Libertarian vs. Republican

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Tominator
IF you vote for the Libertarian your vote is worse than wasted!

I do not like the way this works ar all, BUT if you do not vote for someone that has a chance of winning you just enable the other party.

The Republican platform is a lot closer to the Libertarian platform than the Democrats. If you take votes away from the Republican, you just insure the Democrat gets elected. Then we get further from Libertarian ideals. The further we go the harder the return.

Face it. A Libertarian has no chance.

Again, I don't like this at all.

Tom has a point, Lucky. Blagojevich is just too gawddamn dangerous to make a vote of conscience this election and risk giving the election to him. The man is left of Stalin. Jim Ryan isn't a bad guy. I wouldn't consider him the "lesser of two evils."

 

[0roo0roo]

The Republican platform is a lot closer to the Libertarian platform than the Democrats. If you take votes away from the Republican, you just insure the Democrat gets elected. Then we get further from Libertarian ideals. The further we go the harder the return.

and i'd say the exact opposite applies.



The Libertarian Democrats:
[Oppose "big government" when it comes to the economy, and also oppose big government interference in personal matters, such as religion and lifestyle decisions.] "About 9 percent of all Democrats."
"These Democrats hate the government, are fiercely independent and are closer to Republicans than any other Democratic faction.

"But they dislike religion in politics even more than they despise big government: More than nine out of ten say organized religious groups of all kinds should 'stay out of politics' - no other group, Democrat or Republican, is remotely as antagonistic.

"Moreover, they don't like moralists and traditionalists, ranking only behind New Generation Democrats in terms of their rejection of conventional marality and acceptance of alternate lifestyles.

"They're mostly self-made men and women: Three in four strongly agree that 'people should take responsibility for their own lives and economic well-being and not expect other people to help.' They also believe hard work guarantees success, and it's apparently true for them. This group contains the highest percentage of full-time workers as well as the largest proportion of Democrats earning more than $50,000 a year.

"Their policy preferences flow directly from their secular, libertarian views. These voters oppose school prayer, and they reject vouchers as a way to help pay for private or religious schools.

"They're also the most likely of any Democratic group to favor cutting welfare benefits after five years and the least likely to support affirmative action programs. Big minorities support legalizing casino gambling and physician-assisted suicide, and seven in 10 approve of allowing individuals to invest some of their Social Security nest egg in the stock market.

"Footnote: These Democrats have strongly held opinions - perhaps a bit too strong. More than four in 10 say they've been divorced sometime in their lives."


http://www.progress.org/dfc/wpdesc.html

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

The Republican platform is a lot closer to the Libertarian platform than the Democrats. If you take votes away from the Republican, you just insure the Democrat gets elected. Then we get further from Libertarian ideals. The further we go the harder the return.

and i'd say the exact opposite applies.



The Libertarian Democrats:
[Oppose "big government" when it comes to the economy, and also oppose big government interference in personal matters, such as religion and lifestyle decisions.] "About 9 percent of all Democrats."
"These Democrats hate the government, are fiercely independent and are closer to Republicans than any other Democratic faction.

"But they dislike religion in politics even more than they despise big government: More than nine out of ten say organized religious groups of all kinds should 'stay out of politics' - no other group, Democrat or Republican, is remotely as antagonistic.

"Moreover, they don't like moralists and traditionalists, ranking only behind New Generation Democrats in terms of their rejection of conventional marality and acceptance of alternate lifestyles.

"They're mostly self-made men and women: Three in four strongly agree that 'people should take responsibility for their own lives and economic well-being and not expect other people to help.' They also believe hard work guarantees success, and it's apparently true for them. This group contains the highest percentage of full-time workers as well as the largest proportion of Democrats earning more than $50,000 a year.

"Their policy preferences flow directly from their secular, libertarian views. These voters oppose school prayer, and they reject vouchers as a way to help pay for private or religious schools.

"They're also the most likely of any Democratic group to favor cutting welfare benefits after five years and the least likely to support affirmative action programs. Big minorities support legalizing casino gambling and physician-assisted suicide, and seven in 10 approve of allowing individuals to invest some of their Social Security nest egg in the stock market.

"Footnote: These Democrats have strongly held opinions - perhaps a bit too strong. More than four in 10 say they've been divorced sometime in their lives."


http://www.progress.org/dfc/wpdesc.html

Um that's a tiny minority of Democrats. And the only reason they reject the GOP is their RR connection. To be honest, I switched from being a liberal Democrat to a Libertarian (when I opened my eyes to the oppressive nanny-state the Dems were trying to create). But when faced with a possible win by a left wing socialist, I'll vote Republican. Why? On the matters that can and do directly affect me (taxes, business/employer regulations, minimum wage laws and gun control), the Republicans will most often do less harm.

In other words, Libertarians are more likely to vote for the party that promises to lower taxes and cut government if they don't vote for their own party. In most cases, that ain't the democrats. All the Libertarians I know feel and vote the same way.

So no, it isn't "exactly the opposite."

 

[CantedValve]

Yeah that is a tough one. I should check out the Libertarian mantra. I dont agree with my party of affiliation 100% of the time (around 90%), but I would rather get that 90% than the 2% I would get from the other major party. No vote is a waste, but some votes don't get you anything.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

The Republican platform is a lot closer to the Libertarian platform than the Democrats. If you take votes away from the Republican, you just insure the Democrat gets elected. Then we get further from Libertarian ideals. The further we go the harder the return.

and i'd say the exact opposite applies.



The Libertarian Democrats:
[Oppose "big government" when it comes to the economy, and also oppose big government interference in personal matters, such as religion and lifestyle decisions.] "About 9 percent of all Democrats."
"These Democrats hate the government, are fiercely independent and are closer to Republicans than any other Democratic faction.

"But they dislike religion in politics even more than they despise big government: More than nine out of ten say organized religious groups of all kinds should 'stay out of politics' - no other group, Democrat or Republican, is remotely as antagonistic.

"Moreover, they don't like moralists and traditionalists, ranking only behind New Generation Democrats in terms of their rejection of conventional marality and acceptance of alternate lifestyles.

"They're mostly self-made men and women: Three in four strongly agree that 'people should take responsibility for their own lives and economic well-being and not expect other people to help.' They also believe hard work guarantees success, and it's apparently true for them. This group contains the highest percentage of full-time workers as well as the largest proportion of Democrats earning more than $50,000 a year.

"Their policy preferences flow directly from their secular, libertarian views. These voters oppose school prayer, and they reject vouchers as a way to help pay for private or religious schools.

"They're also the most likely of any Democratic group to favor cutting welfare benefits after five years and the least likely to support affirmative action programs. Big minorities support legalizing casino gambling and physician-assisted suicide, and seven in 10 approve of allowing individuals to invest some of their Social Security nest egg in the stock market.

"Footnote: These Democrats have strongly held opinions - perhaps a bit too strong. More than four in 10 say they've been divorced sometime in their lives."


http://www.progress.org/dfc/wpdesc.html

Um that's a tiny minority of Democrats. And the only reason they reject the GOP is their RR connection. To be honest, I switched from being a liberal Democrat to a Libertarian (when I opened my eyes to the oppressive nanny-state the Dems were trying to create). But when faced with a possible win by a left wing socialist, I'll vote Republican. Why? On the matters that can and do directly affect me (taxes, business/employer regulations, minimum wage laws and gun control), the Republicans will most often do less harm.

In other words, Libertarians are more likely to vote for the party that promises to lower taxes and cut government if they don't vote for their own party. In most cases, that ain't the democrats. All the Libertarians I know feel and vote the same way.

So no, it isn't "exactly the opposite."

I have to agree, we first need to get socialist democrats replaced by moderates before worrying about replacing republicans with libertarians.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

The Republican platform is a lot closer to the Libertarian platform than the Democrats. If you take votes away from the Republican, you just insure the Democrat gets elected. Then we get further from Libertarian ideals. The further we go the harder the return.

and i'd say the exact opposite applies.



The Libertarian Democrats:
[Oppose "big government" when it comes to the economy, and also oppose big government interference in personal matters, such as religion and lifestyle decisions.] "About 9 percent of all Democrats."
"These Democrats hate the government, are fiercely independent and are closer to Republicans than any other Democratic faction.

"But they dislike religion in politics even more than they despise big government: More than nine out of ten say organized religious groups of all kinds should 'stay out of politics' - no other group, Democrat or Republican, is remotely as antagonistic.

"Moreover, they don't like moralists and traditionalists, ranking only behind New Generation Democrats in terms of their rejection of conventional marality and acceptance of alternate lifestyles.

"They're mostly self-made men and women: Three in four strongly agree that 'people should take responsibility for their own lives and economic well-being and not expect other people to help.' They also believe hard work guarantees success, and it's apparently true for them. This group contains the highest percentage of full-time workers as well as the largest proportion of Democrats earning more than $50,000 a year.

"Their policy preferences flow directly from their secular, libertarian views. These voters oppose school prayer, and they reject vouchers as a way to help pay for private or religious schools.

"They're also the most likely of any Democratic group to favor cutting welfare benefits after five years and the least likely to support affirmative action programs. Big minorities support legalizing casino gambling and physician-assisted suicide, and seven in 10 approve of allowing individuals to invest some of their Social Security nest egg in the stock market.

"Footnote: These Democrats have strongly held opinions - perhaps a bit too strong. More than four in 10 say they've been divorced sometime in their lives."


http://www.progress.org/dfc/wpdesc.html

Um that's a tiny minority of Democrats. And the only reason they reject the GOP is their RR connection. To be honest, I switched from being a liberal Democrat to a Libertarian (when I opened my eyes to the oppressive nanny-state the Dems were trying to create). But when faced with a possible win by a left wing socialist, I'll vote Republican. Why? On the matters that can and do directly affect me (taxes, business/employer regulations, minimum wage laws and gun control), the Republicans will most often do less harm.

In other words, Libertarians are more likely to vote for the party that promises to lower taxes and cut government if they don't vote for their own party. In most cases, that ain't the democrats. All the Libertarians I know feel and vote the same way.

So no, it isn't "exactly the opposite."

frankly any percent is better then the republicans rec of being whores to the christian right who limit liberty to themselves

whats a libertarian? a classical liberal.

when i said exactly opposite, i meant exactly the opposite of his assertion.

 

"I'm not going to flame you, but this story is exactly why Libertarians will never win any major office. Like this women in the story, the majority of people look to gov't like children look to a parent - to have their needs met. Libertarians reject that, and offer the sort of liberty and independence from gov't interference which most people do not want, and in fact actually fear."

Oh hon', I'm not going to flame you either, but this story is exactly why I would vote for Libertarians. Any candid person gets my vote over a smooth-talker whom past experience has revealed to me that they would not live up to their promises. So hon', I suppose you now see how irrelevant it was to state "I'm not going to flame you" as if it were an expectation or something to be praised, instead of a decent response that cuts straight to the chase. Or was that to be perceived as some form of intimidation? I could also do without that phrase and in fact make my point more effective with the absence of that irrelevant statement.

 

[PlatinumGold]

I'm not going to flame you, but this story is exactly why Libertarians will never win any major office. Like this women in the story, the majority of people look to gov't like children look to a parent - to have their needs met. Libertarians reject that, and offer the sort of liberty and independence from gov't interference which most people do not want, and in fact actually fear.

How pathetic is that, that people vote against accountabity and freedom. you can't have one w/o the other. there are fewer evils greater than freedom w/o accountability.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

I'm not going to flame you, but this story is exactly why Libertarians will never win any major office. Like this women in the story, the majority of people look to gov't like children look to a parent - to have their needs met. Libertarians reject that, and offer the sort of liberty and independence from gov't interference which most people do not want, and in fact actually fear.

How pathetic is that, that people vote against accountabity and freedom. you can't have one w/o the other. there are fewer evils greater than freedom w/o accountability.

I'm not saying I support such thinking; merely that it's a fact of political life. Let any candidate suggest abolishing or even reducing any of the big entitlement programs - SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. - and watch that person's political career end. When the press started pushing the story of high drug costs borne by the elderly during the '00 election, both Bush and Gore rushed to offer prescription drug plans. No one cared that this was yet another massive entitlement program bound to spiral out of control cost-wise; people just wanted gov't handouts!

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

The Republican platform is a lot closer to the Libertarian platform than the Democrats. If you take votes away from the Republican, you just insure the Democrat gets elected. Then we get further from Libertarian ideals. The further we go the harder the return.

and i'd say the exact opposite applies.



The Libertarian Democrats:
[Oppose "big government" when it comes to the economy, and also oppose big government interference in personal matters, such as religion and lifestyle decisions.] "About 9 percent of all Democrats."
"These Democrats hate the government, are fiercely independent and are closer to Republicans than any other Democratic faction.

"But they dislike religion in politics even more than they despise big government: More than nine out of ten say organized religious groups of all kinds should 'stay out of politics' - no other group, Democrat or Republican, is remotely as antagonistic.

"Moreover, they don't like moralists and traditionalists, ranking only behind New Generation Democrats in terms of their rejection of conventional marality and acceptance of alternate lifestyles.

"They're mostly self-made men and women: Three in four strongly agree that 'people should take responsibility for their own lives and economic well-being and not expect other people to help.' They also believe hard work guarantees success, and it's apparently true for them. This group contains the highest percentage of full-time workers as well as the largest proportion of Democrats earning more than $50,000 a year.

"Their policy preferences flow directly from their secular, libertarian views. These voters oppose school prayer, and they reject vouchers as a way to help pay for private or religious schools.

"They're also the most likely of any Democratic group to favor cutting welfare benefits after five years and the least likely to support affirmative action programs. Big minorities support legalizing casino gambling and physician-assisted suicide, and seven in 10 approve of allowing individuals to invest some of their Social Security nest egg in the stock market.

"Footnote: These Democrats have strongly held opinions - perhaps a bit too strong. More than four in 10 say they've been divorced sometime in their lives."


http://www.progress.org/dfc/wpdesc.html

Um that's a tiny minority of Democrats. And the only reason they reject the GOP is their RR connection. To be honest, I switched from being a liberal Democrat to a Libertarian (when I opened my eyes to the oppressive nanny-state the Dems were trying to create). But when faced with a possible win by a left wing socialist, I'll vote Republican. Why? On the matters that can and do directly affect me (taxes, business/employer regulations, minimum wage laws and gun control), the Republicans will most often do less harm.

In other words, Libertarians are more likely to vote for the party that promises to lower taxes and cut government if they don't vote for their own party. In most cases, that ain't the democrats. All the Libertarians I know feel and vote the same way.

So no, it isn't "exactly the opposite."

frankly any percent is better then the republicans rec of being whores to the christian right who limit liberty to themselves

whats a libertarian? a classical liberal.

when i said exactly opposite, i meant exactly the opposite of his assertion.

I have to ask myself, who is really more of a danger to my rights?

The GOP may give lip service to the RR, but what has the RR really gained? Even with GOP majorities, the RR's agenda is never passed. Hell, it never even got close.

BUT, with Dem majorities, what nanny-state, socialist agendas got passed? Tax increases, affirmative action quotas, minimum wage increases, tobacco tax increases, tobacco use bans, ridiculous safety laws, gun control laws...

I could go on, but why bother? The answer here is obvious. The RR in it's present state of impotence is FAR less a threat to our freedoms than the elitist, nanny-state socialists. For any person looking at this objectively can see that the RR is marginalized, even in the GOP. Little if any of their crap EVER gets passed on a national scale. And even the minor crap they get passed on a local scale gets overturned rather quickly.

Let me be clear about this to you. I am as opposed to ALL of the RR's agenda as the most rabid Democrat liberal. However, I am also opposed to ANY form of socialism or nanny-state safety laws. At this point, one is in FAR more of a position to do harm than the other.

 

[JellyBaby]

I'm not saying I support such thinking; merely that it's a fact of political life. Let any candidate suggest abolishing or even reducing any of the big entitlement programs - SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. - and watch that person's political career end

Congressional term limits would change the reason people enter politics. I believe term limits would make it easier for them to vote their conscience. Plus they wouldn't need to spend so much time and money campaigning for election, some of them every 2 years which is ridiculous.

But of course you need everyone demanding term limits and you need sinators and reprehensivites to go along with it. Brick wall on every issue.

 

[0roo0roo]

BUT, with Dem majorities, what nanny-state, socialist agendas got passed? Tax increases, affirmative action quotas, minimum wage increases, tobacco tax increases, tobacco use bans, ridiculous safety laws, gun control laws...

I could go on, but why bother? The answer here is obvious. The RR in it's present state of impotence is FAR less a threat to our freedoms than the elitist, nanny-state socialists. For any person looking at this objectively can see that the RR is marginalized, even in the GOP. Little if any of their crap EVER gets passed on a national scale. And even the minor crap they get passed on a local scale gets overturned rather quickly.

not really. the repubs spend their time spending on corporate welfare, farm subsidies, protectionist policies which go against their freemarket values. tobacco bans? what did the new new york mayor just do? gun laws? the nra is so powerful in the republican party they stifle even good gun laws.

the RR isn't a threat to u if your a white anglo christian male. thats obvious of course. too bad i'm not that.

nanny state? well repubs push for a religious nanny state simple logical things like sex ed are opposed mainly by republicans. they try to compromise with abstenance programs which only lead to raised teen birth rates. its easy to ignore evidence when your fueled by religious nuts.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
gun laws? the nra is so powerful in the republican party they stifle even good gun laws.

gun control laws would be less freedom in general... it can be argued that further gun control laws would be a threat to everyone, and its not just the radical right that is against them.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
simple logical things like sex ed are opposed mainly by republicans. they try to compromise with abstenance programs which only lead to raised teen birth rates.

thats still more gov't and trying to blame the system for not teaching people that (surprise!) having sex is a good way to make a baby

 

[0roo0roo]

.. ok felons should be free to own guns


perhaps the mentally ill too

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
simple logical things like sex ed are opposed mainly by republicans. they try to compromise with abstenance programs which only lead to raised teen birth rates.

thats still more gov't and trying to blame the system for not teaching people that (surprise!) having sex is a good way to make a baby

some people believe that sticking your head in the sand is the righteous way regardless of the facts.

i believe in practicality. something the RR is totally against

ignorance is bliss u know...

well supposedly

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

BUT, with Dem majorities, what nanny-state, socialist agendas got passed? Tax increases, affirmative action quotas, minimum wage increases, tobacco tax increases, tobacco use bans, ridiculous safety laws, gun control laws...

I could go on, but why bother? The answer here is obvious. The RR in it's present state of impotence is FAR less a threat to our freedoms than the elitist, nanny-state socialists. For any person looking at this objectively can see that the RR is marginalized, even in the GOP. Little if any of their crap EVER gets passed on a national scale. And even the minor crap they get passed on a local scale gets overturned rather quickly.

not really. the repubs spend their time spending on corporate welfare, farm subsidies, protectionist policies which go against their freemarket values. tobacco bans? what did the new new york mayor just do? gun laws? the nra is so powerful in the republican party they stifle even good gun laws.

If I'm not mistaken, there are a whole slew of new gun laws that have passed in the last decade alone. Corporate "welfare" is really for the most part just tax breaks, which I'm all for. When you tax business, you are simply taxing consumers. I am against farm subsidies and tarriffs, but we'd have those no matter which party was in office.

NONE of those effect me as directly as tax increases, minimum wage increases, quotas, business regulations and gun control.

the RR isn't a threat to u if your a white anglo christian male. thats obvious of course. too bad i'm not that.

Oh give me a break. What has the RR done to you? What have they done to you that they haven't done to me? They're impotent, and the majority of America sees them as the wackos that they are. The only successes they've had have been local, and the vast majority of those have been overturned.

nanny state? well repubs push for a religious nanny state simple logical things like sex ed are opposed mainly by republicans. they try to compromise with abstenance programs which only lead to raised teen birth rates. its easy to ignore evidence when your fueled by religious nuts.

Actually, abstenence programs have been very successful. So please, do not start lying here. If you have to lie to prove your point, it wasn't much of a point. In the same period that abstenance programs have increased, teen birth rates have decreased dramtically.

I agree that sex ed should be available upon parental consent. But then, I'm opposed to all public education anyhow, so that's moot.

How the fsck am I fueled by religious nuts? Are you so blind as to NOT see that I'm atheist/agnostic and opposed to the RR's agenda? I ask you again, What, on a national level, has the RR succeeded in passing that threatens your or my liberty? Name just one agenda item. (Education doesn't count, the only RR agendas passed for education have been LOCAL, not national.) So far the only thing you've been able to name has been isolated local issues. You have yet to name a single NATIONAL issue that has affected you personally.

The funny thing is, I was just like you a decade ago... that is, until I got out into the real world, started my own business, and took an objective look at our political situation.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
.. ok felons should be free to own guns


perhaps the mentally ill too

Who here has asked for that?

 

[0roo0roo]

gun control laws would be less freedom in general... it can be argued that further gun control laws would be a threat to everyone, and its not just the radical right that is against them.

perhaps no gun laws eh? its freedom.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

gun control laws would be less freedom in general... it can be argued that further gun control laws would be a threat to everyone, and its not just the radical right that is against them.

perhaps no gun laws eh? its freedom.

That does not imply that he is against forbidding felons to own weapons.

 

[Lucky]

Amused, I'm living in suburban chicago.

0roo0roo, I'm starting to think you are nefrodite reincarnated.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Lucky
Amused, I'm living in suburban chicago.

0roo0roo, I'm starting to think you are nefrodite reincarnated.

Really? Cool. How do you like Chicago? You know I'm just 2 hours south of there, right?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

gun control laws would be less freedom in general... it can be argued that further gun control laws would be a threat to everyone, and its not just the radical right that is against them.

perhaps no gun laws eh? its freedom.

i said further gun laws. the problem with implementing new ones is you're basically telling people "we don't trust you with guns, so we're going to make it as hard as possible to acquire them legally, though you have no history of criminal behavior that would serve as a warning." as amused said, keeping guns out of the hands of felons, who have a known criminal history, is not the same, and i'm for that. you lose many rights when convicted of a felony, and owning a firearm is one of many. but last i checked, you're innocent until proven guilty, but further bans make everyone guilty with little chance to prove yourself innocent.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Lucky
Amused, I'm living in suburban chicago.

0roo0roo, I'm starting to think you are nefrodite reincarnated.

Really? Cool. How do you like Chicago? You know I'm just 2 hours south of there, right?

I thought you were way south of champaign, for some reason. I like chicago. I'm trying to find a newspaper job in IL, but it's proving hard.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

I'm not saying I support such thinking; merely that it's a fact of political life. Let any candidate suggest abolishing or even reducing any of the big entitlement programs - SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. - and watch that person's political career end

Congressional term limits would change the reason people enter politics. I believe term limits would make it easier for them to vote their conscience. Plus they wouldn't need to spend so much time and money campaigning for election, some of them every 2 years which is ridiculous.

But of course you need everyone demanding term limits and you need sinators and reprehensivites to go along with it. Brick wall on every issue.

As a practical matter, I do not see term limits becoming a reality any time soon. Also, I don't believe they'll have much effect. Unlike a lot of people, I don't see corporate/special interest/PAC money as the sole corrupting factor in American politics. Sure, it's a problem, but pandering to a short-sighted, mostly-ignorant public is a more serious problem, in my opinion. We've got to understand that running constant deficits is impossible in the long-term. I support some sort of balanced budget mechanism - nothing curbs rampant spending like actually having to pay for it now, instead of in the distant future! Even the liberal Democratic govn'r of my state has no problems wielding the budget axe in these lean times when he has no other choice.