Libertarian in '16

[Hydra009]

We're not monolithic........................and unlike the current two parties who've refined offering trinkets to their constituencies to a fine and very popular art; that's only an unproven theory for us; because we haven't had the chance to fail as badly as the current crop of *****.  Though I'm hopeful!   

Remember!  To buy a piece of the True Cross while I've still got a few left!   

Remember!  Welfare is BAD; unless it's for you!   

[Baruch]

Latest rumor!  JEB Bush wants to vote for Gary Johnson.  Does this pretty much trash Gary Johnson?  Karl Rove wanting to vote for Hillary, would be enough on its own for me to reject Hillary.

Feminists ... if you want to vote for a woman, vote for Jill Stein.

[stromboli]

Good one stromboli, the tragedy of the commons does demonstrate what happens when there is libertarianism.

In a better world, the final election would be between the Libertarian Party and the Green Party, instead of between the Democratic-Republican Party.

Based on past experience, I knew you'd be here shortly. Took longer than usual. I'm still not up on how atheists and conservative religious Republicans can espouse the same beliefs at the same time, quote Ayn Rand and shake their fist at Social Security while getting their monthly payment. Ayn Rand collected benefits in later life.

Just looking at Gary Johnson's platform. A bit muddled I'd say.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm
The last guy to balance the budget was Bill Clinton. Last I checked he wasn't a Libertarian.

[Mike Cl]

LOL!  Well...................I am in favor of legalizing ALL drugs (prostitution and gambling as well!), not just weed.   Legislate it, license it, tax it.  Same same as booze and tobacco.   Sin sells........................many are buying.  .)

^This!  I have thought this for decades now.

[stromboli]

^This!  I have thought this for decades now.

That is the one thing Libertarians agree on and I'm good with that. But the problem is different people have different ideas of what Libertarian is. Silly me, I'd just like to see a firm party line that says this and that and recognizes there are other people that have needs that have to be met and are unable to privately do it themselves.

Were I not dealing with a chronically ill wife I could be a prototypical Libertarian. In many respects I am one. But she contributed to Social Security and is getting paid it, paid into workmen's Comp insurance for years and is getting it. Libertarians run the gamut from religious people that want to privatize everything and fuck the infirm and those unable to care for themselves, to people living off the grid in bunkers waiting for the shit to hit, which somehow never does.

Happy to be a Libertarian as soon as, as a group, they define what they are and what it is. But if it includes religion (the Pauls) I'm out. If it includes people who espouse Randian concepts, I'm out. All Ayn Rand did was figure out how to work a system and then did so, while chain smoking and cheating on her milquetoast husband. And yes I've read "Atlas shrugged" and we've debated that shit on here.

Rant over. Carry on.

[Atheon]

I've found the libertarian movement in the US too right-leaning for my tastes. I fall in the left-libertarian part of the spectrum (lower left quadrant on Political Compass).

Voting for them is throwing away your vote, since their chances of winning on a national level are exactly zero.

[stromboli]

I've found the libertarian movement in the US too right-leaning for my tastes. I fall in the left-libertarian part of the spectrum (lower left quadrant on Political Compass).

Voting for them is throwing away your vote, since their chances of winning on a national level are exactly zero.

Yes. The picture I posted earlier, btw, came of a secular humanist website. I kind of think the politicians who lean towards Libertarian are simply trying to be inclusive enough of religion and other popular beliefs to garner support. In my mind being Libertarian would be about as you describe.

[Flanker1Six]

OH!  So now it's a sin to be tolerant and inclusive, and makes us losers!             Wait a minute, Damnit!!!  Are you guys sure you're not Trump supporters?   

Ooooooorrrrrrrrr......................an alternative explanation might be.....................you're uncomfortable out of your comfort zone.  The tried, the true, the FAMILIAR (aka SOS) are just so warm and fuzzy.   Your paradigm is calcified to the point of endless bitching and complaining..................then it's off to the election booth to vote for the same greatness that's brought you to well......................this.  A perfect endless loop with the gridlock you love so well at the end.   

In fairness.........we won't win...............we might garner enough electoral votes to screw the "other two" out of 270; throwing the election into (I think) the House.............who'll hand it to someone (as in GOP) other than The Chump.   I don't think we'll even do that well, but I hope I'm wrong.  Damnit!!   I'm doing that hopey changy thing again!    Don't tell anyone!    :)

 

[Mike Cl]

That is the one thing Libertarians agree on and I'm good with that. But the problem is different people have different ideas of what Libertarian is. Silly me, I'd just like to see a firm party line that says this and that and recognizes there are other people that have needs that have to be met and are unable to privately do it themselves.

Were I not dealing with a chronically ill wife I could be a prototypical Libertarian. In many respects I am one. But she contributed to Social Security and is getting paid it, paid into workmen's Comp insurance for years and is getting it. Libertarians run the gamut from religious people that want to privatize everything and fuck the infirm and those unable to care for themselves, to people living off the grid in bunkers waiting for the shit to hit, which somehow never does.

Happy to be a Libertarian as soon as, as a group, they define what they are and what it is. But if it includes religion (the Pauls) I'm out. If it includes people who espouse Randian concepts, I'm out. All Ayn Rand did was figure out how to work a system and then did so, while chain smoking and cheating on her milquetoast husband. And yes I've read "Atlas shrugged" and we've debated that shit on here.

Rant over. Carry on.

Did not mean to claim being a Libertarian.  I'm not really any one particular thing in politics.  I like a little from here and a little from there.  There is some from every platform I like, be it Demo, Repub, Lib, Green, Environmental, or what have you; and there is a lot I detest.  I do not see any single party thinking the way I do on every subject.  Like you, I'd like to be left the fuck alone--except for the necessary social services we need.  So, I guess you could call me a socialist capitalist--with a dash of communism, anarchy, and leave me the fuck alone ism.  Whether we like it or not, we live in a society.  And collectively the society has needs--like roads, sidewalks, bridges, and all the other infrastructure that is needed for a society to function.  In that respect, we are all socialist.  And for me that extends into the Social Security type stuff.  I loved Atlas Shrugged and Anthem when I read them--but hell that was over 50 yrs ago--what the hell did I know then??????  The American corp has become much too powerful for the good of society, therefore we could us a touch of communism--get the pay for the corp officers under control!  Stop allowing big business to become too big to fail!  And so on and so forth.

[Mike Cl]

LOL!  Well...................I am in favor of legalizing ALL drugs (prostitution and gambling as well!), not just weed.   Legislate it, license it, tax it.  Same same as booze and tobacco.   Sin sells........................many are buying.  .)

From a different angle.  I was a teacher in a juvenile hall school for over 30 years.  I realized a couple of decades ago that 75% of my students would not have been in the hall if not for the 'war on drugs'.  I grew to realize that the War on Drugs was simply too big to stop--too many agencies getting a piece of the pie to not want to keep getting it.  It seems to me that when the govt declares a 'War' on something, it simply means it will never go away--the war will never end.  The war on drugs cost more in time, effort, lives, money and wasted lives than not having a war and having an education on drugs and treating addiction.  That would be saner, safer, more effective, less costly and produce fewer gangs--but that makes too much sense--and too many are deeply invested in the 'War'.  And the same can be said for the War on Terrorism--it too, will never end, for the corporations that run this country will not let it.

[trdsf]

The only real alternative to slowing the crony capitalism gravy train of the "The Usual Suspects"!

That depends on what flavor of Libertarian you're voting for -- the economic Libertarians make the GOP look regulation-crazy.  The social Libertarians, that's a bit different.

The fundamental problem I have with Libertarianism is that it makes the same mistaken assessment of human nature that Marxism (real Marxism per Marx, not the distorted lip-service version practiced in the Eastern Bloc) does: that people will behave for the good of society, rather than selfishly.

[gentle_dissident]

people will behave for the good of society, rather than selfishly.

That's an easy fix. We just create a media flood carrying the information that behaving for the good of society benefits the person doing so. It wouldn't even be propaganda, 'cause it's the truth.

[trdsf]

That's an easy fix. We just create a media flood carrying the information that behaving for the good of society benefits the person doing so. It wouldn't even be propaganda, 'cause it's the truth.

That's a fix that doesn't require Libertarianism, though.  And it does require direct media control.

[Baruch]

That's a fix that doesn't require Libertarianism, though.  And it does require direct media control.

Gentle_dissident for dictator?  We could do much worse ;-)  Or at least as media mogul to replace Fox News!

[Flanker1Six]

From a different angle.  I was a teacher in a juvenile hall school for over 30 years.  I realized a couple of decades ago that 75% of my students would not have been in the hall if not for the 'war on drugs'.  I grew to realize that the War on Drugs was simply too big to stop--too many agencies getting a piece of the pie to not want to keep getting it.  It seems to me that when the govt declares a 'War' on something, it simply means it will never go away--the war will never end.  The war on drugs cost more in time, effort, lives, money and wasted lives than not having a war and having an education on drugs and treating addiction.  That would be saner, safer, more effective, less costly and produce fewer gangs--but that makes too much sense--and too many are deeply invested in the 'War'.  And the same can be said for the War on Terrorism--it too, will never end, for the corporations that run this country will not let it.

Dare I say; "Amen!" to that?   .)   My views were not very popular with my LE/CJ peers!   Oddly enough they have gained more traction in the last 16-20 years; based on my experiences with former and current associates.  w00t!  One day!