the iron horse
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Find it, if you can.
Last edited:
The Libertarian Primary
- Thread starter the iron horse
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Who needs a party for an idea.
OP
OP
the iron horse
Rock n' Roll Doggie
AEON
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
A_Wanderer said:
Boston Tea?
OP
OP
the iron horse
Rock n' Roll Doggie
AEON said:
A rebel act would be nice.
One that requested the Libertarian candidate would be included in the national debates.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
the iron horse said:
You do realize why they aren't there, right?
Ron Paul did...
OP
OP
the iron horse
Rock n' Roll Doggie
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I'm not sure what you mean.
I know Ron Paul ran as as a Libertarian candidate in the past.
Can you clarify?
phillyfan26
Blue Crack Supplier
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Messages
- 30,343
I think he's saying no one takes them seriously, and Ron Paul went Republican when he recognized this.
Not too hard to follow.
Not too hard to follow.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
phillyfan26 said:
Well some individuals are taken seriously, but the party lacks any kind of consistency or strength. Without consistency it's hard to raise money and without money it's hard to run on a national scale.
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I am a civil libertarian but I personally think the true Libertarian stance defies a common sense and therefore would never be taken seriously enough and a larger platorm (i.e. national debate) would only expose this.
How many civil libertarians (many of whom are liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican etc.) would support an outright legalization of all drugs in the U.S? Not many at all, so there is at least one among many rifts between civil libertarians and true Libertarians.
Public personalities like Bill Maher and Tucker Carlson, both from right and left respectively, have stated that they are Libertarians, which is to say they are civil libertarians who can't bridge the common sense gap with the True Libertarians. This is an example of where the romanticism for libertarianism and realism meet.
What will the Libertarians do about the environment? Nothing
What about college tuition assistance? Nope.
Government regulation of the Enrons of the world? You're screwed.
Oh yes, there are things I admire about the Libertarians, almost all of which are civil libertarian positions. Why we can't have a viable 3rd party that isn't divorced from common sense?
For instance, why can't they stand for de-criminilization of marijuanna rather than have to extend that to crack or heroin? Because it's a prinicple. An idealogical flaw.
I'm only using the drug issue to try and show how impractical true Libertarianism would be.
What about social concerns? Could you imagine the crime rate of a libertarian run society? Oh, I suppose you could triple and quadruple the police. Yeah, sounds great.
The Green Party is just as disconnected.
We can't have a viable 3rd party in the U.S. because there isn't a true motivation for one. The only motivations for such an idea are idealogical. It doesn't stem from a common sense approach. We have the loonies on one side and the opposite. And an electable leftist or rightist would just assume join forces with the major 2 (Ron Paul or even Kucinich) therefore prolonging the corporate influence one way or another.
How about just 'independent'?
No, not the Indpendent Party, but just 'independent'.
It's all about money really. Ron Paul hasn't decalred himself independent because he needs the exposure of the Rep primary, because of money.
He'll gladly take your cash to help him for a futile Presidential run (effectively flushing that money down the toilet) and turn around and say he wouldn't extend financial help to the impoverished in the name of a prinicple. Not spending (read:wasting) your money.
Well, what the fuck is he doing right now, if not wasting money?
Maybe you could say he's getting the issue out there, I might buy that. I just have problems with the idea that government is only meant to provide for most basic and bare essentials. Nothing in my constitution speaks to this, that I am aware of. If you want to kick it back to the States, I say fine.
The viable 3rd party is no party.
independent. For me, at least
How many civil libertarians (many of whom are liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican etc.) would support an outright legalization of all drugs in the U.S? Not many at all, so there is at least one among many rifts between civil libertarians and true Libertarians.
Public personalities like Bill Maher and Tucker Carlson, both from right and left respectively, have stated that they are Libertarians, which is to say they are civil libertarians who can't bridge the common sense gap with the True Libertarians. This is an example of where the romanticism for libertarianism and realism meet.
What will the Libertarians do about the environment? Nothing
What about college tuition assistance? Nope.
Government regulation of the Enrons of the world? You're screwed.
Oh yes, there are things I admire about the Libertarians, almost all of which are civil libertarian positions. Why we can't have a viable 3rd party that isn't divorced from common sense?
For instance, why can't they stand for de-criminilization of marijuanna rather than have to extend that to crack or heroin? Because it's a prinicple. An idealogical flaw.
I'm only using the drug issue to try and show how impractical true Libertarianism would be.
What about social concerns? Could you imagine the crime rate of a libertarian run society? Oh, I suppose you could triple and quadruple the police. Yeah, sounds great.
The Green Party is just as disconnected.
We can't have a viable 3rd party in the U.S. because there isn't a true motivation for one. The only motivations for such an idea are idealogical. It doesn't stem from a common sense approach. We have the loonies on one side and the opposite. And an electable leftist or rightist would just assume join forces with the major 2 (Ron Paul or even Kucinich) therefore prolonging the corporate influence one way or another.
How about just 'independent'?
No, not the Indpendent Party, but just 'independent'.
It's all about money really. Ron Paul hasn't decalred himself independent because he needs the exposure of the Rep primary, because of money.
He'll gladly take your cash to help him for a futile Presidential run (effectively flushing that money down the toilet) and turn around and say he wouldn't extend financial help to the impoverished in the name of a prinicple. Not spending (read:wasting) your money.
Well, what the fuck is he doing right now, if not wasting money?
Maybe you could say he's getting the issue out there, I might buy that. I just have problems with the idea that government is only meant to provide for most basic and bare essentials. Nothing in my constitution speaks to this, that I am aware of. If you want to kick it back to the States, I say fine.
The viable 3rd party is no party.
independent. For me, at least
Last edited:
U2DMfan said:
Most American "libertarians," as far as I'm concerned, really only fall under the category of "paleolibertarianism," which, in short, really only cares about tax cuts, while supporting social conservatism.
In other words, they're just anarcho-capitalist ultra-conservatives, not truly "libertarian" by any conventional stretch of the imagination. And, yes, that includes recent GOP darling, Ron Paul.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
I generally blame this on the fact that the term "libertarian" itself has become overly vague. If you compare, at least, three different categories of "libertarians"--neolibertarians, paleolibertarians, and left-libertarians--they generally have such fundamental ideological differences as to essentially oppose each other.
I tend to believe that "libertarian" has become an umbrella term for "zealous," in contrast to the conventional political parties that are seen as unprincipled and amorphous in ideology.
