Is is time to join Libertarian Party?

[Zundfolge]

For better or worse, like it or not we live under a two party system.

Our best bet for moving this country back toward a Laizzes Faire, free market, libertarian Republic is to push one of the two major parties toward libertarianism.


That is the purpose of the Republican Liberty Caucus.

If you want to vote for Libertarians, you don't have to be a member of the party to do so, but in most states if you want to vote in the primaries and have some say in who the GOP puts on the ticket in the first place you'll need to remain a Republican (lately that's the only thing that keeps me in the GOP camp).

Now if you live someplace where the Republicans don't have a snowball's chance then go ahead and vote for Libertarians ... if 20% of the Mayors or School Board members or state legislators or Sheriffs where Libertarians, it would go a long way toward pushing the movement forward (and maybe even make its way into honest to God legislation occasionally).

But for the most part (and especially in National elections) we have three choices; Democrat, Republican, Start shooting.

I just don't believe its too late to take the GOP back toward "small 'l' libertarianism"...when it is too late then the first two choices on that list are eliminated.

 

[pcf]

"To attain all this, however, rivers of blood must yet flow, and years of desolation pass over; yet the object is worth rivers of blood, and years of desolation."
-Thomas Jefferson 1823, in a letter to John Adams

By voting for a non-Republican (anyone remember PEROT???) you will elect the Demogog of the week (like the First Philanderer William Jefferson Clinton or Clintoris, or whatever his despicable name is) (you know "is" you know what "is" is DON'T YOU?

Bill Clinton did not end the United States of America. Damaging? Yes. With the bad, comes knowledge and wisdom. Supporting a third party is great way to show discontent within the Democratic process. Ross Perot was and will continue to be a great "wakeup call" to Repuiblicans who assumed that voters will only vote for the lesser of two evils. If a political party does not represent you do not support them, nothing speaks louder than your money and your votes. Could there be setbacks, yes. Could it be painful, yes. Is it worth it, only you know the answer.

If your servant does not serve you, who's truly in charge?

 

[R.H. Lee]

Americans' anger may threaten GOP control of Congress

 

[Joey2]

If you believe an open border with Mexico is okay and are pro-choice, then the Libertarian Party is for you.

If not then consider the Constitution Party.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The Libertarian Party is a total mess and isn't capable of winning most municipal elections, let alone any real election. I'd be more optimistic if they were new and were just having growing pains; but they have been shrinking for years (as a percentage of the vote - total numbers are rising) and are becoming worse managed, not better.

What the heck though - vote for them if you are even remotely Libertarian inclined. What could it hurt?

If not then consider the Constitution Party.

Yeah, if you think 0.5% of the vote is too easy and Don Quixote compromises too often, then the Constitution Party is definitely the party for you.

 

[DRZinn]

It's very simple: When an election is very close vote for the lesser of two evils, if you must. But when one side has an advantage (regardless of which side) vote your conscience.

 

[drinks]

If you totally agree with Vinnie Supernasty of Lost Wages fame, then vote Libertarian.
If you have any common sense, select the people whom you support, then actually support them with money and your time.

 

[DRZinn]

Vinnie Supernasty of Lost Wages fame

 

[Boss Spearman]

Here's one solution. If voters don't like what they are getting, NEVER vote for an incumbent, no matter which party they belong to.

 

[RealGun]

What would a libertarian platform look like, if it was serious about appealing to a broader spectrum of voters...enough votes to matter? I would assume right from the start that open borders and unrestricted use of drugs would not be well received and would need to go on the back burner until better understood. They seem a bit like hanging a skull and cross bones on your front door.

 

[auschip]

If you believe an open border with Mexico is okay and are pro-choice, then the Libertarian Party is for you.

If not then consider the Constitution Party.

You forgot, and are Christian, and support the US going back to the gold standard, and want to intrude into individual people's private lives (Including who they can marry), and are anti-gambling, and anti-freespeech. Otherwise they are exactly like the Libertarians. Wait a sec ...

 

[Live Free Or Die]

As disenchanted as I am with the Libertarian Party, I find myself voting for its candidates most often. My state of Maryland voted for Kerry by a margin higher than almost all the other blue states IIRC. Generally speaking, I have the dubious luxury of being able to vote my conscience -- or cast a protest vote -- without worrying about affecting the outcome of the election in any way whatsoever.

I admit that in the rare occasion when there is a close race between a big-taxing Democrat and a liberty-oriented Republican (vice RINO), I'll consider voting 'R' for purely selfish reasons. Such as...said 'R' is promising to try to lower taxes that will directly affect me. I could easily envision voting for a liberty-oriented 'D' over an authoritarian-'R', but I've never seen that kind of Democrat on a ticket in MD. Doubt I ever will. Much of MD is mired in the same ridiculous socialism that I thought was reserved for places like MA, NJ, and CA, and Europe (no offense intended to the good folk that live there!).

 

[pcf]

Third parties second biggest victories are causing a major party to lose by stealing votes. The next election cycle, the losing party (a smart one) will try to get those votes back. That means changing their political agenda.

The Republican party did themselves a major disservice in Washington, by not adopting an agenda that moderate Libertarians would support. A few votes made a huge difference. (Okay so did rampant political corruption, but had moderate libertarians votes been Republican votes, they couldn't have found enough "lost" ballot boxes.)

If you write the Republican party and tell them that you'll never support them again, don't expect them to support your agenda. If you tell them that your voting third party until they reform, they'll listen. (They may not accomodate you, but when they'll listen)

 

[kwelz]

I believe it is only time to join the Libertarian party if you don't feel like taking a serious part in our governmental system. We live in a 2 party system and those two parties are the Democrats and Republicans. That isn't going to change. I will do my best to explain without getting to many people pissed at me here.

first off is the fact that while a few people may see a huge issue and go off to join the LP, most people aren't going to. They will become independent and vote for what candidate they most support. And on that note, most people aren't going to support a candidate they see as "out there", which even I see most of the LP candidates as.

I can tell you that in the debates I have seen that included a Libertarian, they have no earthly idea what it takes to be in office. The ideas they have are so contradictory that it is laughable. At last years gubernatorial debate I am shocked the guy wasn't laughed off stage. And he was just giving the party line so it wasn't one bad apple.

It is a flaw in the philosophy of the Libertarian Party. They don't understand what it takes to be in office. Like it or not, being an elected official is about flexibility and compromise. You are not just working for the people that voted for you, you are working for each and every one of your constituents. And a hard line across the board is not how you do that. While you bash the Republicans and Democrats for not doing exactly what you like, at least they are in a position to get things done. That is something that the LP never will be able to do.

They are not bad, or failures, or anything of the like, but I do believe they are a bit out of touch with the reality of politics. And for better or worse that is the way politics are and it isn't going to change, because most people are fine with the system the way it is.

You are free to vote the way you want in this fine country, or to not vote at all. That will never change and it never should change. However, if you want to have a real impact on our government, you need to vote for someone who has a chance of winning. That means you vote for one of the big two. Among other political parties the LP, and honestly any 3rd party is more of an inside joke than anything else. They may syphon off a few votes here and there but in the end most people are going to vote for who they know can win.

It is noble to take a stand and say you are going to vote Libertarian. However in the end it is the same as a person who takes a stand and says they will not defend themselves even when someone is barreling down on them with a knife and they have a gun in their hand they could use. Yes both have taken a stand about how they feel, but neither has accomplished anything except to hurt themselves in the long run.

I really hope I haven't offended or angered anyone. I am just giving my opinion like so many others and hope I have stayed on the High Road in doing so. This is just an issue I feel quite strongly on. And if I have offended anyone then I am sorry to you.

 

[CentralTexas]

Well

I look at it as the major parties are stealing votes from Libertarians actually.

I've just reached a point where I won't vote for what i consider the lesser of two evils anymore even if on a national level we don't get elected.
The Libertarain focus is now on loacal/state elections where we can make the biggest difference. We may not even run a candidate for president next go araound unless there is a possibility of getting some press to air another point of view (slim chance I know).
CT

 

[kwelz]

Even on a local level I really can't see it happening. Couple years ago a Lib ran for Mayor around here. She ran a very hard and high paced campaign. If her message would have made any sense and appealed to people she would have won. She got 86 votes instead. It all comes down to the fact that the LP is far to extreme for either party and to expect them to change towards their views is a mistake. You will see the Republicans and Democrats try to win over the opposite side before you see them really try hard for the Lib vote.

 

[pcf]

It is noble to take a stand and say you are going to vote Libertarian. However in the end it is the same as a person who takes a stand and says they will not defend themselves even when someone is barreling down on them with a knife and they have a gun in their hand they could use. Yes both have taken a stand about how they feel, but neither has accomplished anything except to hurt themselves in the long run.

Do you know why modern Democrats have socialist labor policies? Prior to the 1930's Communist Party USA, the American Socialist Party, etc, had a strong following from labor unions. New Deal legislation adopted socialist/communist agendas and drew most of the labor unions into the Democratic Party. Since the New Deal labor unions have been a dependable vote for Democrats. Democrats were willing to adopt the agendas of several disjointed third-parties to increase their voter base. Labor Unions went from little representation to a serious political power.

 

[Live Free Or Die]

I believe it is only time to join the Libertarian party if you don't feel like taking a serious part in our governmental system. We live in a 2 party system and those two parties are the Democrats and Republicans. That isn't going to change. I will do my best to explain without getting to many people pissed at me here.
....

Azizza -

It seems to me that your thesis is the following:

Libertarians lack the power to effect change because they are hopelessly outnumbered by groups that hold all the power. Further, it is a waste of time to pursue our agenda, and we should instead support one of the two groups holding power; not in an attempt to convince one of those groups to adopt some of our views, but simply because it is preferable to participate and share power rather than to to fight a righteous -- yet futile -- battle.

Does this capture what you were saying, more or less?

 

[Gordon Fink]

However, if you want to have a real impact on our government, you need to vote for someone who has a chance of winning.…

In that case, I should join the Democratic Party, since it runs the show here in California. Maybe I can change it from the inside.

~G. Fink

 

[antarti]

It is noble to take a stand and say you are going to vote Libertarian. However in the end it is the same as a person who takes a stand and says they will not defend themselves even when someone is barreling down on them with a knife and they have a gun in their hand they could use. Yes both have taken a stand about how they feel, but neither has accomplished anything except to hurt themselves in the long run.

Except that I won't be voting for and contributing to the knife wielders... or does that count for nothing?

If that "gun" is to vote for a RINO, then it's loaded with blanks, or worse, there is an obstruction in the barrel. No thanks..

 

[Derby FALs]

A few years back, when I was in High School, our Gov't/Econ teacher was going over the political spectrum, and he was convinced that I belonged to the Libertarian party.

Nope. Sorry.

Could never support a party that thinks abortion is alright and should be legal. Could never support a party that thinks the borders should be opened. Could never support a party that thinks that drugs like cocaine and meth and heroine should be legalized.


I.G.B.

The LP is not pro-abortion or pro-drug. They don't believe the Federal Government should be in charge of it, or your body, and neither should you if you are a strict constructionist.

"To attain all this, however, rivers of blood must yet flow, and years of desolation pass over; yet the object is worth rivers of blood, and years of desolation."
-Thomas Jefferson 1823, in a letter to John Adams



Bill Clinton did not end the United States of America. Damaging? Yes. With the bad, comes knowledge and wisdom. Supporting a third party is great way to show discontent within the Democratic process. Ross Perot was and will continue to be a great "wakeup call" to Repuiblicans who assumed that voters will only vote for the lesser of two evils. If a political party does not represent you do not support them, nothing speaks louder than your money and your votes. Could there be setbacks, yes. Could it be painful, yes. Is it worth it, only you know the answer.

If your servant does not serve you, who's truly in charge?

I'd wager that Bush did more real harm to our country in his first year in office than Clinton did in eight. Hell, he even got legislation passed that Clinton lusted for by watering it down a little and renaming it The USA PATRIOT Act.

 

[Pocket.38]

I joined the LP in '92.