• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Will we ever have a Libertarian President?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Much of the liberaterian's ideas require a complete overhaul. When I think of "shortsighted" I think quick fixes. Republicans and Democrats seem to make compromize themselves to stay in office. Possibly Liberaterians don't have this problem because they aren't trying to hold onto a position of power. I think something bad has to happen before Liberaterians are going to have a chance.
 
Originally posted by: shady06
no, US is a two party system

But within the two reigning parties there are bound to be inevitable disagreements which lead to further factions, and when one wins out (the neo conservatives in this case) the other becomes more of a splinter party like the LP. A lot can change in a few hundred years, testified to by the fact that this discussion isn't over Federalism. 🙂
 
Nope, sorry. You can make it sound any way you want but we'll never have a libertarian, a woman or a libertarian woman as president.
 
Originally posted by: shady06
no, US is a two party system
You must not be familiar with many of the Founding Father's opinions to the contrary.

From George Washington's Farewell Address:
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
Text
 
I am Libertarian, so I vote GOP. Since the Libertarian, or Reform Party candidate will never get in, the GOP is the next best choice. I posted this a couple years ago:

I bet your Libertarian candidate more closely matches the GOP platform than the Democrat one. Why not make your choices on the issues in the AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SELECTOR and see if I'm not right. Some of their answers to the questions were vague, except for Bush, so it was hard for me to place them. But if you answer the questions yourself in the selector, you'll see which ideologies more closely match up in the end. Take a look below and just see who is usually the odd man out:

  • 1. ABORTION ISSUES: Which views on the issue of abortion would you prefer your candidate advocate?2. MINORITY ISSUES: Would you prefer your candidate support or oppose such legislation as affirmative action?3. CAMPAIGN FINANCE: Would you prefer your candidate support or oppose campaign finance reform?

    • Oppose Reform (Lift restrictions on contributions) Bush, Harry Browne, Gore
      Neither
      Support Reform (Abolish "softmoney" contributions, etc.)
    4. CRIME: Some candidates have outlined their approach to minimizing crime. Which approach do you prefer your candidate stress?

    • Support "get tough" approach,e.g. longer prison sentences Bush
      Neither Harry Browne
      Support preventive approach, e.g. educational & recreational programs Gore
    5. DEFENSE SPENDING: Would you prefer your candidate advocate an increase or decrease in the defense spending budget?6. DRUG POLICY: Some presidential candidates support an increase in drug crime prosecution and penalties while some favor a decriminalization or complete legalization of what are currently drug crimes. What stance would you like your candidate to adopt?

    • Support increased prosecution and penalties Bush, Gore
      Neither
      Support decriminalization Harry Browne
    7. GAY RIGHTS: Some candidates believe that sexual orientation is an unchangeable characteristic and support across the board equality under civil law for gay and lesbian Americans. On the other end of the spectrum, some believe that gay relationships are a destructive assault on the heterosexual, marriage-based family. What policies would you like your candidate to favor?

    • Support legislative equality for homosexuals. Gore
      Neither
      Oppose special legislationconcerning homosexuality. Bush, Harry Browne
    8. EDUCATION: Some presidential candidates support school choice. Others see it as a separation of church and state issue. What position would you like your candidate to support?9. ENVIRONMENT: Which position regarding the environment would your ideal candidate advocate?

    • Support the environment only after considering market and private property concerns. Bush
      Neither Harry Browne
      Support environmental protection legislation Gore
    10. EVOLUTION VS. CREATIONISM: Some presidential candidates favor the teaching of Creationism in public schools along evolution which is currently taught in science classes. What's your opinion?

    • Support the situation as it is now: evolution only Gore
      Neither Harry Browne
      Support legislation including the teaching of Creationism Bush
    11. FOREIGN POLICY: Would you prefer your candidate embrace an non-interventionist or interventionist approach to foreign policy?12. GUN CONTROL: Would you prefer your candidate oppose or support gun control legislation?13. HEALTH CARE: Would you prefer your candidate support increased federal involvement in health care? Or would you prefer health care be an area outside governmental control?

    • Support health care as primarily the responsibility of the individual Bush, Harry Browne
      Neither
      Support health care as primarily the responsibility of the government Gore
    14. MORAL ISSUES: Would you prefer your candidate favor federal, state and/or local legislation supporting "traditional values" such as advocating prayer in public schools, promoting teen-age sexual abstinence and restricting access to Internet pornography?

    • Support legislation of "traditional values". Bush
      Neither Harry Browne
      Oppose legislation of "traditional values". Gore
    15. SOCIAL SECURITY: Would you prefer your candidate promise to preserve or reform (including dismantle) Social Security?16. TAX POLICY: Various candidates have promised to overhaul the federal income tax codes. They differ in how extreme the proposed changes would be.17. TRADE ISSUES: Would you prefer your candidate be an advocate of free trade or trade controls like tariffs and embargoes?
 
God, I hope not. There would be chaos. All the existing private schools would be flooded whilst new, unregulated (and therefore verybad) private schools would pop up on street corners like Starbucks.

Welfare would disappear, public housing would disappear, thousands and thousands would become homeless and, without help from uncle Sam, starve.

Gun production would jump, as would gun ownership. I agree that owning a gun isn't bad, but when its easy to get a gun, lots of bap people will buy them, and guns in the hands of evil men are verybad.

So, yeah, libertarianism is a good idea . . . on paper . . . in a fantasy world.
 
Originally posted by: Spencer278
(except for allowing those that have committed a felony to vote)

Why should felony not be allowed to vote.

I believe that if you are willing to risk the crime, you should have serious repricussions (sp) if you are caught. Losing your right to vote should be one.
 
Originally posted by: LordMorpheus
God, I hope not. There would be chaos. All the existing private schools would be flooded whilst new, unregulated (and therefore verybad) private schools would pop up on street corners like Starbucks.

Welfare would disappear, public housing would disappear, thousands and thousands would become homeless and, without help from uncle Sam, starve.

Gun production would jump, as would gun ownership. I agree that owning a gun isn't bad, but when its easy to get a gun, lots of bap people will buy them, and guns in the hands of evil men are verybad.

So, yeah, libertarianism is a good idea . . . on paper . . . in a fantasy world.
Why would welfare, public housing disappear?

Why would gun production jump?

You seem to be confused. If a "bad person" wants to get a gun, they will get a gun. Guns are much like drugs in that respect, do you think having laws against owning a gun is going to keep someone that really wants a gun from getting one?

It seems like you're the one living in a fantasy world, at least with that comment alone. 😛
 
God, I hope not. There would be chaos. All the existing private schools would be flooded whilst new, unregulated (and therefore verybad) private schools would pop up on street corners like Starbucks.
Oh, since the govt. regulated schools are doing SO SO well compared to private schools right?
rolleye.gif
jackass.
 
Originally posted by: toekramp
Originally posted by: Spencer278
(except for allowing those that have committed a felony to vote)

Why should felony not be allowed to vote.
I believe that if you are willing to risk the crime, you should have serious repricussions (sp) if you are caught. Losing your right to vote should be one.
It's ex-felons, i.e. those who had already paid their debt to society by serving their time and/or parole. Only then would they be allowed to vote again.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: toekramp
Originally posted by: Spencer278
(except for allowing those that have committed a felony to vote)

Why should felony not be allowed to vote.
I believe that if you are willing to risk the crime, you should have serious repricussions (sp) if you are caught. Losing your right to vote should be one.
It's ex-felons, i.e. those who had already paid their debt to society by serving their time and/or parole. Only then would they be allowed to vote again.
That sounds perfectly reasonable.

I didn't know that once you were a felon, you weren't allowed to ever vote again?
 
Originally posted by: lowfatbaconboy
only if kang and kronos are the democratic and republican canidates......
and then its still iffy

edit: all comments i would make for this thread i prolly already made back in 10/22/00 with this thread Libertarians.....what do you think???
I think the quality of the discussions on ATOT were better back then.
 
Back
Top