Will You Now Reconsider?

[Alex45ACP]

Libertarians do not want to leave the borders "wide open". Badnarik on immigration and border security:

Coupled with open, easy immigration for the peaceful, I advocate a vigorous national defense against our enemies. Terrorists and criminals who attempt to enter the US via a Customs and Immigration station should be denied entry and, where applicable, arrested or extradited. Terrorists and criminals who attempt to enter the US via other points along its 95,000 miles of border and coastline should be treated as what they are: invaders against whom our armed forces must respond. There are obvious exceptions Cuban and Haitian "boat refugees" who don't have much control over where they make landfall, for example but they are exceptions, not the rule.

As a Libertarian, I reject a conception of national defense that keeps American troops overseas, meddling in the affairs of other nations. Instead, I advocate a national defense which, sans any attack which might require retaliation elsewhere, focuses on the logical area: the nation's borders. As president, I would work to eliminate the Border Patrol and treat border issues as what they are: defense issues coming under the mission and scope of the armed forces. In an age where the equivalent of a large invasion force can be packed into a suitcase-sized box containing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, no lesser response will do.

http://www.badnarik.org/plans_immigration.php

Libertarians want to use our military to protect our borders. Immigration and border security are two different issues. Most Libertarians want to allow immigration but have heavy border security. Right now, our defenses consist of:



This is unacceptable.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Badnarik may be an un-bathed fruitcake, but his border policy sounds good to me.

 

[Rebar]

Coupled with open, easy immigration for the peaceful

If that sounds good to you, then you haven't been paying attention.

 

[peacefuljeffrey]

The decline of our rights is happening right alongside two things:
- a push by the governmental authorities to take those rights away
- a complete apathy, combined with lack of education and also with general ignorance, on the part of the public

Kids are growing up without being educated on why our individual rights are important. They vote in polls that say that the 1st Amendment gives us too much freedom and that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean what it says.

People are quoted in news articles saying ignorant stuff like, "If you're innocent and haven't broken the law, what do you have to fear" from various police and government intrusions. It actually makes sense to them that if you are not a lawbreaker, you should not mind the government constantly watching you as though you are a criminal.

These are not people who even care about preserving their own rights, much less those of everyone in the society.

It looks to me as though the battle may already be lost.

That doesn't mean I won't go down fighting. I just think that there are fewer and fewer people every day who even realize it makes SENSE to be on our side in this thing. They don't even see anything wrong!

-Jeffrey

 

[Alfadog]

This is a great thread. I registered Libertarian as of this spring after being a dedicated Republican for practically all of my adult life. Hell, my son's middle name is Reagan!

I had been concerned about the neo-con hijacking of the Republican party for quite a while. The Republican primary for the Florida senate seat last year was a big eye-opener. The national Republican party got behind neo-con party hack Mel Martinez, who ran a very sleazy campaign and beat Bill McCollum, a conservative Republican with an outstanding record in the House. Despite my concerns, I voted for both Bush and Martinez. The straw that broke this camel's back was the Terry Schiavo matter and the idiotic actions and comments made by George Bush, Mel Martinez, and Jeb Bush.

As to whether a third party can succeed, we won't know until we try. Frankly, I think trying to take control of the Republican party from the neo-cons or take control of the Democratic party from the Bolsheviks would be more difficulty than building a successful third party (case in point is the election of Martinez). There are a lot more pro-third party posts in this thread than any I remember seeing on the internet before. This gives me hope!

By the way, many thanks to whoever referenced the "NEO-CONNED" article (speech?) by Ron Paul above. The link didn't work but I Googled it. Let's see if this works:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

 

[rock jock]

is there a chance now for the Libertarian Party?

No

 

[DRZinn]

I registered Libertarian as of this spring after being a dedicated Republican for practically all of my adult life.

Welcome!

 

[wdlsguy]

Libertarians do not want to leave the borders "wide open".

Badnarik appears to be out of step with his own party on immigration:

"The Libertarian Party has long recognized the importance of allowing free and open immigration, understanding that this leads to a growing and more prosperous America. We condemn the xenophobic immigrant bashing that would build a wall around the United States. At the same time, 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."

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

 

[Alfadog]

Thanks Doc! It's refreshing not to be carrying around the Republican baggage any more!

 

[Aahzz]

Coming in late....haven't read the entire thread....but...

I am a lifelong Republican who, from now on, will vote Libertarian. Schiavo was the last straw for me. I happily voted for Bush the first time, reluctantly the second time, but will never again vote Republican - I feel badly betrayed by the current party agenda - particularly the pandering to the evangelicals.

 

[RealGun]

I have no plan to change parties because I want to associate with a party that has some influence, imperfect though that may be as a fit to my issues. There are Republicans who say, hey, wait a minute; as evidenced by the inability to hold the GOP caucus together in the Senate.

Of the two major parties, which one is the better fit to libertarian ideals? If ones philosopy is uncompromising, then a separate party may be appropriate and one can then only hope that there will be enough others to make a third party movement viable.

Even the Republican Liberty Caucus is ineffective because of an unwillingness to compromise.

I think an effort to influence the GOP is the way to actually make a difference and vote in a way that matters.

The current fight is to set aside all the religious stuff and get back to real government issues. The key to that is picking federal court judges for the right reasons, accepting that Roe v Wade is a done deal unless fairly revisited on purely constitutional grounds.

 

[rock jock]

The current fight is to set aside all the religious stuff and get back to real government issues. The key to that is picking federal court judges for the right reasons, accepting that Roe v Wade is a done deal unless fairly revisited on purely constitutional grounds.

I hear cries all the time from folks wantng the GOP to abandon the "religious issues." Perhaps they don't realize that evangelical Christians are the most vocal and loyal contigent of the Republican Party. Abandoning them would be like asking the Libertarian Party to abandon the Tinfoil Hat Brigade.

 

[Alfadog]

I have no plan to change parties because I want to associate with a party that has some influence, imperfect though that may be as a fit to my issues. There are Republicans who say, hey, wait a minute; as evidenced by the inability to hold the GOP caucus together in the Senate.

Of the two major parties, which one is the better fit to libertarian ideals?

The inability to hold the GOP together in the Senate has nothing at all to do with the influence of any libertarian element of the party. It has everything to do with the liberal Rockefeller Republican RINOs like Voinovich and Chafee and media whore McCain. McCain and the RINOs are as far from libertarians as the neo-cons and extreme religous right factions (just in the other direction).

In answer to your question, I may be more likely to agree with the Republicans than the Democrats, but I find little difference on many issues that are important to me.

I think an effort to influence the GOP is the way to actually make a difference and vote in a way that matters.

And how exactly would we do that? The neo-cons and the religous right totally dominate the Republican party. Since the mid-90s, the Republican leadership hasn't even given the "smaller government" faction the time of day.

 

[RealGun]

The inability to hold the GOP together in the Senate has nothing at all to do with the influence of any libertarian element of the party. - alfadog

It certainly does. It stops the nuclear option and the attempt to slam dunk the confirmations of judges favored by the religious right. Those issues are extraconstitutional, so I would think libs would care very much about it.

Of course, none of it is an exact match to an LP doctrine, so maybe it doesn't compute for those who think pragmatism is a dirty word, antithetical to their politics but inherent in everyone elses.

 

[DRZinn]

I am a lifelong Republican who, from now on, will vote Libertarian.

Welcome!

 

[rhubarb]

Abandoning them would be like asking the Libertarian Party to abandon the Tinfoil Hat Brigade.

My hearty laugh of the day.

 

[mmike87]

Neither the Republican or Democrats represent the views of the majority of Americans.

Both parties exist for the sole purpose of maintaining that status quo two party system.

Either party if OK with the other being in power in lieu of ANY third party. They are like siblings - they can beat up on each other all they want but in the end will do anything to protect eachother from outsiders.

 

[Gordon Fink]

The issues of drug decriminalization and open immigration are merely excuses people use to continue voting Republican or Democrat. Since some 70 to 80 percent of Americans (and people in general) are irrational by definition, why should we expect anything different?

American liberty is already doomed to a slow extinction. Barring another revolution led by another libertarian elite, the United States will continue to cycle between the petty fascism of the Republicans and the casual socialism of the Democrats. Perhaps one will eventually consume the other, and then we’ll get to try some real tyranny.

The nay-sayers are sure right about one thing. If you don’t vote for a Libertarian, a Libertarian won’t be elected.

Who really wants freedom? It’s much too scary …

~G. Fink

 

[Jeff]

Neither the Republican or Democrats represent the views of the majority of Americans. Both parties exist for the sole purpose of maintaining that status quo two party system. Either party if OK with the other being in power in lieu of ANY third party. They are like siblings - they can beat up on each other all they want but in the end will do anything to protect eachother from outsiders.

Sounds about right. And to take it one step further, I consider modern Republicans and modern Democrats to be the exact same party; they literally are one entity. It's just one wing represents this general group of people, and the other represents this general group of people, with both groups espousing generally moderate ideologies.

What real difference is there between Dubya and Kerry? NONE.

 

[BHPshooter]

Will You Now Reconsider?

Well, Ty, you know that I already vote Libertarian when I can , but I do think this situation will wake a lot of people up. If it hasn't yet, people like you and I raising awareness CAN.

Wes

 

[NIGHTWATCH]

You said it buddy

 

[Waitone]

If libertarian (small L) principals are to have any effect in the world of politics, they are going to need a farm team to develop the talent necessary to run the big stuff. Many would say ideological purity is what is needed. I disagree. There exists this thingy call governance. How will a party implement their ideological principals?

Let's just wave our hands as say Libertarian (Big L) candidate won the big house. He or she sits in the Oval Office ready to do the governance thingy. Who is called to head up DoD, DoJ, State, EPA, ad nauseum. A SCOTUS lawyer croaks; who will the Pres nominate? Who on the Judiciary committee in the House of Lords will carry the Pres' water on the nomination? Who run the treasury. Who gets to work the intelligence apparatus? Military? Who will be slotted to JCS?

Let's also say the Libertarian President says "EPA? We donn need no steenkin' EPA" No need to appoint a head. Who in congress will he call to start the fireworks?

My point is simpleminded. Libertarians (big L or little L) are not ready for the majors. They have no bench of talent to draw from when their big shot at the majors comes. These guys are like the batter who goes to the plate and swings for the stands at every pitch coming his way. His strike out rate is high. He's not happy with a high percentage bunt. He wants it all or none of it. Libertarians would be well advise to pull back and dry their powder. Get some big local victories Go into an election talking about what they DID as opposed to what the WILL DO. Forget running major candidates and concentrate on state and local victories. After accumulating a few accomplishments, come back and try a national run.

 

[280PLUS]

People seem to forget that the BIGGEST problem any party other than the Dems and Reps face is FINANCES. Why don't we see the big media campaigns put on by the two parties being similarly used by the Libertarians? THEY CAN"T AFFORD IT! The thing that gets people elected in this country is money. In most cases if you ain't got money your face ain't all over the media and if your face ain't all over the media, you ain't getting elected. That comes straight from PoliSci 101 folks. Why was Ross Perot able to even make a stab being a third party candidate in the election he ran in? He had deep enough pockets of his own to pay the media to plaster his face all over the place. Give the Libertarians the same amount of election money as the other two parties and they might stand a chance of gaining some ground.

 

[Rebar]

Why don't we see the big media campaigns put on by the two parties being similarly used by the Libertarians? THEY CAN"T AFFORD IT!

With what they waste every four years on their rediculous doomed presidential race, they could get a couple dozen state reps and senators elected.

 

[The Rabbi]

Membership in the Libertarian Party, much less running as a candidate, is a prima facie evidence for being a nut job. That doesnt make every member or candidate one, but they'd have to prove it to me first.

The Libertarian Party has no chance of succeeding. Zero. If they were smart they would take a leaf from the Grangers. A lot of political reform occurred because a small party ended up putting pressure on the bigger parties to adopt their agenda.