ForumsWEPRThe Libertarian nomination

11 2809
thelistman
offline
thelistman
1,416 posts
Shepherd

So the US Libertarian Party has made me very upset. If you don't know about Libertarianism, the basic beliefs are as follows: Liberal on Social rights, Capitalist on economics, non-interventionist in foreign affairs, and small government. Again, these are basics. Some examples are that we support gay marriage, legalization of drugs, business rights, the abolishment of the IRS, and oppose things like the Iraq War, Patriot Act, and taxes for government programs.

Over the weekend, the Libertarian Party nominated Bob Barr, a former Republican from Georgia. Mr. Barr is not a Libertarian. He voted for the Patriot Act, Iraq War, and the bombing of coca fields in Colombia. He opposes medical marijuana and the legalization of drugs. He has voted against gay marriage and Wiccans in the military. Mr. Barr has continually voted to raise taxes and increase the government's power.

The main reason they nominated him is because he has held a public office before, and could bring attention to the party. The party sold out on its beliefs just to gain attention. Maybe it will be good for the party in the national stage, but Mr. Barr does not support anything that the party believes in. People will see his authoritarian beliefs and think that's what that party stands for, hurting Libertarians in the end.

This is a terrible move for the Libertarian Party. I wrote a stern letter to the US Libertarian Party about his nomination and canceled my membership. Anyone else here a Libertarian, or have an opinion on the issue? I want to know what other Libertarians think.

  • 11 Replies
Ricador
offline
Ricador
3,722 posts
Shepherd

I am not libertarian i am a strong conservative but i will agree with you, this is pretty ridiculous. He is clearly a republican and i have no clue what he is doing there. But i promise you, libertarians are not the only ones who are upset.

DragonMistress
offline
DragonMistress
1,060 posts
Blacksmith

Hmm. I had never heard of Libertarian... well, I had, just didn't know exactly what they were for... it sounds like mostly liberal beliefs, except for economics? Very interesting... I would actually tend to believe that I would lean towards that way of thought.

That stated, I think it is very sad that a seemingly radical party would be so neglectful of their views, and become so mainstream as to nominate someone like this, just to have some more 'authority' in the seat. The strange thing is, I would think that people in the party would think this as well, and *not* nominate him....

kanethebrain
offline
kanethebrain
242 posts
Nomad

@DragonMistress: When I want to give someone a short overview of Libertarianism, I usually say "Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative".

@thelistman: I mostly agree with your description of libertarianism, but one point about gay marriage. My understanding is that libertarians would rather the government get out of marriage altogether, and if there does need to be any legal contract between two people, it should be no more than giving two people power of attorney and financial consolidation for the duration of the contract. Then again, I suppose this just shows that even if all libertarians are for small government, they can disagree on the implementation.

I was on a libertarian mailing list when Mr. Barr announced his campaign. The announcement was something like "blah blah blah, my evil republican overlords made me do bad things but I'm better now, give me money". One of the responses was "Here's a translation: I wanted to vote against the big bad patwiot act, but I JUS CULDN'T". With toddler level grammar for emphasis. Barr strike me as a hypocrite that just wants his 15 minutes, and is mad the pubs won't give it to him.

I did notice Mike Gravel in the running, which surprised me, because I didn't think he was all that libertarian. Someone earlier on the forums pointed this out and I dismissed it; looks like I was way wrong on this one.

Whenever I tell people I'm a libertarian, I often say I'm a small-l libertarian, meaning that I don't join the Libertarian party even if I vote that way. Usually because they pull junk like this. Or go way off the deep end and advocate anarchy. If the party wasn't so divisive and full of nutjobs, I'd love to join. As it is, I don't know what I'm going to vote for come November.

thelistman
offline
thelistman
1,416 posts
Shepherd

@kanethebrain

The tag of "socially liberal, fiscally conservative" is somewhat misleading. I think we go beyond democrats on social issues, and barely agree with Republicans on economics. Republicans support crap like NAFTA, tariffs, and authoritarian economics. Libertarians are against that. I put them into three categories: Socially very liberal, Economically Capitalist, and foreign policy is non-interventionist. Basically, we believe the govnerment has one duty: to protect it's citizen's property. They should have a police force for domestic incidents, and a military to ward off invasion.

I agree with almost every Libertarian issue except education. They believe that education should be privatized. I still believe in a strong public education. Otherwise, I stick to mostly Libertarian principles.

And on the gay marriage issue, you are correct. Most libertarians think the government should stay out of the marriage issue. Some even say marriage should be abolished. But it comes down to implementation like you said. I believe in marriage. But when it comes to legal recognition, the law should recognize all marriages.

donosld
offline
donosld
70 posts
Nomad

I think Ron Paul did enough to bring attention to the Libertarian Party... that dude IS NOT a Republican. The GOP has gotten enough bad publicity, and REALLY did not need some half crazed libertarian mucking around in its Primaries. Sorry Ron Paul really made me angry (not as much as Ron Paul supporters though) and this concludes a anti-Ron Paul rant =).

Megamickel
offline
Megamickel
902 posts
Peasant

I'd have to say I strongly disagree with the legalization of drugs, but I think libertarianism is alright. But I digress - shouldn't the process be about who you think is best and not who the party thinks is best?

Not that our votes count anyways.

kanethebrain
offline
kanethebrain
242 posts
Nomad

@thelistman: See, the problem here is that you think Democrats are liberal and Republicans are conservative I'd say they used to be, but have gotten away from some of their core values. Remember when the Republicans stood for small government?

You sound about like the kind of libertarian I am, even with education. (I see that as a free rider problem, like police or fire, than a social issue).

@donosid: As someone who voted for and gave money to Ron Paul... I respectfully disagree. I don't think the GOP with it's statist tactics has had enough bad publicity, but I think Ron Paul was a breath of fresh air. Granted, a breath of fresh air isn't super-effective when it comes over a garbage dump. But Ron Paul supports small government and low taxation, not to mention non-intervention, which the Republican Party stood for before the neo-cons made a hostile takeover bid and succeeded. I grant that he is more of a libertarian than a republican, but he's republican enough to have 10 terms in the house as a republican, and even to have Ronald Reagan campaign for him. And this conclude the Ron Paul worship =)

@Megamickel: I completely agree that you should choose the candidate that you think best represents your views. It's sad that the Libs have resorting to the vote-mongering the larger parties do. I wish they were more principled.

donosld
offline
donosld
70 posts
Nomad

@KanetheBrian
Ah yes, lets us recall the OLD republican party. Before Ronald Regan the last Republican to be elected was Richard Nixon who was apparently "not a crook" (no Ford does not count he was never elected.) People's views change over time, and the Republican party simply changed to fall into accordance with the will of their supporters, which IS socially conservative (I believe it is the government's duty to protect the society which is governs and if the people view issues like gay marriage as a threat to society it is the government's duty to step in.) same goes with foreign policy, if it is the threat, our government should be protecting us. I'll go with you on low taxation, it supports the economy by creating jobs and encouraging spending. As for small government... sorry but we depend on too many social services (you want paved highways? good schools? research grants?) to cut down on the institutions that run them. Sorry small government is a nice idea, but its just not practical. Sorry but I can't take the Libertarian party seriously, when their ideals sound like some teenage fantasy, of no rules and nobody telling you what to do.

kanethebrain
offline
kanethebrain
242 posts
Nomad

@donosid: When I recall the old republican party, I recall the party of Eisenhower, not the party of Nixon. Nixon was very much a crook and deserved jail time. Ford was, as you note, not elected, and neither was he a great president in my view. Reagan ballooned the deficit and played with foreign policy in a way that is still coming back to haunt us. Bush I raised taxes after swearing not to (I don't place all of the blame on him, but he should've cut spending instead). Bush II has his own myriad of issues.

Eisenhower famously warned against the military industrial complex. He didn't try to control the markets and he didn't try to control the people. That's the kind of government I believe in.

Has the Republican party changed? Yes, and for the worse. Since when does "Socially conservative" mean suspending our legal recourse and jailing people without charge? When does it mean warantless wiretaps?

We obviously disagree about how government should protect a society. Against external threats, definately. Against internal criminals, of course. Against two men getting married? Not sure what society is going to be destroyed by that.

Also, way to throw up a strawman argument against libertarianism. We are not anarchists, which is what you describe. I already stated upthread that I believe we should spend money on schools (I am admittedly a moderate libertarian). Infrastructure suffers from the free rider problem and should be handled by the government.

What should we be getting rid of? Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Subsidies, and Foreign aid. Now we can cut taxes on the poorest 80% of Americans. That's a decent start for the government I would want.

Ricador
offline
Ricador
3,722 posts
Shepherd

Fellows, kanethebrain is smart and making good points. JUst give up.

;0

redbedhead
offline
redbedhead
341 posts
Nomad

Thats why I'm a conservative ^_^

Showing 1-11 of 11