It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is libertarianism a growing movement?

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 12:54 PM
Reading through the political posts on this message board, it is clear that there are a fairly substantial number of libertarians who post regularly.

While the US has always had a certain libertarian element (which is responsible for such elements of the constitution as the right to bear arms) is there a genuine movement away from the two established parties? Moreover, would you say that this is hitting the mainstream - ie. are 'ordinary' people disallusioned with both Democrats and Republicans and are seeking greater freedoms not less?

I'm just interested as a curious outsider - it does seem that there are a lot of libertarians (admittedly the term encompasses a wide range of opinions from left to right) on these boards and was wondering if this was indicative of American opinion on a wider scale.

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 01:45 PM
I think they think about it, But I don't think they are truly ready to make that transition, it's going to take alittle more, I believe the American's as a whole are pretty tolerant, it takes alot for them to make a big decision. I personally don't think it should be that big of a decision but people usually have a tought time changing. This is a comfort zone for them so they think if they keep working on it and trying to make the system better it will be, but they have failed to notice for the past decade or two is that they're banging their heads against the wall hoping for a different outcome... I do see a slow movement though, but i sense the country isn't ready to open the political arena doors to other parties like what canada and the uk do.

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 03:06 PM
I voted for Libertarian candidates for the first time in my life in the last (2005) elections, including for Mayor of New York City.

posted on Nov, 21 2005 @ 08:07 PM
In my experience, third parties would have much more support if people didn't follow the dogmatic self fulfilling prediction, 'if I vote third party, then the greater of two evils will win.' Although, I'm sure the large parties don't mind that reasoning, even with being thought of as evil.

posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 08:25 PM
Slowly and surely it is growing on the local levels but whether or not it can ever become a major force on the National scene remains yet to be seen. I hope that they do.

The first step for the Libertarian Party is to get included in the Presidential debates, once they can share the same stage with the 2 major parties I think alot of people will take a liking to their ideals.

posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 10:05 PM
There is a bit of a movement toward Libertarianism in particular, and third parties in general, as people have indeed become more and more disillusioned with the two progressively more indistinguishable branches of the American political system, but it's not as common as one might deduce from reading this or any other message board.

Those who post on message boards are, by definition, intelligent and articulate enough to put words in order and convey information. That level of intelligence and interest is, sadly, still largely the exception rather than the rule. Those who do have the intelligence and interest to communicate with others by use of the written word generally also have the intelligence and interest to investigate third parties, so support for third parties is generally over-represented on message boards.

An aside regarding Libertarians gaining access to Presidential debates-- the debates were once organized by the League of Women Voters, who stopped sponsoring them in 1987, and, when doing so, issued this announcement:

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates ... because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.

In response, the Democrats and Republicans came together to create a nominally non-partisan entity that is actually chaired, bipartisanly, by former Democratic and Republican party leaders-- the Commission on Presidential Debates. They have systematically excluded ALL candidates other than those representing the two mainstream parties.

In 2004, a federal court found that the CPD was indeed a partisan organization that represented SOLELY the interests of the two main parties and was run SOLELY by representatives of those two parties. Also in 2004, Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik and Green Party candidate David Cobb attempted to serve the CPD with papers relating to a suit they had filed jointly to attempt to force the CPD to show cause for excluding them from the debates. They were refused entry to the CPD's offices, so they attempted to serve the papers to them at the site of the St. Louis debates, and were arrested and taken to jail. This particular story received NO mainstream press coverage then, nor has it since.

Finally, also in 2004, a truly independent organization was formed to challenge the CPD's control of the debates-- the Citizen's Debate Commission. They were unsuccessful in their attempts to make the debates legitimate in 2004, but have not given up. Their proposal can be found here

posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 10:32 PM
Wow LaoTse, that was a very informative post. I had always assumed the lack of third party representation at the debates was purely because of insufficient support, and not the CPD themselves. Makes one wonder if there is anyway of breaking this two party monopoly without some Richard Branson type millionaire getting the presidential itch.

new topics

top topics


log in