LIBERTARIANS; THE SOCIALIST'S BEST FRIEND

THE LOGICAL VIEW ^ | 11/06/02 | MARK A SITY

[logic101.net]

Your analogy is flawed. Betting on horses in no way influences the outcome of races. Voting does.

You stated that all candidates on the ballot for an office have an equal chance of winning. They do not. LP candidates have slim to no chance of winning due to all the reasons I cited, including running for too high of an office. Let's take the WI Gov race. Your candidate, Ed Thompson, had unique advantages over most of your candidates, still he only got 11%. You tend to take an inexperienced colt, with an overweight rider, and enter him in the KY Derby against the best 3yr old horses in the nation. Yet you wonder why they loose.

Why not work within the ranks of the Democratic party and change them instead?

Remember Hillery Care? New anti-gun legislation? Increased taxes on SS? How about activist judges? Get a grip man! Fine, just watch the soon to be new House Minority Leader; watch her for a year then tell me you'd even get a voice in the DNC! Oh, and let's not forget, on the national level; Democrats don't tolerate much disent - Republicans do (they still allow McCain to rant and rave, don't they? But look what happened to Traficant, as opposed to Toricelli - until it looked like he was going to loose).

MARK A SITY

[logic101.net]

BTW, there are links to other Logical sites; Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, and Ann Caulter.

MARK A SITY

[Roscoe]

How does someone who votes Libertarian help elect a Democrat?

Do the math.

* means NRA endorsment. Grade is the NRA grade. Wisconsin:

(D) Doyle 800,958 F

*(R) McCallum 732,781 A

(L) Thompson 185,085

Do you assume someone who votes Libertarian would vote Republican if their only choice is between Republican and Democrat?

Were they voting for the Libertarian because they oppose gun control? If so, they shot themselves in the foot by helping elect Doyle, rated F by the NRA.

[tdadams]

Were they voting for the Libertarian because they oppose gun control?

There's no way to know what motivates a person to vote the way they do. That's exactly my point. Nevertheless you've made the assumption that Libertarians would otherwise vote Republican.

Your premise is wholly invalid and makes you look like a bitter, sore loser.

[Roscoe]

There's no way to know what motivates a person to vote the way they do.

(D) Doyle 800,958 [NRA F rating]

(R) McCallum 732,781 [NRA A rating]

(L) Thompson 185,085

True. There are some people who don't care that they helped elect Doyle.

[Alan Chapman]

Reagan absolutely had to have some legisltation. In the absence of the line item veto, congress could tack on whatever they wanted to a bill that the President had to have (like authorizing payroll for the military).

Interestingly, no past presidents who vetoed legislation on principle needed a line-item veto to keep government small and Congress under control. To say that Reagan was helpless without the line-item veto is to make excuses and distract people.

...Newt got passed line item veto power...the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional...we need this as an Ammendment to the Constitution...

We don't need a line-item veto (which is a gimmick). What we need are presidents with the stern resolve to stand their ground and veto legislation until Congress acquiesces.

Do you know why Republicans want the line-item veto? So they can veto all the Democratic pork but pass pork of their own.

[Alan Chapman]

You stated that all candidates on the ballot for an office have an equal chance of winning. They do not.

I already refuted this assertion. Your comparison of elections to horse races was absurd. Betting on horses in no way affects the outcome of the race. Voting directly affects the outcome of an election.

LP candidates have slim to no chance of winning due to all the reasons I cited, including running for too high of an office.

The only thing making it difficult for Libertarians to get elected are election laws enacted by Republicans and Democrats to obstruct competition from third-parties.

New anti-gun legislation? Increased taxes on SS? How about activist judges? Get a grip man!

George W. Bush recently came out in support of ballistic-fingerprinting for guns. He previously signed the Project Safe Neighborhoods legislation which had a gun-control provision. He said he supports stricter enforcement of existing gun-control (but not the repeal of any gun-control).

I'm not content to settle for simply preventing things from getting worse (as if they could get any worse). I want to repeal laws and get government out of our lives. I don't want to slow the growth of government, I want to reduce it. I don't want stricter enforcement of existing gun-control laws, I want them repealed. I don't want the government to take our money and then give it back to us in the form of school vouchers, I want government out of education. I don't want Social Security phased out over 65 years. I want government out of the retirement business within 1 to 2 years. Only Libertarians will do these things.

[Fezwood]

I totally agree with this. I can honestly say that I would probably vote libertarian if that was the case. I am more interested in keeping the Dems out of office as opposed to trying to vote the Libs in. As much as the Libertarians intrigue me, I found myself punching a straight Rep ticket this time.

[Schmedlap]

"Ed was the Libertarian candidate for governor in WI. Ed gave the Governor's Mansion to Bingo Jim by getting 10% of the vote. Governor McCallum lost the election by only 3%. Thanks Ed."

Perhaps McCallum should have gotten out of the race so that Ed could win.

[steve50]

It's amusing how you talk about Republicans as though they're fighting against "the socialists." I used to think like you do.

I must have spent 15 years in denial before I faced up to the problem. This addiction to political party instead of principle does nothing but protect thieves.

[Libertarian_Jon]

Keyes is great. I couldn't believe he had the guts to actually run a campaign based 100% on idealogy. The guy is awesome.

There is a natural tendency for people to fear the (almost) apolitical nature of libertarianism.

In my opinion, the libertarian side of conservatism serves to keep the whole honest.

[logic101.net]

The problem is that Libertarians have abandoned the entire Conservative movement (ok, well many of them). This is the point I have been trying to make since just after the election. If you read some of Alan Chapman's posts you will see where the problem lies.

Had many Libertarians not abandoned the GOP, Keyes might have had a shot (although the treatment Bush got in the press was mild compared to what a black conservative would get). I also fully agree that the Libertarian side, well, maybe not keeps conservitism honest, but rather balanced. The fact that so many Libertarians have abandoned the GOP in favor of long shot horses has given the McCain's and Chafee's power they otherwise would not have. This threatens all our goals.

Libertarians are about 85% right in their views, but without a base of power to work from; they can't help defeat the common enemy; the Socialists!

MARK A SITY

MARK A SITY
http://www.logic101.net/

PS. As far as Alan Keyes goes; anyone who can convice me to support an idea I personally find offensive (I don't like sales taxes just because they used to confuse me when I was a child and tight on cash) is one heck of a debator! If I was on a debate against him, I'd just stand up, salute, and say "congratulations"! There are few I acknowledge as my superior; he is one of the few.

[Ragin1]

"Libertarians have abandoned the entire Conservative movement"

No logic, Republicans have abondoned the conservative movement.

[logic101.net]

Libertarians HAVE abandoned the Conservative movement. They very childishly said "we want it all NOW, NOW, NOW!" Since they couldn't get it all "NOW, NOW, NOW", they decided not to play anymore.

The GOP got scared away from the Conservative movement.
Remember Newt? Remember '94 and '95? Remember the lies
the press kept repeating? Remember the DNC's "pit Yorkie" (Bonier, wasn't it?)? Remember the daily baseless charge
from Mr Yorkie?

Newt didn't know how to be subtle, nor did he understand
incrimentalizm. Newt tried to get it all "NOW, NOW, NOW" (gezz, starting to sound like my wife here). Look what
happened to him!

Alot of what the GOP is doing I disagree with, so do many
Republicans (which I am not). However, I am pragmatic
enough to understand that without a base of power you CANNOT
make changes that you do like.

Libertarians have abandoned that base of power which is the
GOP. This not only helps the Socialists get their candidates elected, but it also removes an important counter-balance from the GOP. Why should they incorporate your issues into their platform when you are calling them "Republicrats".

Not only don't the vocal Libertarians have no understanding of incrimentalizm, they also have no tact and no social skills!

MARK A SITY