How Bush Lost the Libertarians

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by DeltaBetaBaby
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.

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.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss
That is NOT the basic principal of Libertarianism. That position is a derived interpretation of the basic principals of Libertarianism.

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.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by DeltaBetaBaby
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.

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.

The Libertarian Party is committed to America's heritage of freedom:
* individual liberty and personal responsibility
* a free-market economy of abundance and prosperity
* a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade.

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.

[Kevin]

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.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by ktsnake
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.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss
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 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?

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by ktsnake
4% of GDP is an insanely high figure.

He's done some stuff that has really made me go 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.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss
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.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss
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.

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.