Time For Libertarians To Leave The GOP?

[jmdrake]

I don't dislike libertarians. I dislike their methods. The very premise of the thread is to give bad advice on what libertarians should do to become even more politically impotent than they already are. What exactly is that going to solve?

If you put two libertarians in a room together, I swear to God they will fight to the death to determine who is more libertarian. That's just an observation after visiting these forums for the past 11 years. We've reached a point where you can't even take delight in small victories because someone comes along to berate you for not demanding an all-or-nothing deal, with much finger-wagging.

I'm gonna drop this post, again, because some folks still don't get it:

We are running out of time

The highlight:

"We don't have another 47 years to waste sparring each other as the Libertarian Party has done. We may not even have another 12 years to waste, as we here on this site have done, before it's too late. It may already be too late; many of us here argued the same a decade ago. What I think many people fail to understand is that it's not just going to be too late for the US government to turn around. It's going to be too late for American culture to survive, and if American culture dies, so does every link the average person has had or will ever have, to libertarianism or even liberty in general. If you think the gulf between you and the average American is too wide to bridge today, you have no idea how bad it could get." -- MiniMe

Hello. I didn't see that post by [MENTION=40471]Min[/MENTION]iMe the first time or when [MENTION=6867]anti[/MENTION]federlist reposted it as a separate thread. I will direct my response to AF's thread. Cliff notes version, MiniMe attempts to defend something (the wall) that he readily admits won't actually fix the problem that he feels needs to be fixed (uncontrolled immigration) and that's being advanced using methods he feels are unconstitutional (abusing executive power by declaring a national emergency).

Really, this whole discussion reminds me of talking to Obama voters. "Yes the Affordable Care Act caused some problems and didn't really fix anything and was possibly unconstitutional....but don't you care about sick people?" If you say yes, they say "Well...what's your alternative?" You give them alternatives they shout you down and boycott you (ask the CEO of Whole Foods) and pretend you never offered any alternatives, or worse accuse your alternatives of exacerbating the problem when the opposite is true.

I put forward a proposal, half in jest, that the more I think about it is really the least worst alternative. That is helping Mexico build a wall on its southern border. There's no need to declare a "national emergency" to do that. We already send Mexico money to fight a phony drug war. We send foreign aid to all of those countries. Redirect that foreign aid to Mexico building a wall to keep Central American migrants from getting into Mexico in the first place. There is no constitutional problem with that suggestion! None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. It wouldn't cost us one red cent. (Again, re-purpose drug war foreign aid money, and since Trump has tried drug smuggling to immigration, the money has already been allocated.) No U.S. ranchers have to lose additional land. There is no need for installing "face scanning cameras" at airports and along the border wall to accomplish this. It doesn't enhance the 100 mile "constitution free zone" that already exists. And Mexico's southern border is much shorter than the U.S. southern border which means the whole shebang would be much much cheaper to construct.

It seems Trump almost took me up on my suggestion when he announced, then backed away from, tariffs on Mexico to get them to do more on immigration. He was addressing the same problem my proposal address but in a different manner. He ended up without any concrete results from what I can tell. So we're back to "muh wall."

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Obviously SS is no libertarian. His theme in practically every post is to promote statism. So I don't see a need to argue over something he is so overt about.

But there's nothing the slightest bit anti-libertarian about this doctrine, as you indicated when you brought it up in post 73. Almost everything else he says here is statist, but here you picked the one exceptional thing that isn't.

TRUTH.

SS is no libertarian- that said- I'll support anything that Jesus wants when He returns- ain't got nothin' to do with man's weakness in governing.

Which denominations are predominantly immigration activists? Catholic Charities gets all of the publicity. Bend the Arc Jewish Action has gotten some media. Jehovah’s Witnesses tend that direction. There is Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services. Episcopalians. For [MENTION=2727]devil21[/MENTION], smaller, more independent types may fit in this category. Maybe FLDS.

 

[devil21]

Which denominations are predominantly immigration activists? Catholic Charities gets all of the publicity. Bend the Arc Jewish Action has gotten some media. Jehovah’s Witnesses tend that direction. There is Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services. Episcopalians. For [MENTION=2727]devil21[/MENTION], smaller, more independent types may fit in this category. Maybe FLDS.

I've taken the time to read what the FLDS want and yes it is a theocratic world government, governed by a group called the Council of Fifty, advising the new Jesus. Smith and Young both wanted this. I wrote in the other thread that in reality, it's just a vision of a new version of the Roman Senate advising the Roman Emperor. All roads still lead to Rome. Perhaps I've spent a lot more time than most reading up on the history and esoteric/occult side of organized religion, therefore my perspective is much different than anyone who simply reads a holy book and leaves it at that.

 

[EBounding]

I'm not big on putting energy and money into politics at all any more. But if you want Amash to win his primary, then supporting him in that primary will help him, and hurt the GOP/Trumpkin establishment.

I can't go back to the LP because I've never been in it to begin with. I also won't go to it to begin with because I see no point in it. If we can muster 2% of the population to vote for someone, the best place to get the most leverage out of those votes is in a major party primary election, where the total turnout is low enough to make that 2% of the population a sizable amount, and then the candidate they support may well win that primary and represent one of the two major parties in a two-party general election. This is much more effective than holding out until that high-turnout two-party general election and throwing those votes at a third-party candidate.

If that strategy isn't worth it (and it very well may not be), then an even worse strategy won't be worth it either. It would be better to put your money and energy into more fruitful endeavors than political activism to help yourself and others to live free in this unfree world.

I feel the same way. I've only ever voted for Republicans and I did the precinct delegate thing for a few years. It's a big waste of time for a tiny amount of power. It was a good thought to gain power and change the direction of the party from within, but ultimately a waste of time unless you plan on making a career out of it.

There's three solid people in Washington: Rand, Thomas and Justin. That's it. I'll keep supporting them, but no one else. There's a few "fellow travelers" who are decent people, but probably not more than 5 people.

I focus more on local issues now. It's a lot easier to defeat a local tax hike than it is to change the culture of the whole country.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Hello. I didn't see that post by [MENTION=40471]Min[/MENTION]iMe the first time or when [MENTION=6867]anti[/MENTION]federlist reposted it as a separate thread. I will direct my response to AF's thread. Cliff notes version, MiniMe attempts to defend something (the wall) that he readily admits won't actually fix the problem that he feels needs to be fixed (uncontrolled immigration) and that's being advanced using methods he feels are unconstitutional (abusing executive power by declaring a national emergency).

Really, this whole discussion reminds me of talking to Obama voters. "Yes the Affordable Care Act caused some problems and didn't really fix anything and was possibly unconstitutional....but don't you care about sick people?" If you say yes, they say "Well...what's your alternative?" You give them alternatives they shout you down and boycott you (ask the CEO of Whole Foods) and pretend you never offered any alternatives, or worse accuse your alternatives of exacerbating the problem when the opposite is true.

I put forward a proposal, half in jest, that the more I think about it is really the least worst alternative. That is helping Mexico build a wall on its southern border. There's no need to declare a "national emergency" to do that. We already send Mexico money to fight a phony drug war. We send foreign aid to all of those countries. Redirect that foreign aid to Mexico building a wall to keep Central American migrants from getting into Mexico in the first place. There is no constitutional problem with that suggestion! None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. It wouldn't cost us one red cent. (Again, re-purpose drug war foreign aid money, and since Trump has tried drug smuggling to immigration, the money has already been allocated.) No U.S. ranchers have to lose additional land. There is no need for installing "face scanning cameras" at airports and along the border wall to accomplish this. It doesn't enhance the 100 mile "constitution free zone" that already exists. And Mexico's southern border is much shorter than the U.S. southern border which means the whole shebang would be much much cheaper to construct.

It seems Trump almost took me up on my suggestion when he announced, then backed away from, tariffs on Mexico to get them to do more on immigration. He was addressing the same problem my proposal address but in a different manner. He ended up without any concrete results from what I can tell. So we're back to "muh wall."

Forget the immigration part. He absolutely nailed it when it came to identifying how libertarians reason and how sometimes they're their own worst enemy. Open borders is just ONE of the issues where strict adherence to 'absolutes' is likely to end in disaster.

Bottom line: You need a strategy. Taking all the libertarians off to go hide in a corner and educate each other on how virtuous your philosophy is, has gotten NO results. You've gotta stop preaching to the choir.


Does this movement even have a strategy? I'm loathe to even call it a "movement" anymore since it's been stagnant since 2012. (really I think it peaked in 2008). But we have a lot of people willing to provide each other with circular affirmation of their beliefs, and inexhaustible stockpiles of energy to chastise anyone who deviates to grab those fleeting chances to claim a victory once in a while.

 

[ATruepatriot]

Forget the immigration part. He absolutely nailed it when it came to identifying how libertarians reason and how sometimes they're their own worst enemy. Open borders is just ONE of the issues where strict adherence to 'absolutes' is likely to end in disaster.

Bottom line: You need a strategy. Taking all the libertarians off to go hide in a corner and educate each other on how virtuous your philosophy is, has gotten NO results. You've gotta stop preaching to the choir.


Does this movement even have a strategy? I'm loathe to even call it a "movement" anymore since it's been stagnant since 2012. (really I think it peaked in 2008). But we have a lot of people willing to provide each other with circular affirmation of their beliefs, and inexhaustible stockpiles of energy to chastise anyone who deviates to grab those fleeting chances to claim a victory once in a while.

From what I see the main problem is the purism. They insist on jumping straight from 99% corrupt to 99% pure or nothing. In a real world this will never happen. Reality is it has to be gained one incremental step at a time until the percentage eventually swings to the better. There is a very tall sand hill to climb with this end goal, one sinking step at a time before the summit will be reached...

 

[jmdrake]

Forget the immigration part. He absolutely nailed it when it came to identifying how libertarians reason and how sometimes they're their own worst enemy. Open borders is just ONE of the issues where strict adherence to 'absolutes' is likely to end in disaster.

I beg to differ. Most debates on this forum these days are either directly about immigration or indirectly tied to immigration. Take the debates over the bumpfire stock ban. Nobody here things that's a good idea. But some are willing to tolerate it based on the idea that Trump needed to do it for political reasons or, even if he's just bad on the second amendment, because he's so "good" on immigration, we need to protect him. It's like the left on healthcare. Point out Obama's shortcomings? "Oh but he got us the Affordable Care Act which is the best thing since sliced cheese and don't point out the problems with it because republicans haven't come up with anything better."

But hey, if you've got another example of what you're talking about with regards to this forum, please share it.

Bottom line: You need a strategy. Taking all the libertarians off to go hide in a corner and educate each other on how virtuous your philosophy is, has gotten NO results. You've gotta stop preaching to the choir.

I consider this thread a reaction to the cheer-leading of the possible purge of Justin Amash. Many of us have been irritating with Rand from time to time but there wasn't the "He may lose his primary *snicker snicker*" reaction that I've seen with regards to Justin. Justin's cardinal sin? Saying obstruction of justice may be an impeachable offense. I disagree with his analysis, but I also disagree with the idea that just because the investigation came about from NSA spying that means that there can be no impeachable offense ipso facto. If illegal NSA spying turned up actual admitted child porn would that be an impeachable offense? Again, I disagree with Justin's final analysis. But I don't see it as equal to NSA spying.

Does this movement even have a strategy? I'm loathe to even call it a "movement" anymore since it's been stagnant since 2012. (really I think it peaked in 2008). But we have a lot of people willing to provide each other with circular affirmation of their beliefs, and inexhaustible stockpiles of energy to chastise anyone who deviates to grab those fleeting chances to claim a victory once in a while.

It had a strategy. It was called "pretend to be teocon to get the teocon vote." Rand tried it with moderate success. Then Trump out teoconned the teocons. People have genuine "So where do we draw the line" concerns. I did hear on Fox the other time commentators suggesting that Trump is less willing to go to war with Iran than the people underneath him. I guess that counts for something. But everything I've seen suggests that Obama was less willing to go to war with Libya than was Hillary and that didn't carry nearly the risk an Iran war does.

Anyway, what's your strategy at this point?

 

[jmdrake]

From what I see the main problem is the purism. They insist on jumping straight from 99% corrupt to 99% pure or nothing. In a real world this will never happen. Reality is it has to be gained one incremental step at a time until the percentage eventually swings to the better. There is a very tall sand hill to climb with this end goal, one sinking step at a time before the summit will be reached...

That is an over-generalization. Let's say Ron is 99% pure. Rand isn't close to 99%. Many people who were wary of Rand nonetheless were willing to get behind him. Let's say Rand was 88%. Where is Trump? 75%? 70%? At some point the product has become so diluted that you are just down to "Well...this person is arguably better than Hillary Clinton." Okay. That was true for John McCain and Mitt Romney as well. And the "defending the impure politician" ultimately morphs into "defending the impurity itself." The mental gymnastics I have seen gone through to defend bumpfire stocks alone make my head spin. I get the "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" idea. I also get "Beware of wolves in sheep clothing." Both concerns are valid.

 

[ATruepatriot]

That is an over-generalization. Let's say Ron is 99% pure. Rand isn't close to 99%. Many people who were wary of Rand nonetheless were willing to get behind him. Let's say Rand was 88%. Where is Trump? 75%? 70%? At some point the product has become so diluted that you are just down to "Well...this person is arguably better than Hillary Clinton." Okay. That was true for John McCain and Mitt Romney as well. And the "defending the impure politician" ultimately morphs into "defending the impurity itself." The mental gymnastics I have seen gone through to defend bumpfire stocks alone make my head spin. I get the "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" idea. I also get "Beware of wolves in sheep clothing." Both concerns are valid.

Ever had immediate life or death threat tactical defense training? You have to immobilize the very worst threat first before dealing with the next worst threat and then the least worst threat. Unfortunately this is the reality of it. Anything other is a delusion.

 

[Ender]

Ever had immediate life or death threat tactical defense training? You have to immobilize the very worst threat first before dealing with the next worst threat and then the least worst threat. Unfortunately this is the reality of it. Anything other is a delusion.

I'm a black belt & you are always prepared for defense- the reality is that most do not want Liberty- they want the gov to take care of them.

 

[ATruepatriot]

I'm a black belt & you are always prepared for defense- the reality is that most do not want Liberty- they want the gov to take care of them.

See... I am not SS. I am anti war but I too have skills and had to actually use these in a real life situations many times as both a civilian and as a stealth soldier. Reality is a bitch. It smells, Human carnage has it's own unique smell that you never forget, mass blood smells like metallic iron rust mixed with hominid shit and urine. It is a smell you wish to never smell again. There comes a point where you realize that you would rather have that smell somewhere other than on your own soil if you have a choice between there or here. If it is destined to happen and it cannot be stopped, I want it there rather than here amongst us and our own community. So there is your choice in reality... Here or there man because it will never stop.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

If Ron Paul stayed libertarian, he'd get nothing done. If we change the GOP it'd 2 birds with one stone. Let's be honest tho, there's no more Ron Paul movement. Participating in RPF here is like hanging out in a beetlejuice-esque purgatory.

 

[Origanalist]

I beg to differ. Most debates on this forum these days are either directly about immigration or indirectly tied to immigration. Take the debates over the bumpfire stock ban. Nobody here things that's a good idea. But some are willing to tolerate it based on the idea that Trump needed to do it for political reasons or, even if he's just bad on the second amendment, because he's so "good" on immigration, we need to protect him. It's like the left on healthcare. Point out Obama's shortcomings? "Oh but he got us the Affordable Care Act which is the best thing since sliced cheese and don't point out the problems with it because republicans haven't come up with anything better."

But hey, if you've got another example of what you're talking about with regards to this forum, please share it.



I consider this thread a reaction to the cheer-leading of the possible purge of Justin Amash. Many of us have been irritating with Rand from time to time but there wasn't the "He may lose his primary *snicker snicker*" reaction that I've seen with regards to Justin. Justin's cardinal sin? Saying obstruction of justice may be an impeachable offense. I disagree with his analysis, but I also disagree with the idea that just because the investigation came about from NSA spying that means that there can be no impeachable offense ipso facto. If illegal NSA spying turned up actual admitted child porn would that be an impeachable offense? Again, I disagree with Justin's final analysis. But I don't see it as equal to NSA spying.



It had a strategy. It was called "pretend to be teocon to get the teocon vote." Rand tried it with moderate success. Then Trump out teoconned the teocons. People have genuine "So where do we draw the line" concerns. I did hear on Fox the other time commentators suggesting that Trump is less willing to go to war with Iran than the people underneath him. I guess that counts for something. But everything I've seen suggests that Obama was less willing to go to war with Libya than was Hillary and that didn't carry nearly the risk an Iran war does.

Anyway, what's your strategy at this point?

The fact that so many here are willing to turn on Justin over this while constantly giving Trump a pass speaks volumes about where this forum is these days. People are talking about degrees, don't throw out the good because of a tolerable bad. And then turn on Justin, really?

If anyone thinks that on a ratings scale Trump is anywhere near Amash they're delusional.

 

[Ender]

See... I am not SS. I am anti war but I too have skills and had to actually use these in a real life situations many times as both a civilian and as a stealth soldier. Reality is a bitch. It smells, Human carnage has it's own unique smell that you never forget, mass blood smells like metallic iron rust mixed with hominid $#@! and urine. It is a smell you wish to never smell again. There comes a point where you realize that you would rather have that smell somewhere other than on your own soil if you have a choice between there or here. If it is destined to happen and it cannot be stopped, I want it there rather than here amongst us and our own community. So there is your choice in reality... Here or there man because it will never stop.

What "there" are you talking about? The "there" where the US & Allies have staged coups, taken their resources, & bombed?

I believe in leaving the rest of the world alone.

 

[Origanalist]

If Ron Paul stayed libertarian, he'd get nothing done. If we change the GOP it'd 2 birds with one stone. Let's be honest tho, there's no more Ron Paul movement. Participating in RPF here is like hanging out in a beetlejuice-esque purgatory.

Sandworms....

 

[juleswin]

The fact that so many here are willing to turn on Justin over this while constantly giving Trump a pass speaks volumes about where this forum is these days. People are talking about degrees, don't throw out the good because of a tolerable bad. And then turn on Justin, really?

If anyone thinks that on a ratings scale Trump is anywhere near Amash they're delusional.

Justin is a delusional libertarian right winger. If you follow his rambling, we wouldn't achieve anything so called libertarians say they like. Trump is a pragmatic centrist, he fights for our rights while skillfully managing the establishment bureaucrats. This is why you tolerate Trump and reject Amash and pipe dream ideas.

 

[Origanalist]

See... I am not SS. I am anti war but I too have skills and had to actually use these in a real life situations many times as both a civilian and as a stealth soldier. Reality is a bitch. It smells, Human carnage has it's own unique smell that you never forget, mass blood smells like metallic iron rust mixed with hominid shit and urine. It is a smell you wish to never smell again. There comes a point where you realize that you would rather have that smell somewhere other than on your own soil if you have a choice between there or here. If it is destined to happen and it cannot be stopped, I want it there rather than here amongst us and our own community. So there is your choice in reality... Here or there man because it will never stop.

Oh fuck, another interventionist.

 

[Origanalist]

Justin is a delusional libertarian right winger. If you follow his rambling, we wouldn't achieve anything so called libertarians say they like. Trump is a pragmatic centrist, he fights for our rights while skillfully managing the establishment bureaucrats. This is why you tolerate Trump and reject Amash and pipe dream ideas.

WTF are you talking about? Please present examples.

 

[nobody's_hero]

It had a strategy. It was called "pretend to be teocon to get the teocon vote." Rand tried it with moderate success. Then Trump out teoconned the teocons. People have genuine "So where do we draw the line" concerns. I did hear on Fox the other time commentators suggesting that Trump is less willing to go to war with Iran than the people underneath him. I guess that counts for something. But everything I've seen suggests that Obama was less willing to go to war with Libya than was Hillary and that didn't carry nearly the risk an Iran war does.

Anyway, what's your strategy at this point?

See, that kind of talk is exactly what I'm talking about. Libertarians have been out-for-blood with the tea party because they only agree on just 80% of what the libertarian party was going for, but you know, I would say actually making it into office is much more than "moderate success." A Senate seat!, no less. Libertarians didn't put Rand in office, sorry to tell ya. They were too busy pouting in 2010 because the tea party took Ron's idea and ran with it (I will be honest, it's a damn shame that Ron Paul will never get credit for all the things he did), meanwhile Rand was using the wave to get into office. He had a strategy.

The libertarian party needs alphas. They need people who know how to harness energy and steer it. Granted, that's a problem because being a pack leader goes against the nature of libertarians, but if they want to win and actually be a player in politics, they're going to have to get over that. I don't see any other way.

 

[juleswin]

WTF are you talking about? Please present examples.

Look up bill sponsored/co sponsored by Justin and then see how many of them passed. Meanwhile Trump has been able to implement huge tax cuts, reduced regulations, tried to cut immigration and appointed young conservative judges that would protect liberty for decades to comes. One definitely has a winning strategy and the other is trying to obstruct.

Hope that helps