[cropcirclewalker]

I have been led to believe that this is a pro-gun site.

I have been told on another thread that 2/3 of the posters in this group are democrats. I have further been led to believe that democrats are anti-gun.

The guy I was dialoging with maintains that it is ok to infringe on the 2A and that he is a democrat. Did I trip into a nest of democrats?

Nows yer chance, what are you?

[4v50 Gary]

Sole party belief - every day is New Year's Day. So pass the bottle. *hic*

Really, I was registered as a Democrat because my father was a democrat. When I bought my own house, I had to re-register and by then I was disgusted with the democrats. So, it was a coin toss between New Year's Party and Birthday. I chose the former. I am, apolictically yours (or I only believe in the voting for the 2nd Amendment),

your humble and obedient servant,

Gary

[Jeff]

I have been told on another thread that 2/3 of the posters in this group are democrats.

and

The guy I was dialoging with maintains that it is ok to infringe on the 2A and that he is a democrat.


cropwalker is referring to me and to the ending of this thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77426



[Egregious personal attack removed by Tamara]

To your answer your question cropwalker, I am a libertarian....I'm just not an anarcho-Libertarian. Huge difference.

Also, no, there is not a large percentage of democrats here. It's just that not everyone is a flaming anarcho-Libertarian like yourself.

PLEASE, answer the question I presented twice in that thread, instead of blatantly weaseling around it everytime.

[Jim March]

I'm registered Republican, and a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus - also known as a "Ron Paul Republican", or "small-L libertarian".

I hold with at least 90% of the LP party platform, however I believe it's necessary to try and shift the GOP in a libertarian direction. That means voting in the primaries, which means registering GOP.

If there's no decent GOP choice in a given election, I'm likely to vote Libertarian.

The old Socialist Party of the US infiltrated the Dems starting in the 1920s. Libertarians can do the same to the Republicans.

One more point: one problem *any* smaller party has is the Federal matching funds for the Presidential race for any party that hits 5% of the vote in the last Prez race. I believe it's $12mil. Even though the LP claims they won't take the money, if they hit 5% they'll be eligible, and targets for a "hostile takeover" for the money.

This is what happened when Ross Perot's Reform Party did a respectable third against Bush1 and Clinton. Pat Buchanan and a bunch of thugs took over the party convention, nominated Pat who's about as alien to Perot's politics as you can imagine, and Pat spent the Fed money on horrible racially divisive ads in California and elsewhere.

In the case of the LP, they'd have one brief extra step needed - change the bylaws so they can take the Fed money. Not a problem.

This IS the LP's fate if they get big enough. I believe there's people in the two major parties who fully understand this, and plan for it.

[Croyance]

It has been my experience that few members of any group have total belief the in party line.
I think that actions speak louder than words. In the absence of that, the tone of the posts should generally give away what people believe in.
I think getting in the middle of somebody's pissing contest is no fun.
As for my beliefs, I know they are my own.

[La Pistoletta]

I don't live in the US, but no, I don't follow a specific party. There's no party here that suits my ideology.

[Delmar]

No party affiliation-who ever comes closest to my beliefs gets my vote, be it Republican, Democrat, Lib, Martian-doesn't matter.
In my mind, the 2A is the foundation of the constitutional amendments because it puts steel to the words.
If you believe you can legislate around it, you are not going to get my vote.

I am not necessarily a single issue voter per se, but I have noticed a trend in people who vote for gun control-they do not respect the constitution, and therefore, I do not respect them.

I certainly won't vote for them.

[La Pistoletta]

I probably won't vote in the next election here (autumn 2006) since there's no use trying to usurp the power of the social democrats by means of voting. In fact, the voting process makes a mockery out of the right to "contribute to the decisions" that they laud so highly.

[Foreign Devil]

There are a handful of democrats including me but by no means are 2/3 of the people here democrats. Where did you get that idea?

This is a very pro gun site that part is right. I mean just read some random posts and you'll see a pattern.

I see someone even voted for the green party there, interesting.

[ReadyontheRight]

Previous Libertarian, now Republican.

[ReadyontheRight]

I hold with at least 90% of the LP party platform, however I believe it's necessary to try and shift the GOP in a libertarian direction. That means voting in the primaries, which means registering GOP.

If there's no decent GOP choice in a given election, I'm likely to vote Libertarian.

The old Socialist Party of the US infiltrated the Dems starting in the 1920s. Libertarians can do the same to the Republicans.

Nicely said Jim - That's pretty much the way I feel.

I went to my caucus for the 2000 election and started talking about smaller government - pointing out that NONE of the Republican candidates were talking about smaller government, removing the slew of Clinton Executive Orders, etc. Everyone there looked at me funny and some said "well of course we want that, that's a basic Republican plan."

Well -- it's four years later with the Republicans in charge of a lot of stuff and I don't see anyone out there reducing the size of the Federal government. I also see a lot of old Democrats still in power and being nominated as judges to appease the other side. I don't seem to recall a Democrat EVER appeasing a Republican.

We need to take the Republican party back to the Reagan roots and beyond. This party ended slavery, voted for the civil rights act, re-invigorated America after the "malaise" of the 70s and won the cold war. Now our politicians seem to be piddling it away trying to move to the middle with no clear direction and no firm stance on anything.

[Hkmp5sd]

Registered as a democrat when I turned 18 since my parents were democrats and in many local elections, there were only democrats running. After becoming a voter and witnessing the last two years of the Carter administration, changed to Republican before voting in my first presidential election.

[Chris Rhines]

I'm a registered member of the Elf Party (http://www.elftor.com/elftor.php?number=146).

* - WARNING : that link above connects to a site that is innapropriate for anybody under the age of... honestly, it's inapropriate for anyone. Don't click on it from work. - *

- Chris

[captain obvious]

I don't think there's voter party registration in Virginia

otherwise I'd be a registered Confederate

[Hemicuda]

I have a TENDENCY to vote along Republican lines, as their overall views most coincide with my own, but if CLEARLY the best candidate is from another party, then my vote goes there...

[kwelz]

I actually work for the Republican Party. I hope to be running for office here in a few years too :evil:

[GoRon]

I am a Republican, I will vote Libertarian if the rep. on the ballot is just too noxious.

Also, I have voted Libertarian when the Republican seat is safe. Sorta as a message about the direction I want the party to go.

GW has been a dissapointment when it comes to government spending (hows that for understatement?). But overall better than Gore would have been.

I supported the war when it went to Afghanistan, and supported removing Saddam if they thought it was necessary. I will continue to give the administration my support to finish the job they started.

Handing this over to Kerry and Co. would be a disaster IMHO.

[pax]

*laugh*

Chris, that's awful.

:D :D :D

pax

Vimes had once discussed the Ephebian idea of "democracy" with Carrot, and had been rather interested in the idea that everyone had a vote until he found out that while he, Vimes, would have a vote, there was no way in the rules that anyone could prevent Nobby Nobbs from having one as well. Vimes could see the flaw there straightaway. – Terry Pratchett

[Chipperman]

The ELF Party. Now THAT'S something I can get behind!

Historically, I'm registered Indy, usually vote either Repub or Libertarian.

[Jim March]

ELF! ELF! ELF!

:p

[priv8ter]

I don't currently belong to a party, but I am thinking of registering as Republican for one of the reasons Mr. March cited...so I can vote in primaries.

Not that it matters in Washington...This year, the State Republican Party heads have already voiced thier support for Governor and Senate Positions, pretty much rendering the primary...a waste of time.

So, for now, I guess I'm rapidly becomming one of those anarcho-libbies rapidly running out of hope that we are going to get anything major changed inside the system. Maybe we think too big. Maybe we need to be more like the gun-control folks, and keep out true intentions hidden while making baby-steps.

greg

[Standing Wolf]

I used to be a registered Republican, only to discover I could no longer tell the Republicrats from the Democans even with a score card.

At least I can figure out who the Libertarians are.

[voilsb]

I end up voting primarily Republican, but I'm registered "non-affiliated." My politics line up somewhere between the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party. I guess that makes me pretty much a "little 'l' libertarian."

I'll probably register as a Republican and join the RLC after my next address change, though, since it's not really a viable option to vote Lib.

[SAG0282]

Republican here.

[Jim March]

I noticed more people admitting to GOP (proportionately) after I posted :).

Seriously folks: we have to vote in the primaries.

Weird point: in VERY strong Democrat-held areas, you can make a good case for registering Dem regardless of your views. Take San Francisco (please!) - we KNOW a Dem is going to win, period, end of discussion, so the real heat is in the primaries. Ed Worley has often said that a solid pro-gun Dem voting block of as little as 10,000, maybe 20,000 tops would completely alter city politics and end that area as a hotbed of grabberism.

I suspect he's right.

[R.H. Lee]

Weird point: in VERY strong Democrat-held areas, you can make a good case for registering Dem regardless of your views

Ah, the old Trojan Horse tactic aka 'Wolf-in-sheep's clothing':D

[cropcirclewalker]

I gotta go with Jim.

One vote in the primary is worth 10 in the general.

Back in Kansas in '92 I carried a placard for Jerry Brown. He was running against Klinton in the Dem Primary.

Ah, if only he had won.

This year I will be voting in the Dem primary for OTB. (Bob Holden) gov of MO who got his CCW bill veto overridden.

OTB stands for One Term Bob.

In a primary, you always vote for your candidates' opponent that will be the easiest to beat in the General.

[Desertdog]

I am registered as a Republican, but I consider myself a conservative.

Right now, I hold my nose as I vote for Republicans over Democrats.

I consider it a wasted vote to go for a third party. When I see third party candidates that has better chance of winning than a snowball surviving in hell, I would vote for them.

You third party candidates out there, any time is a good time to infiltrate the party that is closest to your beliefs. If enough of you will do that, you can take them over!

[Jrob24]

Leaning towards libertarian but not a registered party member. I want to keep my options open. Sometimes I'll vote Republican if there isn't a Libertarian running and the Republican in question is noticibly better than the democrat.

[Soap]

Sage advice:

I believe in Rhett Butler, he's the only cause I know.

;)

[RevDisk]

Registered democrat. Even hold a position as a township committeeman not that it really is a position that calls for a lot. I lean towards little 'l' libertarian.

[RatFink]

Republican most of my life except for in "92" when I tried to register as a Jeffersonian, for some reason my name was not on the voting records when I went down to vote. So I went back to Republican up until just recently when I registered with the American Patriot Party, State of Arizona. Not that I think they can win, or that it will really make a difference, but because it most closely follows my belief in States Rights.

I'm just fed up with supporting the lesser of 2 Evils, and while I think Bush is a much better man that Clinton was, or Kerry could be, I HATE some of the stuff he is doing. I just might end up voting for him, but I won't be happy about it.

[Moparmike]

Well, I most closely align myself with the LP, except for their seemingly absent stance on terrorism, their stance on Immigration, and their stance on Iraq.

I wouldnt be opposed to having Larry Craig as my senator though.

[PATH]

Registered Conservative in the State of New York!

[minnesota oldie]

I belong to the smelly old fart party. Since I do smell and fart I tend to have it all to myself, with no oposition.

[Treylis]

We need to take the Republican party back to the Reagan roots and beyond. This party ended slavery, voted for the civil rights act, re-invigorated America after the "malaise" of the 70s and won the cold war. Now our politicians seem to be piddling it away trying to move to the middle with no clear direction and no firm stance on anything.

I wouldn't consider voting for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a particularly high point for the Republican Party. Some sections of that were serious violations of property rights.

[Smoke]

You don't have to register with a party to vote the primaries here. You can vote in either primary but not both.

I often vote in the Democratic Primary because that is where the local elections are decided. Few candidates run on the republican ticket no matter their political leanings. :confused:

Just depends on which races I'm most interested in.

Smoke

[Kurt S.]

I do not consider myself as belonging to the Republican party, but every primary I have voted in I have voted Republican.

[jonptoms]

The guy I was dialoging with maintains that it is ok to infringe on the 2A and that he is a democrat. Did I trip into a nest of democrats?


You are correct. There are many latent anti-gunners on this site. Quick way to recognize them is they will mock people for feeling the need to defend themselves (e.g. while chastizing a young may for carrying a gun at a grocery store: "my gawd, they got attack vegtables there!.....?" -- WildAlaska). Some will also insist that only "hunting" guns should be permitted.

When pressed with the facts that "hunting" rounds are identical or more powerful than evil "assault" weapon rounds, if they are honest and logical, they admit they really don't understand that much about guns, that maybe only police and armed forces should have guns.

We really are our own worst enemy.

[Gusgus]

Like Jim March, I'm a registered Republican, but I usually vote Libertarian. Last election, I held my nose, and voted for Bush, due to my horrid fear of Gore. I will not be voting for Bush this year, no matter how much I fear Kerry. I will support and vote for Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate chosen today at the Libertarian convention. BTW, in the past two Republican presidential primaries, I voted for Alan Keyes, one of the few Republicans who I can support with a clear conscience.

[jonptoms]

Like Jim March, I'm a registered Republican, but I usually vote Libertarian. Last election, I held my nose, and voted for Bush, due to my horrid fear of Gore. I will not be voting for Bush this year, no matter how much I fear Kerry. I will support and vote for Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate chosen today at the Libertarian convention. BTW, in the past two Republican presidential primaries, I voted for Alan Keyes, one of the few Republicans who I can support with a clear conscience.


Like I said we are our own worst enemies. If you don't vote for whoever the republican cand. is you are essentially tossing a vote Kerry's way. And regardless of how bad you think the republicans are on rkba issues, the dems are infinitely worse, that's no secret. You can read their own statements/positions.

[Gusgus]

Like I said we are our own worst enemies. If you don't vote for whoever the republican cand. is you are essentially tossing a vote Kerry's way. And regardless of how bad you think the republicans are on rkba issues, the dems are infinitely worse, that's no secret. You can read their own statements/positions.

As I say in my Sig line, If you vote for the lesser of two evils, even if your candidate wins, you still end up with evil.

[jonptoms]

As I say in my Sig line, If you vote for the lesser of two evils, even if your candidate wins, you still end up with evil.


yes and if we follow your suggestion we end up with the GREATER evil instead of the "lesser". There's some good thinkin' ;)

[cropcirclewalker]

I always liked the way Badnarik talks.

Truth of the matter is though, I would support ANY libertarian over ANY evil, be it greater or lesser.

Here's some good thinkin'

You vote the lesser you might get lesser, you might also get greater.
You vote the greater, you might the greater, you might even get the lesser.
Either way you vote you will get the lesser or the greater........evil.

You vote for good, you might get the greater evil, you might get the lesser evil, but at least you have a SMALL chance of getting good.

[jonptoms]

Here's some good thinkin'

You vote the lesser you might get lesser, you might also get greater.
You vote the greater, you might the greater, you might even get the lesser.
Either way you vote you will get the lesser or the greater........evil.

You vote for good, you might get the greater evil, you might get the lesser evil, but at least you have a SMALL chance of getting good.


First of all I do not consider Bush evil. I'm just playing along with the original poster's assumption that he is.

Second of all, you don't have a SMALL chance of getting good, you have a non-existant chance of getting what you consider good, and you have just increased the chance of getting the GREATER evil by tossing your vote.

On the other hand, if you were going to vote for Kerry, please by all means do vote for some third party candidate! Or a write in, I don't care, just as long as you were going to vote for Kerry and now have decided to go the true path and vote your conscience.

[cropcirclewalker]

Like you said:
And regardless of how bad you think the republicans are on rkba issues, the dems are infinitely worse, that's no secret. You can read their own statements/positions.

And regardless of how GOOD you think the republicans are on rkba issues, the Libertarians are infinitely BETTER, that's no secret. You can read their own statements/positions.

There is still time for you to educate yourself. Study the statements/positions.

[MeekandMild]

Sign me up as None.

Sure I support President Bush. Sure I normally contirbute to Republican candidates but I'm NOT a Republican.

The only thing the Republican party has done for me was they put me on a calling list so they would call me during supper and on my days off to ask for more money. They put me on a paper "committee", which meant that three or four times a week they sent me mass mailings asking for more money.

Sorry guys, I only contribute to RKBA, prolife, states rights, tax-and-spending-reduction, right-to-work candidates. That list of qualifications coincidentally eliminates 99.9% of Democrats but it also eliminates 50% of Republicans.

[Gusgus]

If everyone who agreed with the Libertarian party would vote Libertarian, we the people could take this nation back. It's naysayers like you, who keep the Democans and Republicrates in power.

This reminds me of a Simpson's episode. During the '96 election, Dole & Clinton where kidnaped, and replaced by Aliens (Kang & Kodos). Homer unmasks the imposters, who are bent on enslaving the human race. Kodos says “Its’ true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It’s a two-party system, you have to vote for one of us.” A man from the crowd exclaims “He’s right, this is a two-party system!” A third man says "I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate". Kang replies “Go ahead, throw your vote away”, and both aliens break out in laughter.

The crowd thinks for a moment, shakes their heads in agreement, and elect Kang. In the next scene, the humans are working in chains being whipped by the aliens, at which point Homer says, “Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos”.

This is the mentality and lie that we Americans must overcome, if we ever want to see government for the people, and by the people, once again.

[telomerase]

Kang replies “Go ahead, throw your vote away”, and both aliens break out in laughter.

Love that episode.
The US system is pretty laughable:


http://www.fairvote.org/2004/index.html

Most Western nations have proportional representation, so that your vote actually counts. Of course most people still vote like idiots, but that's a separate problem!

[jonptoms]

Part of the problem is guys who get their education from the Simpsons instead of reading the writings of our founding fathers, and learning real history.

As for proportional representation, we already have that. I know it's hard for some people to understand how our system works, but it is actually very well thought out and prevents a nasty majority from overwhelming a minority. It has a very well thought out system of checks and balances.

But again you can't learn about it by watching TV sitcoms and cartoons, you actually have to do some reading and pay attention.

For the libertarian gentleman, if everyone who agreed with libertarians voted for a libertarian, either they'd still lose, or we'd have anarchy.

RKBA is about the only thing I agree w/libertarians on.

[cropcirclewalker]

It sounds to me like if Berry and Kush both said an a debate,

"Its’ true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It’s a two-party system, you have to vote for one of us.”

He, jonptoms, would say, "They're right, this is a two-party system! If I did vote for a third party I would throw my vote away” as both aliens break out in laughter.

I am proud to say that I have NEVER seen an episode of the Simpsons. O'course I only watch Jag and CSI. Well maybe with an occasional "Law and Order" throwed in.

[The Real Hawkeye]

I'm registered Republican, and a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus - also known as a "Ron Paul Republican", or "small-L libertarian".

I hold with at least 90% of the LP party platform, however I believe it's necessary to try and shift the GOP in a libertarian direction. That means voting in the primaries, which means registering GOP.

If there's no decent GOP choice in a given election, I'm likely to vote Libertarian.That pretty much sums it up for me too.

[wally]

As Groucho Marx: said "I wouldn't belong to a club that'd have me as a member".

I generally find the Libertarian position on issues closest to my own, but I voted "none" because I'm not the meeting going, joining type. I did make exceptions and joined the ACLU, NRA, & TSRA. I let my ACLU membership lapse years ago when Ira Glasser turned it into an anti-Reagan organization, but with "homeland security" these days, I'm begining to think about rejoining.

I voted in the Democratic primary so I could vote *against* Ken Benson (casted the deciding vote in the house as a freshman to pass the AWB!) when he ran for Senator -- I doubt I was the only one as he came in a distant third despite having the best statewide name recognition because of his former Senator dad.

I won't vote any "party line" and will hold my nose and vote for something I dislike in order to vote against something I strongly oppose.

--wally.

[Gusgus]

For the libertarian gentleman, if everyone who agreed with libertarians voted for a libertarian, either they'd still lose, or we'd have anarchy.

So, are you saying that our Founding Fathers where anarchists, and that our original form of government was anarchy?

Poles show that 30 to 40% of the citizenry believe The Libertarian Party more closely reflect their views, then the Party they currently belong to. That amounts to a win in a three way race. Also remember that the majority of registered voters never bother going to the both, so if all who agreed with us where to dump their Party, and actually vote, we would win in a landslide.

RKBA is about the only thing I agree w/libertarians on.

If that be the case, therefore, you must agree with government run indoctrination centers for our children. You support the theft of your income at gun point, to be distributed to those who refuse to provide for themselves. You support the idea of someone else telling you what you can and can not do with your own property. You agree that's its' OK for an illegal, unconstitutional private agency to print worthless paper money out of thin air, raise and lower interest rates at their whim, and create inflation, thus devaluing the fruits of your labor. You agree with the war on some drugs, and the freedoms we must sacrifice in order to fight that war. You agree with The Patriot Act, and it’s destruction of the BOR. You agree with Bush’s run away spending, and his massive increase in government. You must also agree with the current Welfare State, and the out of control and highly inefficient bureaucracy that runs it.

In other words, you have no desire to be free, and are satisfied being a subject of the state. Again, this is only if your above statement is correct.

[Foreign Devil]

I doubt that the libertarians could get more than 10% of the popular vote even if everyone who thought that way voted for them, no matter how much money they had and no matter how much publicity they get. In fact I think the best way to dissuade people from joining the LP is to point them to the party's platform, which contains positions so extreme that they border on self-ridicule.

Libertarians also love to cite the founding fathers. Well George Washington supported the establishment of a national university with "stolen" public funds:

>That a National University in this country is a thing to be desired, has always been my decided opinion; and the appropriation of ground and funds for it in the Federal City, have long been contemplated and talked of. . . .<
George Washington
Letter To The Vice President
dated November 15, 1794

Thomas Jefferson supported public education. The founding fathers were pragmatists above all else, not wild eyed ideologues.

And then there's this:

>You agree that's its' OK for an illegal, unconstitutional private agency to print worthless paper money out of thin air, raise and lower interest rates at their whim, and create inflation, thus devaluing the fruits of your labor. <

You mean the federal reserve is an "illegal, unconstitutional private agency?" First of all the federal reserve is a central bank not a private agency. And second of all you seem to be suggesting that we discard paper currency and go back to using coins. There is actually some evidence that the founders wished to prohibit paper money, but anybody suggesting that we do this today is out of their mind.

That, or maybe you've just got a locker of gold coins buried in the back yard.

[ReadyontheRight]

Unfortunately, to succeed as a political hack, you need to compromise.

The Libertarian position tends to draw uncompromising individuals with very strong beliefs.

When we get a Libertarian candidate who can bridge this gap, the Libertarian candidate might win that one election, but that person will then have both the Repubs and the Dems taking shots at them and even working together to reduce their power and influence.

IMHO, we're better off changing the Republican party from the inside.

[wolf]

I let my ACLU membership lapse years ago when Ira Glasser turned it into an anti-Reagan organization, but with "homeland security" these days, I'm begining to think about rejoining.
------------------------------------------------

is anyone watching the store??

Used to think, while i disagree with the ACLU on just about everything, i support them. But we all have a "line"..and if it gets crossed there is no going back. Seems the ACLU has been finding religous symbles, crosses etc..in city and state "seals". Redlands CA just folded and took the cross out of their city seal...and now Los Angeles has been discovered as a cross bearer, so to speak, and has 14 days to remove the cross from its seal. Will it do it..bet to it! They have already said, "..in these troubled financial times, we dont have the resources for legal battles.." AKA..remove the cross.

as America disappears..

illegal immigrants send over thirty billion dollars annually "home"..these are tax free dollars remember..it strengthens the political will in their home country to encourage more of thier citizens to journey to "el norte". By doing so the closer they are at eliminating the the "line" between US citizen-legal or not. The plan is working, soon they will be allowed to vote openly, some vote now but its a wink & nod type of deal. The majority will be democrats, as that party can out-pander the GOP without trying very hard.

I see no difference in the two parties and consider our borders the line to be crossed. I could care less about Iraq. It seems the major parties are saying that about the US.


wolf

[DTLoken]

I voted "Libertarian" but I have some differing views from the LP and would say that i'm a lower-case libertarian, in that my views are libertarian in nature and aren't defined by some political party (Such as the LP).

[WingZero]

I'm a Dennis Miller "Republican"......:D

Totally independent here. I just find myself siding with conservatives the majority of the time.

[dischord]

To answer the question of the thread -- I belong to the Libertarian Party (pay my dues), but I am not a registered Libertarian because Virginia does not register by party. Virginians can vote in any party's primary (but only one primary per election cycle).jontoms: Like I said we are our own worst enemies. If you don't vote for whoever the republican cand. is you are essentially tossing a vote Kerry's way. That applies only in the handful of in-play states, like Florida. In most states, your fear is not valid.

For example, Gusgus' state, New Jersey, is not in play. Kerry is going to win New Jersey no matter how Gusgus votes. Why should Gusgus waste his vote for Bush in the false hope that he'll help Bush win New Jersey? How horrible it would be for him to choose the lesser of two evils when the lesser cannot win anyway. It is better that he votes his beliefs.

For example, my state, Virginia, is not in play. Bush is going to win Virginia no matter how I vote. Why should I wast my vote for Bush in the false fear that it will lead to Kerry winning Virginia? How horrible it would be for me to choose the lesser of two evils when the lesser is going to win without me anyway. It is better that I vote my beliefs.

Does one of the two apply to your state or are you in an in-play state like Florida?

[Foreign Devil]

I think the closest thing to a serious semi-libertarian candidate(at least on domestic issues) for president they've ever had was Republican Barry Goldwater and he got trounced. He was seen as representing a fringe view that most people didn't want. Same thing goes for McGovern in '64 for the Democrat side. Voters reject candidates who are seen as representing the fringe. The parties are so close politically because that's where the voters are. Hence the libertarians, greens, constitution, reform parties et al are unelectable not because of election laws, or funding, or media bias, but because the voters are not buying into their programs.

The best thing for you guys who are members of these smaller parties would be to join one of the major parties and work to change it from the inside. That may seem daunting, but it's a whole lot easier than building a political base from scratch. And if you insist on being in a third party, the money spent on an obviously futile campaign for president would probably be better spent in other areas, like electing local politicians.

[The Real Hawkeye]

I think the closest thing to a serious semi-libertarian candidate(at least on domestic issues) for president they've ever had was Republican Barry Goldwater and he got trounced. He was seen as representing a fringe view that most people didn't want.Your analysis is way off. Goldwater was picking up in the polls, and probably would have won. The Dems, joined by the big media, instituted a campaign to paint him as a nut who would immediately order a nuclear attack against the Soviet Union as soon as he got in office. That's what caused him to be trounced. Most people agreed with his actual views, but were scared by the lies of the big media and the Dems. They tried it again with Reagan, but by then people were a little wiser about the media being a wing of the Democrat Party. By the time Pat Buchanan came around, not only the Dems and the big media conspired to destroy his public image, but the establishment Republican Party joined in to destroy his public image with false accusations of anti-Semitism. It is only by dirty tricks that the good candidates have been kept from having a chance. The current dirty trick is to convince liberty loving Americans that the best they can do is the lesser of two evils, and that if they voted for the better man, the worst evil would be elected. Because of this, the 30% to 40% of Americans who agree with a Libertarian/Traditional American plank are too frightened to vote for the better candidate.

[dischord]

Hence the libertarians, greens, constitution, reform parties et al are unelectable not because of election laws, or funding, or media bias, but because the voters are not buying into their programs. The voters are not buying into their programs because the voters are unaware of the programs. The voters are unaware because election laws effectively ban third parties from the debates and because the media covers third parties only sporadically and only if there is a celebrity (Nader) or oddball (Perot) running. (Yeah, the LP needs a celebrity candidate.)

The voters do not drive political views any more than teens drive clothing and music styles.

[Herself]

I vote Libertarian. Every time. I even vote for Libertarians who espouse views I don't much like. And here's why:

1. The two "big parties" are about bigness and power, nothing else. They'd have sex with bald eagles to get elected. Their candidates will say, do, and appear to belive whatever it takes to get into office and stay there. Both parties are afraid of an empowered electorate, and that includes an armed electorate. Oh, the Republicans will take away your gun rights more slowly, and be nicer about it, but big deal -- the Democrats take away freedom of the press in a kinder, gentler way, too, but either way, at the end of the day, you have less freedom. The Bill of Rights and the U. S. Constitution mean nothing to the elected and appointed officals of either party. Electing more plastic weasels from either one of the Parties of Treason just gets you more of the same, left-right-left-right down the path to totalitarianism. No less a "gun-friendly" republican than Texan G. W. Bush said he'd sign a renewed Assault Weapons Ban bill if it crossed his desk; the Republicans take the gun vote for granted, darn them.

2. The Libertarians only barely understand bigness and government power. Even crooked Libertarians are inept crooks. Honest Libertarians politcians are darned honest and comprise a far bigger percentage of the whole than honest politicians from the Parties of Treason. At least some Libertarian politicans have actually read, understand and support the Constitution and the first ten Amendments thereunto. And what the heck, they think you really ought to own a gun, or twelve, or hundred, or none if that's what you want. Most of all, they want the government to leave you alone. (That last is why I don't have a problem with even the whackier Libertarians: they won't try to make me fit their notions).

...I cannot even imagine why anyone who has read modern history would prefer fiat money to honest money with intrinsic worth. Hey, how much you payin' for gas now, in those ever-inflatable greenbacks?


Now, do I think we'll see Libertarians sweep into office and remake the land? Nope. Probably not soon. In fact, on my darker days I suspect we'll see the Federal Union fall apart, with no small amount of mayhem, long before such a thing happens. But 'til it does, the Libertarians are the only bunch who can put enough of a scare into the Parties of Treason to at least slow them down a little, maybe even get them to roll the cancerous Federal growth back a little, and put off the day when It All Falls Apart.

I think that's all we've got: buy some time, hope we can get some better energy sources perking and perhaps get human presence established eleswhere in the solar system before the big governments come crashing down. The time of Empires is on the wane, and it's liable to get pretty dark before the next century dawns. Be right nice if somebody was a-keepin' after the flame when the lights go out....

...Then again, I might just be a pessimist. I'm still not gonna vote for "big tent" parties that try to be all things to all people and end up bein' not much to nobody.

--Herself

[The Real Hawkeye]

Well said, Herself!

[Foreign Devil]

Sorry but I think you all are just making excuses. If the people wanted libertarian agenda politicians would offer it. What do you mean teens don't drive clothing and music styles? They decide what they will buy and the marketplace provides what the consumers want. Politics is a marketplace too. And what evidence is there that 30-40% of the voting public supports libertarian policies? If that were the case republicans and democrats would be espousing these ideas.

[cropcirclewalker]

Somebody who used to be famous said something that might have sounded like this.

"Even if you do build a better mouse trap, the public will not beat a path to your door unless they know where you live."

Point is, the managed media has an interest in keeping the status quo and the public stupid about us. They don't want somebody in a place of authority who isn't in their pocket. Thus, even when us Libertarians come up with good ideas, which we have done and will continue doing, you will never hear about it from the managed media.

That is why the internet will eventually change things. The internet is not managed.;)

[dischord]

What do you mean teens don't drive clothing and music styles? They decide what they will buy and the marketplace provides what the consumers want. No, companies decide what they want to sell and convince the teens that those products are desirable. You've got cause and effect backwards. Voters and teens simply follow the marketing, they don't drive it.

With all due respect -- :) -- I find it breathtakingly naïve to say that political marketing is simply a matter of giving the voters what they want. It’s a matter of making the voters feel dependent of what the politicians “give” them so that the voters feel they need those policies.

Its just like the bunch of 30-to-60-somethings who currently are designing with the new teen fashions and related ad campaigns, typically driven by making the teens think they are rebeling against the same 30-to-60-somthings who are taking their money and driving their style choices.

[Herself]

Politics is a monopoly marketplace, and the shelves of that market are dominated by the Elephant and Donkey brands, with just a smidgen of Watermelon, Cryptoanarchist and Jackboot goods scattered in dusty corners. (The names have been changed to annoy the guilty).

Compare that to, oh, clothing. Not only can I shop for a huge variety of brands, I can shop at Wal-Mart/Target/etc. and be left pretty much alone, I can go to the department store and be fussed over some, I can hit some tiny exclusive boutique or used-clothing shoppe and really get fawned on, or I can shop online and have no human contact at all. Y'can't do that with Government: you shop in their store, or y'don't shop at all.

So no, politics are not very market-driven. They're not driven by value-for-money shopping, and only rarely by the "buyer's" (voter's) hunger for some identifiable style. What drives politics is electibility, a very short-term parameter based on perceived stance rather than reality and which only counts for as long as it takes to get you in the booth and pulling the candidate's lever. The candidates and their big parties are sold like soda pop or candy, with quick, easy slogans and attention-getting visuals in 30-second snippets

I don't know about you, but I think keeping the various levels of government more-or-less in line is considerably more serious than the Coke or Pepsi decision (and what about RC and Jolt?). As long as you keep on buying caramel-colored, caffinated, carbonated, sweetened phosporic acid, that's all you're gonna get. It might be time to look to an adult beverage....

What we have now at the Federal level is a bloated, overly-powerful thing Jefferson, Washington, Hamiliton and Adams would not recognize. (And at least some of those cited were fans of Big Government). The long-established parties have enormous vested interest in Things As They Are. If you want change for the better instead of just a few shallow sideshow distractions, you need to stop voting for the Ass and Elephant brands.

--Herself

[Herself]

PS: I'm pretty sure the Revolution will not be televised. :neener:

[Moparmike]

But how will I know the score, Herself?;)

[Herself]

Aww, gee, Mike -- it'll be on the radio. Just sit there with headphones on like Dad used to, cheering or booing as the action moved him. (Man, I so hope the Old Man had that radio turned on!)

--H

[Foreign Devil]

If they vote for the LP candidate presumably it's because they've Seen The Light and agree with your platform, but if they vote for Candidate D or R it's because they've been flummoxed by devious reporters and politicos. Right? Right. . .

You call me naive, but you're the ones who think that a large number of American voters will support a party whose platform includes legalization of all drugs, elimination of all welfare, the repeal of anti trust laws and abolition of the EPA among other things.

Sorry but it ain't going to happen. Do you really imagine that everyone would flock to the LP if only the media would cover them more? What makes you think there are millions of closet libertarians out there?

[Waitone]

I reallly want to believe in libertarian principals. Then there is that whole theory vs reality thingy the libertarians have yet to reconcile.

So I guess you have to put me down as a libertarian who has not drunk the kool-aid and who would rather get the reality thingy correct.

That make me look for the candidate, any candidate, who does the least damage to life, liberty, and property over the longest period of time.

[Nathaniel Firethorn]

I registered as a Democrat several years ago to vote for someone I knew.

Never unregistered.

Doesn't mean I'll be voting for any of 'em anymore, though :neener:

- pdmoderator

[Moparmike]

What makes you think there are millions of closet libertarians out there?All the people pi$$ed off with both the Dems and the Repubs, all the people sickened by the prospect of either Bush or Kerry for president...

Just for starters...You start to listen to their reasons, and at least half of them align with LP platforms.

[Herself]

Foreign Devil writes:If they vote for the LP candidate presumably it's because they've Seen The Light and agree with your platform, but if they vote for Candidate D or R it's because they've been flummoxed by devious reporters and politicos. Right? Right. . .
Who knows? Look, if you agree with the Republican or Democrat platforms,* then you should be voting for them.

The minds and hearts I'm after are the "wasted vote" and "hold my nose and vote for one of the Usual" folks. First off, it is never a "waste" to vote for the candidate who comes closest to sharing your own views. Even if he loses, your voice was heard. The candidates who didn't share your views didn't get your vote. Second, "holding your nose" doesn't work. Case in point, one of my Senators is an anti-gun Republican. The slimy sonuva----- takes gunnies' votes for granted, but there's no way he'll be getting mine. And the Usual Opposition runs people who are even worse. So if I'm gonna vote at all in that race, it'll have to be for somebody from the other parties.

See the light, douse the light, suit yourself about the light. There's people votin' Communist with light hearts and clear consciences, and they find their reasons for so doing sensible, logical and compelling. I think they're wickedly loopy. But at least they're standing up for what they believe. That's better than voting for one of the Parties of Treason just because everybody else will. (C'mon, this is not horse racing. You don't get any prize for backing the winner, except maybe gloating rights. Can't eat gloating rights).

Waitone writes, after suggesting the Libertarian Party is unrealistic: That make me look for the candidate, any candidate, who does the least damage to life, liberty, and property over the longest period of time.
And was it Jefferson or Franklin who wrote, "That government which governs best, governs least." Either way, emprical data bears the old saw out. Which means you might want to consider voting for the party of least government: the Libertarians.

Look, even if the LP gets in, they will not achieve all their goals, and will make very little progress quickly at the parts that seem to scare folks the most. If you really don't trust your neighbors not to riot in the streets once they can buy pot or firearms or alcohol or quack medicine without Government Intervention, why are you living next door to 'em? If you really think it is a good idea to bribe the poor and elderly with transfer payments, why aren't you voting Socialist? If you really think fiat money that can be "created" at will is a good idea, look to 1930s Germany or the former Soviet Union, and see how poorly it fares. (The Americanism "Not worth a Continental," entered our national speech thanks to an early flirtation with paper money. We juggle it better now -- but for how long?).

But enough! I don't want to belabor the already-decided. Vote your thoughts. Vote your heartfelt beliefs. Don't be stampeded. I don't care what you vote for, just as long as you've thought it through first. Please!

--Herself

(And get that tar, feathers and rail outta here! Sheesh!):what:

_____________________________________
* As near as I can figure out, respectively these are, "All people are evil and must be restrained by government force," and, "All people are helpless and must be protected by government force." Sounds like they think we're children and criminals. I don't accept that.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Sorry but I think you all are just making excuses. If the people wanted libertarian agenda politicians would offer it. What do you mean teens don't drive clothing and music styles? They decide what they will buy and the marketplace provides what the consumers want. Politics is a marketplace too. And what evidence is there that 30-40% of the voting public supports libertarian policies? If that were the case republicans and democrats would be espousing these ideas.I have a simple proof for you that will demonstrate without a doubt that you are wrong on that point. Here it is: What percentage of Americans thinks that immigration is out of control and needs to be sharply curtailed? What percentage do you think would like to station National Guard troops, if necessary (or even build a series of forts along the southern boarder), to prevent illegal aliens from pouring into our country? What percentage do you think are opposed to sending billions of dollars of US tax revenues to other nations across the globe? That's just a sampling. Now, why don't we have a government chock full of politicians who reflect America's desires in those areas? You are deceived as can be if you really think that it is the desires of the American people that determines the direction this country takes or the efforts of our elected representatives in the Federal Government.

[sumpnz]

I registered Democrat when I turned 18, and still haven't changed that. However I'm seriously thinking of changing it to independant as none of the parties really suit my way of thinking all that well. Some Democrat, some Republican, and some Libertarian views fit me, but not most, let alone all of any of them do so.

I think I'm more of a Zell Miller type of Democrat than anything though.

[Treylis]

You call me naive, but you're the ones who think that a large number of American voters will support a party whose platform includes legalization of all drugs, elimination of all welfare, the repeal of anti trust laws and abolition of the EPA among other things.

We're either going to do those things through political means, or they're going to be done through economic means--as both the Democrats and the Republicans watch the whole thing crash down by failing to learn that you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

[dischord]

Foreign Devil: If they vote for the LP candidate presumably it's because they've Seen The Light and agree with your platform, but if they vote for Candidate D or R it's because they've been flummoxed by devious reporters and politicos. Right? Right. No, the LP simpy would have the same access to marketing/propaganda that the Ds and Rs now have. It works the same no matter who's advertising.
(But nice try at a straw man argument.)

Frankly, as a libertarian, I cannot bring myself to get too upset at the unfairness of the D/R monopoly(*) on media/debate access. However, it exists, and it is willfully ignorant to dismiss the effects.

Yes, maybe the voters would reject the LP positions -- but first the voters need to know about them (and, yes, there are other means to that, and the LP has failed to use them effectively).

(*)I suppose it's more of a "bi-opoly."

[Foreign Devil]

Straw man? This is what I was talking about:

>The candidates and their big parties are sold like soda pop or candy, with quick, easy slogans and attention-getting visuals in 30-second snippets<

And

>The long-established parties have enormous vested interest in Things As They Are. If you want change for the better instead of just a few shallow sideshow distractions, you need to stop voting for the Ass and Elephant brands.<

and

>Point is, the managed media has an interest in keeping the status quo and the public stupid about us. They don't want somebody in a place of authority who isn't in their pocket.<

What that means to me is: the democrats and republicans are being fooled by "sideshow distractions" and shallow slogans. By implication the enlightened libertarian comes to his beliefs by deep, intellectual discussion. Not only that but the media are squelching dissent to preserve the status quo.

As for the second point: do you really expect the major media to devote a great deal of attention to tiny, politically insignificant groups? The paltry attention the libertarians get (and greens, and communists, etc get) reflects their limited appeal and their lack of political influence. Really, who's the "sideshow" here? Ed Thompson didn't seem to suffer for lack of attention. His great accomplishment was to hand the election to the democrat.

And if you think that the LP platform has any chance of becoming policy then you're more than a little detached from political reality. I say go ahead let the libertarians in on the all debates, put 'em on CNN, get their message out there. Give them all the attention they can handle.

[dischord]

Straw man? This is what I was talking about: You quote things I never said. Forgive me for thinking your referencing my "naive" statement meant you were directing your comments at me. Apparently, you referenced my statement in order to comment on other people’s statements that you left unmentioned until now (which is rather odd and confusing, but c’est la vie).

In any event:

** The fact remains that the LP is locked out of the media and debates, which negatively affects the LP's chances to participate in political propaganda.

** The fact remains that it is naive to believe the voters drive the D/R positions rather than vice versa.

** The fact remains that it is willfully ignorant to dismiss the idea that the Ds/Rs drive voters' desires just like music/clothing companies drive teens' desires.

[dischord]

And if you think that the LP platform has any chance of becoming policy then you're more than a little detached from political reality. Funny thing: I agree 100%. Given political reality, the LP has zero chance of enacting its policy.

The political reality is that the LP does not control the propaganda.

The only way that we libertarians will win is if we do the same thing that American socialists did in the 20th Century -- slowly take over points of meme-insertion (schools, universities, churches, media and other propaganda outlets).

Whoever controls the propaganda, drives what voters want.

Find the most absurd, laughable alien conspiracy theory out on the internet, and if you control the propaganda, you can get a majority of people to embrace it and insist that the politicians make it issue # 1.

P.S. I'm not using propaganda as a pejorative word. Propaganda, like a gun, is nothing but a neutral tool. The good or evil comes from the person using it.

[Herself]

All media information is "propaganda." Someone has to gather the information, write the news story, and present it, and at no point in the process do we have soulless, unemotional robots with no axes to grind. The mere act of working out which stories go on Page One or at the top of newscast, what gets buried in the "other news" section, and what doesn't make it to press or air at all imposes the editor's viewpoint on the reader.

However, I think we might want to declare impasse on the cause and meaning of the Great Media Lockout of Small Parties. It's a chicken-and-egg thing and most folks here are not old enough to remember one of the few possible parallels, when the big brands and "big box" stores drove out the local brands and the Mom & Pop stores. That was a combination of factors: more selection, more advertising money, more clout with wholesalers, and quality both real and perceived. At any rate, the major parties pulled it off very long before OfficeMax and Wal-Mart, before Coke/Pepsi brought RC to its knees.

Personally, I miss the Whigs, who at least proffered a sound monetary policy. But they're not comin' back. And the Whig/Republican dos-a-do offers hope to any third party: when the messages of the Big Two lose relevance, it leaves a gap.

The United States was not founded upon, nor does it rely on, the two-party system. There is nothing sacred about it. It's just the way things worked out. It can change, and it has changed. Third parties have made impressive runs for the Executive office at least twice, one of the older parties went belly-up and a new one took its place. Things will change again: change is the only constant.

--Herself

(Sure it's a tinfoil hat -- but it's a stylish tinfoil hat.)

[Sylvilagus Aquaticus]

i used to be affiliated with the party of Pat Paulsen, the Stag Party, but it went away when he died some years back.

I identify with Ron Paul libertarianism, but this year, like in the last general election I will vote a straight Republican ticket because the Republicans will do me the least damage of the two parties who have a chance of winning. I make more money now than I did in the past. I like tax cuts, not tax increases. I like keeping the money I make. I voted for Alan Keyes in the primaries 4 years ago.

My Senators are John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and I like the job they do. Both are Republicans, BTW.

My US Representative district is up for grabs this year because of redistricting, between Martin Frost, (D) who has a poor record as far as I'm concerned, and Pete Sessions (R) who I have met and has done a fine job for my district.

Maybe in 4 more years I'll consider pulling the lever for a Libertarian, but there is too much on the line for me to do so this year.

Regards,
Rabbit.

[Foreign Devil]

You're right dischord you didn't write those things. I need to slow down and read a little.

"Stag party"? Is that a joke?

[dischord]

You're right dischord you didn't write those things. I need to slow down and read a little. You had my respect before. Now, you went up a notch. :)

[Treylis]

i used to be affiliated with the party of Pat Paulsen, the Stag Party, but it went away when he died some years back.

Heh, my dad voted for Pat Paulsen for years.

[Joey2]

I used to be a Republican until I woke up and smelled the coffee. I do not belong to any party, but the Constitution party does look good.

I can not compramize my beliefs on abortion, sodomy, nation building etc.

I refuse to believe that we have to vote the lesser of the evils.

[Herself]

...Okay, this is a whole other rant, but the usual defintion of "sodomy" on the statute books would put a whole lot of married heterosexual people in jail. And enforcing it would require wholesale violation of the Fourth Amendment. ...Now, laws that are unconstitutional, saith the Supreme Court since back when the Whigs did make a showing in the polls, have no force from the day they are enacted; and I think you can see where I'm going here.

Don't like that reasoning? A pity, as it means if we ever get a definitive, gun-friendly ruling from the Nine Old People In Black Robes, we can pitch all those silly yellow forms and CCW permits in the trash where they belong.

Thing is, you can't have it both ways -- either all the enumerated rights are off-limits to the Gummint, or none of 'em are. The right to keep and bear arms is in there part and parcel with the right to buy and read steamy novels and/or look to Mary Baker Eddy for spritual guidance and the right to not have your lodgings tossed by the Government looking for evidence of guns, John Norman Harlequin romances* or Christian Science.

As for private behavior and operating definitions of what is and ain't "moral," that seems to be better left to the churches and temples, the philosophers, and the wonderful force known as "peer pressure." Ya can't reform the world by main force, but if you leave it be, it sorts itself out pretty well, into neighborhoods and districts for saints, sinners, and the just-gettin'-by rest of us.

Long rant, sorry. By all means, vote your beliefs. I'll be votin' mine and we do need somebody to keep the lid on wild-eyed anarchists like me!

--Herself

_________________
* gak. One shudders to think.

[Treylis]

I can not compramize my beliefs on abortion, sodomy, nation building etc.

Just to note--there are many Libertarians who believe that abortion is wrong, but that government attempting to restrict it would do more harm than good. Our last candidate for President--Harry Browne--was actually one of those people. I'm not sure what Badnarik's position is, but I'm sure it can be looked up easily.

As to "sodomy", what do you care what consenting adults do?

[DTLoken]

As to "sodomy", what do you care what consenting adults do?

The bible says it's bad. Really it's bigotry under the guise of religion.

[fjolnirsson]

I have many things I could say about many religions, none of them particularly nice, and all of them coming from "holy" books. However, on THR, I beleive we are forbidden from religious discussions. Let's not let this thread get hijacked, folks. If we keep it where it belongs, the mods won't close it.
Just a friendly reminder.
YMMV

[Iain]

YMMV

Mine doesn't. Let's keep on topic, this is a great thread and an outstanding example of THR members at their best. I'm learning a great deal and may post later if we can extend this to all political parties so as to include my democracy to some extent.

Carry on.

[Kes]

Heh - I think I'm the only registered Green to post anything on this thread so far.


Basically, I'm a strong social libertarian, but I think that there are some programs which are necessary for us to maintain our standing as a world power (a public school system, minimal availability of medical assistance, certain environmental protections, and so forth).


In terms of voting for a third party, I pretty much always vote Libertarian or Green for Congressional and state elections, as well as in Presidential races where it won't be a close race or where there's a concern that the 3rd party might not make it onto the ballot next election.

Personally, though... I think that politicial activism (writing to politicians, volunteering for political causes, etc.) does more to impact the current political discussions than my vote does.

[The Real Hawkeye]

Just to note--there are many Libertarians who believe that abortion is wrong, but that government attempting to restrict it would do more harm than good. Our last candidate for President--Harry Browne--was actually one of those people. I'm not sure what Badnarik's position is, but I'm sure it can be looked up easily.

As to "sodomy", what do you care what consenting adults do?The Libertarian perspective on these issues is that the Federal Government is not authorized by the US Constitution to make any laws at all touching on either abortion or sodomy. Criminal laws relating to conduct are things which are reserved to the states. States are not limited (except in a very few instances such as they may not have their own foreign policy, nor may they coin money, etc.) by the US Constitution, so they are free to have laws against sodomy or abotion, if that is the will of the majority. A libertarian, however, living is such a state, is free to vote for politicians who will reverse such laws. A libertarian living in such a state is also free to lobby for an amendment to his state's constitution which would establish that sodomy or abortion is a right held by the people of that state, if that is his belief. Failing that, a Libertarian living is such a state is free to move to a state which is more in tune with his beliefs about personal liberty. See how it works? Everything is done under law. The rule of law is the important thing to a Libertarian. That's because a Libertarian knows that liberty cannot be preserved, nor propagated, without the rule of law. Once the rule of law is properly in place, they operate under law to change the laws of their states so as to better preserve and respect individual liberty. We do not attempt to circumvent the law, as the US Supreme Court has done by abusing their positions so as to unconstitutionally force all the states to outlaw abortion. A Libertarian would not approve of such a tactic, as we are firmly persuaded that liberty cannot long endure unless it is under the rule of law.

[The Real Hawkeye]

According to the above poll, Republicans and Democrats (combined, as I see them as almost identical anyway) appear to be a rather small and insignificant minority among THR members. This is encouraging. There is hope for a return to ordered liberty under the Constitution.

[Herself]

...It's also worth pointing out that the various and sundry States (Commonwealths, etc.) that make up the Federal Union of the United States of America each have their own Constitutions, which set their own limits upon the governments of those respective States; this in turn prevents (within those varying limits) individual states from imposing a "tyranny of the majority" based on simple democracy. So there are some limits upon what a State may do and the sorts of laws it may enact besides the Federal ones. ...Heck, in my State, all adults between voting ages and retirement are defined as "members of the Militia!" How's that for an end-run on the wording of the venerable Second?

Other "democracies" (I had no idea, I thought the United Kingdom was a parliamentary monarchy!) have their own parties and their own issues. It's often quite interesting to learn what issues the various sides choose outside one's own country, and what the party names denote. I never have entirely firgured out just how to sort out the UK's Liberal, Labour and Conservative parties; outside the US, "Liberal" can mean "One who favors little or no restriction on business!"

I just hope to see folks out there voting. All too often, elections are decided by a shocking minorty of eligible voters, even if they are a majority of the ones who actually voted. That suggests to me there are either too few options, or a perception of too few. Possibly both.

--Herself
_______________________________
Help make the planet safer: donate pastel paint to your local helicopter repair shop! Let's eliminate black helicopters!

[fix]

According to the above poll, Republicans and Democrats (combined, as I see them as almost identical anyway) appear to be a rather small and insignificant minority among THR members.

:confused:

[The Real Hawkeye]

Fix, I am being a little tongue in cheek there. However, it is true that both Republicrats and Demlicans combined make only about 40% of the total. If you combine the Libertarians/Constitutionalists and non-affiliated, they are about neck and neck with the Republicrats/Demlicans combined. It is these non-affiliated that we libertarians seek to persuade.

[fix]

We? I'm trying to persuade all you libertarians to come help me persuade the Republican Party. :D

[The Real Hawkeye]

Well, when the Republican Party big wigs begin to realize that they are losing elections because of votes going to the Libertarian Party, they may actually start supporting more conservative/libertarian Republicans (i.e., Ron Paul types), and stop giving you only Neo-Cons like Bush to vote for.

[sturmruger]

I have always been a Republican. Every year I seem to go a little further to the right. I have a hard time identifying with the RNC sometimes, but in this case it is the lesser of to evils. I look forward to the day when we have a four party system. It will consist of the hard right, right, left and the hard left. The problem is if we keep doing a three party system whoever is the 3rd canidate will be stealing votes from whatever canidates belief he is closest to. Example would be Jesse Ventura or Ross Perot in 92'.

[Herself]

...Aw, shucks, Stormruger: that's just one axis. In addition to right/left there's an up/down, with "Authoritarian" at one end and "Libertarian" at the other.

Left/Authoritarian is Communism
Right/Authoritarian is Fascism
Right/Libertarian? Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater, shading off to Lew Rockwell and Co.
Left/Libertarian? ...There have to be some. Well, "Reason" magazine gets a bit lefty at times, but folks will have to pick their own examples.

Me, I usually end up as Center/way, way, way far Libertarian, with the Anarchocapitalists. I don't give a fig for government redistribution of wealth or government involvement in the private acts of consenting adults. If folks aren't free to stave to death in ditches, tattooed, kinky and addicted to dope, they aren't free to choose not to, either. (Yes, I did wear my seat belt a lot more often before they made it the law).

At present, I see the Democrats and Republicans as both being about 1/3 out from center towards "Authoritarian," with the Demos farthest out on most things.

--Herself

[The Real Hawkeye]

The original definition of right wing, before the Leftist identified it with Hitler, was the belief that government should not attempt to do things which can be done by the private sector, as government solutions tend to create problems of their own. It also referred to the belief that government should not be an engine of social change, i.e., that social change should be gradual, if at all, over many generations, and self-directed. The Left/Right political dichotomy was first used in France shortly after their revolution. The people with Right views literally sat on the right side of the Congress and the people with Left views actually sat on the left, so they began to identify people's views with whether they agreed with the party that sat on the right or the left, i.e., right wing of the building or left wing of the building. Interesting, yes?

[Herself]

Ah, but you left out the Montagnards and Thermidorians! Also the various other splits -- Jacobins, Girondists, Feuillants, even Monarchists.... And that the French Revolution was a bloody failure, jailing old Tom Paine and leading to the "Man on Horseback." Some model for our terminology! (The first group cited, and among the most radical element of the National Assembly, was also named for where they sat: "on the mountain," way high up in the back of the hall. Isn't that where the hoods and furtive makers-out sit?)

In many ways, the Second Amendment is our answer to would-be Napoleons.

There is really only one political division that I fret much over, and that is if a politician wants to mind my business or leave me alone. I favor the latter. YM, as they say, MV.

--Herself

[The Real Hawkeye]

Herself, you are quite the scholar, it seems.

[Herself]

Oh, Hawkeye -- I'll bet you say that to all the girls!

Sadly, I still cannot spell any better than the typical sixth-grader. (And the neighbors are startin' to talk about my tinfoil hair-ribbon).

--H

[The Real Hawkeye]

Oh, Hawkeye -- I'll bet you say that to all the girls!

Sadly, I still cannot spell any better than the typical sixth-grader. (And the neighbors are startin' to talk about my tinfoil hair-ribbon).Wow, and a sense of humor too!

I am not the best speller either, but I am a whole lot better than I was when I graduated High School. It was an interest in writing that finally caused the improvement. If you make correct spelling a priority, you will become an adequate speller. Eventually, it becomes intuative, or is that intuitive, LOL.