It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The Dictator has spoken.
All you people who use your right to not vote because you don't like a two Party system will be in the ghulags.
Some people don't vote for religious reasons, well Obama metaphorically says off with your heads infidels.
I was also thinking that, the silent majority presumably agreeing with me against socialism, being forced to vote at gunpoint might actually vote Libertarian for once. It might in fact be the only time you could get libertarians out to vote.
IMO Libertarianism needs to be better defined and mature to compete. Right now it is a fading cult of personality centered on Ron Paul.
Libertarians need to clearly define and articulate their platform...as a party..not just Ron Paul and then introduce a genuine Primary. I would argue they need to moderate their platform to appeal to a larger base, but that is just strategy, not ideology and I am not libertarian..so that's not my place to ask for.
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The Dictator has spoken.
All you people who use your right to not vote because you don't like a two Party system will be in the ghulags.
Some people don't vote for religious reasons, well Obama metaphorically says off with your heads infidels.
I was also thinking that, the silent majority presumably agreeing with me against socialism, being forced to vote at gunpoint might actually vote Libertarian for once. It might in fact be the only time you could get libertarians out to vote.
This gives a peek of the current state of those perceptions..
www.people-press.org...
ha.
I would be willing to go all in with my hand.
If it turns out that most people want to jump off the cliff, who am I to argue?
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Indigo5
The best description of a libertarian platform would be something along the lines of - You know what your government does for you? We'll stop that.
That's a hard message to sell today.
How would more people being biased by money counteract money?
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The Dictator has spoken.
All you people who use your right to not vote because you don't like a two Party system will be in the ghulags.
Some people don't vote for religious reasons, well Obama metaphorically says off with your heads infidels.
I was also thinking that, the silent majority presumably agreeing with me against socialism, being forced to vote at gunpoint might actually vote Libertarian for once. It might in fact be the only time you could get libertarians out to vote.
This gives a peek of the current state of those perceptions..
www.people-press.org...
ha.
I would be willing to go all in with my hand.
If it turns out that most people want to jump off the cliff, who am I to argue?
You have NO IDEA of what people are capable of when forced to vote...
Take Brazil for example...Where this past year Satan, Jesus and Superman ran for office!
This is a MUST WATCH...
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The Dictator has spoken.
All you people who use your right to not vote because you don't like a two Party system will be in the ghulags.
Some people don't vote for religious reasons, well Obama metaphorically says off with your heads infidels.
I was also thinking that, the silent majority presumably agreeing with me against socialism, being forced to vote at gunpoint might actually vote Libertarian for once. It might in fact be the only time you could get libertarians out to vote.
IMO Libertarianism needs to be better defined and mature to compete. Right now it is a fading cult of personality centered on Ron Paul.
Libertarians need to clearly define and articulate their platform...as a party..not just Ron Paul and then introduce a genuine Primary. I would argue they need to moderate their platform to appeal to a larger base, but that is just strategy, not ideology and I am not libertarian..so that's not my place to ask for.
There is a logical conundrum built into libertarianism, liberalism (original definition) and minarchy which is self defeating. No of us wants to be a politician, to do so is either crazy or fraudulent.
originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5
Ahhhhh, results from a Pew Poll in 2011 is your example of "current "?
Okay then.
And with no info for that graph, for sampling rates or anything else.
Yeah, I buy it. I also have a bridge in Brooklyn I just purchased as well.
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The Dictator has spoken.
All you people who use your right to not vote because you don't like a two Party system will be in the ghulags.
Some people don't vote for religious reasons, well Obama metaphorically says off with your heads infidels.
I was also thinking that, the silent majority presumably agreeing with me against socialism, being forced to vote at gunpoint might actually vote Libertarian for once. It might in fact be the only time you could get libertarians out to vote.
IMO Libertarianism needs to be better defined and mature to compete. Right now it is a fading cult of personality centered on Ron Paul.
Libertarians need to clearly define and articulate their platform...as a party..not just Ron Paul and then introduce a genuine Primary. I would argue they need to moderate their platform to appeal to a larger base, but that is just strategy, not ideology and I am not libertarian..so that's not my place to ask for.
There is a logical conundrum built into libertarianism, liberalism (original definition) and minarchy which is self defeating. No of us wants to be a politician, to do so is either crazy or fraudulent.
Plato spoke to that conundrum a couple thousand years ago..
"“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The Dictator has spoken.
All you people who use your right to not vote because you don't like a two Party system will be in the ghulags.
Some people don't vote for religious reasons, well Obama metaphorically says off with your heads infidels.
I was also thinking that, the silent majority presumably agreeing with me against socialism, being forced to vote at gunpoint might actually vote Libertarian for once. It might in fact be the only time you could get libertarians out to vote.
This gives a peek of the current state of those perceptions..
www.people-press.org...
ha.
I would be willing to go all in with my hand.
If it turns out that most people want to jump off the cliff, who am I to argue?
You have NO IDEA of what people are capable of when forced to vote...
Take Brazil for example...Where this past year Satan, Jesus and Superman ran for office!
This is a MUST WATCH...
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Indigo5
The best description of a libertarian platform would be something along the lines of - You know what your government does for you? We'll stop that.
That's a hard message to sell today.
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Indigo5
The best description of a libertarian platform would be something along the lines of - You know what your government does for you? We'll stop that.
That's a hard message to sell today.
That is an emotional appeal and while emotionally satisfying...building a platform purely on "anti" anything or anarchist has no long-term legs. It appeals to thoroughly oppressed people. It is effective for revolutions in highly oppressed societies, but even then the platform has the life of a mayfly and almost always ironically morphs into dictatorship.
The libertarian party needs a platform that includes (+) not just taking machete to our current system.
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The Dictator has spoken.
All you people who use your right to not vote because you don't like a two Party system will be in the ghulags.
Some people don't vote for religious reasons, well Obama metaphorically says off with your heads infidels.
I was also thinking that, the silent majority presumably agreeing with me against socialism, being forced to vote at gunpoint might actually vote Libertarian for once. It might in fact be the only time you could get libertarians out to vote.
IMO Libertarianism needs to be better defined and mature to compete. Right now it is a fading cult of personality centered on Ron Paul.
Libertarians need to clearly define and articulate their platform...as a party..not just Ron Paul and then introduce a genuine Primary. I would argue they need to moderate their platform to appeal to a larger base, but that is just strategy, not ideology and I am not libertarian..so that's not my place to ask for.
There is a logical conundrum built into libertarianism, liberalism (original definition) and minarchy which is self defeating. No of us wants to be a politician, to do so is either crazy or fraudulent.
Plato spoke to that conundrum a couple thousand years ago..
"“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”
I have always had a problem with Plato. He seems to conceive of the problem and then get distracted before thinking it through completely.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." -Lord Acton
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
The Dictator has spoken.
All you people who use your right to not vote because you don't like a two Party system will be in the ghulags.
Some people don't vote for religious reasons, well Obama metaphorically says off with your heads infidels.
I was also thinking that, the silent majority presumably agreeing with me against socialism, being forced to vote at gunpoint might actually vote Libertarian for once. It might in fact be the only time you could get libertarians out to vote.
IMO Libertarianism needs to be better defined and mature to compete. Right now it is a fading cult of personality centered on Ron Paul.
Libertarians need to clearly define and articulate their platform...as a party..not just Ron Paul and then introduce a genuine Primary. I would argue they need to moderate their platform to appeal to a larger base, but that is just strategy, not ideology and I am not libertarian..so that's not my place to ask for.
There is a logical conundrum built into libertarianism, liberalism (original definition) and minarchy which is self defeating. No of us wants to be a politician, to do so is either crazy or fraudulent.
Plato spoke to that conundrum a couple thousand years ago..
"“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”
I have always had a problem with Plato. He seems to conceive of the problem and then get distracted before thinking it through completely.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." -Lord Acton
What I do for a living is in part identify leaders...but for private companies. Having done it for a couple of decades I have discovered the best leaders lack ego. They will loudly tell anyone who will listen that their success is based on not just a willingness, but a drive and passion for finding and hiring people who are smarter than themselves. They never tell anyone what to do, they map out the goal and people rally to cross that line. People work toward that goal willingly. The "Leader" just articulates the goal, vision and general terrain that needs to be covered to get there. You talk to these leaders and they will tell you they lead simply because they are good at it...if they were good farmers or sculptors they would be just as happy doing that. They "Lead" because it is where they are objectively most useful in the effort.
So I guess my answer to the "power corrupts" bit is it depends on how you define power and it's actual utility absent ego.