Libertarians, Start Building Your House.

reply to post by Nite_wing

Isn't that YOUR choice?

I do understand that point, at least within the framework of establishinng a coalition.

I'll rephrase my question: What incompetency or incompetencies within the Libertarian movement do you believe must be looked at? This question is related to your opinion about Ron Paul, specifically. That you believe is he is incompetent is fine with me, but he must be incompetent for a reason, yes? Moreover, his views do in many ways reflect the views of "big tent" Libertarians, so I am inclined to think there are specific principles which you, as a conservative constitutionalist, find disagreeable. Add to that that a coalition--a viable coalition at least, implies compromise. Forcing this or that principle into the Republican platform by way of infiltration will, in my opinion, be viewed as little more than the same perceived insurrection (the Ron Paul insurrection) that occurred during this election cycle. And while I understand the point you're driving at, it comes across to me like this: infiltrate the Republican party because the name Libertarian does not carry the same weight that Republican does. Is that a correct assessment or am I wrong?

I wouldn't necessary say that Libertarians are more conservative than conservatives. But there's no point in debating that. It really comes down to how you define or understand "conservative." If nothing else I would say that Libertarians are liberal; that Libertarians do not share uniform agreement about ethics, but consistent Libertarians aren't interested in regulating, coordinating, and legislating every human action under the Sun either. As for political economy it would be a stretch of the truth to say there is uniform agreement, but non interventionism is a key aspect, neither of which Democrats nor Republicans are proponents of. Add to that foreign interventionism and ... well I've no idea how Libertarians will compromise with hard-school Republicans on this front.

It doesn't matter if Libertarians regroup and rebuild their 'house.'

Libertarians are the closest thing to the concept of a free government as envisioned by the founding fathers. Unfortunately, what this election showed, is that the values of Americans has fundamentally and irrevocably shifted. Americans, either by genuine introspection or long-term propaganda induced ignorance, no longer place precedence on fundamental rights, self-determination, and responsibility.

The system we have created in the past 100 years has become so ingrained in the lives of every American, they cannot be undone. It was never the governments roll to be a provider of much more than national defense and a court system. Yet now, we have multiple layers of social supports, public education, etc. Not to mention the completely invasive nanny state, where people are guilty until shown innocent. These things cannot be undone. They cannot even be whittled down. Even if every position in elected government were to be swept by Libertarians, things cannot be undone. Fiscally, they cannot even be stabilized.

There are only three possible futures.

1. The people continue to give up more and more freedoms. The US becomes subservient to its the nation(s) holding its debt. Assuming war on the US mainland does not occur, this is this is a distopian/Orwellian future.

2. The US breaks apart into two or more independent nations, unified around social, economical and regional politics. How this would pan out from a civil war aspect or with regards to the national debt I am uncertain.

3. The US government collapses as a result of the fiscal irresponsibility, and social degradation. This will occur at the same time or in proximity to war and fail responses to natural disasters. The states will soon-thereafter regroup as mentioned in 2.

As you can see, in either case, we and the cause of freedom for which the founders created a new nation, are doomed. It is a certainty.

reply to post by olaru12


Then you just don't get "it".
We need to swing the Republicans to the Libertarian principles. I didn't say platform. I said principles.

Originally posted by Kovenov

"infiltrate the Republican party because the name Libertarian does not carry the same weight that Republican does. Is that a correct assessment or am I wrong? "

Your assumption is correct. Republicans have the money. Libertarians have the platform.

People get tired of wars. Non-intervention usually comes around, even after 100 years.
Industry does not get tired of war. Unions do not get tired of war. Mothers get tired of war. Fathers get tired of war. Even soldiers get tired of war.

My understanding of the Libertarian platform is to leave them (warring factions) to themselves and do what they want to each other. At least leave them to themselves until they reach our soil. Then kill them.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by darkhorserider
reply to post by Nite_wing

 

Please expound upon why Paul and Johnson were poor representatives of the Liberal movement. I might get heavily involved in the party, I might even run for a seat, but I agree with 95% of everything Paul stands for, so where am I seeing him wrong?

I do believe you are confusing Liberal with Libertarian. They are not the same, although they might have been when the Constitution was drafted. Classical Liberalism is not the same as Progressive marxism.

Honest question, please tell me the difference.

My stance is that much of the extreme Liberal agenda, like legalizing MJ and Prostitution are really Conservative values, because they take government out of our lives and limit its role. Pro-choice = conservative, because it limits government's role. I don't agree with abortion, but I believe we should attack it from other angles, not making it illegal (except I just can't support 3rd trimester abortions for any reason other than to save the mother's life. Those really should be illegal.).

Now, when looking at Social Programs, maybe a Liberatarian and a Liberal drastically part ways. I believe a basic welfare system, and a basic unemployment system are probably necessary, but they should be extremely limited in scope, and they should be extremely temporary benefits, not career choices. 13 weeks max for unemployment, and 12 months max for Welfare. I don't believe the Social Security system is necessary, but since so many have paid into it and counted on it, it would have to be phased out over 30 years, it couldn't end abrupty. I don't believe the government should be enforcing child support cases. Basically I think the Title IV stuff needs to be gutted down to bare bones.

Primary and Secondary education need to be handled at the State Level, but I don't see anything wrong with Federally backed Student Loans, as long as they only cover tuition and are not abused to the point of people graduating with $100k in debt and a worthless degree in Criminology, LOL!

I do believe the government has a role in Federal Standards like Weights and Measures, and FDA, and USDA, but they need to concentrate in areas that make sense, not shutting down little grandmas selling raw milk, but in making sure Bayer Aspirin is what it says it is on the bottle, and it isn't polluting the Mississippi with the byproducts.

SO, do I fit in as Libertarian, or a Liberal?

You would fit into the Libertarian agenda however, those things you discussed should be handled at the state level.

I too believe there should be a safety net but the Federal Government is incompetent to handle it. Funds should be sent to the states. However, under the absolute definition of Libertarian, my understanding is that the Feds have no business handling these matters. I think the states need help but not mandates.

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by Nite_wing

 

Explanation: S&F!

I provide here some maps so we don't all get lost ok ...

It is wise to have a polical compass!

Personal Disclosure: I am a bitter communist!

I am -5.18 socially 0.25 economically.

I guess I am a individualist anarchist.

Originally posted by Nite_wing
Originally posted by Kovenov

"infiltrate the Republican party because the name Libertarian does not carry the same weight that Republican does. Is that a correct assessment or am I wrong? "

You just don't get "it" and you are wrong!

Need I remind you that the Republicans LOST!! Probably never to recover. Even though they outspent the democrats 3 to 1 they still LOST. The Republicans are in the meltdown stage. The GOP is obsolete; the electorate doesn't want to be ruled by a bunch of Christian corporate elitist and they showed that by electing a failed president. Get "it" now?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Libertarians will do just fine with out the GOP! We don't need any advice from the Koch bros, Karl Rove or anyother neocon!

A big fat circle in the middle of those charts is where we really need to be. The party that can find that balance will be the party of the future.

So it sounds like the Tea Party, the Libertarians, and the Religous Right are going to have a free for all and see who comes out on top.

It should be interesting.

reply to post by Nite_wing


ANYONE getting the Presidency, in 2016 will be getting a Country on its knees.

Libertarian, Tea Party, Dem or Rep.......

The tipping point cannot be fixed, short of Revolution.