Anybody else ready for libertarianism?

[CFLarsen]

It's hard not to be, around certain people.

Yes, I read the link, and like the other links you very rarely ever bother to post, it does nothing whatsoever to support your claim that all libertarians would jail anyone who doesn't agree to their government.

This reply tells me that you have an agenda other than to defend your views.

I'm watching you.

I know you won't bother to read this rebuttal, or will drastically misrepresent it; but I'll post it anyway.

1) Badnarik isn't all libertarians. He's not even most of them. He's one individual who's a complete fruitcake. He's no more representative of all libertarians than Bob Dole or Oliver North are representative of all Republicans, or that Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich are representative of all Democrats. All parties have their nutjobs, and both the Dems and GOP have elected any number of them on various levels. And compared to someone like Sharpton....

We are not talking about Sharpton, Dole or North. We are talking about Badnarik, who heads the Libertarian Party. He is the Libertarian Presidential Candidate.

Who is representative of Libertarians? Nobody?

You'll notice, also, that Badnarik didn't get squat for votes compared to the number of registered LP members, let alone the number of people who self-describe as libertarian according to varous polls.

So, not even his own political members vote for him? That's lame, luchog. Why is it that the Libertarians only can agree to support the wackos?

2) He was stating his personal stand, exaggerated for emphasis, not the policy of the Libertarian Party,which is not even remotely close to what Badnarik espouses. But, having actually read the LP party platform, you'd know that, right?

Nope, my little vicious friend. When the leader of the Libertarian Party speaks of political issues, he speaks for the Party.

What kind of idiotic argument is that, anyway? Why have a political platform if everyone can just make up their own brand of Libertarianism? No wonder people don't like Libertarianism.

If this is the normal calibre of material that you use to support your ludicrious assertions, then it's no wonder you rarely ever bother to support anything you say.

That, my little vicious friend, is a lie, and you know it. Which is why I am watching you.

 

[RandFan]

Ahh, but the United States isn't Holland, Spain, or Canada. There are things that work there that don't really pan out there, and vice versa.

Oh thank you, thank you, thank you. Yes! This is so true which is why I take such comparisons with a grain of salt.

 

[MrFrankZito]

I don't know where you found that moonbat, but he sounds like a typical Libertarian: no govt intervention, except for my pet peeve. Seriously, how can someone say something like this:
with a straight face? What happens when everyone starts jaywalking? Does society collapse?

In many ways, the illegal immigration issue and accompanying underground economy is among the most libertarian practices in the country. it's completely driven by market supply and demand, it strives to bypass as much government as possible and it works largely by it's own rules. The alternative involves a huge growth in government, and accompanying growth in the cost of everything touched by that underground economy. Which pretty much is everything. It seems to me that the current system of ignoring the "problem" serves everyone much more efficiently.

It all comes down to one very simple, basic question: Do you tolerate criminality? I do not. In my view, criminality is NOT tolerable. Thus, I argue immigration laws MUST be followed, until such time as they are repealed/substantially altered. Again, this is the main difference between libertarianism and anarchism. I wholly reject anarchism as a legitimate position.

 

[luchog]

This reply tells me that you have an agenda other than to defend your views.

I'm watching you.

We are not talking about Sharpton, Dole or North. We are talking about Badnarik, who heads the Libertarian Party. He is the Libertarian Presidential Candidate.

Presidential Candidate != Party Head. Like the Democrats and Republicans, the party is headed by a committee. Bush is not the party head of the Republicans, nor is he the representative of all members of the GOP. Neither was Reagan, Ford, Nixon, etc. Neither is John Kerry representative of all of the Democrats. American politics work quite a bit different from parliamentary politics common to most European nations.

Who is representative of Libertarians? Nobody?

That's like asking who is representative of Democrats. Kerry certainly represented a substantial number; but there are a not-insignificant number who are far closer to Sharpton or Dean in their politics.

At the moment, no one in particular is representative of libertarians. The most that can be said is that the LP committee is the closest thing; but even there, current party internal politics prevents that from being only vaguely true.

So, not even his own political members vote for him? That's lame, luchog. Why is it that the Libertarians only can agree to support the wackos?

I take it the glaring contradiction in your statement is completely failing it impinge upon your cognition?

The fact that Badnarik got so few votes indicates that libertarians are not supporting wackos. Browne, a far more sensible person, though completely lacking in charisma, got far more votes during his campaign than Badnarik did. The local LP also manages to field a number of genuinely worthwhile candidates. The problem is that right now the upper eschalons are dominated by the "ivory-tower revolutionaries"; much like the Religious Right has gotten a stranglehold on the GOP.

Nope, my little vicious friend. When the leader of the Libertarian Party speaks of political issues, he speaks for the Party.

Only when he's speaking on the party platform; and only for the LP. Little hint, but the majority of self-identified libertarians in the US don't belong to the LP.

What kind of idiotic argument is that, anyway? Why have a political platform if everyone can just make up their own brand of Libertarianism? No wonder people don't like Libertarianism.

So you're claiming that all Democrats and Republicans are Borg-like entities where everyone holds identical political and philosophical views?

That, my little vicious friend, is a lie, and you know it.

That has been well documented. Care to provide counter-examples?

Which is why I am watching you.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The fact that Badnarik got so few votes indicates that libertarians are not supporting wackos. Browne, a far more sensible person, though completely lacking in charisma, got far more votes during his campaign than Badnarik did.

Are you sure?

"Sensible" Browne 2000 - 384,431. Source: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

"Loony Toon" Badnarik 2004 - 397,265. Source: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/federalelections2004.pdf

Sorry to embarass you.

 

[Walter Wayne]

1996 Browne got 485,798 votes. So ebb and flow, that doesn't seem solely down to Browne's reasonableness or Badnarik's ... whatever.

Walt

 

[Snide]

Are you sure?

"Sensible" Browne 2000 - 384,431. Source: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

"Loony Toon" Badnarik 2004 - 397,265. Source: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/federalelections2004.pdf

Sorry to embarass you.

2004: 122 Million total votes. 2000: 105 Million.

Not to mention other things that could help support the claim, such as data showing how much more likely non-LP'ers are to vote LP, but still did not vote for Badcandida...er, Badnarik. (I don't know the answer).

 

[CFLarsen]

"Sensible" Browne 2000 - 384,431. Source: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

"Loony Toon" Badnarik 2004 - 397,265. Source: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2004/federalelections2004.pdf

2004: 122 Million total votes. 2000: 105 Million.

Browne, 2000: 0.37%

Badnarik, 2004: 0.33%

Of course, it's both 0%.....

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Browne, 2000: 0.37%

Badnarik, 2004: 0.33%

Of course, it's both 0%.....

How can that be? You must be mistaken. According to our Libertarian friends, their support is growing!

 

[Snide]

Browne, 2000: 0.37%

Badnarik, 2004: 0.33%

That was exactly the point I was making.

Of course, it's both 0%.....

Hee hee

 

[luchog]

How can that be? You must be mistaken. According to our Libertarian friends, their support is growing!

Support is growing on the local level. Unfortunately, since the LP isn't capable of fielding a viable candidate at the Presidential level, that support isn't always seen.

I've always been of the opinion that time spent on presidential candidates is wasted right now, and the LP should concentrate on local elections, and building grassroots support. Most lps of my aquaintance feel the same. The problem is, the current LP leadership is far too concerned with their internal bickering to actually do anything useful.

 

[luchog]

1996 Browne got 485,798 votes. So ebb and flow, that doesn't seem solely down to Browne's reasonableness or Badnarik's ... whatever.

Walt

That's there race I was referring to; since 2000 was something of a wash as the LP was already starting to disintigrate by that point.

And the total number of votes cast in the Presidential election was 92,712,803; thus turning in a .52% compared to the subsequent .37 and .33. A slike that from what I can see indicates a growing break with the LP, due to their inability to field higher-office candidates who represent the majority of libertarians (Claus, did you get that, or do you need it spelled out again?).

Libs are just as likely to vote Republican or Democrat at the higher levels, particularly President, with strong leanings toward the former for primarily economic reasons (though the current administration may reverse that). Since LP candidates don't have much chance of election at the higher offices, libs tend to vote "lesser of two evils" more often than not.

In contrast, they're doing considerably better at the local level; which is where the LP, if it was smart, would be focussing.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

In contrast, they're doing considerably better at the local level; which is where the LP, if it was smart, would be focussing.

Shanek always made that claim, and yet, when asked for evidence, could never provide it, except to wave it off and say there are "hundreds" of Libertarians in office nationwide. Of course, when one does research, one finds that 90+% of these "officeholders" are dogcatchers, county water commisioners, anti-drug task force members, or mayor of Gooberville NC, population 37.

So, can you perhaps give an example of a Libertarian who is either a congressman or senator or mayor of a city larger than, say, 50,000? And who won the office in an actual contested election against at least one opponent from the Democratic or Republican parties?

Shanek couldn't do it. Would you care to try?

 

[shecky]

It all comes down to one very simple, basic question: Do you tolerate criminality? I do not. In my view, criminality is NOT tolerable. Thus, I argue immigration laws MUST be followed, until such time as they are repealed/substantially altered. Again, this is the main difference between libertarianism and anarchism. I wholly reject anarchism as a legitimate position.

I generally feel that crimes not against person or property probably shouldn't be crimes. As a result, I don't care where people come from or how they got here as long as they don't hurt me or my property.

Furthermore, to deny the function of illegal immigration on the economy is ridiculous. Any effective solution to eliminating illegal immigration will result in higher prices for everything AND a bigger, more intrusive government. Is that strictly a anarchist position?

 

[CFLarsen]

That was exactly the point I was making.

Yeah, but without the evidence.

Hee hee

Rather embarrassing for Libertarians, yes. Which is why they throw hissyfits and try to spin it into a victory.

 

[CFLarsen]

That's there race I was referring to; since 2000 was something of a wash as the LP was already starting to disintigrate by that point.

Excuses, excuses...

And the total number of votes cast in the Presidential election was 92,712,803; thus turning in a .52% compared to the subsequent .37 and .33.

....so? The more people vote, the less they vote for Libertarians.

A slike that from what I can see indicates a growing break with the LP, due to their inability to field higher-office candidates who represent the majority of libertarians

What is a "higher-office"? The Presidency is of course one, but senators? Congressmen? Mayors of large(r) cities?

(Claus, did you get that, or do you need it spelled out again?).

I thought you had me on ignore?

In contrast, they're doing considerably better at the local level; which is where the LP, if it was smart, would be focussing.

I second Scrut's request for evidence.

 

[Snide]

Yeah, but without the evidence.

Actually, I provided the evidence, as a retort to a previous post, but let the user do the math (which you provided). [/nitpick]

Rather embarrassing for Libertarians, yes. Which is why they throw hissyfits and try to spin it into a victory.

Look out for the day the LP candidate gets .51 percent of the vote. Then they can round that up to be 1%!!

 

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

According to the 1992 Census of Governments (pdf file), there were 512658 elected officials in state and local governments. According to the LP website, there are "more than 600" Libertarians in office. If you are generous and assume that 600 are in elected positions (as opposed to appointments or civil service positions), that amounts to .12%.

I didn't vote in the poll because I do not think they are "all wrong" or the "best way."

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

According to the 1992 Census of Governments (pdf file), there were 512658 elected officials in state and local governments. According to the LP website, there are "more than 600" Libertarians in office. If you are generous and assume that 600 are in elected positions (as opposed to appointments or civil service positions), that amounts to .12%.

And if I learned anything in 2nd grade math class, it's this: .12% rounded equals........drumroll..............

ZERO %

It's funny how that number keeps turning up when discussing the Libertarian Party!

 

[CFLarsen]

In contrast, they're doing considerably better at the local level; which is where the LP, if it was smart, would be focussing.

According to the 1992 Census of Governments (pdf file), there were 512658 elected officials in state and local governments. According to the LP website, there are "more than 600" Libertarians in office. If you are generous and assume that 600 are in elected positions (as opposed to appointments or civil service positions), that amounts to .12%.

luchog,

Would you say that Libertarians are doing considerably better at the local level, or that Libertarians are doing considerably worse at the local level?