to vote democrat instead? The same rode works for both "sides".

Whether or not the Lib party is the perfect answer to every political problem or not, I don't see the harm in voting for the best candidate. If someone you don't want to win wins, it's because of the people who voted for that person. It's a hell of a lot better than just not voting.

'Course, unity does count for something. But unity takes organization, and a general agreement on a cause. Good luck with that.

[Selfdfenz]

To the amended original question:
No


But then again the Republican party (and I am one) can goober up elections without any help, supposed or real, from the Libs and the peps they nominate thank you very much.

S-

[twoblink]

I use to think voting Libertarian was a waste of a vote (why I've done it since I was old enough to vote!! :D )

Then one day, someone came along and told me, libertarians aren't trying to win elections, they are trying to press ideas, (one of the ways of course, is winning elections).

But consider this: All the libertarians coming out of the closet, equals 5%. That means, a race can be decided by the libertarians!! So if one of the two evil candidates wanted to win, they would have to yield and concede to a few libertarian ideals. And that's what opens up the flood gates..

Win the Pres? No. Force the other candidates to address some issues and lean towards the libertarian views? DEFINITELY.

So vote libertarian, and stop wasting your vote!!

Remember, with libertarians, you are voting PRINCIPLES, so it doesn't matter the name next to the (L), with the (R) and (D), you are all over the board. You can have a Newt or a Ahnold. Both have an (R) next to their names, but not even the same..

I'm with Marko on this one. I don't know how people go to sleep at night, knowing they didn't vote their principles. No more complaining about the NRA if you don't vote what you think is the right thing. I always do.. And even if my "wasted vote" is on the libertarian, so what? If a candidate wants my vote, EARN IT. Otherwise, it wasn't their vote in the first place..

[BigG]

PRINCIPLES

What principles are you talking about, Twoblink? The principle that I'm holier than thou because I vote for a lost (but romantically Quixotic) cause?

[Illuminate]

You're right, we should all convert to the cause of "holier-than-thou because I voted for someone who will win, even if he disagrees with nearly every political idea I hold".

[Balog]

So BigG, let me ask you this. Let's say I live in a very liberal, socialistic state. 80 percent of the population is registered Dem, 15 percent are registered Green, 5 percent registered Repub. A Republican has no chance whatsoever for any office better than assistant dog catcher. The Dems field two candidates for a major office. One a rabidly antigun, hardcore socialist. The other one is strongly antigun, and slightly less socialist. Both have put tightening gun laws as a prime plank of their platform. The only Repub is conservative and pro-gun. Are you gonna register as a Dem to try to influence the primaries? And then vote for an antigun socialist? Remember, your vote for anyone who isn't an antigun socialist will be "wasted." If I voted for the good man, would I be a fool?

What if "the lesser of two evils" strongly supports something I am morally opposed to? For example, let's say I'm strongly pro-life and the "LoTE" has made government funding for abortion a prime plank of his platform. Shall I compromise my beliefs so I don't "waste my vote?" At what point does political expediency turn into political whoredom?

Let me put it this way. If I had to characterize my voting strategy in one sentence, I'd rather it be "I vote for the best man" instead of "I vote for who I think will win."

[TallPine]

Which means if you vote 3rd party, why should the candidate bother to work to represent you? You didn't buy into them with your vote and a 2 party dominant system that means you might as well have voted for the other person in their eyes.
That must explain why Bush has been sticking his finger in the eyes of those that voted for him in 2000 ....? :rolleyes:

[BigG]

Reductio ad absurdum is no way to advance your credibility, Balog. Nevertheless, given your hypothetical, I would vote for the repub, but in no way shape or form for a third party candidate, such as communist, socialist workers, libertarian, green, etc.

What if "the lesser of two evils" strongly supports something I am morally opposed to?

I do not look to govt to provide my moral underpinnings or to advance my moral agenda, if any. I am strictly a TAXPAYER and vote for those who will give less of my dollars to frivolous causes. The dems have no appeal to me with their knee jerk/vote buying programs. Sorry!

I have a question for you, though: why would you be living in a state like that, anyway? I left the environs of statist DC to get away from those types. It's called voting with your feet, IIRC. :D

[MrAcheson]

The problem with trying to produce libertarian turnout in order to force your ideals to be addressed is that your ideals have to be "addressable" in way that the other parties can win your votes.

The greens fundamentally want stricter environmental laws so the dems can get green votes by being strong environmentalists. The libertarian party platform is nothing less than a fundamental shift in the nature of government. You can't simply co-opt that agenda and combine it with your own and make the libertarians happy to vote for you. The only people who really want what the libbys want are the libbys. There is some overlap on topical issues, but thats about as far as you can go to placate the libertarians. For many libertarians mere topical agreement will never be enough. you will still be a "statist".

[Thumper]

In my goofy little scenario, Libertarian turnout is at it's max. I'm talking about an absolute BEST CASE scenario.

I still don't think that Libs would get 5% of the vote.

Marko, I respect your opinions always, but we are in a 50/50 electorate.

I understand that you want a max personal freedom candidate. So do I.

In this political climate, your vote pulled from the more freedom loving candidate is mathematically a vote for the freedom grabbing one.

Clinton's first win wasn't that long ago...It had an indelible effect on me.

[Marko Kloos]

What if I told you that I'd vote Democrat if there was no Libertarian on the ticket? Would I still catch flak from you as an unrealistic, uncompromising dreamer who's just voting with his head in the clouds?

Truth be told, I doubt that Al Gore could have incinerated the Bill of Rights faster if he'd tried. If Bush doesn't do a complete 180 within the next year, stops wasting our money and the blood of our youth in that godforsaken dunghole of a country, and stops appointing fascists like Reichsfuehrer Ashcroft, I may vote Democrat just to make sure he'll be a one-termer like his dad. Let President Hillary ban all guns; it would at least galvanize the lard-assed majority of gun owners into action, and spark a shooting civil war. This damn "vote for the lesser evil" voting just boils the frog more slowly, and there'll never be any impetus to motivate the yokels into action.

The majority of the oh-so-principled Conservatives only pays lip service to freedom. They're willing to applaud any violation of the Bill of Rights, as long as Old Glory waves in the breeze overhead, a marching band plays in the background, and a by-God Republican President does the violating.

The only truly principled pro-freedom platform in this country gets ridiculed by both big parties for refusing to compromise for the sake of electability. And you consider it a virtue that you're willing to depart from principle to have more mass appeal?

[Thumper]

What if I told you that I'd vote Democrat if there was no Libertarian on the ticket? Would I still catch flak from you as an unrealistic, uncompromising dreamer who's just voting with his head in the clouds?

Not at all...seriously. In fact, I think you'd be obligated to vote for the Democrats for the same reasons.

Heck...if you think Hillary is better than Junior, I think you have to work to make that a reality. Voting for a Lib won't help.

I think we all realize, however, that Libs pull an exponentially higher number of votes from the Repubs (anecdotal evidence aside).

[Balog]

BigG wrote: Reductio ad absurdum is no way to advance your credibility, Balog. Nevertheless, given your hypothetical, I would vote for the repub, but in no way shape or form for a third party candidate, such as communist, socialist workers, libertarian, green, etc.

I had to laugh when I read this. For those who may not have taken formal logic, he accused me of the following logical fallacy:
"In its most general construal, reductio ad absurdum – reductio for short – is a process of refutation on grounds that absurd – and patently untenable consequences would ensue from accepting the item at issue. This takes three principal forms according as that untenable consequence is:
1. A self-contradiction (ad absurdum)
2. A falsehood (ad falsum or even ad impossibile)
3. An implausibility or anomaly (ad ridiculum or ad incommodum) "

Since the only way this seems applicable to my argument is the third definition (ad ridiculum or ad incommodum), I'll be assuming that is the way you meant it.

So, my hypothetical is "implausible or or anomalous" eh? I would substitute that it is not only plausible, it is in fact currently the case in a couple of states. Can you honestly tell me that there is no state in the union wherein the solid majority of voters are Dems, and that there have been no elections for important state offices where the only candidates with a realistic chance have been antigun socialists?

Earlier you said "What principles are you talking about, Twoblink? The principle that I'm holier than thou because I vote for a lost (but romantically Quixotic) cause?"

But you admit that you would vote for a lost cause, in our case a good man who has no realistic chance of winning an election. But only if the candidate is not from a "third party".

Earlier you also said "The truth is, you waste your vote when you help the greater of two evils get in because you stupidly withhold your support from the lesser of two evils. Got it?"

But then you say that you would "stupidly withhold your support from the lesser of two evils."

Since we're busting out the formal logic, I'll submit that what you are doing is SPECIAL PLEADING

Description: Special pleading is a logical fallacy wherein a double standard is employed by the person making the assertion. Special pleading typically happens when one insists upon less strict treatment for the argument he/she is making than he or she would make when evaluating someone else's arguments.

[Balog]

BigG wrote:I do not look to govt to provide my moral underpinnings or to advance my moral agenda, if any. I am strictly a TAXPAYER and vote for those who will give less of my dollars to frivolous causes. The dems have no appeal to me with their knee jerk/vote buying programs. Sorry!

Really? If you had lived in the South in the '60's, would you have voted for a segregationist if he would have spent less of your money? If you had lived in one of the states that had eugenics programs, would you have voted for a candidate that supported them if he would have spent less? I don't want a candidate that "pushes" my "moral agenda." I do require that he not "push" evil policies.

Edit for coding

Edit 2: Oh, and what if the candidate "who will give less of my dollars to frivolous causes" is a libertarian?

[Thumper]

Not to speak for Big G, but...

At the risk of speaking the obvious, Balog, anamoly means "rare," not nonexistant. Proving the rule using the exception is a valid example of Reductio ad absurdum.

With regard to BigG's response to Twoblink, I think you might have misunderstood him. He was denouncing that (Quixotic) position.

[Balog]

Thumper wrote: At the risk of speaking the obvious, Balog, anamoly means "rare," not nonexistant. Proving the rule using the exception is a valid example of Reductio ad absurdum.

I am familiar with the meaning of the word, thank you. I was not speaking of nationwide politics, but of those on a state level. If my situation is applicable to even one state, then it is valid since I was referring only to state level candidates. The fact that such conditions are not prevalent in most states (yet) is not relevant. Perhaps I phrased my reply poorly. Sorry for any confusion this may have engendered.

He then said: With regard to BigG's response to Twoblink, I think you might have misunderstood him. He was denouncing that (Quixotic) position.

Uhhhh, that was my point. He denounced Twoblink's stance of voting for who he thought was the best man instead of the "LoTE's"; he then replied to my hypothetical by saying he wouldn't vote for the "LoTE's" but for who he thought was the best (provided that candidate was a Repub). Seemed rather hypocritical.

[Thumper]

Let me ask this, who would be your favorite Libertarian candidate for President?

[Balog]

Speaking of logical fallacies, how about ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM

Description: An argument that attempts to disprove the truth of what is asserted by attacking the speaker rather than the speaker's argument.

BigG wrote: The truth is, you waste your vote when you help the greater of two evils get in because you stupidly withhold your support from the lesser of two evils. Got it?

Gloating over your reputation for integrity in this one little area while overlooking the log jam of irresponsibility you thrust on society is a bit of self righteousness that will cause any normal person to heave.

Boy, it is great to be in the hallowed presence some of the lions of political thought today. I am in awe.

Any lib who got into power would have to compromise his ideals to the point he would be no more credible than the one he was replacing. Not only that, he would p($$ off the "true believer" libs who are never satisfied with anything anyway.

[Balog]

Thumper wrote: Let me ask this, who would be your favorite Libertarian candidate for President?

Can't say I know of any Lib party candidates. I'm not trying to say "Support the LP!" I'm just disputing the "Vote for the LoTE's theory."

Edit: I gotta go home. I'll pick this up the next time I have Internet access.

[Glock Glockler]

Can a Libertarian Win?

First off, what is the strategic objective needed to be accomplished so that one may consider it a win? Here in NH our Lib candidate was making a big stink about the state property tax and how it needs to be repealed and in the 2nd election he was running in a few of the Republican candidates were almost quoting him verbatum, so does he really loose if his agenda is accomplished but through other people or parties?

Voting 3rd party also keeps the majority parties from shifting too far over to the other side because they want to retain a majority v. the other party and they will cater to whatever unattained portion of the voting block to gain market share so long as it doesnt jeperdize their base. THIS IS A FACT, NOT OPINION. The Republicans were even holding strategy sessions on how to attract Libertarians without angering their conservative base, so one can even influence a majority party without voting for them.

Unfortunately the debate we frequently see here on whether or not to vote 3rd Party does not take into account the larger dynamics of the political spectrum and how to shift it to a more pro-freedom direction. No Libertarian candidate should be running in a Presidential or any Federal election if they actually expect to win that office. It is not going to happen and is therefore a complete waste of resources.

If, however, one's objective by running Libertarian is to 1) get your ideas out there influencing the general tone of the election and 2) to attract new voters who can be groomed into solid libertarians as a means of expanding your base, then it is might be a good idea to run depending on the opportunity cost of where those resources might otherwise have been spent. The failure of Ralph Nader's Green Party to do the latter is why his run was irrelevant. If Nader had capitalized on his minor fame during the election into turning those new voters into a grassroots foundation for the Green party there'd be a much more formidable Green Party today. The Libertarians should learn that lesson and do likewise.

The Republicans and Democrats will shift to outside pressure in order to attain market share, it is therefore necessary to have a strong Libertarian party. It is also necessary to influence both the Democrats and the Republicans from inside their own camps, it does not have to be an either or situation as so many people here seem to think it is. I'll sit down over a few beers with both Democrats and Republicans to chat politics and as long as the don't have blind obedience to party identity or dogma I can influence them and shift those two people closer in my direction. If you have enough if the grassroots elements shift in their political orientation you will see a shift in the party leadership.

You see, the solution is to both vote libertarian and to work within the other parties to promote change.

And before we get to deep in the finger pointing about what others are doing I'd like to know what each and every one of you are doing to promote freedom? If you just want to sit on your ??? and complain about that others are doing or not doing then I have no time for you. Most of the people on this board want a hell of a lot more freedom than we currently have but it's not just going to fall out of the sky and happen, you will have to make it happen.

So for the benefit of all please stop complaining about them and take some action yourself.

[Thumper]

Ok...understood.

Let me try a different tack; If you don't mind my asking, who is your LoTE in '04...Dem or Repub?

[Thumper]

I've got a date with some wild hogs in Arkansas...gotta catch a plane. I'll resume this when I get there.

[Felonious Monk]

Balog,
Thank you for that review of undergrad debate terminology.
Xanax can be your friend (ad hominem).


Twoblink, Marko...
I don't think at least some of us are stridently AGAINST the approach you are taking; it's just that, well, we've BEEN there, feeling really self-actualized for something as noble as "voting our conscienses".

As Thumper eloquently put it, that idealism got Billy Jeff Klintoon and his butch wife an 8 year hitch at 1600 Pa ave.

Never, never again. :banghead: :cuss: :fire:

[Marko Kloos]

As Thumper eloquently put it, that idealism got Billy Jeff Klintoon and his butch wife an 8 year hitch at 1600 Pa ave.

Nope. What put Billy into the White House to begin with was the inability of Bush I to comprehend that a.) the high of a won battle wears off quickly within the populace, and b.) it doesn't matter what you do as President before an election when the economy is in the crapper, and your opponent hammers the point. (I think that Bush II is going to repeat his daddy's mistake.)

What put Billy in the White House for the second time was the inability of the Republicans to come up with someone other than a mean old geriatric senator who referred to himself in the third person, combined with the fact that the economy had taken off like gangbusters during Billy's first term.

It was most certainly not the (by everyone's assessment) insignificant number of Libertarian voters. If the race was tight enough for the Republicans to lose it because of a handful of feather-brained Libertarians, their candidate had bigger troubles to begin with.

[BigG]

First of all, I certainly consider all of you friendly and do not want to make any enemies. I just want you to know there are other ways of looking at the situation, ie. can a libertarian win? I don't happen to agree with the prevailing libertarian political stance that there is a "lesser of two evils," except in the most basic spiritual (perhaps if that is the proper word, here) sense, in that "all men are flawed and fall short of the glory of God," type of thing. I'm not seguing into religion, I'm just analogizing here.

Balog: The hypothetical situations you are throwing in to the discussion are almost absurd for a person who has freedom to move as we do here in the USA. If you perceive yourself to be in that unholy or oppressed of a state, I suggest you exit and find a place more friendly to your cause. If I were in that situation, I would not vote for the dem just because he would win; I would vote for the repub, because I think it is the right thing to do. My statement meant that I would not vote for a third party candidate, not that I would vote for a dem in a heavily democratic state. We are in a TWO party system. You can check with Theodore Roosevelt, George Wallace, or H. Ross Perot, if you want a second opinion on that.

We are not in the 1960s South; we are in 2003 the last time I checked. I probably have as much libertarian in me as many of you but I am not going to join up with some fringe group and thwart a republican president. Sorry if that doesn't sit well with you.

You actually should be happy somebody thinks enough to question your opinions. If you professed libertarians want to win the hearts and minds of a majority you are going to have to explain the benefits of changing their voting behavior to a lot of people. You have a friendly audience here so if you can't convince people on THR where people agree with you in many areas how are you going to get the people that don't agree even with your basic interests on your side? Or do you expect blind obedience to your will? Or do you just want to play victim and find a reason to complain that we JUST DON'T GET IT?

BTW, Thank you Thumper, you understood what I was getting at. :)

[Gordon Fink]

“Libertarian” Republicans, how are you working within your party to promote and expand freedom?

We have a Republican President who has pledged to sign a renewal of the “assault-weapons” ban and thinks the original ban really “didn’t go far enough.” He has also led us into a war with an enemy that posed us no significant threat. The largely Republican Congress has passed unconstitutional laws infringing on our freedom of speech and our rights to privacy. The Republican Party platform calls for still further erosion of these rights.

Unless the Democrats start advocating the quartering of troops in my living room, I really don’t see any significant difference between the two parties—other than whose votes they are trying to buy with my money.

~G. Fink

[Sergeant Bob]

Well, the lesser of two evils has given us.....
The Patriot Act
Campaign Finance Reform
The Kennedy Education Bill
Steel Tariffs
The Prescription Drug Bill
The Farm Subsidies Bill
Maybe Patriot II (AKA TIA?)
Supports the AWB
Federalized Airport Screeners
I'm sure there are others I can't remember off the top of my head.

Tell me again why I should vote for them?

[Freedspeak]

I still wonder why we don't have "None of the above is acceptable" as a valid nominee!

Could we be any worse off than we are with him in office?

[Atticus]

We have a multi-term Libertarian on our city council. I think he wins for three reasons 1) He's plain spoken and has good common sense 2) He gives the rest of the council fits on just about every topic 3) Everyone knows he can do little more than give the council fits (by making them prove that they REALLY need to spend a million bucks on something). They usually settle for spending three quarters of that.

President? No way. Libertarians make better obstacles than leaders. And you don't win elections when 5% of the voters agree with you.

[Kaylee]

Hrmm.. you know, I keep trying to remember the last President the Socialist Party of America put into office, but I just can't think of one. Obviously, they never gained a bit of ground in the twentieth century.

:)

In others.. Amen to Brother Glockler. :)

-K

[Moparmike]

You know, I am having a hard time believing that Albert "Cardboard Cut-out" Gore could have done a worse job. I think him sitting on his hands would have done more good for the country than some of the things that Dubbya did, namely PA and TSA.

Can a Libertarian win? No. While I would hope that they could, it wont happen. Does that mean we should vote for someone who wont hack it? NO. Vote with your principles. I know I will.

I still cant believe that this election year is going to be a carbon copy of '00. On the one hand, you have some nobody from a circus who will espouse a bunch of crap, and not provide a solution to the problems; only make them worse. On the other, you have someone who isnt fit to lead a circus.

It will come down to a party line vote, and both sides will reluctantly pull that "party lever". All in all, it makes me want to :barf: and take some tylenol for my splitting headache.

[BigG]

This topic comes up every once in a while. None of us are going to sway each other, but I will note that some of the posters make sounds like somebody who never paid taxes or owned real property yet. Hyperbole is one thing but we are supposedly trying to reason here. Or am I wrong?

Can't get no worse? Can't see no difference? Hmm. That is something that a person who is either senile or inexperienced might say. :uhoh:

[Chris Rhines]

First, to answer Thumper's question, no. The libertarian party cannot win at the national level, and never will. Someone said it best - what the lp wants is nothing less than a fundamental change in the nature of government. That's true. It's also true that the government doesn't want to change. Sad, but true, but the government we live under pretty much rules by decree. Even electing a libertarian president wouldn't matter much, not when he would be faced with the kind of institutionalized statism extant today.

(As an aside, the same reason that the lp cannot win in Washington is the reason why 'infiltrating the Republican party from the inside' is such a futile joke. The GOP does not want to change, either, and they have the same kind of burecratic inerta that the government at large does. Hell, even the national LP ain't known for its adherence to libertarian principles...)

That said, voting for the lesser of two evils is a perfectly reasonable tactic, probably destructive in the long term but useful in the short. When I vote a straight Libertarian ticket, that is exactly what I'm doing. The democrats and republicans, as far as I'm concerned, are equally evil (and that's coming from someone who owns property and who's not-inconsiderable tax load has somehow failed to shrink under our present Republican leadership.) I draw no distinction between GWBII and Clinton; as best as I can tell they're destined for adjoining cells on the same plane of hell. Neither major party gives me any reason to vote for it over its closest competitor.

- Chris

[griz]

I would like to hear from the LoTE voters how they would have voted in the California election. Would you have gone for Arnold, who I suspect is almost 180 degrees from you politically, has an R by his name and may win, or McClintock, who supports your views, has the same R but will not win? No hypothetical here.

As for the topic can a Libertarian win? No. People love the sound of the word freedom, but they vote for big government with an R or a D.

[telomerase]

The underlying problem here is that single-member district systems inherently disenfranchise people and give power to the people drawing the districts. Most countries don't use them:

http://www.fairvote.org/

I do find it ironic that my best hope of electing libertarian-leaning candidates would be to support the Greens (no, I won't be doing that no matter how "pragmatic" it would be).

[Erik]

"Can a Libertarian win?"

No.

My advise is that libertarians should concentrate on building from the bottom up. A thousand city council seats will bring more strength than the occassional Presidential drubbing will.

[Balog]

BigG wrote: Balog: The hypothetical situations you are throwing in to the discussion are almost absurd for a person who has freedom to move as we do here in the USA.

What if the entire country declines to the point where a candidate you support (ie pro-gun, non-socialist) couldn't win? This evades the basic dilemma of who to vote for.

And I'm sorry, but it is massively illogical to say voting for a third-party candidate is stupid because they can't win; and then to say you would vote for a candidate who couldn't win if he was a Repub. What exactly is the difference? Either way your vote is "wasted" because the candidate can't win.

If you think it is foolish to vote your principals why did you say "I would vote for the repub, because I think it is the right thing to do." Wouldn't that be voting your principals?

BigG wrote I don't happen to agree with the prevailing libertarian political stance that there is a "lesser of two evils," except in the most basic spiritual (perhaps if that is the proper word, here) sense, in that "all men are flawed and fall short of the glory of God," type of thing.

after he had written The truth is, you waste your vote when you help the greater of two evils get in because you stupidly withhold your support from the lesser of two evils. Got it?

Self contradiction is no way to advance your credibility, BigG.

[Oracle]

Let me try a different tack; If you don't mind my asking, who is your LoTE in '04...Dem or Repub?

That really remains to be seen. Borrowing from Sergeant Bob, look what your 2000 LoTE brought us:

The Patriot Act
Campaign Finance Reform
The Kennedy Education Bill
Steel Tariffs
The Prescription Drug Bill
The Farm Subsidies Bill
Maybe Patriot II (AKA TIA?)
Supports the AWB
Federalized Airport Screeners

Do you really think that a Democrat candidate would be significantly worse? If you do, then I've got a bridge to sell you...

The point is, you are voting for the same big government, more taxation, less freedom, and anti-2nd amendment politicians, whether you vote for a Republican or a Democrat. The practical differences between the two are getting smaller and smaller every day.

So, you have to choose whether you want to vote for freedom, or against freedom. A vote for either of the two major parties is going to almost always be a vote against freedom, in one respect or another. Years later, when your grandkids or great-grandkids ask you how things got so bad, you can tell them that you are responsible, because you voted for "the lesser of two evils".

[publius]

I'm voting Whig as always next time around. Those silly new interlopers who call themselves Republicans haven't got a chance in a two party system.

Wait...what century is this again? Time travel can be so disorienting. Forgive me.

[Don Galt]

Every time you don't vote libertarian, you are telling the republicans that its ok to grab your guns.

You vote republican, you're voting for gun confiscation.

You vote libertarian, you're voting against gun confiscation. Its that simple.

IF you don't vote your principles, then you tell the republicans and the democrats that they don't have to worry about you.

The people who vote for libertarians are FAR MORE VALUABLE and FAR MORE INFLUENTIAL to the liberals and conservatives running for office--- they are the hotly contested "middle".

The more people who vote for libertartian,s the more influence they have. Every election that you vote for either head of the one party, you tell that party "you don't have to care about me, come get my guns!"

How many years of gun control from republicans do you guys have to take before you realize they are saying one thing and doing another, and you're continually voting for them because they tell you the democrats (who aren't any worse) are evil and scary and you should vote for them lest a democrat get elected?

[Don Galt]

The libertarian party CAN win national election. Even for president.

Even in 2004 or 2008.

People see the recent past and assume it will continue that way indefinately... but it won't... political parties have to change, or they disappear. Lest the republicans go the way of the Whigs or the democrats lose to the greens, the parties have to change to absorb movements.

Americans are tired of taxation, they do not trust their political leaders-- Neither bush is a reagan and even democrats who like clinton realize he's nothing like JFK.

The parties haven't got much to offer that's very compelling.... and this has been the case for awhile.

Both parties are dying right now... and they are dying pretty quick... you see bush endorsing gun control, steel tarrifs, etc- these are the spasms of the head of a party that's trying to find ground.

The way to hasten these demises or re-formations is to vote libertarian.

Eventually, the system will reform into two parties:

In one party you will have the remnants of the republicans and the democrats-- the right wing christians (Who are socialist) and the left wing tax and spenders all in one party.

And in the other party you will have the remnants of the small government repbulicans and the pro-human rights liberals.

And the parties will have re-formed upon more reasonable axis.

I don't know the names of these parties. IF the republicans are smart they will eject the christians to the socialist party and adopt all teh libertarian agenda of small government, low taxes, etc. but they are not that smart... they see this as a losing proposition.

So, most likely these two parties will be called the Libertarians and the Democrats, and there will be no republican party. This could happen in the next 2 decades... We get Hillary in 2004 or 2008, the republican party craters, and a libertarian wins in 2012.... or it could take a little longer.

But both parties have very few people worth running for president these days... that brings them down to the level that the Libertarian non-national names become more prominant. A Schwarzenegger switch to the Libertarian party could happen in about 6 or 8 years.

Really, the Libertarian Party is just a small bit of the Libertaian movement. The Libertarians are making great progress on all fronts. We are converting Liberals and Conservatives in droves. The party is going to go thru its ups and downs and is clearly down now.... but the movement is picking up momentum every year.

Ten yearsa go, %90 of the republicans and democrats had no idea what a libertarian was. Now %70 of them do, and %40 of them can correctly articulate the libertarian belief system. That is a hell of a change.

And since libertarians really offer what both of the other parties pretend to offer, as time goes by and more and more people contrast libertarian positions with the sell outs they see coming from the two traditional parties, we gain more and more converts.

Bill Clinton made me a Libertarian. When he signed the defense of marriage act, I realized he was a spineles wimp. I've considered supporting republican candidates, but it only takes a little bit of time for most of them to discover they are either socialists or fascists, and then I end up voting libertarian. After all, nobody else is putting up candidates that I can stomach.

More and more people are finding themselves in my place. What are you going to do when your republcian president massively expands the government and taxes and spends like its going out of style? Well, thats whats happening right now.... how can you support Bush when he is no different than Bill Clinton? He has no more integrity, his charisma is just as slick and just as shallow... and on every issue you should care about -- from gun rights to small government to lowering taxes-- he sides with the democrats.

I don't really care about Steel Tarrifs... its not one of my top ten issues... but his support for them is very telling.

People are not leaving the libertarian party to support either of the traditional parties... but people are going the other way at a pretty good clip.

Libertarians are going to win. Shwarzenegger is almost a libertarian in his melding of fiscal conservatism with support for human rights (eg: social liberalism).

California didn't swing to the right, it swung towards the south. (in the 2-axis view of political ideology...)

[Felonious Monk]

Don,

I'd sure like to come back in 9 years when it's 2012 and check the accuracy of your predictions. I hope you're right on many counts.
And I sincerely doubt it.

[Soap]

Glock Glockler hit the nail on the head.

[Don Galt]

I'm not saying we'll have a Libertarian president in the next 9 years, just that the change that is happening will not be reflected by such an event. It is a grassroots movement, and will have to be until critical mass is reached, or the election laws are changed to make the country a democratic one (rather than a one party system :neener: )

[rock jock]

No. Not even close.

[Don Galt]

Of course, I don't expect you to be able to see it. Most people think things will continue as they are indefinately.

[seeker_two]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only wasted vote is one where you don't vote your conscience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Marko, imho, this is getting as hackneyed a saying as any in my remembrance. And it just ain't true. It's an example of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, plain and simple.

A guy named "The Little Feller" spoiled the election and allowed WJC in. You would spoil an election and let Wooden Al or Her Hilryness in, with your advice.

The truth is, you waste your vote when you help the greater of two evils get in because you stupidly withhold your support from the lesser of two evils. Got it?

Gloating over your reputation for integrity in this one little area while overlooking the log jam of irresponsibility you thrust on society is a bit of self righteousness that will cause any normal person to heave.

This post (on Page 1) gave me serious pause....

If principals and conscience aren't important enough to consider when we vote, then we've truly lost....

I plan to vote guided by my principals & conscience for the best person for the job--no matter what party they're a part of.

But, with the general political climate & views expressed here, I may find my time better spent loading more ammo & designing my fallout bunker...

To quote Linus, "We're doomed, Charlie Brown."


:(

[Dan from MI]

I'm a Republican with a strong libertarian streak on many issues. I'm an ex-Indy who used to mostly vote Libertarian. I still will if the GOP'er votes for the AW ban or gun show ban.

All the LP will be is a protest vote. It is almost impossible for them to win. The only way the LP will win a partisan office is if this happens.

1. STRONG organization.
2. Strong candidates at the local level that wil work their ??? off. That means knocking on 10000 doors, registering all the non voters, while advocating the SMART things on the LP platform and using the right terms. Open borders and legalizing coke won't do it. Less spending, pro-2nd Amendment, and 'end politics as usual' MIGHT do it.
3. Enough money to compete for these races. It'll take 33.4% at least to win. Some state rep seats are $10,000. Others are $50,000+
4. A strong farm club to compete for statewide seats.
5. Then MAYBE, a shot at the presidency if there is enough statewide support. Not likely though, under the electoral college.

I have not seen one solid LP campaign. I've only seen ONE semi-good attempt at a campaign here, back in 94. He only got 5% despite a moderate GOP'er and a weak dem.

Looking at history, Perot got 20% and no states despite Billions. George Wallace only got a few Southern States. Even Teddy Roosevelt couldn't win on a 3rd party platform, and he was a former President.

So if the capital L libertarians want to change policy, there's only two options. The GOP, or the Democrats. The GOP is IMO, a lot more friendly than the dems are, especially on gun issues. I recommend joining and becoming active in the county party and work to elect like minded people to it. Ron Paul is a Republican. Leon Drolet is a libertarian leaning republican in the state house here. With enough hard work, it CAN be done.

But I want to make one other point. It's not Perot's 'fault' that Bush I lost to Klintler. IT's Bush's fault for not earning the votes. He wasn't entitled to them. If there's one thing that pisses me off, it's the sense of entitlement among many elitists in both parties. The base will and has given the finger to those that deserve it.

[mountainclmbr]

You would need to be a Libertarian running as a Republican. Maybe a Republican could "Jeffords on over".

[Don Galt]

Dan-- it is very possible for the Libertarians to win.

This country didnt' start off with the republicans and the democrats. We started with the Torries and the Whigs (or was there a third, I forget) and the republicans and democrats have changed positions multiple times.

The libertarians not only CAN win, but ARE WINNING. Libertarianism is spreading like wildfire, and I'm not talking presidential vote totals. I'm talking of the number of people who are exposed to libertarianism (growing very fast) and the number of people who understand libertarianism (growing slower due to disinformation, misrepresentation) and the number of people who consider themselves libertarians (growing fast.)

The LP was founded in the 70s. That was 30 years ago. Its come a very long way, extremely quickly. This is not represented in the presidential vote totals-- the elections are rigged to keep out third parties, and too many people will waste their votes out of fear, rather than voting their principles.

But as the number of people with libertarian principles expands, eventually we'll reach a tipping point, and one of the major parties is going to either die, or evolve. One of them will eventually coopt the libertarian agenda to avoid being supplanted by the libertarian party.

Most likely, what will happen is that the economy will continue to deteriorate, and the Republicans will realize the only way to regain power from Hillary is going to be to coopt the libertarians and reject the religious right. Say in 2015 or so.

Or it may go slower than that. These things are hard to predict.

But there are some things that are for certain:
1) The government spending is getting further and further out of control.
2) The real inflation rate is going up, and is now at about %10.
3) Eventually we'll have a currency crises or some other serious economic crises as a result of whatever action is taken to forstall the currency crises (eg: Tax rates go thru the roof).
4) Americans are not as bigoted (eg: anti-gay, anti-non-christians) as the religious right, and more and more they are dissolusioned with the democrats as they vote with the republicans on anti-gay and anti-religious freedom issues.
5) The republicans are heading towards the middle right now adopting democrat (eg: socialist) positions... and they will continue to because at their hearts they are socialists like the democrats... they want big government, more power, etc. etc. This is an inherent conflict in the republican agenda an the republican propaganda. More and more americans will realize this.
6) The people who reject the democrats and reject the republicans are not switching to the other major party, they are joining the libertarians.

Now I don't know when the housing bubble, the currency bubble, or another crises is going to occur. But its only a matter of time. And I know that people are leaving the major parties-- and joining the libertarians, even if they don't join the libertarian party.

And at some point there will be a tipping point, and one of the parties is goign to adopt the libertarian agenda wholesale in order to survive. If they don't, they will become irrelevant.

For instance, how long do you think gun owners will continue to support the republicans as they continue to ban more and more guns? I know people are in denial right now, but Bush has given the ATF much more latitude and banned import of perfectly legal rifle parts. Denial can last only so long.

The LP may have a dismal showing this election. But their candidates have the principles and the positions that the public is moving towards.

Hell, the sell is really freaking easy. To a liberal you say "You oppose the war on drugs, right? So, why you voting for the democrats who have endorsed it for the last 20 years?"

And to a republican you say "you want smaller government and lower taxes, right? So why do you support a president who has ballooned out the government and spent money without limit? You know that debts going to come out of your pocket in inflation or taxes eventually, right?"

Only one party has a candidate on the side of the constitution, and on the RIGHT side of both of those issues.

And it looks like this year, that candidate is not that kookie. (http://www.badnarik.org/) We'll see if he gets the nomination... its a two horse race at this point. Sure, he's not oozing money, and hes running a small campaign. But he's a constitutional scholar and looks to be the best candidate the LP has run in a long while.

And every year the net and millions of cable channels make it easier to get the word out-- the lock on major media that the two parties have kept is weakening.

[Bainx]

Libertarians will never win until the American sheeple decide they are no longer content in their comfortable slavery and illusion of freedom and decide that liberty is most important above all else. Unfortunately we will probably never see it in our lifetime. The sheeple enjoy not having to think or be responsible for themselves.

stevelyn, you nailed it, son.

[corncob]

I'm sorry, Mr. Galt, but this is not true. In fact, I think the LARGE number of Christians (like me) that really want to see the government shrink back to about one-quarter its size won't stop voting Republican until they are presented with a better option than the LP. My views line up with those of "libertarians" just about 90% of the time--and I believe in things like the Resurrection and a 7-day timeline for the creation of our world. We are on the same side. I voted for Bush as the LoTE, and I am certainly disappointed, but people like you, who smear us because of our faith, are propping up the two-party system we are currently stuck with. If a new party is going to suddenly wrench votes away from the Republicans and Democrats, it MUST draw from the vast number of Christian voters. Like gun-owners, a lot of us vote.

[Don Galt]

Corncob--

I think you just agreed with me without realizing it. Maybe if you clarify what your problems with the LP are, I might see where we disagree.

I do think I was careful to describe the set of christians I was talking about... namely the anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-military, pro-isreal, pro-patriot act, christians.

I know many of these people believe they are pro-smaller government, but at the same time they are in support of policies that force a larger government and more taxes on us.

There are lots of different types of christians, and I was referring to the republican core anti-abortion crowd. (naming abortion because it seems to be their most identifying issue.)

But for everyone, as long as you vote for the lesser of two evils, you get evil. And the lesser is a lot smaller difference than I think people realize.

[MrAcheson]

Ugh why didn't people let this thread stay dead.

As a evangelical christian, I don't especially like being called a knuckle-dragging neanderthal by libertarians like you, Don. I believe that morality is inherently key to the success of society and decadence leads to downfall, so no I will not back down on those issues.

I agree with some libertarians on some issues, but overall I find the libertarian party incapable of the compromise necessary for forming a working government. I also find libertarians to be arrogantly closeminded to the historical failures of their pet ideologies.

Libertarianism is like the intellectual opposite to Communism. Lots of academics think that way. They work well on paper as long as you buy into the underlying assumptions of their system. But if one of those assumptions is wrong (and some of them are) the system will eventually fall apart.

The reason we have our current government system is because the system of the founding fathers had enough problems that even they recognized it. There is a reason we have the stronger central government of the Constitution instead of the weak Articles of Confederation. There is a reason even Jefferson turned his back some of his ideals when he became president. It is because some of that ideology was untenable and even he realize it. Is our current government perfect? No. Are there reforms to be made? Definitely. Might the libertarians be right about some stuff? Yeah. Are they right about everything? No.

[twoblink]

I voted for Harry Browne because I wanted freedom, less government, support for the BoR.

If that's stupidity, then I'm stupid.

[corncob]

I agree that the LP's stance on abortion is the number one biggest thing keeping people like me from claiming to be a libertarian. I personally think the only possible reasons for that stance are as follows:

1. Most members of the LP slept through Biology 101, or

2. They feel they have to ignore the facts about abortion and maintain a "pro-choice" stance on the issue to attract the support of people on the left who have figured out that paying taxes sucks.

I believe (apparently along with many self-described libertarians) that the LP's stance on abortion is a misapplication of thier professed love of the undeniable rights of the individual. The "your-rights-end-where-mine-begin" rule MUST apply to the mother of an unborn child if it is to apply to anyone. Assuming of course that an unborn child is an individual. This is a question that only science--not pollitics or philosophy--can answer, and I defy anyone to point me to a shred of [scientific] evidence proving that a mystical transformation that takes place when the head of a fetus leaves the birth canal, instantaneously changing "it" from a mass of tissue to a human being, fully endowed with all the rights those of us on this board hold so dear--especially the right to not be killed by our parents or thier "healthcare providers."

And we agree about the Patriot Act, too. I was excited when I heard about Ashcroft's nomination. In fact my wife kept a cartoon from our local paper on our refrigerator for months after. It showed the confirmation hearings taking place in the coloseum, with congressmen beckoning him in to be eaten by lions. I thought it was funny. But now.... Quite frankly, Mr. Ashcroft scares me to death. It goes to show that you can't always judge where someone's heart is pollitically by what faith they claim to practice.

But my point was this:

If there is to be a third party rising from the ashes of the Rep's and Dem's spiral into socialist economic policy and fascist social policy, it WILL have to draw votes from the largest block of voters that made all those red states red, namely the Christian right. This board is an interesting place--it draws people together in defense and pursuit of a particular liberty (firearms) that otherwise might consider themselves on opposite sides of the pollitical spectrum. The fact is--we need each other.

And you're right. A lot of Christians get confused about the fact that if the state has the power to ban someone else's "immoral" or "dangerous" behavior, all they have to do is "reclassify" the Southern Baptist Convention as a terrorist organization and we'll all be swept off to Gitmo in the middle of the night, for the protection of America's security, of course.

But these are my people and I'm doing my best to help them understand this. And don't worry, contrary to popular belief, Christians are a pretty reasonable bunch. We have a long history of various governments trying to stamp out our beliefs. It still goes on today. Some of us just tend to forget that fact, being so comfortable here in 21st Century USA.

[Daniel T]

corncob, I'm going to assume you actually know what the Libertarian stance on abortion is, but in case you don't, I'll quote it here:

From the Libertarian Party plank:

Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question.

We condemn state-funded and state-mandated abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another's abortion.

It is the right and obligation of the pregnant woman, not the state, to decide the desirability or appropriateness of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, voluntary surrogacy arrangements, and/or home births.

So, the government will not be involved in abortion in any way. What more do you want?

[BrokenPaw]

I've seen this argument many times. Here, and on TFL, and on ARFcom, and on every other forum where political debate occurs. I can see both sides of the issue, because, at various times, I've voted for "Lesser of Two Evils" candidates, and "Who I Really Want But Who Will Have No Chance Of Winning" candidates. It was a judgement call each time.

The whole debate has started to sound (to me) like a bliss-ninny rape-prevention counseling session. Bear with me[0]:

You're walking down a path in the woods. You're accosted, overpowered, and borne down by two men. You were in Condition White; you had no chance to act, and now you're at their mercy. They tell you that one of them has HIV (incurable), and one of them has gonorrhea (curable, but spectacularly unpleasant). Further, they say, one of them is going to rape you; you get to pick which one, but if you don't pick one of them, then they will pick, and they've already agreed that it's going to be the guy with HIV.

The Lesser-of-two-evils argument goes like this: It's going to happen, there's nothing I can do about it. I'd rather risk getting a curable-if-unpleasant disease, and then cure it as best as possible after the fact, than risk getting something incurable and having to live with it for the rest of my life. This person will pick the guy with gonorrhea, lay down and take it, and hope for the best.

The Give-Me-Libertarians-or-Give-Me-Death hardliner will reason thus: I don't actually want to be raped at all; neither of these guys is whom I would prefer to be raped by. I will not play their game and pick one of them, because that legitimizes what they're doing; in effect, I would be granting them tacit permission to have their way with me. If I tell them that I choose not to be raped, maybe the next time they pull this stunt on someone else, at least one of them will offer to wear a prophylactic. This person will pick Option C, "Not Be Raped", and will therefore have Option A, "HIV Guy" picked for him. He will lay down and take it, because it's not yet time for the revolution, but at least they didn't submit willingly.

This is the situation we're all in. We were born in Condition White, the two current halves of the Monolithic Statist Party are currently stronger than any one person's resolve, and were there before most of us were born. they're going to have their way with us for the forseeable future, unless there's actually a physical revolution, which is neither immediately likely nor imminently appropriate.

I agree with some points on both sides of the issue. But what I disagree with is the constant need to quibble over it. It's just like 9mm/45, 1911/Glock, AR-15/AK, or vi/emacs, or any of the hundred other religious issues that one could argue over. Religious debates of any form almost never produce converts. Instead, they produce dissent among people who, at their cores, believe in essentially the same things.

We all know there's a problem with the way the two major parties have pretty much become unassailable, and have (therefore) ceased to care what their constituents actually want.

Gritching at each other about the best way to force the parties to change, and getting our underwear all a-twist as a result will simply allow the status quo to continue.

Methinks it's time to stop bickering over the issue. I'm not offering a solution; I'm merely suggesting that an ongoing flame war is not a solution, either.

-BP

[0] And with the contrivedness of my analogy; I well know that no one here would ever be caught in Condition White. :D

[corncob]

Keeping the state out of the issue doesn't apply here because it is not a question of what a citizen may or may not do, but a question of what a citizen may or may not do to another citizen. Consider this:

Recognizing that slavery is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question.

We condemn state-funded and state-mandated slave-trading. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that slavery is murder to pay for another's slaves.

It is the right and obligation of the white man, not the state, to decide the desirability or appropriateness of slave auctions, whippings, lynchings, voluntary servitude arrangements, and/or breeding programs.

Abortion is that repugnant. It divides this nation as much as any issue ever will. Any new party will have to pick a side.

[Moparmike]

Corncob:

Ok, so you find abortions repugnant* 2*. Do you want the fed.gov to come in and declare it murder? Do you want it to be decided on by the states individually? How would you prevent illegal (and potentially dangerous) "Back-alley" abortions?

I am not trying to flame, instead I am trying to refine your position on the subject.


*For now, lets just leave out "rapes", "death to baby, mother or both from birth", and "first or third trimester abortions" type situations.

2* I find them repugnant as well. I see them as a last option, but something that the state should have no part in regulating.

[Don Galt]

Mr. Archeson-- you err in assuming non-christiians are opposed to morality.

On the contrary. My opposition to christianity is because it teachest immorality.

IF you want to know why I say that, I'll explain it. But don't keep the idea that non-christians reject morality. Most of us don't. We embrace objective morality-- morality based on human rights, rather than religious faith.

[Don Galt]

Corncob--

Sounds like we mostly agree. I have met many reasonable christians... they just all seem to be liberals. (Well, they're not reasonable in in their many of their liberal beliefs)...

Libertarians are split on the abortion issue. Mostly we agree to disagree, and agree that the government should be out of it (or at least the federal government. ) In a libertarian society there would be places where abortion were illegal and places where it were legal, and you chose where you wanted to live.

The moral argument in support of abortion goes something like this (giving as an example, only because it sounded like you haven' t heard it.)

If you assume the fetus is a human from conception, it is not a question of the woman's rights ending at the fetuses nose. It is a question of whether the fetuses rights exceed those of the mother. The argument is that they don't- they have equal rights. The fetus does not, then, have the right to dictate that the mother will carry it. No dispute over science is necessary... even if you assume the fetus is human and has human rights, it doesn't have rights over the mother, just as I don't have the right to live on your couch for 9 months after you fire me from my job working for you.

I assume you disagree, but that's the general argument.

[Don Galt]

Broken Paw's example is excellent.

Only there are three guys in reality, and one is saying "if you pick me, I won't rape you".

But you don't get to do the picking-- you get to vote, and the vast majority of the country is going to vote to get raped. And so you all get raped.

I'm saying "pick the guy who won't rape us!!!" and people are saying "I can't trust everyone else to pick him, so I'm going to pic the lesser VD!"

But we all, also, have the choice to run, or defend ourself against that rape as well.

The thing really keeping us down is that we consent to the idea that popular vote can get us raped-- and that it is legitimate!

Its always wrong to get raped. Its always wrong to have your rights violated-- and it doesn't matter if 1 million people vote for it and you vote against it.

Your single vote trumps those one million votes.

They don't have the RIGHT.

This is the fallacy of democracy-- its inherently immoral.

[Sean Smith]

If you assume the fetus is a human from conception, it is not a question of the woman's rights ending at the fetuses nose. It is a question of whether the fetuses rights exceed those of the mother. The argument is that they don't- they have equal rights. The fetus does not, then, have the right to dictate that the mother will carry it. No dispute over science is necessary... even if you assume the fetus is human and has human rights, it doesn't have rights over the mother, just as I don't have the right to live on your couch for 9 months after you fire me from my job working for you.

PROPOSITION: X and Y have equal rights.
CONCLUSION: X can kill Y at will.

:rolleyes:

I'm not even a rabid anti-abortionist, but your arguments may the the most illogical pro-abortion argument ever.

- If I can kill you at will, with no legal repercussions, you have no rights. To claim otherwise is just, well, insane. The fetus has equal rights because mom gets to kill it at will? Guess Jews in Nazi Germany had equal rights after all, since the Nazis could kill them at will too! Talk about double-speak! Orwell would be proud.

- I don't have the right to kill people at will because they want to sleep on my couch, either. Even if I could (assuming misuse of my couch is a capital crime or something equally nutty), a fetus is not analagous to a freeloader.

If you grant the fetus any "rights" it becomes devilishly hard to argue that transient motives on the mother's part are legal justification for killing it off. Your argument would only justify abortion in cases where the mother had a compelling interest (e.g. rape, incest, threat to her life) that could override even the conditional rights your argument just granted the fetus itself. If we are talking about ballancing equal rights, if the answer is always that one can KILL the other, that ain't equal rights.

[Don Galt]

So, if I'm hungry and you don't give me food, you've killed me? That's that you're saying-- that everyone owes anyone who is hungry, or needs shelter, or whatever-- then people who do not provide those things are guilty of murder, if the person dies?

So, you are guilty of murder for every indian person who starves to death this year, right?

At least, that would be the logical conclusion of your claim.

What I am saying is that nobody is the slave to anyone else. You are saying that everyone is a slave to anyone who would die otherwise.

If I were to mischaracterize your argument the way you have mine, I'd say you just said that anyone who is hungry has the right to kill someone with food and take their food.

[Sean Smith]

So, if I'm hungry and you don't give me food, you've killed me? That's that you're saying-- that everyone owes anyone who is hungry, or needs shelter, or whatever-- then people who do not provide those things are guilty of murder, if the person dies?

So, you are guilty of murder for every indian person who starves to death this year, right?

At least, that would be the logical conclusion of your claim.

No, just a hysterical distortion on your part. Nothing you said is in the slightest bit relevant to my critique of your argument. Furthermore, I'm not making a claim at all; I'm not even making a "Pro-Life" argument or interested in doing so. I'm pointing out why your argument is wildly illogical, something you seem incapable of grasping.

YOU made an argument that the fetus and the mother BOTH have equal rights; one does not override the other. YOU then drew the conclusion from your premise that this meant that the mother cold kill the fetus at will.

I never said anyone owes anybody anything, except maybe to not kill them without a good reason.

The idea that a fetus can dictate what a mother does and enslave her is just dumb; a fetus and a freeloader are not equivalent in any sense that matters. The mother took part in the creation of the fetus (rape or incest excluded); it isn't some adult making selfish demands on her out of the blue. Your analogies with freeloaders and starving foreigners are stunningly irrelevant.

What I am saying is that nobody is the slave to anyone else. You are saying that everyone is a slave to anyone who would die otherwise.

No. You are just puting words in my mouth because your argument is bogus. The fetus didn't come out of the blue; the mother took part in making it (again, rape or incest excluded), and YOU argued that the fetus has equal rights to the mother. So how does that translate into mom being able to kill it at will, again?

There are a number of cogent and internally consistent arguments for legalizing abortion. Yours is clearly not one of them.

[Don Galt]

Actually, you put forth a strawman, and knocked it down and claimed it was my argument you were knocking down.

You've found no logical errors in my argument.

One person does not have the right to force another to keep them alive.

[corncob]

Raise your hand if you believe the state should have the right to compel a citizen by force to provide for his (or her) children.

There's the rub. If a child (once it is born) has a legitimate claim to the fruit of his parents' labor, then if the fetus is the same as a child, (once again this is a question for science) the fetus has that same right to be taken care of.

My argument against abortion is based squarely on biology. If it is tissue, cut it out like a tumor.

But if it is an individual, it is a child and must be fed, sheltered, protected,etc. by its parents--unless and until they give it up for adoption.

[Sean Smith]

How is it a straw man if I QUOTED YOUR ARGUMENT then pointed out why it makes no sense? And yet you persist in repeating the same logical errors...

One person does not have the right to force another to keep them alive.

A fetus does not FORCE anyone to do anything. How can it? It is almost completely passive. Furthermore, the mother CREATED it. It is there because of her positive actions, not because of the outside impositions of some other agent (rape and incest excepted). Hence the foundation of your analogy is... drivel.

In any case, parents are legally obligated to care for their children, barring certain circumstances (e.g. putting them up for adoption). So parents basically ARE forced to keep their children alive... both infantcide and physical neglect are crimes, last I checked. Yet another angle where your argument breaks down into more drivel.

The fact that you would equate a fetus with freeloaders, criminals, et. al. seems rather perverse to me. I'm checking out of this "argument." Welcome to my ignore file.

[Don Galt]

Sean, you have failed to show an error in my logic, check your premises. If you filter out all my postings because you hate me (and I like how you conjured up an excuse to try and justify it, again lying about what I'm saying) then I guess I'm happy to not hear further from a bigot such as yourself. Its unfortunate that you added yourself to the list of pro-lifers who cannot discuss the issue rationally.

Corncob, your position is not scientifically sound.

[care-less]

I would only ask why would we want a libertarian to win? They are for open borders, free trade, etc. Sorry, I'll take the Constitution Party anytime. AS an afterthought to the abortion type argument currently raging; I believe in choice. Once she drops her drawers, the choice has been made........................

[Sean Smith]

then I guess I'm happy to not hear further from a bigot such as yourself. Its unfortunate that you added yourself to the list of pro-lifers who cannot discuss the issue rationally.

Um, Don? I'm not a pro-lifer. I was criticizing your specific argument, which I think is clear to almost everyone but yourself has some real holes in it. The fact that all you have to offer are knee-jerk personal insults is disappointing.

Reading is fundamental, Don. Here is a re-cap:

I'm not even a rabid anti-abortionist

And where did the "bigot" part come from? Care to cite evidence for that claim? Of course not, because there is none. You are calling somebody a "bigot" who got threatened with expulsion from another forum for complaining about the racism and gay-bashing there...

Click here (http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=178051&perpage=25&pagenumber=2)

And here (http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?threadid=178313)

("CastleBravo" being my user name on various other forums...)

But apparently all you've got left are personal attacks. :rolleyes:

(As any further defense of myself against the "bigot" slander would just make the rubble bounce, I'll really bow out at this point. :) The imbecility of Don's personal attack against me should be self-evident at this point.)

[telomerase]

Care-less, could you elaborate on your fear of trade? If you're talking about US disguised "Aid To Dependent Dictators", then I'm already with you. But if you're talking about real trade... why is trade between the US and Costa Rica any worse for you than trade between California and Texas?

[Sean Smith]

To steer this topic back on topic a bit... :D

My opinion? The Libertarian Party isn't in a position to accomplish jack squat on the national scene. Not because their platform is too nutty, but because out in the real world outside THR, nobody has heard of them. Or if they have, they have probalbly given them less thought than the Green Party. Certainly, the Green Party had more impact on the national scene in the last presidential election than the Libertarians did, with Nader "stealing" almost 3,000,000 votes from the left wing of the Democratic party and (arguably) contributing to its drift leftward. Less relevant than the Green Party in America... scary thought.

Right now, the Libertarian Party is simply not part of the public consciousness, positively or negatively. As far as most people are concerned, if they know of it at all it is just as another fringe group that nobody votes for.

[Don Galt]

Sean, don't dish out the personal attacks and then act all innocent when you get called on them.

I'm still waiting for you to respond to my argument. Since you have refused to for many posts now, I just gave up and pointed out your bigotry.

IF you would like to respond to the arugment, which is logically sound, please feel free to.

But personal attacks from you were met with a like response, and then silence from me.

And then you had to drag it over to another thread? Sounds like you're sore.

[Obiwan]

Back on topic...I hope....

A libertarian could win if;

1. They got the right candidate.

2. They got ALL gun owners to vote Libertarian

Dorothy....wake up.......:eek:

[Correia]

Closed because once again there are some topics that just can't be discussed in a rational manner here with out people turning ugly.