why do both the Libertarian and Constitutionists parties exist?

[fxmercenary]

you think they would be smarter and join forces to double their party size. They basically have the same views. They don't have the luxury of making 2 different parties based on one small difference (immigration for the most part, but doesn't matter since they both are against welfare). Be smart and combine them!

2 people got into a disagreement about something petty and people picked teams, basicly the same thing a couple hundred years ago with repubs and demos.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

The petty sniping that this thread has descended into explains why the two parties are distinct. From the sound of the participants here, it appears neither side respects the other. The CPers don't seem to understand free trade, and how it can be perfectly compatible with national sovereignty (the thing they really want to protect). The LPers don't want to understand a view of God and government that conflicts with their secularist or Randian one, that they mistakenly presume is the "default" position everyone is supposed to settle on.

There are also clearly two ways to view how liberty can apply to the social issues. All I know is, Paul closed the divide between the two this year, as both were ready to nominate him if he had wanted it. Thus, the simplest way to merge the two groups is to field candidates who are like Ron Paul (pro-life Libertarians committed to the Constitution). Let the two factions express their differences through their parties, then get together behind a Revolution candidate. We have the template for a solution, folks---let's use it, and stop prattling over details we're never going to agree on.

 

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

Not only the libertarian and constitutionalist, but all of the relatively large third parties should band together as an emergency coalition ticket, then work out the lesser differences once they've secured a win. I don't understand how any of them can expect to be taken seriously as iconoclasts when they continue to combat one another for 0.00032% of the vote.

 

[alaric]

you think they would be smarter and join forces to double their party size. They basically have the same views. They don't have the luxury of making 2 different parties based on one small difference (immigration for the most part, but doesn't matter since they both are against welfare). Be smart and combine them!

YES! +2008

 

[alaric]

Not only the libertarian and constitutionalist, but all of the relatively large third parties should band together as an emergency coalition ticket, then work out the lesser differences once they've secured a win. I don't understand how any of them can expect to be taken seriously as iconoclasts when they continue to combat one another for 0.00032% of the vote.

absolutely! +2008

 

[alaric]

The petty sniping that this thread has descended into explains why the two parties are distinct. From the sound of the participants here, it appears neither side respects the other. The CPers don't seem to understand free trade, and how it can be perfectly compatible with national sovereignty (the thing they really want to protect). The LPers don't want to understand a view of God and government that conflicts with their secularist or Randian one, that they mistakenly presume is the "default" position everyone is supposed to settle on.

There are also clearly two ways to view how liberty can apply to the social issues. All I know is, Paul closed the divide between the two this year, as both were ready to nominate him if he had wanted it. Thus, the simplest way to merge the two groups is to field candidates who are like Ron Paul (pro-life Libertarians committed to the Constitution). Let the two factions express their differences through their parties, then get together behind a Revolution candidate. We have the template for a solution, folks---let's use it, and stop prattling over details we're never going to agree on.

hey, I've got an idea: combine them and name it the RON PAUL party!

 

[alaric]

ok gang, while i was on this thread, i got a call from the LP on ballot access. well, i told her if we all united, we wouldn't have these problems. Stop all the sniping about the LP not being religious enough or the CP being too moral. When you are up to your ass in alligators, you must remember that the objective is to drain the swamp!

 

[Kalifornia]

hey, I've got an idea: combine them and name it the RON PAUL party!

ugh, the hero worship inherent in that statement made me just cringe so hard I accidentally pissed myself.

 

[stevedasbach]

It would be very difficult to devise a position on abortion that would be acceptable to both parties. IMO, that is the biggest stumbling block.

My own experience while national chair and ED for the LP was that there was mutual respect and a spirit of cooperation between the leadership of most of the larger minor parties, especially on ballot access.

 

[Alex Libman]

There's nothing wrong with having multiple libertarian parties. I would very much support a second no-compromises anarcho-capitalist party... But the Constitution Party is only hiding behind fiscally conservatism, and there isn't a shred of social liberalism in their ideology.


---

Baldwin reminds me of Hitler before he came to power, and this forum needs to get rid of the theocratic nut-jobs by ostracizing them before they completely ruin Ron Paul's legacy! Sure, he's saying all the right things now, but imagine what his Prohibition, errr, I mean """Constitution""" party would do if they came to power on state level! They won't just stop at outlawing gambling and pornography as their platform is calling for, no sir! We're talking about Christian Taliban here!

 

[DeadtoSin]

Personally, I think it is great that there are so many libertarian groups. I think that they can come together on big things, but they balance each other out as a party on other things. Conflicts within a party in my eyes are a good thing. I wish the Republicans and Democrats had real mavericks (not McCain lol).

 

[Soccrmastr]

constituion party consist of Old Right conservatives, not libertarians

 

[Alex Libman]

REALITY CHECK:

If you believe abortion should be outlawed, then you're not a libertarian.

If you believe "child pornography" should be illegal, then you're not a libertarian.

If you believe torturing and killing animals for sport should be illegal then you're not a libertarian.

If you believe government can use "IN GOD WE TRUST" as a national motto, then you're not a libertarian.

If you believe government should prohibit three men and a toaster from marrying each-other, then you're not a libertarian.

Etc.


---

Baldwin reminds me of Hitler before he came to power, and this forum needs to get rid of the theocratic nut-jobs by ostracizing them before they completely ruin Ron Paul's legacy! Sure, he's saying all the right things now, but imagine what his Prohibition, errr, I mean """Constitution""" party would do if they came to power on state level! They won't just stop at outlawing gambling and pornography as their platform is calling for, no sir! We're talking about Christian Taliban here!

 

[DeadtoSin]

If you believe government can use "IN GOD WE TRUST" as a national motto, then you're not a libertarian.

If you believe government should prohibit three men and a toaster from marrying each-other, then you're not a libertarian.

If you believe "child pornography" should be illegal, then you're not a libertarian.

Maybe not your kind of libertarian.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

I consider myself to be a libertarian. Liberty comes from God, not man nor the State (a self-evident truth).

The God you speak of can be just what you make "him" to be. So whenever you start to tell me what God is and what "he" is about is the second I laugh at you.

True liberty is not license; it contains responsibility, based on a solid moral code. Liberty allows us to do what we ought to do, not what we necessarily want to do. The problem with many so-called "libertarians" is that they often confuse libertarianism with libertinism. For instance, they feel it's okay to watch child porn, murder babies in the womb, practice homosexuality, etc.

No most don't think its okay, they just think its horrendous when a government authoritarian bureaucrat tells them what is moral and immoral. And Libertarians worry that these practically non-issues (real intelligent of you to mention homo-sexuality) will just be drummed repeatedly in order to impose fascist anti-privacy measures (and they inevitably will).

The means of enforcing some moral laws (for ex. anti-drug, anti-gambling laws) is simply not worth it. Policemen end up enforcing the laws in very discriminatory ways. For example a closeted gay politician may be spared from some anti-homo law, or black neighborhoods will be targeted almost exclusively for drug laws.

Those acts are not consistent with true liberty, which is founded on acting morally and responsibly before God and man.

One of the results of a libertarian society is social progress. Social progress arises naturally in a truly free state, morality does not need to be (falsely, often hypocritically, and weakly) enforced via state bayonet by some pig pretending to know God's will. Life is about learning from mistakes, and what is truly wrong humans learn to stay away from. Petty legislated moral codes mean absolutely nothing to the common man when he is not given the opportunity to understand it though experience, instead he is given an "exciting taboo" to break. The idea that morality needs to be pounded into man is atrocious, stupid, unworkable, a slippery slope, and even in some cases (such as drug laws) counter-productive. The state can NEVER improve man's nature, liberty however can. Liberty provides man an opportunity to learn from his mistakes/sins and become responsible. This does not entail some pig authoritarian to enforce anti-homo, anti-gambling, anti-drug, etc laws via bayonet. If your God is apart of this universe in any metaphysical sense then he will naturally bring about moral progression, but not through means of government bayonet. Morality/virtue must arise through man's heart, its time for you to believe in your brothers and stop being such a closet statist.

Libertinism allows for men to act freely based on their lusts, essentially, and through such hedonistic behavior, chaos, greed, and confusion are birthed. Our Founding Fathers did not advocate such behavior worthy of men in a civil society, and definitely not behavior suitable for one to be involved in public office. Libertarianism is not libertinism; the two are mutually exclusive, and never the twain shall they meet.

Your just twisting shit to reach some delusional theocratic goal that would never work. The second we elect people like you (who pretend to know God's will) and set up some moral authoritarian theocracy, is the day when government starts corrupting more rapidly then ever. The church has already had its opportunity to improve the nature of man and it failed miserably. Liberty is natural, "God" is natural. Enforcing petty moral laws that some delusional theocrat crafts is unnatural. God's will cannot be expressed in any human language, in the written or spoken word. Have you ever heard of natural rights and law? Liberty allows for them to arise without being distorted.

The issue of child porn is pretty straight forward. Production of child porn should be illegal because that is infringing upon the young victim's mind and person. Libertarians simply detest/are wary of the government control of the internet, its a very slippery slope that is almost determined to go wrong. No need to drumbeat this non-issue.

 

[LibertyEagle]

well the constitution party seems to go so far as to officially recognize christian ideals.

What's the matter with that? So did our Founding Fathers.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'm telling you folks, if we don't stop this bickering over minor issues, we will NEVER get anywhere in this movement. Instead of focusing on what we DO agree on, it appears that we have chosen instead to beat someone to a bloody pulp, who shares the same core principles, but differs on a couple of side issues.

I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party, but is it possible that it is this kind of thing that has hampered that Party from getting much of anywhere? Not accusing; just asking.

 

[LibertyEagle]

constituion party consist of Old Right conservatives, not libertarians

Actually, the CP is largely comprised of traditional conservatives (aka libertarian-conservatives).

 

[LibertyEagle]

that believes in protectionism and outlawing pornography. oh yea

Well, maybe you will be allowed to keep your porn when you are DRAFTED in a few years to fight more wars for conquest, or when you are sitting in a Gulag here in America.

Yeah pornography is such a major issue. Let's all forget about returning government to its constitutional levels, sound money, stopping no-win and unconstitutional wars, reinstating the Bill of Rights, etc. Because pornography, even kiddie porn, is MUCH more important.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

REALITY CHECK:

If you believe abortion should be outlawed, then you're not a libertarian.

If you believe "child pornography" should be illegal, then you're not a libertarian.

If you believe torturing and killing animals for sport should be illegal then you're not a libertarian.

If you believe government can use "IN GOD WE TRUST" as a national motto, then you're not a libertarian.

If you believe government should prohibit three men and a toaster from marrying each-other, then you're not a libertarian.

Etc.

COUNTER-REALITY CHECK:

If you believe over a million unborn per year may be forcibly deprived of their right to life, you're not a libertarian.

If you believe porn based on statutory rape should be legal, you're not a libertarian.

If you believe in forcing a one-size-fits-all acceptance of animal torture on every community in America, you're not a libertarian.

If you believe in imposing national secularism on a largely Christian country, you're not a libertarian.

If you believe in imposing acceptance of homosexual marraige on half the population, you're not a libertarian.

Etc.