Am I A Libertarian Now?

[Ceasar]

I'm certainly leaning that way...I have my disagreements with libertarians, but it seems now I have more in common with them than with republicans...

I left the GOP a year & a half ago, basically an independent, but I just can't see myself going back to the GOP, I thought maybe I might eventually, hopeful they would after all the devestating losses wake up & stand for conservative principles, but... looks like they AGAIN just want to be lib/dem 'Lite'...

I just can't take them any more!

I am still pro-life, libertarians are at least against government funding for abortion.

I am anti-open borders, libertarians are at least anti-welfare for illegals.

I am against liberal slant on education, libertarians are at least against throwing more money at it.

I am for personal responsibility, small government, & anti-socialist/marxist.

I am beginning to think it better to do away with drug laws, it would take the profit out of it for gangs, smugglers, & narco-terrorists, cut down on theft to support drug habits, & Darwin will take out a lot from the gene pool. I also oppose SSI for addicts & drunks.

So... I suppose basically now I'm a pro-life, Christian, closed borders Libertarian... 3 items I disagree with them over, but their positions basically either don't oppose my thinking or takes the cash away from the things I oppose, effectively doing more to cut down on it than the GOP...

[Safiel]

I'm certainly leaning that way...I have my disagreements with libertarians, but it seems now I have more in common with them than with republicans...

I left the GOP a year & a half ago, basically an independent, but I just can't see myself going back to the GOP, I thought maybe I might eventually, hopeful they would after all the devestating losses wake up & stand for conservative principles, but... looks like they AGAIN just want to be lib/dem 'Lite'...

I just can't take them any more!

I am still pro-life, libertarians are at least against government funding for abortion.

I am anti-open borders, libertarians are at least anti-welfare for illegals.

I am against liberal slant on education, libertarians are at least against throwing more money at it.

I am for personal responsibility, small government, & anti-socialist/marxist.

I am beginning to think it better to do away with drug laws, it would take the profit out of it for gangs, smugglers, & narco-terrorists, cut down on theft to support drug habits, & Darwin will take out a lot from the gene pool. I also oppose SSI for addicts & drunks.

So... I suppose basically now I'm a pro-life, Christian, closed borders Libertarian... 3 items I disagree with them over, but their positions basically either don't oppose my thinking or takes the cash away from the things I oppose, effectively doing more to cut down on it than the GOP...

There are plenty of pro-life libertarians, Ron Paul being a prime example. Not the "purist" libertarian position to be sure, but not a disqualification to being a libertarian.

Most libertarians are Christians of various stripes. Plus atheists, non-theists, agnostics, Deists and various others. Religion or lack thereof is certainly no bar. :)

As for closed borders. The "purist" position would be open borders, but this issue is certainly not a "bar to membership" issue either.

[Voxpopuli]

Come to the dark side. Yes you can be pro-life and libertarian. Non-aggression axiom can apply to the unborn as well. Closed borders well, many of us don't feel its the place of the state to say who free citizens can and cannot employ.

You can't go running back to the GOP on a whim though. Once you are in you are in for life. Blood in, Blood out. LOL

[drylok]

Welcome aboard OP! :D

[Ceasar]

Come to the dark side. Yes you can be pro-life and libertarian. Non-aggression axiom can apply to the unborn as well. Closed borders well, many of us don't feel its the place of the state to say who free citizens can and cannot employ.

You can't go running back to the GOP on a whim though. Once you are in you are in for life. Blood in, Blood out. LOL

Blood in blood out, LOL! :))

[Voxpopuli]

Blod in blood out, LOL! :))

Its funny because its true. ;)

LOL

[bossman068410]

Welcome to hell. Now you have 2 parties to bash.

[BasicGreatGuy]

I'm certainly leaning that way...I have my disagreements with libertarians, but it seems now I have more in common with them than with republicans...

I left the GOP a year & a half ago, basically an independent, but I just can't see myself going back to the GOP, I thought maybe I might eventually, hopeful they would after all the devestating losses wake up & stand for conservative principles, but... looks like they AGAIN just want to be lib/dem 'Lite'...

I just can't take them any more!

I am still pro-life, libertarians are at least against government funding for abortion.

I am anti-open borders, libertarians are at least anti-welfare for illegals.

I am against liberal slant on education, libertarians are at least against throwing more money at it.

I am for personal responsibility, small government, & anti-socialist/marxist.

I am beginning to think it better to do away with drug laws, it would take the profit out of it for gangs, smugglers, & narco-terrorists, cut down on theft to support drug habits, & Darwin will take out a lot from the gene pool. I also oppose SSI for addicts & drunks.

So... I suppose basically now I'm a pro-life, Christian, closed borders Libertarian... 3 items I disagree with them over, but their positions basically either don't oppose my thinking or takes the cash away from the things I oppose, effectively doing more to cut down on it than the GOP...

Stand up for what you believe in per the Constitution, and forget about labels and party loyalty.

[Stick Ross]

It depends.

What is your stance on these?

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1316911
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=1361161
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:hr03162:] (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:hr03162:%5D)

[Voxpopuli]

Welcome to hell. Now you have 2 parties to bash.

LOL and two parties to be bashed by.

Democrats will call you a right-winger and Republicans will call you a bleeding heart liberal.

[tislaw]

I'm with brat.......if I ever leave the Rs it'll be for the Constitution Party.....

[Safiel]

I'm with brat.......if I ever leave the Rs it'll be for the Constitution Party.....

Constitution Party is a good party, though I have a number of disagreements with them. But overall they are a good group of people.

The Libertarian Party unfortunately has sold out to its "moderate" group. Actually, very much like the Republican Party has done.

I used to associate with the Libertarian Party, but have distanced myself from them, particularly after they gutted their platform in 2006.

I consider myself an Independent <non-partisan> libertarian. Note the small "l" on the libertarian. Equally importantly I am a follower of the Austrian School of Economics and within that school am a Rothbardian.

[Silk]

All I know is it is time for me to go to bed.

I read the title of this thread and thought "What the hell, the poster doesn't know if they are a librarian or not?" :eek:

Night, night all :D

And BTW, to keep my post relavant, I can certainly see the lure of the Librar..errr Libertarian party. :)

[Sun]

I'm certainly leaning that way...I have my disagreements with libertarians, but it seems now I have more in common with them than with republicans...

I left the GOP a year & a half ago, basically an independent, but I just can't see myself going back to the GOP, I thought maybe I might eventually, hopeful they would after all the devestating losses wake up & stand for conservative principles, but... looks like they AGAIN just want to be lib/dem 'Lite'...

I just can't take them any more!

I am still pro-life, libertarians are at least against government funding for abortion.

I am anti-open borders, libertarians are at least anti-welfare for illegals.

I am against liberal slant on education, libertarians are at least against throwing more money at it.

I am for personal responsibility, small government, & anti-socialist/marxist.

I am beginning to think it better to do away with drug laws, it would take the profit out of it for gangs, smugglers, & narco-terrorists, cut down on theft to support drug habits, & Darwin will take out a lot from the gene pool. I also oppose SSI for addicts & drunks.

So... I suppose basically now I'm a pro-life, Christian, closed borders Libertarian... 3 items I disagree with them over, but their positions basically either don't oppose my thinking or takes the cash away from the things I oppose, effectively doing more to cut down on it than the GOP...

Take a look at the Constitution Party platform. I think it suits your beliefs far more than the LP.

[Oddball]

Constitution Party is a good party, though I have a number of disagreements with them. But overall they are a good group of people.

The Libertarian Party unfortunately has sold out to its "moderate" group. Actually, very much like the Republican Party has done.

I used to associate with the Libertarian Party, but have distanced myself from them, particularly after they gutted their platform in 2006.

I consider myself an Independent <non-partisan> libertarian. Note the small "l" on the libertarian. Equally importantly I am a follower of the Austrian School of Economics and within that school am a Rothbardian.
The LP "gutted" its platform because it was just toooooo wordy and unwieldy....The core principles of de jure government strictly limited to its enumerated roles still remains. The "moderates" of the LP left years ago and formed Cato.

I've looked at the CP and simply cannot support them because of their religious priggery and subsequent blatant disregard for various aspects of the BoR as it suits their agenda.

[BillBrown]

I consider myself an Independent <non-partisan> libertarian. Note the small "l" on the libertarian. Equally importantly I am a follower of the Austrian School of Economics and within that school am a Rothbardian.

Is that similar to a Rotschildean?;)

[Kermit McDermitt]

I'm certainly leaning that way...I have my disagreements with libertarians, but it seems now I have more in common with them than with republicans...

I left the GOP a year & a half ago, basically an independent, but I just can't see myself going back to the GOP, I thought maybe I might eventually, hopeful they would after all the devestating losses wake up & stand for conservative principles, but... looks like they AGAIN just want to be lib/dem 'Lite'...

I just can't take them any more!

I am still pro-life, libertarians are at least against government funding for abortion.

I am anti-open borders, libertarians are at least anti-welfare for illegals.

I am against liberal slant on education, libertarians are at least against throwing more money at it.

I am for personal responsibility, small government, & anti-socialist/marxist.

I am beginning to think it better to do away with drug laws, it would take the profit out of it for gangs, smugglers, & narco-terrorists, cut down on theft to support drug habits, & Darwin will take out a lot from the gene pool. I also oppose SSI for addicts & drunks.

So... I suppose basically now I'm a pro-life, Christian, closed borders Libertarian... 3 items I disagree with them over, but their positions basically either don't oppose my thinking or takes the cash away from the things I oppose, effectively doing more to cut down on it than the GOP...

I'm a strong, strong libertarian and I actually agree with you on all those issues.

I'm against federal education completely, against abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life, and for stronger borders.

However I'm also against maintaing permanent military bases in any country, meaning if I was president most of those bases would be closed and troops would come home. Also I would pass a balanced budget amendment, abolish the Federal Reserve, abolish half of the bureaucracy and it's departments, lower taxes to between 5-10% for everyone who can afford it, 5-10% for corporations, abolish welfare, abolish medicare and medicade, end the drug war, end any federal law not pertaining to the specifically granted powers the federal government holds per the Constitution, cut the police force and change it's job a little bit, including holding officers accountable for any wrongdoing or aggression that happens on the side of law enforcement (I feel like police hold too much authority over average people in our society), and legalize assault weapons.

How much do you agree with me?

[Ceasar]

I'm a strong, strong libertarian and I actually agree with you on all those issues.

I'm against federal education completely, against abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life, and for stronger borders.

However I'm also against maintaing permanent military bases in any country, meaning if I was president most of those bases would be closed and troops would come home. Also I would pass a balanced budget amendment, abolish the Federal Reserve, abolish half of the bureaucracy and it's departments, lower taxes to between 5-10% for everyone who can afford it, 5-10% for corporations, abolish welfare, abolish medicare and medicade, end the drug war, end any federal law not pertaining to the specifically granted powers the federal government holds per the Constitution, cut the police force and change it's job a little bit, including holding officers accountable for any wrongdoing or aggression that happens on the side of law enforcement (I feel like police hold too much authority over average people in our society), and legalize assault weapons.

How much do you agree with me?

We agree almost 95%

[Tim$2]

I'm a strong, strong libertarian and I actually agree with you on all those issues.

I'm against federal education completely, against abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life, and for stronger borders.

However I'm also against maintaing permanent military bases in any country, meaning if I was president most of those bases would be closed and troops would come home. Also I would pass a balanced budget amendment, abolish the Federal Reserve, abolish half of the bureaucracy and it's departments, lower taxes to between 5-10% for everyone who can afford it, 5-10% for corporations, abolish welfare, abolish medicare and medicade, end the drug war, end any federal law not pertaining to the specifically granted powers the federal government holds per the Constitution, cut the police force and change it's job a little bit, including holding officers accountable for any wrongdoing or aggression that happens on the side of law enforcement (I feel like police hold too much authority over average people in our society), and legalize assault weapons.

How much do you agree with me?


I agree 100%.

[Wookinstien]

I'm certainly leaning that way...I have my disagreements with libertarians, but it seems now I have more in common with them than with republicans...

I left the GOP a year & a half ago, basically an independent, but I just can't see myself going back to the GOP, I thought maybe I might eventually, hopeful they would after all the devestating losses wake up & stand for conservative principles, but... looks like they AGAIN just want to be lib/dem 'Lite'...

I just can't take them any more!

I am still pro-life, libertarians are at least against government funding for abortion.

I am anti-open borders, libertarians are at least anti-welfare for illegals.

I am against liberal slant on education, libertarians are at least against throwing more money at it.

I am for personal responsibility, small government, & anti-socialist/marxist.

I am beginning to think it better to do away with drug laws, it would take the profit out of it for gangs, smugglers, & narco-terrorists, cut down on theft to support drug habits, & Darwin will take out a lot from the gene pool. I also oppose SSI for addicts & drunks.

So... I suppose basically now I'm a pro-life, Christian, closed borders Libertarian... 3 items I disagree with them over, but their positions basically either don't oppose my thinking or takes the cash away from the things I oppose, effectively doing more to cut down on it than the GOP...

You are not there yet. If you have the undeniable urge to pee sitting down then you are a libertarian. :mrgreen:

*dives behind couch*

kidding!!!

[NightTrain]

You are not there yet. If you have the undeniable urge to pee sitting down then you are a libertarian. :mrgreen:

*dives behind couch*

kidding!!!

lol...:))

[ThrowCop]

You sound like a Conservative to me...

But you are not a Republican.

[NightTrain]

Ronpaul is a Republican...

[JMikey]

I'm certainly leaning that way...I have my disagreements with libertarians, but it seems now I have more in common with them than with republicans...

I left the GOP a year & a half ago, basically an independent, but I just can't see myself going back to the GOP, I thought maybe I might eventually, hopeful they would after all the devestating losses wake up & stand for conservative principles, but... looks like they AGAIN just want to be lib/dem 'Lite'...

I just can't take them any more!

I am still pro-life, libertarians are at least against government funding for abortion.

I am anti-open borders, libertarians are at least anti-welfare for illegals.

I am against liberal slant on education, libertarians are at least against throwing more money at it.

I am for personal responsibility, small government, & anti-socialist/marxist.

I am beginning to think it better to do away with drug laws, it would take the profit out of it for gangs, smugglers, & narco-terrorists, cut down on theft to support drug habits, & Darwin will take out a lot from the gene pool. I also oppose SSI for addicts & drunks.

So... I suppose basically now I'm a pro-life, Christian, closed borders Libertarian... 3 items I disagree with them over, but their positions basically either don't oppose my thinking or takes the cash away from the things I oppose, effectively doing more to cut down on it than the GOP...

No, you're more like a libertarian. :)

Many people consider themselves to be libertarian Republicans, which would be a Republican without the authoritarian slant.

[JMikey]

Ronpaul is a Republican...

libertarian Republican, to be more specific.

[nebcon]

I'm certainly leaning that way...I have my disagreements with libertarians

You certainly did, but in your case I can forgive and forget what was said just prior to the election. :lol:


I am still pro-life, libertarians are at least against government funding for abortion.

First and foremost we want things done as per the Constitution. Sure I prefer the state route, but do the work to get a Constitutional amendment based on the "life" issue, and I'll respect that in the same way I respect the rest of the Constitution.

I am anti-open borders, libertarians are at least anti-welfare for illegals.

Not all are open border types, especially those of us who are former disaffected GOP. We're with you believe me.

I am against liberal slant on education, libertarians are at least against throwing more money at it.

I don't want anyone using the federal government to bring on social change. Doesn't matter who they are, including Liberals.

Besides we have cookies, and we like to share. :)

[NightTrain]

libertarian Republican, to be more specific.

No, just Republican...

Ron Paul (R)

There's no such thing as a "libertarian republican" party...

[JMikey]

Take a look at the Constitution Party platform. I think it suits your beliefs far more than the LP.

I voted for the Constitution party ticket last year. I think that one silly plank in their platform, however, is the idea of banning pornography. Like drugs, I think it's an expensive pipe-dream. I should ask if they seek to do it on a federal level as well as local, because on a local level it's not a problem for me.

* I just re-read their platform entry on pornography, and it seems they do advocate some form of federal-level intervention. So, yeah, that's my only beef with them.

[Snowblind]

Constitution Party is a good party, though I have a number of disagreements with them. But overall they are a good group of people.

The Libertarian Party unfortunately has sold out to its "moderate" group. Actually, very much like the Republican Party has done.

I used to associate with the Libertarian Party, but have distanced myself from them, particularly after they gutted their platform in 2006.

I consider myself an Independent <non-partisan> libertarian. Note the small "l" on the libertarian. Equally importantly I am a follower of the Austrian School of Economics and within that school am a Rothbardian.

Just wondering, Rothbardian, is there any more libertarian than that? I mean he's a believer in what Rothbard called "anarcho-capitalism". Wasn't he even more libertarian than Ludwig von Mises?

I have been moving towards libertarianism myself though.

[bloods vs crips]

I voted for the Constitution party ticket last year. I think that one silly plank in their platform, however, is the idea of banning pornography. Like drugs, I think it's an expensive pipe-dream. I should ask if they seek to do it on a federal level as well as local, because on a local level it's not a problem for me.

* I just re-read their platform entry on pornography, and it seems they do advocate some form of federal-level intervention. So, yeah, that's my only beef with them.

I spoke with Baldwin and would have supported him bigtime, however the party platform is a little theological for my taste.

I personally don't agree with a party structure at all, and don't support any party for that reason. I vote for the most Constitutional person on the ticket no matter the party.

[BasicGreatGuy]

You certainly did, but in your case I can forgive and forget what was said just prior to the election. :lol:



First and foremost we want things done as per the Constitution. Sure I prefer the state route, but do the work to get a Constitutional amendment based on the "life" issue, and I'll respect that in the same way I respect the rest of the Constitution.



Not all are open border types, especially those of us who are former disaffected GOP. We're with you believe me.



I don't want anyone using the federal government to bring on social change. Doesn't matter who they are, including Liberals.

Besides we have cookies, and we like to share. :)

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g37/basicgreatguy/Dark-side-cookie.jpg

[rckirby]

I spoke with Baldwin and would have supported him bigtime, however the party platform is a little theological for my taste.

I personally don't agree with a party structure at all, and don't support any party for that reason. I vote for the most Constitutional person on the ticket no matter the party.

So where does that leave us?????????????

[BasicGreatGuy]

As I have said numerous times before, forget the labels and party affiliation. A political party has no more power, than you as an employer of this Republic already have. Political party organizations can't vote.

Vote for men and women who stand for the Constitution as you understand it, no matter what. In my opinion, that is our job as employers of this Republic. Voting for statesmen should not be about who can win. It should be about who is the best person for the job. That is the bottom line.

[JMikey]

I spoke with Baldwin and would have supported him bigtime, however the party platform is a little theological for my taste.

I personally don't agree with a party structure at all, and don't support any party for that reason. I vote for the most Constitutional person on the ticket no matter the party.

The party is pretty theological, yet have tremendous respect for the Constitution, the 10th, and our national sovereignty. I'll take that over a McCain or Obama any day of the week.

[Raoul Duke]

http://i715.photobucket.com/albums/ww155/RaoulDukeHST_photo/th_charles-shield.jpg

you will need this

[bloods vs crips]

So where does that leave us?????????????

depends on your state. I had to vote Libertarian, because there was simply no better option. Not that I'm dissapointed, Barr was a pretty solid choice, and the best on the list.

Seperate, but equally important issue. I think people tend to forget that most of these issues only arise on the Presidential election, where there is NO popular vote.

[Long Island Bob]

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g37/basicgreatguy/Dark-side-cookie.jpg


luv it.

[bloods vs crips]

The party is pretty theological, yet have tremendous respect for the Constitution, the 10th, and our national sovereignty. I'll take that over a McCain or Obama any day of the week.

you see the irony here. If it were between Baldwin and Barr, and you chose Baldwin for x reason, and I chose Barr for x reason, it wouldn't really matter to the supporter of the loser. It might not be your favorite solution, but it's a workable one because atleast they MENTION the freakin Constitution.

It's like back in the day, trying to chose between Adams or Jefferson. Can we really complain when both care about the Constitution so?

[Raoul Duke]

you see the irony here. If it were between Baldwin and Barr, and you chose Baldwin for x reason, and I chose Barr for x reason, it wouldn't really matter to the supporter of the loser. It might not be your favorite solution, but it's a workable one because atleast they MENTION the freakin Constitution.

It's like back in the day, trying to chose between Adams or Jefferson. Can we really complain when both care about the Constitution so?

yes :twisted:

I would have voted for Burr... :mrgreen:

[Buschb]

Haaaaa......I feel your pain...OP
I voted for Bush in 2000 and was GOP till 2004...

Then I went out on my own/indy...
Last year I voted GOP for Paul in the primary's and for Chuck in the General


If I had to label myself...I'd say Ron Paul/Taft Republican...Libertarian leaning

Small Gov.
Sound Money
Minimal spending
Non interventionist foreign policy
Pro Civil Liberties
Pro Life
Pro Border Control
Pro Constitution
Anti Globalist

[johnrocks]

Haaaaa......I feel your pain...OP
I voted for Bush in 2000 and was GOP till 2004...

Then I went out on my own/indy...
Last year I voted GOP for Paul in the primary's and for Chuck in the General


If I had to label myself...I'd say Ron Paul/Taft Republican...Libertarian leaning

Small Gov.
Sound Money
Minimal spending
Non interventionist foreign policy
Pro Civil Liberties
Pro Life
Pro Border Control
Pro Constitution
Anti Globalist

I got to vote for Paul in the General, he was on the Louisiana Ballot with Goldwater Jr. on the La. Taxpayers Party. I know...your jealous:mrgreen:BTW, we are identical on those issues, I consider myself a Paul/Taft Libertarian leaning Republican also.

[NightTrain]

yes :twisted:

I would have voted for Burr... :mrgreen:

Raymond Burr?

[2Parties1GlobalistGoal]

I got to vote for Paul in the General, he was on the Louisiana Ballot with Goldwater Jr. on the La. Taxpayers Party. I know...your jealous:mrgreen:BTW, we are identical on those issues, I consider myself a Paul/Taft Libertarian leaning Republican also.

Whatever you say anarchist...:whistle:

[Raoul Duke]

Raymond Burr?


:confused::think:

I don't get it :((

Is this an old timey joke?

edit: thanks to wikipedia - yes it is - har har

[Buschb]

I got to vote for Paul in the General, he was on the Louisiana Ballot with Goldwater Jr. on the La. Taxpayers Party. I know...your jealous:mrgreen:BTW, we are identical on those issues, I consider myself a Paul/Taft Libertarian leaning Republican also.

I am jealous :))

[Safiel]

Just wondering, Rothbardian, is there any more libertarian than that? I mean he's a believer in what Rothbard called "anarcho-capitalism". Wasn't he even more libertarian than Ludwig von Mises?

I have been moving towards libertarianism myself though.

Rothbard was about as "libertarian" as it is possible to get. von Mises was an ultra-minimalist at heart. Rothbard was a full fledged Anarcho-Capitalist. I am teetering right at the verge of Anarcho-Capitalism. One or two toes left on the ultra-minamalist side. :)

[RedStatePaPa]

stand up for what you believe in per the constitution, and forget about labels and party loyalty.

+1

[nebcon]

you see the irony here. If it were between Baldwin and Barr, and you chose Baldwin for x reason, and I chose Barr for x reason, it wouldn't really matter to the supporter of the loser. It might not be your favorite solution, but it's a workable one because atleast they MENTION the freakin Constitution.

It's like back in the day, trying to chose between Adams or Jefferson. Can we really complain when both care about the Constitution so?

I would have loved to have seen either one of them in the presidential debates. That would have been such a bloodbath, I might have actually felt sorry for the two majors......almost.

[RedStatePaPa]

There are plenty of pro-life libertarians, Ron Paul being a prime example. Not the "purist" libertarian position to be sure, but not a disqualification to being a libertarian.

Most libertarians are Christians of various stripes. Plus atheists, non-theists, agnostics, Deists and various others. Religion or lack thereof is certainly no bar. :)

As for closed borders. The "purist" position would be open borders, but this issue is certainly not a "bar to membership" issue either.

Ron Paul is an (R) isn't he?

[johnrocks]

Ron Paul is an (R) isn't he?

yes

[Penrod]

No, just Republican...

Ron Paul (R)

There's no such thing as a "libertarian republican" party...


In the 1988 presidential election, Paul defeated American Indian activist Russell Means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Means) to win the Libertarian Party nomination for president.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#cite_note-ny-4) Paul criticized Ronald Reagan as a failure and cited high deficits as exhibit A.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#cite_note-campaign1996-12) On the ballot in 46 states and the District of Columbia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia),[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#cite_note-1988nytimes-20) Paul placed third in the popular vote with 432,179 votes (0.5%),[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#cite_note-will-21) behind Bush and Michael Dukakis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dukakis).[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#cite_note-22) Paul was kept off the ballot in Missouri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri), and received votes there only when written in, due to what the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Louis_Post-Dispatch) called a "technicality".[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#cite_note-Dispatch1-23)
As the "Libertarian standard bearer",[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#cite_note-economist1988-24)[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#cite_note-25) Paul gained supporters who agreed with his positions on gun rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2nd_Amendment_USA), fiscal conservatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_conservatism), homeschooling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling), and abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life), and won approval from many who thought the federal government was misdirected. This nationwide support base encouraged and donated to his later campaigns.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#cite_note-no-7) Kent Snyder, Paul's 2008 campaign chair, first worked for Paul on the 1988 campaign.[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#cite_note-thp-26)[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#cite_note-27)
According to Paul, his presidential run was about more than reaching office; he sought to spread his libertarian ideas, often to school and university groups regardless of vote eligibility. He said, "We're just as interested in the future generation as this election. These kids will vote eventually, and maybe, just maybe, they'll go home and talk to their parents."[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#cite_note-1988nytimes-20) He traveled the country for a year speaking about issues such as free market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market) economics and the rising government deficits:[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#cite_note-economist1988-24) "That's why we talk to a lot of young people. They're the ones who are paying these bills, they're the ones who are inheriting this debt, so it's most likely these young people who will move into this next generation in government."[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#cite_note-28)
After the election, Paul continued his medical practice until he returned to Congress.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#cite_note-ny-4)[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#cite_note-29) He also co-owned a coin dealership, Ron Paul Coins, for twelve years with Burt Blumert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burt_Blumert), who continued to operate it after Paul returned to office.[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#cite_note-cw-30)[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#cite_note-31) He spoke multiple times at the American Numismatic Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Numismatic_Association)'s 1988 convention.[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#cite_note-cw-30) He worked with FREE on such projects as establishing the National Endowment for Liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Endowment_for_Liberty&action=edit&redlink=1), producing the At Issue public policy series that aired on Discovery Channel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Channel) and CNBC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNBC),[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#cite_note-free-14) and continuing publication of Dr. Ron Paul's Freedom Report.


He is a Libertarian at heart. He was asked to be the VP on last years ticket.

[JMikey]

Ron Paul is an (R) isn't he?

He is, but he also would have easily won both the Libertarian and the Constitution Party nominations if he sought them.

[NightTrain]

He is a Libertarian at heart.
According to him, he's a Republican...

He was asked to be the VP on last years ticket.
He turned it down... I certainly understand why...

[NightTrain]

He is, but he also would have easily won both the Libertarian and the Constitution Party nominations if he sought them.

He prefers not to be associated with those parties...

[nebcon]

Ron Paul is an (R) isn't he?

He has his reasons for that party affiliation, that doesn't make him ideologically aligned with the party obviously.

[NightTrain]

He has his reasons for that party affiliation, that doesn't make him ideologically aligned with the party obviously.

He is 100% Republican...

[johnrocks]

He has his reasons for that party affiliation, that doesn't make him ideologically aligned with the party obviously.

Like the rest of us that are of his views but still in the GOP, the way the rules are biased toward the two major parties, you almost have to be a "D" or an "R" to run, heck, in my Congressional District of over 500000 people, only two Republicans ran, we are closed primary so only Republicans could vote, 10000 reelected my Congressman in November, how is that a Democratic process?:confused:

[NightTrain]

lol

Principles be dammed - we're staying Republicans!

:))

[RedStatePaPa]

He has his reasons for that party affiliation, that doesn't make him ideologically aligned with the party obviously.

I'm sorry but that just sounds like your own wishes.

He is a Republican. For a reason.


And that reason is that Ron Paul himself knows that third parties are a waste of time. He knows that he can accomplish more within the repub party.

And if you ask him, he would probably have told you to vote repub in the last election.

[NightTrain]

I'm sorry but that just sounds like your own wishes.

He is a Republican. For a reason.


And that reason is that Ron Paul himself knows that third parties are a waste of time. He knows that he can accomplish more within the repub party.

And if you ask him, he would probably have told you to vote repub in the last election.

he also knows the R's have a ****load more cash then the LP...;)

cash is king...

[nebcon]

I'm sorry but that just sounds like your own wishes.

He is a Republican. For a reason.


And that reason is that Ron Paul himself knows that third parties are a waste of time. He knows that he can accomplish more within the repub party.

And if you ask him, he would probably have told you to vote repub in the last election.

Uh did you miss his endorsement of the 3rd party candidates during the general? He has to serve his district. I won't speak for him, but his reasons are likely strategic. His ideology bears no resemblance to that of the all but nonexistent one of the GOP. His statements after the primaries and his endorsement of the the 3rd party candidates would not have occurred if he believed as you say. Funny how suddenly you want to claim him.

[JMikey]

Uh did you miss his endorsement of the 3rd party candidates during the general? He has to serve his district. I won't speak for him, but his reasons are likely strategic. His ideology bears no resemblance to that of the all but nonexistent one of the GOP. His statements after the primaries and his endorsement of the the 3rd party candidates would not have occurred if he believed as you say. Funny how suddenly you want to claim him.

Here it is in his own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqOpeRnvvNo

[NightTrain]

Here it is in his own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqOpeRnvvNo

We don't click youtube links....

[johnrocks]

I'm sorry but that just sounds like your own wishes.

He is a Republican. For a reason.


And that reason is that Ron Paul himself knows that third parties are a waste of time. He knows that he can accomplish more within the repub party.

And if you ask him, he would probably have told you to vote repub in the last election.

He didn't though and that earned even more respect from me. I don't think he is allowed to endorse in races where a Rep. incumbent is running but he has endorsed others besides Republicans when there were no incumbents and he didn't endorse McCain.

[JMikey]

We don't click youtube links....

I know one person who does, and so your statement is therefore invalid. :D

[NightTrain]

I know one person who does, and so your statement is therefore invalid. :D

some of us don't click youtube links...


better?

[nebcon]

Here it is in his own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqOpeRnvvNo

:lol: I love that "less damage" :)).

[JMikey]

some of us don't click youtube links...


better?

Why do we care if some of you don't click on the links that some of us do?

Much ;)

[NightTrain]

Why do we care if some of you don't click on the links that some of us do?

I don't know, nor do I care if you do...

During the Paulette Invasion of 2008, many Paulettes posted nothing but Rongpaul YouTube links... I tend to ignore them unless they are from folks I know and trust...

[nebcon]

BTW train. Dropping the acrimony for a moment. Your favorite actor is on Letterman right now. I have never heard him talk with his natural accent. Very strange. Not too many actors can wipe an accent out like that.

[NightTrain]

BTW train. Dropping the acrimony for a moment. Your favorite actor is on Letterman right now. I have never heard him talk with his natural accent. Very strange. Not too many actors can wipe an accent out like that.

He is good at what he does...;)

Personally, I have been known to fool a few folks from across the pond with a false accent... It can be done...lol

[nebcon]

He is good at what he does...;)

Personally, I have been known to fool a few folks from across the pond with a false accent... It can be done...lol

One of the bands I was in had a real Spinal Tap obsession. A couple of those guys were masters at it.

[NightTrain]

One of the bands I was in had a real Spinal Tap obsession. A couple of those guys were masters at it.

lol... I know a couple of those types as well...

voices are a hobby of mine... that's about the extent of my revelation, though....

[2Parties1GlobalistGoal]

lol... I know a couple of those types as well...

voices are a hobby of mine... that's about the extent of my revelation, though....

You should do a Ron Paul voice and upload it. I'm sure you've practiced...

[NightTrain]

You should do a Ron Paul voice and upload it. I'm sure you've practiced...

Honestly, I haven't and I wouldn't be bothered...

[johnrocks]

You should do a Ron Paul voice and upload it. I'm sure you've practiced...

I'll be the first to admit, Paul isn't the best speaker, if I didn't like him I would say he is something like this fine patriot!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI4otTziYjk&feature=related :))

[Snowblind]

Rothbard was about as "libertarian" as it is possible to get. von Mises was an ultra-minimalist at heart. Rothbard was a full fledged Anarcho-Capitalist. I am teetering right at the verge of Anarcho-Capitalism. One or two toes left on the ultra-minamalist side. :)

Interesting. I don't know if I'd ever be "anarcho-capitalist". Although, I think that it's the easiest way to go. No need to dwell on the details, privatize everything.

A couple of questions, first do you think that an anarcho-capitalist state would work? Second, what's keeping those toes on the left?

[2Parties1GlobalistGoal]

Interesting. I don't know if I'd ever be "anarcho-capitalist". Although, I think that it's the easiest way to go.

I know this isn't directed toward me, and Safiel is a much clearer poster than me, but I'd call myself "anarcho-capitalist":

It isn't necessarily easy. People constantly ask the first question you have. :))

It is easier in one sense though. You don't have to defend injustice, which is what all governments are. I've never seen a just government.

[JMikey]

Honestly, I haven't and I wouldn't be bothered...

I bet you have a fake Ron Paul nose and everything.

[2Parties1GlobalistGoal]

I bet you have a fake Ron Paul nose and everything.

:))

[Snowblind]

I know this isn't directed toward me, and Safiel is a much clearer poster than me, but I'd call myself "anarcho-capitalist":

It isn't necessarily easy. People constantly ask the first question you have. :))

It is easier in one sense though. You don't have to defend injustice, which is what all governments are. I've never seen a just government.

Yeah, but at least there are no inconsistencies. If you're an ultra-minimalist as von Mises was called, and go on a rant about Obama's socialist agenda, some lib would give an example of something that you believe that a government should be involved in (say building roads), and he would then call you a socialist. This way he/she will just call you crazy. :))

[2Parties1GlobalistGoal]

Yeah, but at least there are no inconsistencies. If you're an ultra-minimalist as von Mises was called, and go on a rant about Obama's socialist agenda, some lib would give an example of something that you believe that a government should be involved in (say building roads), and he would then call you a socialist. This way he/she will just call you crazy. :))

It's true. Minarchists, which I was one for a few years, are logically inconsistent.

[GOP_FAN]

I'm certainly leaning that way...I have my disagreements with libertarians, but it seems now I have more in common with them than with republicans...

I left the GOP a year & a half ago, basically an independent, but I just can't see myself going back to the GOP, I thought maybe I might eventually, hopeful they would after all the devestating losses wake up & stand for conservative principles, but... looks like they AGAIN just want to be lib/dem 'Lite'...

I just can't take them any more!

I am still pro-life, libertarians are at least against government funding for abortion.

I am anti-open borders, libertarians are at least anti-welfare for illegals.

I am against liberal slant on education, libertarians are at least against throwing more money at it.

I am for personal responsibility, small government, & anti-socialist/marxist.

I am beginning to think it better to do away with drug laws, it would take the profit out of it for gangs, smugglers, & narco-terrorists, cut down on theft to support drug habits, & Darwin will take out a lot from the gene pool. I also oppose SSI for addicts & drunks.

So... I suppose basically now I'm a pro-life, Christian, closed borders Libertarian... 3 items I disagree with them over, but their positions basically either don't oppose my thinking or takes the cash away from the things I oppose, effectively doing more to cut down on it than the GOP...

Ahhh Ceasar, I hear ya! As I sit here in my California home, facing higher car taxes, 10 1/2% sales tax, the highest payroll taxes in the nation, and on and on, all of which needed GOP approval thanks to the 2/3 majority rule, and Repubs caved. I have to ask, what good is the GOP if they don't fight tax increases? That used to be what they stood for, but now? They give in every time, I've seen it time and again. The same can be said for border control, they aren't much better than Dems., yes they are better than them, albeit slightly, but, I expected it of Dems.

I keep thinking they'll see the light, and get back to our basic principles, if they don't I'm looking for a new party as well.

[nebcon]

Ahhh Ceasar, I hear ya! As I sit here in my California home, facing higher car taxes, 10 1/2% sales tax, the highest payroll taxes in the nation, and on and on, all of which needed GOP approval thanks to the 2/3 majority rule, and Repubs caved. I have to ask, what good is the GOP if they don't fight tax increases? That used to be what they stood for, but now? They give in every time, I've seen it time and again. The same can be said for border control, they aren't much better than Dems., yes they are better than them, albeit slightly, but, I expected it of Dems.

I keep thinking they'll see the light, and get back to our basic principles, if they don't I'm looking for a new party as well.

I'll attempt to refrain from telling you I told you so......... oops

Long time no see G. Hope you have been well.

[Safiel]

Interesting. I don't know if I'd ever be "anarcho-capitalist". Although, I think that it's the easiest way to go. No need to dwell on the details, privatize everything.

A couple of questions, first do you think that an anarcho-capitalist state would work? Second, what's keeping those toes on the left?

Actually, the answer to your first and second questions are somewhat related.

I am studying and perusing a few details. Which is why I have not made the jump completely, yet. My main concern is the problem of how, once anarcho-capitalism has been achieved, to prevent coercive government from rising yet again.

The details of how anarcho-capitalism would actually work I have for the most part have a handle on. It is mostly how to prevent regression into coercive government that gives me a pause.

[Kelzan]

I'm certainly leaning that way...I have my disagreements with libertarians, but it seems now I have more in common with them than with republicans...

I left the GOP a year & a half ago, basically an independent, but I just can't see myself going back to the GOP, I thought maybe I might eventually, hopeful they would after all the devestating losses wake up & stand for conservative principles, but... looks like they AGAIN just want to be lib/dem 'Lite'...

I just can't take them any more!

I am still pro-life, libertarians are at least against government funding for abortion.

I am anti-open borders, libertarians are at least anti-welfare for illegals.

I am against liberal slant on education, libertarians are at least against throwing more money at it.

I am for personal responsibility, small government, & anti-socialist/marxist.

I am beginning to think it better to do away with drug laws, it would take the profit out of it for gangs, smugglers, & narco-terrorists, cut down on theft to support drug habits, & Darwin will take out a lot from the gene pool. I also oppose SSI for addicts & drunks.

So... I suppose basically now I'm a pro-life, Christian, closed borders Libertarian... 3 items I disagree with them over, but their positions basically either don't oppose my thinking or takes the cash away from the things I oppose, effectively doing more to cut down on it than the GOP...

I have some Libertarian leanings but have enough problems with libertarianism to still consider myself a Conservative.

They are against welfare for illegals but are completely against securing the border.
They tend to side with liberals on the war on terror.
They are for even less government than I am comfortable with.
I am all for stopping the enviro-wackos but they are against almost all regulation and sometimes it is needed.
A hybrid of conservative and libertarian would be great if such a party exists, but considering the far-left wants to destroy all our freedoms I find it is necessary to get them out of office. Third parties are just not viable at this time and it would be throwing my vote away when it is needed most.

[cautiousamerican]

I'm confused.

Libertarian: One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
A person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.

I would think all of us would strive to be this.

[nebcon]

I have some Libertarian leanings but have enough problems with libertarianism to still consider myself a Conservative.

They are against welfare for illegals but are completely against securing the border.

The open borders position is a "school of thought" among Libertarians, but not a universal one. In fact I believe that it is a minority opinion.

They tend to side with liberals on the war on terror.We don't "side" with Liberals on the GWOT, we side with the Constitution, and with the lessons of history. Liberals are constantly talking about "wiping out" poverty, racism, hatred as if any of those integral parts of the human condition have ever been wiped out. Terrorism is based on religious bigotry and hatred. They cannot be eradicated, they will always be present. It is not the Constitutional duty of the federal government to attempt to "wipe them out" and it is not within the financial capability of the nation, to engage in such a war without end. For Libertarians and Paleoconservatives this isn't about Liberal moonbat pacifism, it's about what is doable, reasonable and practical to keep this nation great.

They are for even less government than I am comfortable with.
I am all for stopping the enviro-wackos but they are against almost all regulation and sometimes it is needed.
A hybrid of conservative and libertarian would be great if such a party exists, but considering the far-left wants to destroy all our freedoms I find it is necessary to get them out of office. Third parties are just not viable at this time and it would be throwing my vote away when it is needed most.Not against ALL regulation. We are for decentralized control. If a state or local government needs to implement some sort of control to protect public safety or personal liberty, we are all for that. In regards to regulation, federal solutions are often much like swatting a fly by dropping a house on it. Many of these problems are unique to a region by virtue of the type of industries that are there. A decentralized approach produces the most efficient solution.

Victory is hollow, if once you achieve it, those that you install into power do the very opposite that you wished them to do. Conservatism means nothing without principle. Without principle, its just a word. There is a Libertarian component to Conservatism, that if absent makes Conservatism not much different than modern day Liberalism/progressivism.

[AvgGuyIA]

Unless you hit the bong last night, you can't really call yourself a Libertarian.

[nebcon]

Unless you hit the bong last night, you can't really call yourself a Libertarian.

I have never smoked or drank in my life. This is typical ignorant, clueless post from you. Go back to discussing birth certificates, antichrists and tea parties and leave the adults to their discussion.

[AvgGuyIA]

I have never smoked or drank in my life. This is typical ignorant, clueless post from you. Go back to discussing birth certificates, antichrists and tea parties and leave the adults to their discussion.Wow...calling me ignorant and clueless. Not very friendly to a fellow Hannity honored guest. Tell me, do you support the legalization of drugs, particularly pot?

[johnrocks]

Wow...calling me ignorant and clueless. Not very friendly to a fellow Hannity honored guest. Tell me, do you support the legalization of drugs, particularly pot?

Don't be insinuating that we "hit bongs" if you don't want to be talked back to like that, respect is a two way street you know.

[AvgGuyIA]

Don't be insinuating that we "hit bongs" if you don't want to be talked back to like that, respect is a two way street you know.
But you do agree that one of the primary planks of the Libertarian Party is the legalization of drugs don't you? Wanting to legalize them is pointless if one doesn't intend to use them. I could be a Libertarian except for the pot smoking and demanding the freedom to walk around nude in public. I just don't buy into the thinking that says you really can't be "liberated" if a mean old Gubmint continues to outlaw those Freedoms.

[johnrocks]

But you do agree that one of the primary planks of the Libertarian Party is the legalization of drugs don't you? Wanting to legalize them is pointless if one doesn't intend to use them. I could be a Libertarian except for the pot smoking and demanding the freedom to walk around nude in public. I just don't buy into the thinking that says you really can't be "liberated" if a mean old Gubmint continues to outlaw those Freedoms.

Look, I'm a Republican who happens to agree with more of the Libertarian views, perhaps not all of them anymore than you ask for perfection of the GOP so why ask it of the LP?

[nebcon]

But you do agree that one of the primary planks of the Libertarian Party is the legalization of drugs don't you? Wanting to legalize them is pointless if one doesn't intend to use them. I could be a Libertarian except for the pot smoking and demanding the freedom to walk around nude in public. I just don't buy into the thinking that says you really can't be "liberated" if a mean old Gubmint continues to outlaw those Freedoms.

No it is not pointless. This isn't about some personal self interest. I am opposed to the federal drug war for the same reason that I am against any other wasteful, inefficient, non-constitutional government program. I'm quite sure for some this is about their own personal convenience, but that isn't the Libertarian position. I called your post ignorant, which it was.

[Safiel]

But you do agree that one of the primary planks of the Libertarian Party is the legalization of drugs don't you? Wanting to legalize them is pointless if one doesn't intend to use them. I could be a Libertarian except for the pot smoking and demanding the freedom to walk around nude in public. I just don't buy into the thinking that says you really can't be "liberated" if a mean old Gubmint continues to outlaw those Freedoms.

I also advocate the continuing legality of alcohol and tobacco. I do drink, rarely. But I have not ever smoked, nor would I ever consider smoking tobacco, even though it is perfectly legal. It is the same with pot. I advocate its legality, but would never even consider smoking it.

As for things like walking around nude in public. In a libertarian world, commonalities would not exist, or at the very least would be extremely limited in scope. Streets and Highways, parks, etc would all be private property. Whether you could be nude or not would be up to the private property owner. Your freedom to be nude would only extend to your own personal private property, the private property of someone who consents to your being nude or untitled, unowned land. In a libertarian world, the problem of the "commons" does not exist.

[Ceasar]

You sound like a Conservative to me...

But you are not a Republican.
Thanks Bro!

[Ceasar]

You certainly did, but in your case I can forgive and forget what was said just prior to the election. :lol:



First and foremost we want things done as per the Constitution. Sure I prefer the state route, but do the work to get a Constitutional amendment based on the "life" issue, and I'll respect that in the same way I respect the rest of the Constitution.



Not all are open border types, especially those of us who are former disaffected GOP. We're with you believe me.



I don't want anyone using the federal government to bring on social change. Doesn't matter who they are, including Liberals.

Besides we have cookies, and we like to share. :)

Thanks for the absolution, LOL! I think we aren't alone, the present insanity is getting a lot of people thinking, hopefully pushing back the frontier's of ignorance...

[Broseph]

Wanting to legalize them is pointless if one doesn't intend to use them.

Supporting the war on terror is pointless unless you intend to sign up for service and kill the bad guys.

That's pretty much what you just said.

[Broseph]

Unless you hit the bong last night, you can't really call yourself a Libertarian.

Unless you have killed a terrorist, you can't really call yourself a Republican.

Again, drawing a parallel that shows the post does not make sense.

[Broseph]

I'm confused.

Libertarian: One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
A person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.

I would think all of us would strive to be this.

The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates. - Tacitus

It shows how excellent a job of government has done at conditioning people to believe that without various government agencies or handouts, their lives would cease to be livable.

[JMikey]

Wanting to legalize them is pointless if one doesn't intend to use them.

By this logic, anyone advocating people's right to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol are only defending such rights because they are smokers or drinkers..

I don't know about you, but I try to live by the golden rule..

[Dreamy]

Why the need to have a label?

I will never join a party. Vote for the right person. I mean if you want to send money his or her way do so but why the need to be in some group? Even if you identify more with one group why must you adopt them?

[Broseph]

Why the need to have a label?

I will never join a party. Vote for the right person. I mean if you want to send money his or her way do so but why the need to be in some group? Even if you identify more with one group why must you adopt them?

Why did Ron Paul run as a Republican? Because there is no other way he could have his voice heard unless he ran as either an R or D.

Similarly, there is no way to change policy and laws in America without a unified voice.

When people say independent, that means you could be anything, so independents, although a larger registered group than Republicans, don't stand for any principles or idea, and rarely have their ideas adopted by any party.

Libertarian stands for something. Mainly freedom, liberty and individual rights.

That's what Broseph thinks anyway.

[BasicGreatGuy]

Why did Ron Paul run as a Republican? Because there is no other way he could have his voice heard unless he ran as either an R or D.

Similarly, there is no way to change policy and laws in America without a unified voice.

When people say independent, that means you could be anything, so independents, although a larger registered group than Republicans, don't stand for any principles or idea, and rarely have their ideas adopted by any party.

Libertarian stands for something. Mainly freedom, liberty and individual rights.

That's what Broseph thinks anyway.
You are wholly wrong about not standing for any principles or idea. You rail against GOP loyalists, while making an ignorant post based on the very mindset you claim to abhor.

Party loyalty be damned. I can help preserve, protect, and uphold the Constitution, without being a member of any political party.

[Broseph]

You are wholly wrong about not standing for any principles or idea. You rail against GOP loyalists, while making an ignorant post based on the very mindset you claim to abhor.

Party loyalty be damned. I can help preserve, protect, and uphold the Constitution, without being a member of any political party.

I'm referring to the whole group known registered as independents. As a group, independents don't stand for any principles in particular. If you are referring to the individual independent, sure an individual independent can stand for something.

I'm saying that there's no stance on any issue that all independents agree on. That's why I am libertarian, and not independent.

Also, in my book, libertarians should be more concerned with promoting freedom, liberty and individual rights than the Constitution. Although, yes, the Constitution is a solid guideline for those three items.

[Snowblind]

Actually, the answer to your first and second questions are somewhat related.

I am studying and perusing a few details. Which is why I have not made the jump completely, yet. My main concern is the problem of how, once anarcho-capitalism has been achieved, to prevent coercive government from rising yet again.

The details of how anarcho-capitalism would actually work I have for the most part have a handle on. It is mostly how to prevent regression into coercive government that gives me a pause.

Is it a secret? I'd be really curious to hear you insights. If it could work (and work well) I'd be all for it.

[Dreamy]

Why did Ron Paul run as a Republican? Because there is no other way he could have his voice heard unless he ran as either an R or D.

Similarly, there is no way to change policy and laws in America without a unified voice.

When people say independent, that means you could be anything, so independents, although a larger registered group than Republicans, don't stand for any principles or idea, and rarely have their ideas adopted by any party.

Libertarian stands for something. Mainly freedom, liberty and individual rights.

That's what Broseph thinks anyway.

I am speaking solely for myself. Not the candidates. I choose to have no party attached to my name. If one does choose to take a party stamp they are assured of your vote more often than not. No candidate or party is assured of my vote and they never will be. I am a freelancer. Earn it!

[BasicGreatGuy]

I'm referring to the whole group known registered as independents. As a group, independents don't stand for any principles in particular. If you are referring to the individual independent, sure an individual independent can stand for something.

I'm saying that there's no stance on any issue that all independents agree on. That's why I am libertarian, and not independent.

Also, in my book, libertarians should be more concerned with promoting freedom, liberty and individual rights than the Constitution. Although, yes, the Constitution is a solid guideline for those three items.

Are you some kind of anarchist? The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is the foundation of this Republic.

Why are you so hung up on labels, and party loyalty? Pray tell...what can a political party do for you, that you don't already have the power to do, as an employer of this Republic? Nothing is the answer.

I detest party loyalty for the sake of party loyalty. I also find it repugnant, that you never waste a chance to give the GOP members what for, in regards to their party loyalty etc, while you promote the same party pimp mentality. Can you not see your own hypocrisy?

[Dreamy]

Independents are simply another party.

[Broseph]

I am speaking solely for myself. Not the candidates. I choose to have no party attached to my name. If one does choose to the party is assured of your vote more often than not. No candidate or party is assured of my vote and they never will be. I am a freelancer. Earn it!

That's fine. Not arguing with that. In fact, in my ideal country, there would be no parties and everyone would be independent. That way people wouldn't vote based on party. However, since we do have parties, I choose to go libertarian (a party based on principle, not politics) because I believe that I can make a bigger difference with a group of people with me than being in a group, such as independents, that have no direction. Again to clarify, the individual independent can, but the entire group promote any policy changes or ideas.

I was attempting to explain why people attach themselves with the philosophy of libertarianism, and the party itself.

[ThrowCop]

Why the need to have a label?

I will never join a party. Vote for the right person. I mean if you want to send money his or her way do so but why the need to be in some group? Even if you identify more with one group why must you adopt them?I think my views defy strict political labels but for those running for office, it is all but essential as of now to label oneself. Heck, that is the first thing after the name on the ballot. :neutral:

[Broseph]

Are you some kind of anarchist? The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is the foundation of this Republic.

Why are you so hung up on labels, and party loyalty? Pray tell...what can a political party do for you, that you don't already have the power to do, as an employer of this Republic? Nothing is the answer.

I detest party loyalty for the sake of party loyalty. I also find it repugnant, that you never waste a chance to give the GOP members what for, in regards to their party loyalty etc, while you promote the same party pimp mentality. Can you not see your own hypocrisy?

Okay. I would prefer no parties, and everyone to be independent. However, as I explained in a previous post, I find that being a libertarian (again, based on principle not politics) gives me a better chance to push for policy changes than being an independent. I mean, the alternative would be being independent who has libertarian ideals. Same thing, the only difference is no party affiliation.

I am not a party loyalist. If, tomorrow, the libertarian party endorses socialism, I would no longer be a libertarian. However, as of now, my views are almost to a tee the prototypical libertarian's views in that less government = good. I don't agree with their ideas because it's what they believe, I agree with them because it's what I believe.

I promote liberty, freedom and individual rights. All of these are libertarian ideas.

[Dreamy]

I think my views defy strick political labels but for those running for office, it is all but essential as of now to label oneself. Heck, that is the first thing after the name on the ballot. :neutral:

True. I simply have been burned by the Ds(I was one when I first registered) long ago and now the Rs.(never registered R just voted R) Both have made it very clear to me that labels are a waste. They cause you do look away at your own parties faults. I know I did. Now being a freelancer I can look at them all with an equally jaded eye. lol

[BasicGreatGuy]

Okay. I would prefer no parties, and everyone to be independent. However, as I explained in a previous post, I find that being a libertarian (again, based on principle not politics) gives me a better chance to push for policy changes than being an independent. I mean, the alternative would be being independent who has libertarian ideals. Same thing, the only difference is no party affiliation.

I am not a party loyalist. If, tomorrow, the libertarian party endorses socialism, I would no longer be a libertarian. However, as of now, my views are almost to a tee the prototypical libertarian's views in that less government = good. I don't agree with their ideas because it's what they believe, I agree with them because it's what I believe.

I promote liberty, freedom and individual rights. All of these are libertarian ideas.

I can respect that position, even though I abhor political parties. I consider them a cancer upon this Republic.

Your recent replies in the thread failed to articulate your position in a concise manner. As such, your words were viewed as biting and hypocritical. Thank you for clarifying. I hope you can understand why I responded the way I did to you. You might want to give that some consideration, when speaking with those who are as dedicated to the GOP, as you appear to be with the LP.

[ThrowCop]

True. I simply have been burned by the Ds(I was one when I first registered) long ago and now the Rs.(never registered R just voted R) Both have made it very clear to me that labels are a waste. They cause you do look away at your own parties faults. I know I did. Now being a freelancer I can look at them all with an equally jaded eye. lolI was a closet Conservative while attending grad school at Berkeley.. . :wall:

I have never seen such smart people so unable to see the wrongs of their own party...


until I signed up here that is. :))

[Dreamy]

That's fine. Not arguing with that. In fact, in my ideal country, there would be no parties and everyone would be independent. That way people wouldn't vote based on party. However, since we do have parties, I choose to go libertarian (a party based on principle, not politics) because I believe that I can make a bigger difference with a group of people with me than being in a group, such as independents, that have no direction. Again to clarify, the individual independent can, but the entire group promote any policy changes or ideas.

I was attempting to explain why people attach themselves with the philosophy of libertarianism, and the party itself.


All parties claim to have principles.

There are 2 types of liberterians.

Small l
Large L

Being a small l is fine
Being in the Big L is still being labeled.

[BasicGreatGuy]

I was a closet Conservative while attending grad school at Berkeley.. . :wall:

I have never seen such smart people so unable to see the wrongs of their own party...


until I signed up here that is. :))
Berkley :think: That school was one of the ones I was seriously considering for Music.

[Broseph]

All parties claim to have principles.

There are 2 types of liberterians.

Small l
Large L

Being a small l is fine
Being in the Big L is still being labeled.

Yes. However, you will find the principles of the GOP and Democratic Party change with the times.

For instance, the GOP adopted the evangelicals into their big tent and now many of their principles are based on that.

I think you'll find libertarian principle and ideology to be solid. Of course, this is coming from me, which you could view as a biased point of view. But the day libertarians approve the curtailing of liberties will be the day hell freezes over.

Big L, small l, they're all good in my book. The only major difference between the two is that one affiliates with the party, while the other doesn't. Ideologically, they're essentially the same. And since we've determined on these boards that ideology trumps political party, let's not be labeling the Big Ls as party slobbering toolbags. Big L doesn't believe in freedom and liberty any less than small L, the only difference is that they affiliate with an organized entity that promotes those ideas.

[Broseph]

I can respect that position, even though I abhor political parties. I consider them a cancer upon this Republic.

Your recent replies in the thread failed to articulate your position in a concise manner. As such, your words were viewed as biting and hypocritical. Thank you for clarifying. I hope you can understand why I responded the way I did to you. You might want to give that some consideration, when speaking with those who are as dedicated to the GOP, as you appear to be with the LP.

I'm not a libertarian party affiliate who happens to have a libertarian ideology. I have a libertarian ideology and happen to affiliate with the libertarian party for previously stated reasons.

I subscribe to the idea that many of the GOP loyalists honestly do believe in what they say. However, I believe the reasons they believe in it are flawed.

Meaning, they'll hear ideas on talk radio or GOP leaders or religious leaders or even read it themselves and believe it to be the word of God. Example: drugs are bad so let's support the war on drugs. Then, at the same time, if you suggest arresting people for possessing alcohol or tobacco, they'll call you a kook or think you're crazy, even though those are drugs that cause exponentially more deaths than all drugs targeted by the WOD combined, and even though the ideas of alcohol or tobacco prohibition compared to current prohibition are essentially the same thing.

That's doublethink in my book.

Libertarians consistently come down on the side of more freedom and less government. Democrat and Republican party loyalists consistently come down on the side of whatever their party says. That's why I spend time on these boards pointing out hypocrisy to Dems and GOPers.