A number of people here are Conservatives first, and Libertarians second

[r3volution 3.0]

A number of people here are conservatives first, and libertarians second.

And thus the Libertarian movement fractures itself, with a number of libertarians saying they'd support Bernie, etc. over a conservative.

Ron and Rand were potentially unifying forces for Libertarianism, but trying to force people under the Libertarian umbrella which includes many Social Liberals who favor non-interventionism to vote for conservatives with neocon leanings (like Rubio/Cruz) is not going to work, hence why the movement is now fracturing. And who benefits from this fracturing? The Neocons. They succeed in destroying the Libertarian Movement in this process by breaking up the coalition, as was intended from the beginning.

It's obvious that the movement is fracturing along socially liberal/conservative lines, but it's inappropriate to place the blame solely on the social conservatives, as you appear to be doing. Those who are social conservatives first and libertarians second are jumping ship for some other Republican candidate and those who are social liberals first and libertarians second are jumping ship for Bernie. Even some of those who are libertarians first, but who nonetheless have views on social issues, are holding their nose and pragmatically supporting a spectacularly unlibertarian candidate for their stance on social issues.

Anyway, at this point, the issue is moot.

There are no remaining libertarian presidential candidates to rally around, with Rand having dropped out.

It doesn't really matter if former Paulites are now supporting Cruz/Bernie, since this cycle is already lost.

We'll certainly want to herd everyone back together for the next cycle, though.

 

[specsaregood]

why?

Too many reasons to bother listing. I just can't take the LP seriously nor would I want to willingly associate myself as a supporter of theirs.

 

[otherone]

Too many reasons to bother listing. I just can't take the LP seriously nor would I want to willingly associate myself as a supporter of theirs.

ooookaaaay.

 

[Cabal]

Too many reasons to bother listing. I just can't take the LP seriously nor would I want to willingly associate myself as a supporter of theirs.

Can't be much worse than willingly associating with the GOP.

 

[specsaregood]

Can't be much worse than willingly associating with the GOP.

Nope, but just because I've covered myself in elephant shit in order to have a chance to vote in a taxpayer funded primary doesn't mean I want to cover myself in dog shit with absolutely nothing to show for it.

 

[specsaregood]

//

 

[otherone]

Even though I'm not religious, I don't generically hate religious people. I've met CP people and CP candidates for local office and are people I actually like, of course I've met many of them at bircher meetings which is also full of people I like, and many are religious. Most of the LP people I have met IRL are not people I'd want to work with or be around all that often.

Thanks for the clarification. I've voted LP since 92; my first interaction w/ the party was in 99; I took my son. It was at an Applebee's and all they talked about was getting matching federal campaign funds. I never went back. The CP people I've met have been flakes, if we're being anecdotal.

 

[Jingles]

I'm a libertarian. I'm neither conservative or liberal.

But I do dislike the religious right and socialist left equally.

But I don't care if people are religious, I just don't like the idea of people using their religion to enforce their morality on others. I equally dislike the left trying to do the same with social issues via the state. I just want the state out of social issues in general.

 

[otherone]

I'm a libertarian. I'm neither conservative or liberal.

But I do dislike the religious right and socialist left equally.

But I don't care if people are religious, I just don't like the idea of people using their religion to enforce their morality on others. I equally dislike the left trying to do the same with social issues via the state. I just want the state out of social issues in general.

A true Pocono-Libertarian.

 

[RJ Liberty]

Those people are theonomists. They agree with libertarians on a large number of issues but still support enacting Biblical law at a local level.

Thanks for teaching me a new word. : )

You don't necessarily have to be a theonomist to not be a fan of Gary Johnson. Johnson basically seems like a liberal with a few libertarian leanings to me. He's for abortion, for forcing Christian businesses to participate in gay marriage ceremonies, for humanitarian wars, etc. I don't consider him to be a libertarian.

The (big-L) Libertarian Party, who nominated him in 2012, would disagree with you. Johnson also favors requiring a balanced budget, abolishing the corporate federal income tax, supports free-market economies, supports auditing the Federal Reserve, campaigned on slashing the military budget, opposed the endless wars in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, opposed the so-called PATRIOT Act, opposed Guantanamo torture, opposes eminent domain, opposes the so-called War on Drugs, opposes state-sponsored murder (death penalty), is pro-legalization of marijuana, opposes gun control, etc. These positions are largely liberty-minded issues.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Yes. Witness the fact that about 8% of the forum-goers here believe that homosexuals should be punished by the death penalty. Eight percent actually are calling for state executions based on someone's sexuality. Another 5% believe homosexuality should be a felony. This is, of course, fascism, not liberty at all.

It's a credit to the great Ron Paul that four years ago, his message was able to cross over and influence the bible-thumping Religious Right, but make no mistake: the people who are (for example) calling for state executions of gays were never actually small-L libertarians (much less big-L Libertarians). They would never vote for, say, Gary Johnson, who actually ran on the Libertarian Party ticket, and who won the largest number of voters in LP history. To these guys, Gary Johnson is a "hippy clown".

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that every participating member of this board did not vote in that poll, and if more had done so, that 8% statistic would be much lower.

 

[Rad]

These labels really have no meanings. Progressivism and conservatism are based on pragmatism. One is future based while the other is against change from what one grew up with. Classical Liberalism and Socialism have souls while the other two do not. When we discuss Classical Liberalism we can talk about Mises, Hayek, Adam Smith, John Locke, Epicurus. Socialism has Engels and Marx attacking Classical Liberalism while pining for the world it demolished. The other two are fads that now support the third way/fabian socialism/corporatism. The best way to bring down a self righteous progressive is to talk about eugenics which they now seem to disavow except when it comes to babies. Conservatives change their stripes as the old generations die off to be replaced with the new.

Mises wrote a book on liberalism: http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1463

 

[RJ Liberty]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that every participating member of this board did not vote in that poll, and if more had done so, that 8% statistic would be much lower.

No, of course not everyone voted in that poll, and I sure don't think it was a scientific poll: it was self-selecting. That being said, there were five people calling for state execution of gays.

 

[Christian Liberty]

No, of course not everyone voted in that poll, and I sure don't think it was a scientific poll: it was self-selecting. That being said, there were five people calling for state execution of gays.

Thank God for four of those five

 

[Cabal]

No, of course not everyone voted in that poll, and I sure don't think it was a scientific poll: it was self-selecting. That being said, there were five people calling for state execution of gays.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, I think that's still up for debate.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, I think that's still up for debate.

Ha, very funny

 

[thoughtomator]

There are many here these days who are neither conservative nor libertarian. The amount of progressive bullshit I've seen here over the past year is vomit-worthy, the anarchists simply don't give a shit about anything beyond their own personal selves, and the religious nutters actively work to scare people away thinking that they are doing good by promoting their beliefs ad nauseam in any conversation no matter how grossly inappropriate.

A proper liberty movement would be the best option for the anarchists and religious nutters but would not be beholden to them or be seriously influenced by them. And it would have open contempt for the progressives, including and perhaps especially the open-borders globalists, as well as the self-righteous tyrants who prostitute themselves under various anti-discrimination banners.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

There are many here these days who are neither conservative nor libertarian. The amount of progressive bullshit I've seen here over the past year is vomit-worthy, the anarchists simply don't give a shit about anything beyond their own personal selves, and the religious nutters actively work to scare people away thinking that they are doing good by promoting their beliefs ad nauseam in any conversation no matter how grossly inappropriate.

A proper liberty movement would be the best option for the anarchists and religious nutters but would not be beholden to them or be seriously influenced by them. And it would have open contempt for the progressives, including and perhaps especially the open-borders globalists, as well as the self-righteous tyrants who prostitute themselves under various anti-discrimination banners.

Funny, I liken the closed borders protectionists to progressive so called luminaries.

Might as well draft a New New Deal.

One where illiterate butt-fucking bumpkins are guaranteed higher wages than the market demands.

Because, you know, America, and what not.

 

[cajuncocoa]

Thank God for four of those five

Because Jesus' forgiveness is so overrated

 

[thoughtomator]

Funny, I liken the closed borders protectionists to progressive so called luminaries.

Then you lack the understanding that an integral nation that controls its own borders is an absolutely essential, non-negotiable prerequisite in order for liberty to exist.

Or perhaps it is honesty you lack, as nobody is calling for "closed borders", simply borders regulated according to the Rule of Law - a duty so fundamental that it is one of the core functions written into the Constitution for delegation to the federal government.