Friday Free For All: Libertarian Edition
by PubliusToday, in 1971, the Libertarian Party was founded. Almost every year, for nearly 40 years, we’ve been told that we’re on the cusp of a “libertarian moment.” Alas. Saying it doesn’t make it so. Still, it was a good idea:
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
114 Comments
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Michael Chavez, Smoky Mountain 912 -. Smoky Mountain 912 – said: Friday Free For All: Libertarian Edition: Today, in 1971, the Libertarian Party was founded. Almost … http://bit.ly/88wjpp -VOL360.com- [...]
I always thought I was a conservative. I took a political quiz recently and it reflected I was a libertarian. Now I'm confused. Would that make me a liberal?
Krauthammer hit a home run with today's column: "The New Socialism"
http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer...
We should heed his warming-warning.
The Senate should send this blatant power grab straight back to the White House with its own warning: "Try to dismantle the Republic and shred the Constitution at peril of your position. Treason is an impeachable offense."
A lobotomy, I'd guess.
I find myself agreeing more and more with the Libertarians, if they would just get off of the whole Forgein Policy by Isolation thing. I might be able to voe for a few of them.
I find myself agreeing with Libertarian’s more, and more. In my mind, it is closer to the founding principles than either of the two main parties. Real freedom, limited government! In a perfect world the RNC would adopt most of the Libertarian ideas, and form an unbeatable party, or coalition if you will. Just a thought!
Recession? Layoffs? Hard times? Not for the bloated federal bureaucracy. Things are booming for them:
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/2009121...
Is it just my imagination, or has there been a distinct lack of Tiger Woods commercials on TV lately?
Tiger's been too busy to film any commercials.
Also if they would back away from the 'legalize drugs' foolishness.
nope they have been pulled along with a 30% or more discount on his action figures at toyRus
I like the idea of a "Coalition" Perhaps having Libertarians run in Republican primaries or vice versa?
He's starting a 900 dating service. Look for the commercials sometime around Valentines day.
No! But, if you’re worried go to a place a liberal never ventures, get into your business, put in a sixty-eighty hour work week, and if you start whining at thirty hours, or continually watch the clock, worry about break time, or lunch, you may be a liberal parasite. Then hand a close friend a ball peen hammer, and be put out of your misery!
[...] hope that one day Libertarians learn how to win [...]
This is what the ACORN socialist parties do. They "fuse" their parties by having the same candidate as the dems. So if you vote party line either Domocrat or Working Families Party you are voting for the same person.
Watch what this bunch starts to do next:
They're going to start dismantling our national security apparatus by slashing the various departments' budgets to pay for their social engineering experiments.
This is not a possibility. It is almost a certainty. They want to reduce our economic and military influence in the world because, in their fevered minds, we need to join the collective.
They totally reject American Exceptionalism for what they think is the warm, secure womb of state-delivered necessities. One trip to the emergency room of a hospital in one of the socialist/communist countries they so fervently worship will convince them that those systems are congenitally irrational.
Spoken like a person who actually works for a living. Good for you!
Be sure you are registered to vote next November and don't throw your vote away for purely political principles.
The first order of business is to throw out liberal democrats and replace them with Republicans who have a clue about how to preserve and grow our economic miracle.
Once we've begun to recover our Republic, we can then focus on getting more conservative believers in office.
I think I might have taken that political quiz as well—and I noticed almost immediately afterward that all of the questions were massively loaded in order to encourage people to answer in a way that would make them "libertarian." The blatant dishonesty and manipulation put me off of libertarianism, and the fact that libertarians I meet keep encouraging me to take it continues to do so.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
The LibertarianParty and the other 2 major parties have no limits to our rights in their platforms. Really now, the general public rarely reads those platforms, much less observe if the platform is being followed. Another “3rd” party is the Constitution Party, whose platform is our Founding Documents, along with a biblical perspective for the Limit to our Rights. http://www.constitutionparty.org I don’t agree with some of their positional stances, however they are extremely patriotic & Independent, with a “heart” that promotes good.
Not only the pay, but don't forget benefits like health care, retirement system, job security, and lack of need to make a bona-fide profit.
As long as one doesn't want to be productive, it's a great place to be.
Thank God your OB-GYN can now use Global Warming Science!
TOP 5 CAUSES FOR WHAT'S GROWING INSIDE YOUR WOMB
http://naturalfake.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/top-5...
so you're in favor of making alcohol illegal, right?
The main roll third parties fulfil is that of spoiler, electing the candidate that the third party voter would probably find least desirable. So may the Green Party grow strong and may the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, and all other right leaning third parties continue to get less than 1% of the vote. As imperfect as the Republican Party is, we can't be breaking up into minor parties dooming our chances of ever holding political power ever agian. If you have problems with the GOP, fight to change the party from within.
Simple conservative= get government out of my pocket, and everyday things. Liberal=get government out of my bedroom and mouth. If you are both of these, you prbabaly already have libertarian tendencies. One now can make an argument about war policy which really falls into libertarian v. modern whigs.
While many conservatives can be libertarian, many libertarians are conservative, imho
I know I will catch flack for this but I actually like their stance on drugs.
This is the modern whig part if you haven't heard of them.
So you're saying we need to create false choices. In order to do his I think we need to run libertarinas under the democratic banner. Can they be ran there…
Prof – can you give me any significant efforts the pubs have made towards 'recovering our republic'? I've been watching pretty closely for a couple decades now and see nothing more than weak efforts to ward off the inevitable for a little while longer.. Defense and no Offense.
I agree with realities of third party ineptness.. but still – recent history gives us nothing to indicate the pubs are concerned with the war deciding if we are a republic, or a pure democracy.
Why is everyone on Tiger's Wood?
Oops, type above.
Please, please, please don't fall for the third party trap. It's great to have ideals, but you have to be practical, too.
The most interesting description I've heard of libertarians is that a libertarian is a conservative who wants to keep his or her vices.
It is not so much that I "like" their stance as I don't care, after 25 years in Law Enforcement, primarily working narcotics. I do not think we can make that much difference. We should prosecute the crimes that drugs use causes more than we should prosecute the drugs as a crime.
Ah, the "third party" question…
Even if you manage to get one elected, without a voting bloc to enact legislation, or to change or dismantle existing law, you end up fighting against both incumbent parties…
Better to steer one already in existence to your concept of governance…which means seizing the "precinct chairmanship", and forcing the change from that point…
Otherwise, its an albatross to hang around the opposition's neck…we should be chatting up the Greens to get a candidate to announce early, and crack apart the Democrat statist libs, forcibly if needs be…
Basically they are Republicans, its just that Republicans agree with them only 92% of the time so they can't possibly bring themselves to vote for Republicans.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE&fe...
I would like to see a conservative-based party that would advertise its ideals properly and defend itself in the press. I keep hoping the Republican Party would do this. Until they do, they're the best chance we've got.
No it wasn't. Nice try though.
No, I am just saying it is a tactic of the commies. We should never stoop so low. What should happen is the GOP feels the pressure to move and STAY conservative. This will require us to stay active in the future… we need to be able to give the boot to GOP'ers who DON'T stay conservative. A smart GOP candidate will run on a platform of cleaning the commie-czars out of the White House through congressional hearings. They will need a super majority to do it but that is possible I think.
Here's my "make me mad for today" moment …
I'm driving in and I hear on the radio that Pelosi wants to raise the DEBT ceiling to like 14 trillion….
So some in Congress don't wan to do that …. SO MISS "WIND TUNNEL" Pelosi will stick the admentment in the bill for financing the war in Afgan !!!! WTF ??? So if I vote aganist the DEBT ceiling then I'm voting aganist the troops?
GOD DOES SHE "P1SS" ME OFF !!! How low can she go ???
I'd rather have a bottle-in-front-of-me than a Frontal Lobotomy!
I took one of those political quizzes once and was so far right, I got pushed outside the box.
Over 47000 new government jobs created since February !!!!!
I'd love me some liberty, but I owe my soul to the Government Company Store.
I fear we are all working for a company store with the granted power to jail us, confiscate our belongings, and point a gun at us if we object.
[Slavery. It's the new Socialism! Oh wait. No. That's the old Socialism. Nevermind. . . ]
What about DECRIMINALIZING drugs, hmm? Go ahead, make a convincing argument why drug users should be jailed.
"We should prosecute the crimes that drug use causes more than we should prosecute the drugs as a crime."
i couldn't agree more. i think you're right on.
That's a rhetorical question, right…?
I really like a lot of the work Libertarians do on economic policy, I find myself in agreement with them on those all the time. They are pretty good when it comes to understanding the proper roll of judges. And Libertarians have a deeper understanding of the concept of Federalism than some "leaders" in the modern Conservative movement (Huckabee) have. I just wish Libertarians didn't agree with Democrats so much on National Security issues.
Bad plan, professor. Throw them all out. If your only claim to office is that you're a republican and not a democrat, then you're going about this all wrong.
You vote on principles, not party. Unprincipled party people are what got us into this problem.
Not a republican, democrat or libertarian and damned proud of it!
It all starts at the local level and the state level.
It won't matter what the federal government says when a widespread revolt or civil war occurs.
Bush 44 and Obama 50…still ahead, but not by much!
LOL – I 'pologize.
A Republican with squishy principles is as bad as a Liberal with socialist principles. I say vote Conservatives into office no matter what party they affiliate with.
Zebo, if you're looking for a Principled party platform check out the Constitution Party, which has a Christian type platform. http;//www.constitutionparty.org
Or just somebody who wants to legalize pot.
Actually there are some actual philisophical differences between Libertarians and Conservatives that go beyond the differences on issues of morality. Honestly I think America would be better off if Democratic party was a small insignificant third party and if national the debate was between Consevatives and Libertarians.
Wouldn't it be nice if the other Polical lparties had a quiz similar to this. The quiz doesn't consider other factors such as Honesty, Integrity, Morality….But, I suspose it was created to simply an interest in them, like a "capture page". So, that's OK.
As I see it, the problem with a Libertarian Party, and to a lesser extent Conservative and traditional Republicans, is that essentially they stand for a negative. Less government, fewer programs, lower spending. The benefit, of course, is more freedom, greater responsibility, and unlimited potential. But these are less tangible, and more risky. That makes it a tougher sell. Combine that with the tendency of those who embrace the philosophy to not want to have anything to do with government, and you have difficulty in maintaining a long term movement. Freedom requires vigilance.
No need. Just thought you deserved a response. (And I doubt the sincerity of the apology too.
)
The third party candidates are not a problem at all. The domination of the two-party system has exposed some severe flaws within the electoral system and hard-core party loyalists espousing party unity just aren't getting it.
The recent NY-23 congressional race showed how GOP party support for a candidate that doesn't share the official party position on a wide range of issues has shattered the credibility of the GOP.
When the GOP expects the blind loyalty to them because the "other option" is worse and then summarily dismiss the concerns of those who they expected to vote for them, they dig their own grave. Those repeated dismissals of their rank and file supporters has caused a backlash that you are seeing in the Tea Party movement. The attitude of party leaders has caused many to completely reject the GOP.
When the Tea Party movement would beat the GOP on a hypothetical generic ballot, that should be a cause for concern to the GOP. The leadership in the GOP still looks upon the Tea Party movement as just a bunch of adolescent whining. They haven't got a clue what's really going on. The GOP leadership has already had their Marie Antoinette moment and they don't see the political storm taking shape across the country.
A good day for reading – Dam, this guy had some b@lls!!! Man do we need him now!!! These Al-Queida would be begging to crawl back in thier caves…
http://www.pattonhq.com/speech.html
All Bush has to do is make a speech and make it "hard" and to the point…. talk about crushing the taliban and their ilk.. He would then pass Obama ….
Rich, the problem with the GOP is that they claim to espouse the principle of fiscal responsibility and then simply toss it out when in office.
The GOP isn't blameless in any of this. There were those out sounding the clarion calls but they were drowned out by the "opposition", yet when the time came for them to stand up for the American people, they sold the principles they claimed to have out for perceived political gain.
For example, the $150 billion stimulus bill signed by Bush in February 2008. Then there was the $700 billion TARP bill from last October.
Sorry, but the people overwhelming opposed passage but it went through anyway with Republican support, including that of the GOP presidential candidate.
The GOP has its problems, I think you should always vote for the best candidate that has better than a snowflakes chance in hell of winning, the is usually the Republican candidate. I think you are reading too much into the NY23 race. The NY-23 situation was not a normal situation, their was no primary and a few party leaders in northern New York chose the candidate. When there are 435 congressional districts occasionally the party is going to pick a crappy candidate, it was just magnified in this situation because it was an off year special election. If you are unhappy with the GOP leadership, you are not going to change them by leaving the party to vote for a fringe candidate who has no chance of winning. If you want to change the leadership you do so by challenging them in the primaries, even if you lose the primary challenge it will force them to pay attention to you.
I think the more effective route would be for Libertarians to bring their philosophy and numbers to the Republican party.
Make your case in the GOP and you will be taken seriously (actual mileage may vary).
I receive information from them via email, but I won't openly support any political party as such.
The Constitution Party should, in my opinion, formally merge itself into the Tea Party movement. We don't need a party that proclaims religiousness in its platform. We need a party that gets back to promoting Americanism.
We don't need to necessarily maintain "free trade" principles with the rest of the world. When I hear people talking about "free trade", I see little more than the PRC flag flying over a vessel docking at Long Beach and unloading its cargo of worthless distractions.
We once had the ability to build such crap here, but at some point we concluded that it was too menial of a job to produce crap or we made decisions that made it impossible for a company to produce the crap here because of regulations that they felt it was cheaper and less hassle to open a Chinese factory to produce it.
And he Democrats win back the White house and they triple the yearly budget deficit. So how do we solve the deficit issues? By giving the party that is really bad on spending issues a permanent majority by fragmenting the concervative vote into two or more factions represented by different parties. Great idea. But I say let the left do that, not us.
I was not happy with the GOP's spending habits durring the last 6 to 8 years when they had actual power in Washington. They party that lost control of congress in 2006 did so because it completely lost touch with ideals that won them a majority in congress in 1994. But if you want to ever get control of the run away spending, the GOP is the best chance of that happening. We do need to change the party from within. For example we do need more principled concervative leaders in the party, we can get those by challenging those who are lacking in the consevative department or are just in there because they like the title of "congressman" or "senator". But if you go third party route you are asking for permanent minority status. I have seen it happen in other countries.
My main attraction to the Libertarians is that they are for even less government than the Conservatives. Given that US Government screws up just about anything it is involved with, I am all for as less government as possible in my life.
I don't see the Libertarians really gaining a major foothold in the political arena anytime in my life however. Even a Conservative Party I don't really see making major inroads into the government. Most third parties currently just split some of the vote away from the two major parties and end up losing anyway with how the political arena is structured.
Then what you do is point your gun at them & pull the trigger.
III
I find it hypocritical that a generally held conservative view is the belief that we should have a free marketplace of ideas. Yet, I see some commments here that state that the two party system which has failed us is preferred over a political system where all viewpoints are brought to the table and that no singular world view can gain dominance over the political system.
I firmly believe that groups like the Libertarain party, and Constitution party should not only exist but to be actively encouraged to grow by Republican/Conservative groups. In the end we may differ on some issues but we are ultimately all conservatives. If we really want to change the course our government is on it will only be done by a conservative movement not a Republican one. Reagan and Goldwater understood this but our Republican leaders have forgotten this important factor.
I am tired of hearing people say that a 3rd party will not work. If you keep saying it long enough and to enough people, it come to be true
Instead, why not push more people to clean up the corruption that is the cancer of the two primary parties?
If now is not the time to clean up and desert both parties I don't know when!
Prof- other than party loyalty, we agree on most everything. and KUDOS to you twice here. I think Krauthammer hits the nail on the head often and have come to look forward to hearing/seeing him telling it like it is. Also you used the word TREASON and one of my biggest disappointments in current evenst is that word is not being used enough. TYVM!
I probably would replace your word 'impeachable' with 'imprisonable'. I hear there's an empty prison in Montana that will hold about 600.
Libertarians need to join us, the Tea Partiers to clean up the Rep Party. We work to remove the Liberal/Progressives from the Party. Liberals & Moderates in the Rep Party will not be backed.
Speaking of Liberals, Our Old Buddy, Bill Oreilly got an Invitation from B Obongo to the White House, I guess all those Benefits of a Doubt & Passes all year long Paid Off. He was really excited about it. Maybe after their little party, Bill can stop over to the New Black Panther Party and visit the Acorn Party, Too.
The problem with having a third party is you are going to turn a two party system into a one party system.
Rich, you say that like it matters at this point. That money ain't ever going to be paid back. Not today, not in 10 years, not in 20 years, not ever.
There are two ways to actually do it. Pay it off with printed dollars, devaluing the currency and ruining the economy, or default on that debt and ruin the credit of the country. The country is already on the verge of having the credit destroyed and the currency is also being destroyed.
People have got to face the realities that stare them in the face. It is already passed the time to begin stocking up on things of value and to get closer to your family and neighbors. If you're of the spiritual sort, also a good time to get closer to your god.
All of the idels of libertarianism are very appealing but unfortunately, the current Libertarian party is pretty-much stuck on one a one-legged platform; Legalize marijuana. if they want to break out from being a tiny fringe party, they need to expand their platform to something other than "uhhh, what were we talking about?"
As for third parties. Ask around, you'll see that many people want a third party. Ask a thousand people what they think that the third party should look like and you'll get a thousand different parties. The third party is a great concept but it doesn't execute well. Just remember Ross Perot putting Clinton in to the Wjite House and Ralph Nader putting W into the White House. They're spoilers, nothing more.
Why would the Republican party want to encourage competing parties that would siphon votes from their candidates. All this will do is allow candidates with opposing viewpoints to win. How will putting leftists into power help change government in a more conservative direction?
Tiger's worth nearly a billion dollars. He doesn't need sponsors and the PGA, they need him. Viewers and subsequently advertising money was down 40% when he took nine months off for knee surgery. Advertisers are scared and the PGA is scared. No word on Phil Michelson.
He's working things out, he'll be back because he wants to play golf.
Ignore the tabloid media.
If doom is what you are looking forward too, then I guess supporting 3rd party candidates is the best way to quicken its coming (short of actually voting for a Democrat). I don't think America is in ground waiting to be buried, just yet. Sure the national debt is high, deficits are high, the dollar is in the toilet, and unemployment is double digits. But I think we can still turn this ship around. We sure as hell have to try anyways. We have faced tougher challenges in the past and we have overcome them.
It seems to me Rich that you ignore that the pub party has already rejected these folks(well, the principles anyway), and continues to do so. They chose to pursue the other girl instead of valueing the one they had. Why should the jilted continue to try to restore the relationship forever ?? Now the jilted have found each other – what are they to do?? beg and beg forever? — or even have any trust if the relationship is reconciliated?
In the post you the author said it "was" a good idea. Do you all believe it no longer to be good?
Like many have said, the 3rd party mess is what happens when your candidate gets into office? You would have no political support in Congress or in the hinterlands in the state governments, etc.
If Teddy Roosevelt couldn't win with the Bull Moose party, it can't be done. You think our political times are poor, read up on 1912… and sadly, all that followed that election… of Wilson.
Conservatives should unite behind a return to foundation and federalism and constitutional adherence. Get rid of the EPA and other federal fiefdoms that rule without consent or review. Pare down the federal government interference in our lives and reduce peoples dependance on it.
Great place to start. 99% of the Tea Party movement is on this path and I think the movement has legs.
I've always thought they should run as a third party – i don't want my Libertarian candidate in the liberal Democrat camp nor the conservative Republican camp. Damn you 2-party system!
Herding cats is a job for a masochist.
You seem to think that the party has a single conscience capable of accepting or rejecting anyone. It does not, some people in the Republican party are looking down on the Tea Party people and are scoffing at them, others are not. I think the better idea is to take over the Republican party with all of its infostructure already in place and make the the scoffers a minority within the party (I think they already are, its just they are a vocal minority in some key posts). It is a million times easier than starting a party from scratch.
Rove on a "Tea Party"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/12/11...
it is as idealistic to believe that the party position is not centralized to the RNC as it is to believe a third party has a chance. there is a 'they' and it is the croneyism at the top of the party. at the bare minimum 'they' determine who will get RNC financial support.. you have claimed that NY-23 was insignificant.. the way the RNC loyals displayed their party-over-principles character was NOT insignificant at all.. and does nothing to help the jilted have any reason to believe in the pubs.
This talk of third parties reminds me that there is not a single Republican House member from New England. New England need a 2nd party! The Republican brand has been tainted; we need to provide those folks some alternative to voting D, and that is to run as an Independent, a Conservative or Tea Party Independent. We are working on this at Fire Fifty, http://www.firefifty.com/phpwiki/index.php . Time to clean House.
This talk of third parties reminds me that there is not a single Republican House member from New England. New England need a 2nd party! The Republican brand has been tainted; we need to provide those folks some alternative to voting D, and that is to run as an Independent, a Conservative or Tea Party Independent. We are working on this at Fire Fifty, http://www.firefifty.com/phpwiki/index.php . Time to clean House.
There ya go! I stopped calling myself Libertarian about 15 years ago when I learned waaaay too much about drugs the hard way. And, yeah, some of the isolationist ideas need to be more thought out.
Yep! I registered R so I can vote in the primaries. Enough of these RINOs! They need to be ferreted out and disposed of.
Do you not remember that Ross Perot got Bill Clinton elected… twice?
I keep hoping the Republican Party starts listening to Ron Paul.
It's a good idea if Conservatives of every stripe would caucus together and reject phony egomaniacs like Ross Perot.
Weak. People don't usually mortgage their home & their children's future so they can blast vodka into their veins or up their nose. Coke is like that. At first, I used to work hard, so I could buy more coke, so I could work harder, so I could buy more coke, until I realized that it was never enough until it was too much. Too many times to mention waking up in the ER. If I want to visit my teenage and 20 something friends, I have to go to a cemetery.
Actually the New York system tends to this somewhat. Loads of parties, but candidates can be nominated by more than one. In practice, the Republican is often also endorsed by the Conservative Party, and the Democrat by the Liberal. The problem arises when we are faced with the practicalities of winning elections and governing. There tends to be a scale of consensus-building and ideological purity. The more one insists on purity, the less likely one is to be able to build a block of influence. (Contrarily, the more one works to compromise, the less one seems to actually stand for anything.)
The U.S. has never had a long period of three, or more, parties. Although third parties have arisen, and eventually supplanted one of the two. Governing simply requires too much of a political base to allow a third party to have a major impact.
Our system is simply not set up to handle anything more than two parties. First-past-the-post electoral contests all guarantee that the electorate will always come back to two dominant parties. It's not even necessary to consider the legal impediments erected by the main parties.
I like that these other parties exist, but they're generally only going to win local races. Their primary benefit to the national scene is to be a check on the major parties and spread awareness of more principled positions.
It's only a two party system because the media says so….they have vigorously projected and protected that system for generations…
Who's Tiger Woods??
agree Rt. it's hard to fight for 'minimal laws' when it now requires making a law to do so. Freedom does require vigilance, and tenacity. We have the law, the primary law of the land, in place – but even now most of us are still rejecting it's significance. All we really have to do is stand up for it. A good start would be to go ahead and kill ACORN and their affiliates while they're weakened. But strangely – as a whole we don't even seem to have the desire to do that.
A third party will not work. I sorry you are tired hearing it. But I am not saying it out of any love of the Republican party. I am saying it because it is true. Having another right of center party will allow Democrats to win elections and basically control the country with 40% of the vote. If we had a run-off like they do in France where the top two vote getters go to a second round third parties might be viable, but we don't so they aren't and thats the way it is. Just speaking for myself, I prefer our election system over that of France.
Truthfully, I was being facetious. I know who Tiger Woods is, but don't follow golf, or any other sports. Those type people, and that type world means nothing to me. It is just spoiled rich folks doing what the do best. If things were that bad, his pretty blonde wife was lucky to get out before Tiger pulled an OJ on her. It's all about "the deal". She made a trade off to live the good life. Some folks do it for cash in a back alley, some do it for washers and dryers, some do it for Escalades and GulfStreams.
The Company Store? It's changed, and has a whole new image and name. It is called WALMART……..
Why is the file name to this graphic of the Libertarian Party BS-LOGO.JPG ?
I have a guess…
Ayn Rand called the Libertarians the "hippies" of the right…
To presume that third parties are spoilers is to overlook two important facts. 1) There is a system to avoid the spoiler problem called Instant Runoff Voting, 2) The votes belong to the voter in the first place, not Party 1 (D) or Party 2 (R).
http://www.google.com/search?q=Instant+Runoff+Vot...
Let the Republicans adopt libertarian principles – nothing is stopping them save their own reluctance.
No. That idea sucks bricks through a garden hose. The result is and has been aything but Libertarian since Goldwater.
HOORAY! SACRIFICE PRINCIPLE TO POPULISM!
Your pragmatism will be your undoing.
Two thousand years ago, the Christmas Revolution began with the birth of Jesus. His teachings, not the mystic aspects, were a rebellion against Old World governments. It started a brutal counter revolution against Christians and their teachings that continue today. Like Libertarians, Christians teach sovereignty of the individual with interests and aspirations unique to each. It was individual freedom limited by the Golden Rule. Christians were outside the rule of elite few. It was a new world order in itself. It took root 1620 years after it began in the Middle East with a small band of Pilgrims settling in Massachusetts. It spread across North America. It proved itself successful. The individual interests and freedom to pursue life, liberty and prosperity proved harmonious in American communities. A free and prosperous people ruled themselves. They rejected the power of the few elite in whose arrogance thought they could do better.
Christianity, because of its teachings, is targeted for defeat by those who believe community interests are more important than are individual interests. Its celebration is ridiculed and prohibited in many areas of America today. It says individual freedom is the best answer to the problems facing the world. Prosperity and freedom are not found in the dictatorships of elite still infecting the rest of the world, the modern American Democrat Party and their allies on the left. The New World, founded on the Christmas Revolution, proved freedom and prosperity. The Old World, on the other hand, prefers slavery and chains for the many. Claysamerica.com
In my opinion (worth every cent you are paying for it :-{)} ) it is not a matter of the jobs being menial. It has far more to do with taxation, excessive regulation, mandated hiring quotas, and other such nonsense the country got along so well without for so many years.
Libertarians have very little in common with modern day liberals or "progressives". Libertarianism is based on the founding principles of this country and have much in common with "classical liberals" such as Thomas Jefferson and our founders. I'm not clear what makes you think being a libertarian makes you a liberal? Being a libertarian makes you a libertarian or maybe a libertarian conservative but certainly not a modern day liberal, at all.
Actually, I don't. They aren't serious and have been largely AWOL during the current crisis.
oh please. i know just as many junkies as i do alcoholics. I've seen drugs ruin my friends' lives, just as i've seen alcohol ruin lives. The fact that you worked so very hard to buy more and more coke makes you the weak one. And, honestly, i don't really care if you wake up in the ER or die from an over dose. Not my business, and if you want to make that choice, so be it. Sure, i'd like to see people make the good choice and live a healthy life, but if someone wants to be a drugged out scum bag, that's their problem.
if you don't think people have lost their homes and their children's future due to alcohol, you're living in a fantasy land. I could go on with stories about how me and those closest to me were directly impacted by alcohol abuse, but i won't.
Furthermore, if you think that making drugs illegal is going to solve the problem, you're clearly not facing reality. Coke and heroine and other drugs have been illegal for a long time…. do you see the problem going away? Is it getting any better? Will it bring any of your teenage and 20 something friends back from the cemetery? Nope.
consenting adults should be able to engage in whatever behavior or activity they choose, so long as the action doesn't negatively impact anyone else, or deprive anyone else of their natural rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.