Given the political climate, I believe that right now is the best time for a third party to grab the leadership. Unfortunately it will not happen with business as usual, it will not happen unless they evolve to meet the needs of the American people.
Given the political climate, I believe that right now is the best time for a third party to grab the leadership. Unfortunately it will not happen with business as usual, it will not happen unless they evolve to meet the needs of the American people.
No offense, but a lot of what you have said is based on misinformation, much of which originated when the Libertarian Party was first formed. The last couple of years, I've had to get good at debunking some of those on long trips with people when they want to talk politics.
I'll start here:
The Libertarian Party has been painted as a group of anarchists since it was formed, when in reality the Libertarian Party supports minarchism. Minarchism recognizes that there are certain roles that governments fill better than the private sector. Furthermore, people also have the misconception that the Libertarian concept of freedom is to let everyone just do what they want without consequences from the government. That's also untrue, because the Libertarian view on the principle of individual freedom could be summarized by "live and let live". In other words, people should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't tangibly hurt others because people also have the individual right to freedom from harm. This is why drug usage is viewed by Libertarians as a public health issue rather than a criminal justice issue, along with other victimless crimes.
So yes, there is a need for a certain level of government. But any increased influence from government, especially in the United States, should default to local government. The federal government should be limited to what the Constitution explicitly grants it, nothing more and nothing less. For matters where increased influence from government may be necessary, the States should be next. And finally, county and municipal governments should have the most leeway for increased influence. That's not saying that I support a bigger government at the municipal level, it's saying that I believe that the level of influence should be Local > State > Federal.
That's why I believe that the US Dept of Education should be abolished. Ideally, I would rather the State not have control over education, but I know that's not a practical limitation and concede to the State a limited amount of influence with local governments having the final say on public education. Of course, parents should have the final say in where and how their students are educated, and a voucher program that does not increase appropriations at the State level is the best means to that end, in my opinion.
(Of course, there are religious libertarians and political libertarians... but that's another thread...)
That's not 100% true (and is actually more descriptive of Ronald Reagan, but I digress). This is the official plank on immigration:
This is not an open border policy as many try to misinform the uninformed. This is a position against unreasonable restraints against free trade, both of human capital and financial capital. There should still be reasonable restrictions to access over the border, but we should make it easier for people who want to work here to work here and pay taxes here (streamlined work visas), as well as making it easier to import and export goods.
Once again, there's a little bit of misinformation that has influenced you there. Here's the official plank:
I believe that should be very self explanatory. But to answer the assertion that Libertarians believe that you should quit your job if you don't want to buy from the company store, that's just plain wrong. Libertarians believe that the right for the individual to trade with whomever he or she wants also includes the right to not be compelled to trade with a particular entity. If the belief were as you asserted, then Libertarians would be conflicted on principle in being against Obamacare.
Like I said, there is a lot of successfully placed misinformation out there. Additionally, there is a lot of good information that isn't articulated very well. (See: Ron Paul)
Why should "the faithful" re-examine their beliefs when much of the issue of ignorance lies with a perception that has been distorted by the parties in power? I remember in Junior High we were basically told through the textbook that the Democrats and Republicans were the only real political parties. How is adhering to principles of individual liberty a "shortcoming"? To me, the biggest shortcoming is a lack of getting out the correct information, but much of that can also be attributed to a lack of resources (or the proper usage of those resources, such as the Internet) to do so.
It seems that most of the people I talk to agree with me on all except one or two Libertarian beliefs (most of them on abortion). Yet, when I ask them why they don't switch parties, the most often heard reply is "I hope the Republicans will come back." When people are disagreeing quite often with their party's positions and/or actions, they should re-examine their beliefs unless they want to feel good and results don't matter.
Just to start a pissing contest:
In 2000, Libertarian Harry Browne appeared on every ballot except Oklahoma.
In 2004, Libertarian Michael Badnarik appeared on every ballot except Oklahoma and New Hampshire (but New Hampshire could still write him in).
In 2008, Libertarian Bob Barr appeared on the ballot in 45 states.
328,000 of the registered CP voters are from California.
They are. And the fact that I'm a hatemongering, racist backwoods bigot is the only reason I'm still registered as a Republican and not an Independent.
Alte kampfer. That's what you are. ha ha ha
I disagree with you.
10 or 10,000,000 Mexicans seeking economic freedom "demands" "unrestricted movement". Sorry I don't buy it.
I don't buy Intel investing billions in Vietnam, Israel and every place they can find while claiming US protection as a US company.
I don't buy that at all, I don't see why an Iraq war Veteran who put his life on the line is at the same level competing against child labor, dirt cheap third world labor, environmentally disastrous labor practices etc.
The founding fathers applied tariffs on imports and the US started prospering. Today, our free trade policies are destroying us.
I don't want my standard of living to be competitive to third world countries, I would not afford to buy any guns if it was. Look around you, it ain't working.
Like I previously mentioned, I support many parts of the LP platform, mainly the parts that deal with the distribution of power as the Constitution demands.
I'd be a libertarian except that they really don't like the idea of parties, and I LOVES to party.
Michael Brown
Michael Brown
Instead of a "pissing" contest like Repubs and Dems do shouldn't the point of both our post be the fact that many Americans want another choice of some type?
And regardless of the party shouldn't the primary issue be restoring the rule of law, ( The Constitution ).
You are right, the current parties lost our support. What we need is the right leader that will either lead an existing third party or start a brand new one.
