Frustration with the Texas Libertarian Party

[Kowboy]

GlockGlocker:

Yeah, those "outrageous and extremist" Libertarians. Look at their party platform on guns:

I.6 The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The Issue: Governments at all levels often violate their citizens’ right of self defense with laws that restrict, limit or outright prohibit the ownership and use of firearms. These “gun control” laws are often justified by the mistaken premise that they will lead to a reduction in the level of violence in our society.

The Principle: The Bill of Rights recognizes that an armed citizenry is essential to a free society. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms.

Solutions: We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, regulating or requiring the ownership, manufacture, transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition. We oppose all laws requiring registration of firearms or ammunition. We support repeal of all gun control laws. We demand the immediate abolition of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

Transition: We oppose any government efforts to ban or restrict the use of tear gas, "mace" or other self-protection devices. We further oppose all attempts to ban weapons or ammunition on the grounds that they are risky or unsafe. We favor the repeal of laws banning the concealment of weapons or prohibiting pocket weapons. We also oppose the banning of inexpensive handguns ("Saturday night specials") and semi-automatic or so-called assault weapons and their magazines or feeding devices.

Clearly, nut-balls. The whole bunch of 'em.

Kowboy

P.S.
More outrage here:

http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml

 

[Glock Glockler]

Kowboy, please don't presume to tell me about Libertarians, I was a member of the party for several years and know QUITE a few Libertarians.

What have they accompished in the 30+ years they've been around?

I've been in countless debates with people who are so obcessed with libertarian/randian/anarchist that they loose all reason, for example, I was trying to convince a LP county organization of the need for stringent proof of identity when voting. This was due to widespread voter fraud in NH in the 2004 election, we had people (Democrats) voting multiple times and even people from out of state voting here multiple times in different wards.

Despite this swing in our election I could not get a single person in the room to agree with me that we need checks to make voter fraud more difficult but all I got was frustration: they all throught that ZERO proof should be required, that they should simply be able to state that they lived in the ward and be able to vote.

From lunacy like that to having zero taxes, to having zero checks on immigration, for it to be illegal for parents to bring their children to church if the children didnt want to go, to privatizing the legal system, and all other sorts of idiocy right NOW. The idea of decreasing government in stages was an abomination, there is only 100% immediately.

There have been Libertarians that I have the highest respect for and are very logical and realistic people but most of the ones I've met are zealots who happen to have a slightly different religion.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Glockler, can you provide any proof or evidence of this “widespread voter fraud”? If not, I would strongly suspect that your local Libertarians simply didn’t believe there was an actual problem.

~G. Fink

 

[cropcirclewalker]

What have they accompished in the 30+ years they've been around?

Many of us Libertarians don't want to accomplish anything other than to undo what the main party has accomplished since their rise to power.

Mr. Glocker has opened the box.

Where to start.........Oh, how about at the beginning? No, let's just go back to, say...........

Honest Abe? Why is it they always call the biggest fattest guy in the class, "Tiny"?

How about FDR?

How could he not see that Socialist Security was just a big ponzi scheme?

Wait, he could.

Nope, Mr. Glocker, when you hold up what we libertarians have accomplished against what the major party has accomplished (or perpetrated?), well, I am just pretty darned proud of us.

If you are an authoritarian, then YMMV.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Many of us Libertarians don't want to accomplish anything other than to undo what the main party has accomplished since their rise to power.

Unfortunately, as you pointed out Libertarians haven't undone anything. I'll even go further and say that they aren't going to undo anything in the future, particularly with these types of candidates. You could give Ms. Serrano the funding of a major party and put a D or R behind her name; but she isn't going to get elected because she is woefully inexperienced and doesn't take the campaign seriously.

On a larger level, I think if the LP is going to tell people "You should risk having Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House in order to help change things in the long term." then the LP has an obligation to choose serious candidates and run a campaign like it was trying to win. In Texas, it clearly isn't doing that. Why should I give my vote to a candidate who has already given up?

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Put a D after Pelosi or an R after Spector and they will get elected. That is something of which I would not be particularly proud.

You show me a 20 something college babe who thinks maybe an agency should get shut down and hold her up against somebody who thinks we need a brand new agency called "homeland security" because

1) The Department of Defense name has already been used and is off in foreign lands making the world safe for Democracy and....

2) The Department of Fatherland Security name sounds too much like a totalatarianism term.

I will vote for the 20 something babe.

One can claim that it's good to do something, even if it's wrong but it is only a claim. A fallacious claim.

The founders invented a pretty darned good country and ever since our rulers have tried to improve on it.

And failed.

Actually they just claim to be trying to improve it. They know what they are really doing. It's just that the voters don't.

 

[Gordon Fink]

You could give Ms. Serrano the funding of a major party and put a D or R behind her name; but she isn’t going to get elected because she is woefully inexperienced and doesn’t take the campaign seriously.

Yes, she would get elected in many cases. In fact, if you could also change her gender to male and her name to Bush, you could get her elected President of the United States.

~G. Fink

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Put a D after Pelosi or an R after Spector and they will get elected. That is something of which I would not be particularly proud.

I don't recall anybody in this thread saying they were proud of it, so I don't know why you would even bother making the point. As for the rest of your post, what can I say? Since you apparently believe that the Texas Railroad Commission has some influence over the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and think it would be a good idea to abolish it, I am not sure what we have to discuss.

Yes, she would get elected in many cases.

So Gordon, you essentially believe that the majority of voters is undeducated, ignorant or apathetic enough that they would elect an unemployed, 20-something recent law school graduate who doesn't even know what the commission does? Did I summarize that correctly? And if you think that highly of the majority of voters, then what does it matter what third party is out there? How will they ever get elected if they have to depend on people that easily led?

I notice both of you are happy to talk about how bad the Democrats and Republicans are; even when nobody really disagrees with that. What you seem to miss is I am asking why isn't the LP able to point to how great its own candidates are? Don't you think that is a big part of the problem?

 

[auschip]

Yes, she would get elected in many cases. In fact, if you could also change her gender to male and her name to Bush, you could get her elected President of the United States.

Well, except you forgot the experience part, and the take the campaign seriously. I forget, are we on Bush is a diabolical genius, or Bush is a puppet for Rove. I never can remember which one i'm supposed to be supporting this week.

I ran into Badnarik at the last Austin gunshow. It was good to see my opinion of him hasn't changed since the last time I met him.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

I notice both of you are happy to talk about how bad the Democrats and Republicans are; even when nobody really disagrees with that. What you seem to miss is I am asking why isn't the LP able to point to how great its own candidates are? Don't you think that is a big part of the problem?

I, for myself, have tried to remain constructive, civil and on topic.

Somebody here has seen fit to drag Badnarik into the string, like as if, this college babe is his evil twin.

As I understand it, the thrust of this string was to try to understand how the LP could be so faulty and useless since they put up such disqualified or inexperienced candidates.

I have responded to your question by pointing out that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

You act like us LP types are responsible for poor leadership in the country because we should put up sane, responsible, dedicated people.

I say, "Like the main party?"

Who was that wack job representative from Ohio that got throwed out of congress? With the crazy hair.

How many LP guy have been ejected?

For every "crazy" LP guy you show me I can show you at least one crazy or crooked member of the main party.

Let me try to summarize.

If the libertarian party took control, they would vote most of the .gov out of a job.

Congress would return to it's first meeting in December (or whenever it was supposed to be like in the constitution). Atf and a majority of the alphabet agencies would get shut down.

Lots of us here who work for .gov and lots of us here who feed out of the .gov trough would not like to see that happen. We would have to get a productive job.

Consequentially, it must be clear to some of us that anybody that would try to get elected to a powerful job to essentially shed himself of that power is crazy.

Of course, LP must be marginalized.

 

[roo_ster]

Of course, LP must be marginalized.

The LP marginalizes itself and needs no help.

How many LP guy have been ejected?

You gotta be elected first, to be ejected...

It is too bad, really. I'd like a more COTUS-friendly party that put up a somewhat viable slate of candidates.

 

[Gordon Fink]

So Gordon, you essentially believe that the majority of voters is undeducated, ignorant or apathetic enough that they would elect an unemployed, 20-something recent law school graduate who doesn’t even know what the commission does? Did I summarize that correctly?

You did not summarize me correctly. I believe that the majority of voters will elect whomever has the right letter after his name.

~G. Fink

 

[cropcirclewalker]

+1 on a COTUS friendly party that could be elected.

You can have one but not both. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Well, except you forgot the experience part, and the take the campaign seriously.…

You’re partially right. I did overlook G. W. Bush’s minimal experience as governor of Texas, but as I recall, he was criticized for not taking the A.D. 2000 campaign very seriously. However, my comparison was still flawed and may be disregarded. Sorry.

~G. Fink

 

[Kowboy]

"Kowboy, please don't presume to tell me about Libertarians, I was a member of the party for several years and know QUITE a few Libertarians."

Glock:

I'm not presuming anything. I am offering the readers the opportunity to read the Libertarian Party's platform and let them decide for themselves if libertarians are "outrageous" or not.

Readers can weigh your experiences against the party's stated platform and form their own conclusions.

Glad I could help,

Kowboy

 

[Glock Glockler]

Glockler, can you provide any proof or evidence of this “widespread voter fraud”? If not, I would strongly suspect that your local Libertarians simply didn’t believe there was an actual problem

There have been many reports of fraud from many people, enough so that the the state legislature has opened an investigation on it and have had people testify. Not only did I witness acts of fraud but the state has seen enough of it to take action. Regardless of whether or not fraud has occured, having stupid laws that allow people to vote multiple times is very stupid and it's opening yourself up to be taken advantage of. Do you leave your door open and unlocked at night? I would hope that a party of reason would know a little better.

Nope, Mr. Glocker, when you hold up what we libertarians have accomplished against what the major party has accomplished (or perpetrated?), well, I am just pretty darned proud of us

What is the point of a political party? Hopefully it's to effect some type of change, I don't see the LP doing anything but wasting time and money. If they were actually getting people elected, or at least weilding power by being a potential spoiler for elections, I would still be a party member. Look how they been defined, go up to 100 people and ask them what comes to mind when they hear "Libertarian party". Go for it

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, if you are both happy with the Libertarian Party, it is certainly your money and vote to spend on those candidates.

I am not impressed with the Texas LP or its candidates.

As I understand it, the thrust of this string was to try to understand how the LP could be so faulty and useless since they put up such disqualified or inexperienced candidates.

I have responded to your question by pointing out that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Show me the D or R candidate who blows off the League of Women Voters during a campaign and when asked by the local paper what they will do when elected they answer that they aren't sure because they don't know what the position they are running for does.

This is a major difference. Those major party candidates who are not well-qualified, serious candidates are actually out there trying to win. They aren't treating the campaign as a big joke.

I don't care how great your ideology is or how much money you have for the campaign. You aren't going to win elections or be in a position to implement that platform if you can't get semi-qualified people who are capable of social interaction on some basic level.

Of course, LP must be marginalized.

The LP is marginalized. Or have you missed every election since 1972? Also, as others have noted above, the marginalization isn't coming from the major parties playing up the flaws in the LP. The marginalization is coming from the LP itself. Doubt this? Look at the news stories on the LP candidates. Badarnik is an excellent example. He couldn't have survived one tenth of the scrutiny directed at either Bush or Kerry; but he didn't have to because the LP had already marginalized itself to such a degree that nobody even bothered to take off the kid gloves. The only scrutiny of his past at all came from dissatisfied losers within the LP itself.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Mr. Roberts, yer a fine feller.

Thanks for letting me vote for who I want.

Many people who know me accuse me of being 20 years ahead of my time.

20 years from now I'll be in my mid 80s. Prolly dead by then but I know how it will turn out.

Youse guys will figger it out.

 

[Stauffenberg]

I myself am a former member of the Libertarian Party, have engaged in activism for libertarian causes, and voted Libertarian in the 2004 election.

I'm not a Libertarian anymore.

Basically because of the party, not its ideology. I'm all for the neurotic obsession with limited government. Frankly, that's a part of our national character I deeply miss. What happened to the days when we'd up the muskets over a minor tax? We're not as feisty as we used to be.

But the LP is, to put it simply, screwed up. They have zero political know-how, not the slightest idea how to run a campaign, and maybe 80% of libertarians I've known were more worried about proving they're smarter than you and enforcing party discipline than getting anyone elected. Watch a minarchist and a market anarchist argue sometime. It's like you've stepped back in time to the Stalin-Trotsky Schism ("You're an enemy of the people!" "No, you're an enemy of the people!"). Except replace "the people" with "the Principle of Noncoercion."