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."
Libertarians - always the monkey wrench in the works, the sabot in the gears, the perennial losers who ensure a Democrat victory on election day.
I agree with libertarianism..in theory.
>I agree with libertarianism..in theory.
Yes, most (R)N(C) believe in (L) in THEORY but, like (D), once the Constitution gets in the way of their own Socialistic\Fascism....
SS\MediXYZ “I *paid* for”, drugs (except caffeine\tobacco\alcohol), ever increasing property taxes for schools/anti-C. DoEd, repeal & replace O’Care (cuz’ THEY can run h’care better than the (D))...
I voted for 3 (out of the 5) libertarians on my ballot this election, and I don’t care if anyone thinks it’s a vote for a democrat. Republicans and in particular RINOs don’t deserve blanket/blind votes and people who give it to them only deserve more of the uniparty mess we always get
John Stossel is my favorite libertarian, although I would never vote for him or any other. They’re nuts
Libertarianism ..... Do what you want, as long as you don’t hurt/harm/bother/interfere/obstruct/get in the way of/blah blah blah, other people and there should be little to no reliance on government. Well, what is the Libertarian solution when any of that happens? Who determines who is harmed and how should they be dealt with, since the government should have no say in anything? To me they’re no different than the Radical Left. Don’t have a lot of answers, when asked sensible questions.
Pelosi and Shummer have a lock where they are. What conservative and libertarian voters need to do in those states and localities that aren’t marxist strongholds is to make sure they aren’t electing psuedo conservatives and faux libertarians. If you don’t have the backbone to throw them out then you’re either getting wolves or wolves in sheeps clothing.
Stossel is great at pointing out how ridiculous government is, the waste/fraud/abuse, and providing reasonable solutions to many issues, that government itself created. But, at the end of the day, even he has said it, what is killing this country is, Corporatism and the puppets in Congress and all governments down to city councils. They protect big business, because they’re promised a windfall in tax money, or an envelope under the table. Either way, it kills the little guy, picks winners and losers, and we get screwed in the process.
But, Libertarians don’t have any more correct answer’s than anyone else.
“Less government. More freedom to do what you want. No taxes.”
“What happens when your freedom infringes on my freedom?”
“Less government. More freedom to do what you want. No taxes.”
“But your freedom just infringed on my freedom.”
“Less government. More freedom to do what you want. No taxes.”
So, why don’t you help the government control freak Cuomo stay in office you douche-nozzle.
The only thing you libertarian clowns ensure is that we get more socialism.
A serious examination of libertarian principles reveals a doctrine that is essentially the same in its practical results as is liberalism - total moral chaos.
Libertarians have no problem with abortion, or same-sex marriage, or prostitution, or drug use, or any other of the societal failings that corrupt a culture - and send it into swift decline because of an institutionalized indifference to moral rot.
For all practical purposes, the libertarian viewpoint is no different than the utopian imaginings of liberals, that a nation can self govern without moral restraints.
The best quote I may ever use is that from Sir Edmund Burke, attributed to his Letter to a Member of the National Assembly, in 1791. See: The Works of the Right Honorable Edmund Burke, vol. 4, pp. 51–52 (1899):
“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites,—in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity,—in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption,—in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
I don't care for the Libertarian Party, primarily because of its views on immigration and trade.
However, the notion that they're "spoilers" who help Democrats is wrong on two counts. First, supporters of the Libertarian Party are just as likely to otherwise vote for Democrats (based on social issues) as Republicans (based on fiscal issues).
More importantly, the idea of a candidate being a "spoiler" and "stealing votes" is nonsense. No party owns anybody's vote. They need to earn them. If people are voting third party, it isn't because that third party is stealing anything. It's because the leading parties are running such pi$$-poor candidates that people are casting protest votes.
Case in point: the GOP establishment loves to blame Perot and his Reform Party for Bush's 1992 loss. Perhaps if Bush weren't such a lousy candidate those people wouldn't have been voting for Perot to begin with.
The problem with libertarianism is that those who believe in its principles think man a perfect moral creature, who is capable of perfect rational thought, and will always choose the correct moral path.
IOW, the Libertarian does not recognize the consequence of Original Sin - that Man is a fallen creature.
The Libertarian philosophy may be distilled to is: “Do as ye please, for ye are gods.” Libertarianism is nothing more than a rehashing of the lies told to Eve in the Garden of Eden. It is satanic Utopian bullsh*t, in plain English.
I agree. A nearly libertarian society is workable in a culturally homogeneous society composed of mostly competent and responsible people - the best example of such a society being the late 18th and early 19th Century United States. Libertarian ideals are a disaster elsewhere, which is why all of these crusades for "Democracy" around the world are misguided and destined for failure. Some societies aren't ready for any form of liberty and are better off under authoritarian governments who can keep the peace.
Why do you address your post to me?
“First, supporters of the Libertarian Party are just as likely to otherwise vote for Democrats (based on social issues) as Republicans (based on fiscal issues).”
Problem right there.
The cost of democrat social issues eventually bankrupts the national treasury, without exception. This is why the phrase “I am socially liberal, but fiscally conservative.” is as philosophically disingenuous as it is intellectually moronic.
A Liberaltarian would vote for Carl Marx if you promised them a big sack of dope to smoke with their queer boyfriend.
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.