I want to be a Libertarian, but...

[priv8ter]

Being bored at work, I found a website that has a collection of Essay's by L. Neil Smith http://keithlynch.net/lns/ and I have been working my way through them.

Seems like a very pro-gun person(and I may just be understating things a bit). And it seems he was very proactive in the Libertarian Party at one point. Which has caused me to think about the L.P.

The last two years, if there was a LP candidate for a position, I voted for them. But...I haven't been faced with a Presidential Candidate yet. Truth be told, I think in this situation, I'm still voting for Bush. I need to see a LP candidate win an office first, AND vote the right way, before I use my vote to 'send a message' to the Republicans in the Presidental Election.

Plus, I'm not sure I'm cut out to be a Libertarian. I'm all for most of their policies. Wanna do away with half the Federal Government? Okay. Wanna sell drugs and porn on the street corner? Sure. No gun laws? Well duh. Increased personal responsibility? Heck Yeah!

Practice a policy of non-agression? Ummm...come again on that one? I have a problem with this one. I just don't see isolationism as a viable International Foreign Policy. I think it is better to fight 'over there' then 'over here'. I am okay that we went into Iraq and Afgahnistan(I wish we weren't still there, but...)

Does anyone else feel that burying your head in the sand is no way to solve a problem either?

greg

 

[dischord]

If Kerry is far ahead in Washington State in November, and Bush has no chance of catching him, you'll be wasting your vote on a lesser-of-two-evils Bush vote when you could be using it properly -- voting you conscience.

If Bush is far ahead in Washington State in November, and Kerry has no chance of catching him, you'll be wasting your vote on a lesser-of-two-evils Bush vote when you could be using it properly -- voting you conscience.

Remember, the argument of "if you vote LP, you'll help Kerry" applies only in a small minority of states (under 10). It's an utterly bogus argument in the vast majority of states.



BTW, plenty of LP candidates have won office and voted the right way.

Practice a policy of non-agression? Ummm...come again on that one?

And, yet, you'll vote GOP without agreeing with all of their policies. Why the different standard?

 

[TallPine]

Does anyone else feel that burying your head in the sand is no way to solve a problem either?

There is a heck of a lot of difference between burying your head in the sand and going around meddling in everyone else's business. The latter will cause everyone grief and eventually get you into trouble, whether as an individual or a nation.

Why should a nation be any different than an individual when it comes to aggression? Do you think you can get away with busting into your neighbor's house and shooting him just because you think he has a weapon and might be dangerous to you? You can't (legally) and the govt shouldn't either, whether it is Waco or Iraq.

 

[priv8ter]

Now see

Why' you have to turn things around on me like that? Making me think at 5 in the morning.

If Kerry is far ahead in Washington State in November, and Bush has no chance of catching him, you'll be wasting your vote on a lesser-of-two-evils Bush vote when you could be using it properly -- voting you conscience.

Unfortunately, this one is probably closer to the truth

greg

 

[flatrock]

But is there a LP candidate who isn't an isolationist?

I agree with Libertarians on a lot of issues. However, I tend to disagree with their candidates on many important issues as well.

Does that mean I'm voting for the lesser of thre evils?

 

[RealGun]

Wanna sell drugs and porn on the street corner? Sure.

Please consider that society is a grand commune that should be providing a proper place to rear children. There need to be restraints with that purpose in mind. That's my opinion anyway. Maintaining freedom of choice by adults while allowing parental controls without retreating into home confinement or private communes is a fair compromise.

If Bush is far ahead in Washington State in November, and Kerry has no chance of catching him, you'll be wasting your vote on a lesser-of-two-evils Bush vote when you could be using it properly -- voting you conscience.

I don't think this position is as dignified as it may appear on the surface. My problem with LP voters is that they sound like they want to vote LP no matter what. Never mind that the candidate is as yet unspecified and whether or not the person will be a known quantity and well qualified. It's a fact that elected officials do not always honor their party platforms. These people need to be evaluated on personal merits. I would be more inclined to vote for a former Governor, Senator, or Vice President any day, not some ideologue from nowhere. I am most inclined to vote for an incumbent, when 4 more years does not strike me as a repugnant idea or when likely alternatives seem worse. I hate seeing two years wasted in setting up a new administration. In any case, I only choose among the more conservatives.

 

[Ktulu]

Does that mean I'm voting for the lesser of three evils?

Yes.

 

[dischord]

Never mind that the candidate is as yet unspecified and whether or not the person will be a known quantity and well qualified. It's a fact that elected officials do not always honor their party platforms. These people need to be evaluated on personal merits. I would be more inclined to vote for a former Governor, Senator, or Vice President any day

Yeah, because presidents rarely diverge from their policies in lesser offices.

but

 

[Mulliga]

Well, I live in Florida, so Bush it'll be.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, in my mind, the Libertarian party is standing by their principles admirably; but I don't know that it is helping them advance their goals much.

I don't think it is an auspicious sign that the only way a former Libertarian presidential candidate could get to DC as an officeholder was to run for a Texas Congressional district as a Republican.

 

[Thumper]

Exactly, Black Bart...and Mr. Paul has done an admirable job. His effectiveness with an (R) after his name has been much more pronounced than it was with an (L).

 

[dischord]

Exactly, Black Bart...and Mr. Paul has done an admirable job. His effectiveness with an (R) after his name has been much more pronounced than it was with an (L).

Paul is a RINO -- but the good kind of RINO, not the bad kind like McCain.

Paul is the exception that proves a number of rules, including the one that the GOP cannot be changed from within.

 

[BigG]

Politics is the art of the POSSIBLE. And all the high-flown rhetoric about honor and honesty and leaving people alone ain't going to cut the mustard. There are 300 million Americans to please and the L/ls can't even please the 100 or so card carrying members and the two or three that lurk on THR. Gotta get in bed with one side or the other, like Ron Paul did.

 

[dischord]

Oh, good, our resident Troll has shown up, like clockwork.

 

[Selfdfenz]

"Wanna sell drugs and porn on the street corner? Sure."

If that is a L/l prime directive, kiss the party good bye on the national level. Never happen. That thinking will scare the socks off enough voters to keep L candidates at the state and local level only.

Big G - could't have said it better myself.

S-

 

[ninenot]

As you reflect more seriously on the Lib Party's positions, you will find that the real moniker should be "Libertine" or "Licentious" Party.

While much of their philosophy is appealing, they simply wish to ignore what's referred to as "the common good." Prostitution, porn-selling, and 'legal' drug-dealing are simply not oriented toward 'the common good.' If you think they are, think about those positions and how they may affect your children...

Look harder at the Constitution Party if you seek an alternative which has the Judaeo-Christian tradition's values AND a smaller Gummint.

Or, if it seems necessary, vote Bush. In most Presidential elections, the polls are pretty good just before the election--in your State, it may be clear that Bush or Kerry is ahead by a wide margin. In THAT case, vote Constitution Party.

If it's too close to call, you gotta go GWB, holding your nose.

 

[mvpel]

Moral busybodies

While much of their philosophy is appealing, they simply wish to ignore what's referred to as "the common good." Prostitution, porn-selling, and 'legal' drug-dealing are simply not oriented toward 'the common good.' If you think they are, think about those positions and how they may affect your children...

So you think that the government should take responsibility for sheltering your children from ideas and images you find distasteful, instead of you, as their parent?

What is ominous is the ease with which people go from saying that they don't like something to saying that the government should forbid it. ~ Thomas Sowell

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. --C.S. Lewis

 

[RealGun]

Yeah, because presidents rarely diverge from their policies in lesser offices.

Sarcasm aside, I think that is a valid point. What do we ever really know about a candidate, and is the candidate accountable to impressions made upon or promises made to the voter? I think we play the apparent odds, don't we? Voting for anyone is often a fantasy. Voting for a rogue ideologue is definitely a fantasy, but it's a start. I depends upon where you think you should "start"...high or low. It's hard to put a peak on a pyramid without the foundation under it.

Oh, good, our resident Troll has shown up, like clockwork.

I don't believe one should make this comment lightly. Unless painfully obvious, that judgment should be left to moderators. Otherwise it is uncivil in my opinion...too often used to cheaply discredit a disagreeable position. It is pure name calling. You have the option of reporting a post to a moderator.

 

[dischord]

Voting for a rogue ideologue is definitely a fantasy, but it's a start. I depends upon where you think you should "start"...high or low. It's hard to put a peak on a pyramid without the foundation under it.

Hey, I disagree with the Dems more than I disagree with the GOP. Yeah, the GOP -- in my view -- is the lesser of two evils. That's why I don't totally discredit the view that "an LP vote is a vote for Kerry" -- that argument does have some merit in a few states (like Florida as Mulliga pointed out). But most states are out-of-play, and in them, the argument does not have any merit whatsoever.

Part of the foundation you are speaking of is better national recognition. A big start would be to overcome the bar against LP candidates participating in the presidential debates. If enough LP-leaning Republicans in out-of-play states were to vote LP, then it would be possible to get the LP into the debates.

Yes, the LP would little chance to win the presidency that year. But the exposure would reverberate into getting lower level LP candidates elected (more of your foundation).

It sucks for the LP, but in the presidential election, our reality is that we currently are voting to get exposure, not to get elected. That’s why we need LP-leaning Republicans in out-of-play states to overcome their utterly illogical fears that “an LP vote is a vote for Kerry.â€

I don't believe one should make this comment lightly. Unless painfully obvious, that judgment should be left to moderators. Otherwise it is uncivil in my opinion...too often used to cheaply discredit a disagreeable position. It is pure name calling. You have the option of reporting a post to a moderator.

I'm not using it lightly. It is based on a painfully-obvious pattern from previous threads. You'll note that it is directed at only one person and that I am respectfully answering the opposing views of other posters.

In fact, if you think that the Troll has asked a valid question, please ask it of me. I'll answer you because I trust your intent. But I will not answer the Troll.

 

[BigG]

libertarian

How typical of you Dischord, to "take your ball home" than to give some reason why we should support a party that can't articulate quite how it would run things nor show a plan how it would get elected in the first place. Between you and your two other friends that beat the L/l drum, to convince people for the need to change you have show some hope of success, not demean them by shrugging and saying in effect 'they don't get it."

I actually have a lot in common with the general idea of smaller less intrusive govt but need convincing that your solution is the one I need.

__________________

I sent the above pm to Mr Discord who feels too highly principled to debate on the sacred cow of L/libertarianism. Judge for yourself whether I am a troll or an interested person who needs convincing.

 

[dischord]

RealGun : See what I mean? In a thread where I'm discussing libertarianism, the Troll accusses me of just the opposite. As I've already said, you ask me a question, and I'll answer it.

Moderators: I'm aware that this snit is taking the thread off course, and I'm shutting up about it. Please don't let this close the thread

priv8ter: Sorry for the distraction from your valid questions/concerns.

 

[BigG]

I see above you expounding a strategy to get votes for libertarians. But, I'm still waiting for you to tell me WHY I should vote Libertarian, not be accused of being a troll for asking a question. Not everyone can understand the principles for which they (libertarians) stand, Dischord.

 

[Zak Smith]

Practice a policy of non-agression? Ummm...come again on that one? I have a problem with this one. I just don't see isolationism as a viable International Foreign Policy. I think it is better to fight 'over there' then 'over here'. I am okay that we went into Iraq and Afgahnistan(I wish we weren't still there, but...)

Does anyone else feel that burying your head in the sand is no way to solve a problem either?

The Non-Aggression Principle says that you cannot initiate force, but that force is fine to use in defense. It needn't mean you "bury your head in the sand", just that you can only use force in defense when an enemy has the opportunity, means, and intent to do you harm. GW1 and by extension GW2 were justified because the US military (and others) were acting in defense of Kuwait, at its request. A right to self-defense can be delegated. If my home is being invaded, I can yell out for the help of my neighbor and he is justified under the NAP to use force to help defend my house.


-z

 

[priv8ter]

Good one!!!

Well, Tallpine, you almost had me with this one:

Why should a nation be any different than an individual when it comes to aggression? Do you think you can get away with busting into your neighbor's house and shooting him just because you think he has a weapon and might be dangerous to you? You can't (legally) and the govt shouldn't either, whether it is Waco or Iraq.

But then, I got to thinking:

Let's say this neighbor has his guns. And in the past, he has sat up in his second floor window, and has shot kids in the street as they ride by on their bikes. Now, I have reason to believe that he might climb into his Buick Roadmaster(appologies to all Buick owners) and start driving up and down the street to mow kids down.

Given these past demonstrated behaivors, don't I have the personal responsibilty to step in and use force to stop this? Despite what the people who live in other neighborhoods might think? I think I do. We might just have a fundamental difference in how we see things there.

Please consider that society is a grand commune that should be providing a proper place to rear children

I am going to have to, respectfully, disagree. Your household is the only place to properly rear children. I kind of have to take the same view with the 'common good' argument. And as for the 'Judaeo-Christian tradition's' point of view...not being a religous type...I'm going to pass on this one, but I will acknowlege that our Founding Fathers WERE of this background, so they probably wouldn't like to see Playboy sold in Elementary School playgrounds.

But...when I was in the Navy, stationed in the 'Constitution State'(high irony indeed) all I know is that if I was going off duty on Sunday morning, and I wanted stop at 7-11 for beer and...'other things' I couldn't. It wasn't legal. Now...if people with morals different than I want to stand outside and protest at 7am on Sunday morning, fine. But such things should NOT be illegal.

Whew. I guess that's enough for now. Hopefully this thread is still around when I check back later.

greg

 

[dischord]

GW1 and by extension GW2 were justified because the US military (and others) were acting in defense of Kuwait, at its request.

Hmm? I've never heard that argument before. Interesting. I'm not sure I buy it, but interesting. Certainly, Saddam was not adhering to his (ahem) "contract" to allow inspections. Is it a violation of the NAP to use force to enforce a contract?


For priv&ter: In any event, the LP philosphy suffers from numerous misunderstandings.

For example, you'll find people who say the NAP is an unworkable philosphy because "how can I trust that the other guy will obey the NAP too?" The problem is that few philosophies can pass that test -- the Judeo-Christian philosophy's Golden Rule certainly cannot pass it.

Or you'll hear people claim that those "libertine" and "licentious" libertarians want to allow drugs, prostitution and porn. Not exactly. We just see controlling those things as unworkable as controlling alcohol or guns.

You'll even hear that the LP wants to get rid of the military (utterly false) or wants to totally eliminate taxes (also utterly false).