Is the true Libertarian spirit dead on THR?

[Gordon Fink]

If you’re a Libertarian who disagrees with a few planks of the LP platform, everyone says you’re not a real Libertarian.…

I find something of the reverse to be true more often. For example, a “libertarian†Republican disagrees with almost half of the Republican Party platform but refuses to support the Libertarian Party because he disagrees with a tenth of its platform.

~G. Fink

 

[Waitone]

For the record, I consider myself to be a thinking small L libertarian. While I am sympathetic with a considerable number of principals of libertarianism I am also a student of human nature. I do not look at humans through a pair of rose colored glasses. I view human nature as it is warts and all. Just wanting a particular libertarian position to be true won't make it true.

So...what gives?

that's easy! Its called reality. In the cited example of border control, it would be suicide of the most spectacular variety to open borders AND have a thoroughgoing welfare state. So what is a small L libertarian do? "Think" is a good start. If libertarians are to make any progress at all they must demonstrate good ol' fashioned Horse Sense.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Why do you think the first thing that a Libertarian-controlled government would do is “open the borders� Really, why?

~G. Fink

 

[tyme]

Doesn't a true libertarian allow for violation of the NAP in order to secure funds for national defense? I suspect there are a few more areas besides national defense.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Libertarians as a group don't seem to have a coherent platform of practical, applicable policies and solutions. Rather, they seem to be hamstrung by abstract principles which are intrepreted as contrarian by the mainstream. I would like to see the Libertarian party become a national influence, as I think many of its principles are pro liberty. Unless they get active at the local and state levels first, their chances of influencing national policy are slim.

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

Too many children posting on this thread. They want monologue. Not dialogue. I'm not going to waste any more time on you. Someone says something that hurts "..your wittle feewings.." and you cry to mommy.

 

[R.H. Lee]

America is moving back toward conservativism. We will defeat abortion, pornography and open borders.

"Conservativism" has become a meaningless term IMO. GWB is most assuredly no 'conservative'; the Republican party is most definitely not conservative. Those who call themselves conservatives are by and large nothing more than GOP lapdogs who nod approvingly as their party increases the size and influence of government. And 'defeat open borders'? Gimme a break. GWB is doing everything in his power to grant 'amnesty' to millions of illegals already here, to say nothing of his administrations complete unwillingness to stop the ongoing invasion.

No thanks.

 

[enfield]

Is the true Libertarian spirit dead on THR?

I certainly hope so! That is, the TRUE Libertarian spirit.

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

 

[ProGlock]

America is moving back toward conservativism. We will defeat abortion, pornography and open borders.

This is a two party country. Always will be.

So if Libertarians want to squander their votes on their candidates, let them. They never had anything to offer, anyway.

That's odd to hear coming from you of all people.

I certainly hope 2 of the above referenced subjects aren't defeated anytime soon (porn, open borders). Many people confuse the term "open borders" to mean "free for all, everyone come on in!". Uhh, no. Does anyone understand the difference between illegal immigration and LEGAL immigration? Automatically people ASSume open borders to mean illegal immigrants are welcome here. Legal immigration simply means letting all those who are working hard to obtain a green card over here can get their chance to do so, because they believe in immigrating here lawfully and legally. When illegals stream into this country, they disrespect our lands, our nation, our very sovereign soil and the people who fought and died to make this country what it is today. Hell I think they should be shot on sight, but that's another topic.

Many people like to pick one issue here or there to thrash the libertarian party, but by and far the open borders is the popular one to choose. How much BS legislation went through Congress that was introduced by the GOP? Hmmm...let's see we now have the Patriot Act, we now have a GOP President who WANTS a huge amnesty and full citizen rights GRANTED to illegals streaming in from Mexico! On top of that, California's governor isn't far behind. We also have the TSA mandatory anal probing and breast groping at all airports.

I also do not believe in the GOP's "sincerity" in supporting our 2nd amendment rights. Oh, but many diehard republicans argue that they killed off the assault weapons ban. No, that is BS. In order for the AWB to die, Congress didn't have to do a damn thing. Now, if the GOP starts working to REPEAL some existing gun control legislation, such as starting with '89 import ban or the '86 MG ban, then I'll start reconsidering my position.

Until then, continue voting for the dictatorial left or the fascist right. Sorry but you who define yourselves as one issue voters (meaning 2nd amendment rights) are worthless. Do you honestly believe that being able to keep your battle rifles and various firearms will do a bit of good when all of your other unalienable rights are flushed down the crapper? By the time any of you get the guts to actually make an armed stand against tyranny, your enemy will have no need to even set foot on a battlefield. They will have already conquered you through the brainwashing of the common people to purport that you are domestic terrorists and will make the people feel like "they're making a difference" by snitching on neighbors they know "like shooting" or "I've seen him come back from duck hunting almost every week, I know he's got a couple of shotguns". Little insecure sheeple will jump at a chance to do stuff like that. When all your other rights are gone, you are practically powerless.

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

:banghead:

 

[Flyboy]

PinnedAndRecessed:

False Dichotomy. Ad Hominem. A few others. You're not making much of an argument that way.

And Perot did not show that third parties are a waste; he garnered a respectable portion of the vote, and if the two big parties had any sense whatsoever (and they usually do), the recognized that his ideas had some draw, and incorporated some of them into their own platforms. As I explained elsewhere, this is particularly true for the losing party in a close election (go find the thread about the Washington election for the post).

You are most emphatically not the only game in town, and that sort of arrogance will lead to your marginalization, and eventual irrelevance. Open-mindedness isn't just a virtue, it's absolutely essential, especially when there's a wide variety of opinion in the population.

 

[PaleRyder]

I agree with the official LP stance on immigration, and as bad, wasteful and corrupt as governments in general have gotten, I'm not so sure anarchy isn't a bad idea.

 

[Selfdfenz]

This thread is remarkable in a number of ways.
I agree with the sentiment that we are all less than dogmatic when it comes to the various planks in our party platforms. That some here consider themselves L or l and still are not totally in favor of “that which cannot be spoken of on THR†or advocate controlling our borders encourages me.

The thread mentioned in the original post of this thread convinced me a few days back there was perhaps less flexibility in the L and l POV than I might have guessed.

Ten or fifteen years ago the percentages in favor of “that which cannot…†were vastly in favor of the process we were told. That trend is reversing. Slowly but surely the %s are shifting the other way. Even Hillary Clinton paid note of subject recently, luke warm, but slightly anti still. I know there is triangulation but even she knows partial “that which†and 1 in 4 pregnancies ending in “that which†may be changing opinions.

Will the L and l be the final stalwarts in battling for a topic the rest of the country has moved away from? Don’t know. I’m not sure the nation ever had the comfort level with “that which...†claimed by its most ardent supporters.

What about drugs? We hear lots of numbers both ways but it could very well be the silent majority in the US has very different perspectives on legalization than the apparently very vocal majority here on THR. Is there a L or L fall back position? If pot were legal would thay let the rest stay illegal. BTW I'm 100% in favor of the W on D as we know it ending. No more aggressive entry period. None of that was ever necessary.

Some additional states will inevitable legalize or decriminalize pot, prostitution and even assisted suicide. In the end, as with “that which...†, the mainstream will recoil from these things after they have a chance to experience them in our culture for a while. The border is a non-issue. America already wants something done there.

I’m not saying the L or l platform is composed of lost causes but there is the stuff of jousting at windmills in some of it.

If the real objective of Libertarian politices is to change public opinion and the direction of government, what is to be done when the country is headed in the opposite direction?

S-
Your friendly local, windmill jousting CP supporter

 

[Coronach]

Everyone Outta The Pool!

This is a good discussion- or, I should say, it WAS a good discussion until we started getting a little case of attitude going on.

Someone disagrees with you in a post? Attack his position. Don't attack him.

Is this clear?

Coro

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

 

[HungSquirrel]

Funny thing. Libertarianism was never alive. It was never a viable political option. Never will be.

It's a good thing the Bill of Rights so strongly espouses the Libertarian political ideology, else we would have degenerated into conservative or liberal tyranny long ago.

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

 

[corncob]

I think this thread may have started with a bad assumption--that is, that true libertarians want open borders and no welfare, regardless of which comes first. I am a libertarian, and I know a few other libertarians, but I don't know any, big "L" or not, that agree with the above statement.

Seems to me that most folks willing to call themselves libertarians are practical individuals who, like G. Fink says, have suddenly realized they agree with 25% of the Republican platform and 90% of the LP platform. Soon after this happens, they start to allow themselves to be critical of what their favorite Republicans say in speeches or write in bills (after election season), and they soon find themselves overcome with rage. After that, it's just a hop and a skip right over to the dark side.

As far as the Two-Party system goes, the "conservative" naysayers are probably right. We don't stand a chance. But the harsh reality is this that neither does conservatism--at least not how most of the "conservatives" understand it. It is called the "Two-party" system for a reason. In the long run, the only things that get done are what the two parties agree on. That means big government. Big. Whenever laws get passed with a bi-partisan effort, you can bet the power of .gov is getting expanded, not curtailed. The thrust of any particular bill varies based on who is in power that decade and on current events, but over the long haul, a good compromise leaves everyone angry. And with half of the voters always sure that the other half is trying to ruin our country, the .gov gets bigger every go-round. A voter lasts 75 years, but bureaucracy is immortal.

And if you have to fortify your argument with:

Get over it.

...there's a good chance you've already lost.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Real conservatives are to the GOP as blacks are to the Democrat party. A group to be given lip service, exploited for votes, then cast aside until the next election.

 

[flatrock]

What gives is that open immigration and a welfare state are incompatible. It's just a formula for national bankruptcy.

Without any practical means to reduce government handouts, people who believe in libertarian philosophies are forced to support limited immigration to limit the damages the welfare state can do to our country.

 

[ProGlock]

So, to all those diehard GOP supporters who believe that the republicans are the "true light to our country's salvation", perhaps you could explain for everyone here why the GOP is in favor of big, big BIG government?

Need help? Take a look:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2005-02-01-irs-budget_x.htm

 

[PinnedAndRecessed]

Nuff said.

 

[R.H. Lee]

You know, P&R, your arrogance would be funny if it weren't so typical of the Republican party and it's leadership, who will be out of power soon enough. The only time Republicans are worth anything is when they're out of power. That's when they best serve their constituencies. I look forward to those days again. Enjoy yourself in the meantime.

 

[longrifleman]

Conservativism will overcome, like it or not

I'd like some clarification please. Exactly what are you trying to conserve?
This isn't a rhetorical question. If we don't know what your goals are it is difficult to have a debate.

Perot taught us what a waste that is.

My take on this is quite a bit different. The reason Perot recieved so much support is because the Republican party was completely ignoring the most "conservative" part of the base. When that got their butts kicked, they eventually got around to The Contract With America and regained the majority in the House. If you review the contract you will find it is a good start towards the libertarian positions on several issues. This is probably the way any movement towards libertarian positions will occour. One of our ideas will start gaining widespread support and one of the mainstream parties will hijack the idea and pretend it was theirs all along. Personally, I don't care who gets the credit as long as the right thing is done.

Another observation: today's conservatives look a whole lot like Democrats from 30-40 years ago.