libertarian in Libertarian Party?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Do you think the word 'libertarian' is something that hurts the Libertarian Party? People associate the LP with the philosophy of libertarianism. Just a thought. Maybe one reason why it has remained fringy?

 

[freedom-maniac]

The word libertarian has a very negative connotation. People associate it with pot-heads who refuse to pay taxes whatsoever, and drive around in pick-up trucks without license plates, but half a dozen 2nd Amendment bumper stickers.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.
http://www.voluntaryist.com/

http://www.voluntaryist.com/links.php

 

[amy31416]

I had no opinion on Libertarians when I got into the Ron Paul thing, I just knew that I agreed with a lot of their platform. It's honestly been the people and their unwillingness to work with other people who are different and their "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" attitude (not all, but many) that has turned me off.

 

[yongrel]

The extremism and inability to compromise hurts the Libertarian Party. Their derogation of gradualists hurts the LP. Their obsession with the Presidency to the exclusion of the other 535 federal elected offices hurts the Libertarian Party.

The word libertarian is the least of their troubles.

 

[JS4Pat]

Do you think the word 'libertarian' is something that hurts the Libertarian Party?

Unfortunately, YES.

 

[Truth Warrior]

"Any compromise between good and evil only works to the detriment of the good and to the benefit of the evil."

Compromise = Repeatedly over time, how we all got into this current Leviathan mess.

I think that Ron would surely agree with that one.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.
http://www.voluntaryist.com/

http://www.voluntaryist.com/links.php

I am a voluntaryist. It is ideal. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, despite what people might believe. You're obviously participating in this election, so I don't know what you're trying to tell me here.

 

[Truth Warrior]

I am a voluntaryist. It is ideal. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, despite what people might believe. You're obviously participating in this election, so I don't know what you're trying to tell me here.

Ron Paul's world is a positive step in the correct direction ( at last ) to my world.
However, Ron's world seems to be pretty much of moot point, for the time being. If you vote, you are NOT a voluntaryist.<IMHO>

Read the posted statement of purpose once again ........ this time for comprehension.

 

[amy31416]

"Any compromise between good and evil only works to the detriment of the good and to the benefit of the evil."

Compromise = Repeatedly over time, how we all got into this current Leviathan mess.

I think that Ron would surely agree with that one.

I'm not talking about a person compromising their perception of what is good and what is evil, I'm talking about working with people who just might believe in god or even simply having some respect for that person and their beliefs and leaving them alone. Some people I'm working with are supporters of the war on drugs, which I personally think is inane, but I'm not going to bash them over the head constantly until they believe exactly as I do (that won't work anyways.)

They're one of the subsets of Paul supporters that I would be hesitant to invite to join a work group to get actual things accomplished because they seem unwilling to focus on a goal and let go of their proselytizing on fringe issues.

Like I said, there are exceptions among the Libertarians, but they certainly aren't all that vocal.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Ron Paul's world is a positive step in the correct direction ( at last ) to my world.
However, Ron's world seems to be pretty much of moot point, for the time being. If you vote, you are NOT a voluntaryist.<IMHO>

Why not? I can't be a "democratic voluntaryist"? lol. Hey, I'm voluntarily voting! Really, why not vote? Why let the sheep choose our leaders? THAT'S why I believe that voting good. It doesn't matter in America how many people voted, the popular vote in most election processes wins. I think of it as looking out for my best interests.

So you were never a libertarian? I thought you were. Conservative-Republican?

 

[Truth Warrior]

I'm not talking about a person compromising their perception of what is good and what is evil, I'm talking about working with people who just might believe in god or even simply having some respect for that person and their beliefs and leaving them alone. Some people I'm working with are supporters of the war on drugs, which I personally think is inane, but I'm not going to bash them over the head constantly until they believe exactly as I do (that won't work anyways.)

They're one of the subsets of Paul supporters that I would be hesitant to invite to join a work group to get actual things accomplished because they seem unwilling to focus on a goal and let go of their proselytizing on fringe issues.

Like I said, there are exceptions among the Libertarians, but they certainly aren't all that vocal.

Keep on "compromising" away your ( AND my ) freedoms and just see where you end up. FEMA camp. See ya there.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Why not? I can't be a "democratic voluntaryist"? lol. Hey, I'm voluntarily voting! Really, why not vote? Why let the sheep choose our leaders? THAT'S why I believe that voting good. It doesn't matter in America how many people voted, the popular vote in most election processes wins. I think of it as looking out for my best interests.

So you were never a libertarian? I thought you were. Conservative-Republican?

Read it again .......... until it clicks. < YAWN! >

 

[Kludge]

Keep on "compromising" away your ( AND my ) freedoms and just see where you end up. FEMA camp. See ya there.

I think the subject is GRADUALLY moving towards liberty, not away.

We need to come to terms with the incompetence of government, and the gradual removal of liberty for ehhh.... around 232 years! It may very well take that long before our rights are given back, and then another 200 years before we abolish the Constitution and move to anarcho-capitalism with competing gov't.

Every year the LP DOESN'T spend pushing local/state candidates is another year we'll have to try and reverse later. They should know there's NO CHANCE an LP will get to ANY presidential debates, especially after the near-devastating election year with Perot.

I mean, HELL - Republican Ron Paul was shut out of debates!

 

[amy31416]

Keep on "compromising" away your ( AND my ) freedoms and just see where you end up. FEMA camp. See ya there.

You don't seem to understand. I'm trying to work with people who, although they have different beliefs, want the same end result: more conservative candidates in the House--which will get you more freedom, son.

It's amazing to me that Libertarians seem to refuse to understand a "live and let live" philosophy. If I'm respectful about differences, perhaps I'll even be able to have a little bit of influence by emphasizing similarities over differences.

They know I believe differently on some issues, but I'm not in their face about it and they aren't in mine.

My background/career, whatever, requires that I work in teams with people. My philosophy is to not get into a spitting match with a person who disagrees with me, I listen to them, maybe learn a thing or two and explain my position and demonstrate why I believe what I do. If that convinces them, great! If not, then I either reevaluate and explain it differently or agree to disagree and move on.

That is not compromising my or your freedoms, it's called "picking your battles" and not simply trying to go nuclear on people. Do you think a person who yaps away about how right they are and how wrong you are will accomplish a damned thing aside from being self-righteous?

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Keep in mind, libertarians are not conservative. They share a mixture of left/right views, the best of both worlds, in my opinion. There might be some self-identified "left/right-libertarians" but they are the exception.

 

[Kludge]

Keep in mind, libertarians are not conservative. They share a mixture of left/right views, the best of both worlds, in my opinion. There might be some self-identified "left/right-libertarians" but they are the exception.

There are only the "soft" and "hard" libertarians IMO. Anyone else is classifying themselves incorrectly.

Edit: Like Mike Gravel.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

There are only the "soft" and "hard" libertarians IMO. Anyone else is classifying themselves incorrectly.

ok. I have hard beliefs but I'm willing to compromise in order to make things happen. Being uncomprimising has been tried and we don't have any power.

 

[amy31416]

ok. I have hard beliefs but I'm willing to compromise in order to make things happen. Being uncomprimising has been tried and we don't have any power.

+100^nth

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

We have already compromised some. uhh do you agree 100% with everythin RP says? I don't, but I still support him.