What we love about Conservatives getting voted into office:
* More self-responsibility, more focus on inner values, more straight-talk, more opportunity for individual prosperity, more strength, smaller government, less "tyranny-of-the-majority", more vision.
What we hate about Conservatives getting voted into office:
* More war, more religious bigotry, more machismo, more rigidity.
These patterns can easily be observed in governments around the world.
Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
I am going to take issue with a few things you posted earlier as 'self-evident' and/or being an obvious given. I do not think that one of the benefits of conservatives being voted into office was demonstrated by the last conservative administration in the US. Not one. Do you?
This is where I struggle to understand the ideology of Libertarianism as a political movement, as it appears to me to be a perpetually moving target with very disparate groups attaching the moniker to themselves -- and I think any number of Threads here will attest to that. The one consistent baseline I do see is that 'conservative at its best' governing is more representative of the core Libertarian ideologies than 'Liberal at its best'.
Do you, SF or anyone else, see the definition as strictly a personal label and have no expectations for it politcally? If not, what is the plan? And how could so many people with such varied POV's of 'right and wrong' be persuaded to get into one tent?
* Abortion: Neither "Pro-Choice" nor "Pro-Life" which are both manipulative wordings in and of themselves. Instead appropriate action depends on a case-to-case basis.
* Drugs: The "War-on-Drugs" (as opposed to Education) perpetuates the problem. It has not solved anything.
* Immigration: Most Libertarians are, again, neither "pro" nor "con". It depends on a case-to-case basis. Trying to find "one-solution-fits-all" is typical for politicians who are too lazy to practice discernment.
Originally posted by David9176
I did this survey a few weeks ago.
We must think alike...because i was scored almost exactly where you are.
I don't remember the actual numbers...but i was 4 blocks down and just a tad to the right...barely.
S & F.
Originally posted by badmedia
Thus why "3rd parties" and anyone who dares suggest freedom in both areas is marginalized and called names. Because that is the game.
Did GWB get rid of any programs that Clinton put into place? No, he extended and put more money into them. Did Obama get rid of the things GWB put into place like homeland security and all that? Nope, still got them and no plans to "change" either.
There is no left or right, there is only up and down. And the left and right parties in this country represent the down party, and the up party is considered kooks and so forth. I'd say the authoritarian party has been kicking the crap out of the other party for many many years now.
Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
(Abortion) And begs me to ask the obvious question of who would be in charge of making those decisions on a case by case basis?
(Drugs) Is that your brand of Libertarianism, or do you really believe that is a major unifying factor for most?
Again, who will be deciding this if not the government? And if the answer is a smaller government, one can logically assume that it is then going to constently end up in the judical branches jurisdiction in a BIG WAY, expanding government.
I am playing devil's advocate here because I personally would like to be part of a third party solution, but it needs to be viable and cohesive.
I don't think that the link in your sig (the brain diag. pg. 1) is representative of anything other than narrow judgements and is not defining Libertarianism, but instead snidely 'labeling' other cliche POV's.
I'd have no problem if Texas chooses to have very strict immigration laws while New York chooses to have very loose ones.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
Why most Libertarians oppose the current "Bailouts"
...is because giving more credit to solve debt is no solution at all. It never was. It never will be. For anyone.