First the basics. I'm very much a libertarian in that you leave me alone, I leave you alone. At the same time it seems many of the libertarian persuasion are either against all concepts of cooperative government, think there should be no social "safety net", or resemble 1930's American isolationist's. Wether we like it or not (actually I do) the world is now interconnected, for better or worse. We can no longer raise the barricades and hide behind oceans and hope "all the bad people" will just leave us alone, if we don't bother them. The one major issue I would take up with Ron Paul if I had the chance was his apparent view, and that of many libertarians is the idea of divorcing ourselves from the world will solve so many problems. Granted I may be reading to much into this, but I don't think so. I would argue if nothing else history has taught us just the opposite. I am not a militarist but believe having an ass kicking military and solid intelligence about whats going on out there is the best way to protect ourselves. We can't do that hiding under our beds.

In Minnesota there has existed since the late 1980's the "Independence Party". Jesse Ventura was a member and shocked the hell out of everyone (including me, I never heard of him before he became governor) when he was elected. I think the problem, sadly is people need clear simple "sound bites" to get an idea what a party or candidate stands for. But as a middle-of-the-road libertarian, I certainly don't fit into the Democrat or GOP mold. The GOP as far as I'm concerned has been hijacked by religious fanatics and social fascist's. At the moment, the Democrats are a little less insane, but thats not a good enough reason to call my self one.

It seems there is room for an Individualist party. Some of us are social liberals, as in libertarian. Some think the government exists to solve all our problems (believe that and I advise you stop smoking whatever your smoking) I believe government has to exist to do what even the richest or poorest of us can't do individually. I have really been freaked out at the extent government (usually their minions, the corporate contractors) can spy on the average American, and deprive them of civil rights since 9/11. Having had two computers hacked into in a very nasty way, complete with threats I should not report it or file a complaint with law enforcement. I didn't. Which really pissed me off. I'm so f****** loyal I practically flap in the breeze...But it didn't matter. I know part of this is moved by momentum by advances in technology. Today those who deal in advanced technology or other interesting areas have to "negotiate" a degree of privacy. Frankly, I know the technology can't be uninvented. It will require us to elect a government that can recognize individual rights better then now, and knows who it's friends are.The latter should be, or could be obvious.

I am a passionate supporter of free enterprise, hell I've done well in that area. But I do not believe it's OK to cheat people blind and have no consequences. Or dump poisons and s*** into the air and water, or have food that is not fit to feed an animal. Thats were government HAS to work. So far the guys who stole trillions are getting away scott free, and were stuck with the bill. Wrong, wrong, wrong. So government in my view on a domestic level should be as understated as possible, and yet still be effective were it has to be. The Republicans would have the rich rule and get away with anything, the Democrats want to take care of everything and everybody. I know there can be a rational middle of the road position. Any thoughts?

Just heard Ron Paul on CNN, and he answered Wolf Blitzer's question about being an isolationist, as opposed to an interventionist. Frankly, I like what he said. But I still have some questions. I am also not an interventionist. But I am anything but an isolationist. Paul did state he would withdraw the US military from all overseas basis, and for the most part I don't have a problem with that. But there are certain nations who I won't name who have structured there defense policy on the US being there. At the end of the day, often our influence in certain parts of the world is based on our maintaining certain assets in a country or region. Ad to the fact we need facilities that are available for our forces to walk in, put the key in the door, and flip the "on" switch.

I have heard arguments that our carrier battle groups can pretty much do what we need to extend our reach overseas. That is not entirely true. What I think upsets people in particular libertarians is that we pay for the privilege of protecting other nations. Sure, I see a problem with that in concept, but consider this. Democratic governments change parties and doctrine from time to time. Having a US base or presence overseas is in effect the same as an embassy. It's sovereign US territory with in another nation. The presence should be very subtle, and not even be noticed under the best circumstances. But it has to be there. Thats not something you can just set up "in a couple of days".

But I was pleased to hear Ron Paul define himself as a "non-interventionist" and not an "isolationist" I like that.

I find this very interesting The Libertarian Party has been around for some time, and has members in some low level offices of government and has a totally coherent platform with well tested ideas. Last spring, total morons wearing caps with tea bags hanging from their hats spouting nothing but total gibberish created a party. That party is now the OFFICIAL third party, and oddly enough looks a lot like the republican party of about 15 years ago. The American populace has to be the dumbest, most un-evolved, least self aware sentient being in the entire universe.

Originally posted by crankyoldman
I find this very interesting The Libertarian Party has been around for some time, and has members in some low level offices of government and has a totally coherent platform with well tested ideas. Last spring, total morons wearing caps with tea bags hanging from their hats spouting nothing but total gibberish created a party. That party is now the OFFICIAL third party, and oddly enough looks a lot like the republican party of about 15 years ago. The American populace has to be the dumbest, most un-evolved, least self aware sentient being in the entire universe.

From what I've been told, the formal Libertarian party has done very well in Alaska. The State of Alaska is almost one half the size of the continental United States. And most of it is uninhabited. It doesn't surprise me at all that Alaskans would have a strong independent streak. With the exception of Anchorage, Fairbanks (can you say COLD AS HELL!) Juno and Sitka, most "towns" are scattered and only reachable by airplane. So to me it makes sense Libertarian's rule. You think Texans are a pain in the ass? They have nothing on the independent streak of Alaskan's. But there also rational, they have to be , given the climate if their not, they die.

I think that Paul is a nationalist more than an isolationist. He said that he would offer Iran friendship. I think Americans are hysterical about their 'enemies'. The way you talk about the world you would think America owns it. You should take your military home and keep them there. Protect your own borders. End the imperialism.

Originally posted by theovermensch
I think that Paul is a nationalist more than an isolationist. He said that he would offer Iran friendship. I think Americans are hysterical about their 'enemies'. The way you talk about the world you would think America owns it. You should take your military home and keep them there. Protect your own borders. End the imperialism.

If I may suggest, we are not so hysterical as well experienced, at least we had our "Iran problem" Wonder what the Brits would have done if they took over the UK embassy as they did ours in 1979? If up to you perhaps hide under our beds. Sorry, not my style. And it would seem you have not read all my post's I don't blame you for that, I make comments to a specific post and often don't "backtrack" to find the "legend" of any specific poster. And the "way I talk" to think America owns it"? Frankly I don't want to pay the taxes of other citizens of other nations. Let them clean up their own soiled linen, thats not my problem. As for "our borders" they are now planet wide, as are yours. We on this planet trade so much an interruption of any part could cause a major economic disaster.

If we really were the imperialists you thought, we would not be having this pleasant conversation.

Sad to say an effective third party will need some way for the people to understand what positions they take on many issues. Libertarians are to poorly defined, and except for Alaska I don't know of any other "Libertarian"in a state office. But the big problem is when defined as an independent, thats needs to be a defined party that have a platform and principles that ARE NOT generally defined as just independent as most will give you a blank stare if you take that position. Only Jesse Ventura who was elected Minnesota governor ever won as an independent, and I think he did because the Democrats were the same old same old, and the Republicans a joke. A lot less of a joke then the Republicans have mutated into today. Now there a scary joke.