How Bush Lost the Libertarians
 

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040913&s=risen091304

Though the author seems to have a bias towards labeling Libertarians and Cato as a more solid block towards the GOP, this article does good pointing out how Bush's policies have affected some Libertarian perceptions of him.

(especially posted for Brother Warshay)

Re: How Bush Lost the Libertarians
 

Libertarians are sort of backed into a corner. I don't think Bush really can lose the Libertarian vote. An intelligent Libertarian knows that if they do not vote for Bush, that is essentially a vote for Kerry. While Bush has grown the government in certain areas, most of us of the libertarian persuasion realize that much of that was necessary in order to face unique challenges. Privitization of social security was put on the back-burner primarily due to the fact that the Dems would never let it happen and would use it to scare seniors into voting their way.

Why fight a battle that you can't win just so you can lose votes? By continuing with privitization at this time (until there's a real crisis in Social Secruity), Republicans have nothing to gain.

It's a generally held principle that Democrats favor the expansion of government controlled entities to provide services for people. Libertarians believe that if there is a need in a place like America, entepreuners will fill it. While there are services that really only the government can provide such as defense -- which is one reason the expansion of the department of Homeland Security makes sense to many libertarians.

While Bush is not a libertarian candidate, you could almost put Kerry's picture in the dictionary next to "Not a Libertarian Candidate". And unfortunately, we haven't had a libertarian candidate worth a crap in a long time, even in state elections that I know of -- that's why Libertarians usually vote for the candidate that most fits their ideology and against those that least fit it.

Re: Re: How Bush Lost the Libertarians
 

Some of us Libertarians are intelligent enough to know when we live in a state that is absolutely going to vote for Kerry. A vote for Bush or Kerry is useless here. I have the opportunity to help (in a very small way) to increase the relevance of Libertarians, particularly when it comes to Federal matching funds for 2008.

Re: Re: Re: How Bush Lost the Libertarians
 

For 3rd-party voters in non swing-states I applaud that effort.
For 3rd-party voters in swing-states I'm not sure how to respond. Part of me thinks they should stick to voting their political beliefs while part of me thinks they should strategically vote against their least-liked candidate.

Re: Re: Re: Re: How Bush Lost the Libertarians
 

I'll go for the later almost every time.

We never get good candidates in Oklahoma. At least this time around, I received enough 'inside' information (at least info about candidates that wasn't reported in the press) to realize that they were either slightly to the right of Attilla the Hun or corrupt as heck.

But I'll vote for Bush in the National election as my state is somewhat of a swing state with only a few electoral votes.

I walked for my local LP in today's parade!

Anyway, I live in a Kerry state, so my vote will be Badnarik.

Re: Re: Re: Re: How Bush Lost the Libertarians
 

I think 3rd party voters should have a convention to discuss who will be running for congress, and how to vote. That way, we'll at least get new people. Congress needs a 100% turnover rate. I say, vote against all incumbants. Those people are worthless.

Politicians and diapers should both be changed for the same reason.

Anyway, 3rd parties do have conventions. I think you mean independants.

Do you people still read Ayn's fairytales?

http://www.nationalreview.com/

Because it's better.

-Rudey

I meant all the 3rd parties together

Except for the fact that the third and fourth largest parties in the US, the Libertarians and the Greens, respectively, have ideologies that are diametrically opposed.

On the radio
 

Atlanta radio talk show host Neal Boortz (Boortz.com) is syndicated to about 260 stations around the country, and he's openly Libertarian - and spoke at their convention this summer.

He does break with many Libertarians who are anti-Iraq war, but he is supporting Bush (since not voting is like voting for Kerry.)

Boortz is live from 9:00 - noon eastern time. Try www.wsbradio.com to listen.

I read the title of this thread really quickly and thought it said "How Bush Lost the Librarians." I just couldn't believe he'd lost the librarian vote, seeing how Mrs. Bush is a former librarian and all.

Apparently, though, the librarian vote is safe.

Re: On the radio
 

Boortz is extremely controversial, and his speech at the convention this summer was very divisive to the party for months in advance. The basic principal of the LP is the non-use of force, and in the opinion of many (myself included) you can not be pro-Iraq war and be a Libertarian.

Re: Re: On the radio
 

I consider Thomas Jefferson to be the embodiment of Libertarianism. He was definitely not anti-war. Sometimes, bombs are the only solution.

Re: Re: On the radio
 

That is NOT the basic principal of Libertarianism. That position is a derived interpretation of the basic principals of Libertarianism.

The Libertarian party holds two positions that, when viewed together, are pure fantasy. The first is that the US military should be purely defensive, and the second is that US borders should be wide open. This is nonsense. True security is derived from economic interdependence. This was learned from how Germany was treated after WW I, and how the losing nations of WW II were treated.

If American borders are to remain reletively open through the forseeable future, we need to posess a militrary with the capabilty to offensively engage in two simultaneous theaters of operation. Once the world becomes economically interdependent (hopefully in the next 50 years,) the need for a military with offensive capability will diminish.

In the mean time, when there are genocidal nations like Iraq that were proactively engaged in the support of terrorism, and the destabilization of the progress of the world order that has existed for 60 years, military force will be needed.

I can vote Libertarian because I agree with their domestic agenda, and because I live in a Kerry state. Until the LP pulls its head out of its ass with regard to the absurd, contemporary combination of a purely defensive military and wide open borders, the LP will remain a fringe, and largely irrelevant party.

Re: Re: Re: On the radio
 

Are you a Libertarian? To join the Libertarian Party, you must agree to the following statement:

"I certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals. "

This is taken directly from LP News, and can also be found on the website at lp.org. I fail to see how you can tell me that the non-use of force is not the basic principal of Libertarianism if that is the one thing you must agree to for membership.

Re: Re: Re: Re: On the radio
 

Why don't you read the LP web site? You claim that "The basic principal of the LP is the non-use of force." It is not the primary principle. It is mentioned, but after two other principles are mentioned.Its #3, and they're not going in alphabetical order. Its widely known, and acknowledged, that the first point, "individual liberty and personal responsibility" is "the primary principle" of the Libertarian Party.

As for me being Libertarian, I was, and I'm voting Libertarian, but I'm basically a man without a party. I have worked (for $$$) in politics, and with Libertarians. Have you? Every Libertarian who I know would accuse you of distorting the Libertarian ideals.

But lets bring this back to this thread's subject. Just as many Republicans are disillusioned with the LP because the advocated combination of wide open borders and a purely defensive military is nonsensical, many Libertarians are dissilusioned with Republicans, and Bush in particular, because of the continuing increase in the size, and role, of the Federal Government. Personally, this is why I won't vote for Bush. Its also why I won't register as a Libertarian.

Russ, don't you also believe as a Libertarian that one of the federal government's responsibilities is to protect its people? Isn't this the sector of government that Bush has been growing (homeland defense)?

I think the points are easily reconciled.

Kevin, I agree that this is a role of the government. I also agree that the growth in defense spending is both appropriate, and explains much of the growth in federal spending. However, defense spending is not currently high by historical standards. Last time I checked, it was barely over 4% of GDP. Bush has done little to scale back other spending, and has introduced new spending initiatives.

4% of GDP is an insanely high figure.

He's done some stuff that has really made me go :eek: :confused: such as the medication entitlements for seniors while not really supporting their ability to buy them cheaper from Canada. I don't understand crap like that.

But considering the alternative... What choice do I have?

I've started a thread to discuss defense spending here: http://greekchat.com/gcforums/showth...threadid=56850

As far as the medication entitlements, this really disapointed me. The government needs to completely overhaul its involvement in health care, and it should be based on a market paradigm. Bush has advocated the MSA concept first proposed by the AEI, all while pandering to seniors with BS legislation that is just tinkering around the edges of a flawed system. Dubya really talked out of both sides of his mouth on this one.

This is one of many inconsistancies where I think Kerry's campaign could gain a lot of ground by attacking on.

Yeah, I disagree with these entitlements. If seniors really want to, they can buy supplemental insurance that pays for meds. If they don't, it's their irresponsibility and their loss.

Unfortunately, they are the ones that show up to vote, so us young folks get screwed.

Re: On the radio
 

Those three points follow from the non-use of force. I do not mean non-use of force solely in terms of national defense. For example, taxation is considered to be government use of force to impose on private property. The basic point is that you can take "non-use of force" as a principal and apply it to every political or social issue to derive the Libertarian Party platform.

I understand your point, as do many LP members, that as long as we continue to support open immigration and the lifting of all barriers to trade, we alienate many people who would otherwise take the LP seriously. However, to change these party planks would be logically inconsistent with the rest of our platform.