Libertarian Party

Post Reply New Topic

So I've been thinking lately of joining the Libertarian Party. Previously I considered myself a Democrat, but looking at recent history has caused me to take a second look. It seems that every time the Democrats controlled the US House/Senate, the economy has been bad; yet every time the Republicans have dominated the U.S. House/Senate, the economy has been good. My problem is the same party that seems to always do a kickass job with the economy also happens to be the party of Bible-thumping religious zealots, which causes me to distance myself from the Repubs.

My other problem is that since America pretty much has only a two-party system, I can never count on a Libertarian to ever be elected. So I feel like if I cast a vote for a Democrat, I'm sacrificing the economy for social liberalism; yet if I cast a vote for a Republican, I'm sacrificing social liberalism for a good economy. I can never seem to have it both ways. By the way, I consider myself to be socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

Maybe we should all form a sort of voter suicide pact, where we all agree to vote for the libertarian party well in advance, unless of course the candidate turns out to be a complete moron or something but you get the idea, and then if we get enough people to agree, we go around to other forums and such and try to get more people in on our pact. the better a third party does the fewer people will believe that they have no chance, and the less people that believe they have no chance, they better they do. Still, it will probably be 2020 before such a grassroots movement gets someone in the white house, well past the end of the world.

**** Mayans

anyway, as Obama more or less proved that no matter how different a candidate seems, as soon as we put a dem or pub in office they'll reveal that they're a total moron. I think putting a libertarian or green in the white house would do a lot of good and would join such a movement if we started one.

Look up Instant Runoff Voting, this is why we need it.

To me, it seems libertarians put property rights above all else, and they're willing to compromise on the social liberalism you so value to work with the Republicans, and I find their economic stances are a little too, well, cold hearted for my taste. I don't really think Democratic policies hurt the economy. For example, Republicans controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress in the events that led up to the current recession.

Could you specify what the events that led up to the current recession were?

The libertarian movement with in the Republican Party seems to be picking up steam. I think supporting that movement would probably be better and more likely to have success than supporting the actual Libertarian Party or another 3rd party unfortunately. It'll be interesting to see what effect they have on the 2012 election.

Why would any self respecting libertarian have anything to do with the Republicans?

The Republicans have been running up the deficit (at least prior to Lord Obama) than the Democrats ever did.

ruveyn

I'm not sure I trust the republicans enough to back any movement in their party with any real faith in it's success. The problem is the people don't believe they could ever get a third party in office, which makes parties one and two believe they can do whatever they want. A third party president wouldn't even have to accomplish anything during their term to be beneficial: the message it sends would be benefit enough.

I tend to dislike the libertarians as they are idealists.

Depends on the libertarians, like the more common Democrats and Republicans they come in many flavors. I for one am of the tribe known as Minarchists, we don't want to destroy the government, just streamline it a bit.

More deficit means more money in the private economy and less private debt. Surely one cannot be opposed to that.

A higher government deficit?

I don't see your argument. If the government runs a deficit, then private money is needed to finance this, so actually money in the private sector decreases to fund the deficit. Now, this money can go back in, but I would imagine that less money would go back than is taken out in the first place, given that money will be needed to fund the people who take the money out and redistribute it.

I suppose you could be arguing that a higher deficit will result in a higher money supply as redistribution increases the velocity of money. The issue is that such rules are likely going to be opposed as "government intervention" given how much they will impact the financial markets. The case is made worse due to the fact that deficits do have to be paid, and thus deficit policies have problems.

The only case that one could make is essentially the "supply-side economic" case, and the issue is that not all libertarians accept the central element of supply-side economics, that is that tax cuts will increase revenues enough in the long-run to justify themselves.

To the topic starter, do you live in an area where one party dominates elections?

Like here, Democrats win everything under the sun. So, I tend to vote for third parties as any other vote is wasted. At least I'm making a statement in favor of someone I do agree with more rather than pick the lesser of the two eviils (Democrats).

I believe the Republicans are looking at Ron Paul, a well-known Libertarian politician, as a possibility for their next presidential nominee. It's not unlikely that they are looking to slide left on issues of civil liberties and personal freedoms for this next election cycle. Honestly, I think they'd pull a lot of mainstream voters in by doing that.

That said, I was once a fanatical Libertarian but when I grew up I became a fervent socialist. I still wouldn't vote for them, but I'm not the type of voter that matters in making a difference, simply because I am far enough left and set in my thinking.

Funny how they threw him under the bus in 2008, wrote him and his supporters off as nutjobs. But the more vocal they got, the larger and more organized (think: tea party group) - of course the Republican establishments hijacked the entire thing.

Paul, if he was smart, wouldn't be selling his soul out here. I'm betting there's a lot of groups/people wanting to exploit it.

No, the GOP has no interest in elevating Paul to a position of power. They have been funding challengers to his congressional seat in Texas.

If anything, I'm predicting the Republicans will go farther right on social issues during the next election cycle. People like Palin and her supporters are currently a very powerful force within the GOP, and they are growing more vocal in reaction to the Obama administration.