NationStates Jolt Archive

Besides Badnarik. I've heard a lot that libertarians count as Republicans, I was curious if that really was the case. Maybe it was in the past, but with the power grab by neo-conservatives and the religious right, I'm not so sure.

I have mostly libertarian views socially (which could be called liberal, with exception to gun control, which I tend to think is too pervasive). On economic and tax issues, I am fairly moderate. I see good in both sides. They both want the same things, jobs, a better economy, prosperity, etc. On the social front however, they have very different views. The Republican Party's moral authoritarianism concerning abortion, gay rights, drugs, capital punishment, and privacy issues prevents me from even considering voting for a mainstream Republican. I stomach the incessant gun control, affirmative action, hate crime laws, and political correctness of the Democrats because the alternative is worse, IMO.

But I do not consider myself a true libertarian. I would say I'm a social progressive/liberal, who also believes in small government, especially concerning social issues, but is more open to socialist views on the government.

So how do hardcore libertarians feel about the state of politics in America? Kerry or Bush? Democrat or Republican? If you had to choose...

Umm.....the elections overr buddy ;)

However I picked the option that says both candidates are unappealing. To put it in simple terms Bush is an idiot and Kerry is a liar with no other political tactic to win voters other then being anti-bush.

Besides Badnarik. I've heard a lot that libertarians count as Republicans, I was curious if that really was the case. Maybe it was in the past, but with the power grab by neo-conservatives and the religious right, I'm not so sure.

Yes, it used to be the case. Barry Goldwater was one of the last great "real Republicans". The party has gone very authoritarian in the last 25 years or so, but there is still a large libertarian wing. The biggest libertarian in congress is Ron Paul (http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml), and he's nominally a member of the GOP. He is a member of the Libertarian party, and was the LP's presidential candidate in '88.

So how do hardcore libertarians feel about the state of politics in America? Kerry or Bush? Democrat or Republican? If you had to choose...

Things are pretty bad. Ralph Nader has exactly one thing right: the two parties are essentially tweedle-dee and tweedle-dumb (although dumb and dumber may be more apt). As for presidential candidates, I thought both Bush and Kerry were pretty bad, but Mr. Bush's war in Iraq put me in Kerry:s camp.

hehe! polls are fun!

The biggest libertarian in congress is Ron Paul (http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml), and he's nominally a member of the GOP. He is a member of the Libertarian party, and was the LP's presidential candidate in '88.
Yeah, Ron Paul's pretty cool. Still, I voted for Mike because he is/was who I wanted to win. If America had preferential voting, however, I would've ranked Bush over Kerry, as the lesser of evils. Thank YHVH we don't have to vote thusly, eh?

As for presidential candidates, I thought both Bush and Kerry were pretty bad, but Mr. Bush's war in Iraq put me in Kerry:s camp.
In my case, Bush and Kerry's "war"* put me in Badnarik's camp. Because only Badnarik would've actually stopped us fighting.

* Of course, it's not a War until Congress says so. Hence the quotes.

Yeah, Ron Paul's pretty cool. Still, I voted for Mike because he is/was who I wanted to win.

I've met Dr. Paul personally, briefly and along time ago (I grew up in a neigboring congressional district to his). He's a great guy - and very smart.

If America had preferential voting, however, I would've ranked Bush over Kerry, as the lesser of evils. Thank YHVH we don't have to vote thusly, eh?

However, proportional system would give the LP a good toe hold in congress (and the Greens and socialists as well).

In my case, Bush and Kerry's "war"* put me in Badnarik's camp. Because only Badnarik would've actually stopped us fighting.

* Of course, it's not a War until Congress says so. Hence the quotes.

Fair enough.

Bush, for long-term reasons. If Kerry had been elected, it just would've given everyone the illusion that everything is okay, and nothing meaningful would have changed. With Bush back in the White House, there's a chance people will realize something's wrong with the system.

Bush, for long-term reasons. If Kerry had been elected, it just would've given everyone the illusion that everything is okay, and nothing meaningful would have changed. With Bush back in the White House, there's a chance people will realize something's wrong with the system.

I respectfully disagree, and here's why:

1)The electoral college is a problem.

2)Dems hate the EC because it cost Al Gore the election in 2000 (he had more popular votes but lost the EC votes).

3)As the returns were coming in the night of 2 Nov/morning of 3 Nov, I was really pulling for Kerry to win OH. Aside from the fact that I was a Kerry supporter, if Kerry had won OH, the Republicans would be up in arms about the EC for the same reason that Dems cursed it in 2000. Maybe this could have united the two major parties in wanting to fix the problem, and finally creating the massive support necessary for a constitutional amendment necessary to dump this anacronism.

A libertarian centered thread, with no Badnarik/Campagna option in its poll? :O

A libertarian centered thread, with no Badnarik/Campagna option in its poll? :O
Well of course the libertarians wanted their guy to win, but I'm more interested in which of the two main political parties they agree with more (or despise less).

Libertarians have been called spoilers for Republicans long enough, and I seriously doubted that many libertarians would rather take the current Republican Party over the Democratic Party.

We already know the Nader-ites wanted Kerry to win. We all know the Peroutka-nuts wanted Bush to win.

What I wanted to know was who libertarians wanted to win. They seem to drive right up the middle of the political spectrum, with views that are either extreme left (legalizing drugs and prostitution) or extreme right (privatize social security, abolish income tax, etc).

Well of course the libertarians wanted their guy to win, but I'm more interested in which of the two main political parties they agree with more (or despise less).

Libertarians have been called spoilers for Republicans long enough, and I seriously doubted that many libertarians would rather take the current Republican Party over the Democratic Party.

We already know the Nader-ites wanted Kerry to win. We all know the Peroutka-nuts wanted Bush to win.

What I wanted to know was who libertarians wanted to win. They seem to drive right up the middle of the political spectrum, with views that are either extreme left (legalizing drugs and prostitution) or extreme right (privatize social security, abolish income tax, etc).

Well, this Libertarian does not like either party. And would never vote for either.

Well of course the libertarians wanted their guy to win, but I'm more interested in which of the two main political parties they agree with more (or despise less).

Libertarians have been called spoilers for Republicans long enough, and I seriously doubted that many libertarians would rather take the current Republican Party over the Democratic Party.

I consider myself strongly libertarian, but I haven't always felt that way. I've always been opposed to the Democratic party and have more or less identified with Republicans. I thought it was great when Republicans took control of congress in the '94 election. I learned about the Libertarian party in '96. I liked them, but felt they were a bit too radical. I wasn't perfectly happy with the Republicans, but felt certain they wer the lesser of two evils. In 2000, I wanted Bush to win, but I didn't actually bother voting myself. Today, I'm proud that I never voted for him.

Through the last four years I've become more and more strongly libertarian, while the Republican led goverment has become more authoritarian. I've also become far more knowledgeable on world events and history. I no longer even bother rendering a judgement on whether Democrats or Republicans are the lesser evil.

In D.C. we have two parties, the stupid party and the evil party. I doesn't matter which is which.


We already know the Nader-ites wanted Kerry to win. We all know the Peroutka-nuts wanted Bush to win.

What I wanted to know was who libertarians wanted to win. They seem to drive right up the middle of the political spectrum, with views that are either extreme left (legalizing drugs and prostitution) or extreme right (privatize social security, abolish income tax, etc).

For the record, the supposedly leftist ideas of legalizing drugs or prostitution are not at all embraced by Demorcats at large. I challenge anyone to find a Democrat of any political significance who might prove me wrong.

I respectfully disagree, and here's why:

1)The electoral college is a problem.

2)Dems hate the EC because it cost Al Gore the election in 2000 (he had more popular votes but lost the EC votes).

3)As the returns were coming in the night of 2 Nov/morning of 3 Nov, I was really pulling for Kerry to win OH. Aside from the fact that I was a Kerry supporter, if Kerry had won OH, the Republicans would be up in arms about the EC for the same reason that Dems cursed it in 2000. Maybe this could have united the two major parties in wanting to fix the problem, and finally creating the massive support necessary for a constitutional amendment necessary to dump this anacronism.

The electoral college is needed in some form. In its present form, it's an impediment to appropriate representation. But it's not really the problem I was talking about. The Democratic Party currently has some very serious weaknesses that need to be addressed, and a Kerry victory would have kept them from doing that. With Bush's win, they now have a choice between shaping up, or becoming practically irrelevant when they lose in 2008.

I consider myself strongly libertarian, but I haven't always felt that way. I've always been opposed to the Democratic party and have more or less identified with Republicans. I thought it was great when Republicans took control of congress in the '94 election. I learned about the Libertarian party in '96. I liked them, but felt they were a bit too radical. I wasn't perfectly happy with the Republicans, but felt certain they wer the lesser of two evils. In 2000, I wanted Bush to win, but I didn't actually bother voting myself. Today, I'm proud that I never voted for him.

Through the last four years I've become more and more strongly libertarian, while the Republican led goverment has become more authoritarian. I've also become far more knowledgeable on world events and history. I no longer even bother rendering a judgement on whether Democrats or Republicans are the lesser evil.

In D.C. we have two parties, the stupid party and the evil party. I doesn't matter which is which.



For the record, the supposedly leftist ideas of legalizing drugs or prostitution are not at all embraced by Demorcats at large. I challenge anyone to find a Democrat of any political significance who might prove me wrong.

Agreed, the problem stems, not that Libertarian policy is a mix of extreme left, and extreme right; we are most certainly "left" of the spectrum (as the bulk of the US Founding Fathers were)... but in terms of governmental authority... Much like the bulk of the founders, the inheretance of the constitution; we believe in limited government.... a principle neither the "DNC" or "RNC" believe in... and all of our policy stems from that single motif.

The electoral college is needed in some form. In its present form, it's an impediment to appropriate representation. But it's not really the problem I was talking about. The Democratic Party currently has some very serious weaknesses that need to be addressed, and a Kerry victory would have kept them from doing that. With Bush's win, they now have a choice between shaping up, or becoming practically irrelevant when they lose in 2008.

Well, OK, I'll admit that I approached this thread with the mindset of "Who did you want to win and why," and pretty much disregarded the Libertarian part. But at least I didn't Florida (Ohio?) vote in the poll. :D

I'll agree that the Democratic Party needs to get its act together and boot the corporation-licking, wishy-washy "political consultants" from the party, though. It's crap like that where Republicans can charge flip-flopping and get away with it, while the Republicans just make a big flop out of this country.

Now can you please explain why the electoral college is needed in some form? I can't debate you unless I know what form you think the EC should take. However, I'll be away from my Internets connection over Thanksgiving.

So how do hardcore libertarians feel about the state of politics in America? Kerry or Bush? Democrat or Republican? If you had to choose...

I seriously considered voting for Kerry simply as opposition to Bush. In the end, I decided to vote for Badnarik, whom I considered to be the best man for the job. Sincere voting is huge problem in this country, and I'd prefer not to be part of the problem.

Bush, for long-term reasons. If Kerry had been elected, it just would've given everyone the illusion that everything is okay, and nothing meaningful would have changed. With Bush back in the White House, there's a chance people will realize something's wrong with the system.

That's one good thing that may come of this. I wanted Kerry in, myself, for fear of what Bush may accomplish in office (hell, look what Congress has been doing lately). Kerry started sounding pretty good towards the end, and we know that Bush is just a non-menacing figurehead for something a lot more sinister.

At this point, I say let the extremists run the Republicans into the ground. Maybe in the meantime the Dems will grow a backbone. As a Libertarian, I say the system sucks.

Now can you please explain why the electoral college is needed in some form? I can't debate you unless I know what form you think the EC should take. However, I'll be away from my Internets connection over Thanksgiving.

I think that the electoral college is needed because I don't want to see New York, Texas, and California deciding the election any more than I want to see a handful of swing states deciding it. I'm in favor of a proportional allocation of electoral votes, ala Colorado's Amendment 36.

I think that the electoral college is needed because I don't want to see New York, Texas, and California deciding the election any more than I want to see a handful of swing states deciding it. I'm in favor of a proportional allocation of electoral votes, ala Colorado's Amendment 36.

I agree :)


And I'm a Euroweenie Libertarian, so I couldn't vote anyhow.
If I could, I would have voted for Badnarik of course, but I consider Bush the least evil of the two. I could never vote for a part that has Hilary Clinton in it :O

I voted almost a straight libertarian ballot this fall except in the small positions where a libertarian candidate was not present (then, I cast my vote for R).

I really can't stand the 'spend spend spend' mindset both parties have today. And the war sure as hell isn't helping. Although I think in the long run, more good will come than evil, it was my first choice of going. However, I am also of the mindset that since we are contributing more money to the UN than any other, and if we aren't going to leave it (as we should), we have a right to 'protect our investment' if you will. The 'Oil for Food' scandal was really a ball breaker in my already shattered confidence of the UN.

On social issues, I could really careless if abortions/gambling/drugs are legal/illegal. I personally see no reason to spend tax payers dollars inforcing laws against them, especially special interest ventures like the 'war on drugs', however, fiscal responsibility is more important to me.

If I _had_ to pick between Bush or Kerry, I would pick Bush. However, like mentioned above, I picked neither and voted Badnarik and other's LP's.

I'm not a Libertarian, but my ideals go in that direction, and I voted Libertarian. If I had been in a swing state, I would have voted for Kerry, because I think he would have done marginally less damage to the U.S. than Bush.

I'm not a Libertarian, but my ideals go in that direction, and I voted Libertarian. If I had been in a swing state, I would have voted for Kerry, because I think he would have done marginally less damage to the U.S. than Bush.

I would agree with that; though for the last 12 years, I have voted conscience.

I would agree with that; though for the last 12 years, I have voted conscience.

I was definitely voting my coscience this time. It would have been immoral for me (from my perspective) to vote for either Bush or Kerry.

I'll probably be voting Libertarian for many years to come, even though I'm much more moderate than they are. Its the only way I could live with myself, I think.

I consider myself a fairly hardcore libertarian. In a perfect world I would have had a srtong hope for Badnarik to win. However with the way it is now you really only have two practical choices. I hate GB. The war in Iraq, his stance on abortion and gay marriage. That's why I chose Kerry. It's not that I like him that much, but at least he's not Bush. (I can't actually vote though, so it doesn't really matter.)

So much for libertarians being thought of as a Republican constituency.

I'm a libertarian. I voted for Nader.

The thing is that I'm in Connecticut. Connecticut's electoral votes were going to go to Kerry. I knew that already. So I could vote my heart. If I were in a battleground state, I would have voted for Kerry.

Because even though Kerry is most likely going to overspend and overtax, at least he believes in a balanced budget.

Bush, with his insistence on cutting taxes AND increasing spending is as unlibertarian(and in my opinion, unrepublican) as you can get.

But that's just my opinion.