NationStates Jolt Archive

I don't know, I've been looking at the Libertarian party for a while, and the only thing I really have a problem with is Privatizing schools, I like going to a public school.

But all their other views on issues I agree with. But, I want to know why more people aren't Libertarian? What's the main thing that keeps people from becoming Libertarian.

I see them as the best of both worlds. You have the best of the liberal side (civil rights, etc.) and the best of the conservative (economy, etc.)

I'm going to guess it's because the conservative way of dealing with the economy is "wrong"? And if so, could someone explain this to me?

- Poo Man

Or is it because nobody knows what the hell a Libertarian is?

Libertarians are in practice unreconstructed punk-rock anarchists in business suits.

The libs in arizona tried (and almost succeded) in passing a ballet proposition that would have done away with most of the state taxes, crippling our state government and creating a major crisis.

The lib platform includes the outright legalization of all weapons and the dissolusion of social programs wholesale.

If you would like to see some examples of countries with 'libertarian' policies, look no further than the south american and african third world.

Libertarianism, like many other political ideologies can easily be built up in theory to sound marvelous, but it is in fact nonsense and disaster.

Libertarians are in practice unreconstructed punk-rock anarchists in business suits.

The libs in arizona tried (and almost succeded) in passing a ballet proposition that would have done away with most of the state taxes, crippling our state government and creating a major crisis.

The lib platform includes the outright legalization of all weapons and the dissolusion of social programs wholesale.

If you would like to see some examples of countries with 'libertarian' policies, look no further than the south american and african third world.

Libertarianism, like many other political ideologies can easily be built up in theory to sound marvelous, but it is in fact nonsense and disaster.

The USA was very Libertarian until the turn of the 20th century. We did fine.

If you would like to see some examples of countries with 'libertarian' policies, look no further than the south american and african third world.

Any specific examples there? Most countries in South America and Sub-Saharan Africa are places libertarians would detest, given the way people like Chavez and Mugabe run things.

The UK was excessively libertarian during the late 1800s and early 1900s, the levels of poverty created were huge. It is a system that's crucially flawed

Capitalism is highly over-rated. I don't know why everyone wants to deregulate it so much.

Because, if you pay attention to any of the Libertarian Party's actual policies, you'll notice that every last one of them will bring about the end of civilization as we know it.

I kinda like having roads, and I'm willing to pay an extra 30-something cents per gallon to have a standardized base price for gas (before the taxes are added) and have roads.

Speed limits are a pain in the ass, but having a state highway patrol, as long as it doesn't enforce too many laws too strictly (a la small-l libertarianism, or Heinlein, rather than Rand based), they're better than having the people who want to rule the roads enforce them.

Fire Depts, EMTs, and local police who will respond and then check your insurance/credit card, in stead of the other was around, both save more lives and tend to have a greater income, since they're not taking any money in from the folk who die/lose everything before they get there. Since so many hospitals are public these days, we'd probably be missing most of those, too.

As for smaller examples we usually don't think about, see the flu vaccine shortage. Flu shots are now gratis polis, and are produced largely by foreign companies. Now, they go to the young, sickly, and elderly, those who need them. But, if it weren't for the government or taxes (and don't doubt that there'd be an "unplanned" shortage every single year, so that everyone has to go get one right now or they'll be out), the companies'd have to recoup the costs somehow. Elderly people tend not to be the ones with the most disposable income, and frankly, most folk are too stupid to handle their own social security investments any better than Uncle Sam.

I'm a right leaning libertarian, although not a vocal one and don't ask me on any of the specifics, because I'll probably end up giving some bs answer.

I am a proud libertarian. Here in NZ I support the National Party, which is traditionally a more conservative party but has shown significant promise in becoming much more centrist in recent years. The current leader could probably be described as a libertarian himself (he is also the most intellectual fellow they've probably ever had in recent times), which is why they have a lot of appeal to me right now.

Anyway, I reject the comment about libertarians being punk rockers in suits. In my experience a lot of them are intellectuals…

Libertarians unite!

Libertarian, or Republicans on steroids?

The USA was very Libertarian until the turn of the 20th century. We did fine.
No, you didn't. Poverty and worker exploitation was rife. Read "the jungle" by Upton Sinclair. Back then, you worked in the company factory, lived in the company house, and shopped at the company store. The Company pretty much owned you. It was worse than communism.

Business was regulated because companies were creating monopolies that were detrimental to American consumers and workers.

No, you didn't. Poverty and worker exploitation was rife. Read "the jungle" by Upton Sinclair. Back then, you worked in the company factory, lived in the company house, and shopped at the company store. The Company pretty much owned you. It was worse than communism.

Business was regulated because companies were creating monopolies that were detrimental to American consumers and workers. To be fair The Jungle was a good book, but was also blatant socialist propaganda. Also, it was ficiton, and Sinclair himself admitted that the book did not acceive its desired goal. Heres a direct quote, "I aimed for the peoples hearts but hit their stomachs."

"We will own this city! CHICOGO WILL BE OURS! CHICOGO WILL BE OURS! CHICOGO WILL BE OURS!"

"We will own this city! CHICOGO WILL BE OURS! CHICOGO WILL BE OURS! CHICOGO WILL BE OURS!" Cut away the last 40 pages or so and you've got a damn fine read.

Yeah, the whole going into a huge socilist meeting followed by a socilist debate followed by a solilist speech just cheapened the charecters so much.

Yeah, the whole going into a huge socilist meeting followed by a socilist debate followed by a solilist speech just cheapened the charecters so much. Funny thing is, I was acutally sympathising with the poor immigrant workers until that infuriating last bit. Perhaps if he hadnt tried to shove socialism down our throats at the end the book would have had a differnet reaction?

Like, maybe if Jurgis died of the cold getting to that meeting he heard or something.

Like, maybe if Jurgis died of the cold getting to that meeting he heard or something.
Anything would be better than the original ending.

*ignoring all of what you guys posted*

I would like to see a green, or liberatarian candidate win presidency one day :D

the modern Libertarian party is basically anarchist

the modern Libertarian party is basically anarchist
That is like saying the modern Democrat party is basically communist or the modern Republican party is basically fascist.

Libertariansim can't work, because of all the nice little things we take for granted. Like the police keeping social order. Or government granst for scientists. Or fire departments, or public healthcare, or public education. Or pretty much public anything.

I disagree with the privatization of schools and the outright elimination of welfare. I do believe we need some to compensate for those who really need it.

Libertarianism is not anarchy. It is having the smallest government possible and leaving power to the states instead of the federal level.

I do agree with the Libertarian social platform though: As much personal freedom as possible, do anything that doesn't hurt anyone.

Their economic platform is more debatable.

A free market supplemented by a mild system of social welfare seems like a good idea to me. Opportunity to rise in society and welfare for those who really need it.

I tend to question the foreign policy of the libertarian platform.

Libertarians are incapable of compassion.

Libertarians are teh suck!!!!one!!111!one

Libertarians are incapable of compassion.

Libertarians are teh suck!!!!one!!111!one



Wow, what a generalization. I really find your opinion valid now..........

Wow, what a generalization. I really find your opinion valid now..........



Now u r teh suck!!!!!111one!!1

Now u r teh suck!!!!!111one!!1




Ugh, such a deep, thoughtful response, which begs the question why I'm even replying to it.

Ugh, such a deep, thoughtful response, which begs the question why I'm even replying to it.


You cannot help but reply ... I am the hypnotoad ... all your base are belong to me.

You cannot help but reply ... I am the hypnotoad ... all your base are belong to me.




Sure I am and I'm also a goat in real life. Baahh!

I don't know, I've been looking at the Libertarian party for a while, and the only thing I really have a problem with is Privatizing schools, I like going to a public school.

But all their other views on issues I agree with. But, I want to know why more people aren't Libertarian? What's the main thing that keeps people from becoming Libertarian.

I see them as the best of both worlds. You have the best of the liberal side (civil rights, etc.) and the best of the conservative (economy, etc.)

I'm going to guess it's because the conservative way of dealing with the economy is "wrong"? And if so, could someone explain this to me?

- Poo Man

21% of Americans are Libertarian. That's a pretty large number.

21% of Americans are Libertarian. That's a pretty large number.
Yet, only once in history have they achieved more than 1% of the popular vote, with a striking 1.1% in 1980.

1972: John Hospers and Theodora Nathan
2,691 popular votes (0.003%); 1 electoral vote;
1976: Roger MacBride and David Bergland
173,011 popular votes (0.21%)
1980: Ed Clark and David Koch
921,299 popular votes (1.1%)
1984: David Bergland and James Lewis
228,705 popular votes (0.25%)
1988: Ron Paul and Andre Marrou
432,179 popular votes (0.47%)
1992: Andre Marrou and Nancy Lord
291,627 popular votes (0.28%)
1996: Harry Browne and Jo Jorgensen
485,798 popular votes (0.50%)
2000: Harry Browne and Art Olivier
384,431 popular votes (0.36%)
2004: Michael Badnarik and Richard Campagna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Libertarian_Party

While I'll believe that, by the nature of their philosophy, Libs don't show up to the polls in large numbers, less than 1 in 40 is striking. I'll buy the doubtful statement that the Libs are the third largest party in the US. I'll admit that in certain states, they've managed to score as high as 15% of the statewide votes. But a 21% is almost impossible, considering how my uncitable "heard it somewhere" memory is that both Dems and Repubs garner around 40%, making it impossible.

Can you cite your statement?

I don't know, I've been looking at the Libertarian party for a while, and the only thing I really have a problem with is Privatizing schools, I like going to a public school.

- Poo Man

Well, for one, encouraging competition between schools will result in higher quality education for the students at lower rates per individual student.

For all the people worried about overpopulation numbers, privatizing anything that is considered a "neccesity" will reward those who do not have overabundantly large families, encouraging responcibility when thinking about procreation. It is too easy to think of the school tax currently being cut out of the workers' checks as a penalty for not having children. This is beyond the tax breaks for multiple children in the family.

Try explaining to yourself that since people who couldn't pay for the children they already have made a concious decision (a personal choice) to have children...they should pay the same as some guy who doesn't have any kids to get them educated, in fact they should pay less taxes overall and gain eligability for a multitude of government benefits.

Where is the logic in that one? Where does this train of thought leave the poor fellow who actually is responsible in his/her decisions?