Posted on 10/31/2018 6:45:23 AM PDT by Kaslin
"Libertarians believe that you should be as conservative or as liberal as you want to be as long as you don't want to force yourself on others," says Larry Sharpe, Libertarian candidate for governor of New York.
Sharpe is an unusual Libertarian candidate because he's doing well in some polls.
One found Sharpe getting 13 percent, and after people heard his campaign pitch, 25 percent. That would put him in second place, ahead of the Republican.
So of course the establishment shuts him out -- he and other third-party candidates weren't allowed in the one gubernatorial debate.
Sharpe wins fans by arguing that it would be good if individuals make their own decisions without government spending constantly getting in the way.
"What we understand as libertarians is at the end of every single law is a guy or gal with a gun who's going to put you in a cage; if you don't want to go in that cage, they're going to shoot you. What that means is you should only use the law when there is loss of life, health, limb, property, or liberty... Not because I don't like what you're doing."
That's refreshing to hear from a politician.
No new government programs under a Sharpe administration, then?
"No, no, no, no, no, no," he assures me.
At least one candidate doesn't want to make government bigger.
New York faces a $4.4 billion deficit. Current New York Governor Andrew Cuomo proposed raising taxes.
Sharpe has other ideas.
"Lease naming rights on our infrastructure," he says in my latest internet video. "The Triborough Bridge could be called the Staples Bridge, or the Apple Bridge."
My staff asked some New Yorkers what they thought about leasing naming rights to bridges and tunnels. "Bad idea!" said one woman. "It's commercializing!" Most people were opposed.
I said that to Sharpe.
"You know what she should do?" he responded. "Start a nonprofit, raise $30 million, she can name it whatever she wants."
One man said he didn't "want to rename something after some sort of corporation!"
"Shake your fist and say, 'This doesn't sound good,'" replied Sharpe. "You're going to wind up in a place where the tax burden is insanely high."
Under our current system, many bridges and other public structures advertise anyway -- but they promote politicians. Gov. Cuomo just named a bridge after his father.
"An imperial bridge named after our royal family!" said Sharpe with a laugh. "I'm embarrassed."
We libertarians don't think politicians deserve monuments just because they got elected.
"Tell you what I'll do," said Sharpe. "(Governor Cuomo's) got $30 million a year? He can keep his name on that bridge and take care of the maintenance."
Sharpe applies similar thinking to New York's decrepit subway system.
"We have lines on the MTA right now not being used at night. Home Depot or Google or Amazon or whomever -- they can use these lines... move their freight... They'll pay. Win-win."
Sharpe's campaign is attracting new people. His rallies draw bigger crowds than minor party candidates normally get.
"If you're unhappy with the system, you've got to change it," he said on Joe Rogan's podcast.
For a libertarian, Sharpe surprised me by saying he wouldn't dream of proposing cuts to existing welfare programs. "Pull the rug out from somebody, somebody's going to be afraid," he explains. If voters fear you, they don't vote for you.
I assume he'd shrink those programs eventually, maybe after other parts of government were reduced and the economy improves as a result.
He also sounds friendlier to labor unions than most libertarians. "Collective bargaining is fine. My issue with the unions has always been: Are you forcing me? ... I have a problem with (union shop laws). But you're voluntarily doing it? I don't have a problem at all."
Listening to Sharpe is very different from hearing most Republicans and Democrats.
"Because no one has any new ideas," he says. "No ideas how to fix anything or do anything right. ... I'm a third party. I have to have ideas or no one will listen to me."
What you’re saying is partly true (though if there’s no state-run social safety net of any kind, as Libertarians propose, it’s hard to see why those diseased people would bankrupt anything but themselves and their families), but it’s peripheral to the point I was making contra the notion that they’re “spoilers” who invariably help the Democrats. The Libertarian Party probably attracts as many (if not more) people who would otherwise vote for Democrats as people who would otherwise vote for Republicans. I’d also bet that most of their voters are people who otherwise wouldn’t vote at all.
If not for the open hostility of the establishment faction that broke away as Clinton-voting NeverTrumpers, the libertarian viewpoint would be wholly accomodated within the GOP and lend significant strength to the party.
Can’t blame libertarians when the GOPe for many years shut them out of the process entirely. The treatment of Ron Paul in 2008/2012 was an especially shameful chapter in the history of GOP politics.
You posted the article.
It is a common error, when you post something, to feel like people are replying to you personally, when they are really addressing the article itself
I was addressing the idiot libertarian who is going to help Cuomo get re-elected.
I've always wondered why so many conservatives have no objections to the not so veiled liberalism of neoconservatives on many issues, but who think that libertarians are beyond the pale.
Can’t blame libertarians when the GOPe for many years shut them out of the process entirely. The treatment of Ron Paul in 2008/2012 was an especially shameful chapter in the history of GOP politics.
I think there's a significant difference between the (lower case) libertarianism of Ron and Rand Paul, who are Constitutional conservatives (i.e. minarchists) vs. the essential anarchism of the capital-L Libertarian Party.
Yeah the Libertarian Party is infested with an-coms and wingnuts. It’s the nature of any group that gets pushed to the fringe, you end up being a magnet for others on the fringe.
But the small-l version, which I believe has been best articulated as it applies to the modern day in the Ron Paul 2008/12 platforms, is one of the key pillars of Reaganism. Of course it belongs in the GOP. The faction that hated Reagan also hated the libertarians.
If it can’t be measured, it doesn’t matter.
Show me the monetary or physical damage or GFY. I not only don’t *care* what anyone thinks about the personal actions or morality of another, I think the people who get their panties in a bunch because person X is a fundementalist Christian/Gay rights activist/Pornographer/anti-porn crusader should be made as miserable as possible, hopefully enough that they kill themselves.
Until it picks your pocket or harms you, I have the right and even the moral obligation to use any means and methods up to get your ethos the hell out of my life.
Actually, I’m a hetro, conservative Republican Christian, but I’ll take a Libertarian over anyone who thinks that my morality is any of their business; I fear gays much less than theocrats and druggies much less than teatotalers and jackboot licking drug warriors.
YMMV
Please tell me where I mentioned your morality, DOUCHEBAG. What you do in the comfort of your own home is nobody’s business but your own and I could give a flying f*ck if you’re as queer as a 3$ bill, hiding behind your hetro, conservative Republican Christian beard, because if you have to say it, then there’s a good chance that with a few cocktails and some good conversation, that would change.
I’m talking about how Libertarians think there should be: NO GOVERNMENT, EVERYONE SHOULD JUST RESPECT ONE ANOTHER’S BOUNDARIES, BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BULLSH*T.
What is done and who does it, when someone doesn’t respect anothers boundaries, Mr. GFY? Who makes those decisions? Do they go out into the middle of the street, at high noon and have a gun fight? Or do they just slug it on their front lawns? How are those differences decided? Who is the arbiter of such conflicts? Is there a neighborhood tribunal? I’d like to know Mr hetro, conservative Republican Christian.
About 4 years ago, I would have said that a vote for the Libertarian is a vote for the Dem. However, I think that is changing. I think that there are more younger, millenial voters that are leaning toward that party and, in fact, they are taking away from the Dem vote. And now that people like Jill Stein are getting some traction and the Left is going more and more radial, Socialist, that means more of the Center-Left moderates will either stay home or hold their noses and vote for the Republican or Libertarian.
So, with that being said, again, enlighten me on how/where I judged anyone’s morality or what they do in the comfort of their own home. As for the monetary and physical damage, how’s about we find someone to set up an underground shot house, gambling house and strip club on your street, with all the trouble that goes with such places, and we’ll see how it effects property values. Aside from that, GFY!!!
While not wanting to go that deep into the religious aspects, I cannot disagree with you. If you talk to RedStateRocker, who told me, “GFY”, Libertarians think that everyone will just respect each others space, privacy, whatever. If that were the case, then the police would never get a noise complaint at 2am for the loud party next door. They would never get called to a dispute over a parking space or who trees are encroaching on someone else’s property. Things like Small Claims Court would become extinct, because everyone would respect one another so much, that there’d be no evil in the world.
Basically, there’d be no need for law enforcement, in any form.
You and I both know, that isn’t the case. There is plenty of evil in the world. You and I could live next to each and never have, issue #1. One crappy neighbor across the street can ruin the whole block. For some, it’s in their genetic makeup to be bad.
Pretty simpleton view...it’s not always a clean vote....sometimes it’s the lesser of two evils. You may not like Mitch McConnel but do you really thing Chuck Shummer is no different!!! I vote my heart in the primaries but there is no good democrat and a squishy republican is always better than a democrat in the general election!
The same can be said of Rand Pauls treatment of Donald Trump!!!
Are you actually saying that guy is hero to you....Stossel should have sue that idiot for every thin he was worth.
nice straw man.
Show my any Libertarian that doesn’t think there should be laws and police and courts to enforce them?
No, you can’t. You’re just a jack boot licking closet case with reading comprehension problems.
There’s a huge difference between Libertarianism and Anarchy, which if you bothered to learn anything about either you would know.
I’ve seem some dishonest morons online in my time, but you take the cake.
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.