Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 12/20/2006 3:27:19 PM PST by neverdem
In a recent column, I discussed the disaffection of libertarians within the conservative coalition, suggesting that many might be more at home on the political left. A number of readers wrote to say that they agreed with my analysis and had left the Republican Party for the Libertarian Party. Among these is former Republican Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, who officially joined the Libertarians last week.
Of course, people are free to do what they want to do, and if they want to join the Libertarians, that's their business. But if their goal is to actually change policy in a libertarian direction, then they are making a big mistake, in my opinion. The Libertarian Party is worse than a waste of time. I believe it has done far more to hamper the advancement of libertarian ideas and policies than it has done to advance them. In my view, it is essential for the Libertarian Party to completely disappear before libertarian ideas will again have political currency.
The basic problem with the Libertarian Party is the same problem faced by all third parties: It cannot win. The reason is that under the Constitution a candidate must win an absolute majority in the all-important Electoral College. It won't do just to have the most votes in a three- or four-way race. You have to have at least 270 electoral votes to win, period.
Theoretically, this is no barrier to third parties at the state and local level. But in practice, if a party cannot win at the presidential level, it is very unlikely to achieve success at lower levels of government. In short, the Electoral College imposes a two-party system on the country that makes it prohibitively difficult for third parties to compete.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Liberterrarian.
Bob Barr will be debating in NYC in January on guess what topic? Medical marijuana.
This should be interesting.
Ping
Who's he debating?
I'm a libertarian and I'm no steenking liberal-- beware of Bill Maher types masquerading as "libertarians" to impress their friends and co-workers with their maverick political philosophy.
The author explicitly distinguishes between libertarian philosphy and the platform of the Libertarian Party, ie libertarians from Libertarians. It's going to be interesting to see if it's possible to have a discussion in that context.
As soon as this party starts to gain a significant following, the Republican Party will adopt the same platform. You don't think they're going to just sit back and lose.
Now, that's good for us, but spells doom for the third party. Once they're gone, the Republican Party goes back to what they were doing before.
Communitarian vs libertarian always is.
Majority rule is a socialistic political disease that infects all factions of all parties.
This is incorrect. It's the policies of major parties and their leaders which cause them to lose elections.
Witness the loss of GHW Bush in 1992.
Then witness the loss of Dole in 1996.
Obviously the GOP didn't learn anything between these two elections, yet the party faithful will always blame Perot.
Witness the loss of the GOP this year. Which third party caused them to lose? None. The policies of the party and it's leaders caused this.
But then, the GOP has always found it easier to blame the Libertarians rather than take resposibility for their own actions.
You bring up 1992 to contradict my point?
So? Isn't that the point - to get libertarian principles established? What difference does it make which party does it?
I'm not into vendettas against current politicians or hero worship of any of them. I'd vote for anyone who supports my principles.
The only advantage to officially belonging to a party is participating in the "primary process." Otherwise it is pointless.
Even after a voter changes official party designation or claims independent status, the original party still probably bombards the voter with spam, begging for cash.
Independent and off the radar is the best bet.
Republicans keep making the same false assumption about the liberal-tarians. They keep thinking these people are on our side and groan every time we lose a close race by less than the votes a liberal-tarian gets. This is a waste of time. These people aren't our voters. The rat is the one who should moan when WE win a close race like that. liberal-tarians are just democrats who don't like hearing that they are out loud. Barr is a jerk. He was and may still be on the board of the aclu. You do the math.
I hope he's boned up for the topic.
Cannabinoid receptors as therapeutic targets.
CB1 and CB2 cannabinoid receptors are the primary targets of endogenous cannabinoids (endocannabinoids). These G protein-coupled receptors play an important role in many processes, including metabolic regulation, craving, pain, anxiety, bone growth, and immune function. Cannabinoid receptors can be engaged directly by agonists or antagonists, or indirectly by manipulating endocannabinoid metabolism. In the past several years, it has become apparent from preclinical studies that therapies either directly or indirectly influencing cannabinoid receptors might be clinically useful. This review considers the components of the endocannabinoid system and discusses some of the most promising endocannabinoid-based therapies.
The problem is, the Republicans haven't given people who don't agree with the religious right, pork-barrel spending, or general incompetence much of an alternative.
He's right. Next Election, vote either Federalist, Whig, or Democratic-Republican!
opinion.
Bob Barr occupies the 21st Century Liberties Chair for Freedom and Privacy at the American Conservative Union, and serves as a Board Member of the National Rifle Association. He serves as the Chairman of Patriots to Restore Checks and Balances, and provides advice to several organizations, including consulting on privacy issues with the ACLU, serving as the Chair for Youth Leadership Training at the Leadership Institute in Arlington, Virginia, and as a member of The Constitution Project’s Initiative on Liberty and Security, based at Georgetown University's Public Policy Institute. Bob served as a Member of the Long-Term Strategy Project for Preserving Security and Democratic Norms in the War on Terrorism, at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University from 2003 to 2005. Recognizing Bob Barr’s leadership in privacy matters, New York Times columnist William Safire has called him “Mr. Privacy.”
The problem with Libertarians is that they want to go back to the time when we had a very small federal government. You know, back when there were no labor laws, no education departments, no FAA, no Dept of Transportation, no FBI...
I want a smaller government, but I want one that provides sensible and efficient services.
More like way out there on the Z-axis!
Which is just it.
If the Republicans would behave fiscally responsible with social conservatism thrown in, they'd clean house.
It's really the party's only hope of keeping all sides reasonably happy.
And really, social conservatives and libertarians have a number of things in common.
For starters, the start of which is low taxes and a belief in charity as opposed to forced extraction.
I'm a social + fiscal conservative, but frankly, the social issues the Republicans have chosen to tackle are NOT ones that I would have. I feel they wasted a lot of good capital on Schiavo and stem cell research.
Embryonic cells have proven worthless (to this point), anyway.
Actually, libertarians' views on many social issues are often orthagonal to those of liberals and conservatives.
Liberals generally believe that bad behavior should have no consequences.
Conservatives generally believe that bad behavior should have government-imposed consequences.
Libertarians generally believe that bad behavior should have those consequences, and only those consequences, which flow naturally from the behavior itself; government should impose punishments upon the bad behavers only when the consequences of their behavior would fall on people who would otherwise lack recourse.
Is there any limit to the number of services you want the gov't to provide? It would be "sensible" to make sure we all had clothing, food and medical care. Do you want the gov't to do that efficiently?
On stem cell research, the Republicans should have hammered more on the fact that by any reasonable measure, adult stem cell research is far more practical and promising than embryonic research. Even if there weren't any objection to using surplus embryos for research purposes, spending money on such research instead of adult stem cell research would be fiscally irresponsible.
On the Terri Schiavo case, the Republicans should have hammered on the fact that a man who has openly pledged to marry another woman as soon as his wife is dead cannot be expected to act in his wife's interest. To say that a husband should be allowed to bed another woman, sire children by her, and pledge to marry her, all without forfeiting his claims as husband to his present wife, is to make a mockery of marriage.
Especially consequences based on the behavior.
Suggesting the depth of hostility toward the notion of legal drugs, Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., asked whether anti-racketeering laws could be used to prosecute people conspiring to legalize drugs. McCaffrey shot back that doing so "would have a chilling effect on the right of free speech."
Barr wanted to keep drugs illegal and prosecute advocacy of legalization. Even Drug Csar McCaffrey sttod closer to the libertrians on that one.
Sure.
Liberals: promiscuous sex, heterosexual or homosexual, should be a-ok. The government should supply the funding to cure any diseases that result.
Conservatives: homosexual sodomy should be banned.
Libertarians: Do what you like, but if you get sick don't run to the government for help.
Don't know. I haven't heard or seen anything by him on the subject in years.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
I think that's about as wrong as it can be. It's the LP's failure to build a party structure at the state and local level that keeps them from winning much of anything. You need canvassers and envelope stuffers, people to make coffee and sandwiches, gofers, somebody who can meet the guest speaker and make sure he has a room reserved....
You know, all that boring stuff that Libertarians are too high-minded to bother with.
So how the Hell was the Republican Party born? Immaculate conception? The problem with the LP is the kook leadership that focuses on drugs, porn, & prostitutes instead of limiting government & getting us out of the UN. Plus they're ambiguous on some of the issues. If they spent more time on the latter they'd get somewhere.
A few times they will run their own candidates, but they seem to mostly recommend the least objectionable of the viable candidates.
If the Libertarian Party were to just refuse to nominate its own candidate until such time as a very high profile person is willing to step into that position, then they might get more respect and have more success.
Existing as a party with the skills and manpower to help support other candidates would be a good selling point in the short run until they can attract someone reasonable to run as a Libertarian.
That makes sense.
First of all, there's no "liberal" in Libertarians. Saying this only makes your argument look weak.
Second of all, Libertarianism is the heart and soul of the GOP. Limited gov't, low taxes, individual responsibility....so the GOP should disregard these voters?
Ah I see. The existence of the Libertarian Party is what made Republicans move to the left since 1994. Because they existed to forward the idea of limited government and less bureaucracy, the Republicans had to move to the left to counter the effect...It's so clear now.....
Theoretically, this is no barrier to third parties at the state and local level. But in practice, if a party cannot win at the presidential level, it is very unlikely to achieve success at lower levels of government. In short, the Electoral College imposes a two-party system on the country that makes it prohibitively difficult for third parties to compete.
And how does it do that again? Oh, because you say it does and don't offer any corraborating evidence to prove your point.
At times, serious people have tried to get control of the Libertarian Party and make it a viable organization. But in the end, the crazies who like the party just as it is have always run them off.
And this would be different from the Republican party who has to deal with threats from social theocrats who desire to impose morality at the federal level each and every election? And he wonders why people are leaving the party?
There are quite a few social conservatives out there that also believe in limited government (like myself). That believe the original intent was to leave moral issues to the separate and sovereign states, not advocate passing an Amendment anytime someone wanted 'their' cause standardized. And if the only choice is voting for Sen. Nutball who wants to involve the federal government in what are clearly state decisions and Rep. Spend-a-lot who's never seen a program he didn't like, I'll continue to vote Libertarian or write in a candidate.
Contrary to this author's view, the Framers did not necessarily see nor intend a division of only two parties. Washington warned against it and yet this 'conservative' is saying if you don't buy into it, you're hurting the cause. Although the cause of getting his 'team' to top of the hill is about the only 'cause' you're hurting
As a libertarian, I do not personally care as deeply for the social issues as the fiscal/economic issues. When it comes down to it, though I am "pro-choice" on many issues you all might find objectionable, I am MUCH more inclined to vote for a fiscally and socially conservative republican if I can count on him/her being TRULY fiscally conservative.
In other words, I want lower taxes, smaller government and robust national defense WAY more than I want legalized pot and abortion. Those issues pale in comparison.
Problem is, true fiscal conservatives are as rare as hens teeth these days. So all I can say to you republicans, is get your s&!t together so I can happily vote your asses back in.
Maher's a member of the Idiot party. We already know about the "Stupid Party". Bruce Bartlett is carrying water for them.
What's that smell? Is that... irony?
Tomorrow, I shall keep a lookout for pigs on the wing.
Witness the change in the rhetoric and attitude toward libertarianism from Reagan to what we have today.
That's hilarious! If you're looking for sensible and efficient services from the government you're looking in the wrong place. The libertarians have no problem with you now though, because you do want the gov to be smaller. Libertarians only have real problems with RINO's and "conservatives" who want BIGGER government. It's bad strategy for libertarians and real conservatives, who both want smaller government, to be at each others throats. It's also bad strategy for the Libertarian party to divide the small government vote and thereby help elect HUGE government Democrats. Real conservatives and libertarians should work together to make the government smaller than it is now rather than argue over how small is small enough- we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
A conservative buddy and I had a discussion with a guy who runs for office in the Libertarian party.
I asked him what Libertarians believe. He let us know he's not one of these legalize-recreational-drug guys. Everything he espoused as a foundational belief, we said that's exactly what we believe. Finally, we asked what the difference is between conservatives and libertarians. He couldn't come up with a single thing that was different. I finally told him it sounded like Libertarians (party members, that is) are either dopers or they are conservatives who are afraid of winning.
He had no response.
No. The reason Libertarians can win is because 97% of America and holding knows better.
tell me, can you live without those services? Maybe I need to get out more or my chapter of the Libertarian party is an anomoly. no liberals there, well, one old man in the group said he hates that the left high jack the terminalogy of liberal, he considered himself a 1940's liberal. we did have one NORML dude however pot was rarely discussed. At one meeting I was surprised there was HUGE support of Bush, that was in mid 2003, I went off to Iraq soon after and havent had time to attend any meetings but during the 2004 elections most of them emailed me saying they were voting for Bush. If I could lable myself anything its a Christian Conservative Nationalist!
ping
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.