Libertarian sound off

[Broke 0]

Who here is a Libertarian, and proud of it?

That being said I am

Divot your source for all things Hillbilly.
Anvil Brother 84
SCR 14192

[livendive 8]

I'd call myself more of a libertarian than a Libertarian.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[futuredivot 0]

Libertarians seem to think I'm libertarian. I look at myself as an unaffiliated smartass.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[downwardspiral 0]

I voted Libertarian. Did you?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[DanG 1]

Quote

I'd call myself more of a libertarian than a Libertarian.

Blues,
Dave

+1

Bob Barr is a Libertarian, but not a libertarian.

- Dan G

[Squeak 17]

I know a Librarian, does that count?

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[PeregrineFalcon 0]

I once dated a librarian.

Actually, I keep meaning to look into libertarianism. I just keep putting it off.

[Tink1717 2]

My brothers father in law is a big wig in the Maryland libertarian party. He's also, bat-shit crazy and completely out of touch with reality. As are most libertarians I know.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Libertarianism is a sound platform to begin any analysis from. The problem is that too many Libertarians are as dogmatic as an Ayatollah. This is why Ron Paul gets nowhere. He has some great ideas but is completely unrealistic as to their implementation.
This is true of any economic dogma. Economists, and more importantly, politicians discussing economics clung to Keynsian analysis for years after it became obvious that it was not relevant to the current situation. Now that Keynsian analysis is thoroughly discredited we find ourselves in a situation where it may indeed be relevant once again. We see the "Chicago School" types reciting tomes like medieval monks.
Political economics requires flexibility and continuous assessment and reassessment. Pulling out a copy of Atlas Shrugged like it is the New Testament will not do. Far too many Libertarians do that.
That said I begin most analysis from a libertarian stance.

[Rainbo 0]

I'm the big "L"

Rainbo
TheSpeedTriple - Speed is everything
"Blessed are those who can give without remembering, and take without forgetting."

[rehmwa 2]

Throw out a definition, and I'll answer the question to that specific definition.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Who here is a Libertarian, and proud of it?

That being said I am

libertarian, with concessions to left libertarianism because although I believe in the conversion of resources to private property with the first application of labor where resources are limited that gives an unfair advantage to whoever got born first.

[billvon 3,120]

>Libertarianism is a sound platform to begin any analysis from. The problem is
>that too many Libertarians are as dogmatic as an Ayatollah. This is why Ron
>Paul gets nowhere. He has some great ideas but is completely unrealistic as to
>their implementation.

Agreed 100%. I hope we start getting more moderate libertarians elected, because once they become a bigger part of government they will moderate their stances to something a bit more in line with the real world.

[Broke 0]

Quote

Throw out a definition, and I'll answer the question to that specific definition.

How does this sound, do you believe in Personal Freedom, and Personal Responsibility?

Divot your source for all things Hillbilly.
Anvil Brother 84
SCR 14192

[Broke 0]

Well the problem is define Moderate. I would describe myself more of a conservative, but I am not hard line conservative.

Divot your source for all things Hillbilly.
Anvil Brother 84
SCR 14192

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Throw out a definition, and I'll answer the question to that specific definition.

How does this sound, do you believe in Personal Freedom, and Personal Responsibility?

yes and yes, but is that the most complete definition of what you consider libertarian? What is the typical def, what do the nutjobs of the party think that's different.

political labels suck, because they get hijacked before they mean anything real

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Broke 0]

Perhaps you can find those answers here

http://www.lp.org/introduction/what-is-the-libertarian-party

Divot your source for all things Hillbilly.
Anvil Brother 84
SCR 14192

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Perhaps you can find those answers here

http://www.lp.org/introduction/what-is-the-libertarian-party

Or here

If you look at the graph, you can see that there are "moderate" (i.e. closer to the center) and "radical" (further from the center) parts of every group. It's just that the "moderate" libertarians tend to gravitate to the two big political parties, leaving the Libertarian Party a lot more radicalized than the bigger tents.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

It's just that the "moderate" libertarians tend to gravitate to the two big political parties, leaving the Libertarian Party a lot more radicalized than the bigger tents.

A similar thing has happened to the Republican party lately.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

It's just that the "moderate" libertarians tend to gravitate to the two big political parties, leaving the Libertarian Party a lot more radicalized than the bigger tents.

A similar thing has happened to the Republican party lately.

I don't think so. It's just that the nature of our electoral politics that small, motivated minorities, who provide manpower for campaigns and who turn out in significantly greater percentages, can hold larger groups "hostage" in an electoral sense, dictating policy swings outside of what the majority would support. This happens on both sides of the political fence (in the American sense), Democratic and Republican.

Moving to a different system (for example a proportional representation parliamentary system) would probably reduce that effect because the radicals would leave the major parties to start their own, since getting 5% of the vote nationally would still get them into the governing body. Unfortunately, that sort of system has it's own problems. Minority parties playing kingmaker with their 5% swing vote, for example, and being rewarded with influence far beyond their share of the vote. Or the "perpetual ministers" who head small parties and make deals with the larger ones to retain their portfolio, regardless of which of the larger parties actually hold the majority in parliament, and head the executive.

What you're seeing in the US (an apparent swing of the Republican party toward religious conservatives in the wake of an electoral loss) is, I think, mostly an appearance created by the visibility (and vocality) of that segment. That appearance is exacerbated by the nature of modern media (where the media outlets are rewarded for creating news, so they have to seize on something and play it up).

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

What you're seeing in the US (an apparent swing of the Republican party toward religious conservatives in the wake of an electoral loss) is, I think, mostly an appearance created by the visibility (and vocality) of that segment. That appearance is exacerbated by the nature of modern media (where the media outlets are rewarded for creating news, so they have to seize on something and play it up).

I was referring to the abandonment of the republican party by many of its traditional supporters before the election, not after it. The swing of the Republican party toward religious conservatives has been going on a lot longer than 3 weeks.
On the shortcomings of PR I agree.