Will You Now Reconsider?

[Derek Zeanah]

I guess I just don't get the main argument here. To me, it can be rephrased like this: "maintaining funding for the drug war and the illusion that we're keeping our borders 'closed' is more important than everything else on the Libertarian ticket, so I'm gonna vote for more of the same please."

That just doesn't make any sense. But then, a lot of what passes for "conservative thought" doesn't make much sense to me either.

I'd ask the posters who see the drug and immigration platforms the following questions:

1. Without getting into the whole "drugs are bad" argument, would you argue that our current drug war has done a lot to keep "bad" drugs out of the country? Would you say that the concrete results we've seen from the drug war (decrease in cost over time, greater availability, "harder" drugs that are easier to smuggle but result in worse results for users, militarization of the police, and all the assaults on the bill of rights) are worth their cost?
2. Would you say that our current immigration/border policy is effective? Do you think more of the same is smart, or do you think there are alternatives that should be considered? DO you think this part of the Libertarian position on immigration is an improvement over the status quo: we recognize that the right to enter the United States does not include the right to economic entitlements such as welfare. The freedom to immigrate is a freedom of opportunity, not a guarantee of a handout.
3. If I could promise you an administration that would actively work to eliminate prohibitions on firearm ownership (ie remove that offensive language from our laws, not just hold fast against new encroachments), greatly reduce taxes if not completely eliminating the income tax over time, eliminate those chunks of the federal government that have no constitutional charter, keep us to a non-interventionist foreign policy that stops us from pissing the rest of the world off (remember General Washington's advice regarding foreign entanglements!), end welfare and encourage contributions to charity, migrate from current social security to a private sustainable system over time, and in general work to get the beast that is federal government back into its constitutional cage, would you really turn that offer down if they were going to allow more open immigration and let people grow/buy/smoke whatever they want?

You and I certainly are far apart on the issue of liberty.

 

[Refirignis]

Had the bastards controlling the 2004 election with an iron fist actually let the Libertarian Party candidate debate with Bush and Kerry, or simply given him equal attention, for that matter, I wonder at how much of a difference would have been made. The press ignoring the 3rd parties does not help whatsoever. :banghead:

To everyone that complains about the two Libertarian issues: do you agree with every single issue the Republicans have?

 

[fletcher]

I think there's a chance. Quite a few people, including myself, have just had it with the two main parties now. After I get some stamps, I'm going to mail off a form to change my party affiliation to Libertarian in NC. I'll definitely encourage everyone I know to vote Libertarian next election, at federal, state, and local levels.

 

[hoppinglark]

hemp oil!

let's not forget that legalizing drugs would also mean, an increase in hemp oil production which can be used to "water-down" diesel in the same way ethanol is used with gas.

maybe the Private Property issue mixed with the cost of oil will convince some to vote Libertarian!

but not likely...

 

[ThreadKiller]

Since all politics are local, the LP must begin to build on a local political level. They cannot expect to be taken seriously if they only emerge once every 4 years with an eye on the White House.

Both major political parties stink. The Dems just stink more at this point in time.

Tim

 

[dpesec]

Nightwatch

Yes, I'm a registered republican, but I'm closer to the libertian. I'm waiting for them to field somebody with a chance to win.
There needs to be more PR, otherwise by voting for then is a vote for the Spendocrats. Why, because, for the most part they vote like sheep. I'm not waying all of them, but many do.

 

[fletcher]

let's not forget that legalizing drugs would also mean, an increase in hemp oil production which can be used to "water-down" diesel in the same way ethanol is used with gas.

Diesel engines can also run directly on plant oils (as Dr. Rudolf Diesel intended) - little known fact

 

[DRZinn]

Why should I give the LP a chance (outside of a protest vote) when they aren't running successful campaigns

Maybe because you agree with them? Why should you give a damn what their campaign is like if you agree with their policies? A "successful canpaign" is nothing but propaganda, designed to persuade the people who are too dumb to think through the issue on their own. Why should that AT ALL be a factor in your decision?

Look, I agree that they're pretty inept as politicians, and I too wish they would concentrate on the lower levels of government and build grass-roots support rather than wasing their efforts on the presidency. But knowing what kind of things the good politicians do to get elected and re-elected, give me a software writer any day of the week, as long as he knows that the government is more often the problem than the solution and is willing to legislate accordingly.

After what the GOP is doing to us civil service workers the Libertarian Party has a new voter here.

Welcome!

After the passage of the Real ID Act I can honestly say that was the last straw with me supporting the Republicrats. The GOP nowadays are no better then the Dems, my eyes are finally open.

Welcome!

After I get some stamps, I'm going to mail off a form to change my party affiliation to Libertarian in NC. I'll definitely encourage everyone I know to vote Libertarian next election, at federal, state, and local levels.

Welcome!

 

[Father Knows Best]

I voted Libertarian in the last national election. That's because I live in Tennessee, which was a lock for Bush. I voted Libertarian to express support for the LP party's positions on issues like gun control, and to express discontent with the Repubs. I would never vote LP if the election was close where I lived, because I don't think the Libs have a chance of winning and even a bad Republican is better than any Democrat.

I find myself far more in agreement with the Libertarian platform than the Dems or Repubs. I'm not an anarchist, however. I do believe that government is a necessary evil. Unfortunately, I think the Libertarian Party has a real problem, in that it seems to be dominated by folks who are so extreme that they might as well be anarchists. With some of the nutso stuff they spout off, they have no chance of ever becoming more than a punch line.

 

[BeLikeTrey]

Father knows best...

Good point

I agree, that's why here in SC I will not longer give my vote to either of the TWO MAIN parties anymore. Not much of a chance for Dem's here in the POTUS votes. I too agree that the libertarian and Other third parties should get a common bond and rally around a good candidate. I wonder, could there be somone here that would be good? I hear alot of intelligent statements from alot of people as well as real hard work by some the likes of Jim March ETC.

 

[Mr. James]

Now darnit, Derek,

Don't go confusing me with logic.

For the record, I voted Constitution Party last election ... but I'd certainly give the LP a look. Voted LP over that creature John Warner in his last Senate go-round, but of course, Warner is one of the anointed elite.

On the other hand, I'm active in the campaign of a small "l" libertarian Republican running for the House of Delegates here in Virginia. Young turk name of Chris Craddock, who just knocked off a RINO incumbent in Fairfax County.

 

[R.H. Lee]

I'll certainly reconsider, as I won't vote for a Democratic and will never never voter Republican again after 30 years of doing so and having NOTHING to show for it-other than a slow erosion of liberties over that time.

Instead, I'll find the best candidate from the most freedom loving party and vote for him/her.

I will never never buy into 'the most important election in our lifetime' crap again. If the Marxist/Leninist Democrats take over, so be it. I will no longer compromise by voting Republican. The two card monte game is over, as far as I'm concerned. No more 'death by a thousand cuts' inflicted by Republicans for me.

 

[roo_ster]

Libertarian Party in Theory, LP in Practice

A "successful canpaign" is nothing but propaganda, designed to persuade the people who are too dumb to think through the issue on their own.

Uh, no. Those who run a "sucessful campaign" get to hold the reins of power and set the agenda. That is power, not propaganda. There is a difference.

There are some Republicans worth supporting, if you have small "l" libertarian views. Ron Paul has been mentioned & I would throw Pete Session's name into the hat. Pete is not straight down the line in accord with the LP, but neither am I. He's close enough, in this imperfect world.

I think that someone who is ACTIVE in local Republican politics can have more effect on the outcomes than someone involved at any level in the LP. Of course, that means getting your hands dirty in the everyday give & take of politics and not just whining about it on a message board...

I'd rather the LP was an effective tool for change, but it is not. Heck, I'd settle for it being one of those third parties that come around every few decades to scare the bejeezus outta one of the two main parties and cause a main party to adopt most/all its platform. The LP doesn't even rate as a third party (if by "third," we mean "third largest") anymore.

FWIW:
I voted big "L" for pres in 1992, 1996, and 2000. I voted big "L" for lesser offices in 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004 when they ran and I determined they weren't nutbars. The last libertarian presidential candidate convinced me the LP is on a road to nowhere.

 

[Desertdog]

I will vote for the LP candidates the day that they run as a Republican or Democrat.

Ron Paul is an excellent example of what the LP candidate can accomplish running as a Republican party candidate.

Question for LPers; Is there a winning national candidate in your party other than Ron Paul?

 

[Big Bad Wolf]

I think that someone who is ACTIVE in local Republican politics can have more effect on the outcomes than someone involved at any level in the LP. Of course, that means getting your hands dirty in the everyday give & take of politics and not just whining about it on a message board...

I assume you are referring to "Working within the party to effect change"?

That in itself is as much for a hope of a miracle then voting for an LP Presidential candidate. True Conservatives voices have been lost in the shuffle of all the Neo-Conservatives and RINO's and that voice that has already been eclipsed is getting even smaller because real Conservatives are becoming a dying breed in the GOP. Neo-Conservatives has no interest in listing to the people who put them into power, nor representing old fashioned basic Conservative ideals that the average Republican voter put them where they are to represent. It's really not unlike being a Democrat nowadays and trying to effect change of them dropping the Liberal agenda.

Here is a great article by Dr. Ron Paul describing Neo-Conservatism, Ladies and Gentlemen I give you Neo-Conned!!

 

[Big Bad Wolf]

I will vote for the LP candidates the day that they run as a Republican or Democrat.

Ron Paul is an excellent example of what the LP candidate can accomplish running as a Republican party candidate.

Question for LPers; Is there a winning national candidate in your party other than Ron Paul?

Ron Paul made it back in to his seat during a period before Neo-Conservatism grabbed the reigns of power in the GOP. I believe if an LP candidate tried the same method Dr. Paul did to get in to the party he would be cut off by the powers that be because they want "yes" men now, not outspoken freedom fighters.

 

[Derby FALs]

Good ol' Dr. No...

 

[antarti]

Where to go?

After the scathing letters I sent, demanding impeachment/reversal of the recent case or my RNC and voter cards go bye-bye, I have been doing lots of similar thinking.

Yes, I voted Perot both times he ran, and for the Republican otherwise. What a waste... Reagan, and two Bushes... 20 years between them, and government has just gotten more expansive, more expensive, and more odious. No use mentioning what happened the other 8 years with Klinton...

Meet the new King George II, same as the old King George III...

I've always sympathized with the LP and CP... and am cutting up the RNC card, and mailing in the R voter card. I will likely sign up as LP.

What mystifies me is that since the LP, Liberty, Reform, Constitution Party, etc. share 80% of their platform, why not unite and do the 80% they agree on? This would be the perfect time.

Voting my conscience today, P.P.R (post property rights), would mean signing up for one of the Southern Parties, and supporting outright secession. I may just do that since the Union just isn't worth a damn these days...

I might as well enjoy big pig BBQ's, mint juleps, and militia training with lots of other "happy and harmless looking, but well armed, older fat guys" like myself while waiting for the balloon to go up. There is something there I don't agree with though: I don't look good in pleated Grey pants and cap, but I'll make that sacrifice. That's pretty much a cause I can sink my teeth into.

My party affiliation (and donation habits) are changing... it's just a matter of "where to".

 

[RealGun]

A bunch of folks with a common cause agreeing to move to the same State is something I take more seriously than I used to. I think the most powerful protest is a serious threat of secession or at least a State not rolling over every time its rights are ignored, especially by its own Senators, drunk with federal power.

It is difficult to amass political force from across the country, but a State focus may actually be more doable than some might suppose. If nothing else, they just have to all retire to the same place.

 

[GunGoBoom]

Given the steady decline of our freedoms, is there a chance now for the Libertarian Party?

No, because that party is far too whacky on their view of the extremely limited view of gov't. Gov't should be much, much, much smaller. But the LPs want to make the gov't much, much, much, much, much, much smaller - so small that market externalities are not in any way controlled, in particular, damage to our enviroment/mother earth from corporate polluters, to name a salient example of an unintended result of believing that gov't is ONLY for national defense, roads, schools & such.

But, given the steady decline of our freedoms, there IS, or at least should be, a chance for a party with really strong, logical views such as the Constitution Party! http://www.constitutionparty.com/

It is difficult to amass political force from across the country, but a State focus may actually be more doable than some might suppose. If nothing else, they just have to all retire to the same place.

Well, Texas is a large chunk of real estate, has mild winters, good hunting, and is not completely surrounded, having one long border not adjacent to the enemy in the event of secession. There are those down there who already maintain that they are the "Republic of Texas", and independent of the fedgov - they'd be overjoyed if we all joined them...food for thought. Florida is even more defensible, as if that matters, as any true mil action would result in being steamrolled in a few days - say that reminds me of something I read somewhere about a l'il conflict round about 1863 in which secession did not work out well.

 

[Eskimo Jim]

I'd vote for a Libertarian under a couple of conditions. they'd have to stop trying to open the borders wide open, stop trying to legalize every type of intoxicating drug (ie crack cocaine, heroin etc) and several other policies.

In general they go too far.

They should focus on town/city and state legislatures and work their way up to national level elections.

Until they win some state legislatures and governorships, then they'll remain an 'also ran'.

-Jim

PS given that, I do find the Libertarian party's Free State PRoject very interesting.

 

[Ivy Mike]

The Constitution Party is kind of a strange choice given the love of liberty that most of us here have.

Just read the Sanctity of Life platform on their website. "The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God's image."

this is very disconcerting to me as a staunch atheist and would lead me to oppose such a party who is in direct opposition to the 1st amendment.

I am, a registered Libertarian who knows that the best place to keep religion is OUT of the government.

 

[White Horseradish]

The Constitution Party is a misnomer. Bible Party is more like it. Their views are only logical if you are a certain kind of Christian.

 

[DRZinn]

Originally Posted by DocZinn
A "successful campaign" is nothing but propaganda, designed to persuade the people who are too dumb to think through the issue on their own.

Uh, no. Those who run a "sucessful campaign" get to hold the reins of power and set the agenda. That is power, not propaganda. There is a difference.

The power, obviously, is the goal. The campaign is the method of achieving that goal. This requires persuading people to vote for you. This is done through propaganda, since most people are either too dumb or too lazy to work through the issues themselves.

I've always sympathized with the LP and CP... and am cutting up the RNC card, and mailing in the R voter card. I will likely sign up as LP.

Welcome!

 

[Alex45ACP]

We already have open immigration anyway.

Just wanted to make sure no one missed that.