Libertarian - Would you switch?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Herdfan, May 7, 2017.

  1. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #1
    if it were a viable party? Right now it is a fringe party, but unlike the Green Party or other fringe parties, the Libertarians have planks that both liberals and conservatives like. They just don't like the other half.

    https://www.lp.org/

    For me, I would jump on in a heartbeat if they were viable, and by viable a mean they need to move beyond the 4-5% they are getting in national elections. They need to start a grassroots effort and start getting more people elected in local and state governments and then get a couple of Congressmen and Senators.

    Thoughts?

    If you don't know, take this quiz:

    https://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.php

    I score as a centrist libertarian leaning right.
     
  2. cfedu macrumors 65816

    cfedu

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto
    #2
    upload_2017-5-7_10-7-5.png
     
  3. Huntn, May 7, 2017
    Last edited: May 7, 2017

    Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #4
    The question is how much liberty does a libertarian realistically expect? :D

    According to the quiz, I'm a Left leaning Centrist, on the Liberal line. :)

    Philosophical statement follows, which maybe the quiz does not address: ;) We >Me. I believe that if you live in a society, that you are not a free agent. That you should expect equal rights, opportunity, treatment under the law. That health care and education should be provided for all.

    That having the best idea ever and implementing it should place you in valued status within society but should not allow you to become obscenely materially wealthy. There should defined caps on wealth and property accumulation. With the premise of an efficient, uncorrupted government, a high tax rate should be expected with the overall health and prosperity of society as the top priority.

    The idea of lowering taxes and removing regulations to increase overall wealth is a falsehood. Yes while it increases the wealth of a small minority, it adversely impacts the majority. Regulations are frequely written in blood and specifically with the acknowledgment that short term profits may be lowered, but overall stability is enhanced, so the strategy should be viewed as a false solution. Again, the premise is having an efficient, uncorrupted government.

    I acknowledge this runs contrary to the notion of complete freedom, which in society has always been an illusion. You have as much freedom as communal living allows for, but not the freedom to step on others in the name of your religion or your personal preferences, if that interferes with the defined freedoms of our society.

    Part of the problems we experience as a species is because most everyone is working for themselves, not for the group. The primary motivation of people is self enrichment and until we truly adopts an understanding of group welfare, we'll continue to try to climb over others for our own advantage and at other's expense.

    What I'm describing is probably not a good fit with the definition of free market capitalism. ;)
     
  4. TMRJIJ macrumors 68020

    TMRJIJ

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2011
    Location:
    South Carolina, United States
  5. ThisBougieLife macrumors 65816

    ThisBougieLife

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Location:
    SF Bay Area, California
    #6
    To be honest, I'm not entirely sure. And I'm not even sure how to answer some of the questions on the quiz, particularly the economic ones.

    Through my personal philosophy and life experiences to date, I'm fairly confident in where I stand on most social issues, but I'm willing to admit that I'm only 18 and don't have much experience in the "real world", particularly in the working world, and so on the financial and economic side of government I'm less established. I grew up in a well-off family; I don't know what it means to need government benefits. While some of those things sound rosy, "yeah, less government spending! No free handouts!", I don't know if I'm only naïvely seeing those in a positive light when in reality, these might have devastating effects. I certainly see how a larger government taken to its extreme destroys nations and hurts people, but I also see how more government control works in certain European nations, viz. those of Scandinavia.

    Because the libertarian party hasn't been given much of a chance, it's hard to see how and to what extent they would really work if they got themselves into a position of power. I'm all for getting rid of the two-party system, but I'm not so sure that the libertarian party would be the best solution to the two-party false dichotomy. At least they should be given a chance, though, that much I can support.
     
  6. RootBeerMan macrumors 6502

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #7
    I've been a member since 1980. I see no need to change affiliation to either wing of the Boot On Your Neck Party. The primary reasons for the lower percentages are that the states stack the deck against all other parties, via ballot access laws and denial of access to debates and funding. Add in a press that routinely excludes third parties and you get low percentages. I'll stick with the low percentages and principled candidates. Democrats and republicans will never get my votes.
     
  7. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #8
    I disagree with excessive roadblocks to get parties on the ballots, but my impression is that parties like the Independent, and Green Parties do get on the ballot. These other parties need good candidates and support from voters. I'm an Independant, but I pragmatically vote for the best choice available based partially on electability. :)
     
  8. RootBeerMan macrumors 6502

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #9
    You can disagree, but it won't change the truth of what I said. Third parties, in the vast majority of states have high hurdles to get over to gain ballot access. In many cases the access is limited to individual races or terms and they do not enjoy permanent ballot access. Take Indiana, as an example. Only 3 parties have access, R, D and Libertarians. No other party has ballot access. They can get, on a temporary basis, write in access, but write ins usually go straight into the garbage can. Ohio is a nightmarish and third parties that do gain access, have had it stripped form them by the republican dominated government, as they keep moving the lines. No. Few states have equatable laws concerning access and that's the way the duality likes it and designed it. Same for the debates.
     
  9. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #10
    I disagreed with excessive roadblocks... :)
     
  10. RootBeerMan macrumors 6502

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #11
    And yet they exist.
     
  11. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #12
    I disagreed with having excessive roadblocks, but did not imply there were none. :rolleyes:
     
  12. RootBeerMan macrumors 6502

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
  13. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #14
    It would depend on what changes they made to their platform and the type of people they nominate in order to become relevant. The fact is that even though there are some difficulties to ballot access the Libertarians have mostly overcome them yet they still don't win elections. If enough people agreed with them to make them a viable party they would be there.
     
  14. niploteksi, May 7, 2017
    Last edited: May 7, 2017

    niploteksi macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    #15
    I scored nearly dead center... with a slight nudge to the left and statist!

    [​IMG]
     
  15. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #16
    While I'm in accord with many small-l libertarian ideas, I pay little attention to party efforts. The big drawback, politically, is that there is a high degree of voluntary acceptance for personal responsibility for the consequences of one's decisions and actions. That doesn't play well in Great Society America.

    @ThisBougieLife: What old age gives to a thinking sort of person is perspective. Having a BS detector helps. I've joked that the drawback to plowing behind a horse is the view never improves--but it prepares you for seeing politicians.

    Lots of news in the papers and TV. Many of the opinions are fallacious. For me, if the arithmetic doesn't work, it's nonsense. I tend to believe www.shadowstats.com much more than I do the BLS numbers on unemployment and consumer price inflation, as example.

    Arithmetic: Look at the decline of purchasing power of the US dollar since Nixon closed the gold window in 1971. Look at the federal debt, and note that the interest component of the federal budget is up around a half-trillion just in debt service. Two sources of government money: Taxes from productive people, and debt. www.usdebtclock.org

    When I was 19 I was stony broke. If redwood trees were a nickel each, I couldn't have bought a toothpick. Getting drafted was a Good Thing for me at that time. "At that time." I grew up, kept on learning and made a good life for myself. Now I'm so old that I've been here since before they hauled in dirt. I've lived freer than most and I don't have to sweat the price of gasoline.

    Doug Casey has a jaundiced view of the future: http://www.caseyresearch.com/articles/doug-casey-on-the-end-of-western-civilization and for all I know, based on his track record, he may be right. But that won't keep me from singing songs, telling jokes and living free. :)
     
  16. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #17
    Years ago I would have called myself a Libertarian, but that was before my political awakening and I didn't know much about that kind of stuff. Now? I'm afraid I'm poisoned against it due to some bad eggs, and certain militant beliefs.

    Much like atheism. I am one, but I'm keeping myself away from the others.
     
  17. AustinIllini macrumors demi-god

    AustinIllini

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #18
    My ideal America is an election between a liberal and a libertarian every year. I lean liberal because there are some basic rights people in America simply don't have, but there are ideas that libertarians have that I agree with.
     
  18. shinji macrumors 65816

    shinji

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    #19
    [​IMG]

    I'd vote for a third party if it were viable, just not the Libertarian Party.
     
  19. sorcery macrumors regular

    sorcery

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2016
    Location:
    Ring of Fire
    #20
    Benefits are part of the system ensuring the wealthy do not meet the fate of Marie Antoinette.
    Not widely known, the system is used by the Gulf Arab dictators to keep their people politically apathetic.
     
  20. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #21
    Even there for 3 election cycles. This was a historic election with the worst in society going up against the worst in govt. we still SUCKED. I just don't see the LP ever being seen as "viable" I'm America due to the serious amount of party loyalist supporting Stalin to stop Hitler :(
     
  21. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #22
    I'll switch when libertarians put forth realistic policies for governing our diverse population of 325 million people. For instance, expecting charities to solve the problem of the welfare state is a fantasy. Until the party acknowledges that freedom alone isn't enough to govern a country, I couldn't possibly get behind it.
     
  22. Septembersrain Contributor

    Septembersrain

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2013
    Location:
    Texas
  23. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #24
    But it won't be a viable party. At least not on the federal stage of American government.

    Because of the "winner takes all" mechanism inherent in the American system, only a party gaining a majority of citizen's votes has true power. A very strong minority can occasionally make its voice heard, but third parties are utterly irrelevant.

    As such, a party formed around a specific political philosophy can easily win over citizens who follow that philosophy, but will drive away all others. And there are far too many philosophies out there for any such party to ever become a majority party.

    It is only when a party manages to bring together otherwise incompatible philosophies into a single unified group that they can attain a majority of voters. As the Republicans have now done by welding conservative and populist philosophies together. They are, obviously, having trouble maintaining cohesion now that they have power, but their willingness to give up philosophical purity for the sake of creating a majority has granted them control over the government.

    In any case, the Libertarian party will never be a majority party, for the simple reason that in order to gain a majority of votes, it would have to incorporate policies that are not Libertarian in nature. Which would kind of negate the whole point of the party...
     
  24. Herdfan thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #25
    And by US politicians to keep the votes rolling in.
     

Share This Page