• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

What is Libertarianism?

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
That which OT votes for?

does this sound like Ot?


Party Beliefs

A thumbnail definition: In the U.S., the Libertarian Party denotes a belief that the powers of government should be very strictly limited, e.g. to foreign affairs, national defense, law enforcement, etc. Libertarians believe that government has no business providing health care, old-age pensions, managing the economy, etc., etc. Libertarians, unlike anarchists, believe in the rule of law, but they are very much against the legislation of morality. Libertarians support drug legalization, for example, on the theory that people have the right to do what they want as long as it doesn't injure anyone else. But they have no problem with laws against murder, robbery, rape, etc.
Tom Gregg, 28 February 2000

That is pretty close. I am a member of the Libertarian Party and we believe very much in the rule of law as designated by the powers of the U.S. Constitution and the state constitutions - so long as they are in obeyance with the Federal Constitution. The Federal government does have the power to influence that portion of the economy that crosses state lines, as those powers are mandated in that document. We also believe the Federal government has the power to set up judicial systems (including trial by a jury of your peers), customs taxes, provide for national defense, treat with other nations so long as U.S. sovereignty is respected, and deal with the protection of its citizens on affairs that also cross state lines.

All other things are reserved to the states to handle.

We also believe in equal rights and protections for all but special rights or protections for none - all are equal under the Constitution. The private sector can almost always do things better, more efficiently and far cheaper than the government can do them and one of our platforms is to privatize much of the things the government does today. The reason here is that the government has no accountability while the private sector, with its profit and efficiency motives in place, can do things better and, if they don't work out, shut them down.

We also believe firmly in the Bill Of Rights which grants free speech, a free press, freedom of religious practice as well as keeping the government out of religion (a strict separation of church and state), freedom to keep and bear arms (which goes far deeper than just having them for defense, both personal and for national reasons - but also to keep the government in line - as, I believe Jefferson stated, "Where the people fear the government you have tyranny, where the government fears the people you have liberty."), protection against self-incrimination, reserving those powers not given to the Federal government (which, if you read the Constitution, are not that many!) to the states, protection against having troops live in your home, and a few others. The document would not have passed state muster back when it was written (1787) unless the Bill Of Rights was added to it.

The United States was begun by libertarians and we count as our heroes Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Payne, among others. The belief that we have in the states doing things better than the Federal government holds very true for us, as well as having the Federal government obey the laws of the Constitution. We view government as the servant of the people designed to conduct the people's business - but they only rule over us until we withdraw our consent to be ruled by them. Hence the belief in secession in American history (and still a party plank of the Libertarian party by the way).

That is it in a nutshell basically - other than we have belief in people as individuals, and that they have inalienable rights to protect them - but they also bear the enormous responsibility not to infringe on others and to take care of themselves rather than depend on government to take care of them for them. That is the way it used to be in the United States - until presidents cranked up the era of massive Federal government.

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/us%7Dlib.html
 

smalltime

Well-known member
Wow those libertarians are a bunch of braindead radical wacko's.They couldnt win dogcatcher with that kind of blather.GD spoilers.I'll bey they dont like Isreal either.Just plain rediculous oldtimer that you could waste your vote that way.How can you look in the mirror at yourself :lol: Only drunkin fools have balls enough too vote thier conscience.I think I'll get drunk and make a fool of myself. :wink:
 

hopalong

Well-known member
smalltime said:
Wow those libertarians are a bunch of braindead radical wacko's.They couldnt win dogcatcher with that kind of blather.GD spoilers.I'll bey they dont like Isreal either.Just plain rediculous oldtimer that you could waste your vote that way.How can you look in the mirror at yourself :lol: Only drunkin fools have balls enough too vote thier conscience.I think I'll get drunk and make a fool of myself. :wink:


no need to get drunk to do that....you do just fine like you are :wink: :wink:
 

smalltime

Well-known member
Just couldnt resist could you hopalong? :eek: :lol: :lol: :lol: If you want to make me feel bad tell me how nice the weather is in Arizona :wink:
 

Steve

Well-known member
They couldnt win dogcatcher with that kind of blather

you might have noticed, but in the world of politics.. there are darn few libertarian candidates that even win crossing gaurd..

it may not be the platform, but the kooks they often attract.. that turn off most libertarian leaning voters..
 

CottageFarm

Well-known member
Steve said:
They couldnt win dogcatcher with that kind of blather

you might have noticed, but in the world of politics.. there are darn few libertarian candidates that even win crossing gaurd..

it may not be the platform, but the kooks they often attract.. that turn off most libertarian leaning voters..

I think they do tend to attract so many kooks precisely because of their platform.

They can't attract most conservatives because of their Neville Chamberlain school of foreign policy, legalization of drugs, and support the redefinition of marriage, to name a few. People like me tend to see this side of their positions as naive at best.

They can't attract most liberals because they don't support the nanny state and all the gimmees that liberals like OT embrace about socialism.
 

CottageFarm

Well-known member
smalltime said:
Wow those libertarians are a bunch of braindead radical wacko's.They couldnt win dogcatcher with that kind of blather.GD spoilers.I'll bey they dont like Isreal either.Just plain rediculous oldtimer that you could waste your vote that way.How can you look in the mirror at yourself :lol: Only drunkin fools have balls enough too vote thier conscience.I think I'll get drunk and make a fool of myself. :wink:

You may not want to hear it, but the truth is that they rarely do amount to anything but spoilers. Whether a voter agrees with a candidates entire platform is irrelevant in the realm of politics. A 3rd candidate is always going to take votes away from the other two. One can try to justify voting for a non-viable candidate by whining about voting their conscience, but in the end, that vote will still put someone else in office. I would ask what one's conscience has to say when the winner is that voters least desireable candidate?

And, yes, Libertarians do not support Isreal. As a matter of fact, most I've heard address our current support of Isreal, come across sounding pretty antisemitic to me. That would be just one more reason, for me anyway, not to support their candidacy.
 

Steve

Well-known member
GD spoilers

You may not want to hear it, but the truth is that they rarely do amount to anything but spoilers. Whether a voter agrees with a candidates entire platform is irrelevant in the realm of politics. A 3rd candidate is always going to take votes away from the other two. One can try to justify voting for a non-viable candidate by whining about voting their conscience, but in the end, that vote will still put someone else in office.


That is one of the reasons I feel the Tea Party is growing in actual support and has been able to get candidates on the ballot and elected because we take a Fight in the Primaries, Unite in the General election attitude..

Johnson knew he could win as a republican,.. so instead of fighting harder he took a route that leads to nowhere.. I am not sure of which is sadder..

had he actually fought in the republican primaries he may have gone form the underdog to the medias daily favorite.. much like Cain, Newt, and Santorum did.. and had he had the ability to stay on track, he may have actually won,.. but he didn't he quit.. before he even started..
 

hopalong

Well-known member
smalltime said:
Just couldnt resist could you hopalong? :eek: :lol: :lol: :lol: If you want to make me feel bad tell me how nice the weather is in Arizona :wink:

If you really want to know go to the weather channel :D :D
 

smalltime

Well-known member
That doesnt make any sence Steve.Ron Paul said the same things and he had no chance at all with you.He stayed till the end .
 

Steve

Well-known member
smalltime said:
That doesnt make any sence Steve.Ron Paul said the same things and he had no chance at all with you.He stayed till the end .

there were only a few issues I totally disagreed with Ron Paul on..

and Johnson didn't have to stay in lockstep with Congressman Paul..

In fact I doubt he did.. but now. I find few things I agree totally with Johnson..

I disagree on Iran.. immigration, drugs, China, capital punishment, terrorists, Gitmo, trade issues..

it is one thing to disagree a bit.. but another to not agree much at all..

but I like his stance on gun control.. healthcare,

and can understand and even accept his stand on other issues such as abortion, Cuba, budget, dept of education, marijuana, SS

overall I think many of his positions are naive..

given a choice of Obama or Johnson I would pick Johnson as I feel the congress would be able to guide some of his more radical decisions.. and he would stand up on the moderate issues..

and if it wasn't for his blind stand on Iran and immigration.. I might have chosen him over Romney, who I think is a center left moderate..

I voted for Paul knowing he would lose, but wanted to support his goals..

. and in NJ you vote for the electors.. which I split my vote and voted for Romney's hoping Paul would work with Romney instead of trying a floor fight.

Paul didn't respect our will, so I no longer will support his.


at this point Johnson is just another footnote in history.. he may rise to the Perot of spoilers, but I doubt it..

my greatest hope is the GOP runs adds for him in the all blue states..
 

Steve

Well-known member
he had no chance at all with you, He stayed till the end .

I vote for him.. and he stayed to long..

I don't know how many times I must say it.. "Fight in the Primaries,.. Unite in the General"

I feel a fight in the primaries is critical for our republic,.. and uniting in the general election is critical for our nation..
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
CottageFarm said:
Steve said:
They couldnt win dogcatcher with that kind of blather

you might have noticed, but in the world of politics.. there are darn few libertarian candidates that even win crossing gaurd..

it may not be the platform, but the kooks they often attract.. that turn off most libertarian leaning voters..

I think they do tend to attract so many kooks precisely because of their platform.

They can't attract most conservatives because of their Neville Chamberlain school of foreign policy, legalization of drugs, and support the redefinition of marriage, to name a few. People like me tend to see this side of their positions as naive at best.

They can't attract most liberals because they don't support the nanny state and all the gimmees that liberals like OT embrace about socialism.


You ain't from Boulder.....
 

CottageFarm

Well-known member
This article ran in the WSJ today. Some may find it thought provoking:

By RANDY E. BARNETT

In 1972, the Libertarian Party nominated University of Southern California philosophy Prof. John Hospers as its first presidential candidate and ran Tonie Nathan for vice president. When Roger MacBride, a Virginia Republican elector pledged to Richard Nixon, voted instead for Hospers-Nathan, he cast the first electoral vote in American history for a woman. The Libertarian Party was off and running. In 1976, it nominated the renegade elector as its presidential candidate.

As a young libertarian, I was very enthusiastic about the formation of the Libertarian Party. I proudly cast my vote for Roger MacBride for president. I attended the 1975 national convention in New York that nominated him. But, while I am as libertarian today as I was then, I have come to believe that the Libertarian Party was a mistake.

The reason is simple. Unlike a parliamentary system in which governments are formed by coalitions of large and small parties, our electoral system is a first-past-the-post, winner-take-all one in which a winning presidential candidate just needs to get more than 50% of the vote. This means each contending "major" party is itself a coalition that needs to assemble enough diverse voting groups within it to get to 51%. Hence the need to appeal to the so-called moderates and independents rather than the more "extreme" elements within.

To the extent that a third party is successful, it will drain votes from the coalition party to which it is closest and help elect the coalition party that is further removed from its interests. The Libertarian Party's effort will, if effective, attract more libertarian voters away from the candidate who is marginally less hostile to liberty, and help hand the election to the candidate who is more hostile to liberty.

Fortunately, because this drawback is so obvious, the Libertarian Party's presidential vote has remained minuscule. (It was about 0.4% in 2008, though it could cost Mitt Romney the electoral votes of New Hampshire this time around). Most libertarian voters resist the party's call, even when, as this year, it has nominated a good man like Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico.

Some have defended the LP by saying it is an expressive outlet for political libertarians, as distinct from more intellectual or policy types. Here too the LP has been counterproductive. By drawing libertarian politicos from both major parties, the LP makes these parties less libertarian at the margin than they would otherwise be. In each major-party coalition, the libertarian element is weaker precisely to the extent that libertarian politicos are expending their energies on behalf of the LP.

Libertarian activists should choose whichever party they feel more comfortable working within. That's what Ron Paul did. Likewise, Rand Paul has brought his libertarianism inside the GOP tent. The small-"l" libertarians in the tea party movement identified the Republican Party as the coalition closest to their concerns about fiscal responsibility and the growth of government power, and they have gone about making the GOP more libertarian from the grass-roots up. They have moved the party in a libertarian direction, as has the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Despite all this, some libertarians continue to insist that, because the Republican and Democrats are equally bad for liberty, it makes no difference who gets elected. However true this once was, in recent years Republicans have been better for liberty and Democrats have been worse.

It was a Democratic Congress and president who gave us the federal takeover of the health-care industry that will bring us closer to a Western European-style social democracy. All four Democratic-appointed Supreme Court justices voted to uphold ObamaCare as constitutional, with four Republican-appointed dissenters.


Are Democrats better than Republicans on personal liberty? Neither has been great on that score, but Democrats have been the bigger disappointment. When I took the medical-marijuana case to the Supreme Court in 2004, I got zero votes from the left side of the court while garnering the votes of Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O'Connor. And President Obama's Justice Department has reneged on his campaign promise to refrain from going after medical-marijuana dispensaries.

Neither party wants to question the futile and destructive "war on drugs." But Republicans have been much better on free speech in recent years. With respect to economic liberty, the Environmental Protection Agency has restricted land use throughout the nation and would do more if not stopped. Dodd-Frank has amped up restrictions on financial services.

Libertarians need to adjust their tactics to the current context. This year, their highest priority should be saving the country from fiscal ruin, arresting and reversing the enormous growth in federal power—beginning with repealing ObamaCare—and pursuing a judiciary who will actually enforce the Constitution. Which party is most likely to do these things in 2013?

Citing the Republican Congress under George W. Bush, some libertarians contend that divided government is best for liberty. Yes, divided government is good for stopping things (until some grand deal is made). But divided government won't repeal ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank or give us better judges.

Libertarian activists need to set aside their decades-old knee-jerk reactions to the two major parties, roll up their sleeves, and make the Republican and Democratic parties more libertarian. When it comes to voting, libertarians need to get serious about liberty and give up on the Libertarian Party. Nov. 6 would be a good day to start.

Mr. Barnett is professor of legal theory at Georgetown Law School and the author of "Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty" (Princeton University, 2005).
 

CottageFarm

Well-known member
okfarmer said:
CottageFarm said:
Steve said:
you might have noticed, but in the world of politics.. there are darn few libertarian candidates that even win crossing gaurd..

it may not be the platform, but the kooks they often attract.. that turn off most libertarian leaning voters..

I think they do tend to attract so many kooks precisely because of their platform.

They can't attract most conservatives because of their Neville Chamberlain school of foreign policy, legalization of drugs, and support the redefinition of marriage, to name a few. People like me tend to see this side of their positions as naive at best.

They can't attract most liberals because they don't support the nanny state and all the gimmees that liberals like OT embrace about socialism.


You ain't from Boulder.....



Nope, farther North :lol2: :tiphat:
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
Oldtimer or anyone else who votes for Gary Johnson is like someone attending a football game cheering for the food concession stand. :roll:
 
Top