Reforming the Libertarian Party

[CCTelander]

I think it was implied that they vote R only because that was the best match for their values... just like... you know... something like 90 % of everyone who votes.
And that they are showing interest in Johnson because it's clear that the two options they've been given are not aligning with their values.

So I am taking the opportunity to point out that the LP is decidedly not matching their values, either.

And I am further taking the opportunity to point out that if the LP hadn't forsaken its OWN values, then people would be looking more seriously at their candidate.

Absolutely.

 

[euphemia]

The Libertarian Party has already jumped the shark. Rename and rebrand with new leadership. Then buy media and start attracting viewers. Sponsor a show with Libertarian characters and story lines about real-world liberty issues, not pot and stupidity. Libertarians are long on talk and short on creativity, and they haven't a clue about where their votes come from.

 

[euphemia]

Behave with some dignity. Stay sober and don't stick your tongue out at an interviewer. Don't let the images be of Gary Johnson and a fat naked guy. That's just disgraceful. Talk about a proven lifestyle of liberty that works for every American. Principles are good, but they are not good enough if people can't see themselves being successful in living them out.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

I think it was implied that they vote R only because that was the best match for their values... just like... you know... something like 90 % of everyone who votes.
And that they are showing interest in Johnson because it's clear that the two options they've been given are not aligning with their values.

So I am taking the opportunity to point out that the LP is decidedly not matching their values, either.

And I am further taking the opportunity to point out that if the LP hadn't forsaken its OWN values, then people would be looking more seriously at their candidate.

I took this:

Thus forever ends their interest in either Johnson OR THE LP.

to mean the LP had lost the prospect of ever gaining these individuals as voters again because of Johnson's positions.

If Johnson was saying people should be free to discriminate against blacks, christians, etc, would he still have had these guys support? There is a reason they must be republican after all, and not libertarians. So would being a principled libertarian really do anything to court them?

eta: If not it is just a pragmatic argument that the chosen candidate should not do this:

he is on record as in favor of forcing bakeries to bake gay wedding cakes, and he is on record as against laws that would allow priests to refuse to marry gays.

based on your observations.

 

[fisharmor]

If Johnson was saying people should be free to discriminate against blacks, christians, etc, would he still have had these guys support? There is a reason they must be republican after all, and not libertarians. So would being a principled libertarian really do anything to court them?

So I'm not totally grokking this part. Are you implying that refusing to offer goods or services to homosexuals is discrimination and is indistinct from discrimination against other groups?

In other words, that they should be able to recognize that the only philosophically consistent way to handle government interference in discrimination is to include gays along with blacks and Christians?


If so, then my response is that the people I talk to this aren't on the discrimination wavelength at all.
No matter what the state does, there is a gun backing it up. A gun which is ready to end lives.

Social conservatives aren't into discriminating against people. What is going on is, they're having a negative reaction to being the people the gun is currently pointed at.

Likewise, nobody on the social conservative side is cheering for Hobby Lobby because Hobby Lobby is "denying a woman's right to choose". They're cheering for HL because they stood up and said "We don't care how big your gun is, we take religious exception to funding abortion, and we're not going to do it."

The time for introducing these people to libertarianism has NEVER BEEN BETTER. They're looking down the barrel of a gun... a gun which libertarians aren't supposed to support.

In order to introduce them to libertarianism, someone has to... I don't know.... actually introduce them to libertarianism. But instead we get Gary Johnson literally going out of his way to tell everyone where he'd be pointing the gun... and telling them that the gun is going to be pointed at the exact same people the libtards are already pointing it at.

That is what the OP article is trying to say. Stop pussyfooting around with what the other people are doing. Nobody is looking at libertarianism because they think they're going to get the same thing that they can already get from the other two parties.
Hit them in the head with a 2x4 - tell them about the gun in the room and how we don't want to point it at anybody.

 

[CCTelander]

So I'm not totally grokking this part. Are you implying that refusing to offer goods or services to homosexuals is discrimination and is indistinct from discrimination against other groups?

In other words, that they should be able to recognize that the only philosophically consistent way to handle government interference in discrimination is to include gays along with blacks and Christians?


If so, then my response is that the people I talk to this aren't on the discrimination wavelength at all.
No matter what the state does, there is a gun backing it up. A gun which is ready to end lives.

Social conservatives aren't into discriminating against people. What is going on is, they're having a negative reaction to being the people the gun is currently pointed at.

Likewise, nobody on the social conservative side is cheering for Hobby Lobby because Hobby Lobby is "denying a woman's right to choose". They're cheering for HL because they stood up and said "We don't care how big your gun is, we take religious exception to funding abortion, and we're not going to do it."

The time for introducing these people to libertarianism has NEVER BEEN BETTER. They're looking down the barrel of a gun... a gun which libertarians aren't supposed to support.

In order to introduce them to libertarianism, someone has to... I don't know.... actually introduce them to libertarianism. But instead we get Gary Johnson literally going out of his way to tell everyone where he'd be pointing the gun... and telling them that the gun is going to be pointed at the exact same people the libtards are already pointing it at.

That is what the OP article is trying to say. Stop pussyfooting around with what the other people are doing. Nobody is looking at libertarianism because they think they're going to get the same thing that they can already get from the other two parties.
Hit them in the head with a 2x4 - tell them about the gun in the room and how we don't want to point it at anybody.

+rep

 

[undergroundrr]

Hit them in the head with a 2x4

That's a romantic metaphor, but he doesn't have a big enough megaphone to have that kind of impact.

The 2x4 can only be loaned out by Rachel Maddow and Wolf Blitzer. You're not going to get anywhere trashing the CRA.

It's great to throw around words like libtard, but a libertarian candidate has to take from both sides of the fence and all minorities, racial, sexual, whatever. Public opinion will be shaped by friendly persuasion from a place of common ground, not a 2x4 upside the head.

 

[euphemia]

It's great to throw around words like libtard, but a libertarian candidate has to take from both sides of the fence and all minorities, racial, sexual, whatever.

No. No. No. A true liberty lover has the advantage of truth over pragmatism, and will present a uniquely libertarian concept. Gary Johnson is nothing approaching a Libertarian, which is why he is as smarmy as any other politician. His campaign style exactly matches what he thinks about government. Whatever works. That's the wrong way to go.

 

[undergroundrr]

No. No. No. A true liberty lover has the advantage of truth over pragmatism,

A lover of the idea of liberty has that advantage. To be contrasted with a lover of actual liberty.

I long for liberty for my libtard friends and my conservatard friends. Perhaps you feel the same way.

 

[euphemia]

I'm a liberty person. Gary Johnson is not. He would use the power of government to infringe on my freedoms. He is the same as Obama and Clinton, who are not liberty people, either. All three of them have used the power of government to make themselves rich. I don't believe liberty gives some people an unfair advantage at the expense of other people. All people are created equal, and nobody should look to government to do anything other than to preserve liberty, defend the people, and punsh criminals.

 

[undergroundrr]

I don't believe liberty gives some people an unfair advantage at the expense of other people. All people are created equal, and nobody should look to government to do anything other than to preserve liberty, defend the people, and punsh criminals.

I really love all this. But you're much more optimistic than I am. I don't think government will ever do any of those things, except maybe punish some small time criminals. It will only protect the big time ones.

 

[The Gold Standard]

My experience as a candidate taught me that the more openly frank libertarians are about what they stand for, the more enthusiastic the audience and the higher the vote totals. Don't let anybody tell you differently. People sought me out after the election to tell me that they disagreed with me about a lot, but voted for me because I spoke the truth. These are not times for timidity, or for censoring ourselves.

We saw that with Ron Paul. No one, today, would go to a debate and speak out against the wars like he did.

 

[undergroundrr]

We saw that with Ron Paul. No one, today, would go to a debate and speak out against the wars like he did.

I agree. He was a pioneer in that regard. I think, though, that Gary Johnson would give a very similar message to Ron Paul's on war if he were in the debates.

 

[euphemia]

I really love all this. But you're much more optimistic than I am. I don't think government will ever do any of those things, except maybe punish some small time criminals. It will only protect the big time ones.

With the right people in office, it might. I think some Average Joe or SuzyQ America could win the presidency by just saying, "I promise that for the first two years of my term, the only new legislation will be a budget, which will be a lot less than what we have today. Beyond that, I plan to do away with about half the Cabinet and their respective bloated departments, and sell their furnishings at the largest National Yard Sale you've ever seen. I will repeal all legislation that does not serve a Constititutional purpose, and that will be it."

The rest of the pitch will be to bring our troops home, secure the borders, protect our interests by not giving over authority to the UN or any other country, ask people to please learn English, as those forms will not be produced in every obscure little dialect on earth any more. Farmers will be able to use any kind of seeds they want, and they can charge whatever they want for their crops, and they can sell it to anyone they want. Most neighborhood association rules will be declared unconstitutional if they do not affect the safety or sanitation of the neighborhood, so please build a playhouse and fly a flag if you want to.

Courts will no longer mediate every little argument or property dispute. Talk to each other and reach an agreement. Judges have more important jobs, like punishing criminals.

 

[undergroundrr]

With the right people in office, it might. I think some Average Joe or SuzyQ America could win the presidency by just saying, "I promise that for the first two years of my term, the only new legislation will be a budget, which will be a lot less than what we have today. Beyond that, I plan to do away with about half the Cabinet and their respective bloated departments, and sell their furnishings at the largest National Yard Sale you've ever seen. I will repeal all legislation that does not serve a Constititutional purpose, and that will be it."

I agree in principle. But they have to 1) get at least momentary control of the megaphone (which will not happen if they directly threaten the media-government-industrial complex), 2) alleviate the electorate's fear of losing their prescription pain meds under the new regime.

 

[euphemia]

I think it could be done in spite of the media. It would need quite a ground game, but there you go.

My speech would being: Hi, everyone. My name is euphemia, and I'm just a fat little grandmother. I don't know anyone of consequence. I'm just a regular American, just like you are, and I think our government has gone crazy. If we can send someone to Washington who doesn't need or want favors, and who just wants to fix this mess, maybe we can have a country that will run the way it should. I don't really understand how things work in Washington, and that's a good thing. I want to be President so I can change the way Washington works. They seem to have forgotten that we don't work for them. They work for us.

I did actually say something along that line to one of then-Senator Al Gore's aides on the phone one day. I was horribly offended at the speech Gore made during the Clarence Thomas hearings, and the aide began to lecture me on what a Senator does. I said, "Back the truck up, little boy. I'm very well aware of what a Senator is supposed to do, and what Senator Gore is doing right now is not it. You work for me, not the other way around, so please present my comments to the Senator, and you have a good day."

 

[fisharmor]

I agree. He was a pioneer in that regard. I think, though, that Gary Johnson would give a very similar message to Ron Paul's on war if he were in the debates.

Talk about being overly optimistic... Ron Paul's very own seed can't even do it.

 

[undergroundrr]

Talk about being overly optimistic... Ron Paul's very own seed can't even do it.

Well, GJ has already been doing it regularly in interviews. There's no reason to believe he would hold back in a debate.

 

[euphemia]

Talk about being overly optimistic... Ron Paul's very own seed can't even do it.

Rand is not his father, and he made that pretty clear.

 

[P3ter_Griffin]

So I'm not totally grokking this part. Are you implying that refusing to offer goods or services to homosexuals is discrimination and is indistinct from discrimination against other groups?

In other words, that they should be able to recognize that the only philosophically consistent way to handle government interference in discrimination is to include gays along with blacks and Christians?


If so, then my response is that the people I talk to this aren't on the discrimination wavelength at all.
No matter what the state does, there is a gun backing it up. A gun which is ready to end lives.

What I'm saying is there are many people (I've even seen it on RPF) that think cake bakers should be able to refuse to serve gays, while still believing that business owners shouldn't be able to refuse to serve other classes of individuals. There are many people who think a business should not be forced to cover contraception, while still believing that businesses should be forced to provide maternity leave. So running a principled candidate may provide some overlap with these people but that is a far cry from saying that these people will suddenly become libertarians as you elude to here:

And I am further taking the opportunity to point out that if the LP hadn't forsaken its OWN values, then people would be looking more seriously at their candidate.

If the only reason these people weren't libertarians is because of Gary Johnson's unprincipled positions then they'd already be libertarians.

The time for introducing these people to libertarianism has NEVER BEEN BETTER. They're looking down the barrel of a gun... a gun which libertarians aren't supposed to support.

In order to introduce them to libertarianism, someone has to... I don't know.... actually introduce them to libertarianism. But instead we get Gary Johnson literally going out of his way to tell everyone where he'd be pointing the gun... and telling them that the gun is going to be pointed at the exact same people the libtards are already pointing it at.

First, Gary is not a model for a 'pragmatic candidate' I do not think. He may be a model for a 'pragmatic voting option'. Meaning that, in general I think Gary takes his positions because he thinks they are the right positions.

And second, running a pragmatic candidate that has a shot at getting elected does not stop you or anyone else from educating people on libertarianism. It is not your 'opposition' that is presenting the 'either or' scenario. I think both sides need to be discussed to find the negatives and positives for future effectiveness. For the longest time the individuals in the 'principled campaign camp' have just been throwing out meaningless jabs at the ineffectiveness of pragmatism without addressing the fact that they have not presented an effective solutions themselves.

That is what the OP article is trying to say. Stop pussyfooting around with what the other people are doing. Nobody is looking at libertarianism because they think they're going to get the same thing that they can already get from the other two parties.
Hit them in the head with a 2x4 - tell them about the gun in the room and how we don't want to point it at anybody.

You have done much work in arguing for principles on RPF so don't take this as a jab. But take that 2x4 over to the alt-right threads here on this board and convince them of the truth. You make it sound so easy. I'm sure I have cumulatively spent over 15 hours discussing philosophy with my father over these past years and he is no libertarian today.

Different people will operate in different ways. As I said, I don't think we need an 'either or' scenario to solve this. But honestly, if your solution is to educate endlessly with no prospects for changing anything then it doesn't interest me. How do principled libertarian candidates succeed?