Posted on 11/07/2006 7:01:57 AM PST by libertylovinactivist
Having the federal government get rid of all the pornography.
I agree. I cannot imagine why Libertarians would be inclined to vote for the party that introduced Socialism to America and strives to perpetuate its continuation.
The only thing that I can think of would be that Democrats are more and more secular in their thinking, and many libertarians are opposed to a conservative social agenda. I consider myself a libertarian but not a pure Ayn Rand type. Milton Friedman is my role model. Also, Barry Goldwater--kep government out of our pockets and bedrooms.
I'm not buying it. A libertarian might sit this one out, but it is hard to imagine very many true libertarians getting Dem witted.
Agreed. Seeing a re-surgance of Goldwater/Reagan-esque Republicanism would do my heart a lot of good at this point.
I agree completely. I never met a libertarian who did not come off as angry and completely self centered.
It's highly unlikely. The Republicrats learned their lesson after Ross Perot, and clamped-down on third parties. Top that with Campaign Finance Reform to make it difficult for smaller parties to raise money and there's virtually no chance except in smaller state races. Even then, the Republicrats have that "straight ticket" check box on many state ballots to make it easier to vote for just them, excluding other parties.
The only positive change I've seen over the last several years is the relaxation of state election laws due to challenges from other parties. It's still hard for other parties to get on the ballot (while the Republicrats get on automatically), but it's not quite as onerous in many places now.
Republicans and Democrats fight with each other all the time, but they will always band together to defend their duopoly.
Well, why won't the president listen? He's been compared favorably to Lincoln in many ways BUT ever hear of Simon Cameron and Hannibal Hamlin? They were Lincoln's respective Secretary of War and Vice President before Edwin Stanton and Andrew Johnson...according to Rumsfeld, he has offered resignation twice but has been turned down and, for the life of me, I cannot figure out why. Rove has got to know that he's probably the most unpopular Defense Secretary since McNamara and, if he's willing to fall on his sword for the good of the president and the country, why not let him? I recall a very good Chief of Naval Operations (Kelso) during the infamous Iowa battleship tragedy and tailhook fiasco did just that because, in his words, he became a lightening rod. I also recall that antoher CNO (Jeremy Brooda) commited suicide in the belief that he disgraced the service. Now, I'm not advocating that Rummy do the same but he was a Navy man and he should know where the buck stops when the war in Iraq is in such a mess, the war where he and the vice president claimed we'd be welcomed as heroes, the war where we had an opportunity to corral WMDs going to Syria, where we could have contained looting and the outbreaks of sectarian violence if only he'd have listened to voices such as Gen. Shenseki and committed 500,000 troops to REALLY produce "shock and awe" instead of the plainly insufficient 150,000 in his "shuck and jive" effort!
No true Libertarian or libertarian would EVER vote for an unrepentant Statist, which all Democrats are.
And? We don't have anything to be angry about? Haven't been paying attention again have you...
As for being "self-centered"... the good of your collective IS the good of the individual. Anything else is meaningless. Respect individual Rights, and you have protected the "collective". Try and restrict the individual's Rights for some ephemeral "collective good" and you have destroyed that which you wish to preserve. Learn a lesson from socialism... It doesn't work.
Had the Republicans not have gotten Clinton they would not have taken control of both houses of congress either...
Ditto my brother!
I'm not going to but there is one rational reason why a libertarian would vote Democrat, to tye up the government. I loved it when the republican congress and clinton were bickering all the time, even excluding the War on Terror budget needs, government spending during the 90's were lower then today.
BOTH democrats and republicans are parties of big spending. Coming from a libertarian standpoint, if they're isn't a party to reduce the size of government then we might as well tie the current one up to prevent it from getting even larger.
The two issues that prevent me from taking that standpoint are the war which needs effective leadership and judicial confirmations. I'm pro-abortion but I'll put that on the sideline to get Kelo overturned.
I have! That is a very intelligent whine. If the republicans want the Libertarian Vote why not adopt a slightly more Libertarian position. Instead of attacking us for voting our conscience.
good of your collective IS the good of the individual
Liberty-lovers who stormed the polls in 1994 to elect Republicans are now indifferent to the fate of the Republican majority. That's a fact.
Why it's so is controversial. My 2c is that the constant Rovian emphasis on "the base" has marginalized this segment of the coalition.
The GOP base is too small to reliably win elections. Neither party now stands for liberty.
You can satirize liberdopians all you want (and they richly deserve it).
But the concept that a government which is big enough to give you what you want is big enough to take it all away IS the unity message that can deliver relaible majorities for whoever champions it.
THIS is what the Bush-Rove axis has singularly failed to do.
And they are about to get their asses kicked as a result.
You don't have any family in the military, do you?
Your conscience involves legalizing every known substance to man..and allowing women to continue to kill off their own and no borders ad nauseum.
You can keep your flaky "conscience"
Read it again then as you didn't comprehend it the first time. My statement is the exact OPPOSITE of Marxist dogma.
Objectivism is a lot more than Ayn Rand. Sad that you seem to despise the idea as it allows a lot more freedom to believe as you will than what you are currently endorsing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.