Who would you prefer to win LP nomination?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I don't envision a self-governing society - wait.... Weren't you just associating Ruwart to anarcho-capitalism negatively???

I'm a.... "minarcho-capitalist", believing government only has the right to protect against direct aggression towards property (and punish those who violate the sacred right of property) - funded primarily by donations.

I don't know, was I? hmm. I'm a "democratic voluntaryist" whatever that means. It just feels right. I'm generally anti-government but I do believe in working within and with government in order to change things. If you can, that's great.

 

[nate895]

Wouldn't a self-governing society be ideal? I hope overcrowded prisons is not the utopia you envision.

I hope to have a self-governing society. I don't see how a self-governing society can't lock up the members of society who violate the other citizens'/free men's rights

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I hope to have a self-governing society. I don't see how a self-governing society can't lock up the members of society who violate the other citizens'/free men's rights

well.. then you'd be imposing your will on them. I guess you're a minarchist. That's fine. I know we can't just eradicate the penal system. I think we can help guide the people by repealing laws and slowly lessening the interference of government. It's a gradual process imo. The free market "free people" also isn't always capitalistic. Free people take part in many voluntary things, even in socialism. (families, communes, community projects)

 

[nate895]

well.. then you'd be imposing your will on them. I guess you're a minarchist. That's fine. I know we can't just eradicate the penal system. I think we can help guide the people by repealing laws and slowly lessening the interference of government. It's a gradual process imo. The free market "free people" also isn't always capitalistic. Free people take part in many voluntary things, even in socialism. (families, communes, community projects)

Socialism, however, violates property rights. Therefore, it is against the natural law to have a socialist system.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Socialism, however, violates property rights. Therefore, it is against the natural law to have a socialist system.

socialist system... did I say that? no. I'm talking about the voluntary kind. Anyway, I personally think we're stuck with involuntary government for a long time.

 

[Kludge]

Socialism, however, violates property rights. Therefore, it is against the natural law to have a socialist system.

Voluntary "socialism" doesn't impede on private rights - so long as an all-covering contract was signed by all members participating.

 

[nate895]

socialist system... did I say that? no. I'm talking about the voluntary kind. Anyway, I personally think we're stuck with involuntary government for a long time.

I think the people who believe in no government should get to pick their little corner of the world they want, and they can try it out and see how well it works out for them.

 

[Kludge]

I think the people who believe in no government should get to pick their little corner of the world they want, and they can try it out and see how well it works out for them.

I should update my avatar someday to better reflect my views...

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I think the people who believe in no government should get to pick their little corner of the world they want, and they can try it out and see how well it works out for them.

There is no place to choose from. I think you should respect other people's beliefs.

 

[amy31416]

Who cares? BJ is winning his primary folks!

This is the future of the movement, not the LP nominee!

This is how we bring the ideals of the libertarian party into reality! WOOHOO!

 

[nate895]

There is no place to choose from. I think you should respect other people's beliefs.

I respect them, it's just you're never going to win in an election, at least in the next 500 or so year, so I think if you got your little corner of the globe, and it worked out, people would follow you. If it doesn't work, well, good thing the rest of the world didn't adopt the plan.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I respect them, it's just you're never going to win in an election, at least in the next 500 or so year, so I think if you got your little corner of the globe, and it worked out, people would follow you. If it doesn't work, well, good thing the rest of the world didn't adopt the plan.

Who says I would run on this platform? I'm not in your fringe.

 

[OptionsTrader]

None of the above.

 

[mdh]

I respect them, it's just you're never going to win in an election, at least in the next 500 or so year, so I think if you got your little corner of the globe, and it worked out, people would follow you. If it doesn't work, well, good thing the rest of the world didn't adopt the plan.

Too bad the rest of the world has adopted (at the end of a gun barrel) the tyranny plan. It isn't working out too well for regular folks!

 

[Kludge]

bump

 

[Anti Federalist]

He's even worse than that... imagine sitting at a table full of people trying to enjoy a nice drink with his annoying blathering of crap and backstabbing and bullshit for 4 hours.
He's like the guy at the party that everyone is wishing would just go away. You're freaking out the chicks man. kinda thing.
Weird Uncle Fester kind guy.

Phillies = Ghemminger?

Seriously, Barr.

My wife and I argued a bit over this.

She is of the opinion that, having once been a neo-con, and not being completely pure on Iraq withdrawal, among other things, he is not to be trusted.

I look at it this way: what is the purpose of all our hollering from the rooftops?

To bring people to the message of freedom, to "convert" them, to offer them the "red pill".

To then reject them, when they truly do have an epiphany, as I believe Barr has, and have a track record of winning elections, as Barr has, doesn't make much sense.

 

[Brent Canada]

Barr is not a Libertarian.

Someone who supports the war on drugs so strongly, automatically disqualifies themselves from being a libertarian.

He may of changed his mind on some things which is good.

But it's like having a white guy, being the leader of the Black Panthers. No matter what his views are, it just can't happen.

 

[Bradley in DC]

Barr is not a Libertarian.

Barr is a member of the Libertarian National Committee and has been a member of the Libertarian Party for a few years and was always generally libertarian.

Someone who supports the war on drugs so strongly, automatically disqualifies themselves from being a libertarian.

He may of changed his mind on some things which is good.

He doesn't think the war on drugs is a federal issue and has lobbied for Marijuana Policy Project.

 

[Brent Canada]

Barr is a member of the Libertarian National Committee and has been a member of the Libertarian Party for a few years and was always generally libertarian.



He doesn't think the war on drugs is a federal issue and has lobbied for Marijuana Policy Project.

He's still for keeping all other drugs illegal. He's a pseudo-libertarian.

 

[Bradley in DC]

He's still for keeping all other drugs illegal. He's a pseudo-libertarian.

No, you're not getting it, his position is now the same as Dr. Paul's that it isn't a federal issue and that he is running for federal office and that he wouldn't interfere with what states do (same as Dr. Paul).