I'm in NH. the Fee State Project librertarians make better republicans than the republicans.
they don't compromise on freedom. ever.
the actual republicans around here are go-along-to-get-along types. they do stuff in the name of "bipartisanship" when the dems would never even give the courtesy of a reach-around in return.
Libertarianism can be summed up easily. That which governs least, governs best. If you think we need all the laws we now have or need even more and we need all 400 federal agencies we now have you might not be a libertarian, if you think the government is too big and we need fewer laws and less regulation you’re not a Republican, you’re a libertarian.
@CT, Cute, and that's great you imagine that, because it's not a bad philosophy, but it's not the way it is for Libertarians. And was expressed by Thoreau, the textbook example of delusional fantasist. Also a hypocrite, because he was all for fomenting bloody revolution in the South, and thought government should interfere with their lives beyond any question. He was also all for taxing people for schools and highways, just not the Mexican War. He lived just long enough to see the beginning of the Civil War, but not most of its carnage, and made no rush to join up when it broke out. That's a mighty convenient philosophy, but it isn't libertarianism.
Fewer laws and less government is a good idea. Libertarian's idea of least = 0. And there's the rub.
The problem is that Libertarians think the answer isn't less, it's no government and no laws. On the imaginary philosophy that people are good and wise, and will always act flawlessly in everyone's best interest by protecting their own. Tried and failed, thousands of times. Followed, near flawlessly in human history, by dictatorship and tyranny, for thousands of years.
You want to grade the varieties of Libertarian-lite out there, go ahead on. Best wishes with constructing that taxonomy. I'm pretty sure it's on the genus unicornus.
That's without getting into the fact that the number one agenda on most of their lists, every time they're asked, is usually legalizing drugs. Which has never helped their case.
So tell me, if you're a libertarian: how much government, and which laws, are "just right"? If you think any laws or government are okay, you're not a Libertarian. Just ask them. If you think some laws and government are better than nothing, you're not libertarian, you're a libertarian-leaning Something Else.
There isn't a big tent there. They're outside the tent, wishing to set it all on fire.
@Justin, I could get you odds on Ron Paul's nut job status. They wouldn't serve your argument to the contrary. There are probably still polls available from back in the day. Let it go, man. He couldn't have gotten elected dogcatcher.
And yet, when the area he represented was smashed by a hurricane and the government offered to call it a disaster area and All the Money that went with it, he declined. And was re-elected. To a post a bit higher than dog catcher. IMO, A libertarian is a constitutional conservative. Not against Any government, but government that gets in the way of The People and their inherent rights. The threat to Leave you alone really shouldn't be a problem. And, having been left alone to choose your path,left alone to deal with The Consequences of your actions. It's a bit tiresome hearing about a kid getting shut down for selling lemonade. Seeing the inability to understand what The right of the people to keep and bear arms on permanent display is more than tiresome. We don't want to see the government dissolved. Your description of a libertarian is an anarchist. Not the same thing. We just want a government that fits in the box it came in. America was prosperous before the Federal Reserve, doing Juust Fine, we were. The questions that certainly would be understandable to ask, like, without the standing army, and real defense capabilities, would America not be attacked? Yeah, of course that is a reasonable question. And No, it would be suicide. But how much Defense is actually defense? Have they not built up a system, the Military Industrial Complex, that in order to keep it alive, like any business,it Must see the products it makes get used? It's Way too involved to type it out. Whatever you think of libertarians, we are no more The Problem than the average American gun owner is the reason for people getting shot. Whatever you think of us, America would be a much better place with people who think like Ron Paul in charge than any other group, especially the ones who are running things now. IMO,while the Bilderberg meetings and so many others continue, it's not just the nation, but the world, being subjugated. Who,what platform,do you think is what the Founding Fathers would have supported? I'm sure it's not the democrats, and who even Knows what Republicans actually stand for? How many of them are not corrupt? The corruption is so bad. And Paul did not leave DC rich. Who do you support? I don't follow this blog enough to know, so, I'm not up to speed with what you actually support, but I'm comfortable thinking you would be someone to have a beer with and listen to.
Unfortunately, the same electoral affirmation can be said of fellow congressweasels Maxine Waters or Gin Hag Pelosi, to name but two scurrilous swine.
While you're entitled to your opinions, those of the Libertarian Party platform itself carry a bit more weight. And are nothing like Ron Paul's opinions, nor yours. Which was why, the times he was elected, he ran and caucused as a Republican, not a Libertarian. Something you left out. His libertarianism doesn't even run as deep as the top of his boot soles, and like many creeks in Texas, disappears for years at a time.
How...electorally expedient.
I'm pretty much through with the Uniparty, and there haven't been ten actual conservatives in the Congress in as many years. Or probably, decades. Plenty of country club Republicans though, which is rather the problem.
I doubt we disagree politically on very much between us, but the Libertarian Party is neither fish nor fowl, and the Uniparty is all foul.
GIGO.
I'd be happy if there were representatives that viewed the Constitution as the bedrock touchstone (if I didn't die from the sheer shock), but until there are 218 congressweasels, 51 senators, and a president so inclined, everyone in the country is pretty much screwed with their pants on until far over the horizon.
Which makes small or large "L" libertarians about as important to and influential upon the nation as the Amish were during the Civil War. With demographics that roughly match.
Not much there to disagree with. Paul didn't abandon his libertarian ideology, though. Getting invited to participate in what they call The Debates is up to more of the Uniparty and their ability to exclude people. I could be wrong about that, but I read it, was surprised by it, thought That's chikkenSchitt ,but AFAIK, that is why he ran as a Republican. Just getting people to understand that calling them The Uniparty is more correct than pretending a Republican and a Democrat really want different things is not easy. It's all so much like wrestling. In the ring,snarling, spitting and growling, then they go for beer together. It's a big Punch and Judy show. Pick your team, cheer for them.. YeeHaww,,one bunch screws us one way, the other screws us another. Yeah, I'm sending Nothing to every one of them. Unless the election has some important Down ticket stuff,local things I'm not going to vote. Tired of the bullschitt. Thanks for the conversation. I've enjoyed it.
About Why Paul registered as a Bub, if anyone knows differently about that, I'd read it, for sure. And what I said about it,, I read that so long ago, I wouldn't know how to go about finding that.
"Which makes small or large "L" libertarians about as important to and influential upon the nation as the Amish were during the Civil War. With demographics that roughly match."
That is pretty much why I left the libertarians. Votes in the thousands in any congressional district were a drop in the bucket compared to Uniparty and were not going to change things. Had it been in the millions and growing I might have stuck with it, but that was decades ago and the opportunity was lost.
Thought this thread was already dead, but since it was commented on today...
@Aesop, "Libertarian's idea of least = 0."
If only. Certainly not the Libertarians -- they want to run Mordor on the Potomac. And not the libertarians, either. They rank somewhere above minarchists in terms of love of state. A rough scale in the way the political science people use the terms:
Anarcho-capitalist << night watchman <some strains of anarchism < minarchist < libertarian < Libertarian
Everyone else comes in above there somewhere. The only political ideology where least governed = 0 is anarcho-capitalism.
@Aesop, "When you scratch a rank-and-file libertarian, you mainly just find someone who wants their drugs legalized."
Fair. Particularly if you include left (thick) libertarians. I don't know that it's more than a quarter of any strain of libertarians (other than Stoner Americans) but it's certainly a distraction. And when they put that pothead on the top of the ticket? Gary "What is a leppo?" Johnson? Sheesh.
Not counting the news outlets or websites along the full range of accuracy and veracity, I follow multiple actual individuals' handwritten blogs. (Bot news aggregators don't thrill me.) Looking them over, many are current serving or former military and a couple are some variation of high-speed low-drag elite forces ninjas. Or just funny as all. Because life without humor is just despair. So in other words, the same folks I trusted in the military not to wet the bed, sh*t themselves, or otherwise run around like headless Nancys, are the same folks I trust on the interwebz, for demonstrating pretty much the same trustworthiness and circumspectly responsible behavior. Color me shocked.
Comments are fully moderated, due to idiots and trolls. Grown up discussion here will appear just as soon as I have the time to push it through. ANONYMOUS UNSIGNED COMMENTS WILL BE AUTO-DELETED WITHOUT MERCY, and the url added to the spam filter, or mercilessly mocked at the bloghost's sole discretion. If you're too chickensh*t to come up with an alias for online purposes, you're not tall enough for this blog. Pick a name, and stick with it, and you're good. Get cute, and you're wasting your time and my electrons, and your masterpiece will never see the light of day. No warning shots will be fired. If you can't maintain decorum and polite behavior, I won't toy with you, I'll squash you. If one of your comments disappears, YOU f**ked up. If all of them do, it's time for you to go. Disagree with the points made, on the merits, and you're good. Go after me personally, or other commenters, and your comment will never see daylight here. My tolerance for skirting the line is at absolute zero, and will remain there. Don't f**k up.
14 comments:
I'm in NH. the Fee State Project librertarians make better republicans than the republicans.
they don't compromise on freedom. ever.
the actual republicans around here are go-along-to-get-along types. they do stuff in the name of "bipartisanship" when the dems would never even give the courtesy of a reach-around in return.
The small "l" libertarians aren't the problem.
The large L Libertarians are delusional cuckoos trying to convince you they're sane.
The two are not the same bird.
Libertarianism can be summed up easily. That which governs least, governs best. If you think we need all the laws we now have or need even more and we need all 400 federal agencies we now have you might not be a libertarian, if you think the government is too big and we need fewer laws and less regulation you’re not a Republican, you’re a libertarian.
Ron Paul is a libertarian. He's not a nut job. Freedom, Constitutional principles. Trump would be ahead to have him on speed dial.
@CT,
Cute, and that's great you imagine that, because it's not a bad philosophy, but it's not the way it is for Libertarians.
And was expressed by Thoreau, the textbook example of delusional fantasist. Also a hypocrite, because he was all for fomenting bloody revolution in the South, and thought government should interfere with their lives beyond any question. He was also all for taxing people for schools and highways, just not the Mexican War. He lived just long enough to see the beginning of the Civil War, but not most of its carnage, and made no rush to join up when it broke out. That's a mighty convenient philosophy, but it isn't libertarianism.
Fewer laws and less government is a good idea.
Libertarian's idea of least = 0.
And there's the rub.
The problem is that Libertarians think the answer isn't less, it's no government and no laws. On the imaginary philosophy that people are good and wise, and will always act flawlessly in everyone's best interest by protecting their own.
Tried and failed, thousands of times.
Followed, near flawlessly in human history, by dictatorship and tyranny, for thousands of years.
You want to grade the varieties of Libertarian-lite out there, go ahead on.
Best wishes with constructing that taxonomy.
I'm pretty sure it's on the genus unicornus.
That's without getting into the fact that the number one agenda on most of their lists, every time they're asked, is usually legalizing drugs. Which has never helped their case.
So tell me, if you're a libertarian: how much government, and which laws, are "just right"?
If you think any laws or government are okay, you're not a Libertarian. Just ask them.
If you think some laws and government are better than nothing, you're not libertarian, you're a libertarian-leaning Something Else.
There isn't a big tent there. They're outside the tent, wishing to set it all on fire.
@Justin,
I could get you odds on Ron Paul's nut job status. They wouldn't serve your argument to the contrary. There are probably still polls available from back in the day.
Let it go, man. He couldn't have gotten elected dogcatcher.
And yet, when the area he represented was smashed by a hurricane and the government offered to call it a disaster area and All the Money that went with it, he declined. And was re-elected.
To a post a bit higher than dog catcher.
IMO, A libertarian is a constitutional conservative. Not against Any government, but government that gets in the way of The People and their inherent rights.
The threat to Leave you alone really shouldn't be a problem. And, having been left alone to choose your path,left alone to deal with The Consequences of your actions. It's a bit tiresome hearing about a kid getting shut down for selling lemonade. Seeing the inability to understand what The right of the people to keep and bear arms on permanent display is more than tiresome. We don't want to see the government dissolved. Your description of a libertarian is an anarchist. Not the same thing. We just want a government that fits in the box it came in. America was prosperous before the Federal Reserve, doing Juust Fine, we were.
The questions that certainly would be understandable to ask, like, without the standing army, and real defense capabilities, would America not be attacked? Yeah, of course that is a reasonable question. And No, it would be suicide. But how much Defense is actually defense? Have they not built up a system, the Military Industrial Complex, that in order to keep it alive, like any business,it Must see the products it makes get used? It's Way too involved to type it out.
Whatever you think of libertarians, we are no more The Problem than the average American gun owner is the reason for people getting shot. Whatever you think of us, America would be a much better place with people who think like Ron Paul in charge than any other group, especially the ones who are running things now. IMO,while the Bilderberg meetings and so many others continue, it's not just the nation, but the world, being subjugated.
Who,what platform,do you think is what the Founding Fathers would have supported? I'm sure it's not the democrats, and who even Knows what Republicans actually stand for? How many of them are not corrupt? The corruption is so bad. And Paul did not leave DC rich.
Who do you support? I don't follow this blog enough to know, so, I'm not up to speed with what you actually support, but I'm comfortable thinking you would be someone to have a beer with and listen to.
Unfortunately, the same electoral affirmation can be said of fellow congressweasels Maxine Waters or Gin Hag Pelosi, to name but two scurrilous swine.
While you're entitled to your opinions, those of the Libertarian Party platform itself carry a bit more weight. And are nothing like Ron Paul's opinions, nor yours. Which was why, the times he was elected, he ran and caucused as a Republican, not a Libertarian. Something you left out. His libertarianism doesn't even run as deep as the top of his boot soles, and like many creeks in Texas, disappears for years at a time.
How...electorally expedient.
I'm pretty much through with the Uniparty, and there haven't been ten actual conservatives in the Congress in as many years. Or probably, decades. Plenty of country club Republicans though, which is rather the problem.
I doubt we disagree politically on very much between us, but the Libertarian Party is neither fish nor fowl, and the Uniparty is all foul.
GIGO.
I'd be happy if there were representatives that viewed the Constitution as the bedrock touchstone (if I didn't die from the sheer shock), but until there are 218 congressweasels, 51 senators, and a president so inclined, everyone in the country is pretty much screwed with their pants on until far over the horizon.
Which makes small or large "L" libertarians about as important to and influential upon the nation as the Amish were during the Civil War. With demographics that roughly match.
Not much there to disagree with. Paul didn't abandon his libertarian ideology, though. Getting invited to participate in what they call The Debates is up to more of the Uniparty and their ability to exclude people. I could be wrong about that, but I read it, was surprised by it, thought That's chikkenSchitt ,but AFAIK, that is why he ran as a Republican.
Just getting people to understand that calling them The Uniparty is more correct than pretending a Republican and a Democrat really want different things is not easy. It's all so much like wrestling. In the ring,snarling, spitting and growling, then they go for beer together. It's a big Punch and Judy show. Pick your team, cheer for them.. YeeHaww,,one bunch screws us one way, the other screws us another. Yeah, I'm sending Nothing to every one of them.
Unless the election has some important Down ticket stuff,local things I'm not going to vote. Tired of the bullschitt.
Thanks for the conversation. I've enjoyed it.
About Why Paul registered as a Bub, if anyone knows differently about that, I'd read it, for sure. And what I said about it,, I read that so long ago, I wouldn't know how to go about finding that.
Agreed. Big L.
"Which makes small or large "L" libertarians about as important to and influential upon the nation as the Amish were during the Civil War. With demographics that roughly match."
That is pretty much why I left the libertarians. Votes in the thousands in any congressional district were a drop in the bucket compared to Uniparty and were not going to change things. Had it been in the millions and growing I might have stuck with it, but that was decades ago and the opportunity was lost.
Thought this thread was already dead, but since it was commented on today...
@Aesop, "Libertarian's idea of least = 0."
If only. Certainly not the Libertarians -- they want to run Mordor on the Potomac. And not the libertarians, either. They rank somewhere above minarchists in terms of love of state. A rough scale in the way the political science people use the terms:
Anarcho-capitalist << night watchman <some strains of anarchism < minarchist < libertarian < Libertarian
Everyone else comes in above there somewhere. The only political ideology where least governed = 0 is anarcho-capitalism.
That's only because they don't practice what they preach.
Politicians who lie? Color me shocked.
When you scratch a rank-and-file libertarian, you mainly just find someone who wants their drugs legalized.
@Aesop, "When you scratch a rank-and-file libertarian, you mainly just find someone who wants their drugs legalized."
Fair. Particularly if you include left (thick) libertarians. I don't know that it's more than a quarter of any strain of libertarians (other than Stoner Americans) but it's certainly a distraction. And when they put that pothead on the top of the ticket? Gary "What is a leppo?" Johnson? Sheesh.
Post a Comment