It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Why I won't be flocking to the Libertarian Party any time soon

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Just a few reasons.

To start, for the record, I am not now, and never have been, affiliated with any political party ever.

The reasons for not supporting the Democrats are many and obvious.
The reasons for not supporting the Republicans dwarf those for not supporting the Democrats.

Some reasons for not supporting the Libertarians:


Abortion is a woman’s choice and does not concern the state
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that libertarians can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question. We condemn state-funded abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another’s abortion. It is the right of the woman, not the state, to decide the desirability of prenatal testing, Caesarean births, fetal surgery, and/or home births.
Source: National Platform of the Libertarian Party Jul 2, 2000


Source

Emphasis added. I condemn state-funded military adventurism. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that military adventurism as practiced by the US is murder to pay for such adventurism.

Ron Paul on gay marriage rights:

“If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state.


Source

So basically Ron is saying here that the question of gay marriage should be left up to the states, and if state A want to recognize them and state B doesn't, so be it.

However, this violates the federal constitutional guarantee of equal protection for all citizens under secular law. If this question is left to individual states, how about other rights? What if state C doesn't want women or black people to vote and bans that? Or imposes a poll tax?

Ron is wrong on this. It is the job of the federal government to ensure that all citizens are treated equally under secular law. Now, if a state wants to eliminate all legal protections for all married people, without regard to relative plumbing, that would be legal.

These are just a couple of items, for which I have sources. Others are the use of the phrase:

"... believe in a military capable of strong domestic defense and protection of US interests..."

"protection of US interests" is code for foreign military adventurism.

Finally, the Libertarian argument for removal of all government regulations, and having the free market decide winners and losers.

This one is a bit more problematic. IF the US had a truly free market economy, this MIGHT work.

But we don't. The idea of a free market is, if a company behaves in a way that the market (ie customers) do not like, they will go elsewhere and that company will fail.

This ignores the reality of the market in the US today. If, for instance, someone did not like the policies of the local power company as regards coal-fire plants, that person, in virtually all cases, has no other recourse. If they want electricity, they deal with the company that has the monopoly on power distribution in that area.

Same for phone, cable, internet, water.

So, say the Libertarians, if you don't like those companies, don't do business with them. Right. So in order to choose not to support a polluter, a person must disconnect from the technology that is required to be a fully functional member of the culture.

While it is certainly possible to survive in the US with no power, phone, internet or water (cable is perhaps less vital) from the local utilities, it is certainly not easy, and it is nearly impossible to be a functioning, contributing member of the society in this situation.

So the US, and most likely the world in general, does not have anything even approaching a free market for the libertarian ideal in which to operate.

So the libertarian goal of removing all gov't regulation will result in merely further concentration of power and wealth into the already too small segment of the population that already has it. That will be a disaster. For everybody but that wealthy subset.

This is further aggravated by the mindset of most businesses in the US today: profit. Profit first, last and only. Screw anything else. For an example of how this works, study the Enron debacle of a few years ago.

This country has HUGE, quite possibly fatal problems. The libertarian approach, as it is expressed today, and in the context of the current situation in the US today, will result in a worse economic disaster than anything even the Republicans have generated.

And that is no easy task.

So no, the libertarians are another dead end.

edit on 15-9-2011 by Open_Minded Skeptic because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic

So no, the libertarians are another dead end.


Why bother aligning with any party? No collective is going to represent the interests of the individual. Even a collective of individualists.

You can be libertarian or have libertarian tendencies and still have nothing whatsoever to do with Libertarians.

But then idiots just harp on you for being an "anarchist."

Anything compulsory is wrong in my mind. It's wrong to force a pacifist to pay for war. It's wrong to force somebody with certain religious convictions to pay for practices, policies and procedures which conflict with those religious convictions. It's wrong to take by force or mandate anything from anyone.

It's wrong for state to differentiate between people in any way and the existence of state sanctioned marriage in any form is a perfect example of that. The state is a wholly administrative entity and should be devoid of opinions and tastes completely. Not wielded as a violent instrument to impose the opinions and tastes of a majority onto a minority.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
IF we had a free market, you could freely generate your own power. You could even start a competing power company using green technologies to generate said power. We don't have a free market, so you can't. Instead, we have liberal whiners complaining about noisy wind turbines, or tortoise environments getting disrupted by solar panels, or snail darters adversely affected by dams.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 


I respect your decision. The thing is, you'll never find even a candidate, much less a party, that you'll be in 100% agreement with. There's a quote somewhere about if you find a person with whom you agree 100% of the time, only one of you is thinking.

Politics is compromise. You find the party/candidate closest to your philosophy and go with that. Maybe pick a party and try to influence it to move in your direction. Most assuredly, you'll find like-minded individuals on any single issue, but you won't agree with any of them about everything. I can invite 7 good friends over for poker night, and we can't come to an agreement about what to order on a pizza.

The alternative is to disengage completely, and I sure don't see that as a viable strategy.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
we have liberal whiners complaining about noisy wind turbines, or tortoise environments getting disrupted by solar panels, or snail darters adversely affected by dams.


and conservative whiners complaining about loss of profit.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Agreed. That was obvious to me even at the stupid-testosterone-laden age of 17. And why I have never been affiliated with any of them. Aint none of them worthy of my support.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


Agreed. It's just that as I look around these days, I see a nearly religous fervor surrounding the libertarian party, or those who claim to hold those views. As if those philosophies will "save us". They won't.

And I definitely vote, as often as I'm allowed by the current system. Which means I've never voted in a Primary election, having been disenfranchised of that vote because I refuse to join a herd.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic
 


most people claiming to be Libertarians are largely a sham.

I knew very few TRUE Libertarians. People who walk the walk and vote accordingly.

Most people who claim to be Libertarians are just Republicans seeking to re-brand themselves. They still vote Republican in every election, which is about the furthest thing from Libertarianism that I can imagine. They hate big government, yet vote for a party that IS big government, no matter how much they claim they aren't to their deluded base.

If Ron Paul was really a Libertarian, he would run as one. If all these people claiming to be Libertarians truly were, they would vote for independent candidates, and not just continue the status quo.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Marriage is between a man and a woman. We need that to be recognized by the courts because of the federal programs that exist in which when your spouse or you die a successor of benefits must be recognized. It is a courts thing more than anything.

Being gay is not like being black or brown or white. Its something you are doing/choice you are making. Sorry, just is.

Besides...these people are arguing about benefits not love. If you love someone it really does not matter how you are together..just that you are together...but if you are talking about wanting the "benefits" of a contractual obligation you have with a significant other.. thats not love..thats deception.

So you can deceive each other all you want with a civil union, but marriage is a term reserved for a man and woman getting married. Its an institution not a political football and thats what the gay agenda has turned it into for votes.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Old77
 


Way to keep that hate going. You should be proud of yourself.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by jtap66
 


3rd party candidates guarantee the incumbent wins. You need to learn your history and then you will understand why people must result to running under the established names. You can barely txt and drive what makes you think you will be able or the American people will be able to fully comprehend the difference between 3 parties now or more? You can barely distinguish difference between the two right now haha.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
So you don't like republicans, or democrats, or Ron Paul. How about Cynthia McKinney, green party activist?

So you're saying military killing is wrong, and Ron Paul wants to end the wars, and that's still wrong?

And the federal government doesn't treat all citizens equally, otherwise there would be white affirmative action.
edit on 15-9-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)


And in my city, the city owns the water, so that right there is already a monopoly, so a free market couldn't be much worse.
edit on 15-9-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
I support the Libertarian IDEALS of personal freedom and individual responsibility, but as you have pointed out, they don't even stick to their own ideals across the board. They are the same as any other party.

I won't join a party that's close to my ideals, because they're all hypocritical like this. They claim they want "freedom" but don't support freedom for everyone, only those with similar mindsets.

I will never join the herd, but I will vote for a candidate who is close to what I want. And Ron Paul isn't it.


Originally posted by jtap66
Most people who claim to be Libertarians are just Republicans seeking to re-brand themselves. They still vote Republican in every election, which is about the furthest thing from Libertarianism that I can imagine. They hate big government, yet vote for a party that IS big government, no matter how much they claim they aren't to their deluded base.

If Ron Paul was really a Libertarian, he would run as one.


Hear! Hear! Very well said.

reply to post by Old77
 


Thanks for illustrating the idea of "Freedom for some". Great example of someone supporting rights they agree with, but bringing the law into it when you don't agree with someone's choices to force them to behave according to YOUR opinions. This is exactly what's wrong with the Libertarian party AND with Ron Paul.

And the whole country, for that matter.

.
edit on 9/15/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: to add final thought



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
 


The only people who complain about noisy wind turbines are WASPs.

See what I just did?



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 





I respect your decision. The thing is, you'll never find even a candidate, much less a party, that you'll be in 100% agreement with. There's a quote somewhere about if you find a person with whom you agree 100% of the time, only one of you is thinking.


I concur, but I would like to add that in my entire lifetime, I have NEVER heard people consistently repeat that a candidate had integrity, even to the point of being termed, "The last honest politician," yet this seems to be the general consensus about Ron Paul. You DON'T HAVE to agree with everything the man says! You DON'T HAVE to want to be a LIBERTARIAN! But for the LOVE OF GOD...when was the last time a politician KNOWN for his integrity and HONESTY ran for PRESIDENT?

Considering what we've seen this past decade (and prior to that)....isn't it time for some INTEGRITY and HONESTY? It's a start!

I can't believe how these very CRUCIAL factors are glossed over by these anti-Ron Paul people! Ron Paul is not the lesser of any evils! He isn't EVIL! This isn't about political parties anymore....this is about the individual's reputation and record!

OP, who CARES if you don't want to be a LIbertarian?! I KNOW I DON'T!!!!!



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by jtap66
 


What hate? I have no Hate? I recognize the importance of established Institutions and find it stupid to dry and dismantle it in the name of something that is a fad and will always be a fad so long as we have girls and guys with daddy and mommy issues easily influenced by other confused yet deviously cruel people who use the weaker for physical pleasure.

Unless something weird started happening down there when you saw the member of the same sex when you hit puberty you are not gay. You are confused and being manipulated by someone or someones(s) that are leading you into a web of bad decisions. I care not if you choose to be Gay or even if you think what you feel is real but the gay agenda is not about love it is about force..forcing others to accept something they do not agree with..That is Tyrannical and Radical and its of the Mob.

I do not see why an institution or group of people is subjected to being accused of hate because I or people like me will not endorse a choice. Its not the same as being a race or color or anything..Its something you are partaking in like a needle with heroin.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
So you don't like republicans, or democrats, or Ron Paul. How about Cynthia McKinney, green party activist?


I don't like Republicans or Democrats (the Parties). I do like some republicans and I like some democrats. I used to like Ron, but as I learned more about him, that waned. I'll read up on Cynthia.



So you're saying military killing is wrong, and Ron Paul wants to end the wars, and that's still wrong?


I did not say military killing is wrong. As it happens, I believe that the US military has been horribly abused by the politicos since the Korean era. I believe foreign military adventurism, as practiced by the US largely since the end of WWII is wrong.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


You have to be joking...

How the hell is allowing gay's to call themselves Married some sort of Freedom they did not have before?

This whole God forsaken mess is a sham. What the hell are they exactly being held back from enjoying? A piece of paper showing they are married? Please let the Federal Government solidify my love for you?

Give me a break and stop being delusional this has jack to do with Freedom and everything to do with an Agenda..Like a special interest group. You are trying to Force the government to Force others to recognize something under the eyes of god/government in which the private establishment THE PRIVATE!! ESTABLISHMENT!!! Does not want to do. And I YOU SAY am the one hindering freedom?

[snip] now that I think about it and To H*** with anyone else who thinks that this is a fight for Freedom or questions my want and desire for all to be free. Go have a civil union if your so concerned with showing your "Love" and getting the "Benefits" of that love in America. I swear you young brainless people drive me up the wall with the stuff you try and argue is logical.
edit on 15/9/11 by masqua because: Edited personal attack and censor circumvention



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
This speaks to the impracticality of pure Libertarianism in the US today:

Seems Ron Paul's previous campaign manager died in 2008, leaving hospital bills of over $400,000 for us to pay.



Bottom line therefore is that the society of “welfarism” and “socialism” that Ron Paul so contemptuously abhors, most likely ended up absorbing the remaining $372,000 of his former campaign manager’s unpaid medical bills because neither he nor his church, friends or neighbours could fully account for them. Go figure.

This seems to be the problem with the libertarian doctrine… their theoretical notions of individual “freedom” often don’t translate well into real world experience. In other words, when the rubber meets the road, it turns out they’re woefully impractical.


Source



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
I believe foreign military adventurism, as practiced by the US largely since the end of WWII is wrong.


And that's exactly what Ron Paul is against. Any other candidate, republican or democrat, is for this. So, there's really only one choice, right?




top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join