Vote Libertarian

[Hoss]

Hoss has come to the realization that he is a Libertarian.

The federal government has way too much power and has gone way beyond any constitutional mandate. This began 200 years ago and has snow-balled into a monster. From the Federal Department of Education to the illegal wiretapping of American Citizens, the Fed is way to involved in the business of the states and in our personal lives.

As it stands, I'm calling for voting for politicians who read the constitution as a document designed to promote and personal freedom while safeguarding the equal rights of all. And that provides for the common defense - not the global offense.

[Hoss]

Take the Libetarian Puirty Test.

I scored a 34

http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi

[Dreadstar]

58, which puts me at "medium-core libertarian."

[HomerJay]

Hoss has come to the realization that he is a Libertarian.

He likes to arrange books according to a confusing system of decimal numbers?



Oh wait. Nevermind...

[Hoss]

He likes to arrange books according to a confusing system of decimal numbers?



Oh wait. Nevermind...


No. I'm a girl who likes other girls.

[Hoss]

58, which puts me at "medium-core libertarian."

Dude, Bush broke me.

[Dreadstar]

Dude, Bush broke me.


Reagan broke me.

[Slam_Bradley]

35. I'm not a radical, apparently.

[Dreadstar]

I'm thinking that with those questions, especially the 5 pointers later on, anything in the neighborhood of 40 would be pretty damn libertarian.

[Hoss]

I'm thinking that with those questions, especially the 5 pointers later on, anything in the neighborhood of 40 would be pretty damn libertarian.

You're pretty much an anarchist by the end.

[DarkBlade]

Hoss! Hey! How ya been?

[Hoss]

Hoss! Hey! How ya been?

I'm doing well. I'm back in Georgia - my wife and I are restoring a 100 year old farm house in Dublin (not Ireland for those non-Georgians). How about you? What are you Taghd up to?

[DarkBlade]

Tadhg. :) The long bars on the d and the h go next to each other.

I'm jealous, I wanna be in Georgia! *sigh* And restoring a farm house? Kickass. *L* Did you know your location still says Tampa?

We're still in South Bend. Tadhg's still doing tech for the school corp, I'm still with them too but no longer working detention (jail) at the Juvenile Justice Center. YAY. Doing part time work at one of the high school's. We've both been nasty sick, but are getting better. I've gotten another medical diagnosis, but it's not one that'll change things much over time except getting me on more meds that are helping a bit.

[BlairH]

I don't need to take the test. I know that I am sympathetic to many libertarian goals, however, I would class myself as a "Republitarian" or a "South Park Republican".

[Cephus]

Take the Libetarian Puirty Test.

Now that isn't a completely biased test, is it? Nah, it's really out there to tell you the truth, or insult you when you turn out not to be a libertarian. Complete and utter crap.

I scored a 14.

[TheTen-EyedMan]

54 points: You are a medium-core libertarian, probably self-consciously so. Your friends probably encourage you to quit talking about your views so much.

Not quite Ayn Rand but also not quite George Plimpton.

[Hoss]

Whoops!

[b] I've gotten another medical diagnosis, but it's not one that'll change things much over time except getting me on more meds that are helping a bit.

I'll be praying for you. Any possibility of you guys ever moving to Georgia?

[Hoss]

Now that isn't a completely biased test, is it? Nah, it's really out there to tell you the truth, or insult you when you turn out not to be a libertarian. Complete and utter crap.

I scored a 14.


All these kind of tests are like that. The real question is how much you agree with them. I'd be much more scared of someone who scored really high than someone who scored low.

[DarkBlade]

I'll be praying for you. Any possibility of you guys ever moving to Georgia?

Thank you kindly. The new diagnosis isn't a huge deal.. fibromyalgia isn't particularly degenerative, it just means there's another name for the same shit I've been dealing with on top of the JRA. But meds. Helping. w00t. Had a flareup the last couple days though, and it's had me wanting to scream at the stars if it wouldn't hurt so bad to do it.

Feeling reasonably better today though, pain's only around a 6-7 instead of yesterday's fragging 9.

We'll move back down to GA at some point, or I will go flat out insane. Most likely around metro-Atlanta, probably on the north side. My family and most of my closest friends are down there, and trying to deal with the winters up here sucks. Looking at within the next couple years. I'd like sooner, but it depends on what kind of jobs we can get... moving to a different state without having a sure line on a job with no degree is kinda.. well, stupid. And I've -got- to have medical insurance.

Err, sorry 'bout highjackin your thread.

[cactusmaac]

I got a 27.

[BlairH]

I caved and got 92!
"You have entered the heady realm of hard-core libertarianism. Now doesn't that make you feel worse that you didn't get a perfect score?"


I didn't get a perfect score because I don't want to:
-Privatise the highways
-Cut military budgets
-Abolish ALL taxes or the State

[TheTen-EyedMan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibromyalgia

Doctor Ten-EyedMan.

[Wesley Dodds]

I would class myself as a "Republitarian" or a "South Park Republican".

It's the Cartman theory of government! It has two major principles:

1. Screw you guys.

2. I'm special.

[Michael P]

Even if I were a Libertarian, which I'm not, I wouldn't vote Libertarian . Every candidate I've ever seen the run has been a nutjob.

Edit: Like, for example, the guy who wrote that test.

[Dreadstar]

Even if I were a Libertarian, which I'm not, I wouldn't vote Libertarian . Every candidate I've ever seen the run has been a nutjob.

Really? You thought Harry Browne was certifiable?

[Bard]

How about just marrying a libertarian???

I'm too lazy to change my conservative status.

[Wesley Dodds]

-Abolish ALL taxes or the State

Hey, I believe that too. Of course, I'm an anarchist. I just play a liberal democrat on TV.

Geeze, you libertarians are such statists. Yeah, you want to privatise the highways, but you still want the government printing the money and enforcing all the contracts!

When will you people learn: there's no safe level of government authority.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Your score is 9.

You are starting to have libertarian leanings. Explore them. For now, though, you strongly believe that libertarianism is a giant rationalization system that allows intelligent people to feel good about being jerks.

[TheTen-EyedMan]

Your score is 9.

You are starting to have libertarian leanings. Explore them. For now, though, you strongly believe that libertarianism is a giant rationalization system that allows intelligent people to feel good about being jerks.


You just picked no for every one didn't you Mirba?

:p

[Wesley Dodds]

For now, though, you strongly believe that libertarianism is a giant rationalization system that allows intelligent people to feel good about being jerks.

Actually, I believe that if you substitute "conservatives" for "intelligent people".

Which is why they're for a minimal state instead of no state. They're afraid that a truly free society would be anti-conservative.

:evilsmile

[The Mirrorball Man]

You just picked no for every one didn't you Mirba?

Heh. "Mirba". :D

No, I really answered every single one of these questions as honestly as I could. I guess I'm just a slave to the system.

[Novaya Havoc]

Take the Libetarian Puirty Test.

I scored a 34

http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi

25. Soft-core. All libertarian candidate platforms I've read in Michigan are farking nuts.

[TheTen-EyedMan]

Heh. "Mirba". :D

No, I really answered every single one of these questions as honestly as I could. I guess I'm just a slave to the system.

Better than being a slave to the rhythm.

http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/archives/grace-jones.jpg

Is it me...or does she look like Nimrod?

http://members.aol.com/whoclix/nimrod.gif

[Matt Algren]

Forget the Libertarians. Real CBRians vote Bull Moose (http://bullmoose.org/).


http://voteloren.com/bullmooseicon.gif

[JeffreyWKramer]

Welcome, Hoss.

I scored 52. I can dig that.

Really, I somewhat question the sanity of anyone who would honestly score over 90 or so on that test. But then, I'm a traditional libertarian - someone who views government as an evil, but an unfortunately necessary one, so long as it is appropriately limited - as opposed to Rand follower or an anarchist.

[Valmore]

How about just marrying a libertarian???

But I miss out on all the fun of screwing up primaries for one of the major parties.

[Dreadstar]

But I miss out on all the fun of screwing up primaries for one of the major parties.


Why? I can change my "party" at the drop of a hat. And have, several times.

Fence-jumping is fun.

[Phrozen]

That quiz was way to vague for my liking. Some of the questions are much deeper then just yes or no as the test presents them.

[king mob]

Take the Libetarian Puirty Test.

I scored a 34

http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi

35 points. Hmmmm.....

[Valmore]

Why? I can change my "party" at the drop of a hat. And have, several times.

Fence-jumping is fun.

I'm too darned lazy to fill out the change on my registration card and mail it in.

[Tages]

Even if I were a Libertarian, which I'm not, I wouldn't vote Libertarian . Every candidate I've ever seen the run has been a nutjob.

Edit: Like, for example, the guy who wrote that test.
Hmmmn? I fail to see what's so bad about Caplan, though his views on Austrian economics are somewhat misleading.

[Mike Smash!]

I'm very strongly a civil libertarian, but I find their "deregulate everything/capitalism uber alles" philosophy to be somewhat callous and somewhat cruel in practice, but I've liked most of the Libertarians that I've met, even if I think their views on economics are backwards and self absorbed.

I tend to look at libertarianism in much the way I see Catholicism. Even when I totally disagree, I can see and respect their consistency.

I would probably classify myself as a social democrat, where workers rights and safety regulations, universal healthcare the minimum wage, anti-trust laws and a societal safety net only benefit society and for those that work their asses off and only break even.

I scored 22 on the test, but only because of my stands on social issues.

[Mike Smash!]

Even if I were a Libertarian, which I'm not, I wouldn't vote Libertarian . Every candidate I've ever seen the run has been a nutjob.

Edit: Like, for example, the guy who wrote that test.

I've met many Libertarians that I would have voted for, provided that I didn't have a truly progressive option on the ballot.

But the Libertarians are different from candidate to candidate. There are really four sorts of them. They all tend to believe most of the same sorts of things, but it's a question of what they prioritize and emphasize:

Privatize Everything Libertarians (even the post office, the police, the roads, the military...etc...)
Gun Nuts
Legalize All Drugs Libertarians
Civil Libertarians


I'd be much more willing to vote for for the third or forth options and would be loathe to vote for the first and hesitant about the second.

However, I will always vote third party for certain positions, like Secretary of State. I don't trust the big two to oversee elections, period.

[ragnarok_2012]

Don't Blame Me.
I voted Badnarik. :D

[J. Robb]

I checked out the test, and right away was turned off. Maybe I'm just too Canadian, but I can't answer many of those questions with a simple "yes" or "no".

[Hoss]

where workers rights and safety regulations, universal healthcare the minimum wage, anti-trust laws and a societal safety net only benefit society and for those that work their asses off and only break even.



I don't disagree with much of the stuff you mentioned. My liberterian leaning are definitely stronger on the social side. However, under Democrats and Republicans, the Federal Goverment has made some tremendous power grabs. From my reading of the constitution, the Fed Gov should only perform functions that states can't perform for themselves. States can handle their own educational requirements and set up their own health programs, for example.

And while I understand the need for things like affirmative action, I will point out that the reason that those programs became necessary is because many of the founding fathers compromised their liberterian leanings towards slavery in favor of creating the union and a more powerful federal govement.

[Mike Smash!]

I don't disagree with much of the stuff you mentioned. My liberterian leaning are definitely stronger on the social side. However, under Democrats and Republicans, the Federal Goverment has made some tremendous power grabs. From my reading of the constitution, the Fed Gov should only perform functions that states can't perform for themselves. States can handle their own educational requirements and set up their own health programs, for example.

Understood, but the programs I mentioned supporting are, for the most part, in total opposition to libertarianism, which generally embraced a severe or total lack of government regulation or safety laws and a "free market".

My views on social issues are very strongly libertarian, taking into account my views on drugs, prostitution and civil rights. However, economically, I'm practically a socialist, as I'm against the privatization of what I consider essential human needs like universal healthcare, legal protections for workers and consumers, anti-trust laws, public education and welfare programs to help pull people out of poverty.

However, the economic factors of libertarianism give me real pause and I think that if you agree with many of the social safety net programs I espouse, then you're probably more a civil libertarian than a Harry Browne type libertarian.

[Cephus]

All these kind of tests are like that. The real question is how much you agree with them. I'd be much more scared of someone who scored really high than someone who scored low.

No, not all the tests insult people who disagree with them. Look at their results, anyone who scores 0 or low is insulted. And frankly, I'm glad I don't agree with the Libertarians very much at all.

[Mike Smash!]

No, not all the tests insult people who disagree with them. Look at their results, anyone who scores 0 or low is insulted. And frankly, I'm glad I don't agree with the Libertarians very much at all.

The relationship between Libertarians and Greens is an odd one. There really isn't a lot of grey area between the two parties ideologically. Either we're in total agreement or total disagreement on any given issue. It comes down to 50/50.

50% of the Libertarian platform is great...on social issues. On economic issues, not so much.

[Mike Smash!]

I forgot to ask, Hoss... Was this an ideological shift for you or a partisan one?

Did you join the Libertarian Party, as the thread title seems to imply? If so, word is that they really moderated their platform at their last national convention.

[Cephus]

50% of the Libertarian platform is great...on social issues. On economic issues, not so much.

Personally, I'm the other way around. I support a lot of moderate Libertarian economic ideas, but their social ideas are completely off the wall. But keep in mind, that's moderate economic ideas, when you start getting the nutjobs pushing for anarchocapitalism, that's where we completely part company.

[Dan Apodaca]

No, not all the tests insult people who disagree with them. Look at their results, anyone who scores 0 or low is insulted. And frankly, I'm glad I don't agree with the Libertarians very much at all.

Relax, dude. It's all done in humor. Didn't you get that from the name of the test? "Libertarian Purity"?

Ever heard the phrase Tongue-in-cheek?

[o1pickleboy]

I got a 27.


That is very weird. I got a 28 and I barely ever agree with you.

[Tages]

Personally, I'm the other way around. I support a lot of moderate Libertarian economic ideas, but their social ideas are completely off the wall. But keep in mind, that's moderate economic ideas, when you start getting the nutjobs pushing for anarchocapitalism, that's where we completely part company.
*Waves*

Hi.

[ragnarok_2012]

*Waves*

Hi.

Ever notice how people who agree with you are smart and sane, and people that disagree with you are total idiots, if not out & out crazy?

To paraphrase George Carlin, it's kinda like how people who drive slower than you are jerks, and people who drive faster than you are nuts. :D

[Alex]

Im not done with the test as i type this, but a lot of these questions, if you answer yes, it makes you an anarchist, which isn't quite a libertarian.
ok, done, 67.
As for you Hoss, get me a real, not nutball libertarian candidate, and i'll vote for him.

[Noah Johnson]

To paraphrase George Carlin, it's kinda like how people who drive slower than you are jerks, and people who drive faster than you are nuts. :D
Yeah, but Tages IS nuts. I'm pretty sure that's what his business card says. :)

[ragnarok_2012]

Yeah, but Tages IS nuts. I'm pretty sure that's what his business card says. :)

There are things I disagree with him about, but I think he's one of the more thoughtful posters, personally.

[pennywisdom]

I don't need to take the test. I know that I am sympathetic to many libertarian goals, however, I would class myself as a "Republitarian" or a "South Park Republican".
Trey Parker and Matt Stone both classify themselves as libertarian and vote libertarian. I don't think the "South Park Republican" tag indicates a real Republican at all.


Geeze, you libertarians are such statists. Yeah, you want to privatise the highways, but you still want the government printing the money and enforcing all the contracts!

When will you people learn: there's no safe level of government authority.
Those commies. They just love their precious post office.


My views on social issues are very strongly libertarian, taking into account my views on drugs, prostitution and civil rights. However, economically, I'm practically a socialist, as I'm against the privatization of what I consider essential human needs like universal healthcare, legal protections for workers and consumers, anti-trust laws, public education and welfare programs to help pull people out of poverty.

However, the economic factors of libertarianism give me real pause and I think that if you agree with many of the social safety net programs I espouse, then you're probably more a civil libertarian than a Harry Browne type libertarian.
I agree. On social issues and civil liberties, I'm very libertarian. But libertarianism would never work economically. The government needs enough power to use tax money on things that help the general public. I'm not going to pave my own roads and install my own stop lights, thanks. Also, I enjoy social security, federal money for college, and labor unions for workers. Call me a leftist.

Incidentally, I scored 33 on that test. I only got that many points because I think the government should butt out of people's personal lives.

Some of those questions are insane. You'd have to have a screw loose to answer "Yes" if someone asked you if you wanted to abolish the FDA and medical licenses.

"Yes, I will get by without an FDA! I don't mind living like a caveman! I refuse help from the Government!"

[Alex]

Trey Parker and Matt Stone both classify themselves as libertarian and vote libertarian. I don't think the "South Park Republican" tag indicates a real Republican at all.


Those commies. They just love their precious post office.


They are apart of the hate extremes school, which is generaly why everyone who has a sense of humor thinks they are funny.

[Tages]

Yeah, but Tages IS nuts. I'm pretty sure that's what his business card says. :)
I wish my scanner worked so I could scan my actual business card. Hell, now I'm considering adding "Nuts" to it.


There are things I disagree with him about, but I think he's one of the more thoughtful posters, personally.
Aw, shucks, thanks.

[Alex]

Aw, shucks, thanks.
When im having sex, i make my girlfriend call my Tages.
But we aren't sure how it's actually pronounced, so she calls me mom instead.

[ragnarok_2012]

When im having sex, i make my girlfriend call my Tages.
But we aren't sure how it's actually pronounced, so she calls me mom instead.

And yet when I'm having sex with Alex' girlfriend....

what?


(Yeah, I'm already feeling guilty)

[ragnarok_2012]

Aw, shucks, thanks.

Just giving credit where credit's due.

And it really is a lot easier to just assume that people you disagree with are dumb or crazy.

[Alex]

And yet when I'm having sex with Alex' girlfriend....

what?


(Yeah, I'm already feeling guilty)
Pfft, she doesn't have sex with other girls.
And if she did, i wouldn't consider it cheating.

[BlairH]

Trey Parker and Matt Stone both classify themselves as libertarian and vote libertarian. I don't think the "South Park Republican" tag indicates a real Republican at all.


Matt Stone is a libertarian (said so in an interview for GQ), but claims he is a registered Republican. Trey Parker is a registered Libertarian.

The term "South Park Republican" doesn't refer to the political affiliation of the creators, but rather, this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_park_republican

Had to type this quick because a lecture starts in 5 mins.

[Winslow]

Take the Libetarian Puirty Test.

I scored a 34

I scored a 29. I'm less libertarian than Hoss? :eek:

;) :D

[JeffreyWKramer]

Trey Parker and Matt Stone both classify themselves as libertarian and vote libertarian. I don't think the "South Park Republican" tag indicates a real Republican at all.

Keep in mind that the traditional Republican stance on things - i.e., before the Reagan era - tended to be strongly libertarian. Limited government, fiscal responsibility... sure, today's GOP largely ignores those principles, but that used to be what it was about. Back before it was the party of God and totalitarianism and corporate pork.

[Loren]

My views on social issues are very strongly libertarian, taking into account my views on drugs, prostitution and civil rights. However, economically, I'm practically a socialist, as I'm against the privatization of what I consider essential human needs like universal healthcare, legal protections for workers and consumers, anti-trust laws

Personally, I think anti-trust laws aren't all that anathema to the libertarian philosophy. They may involve government intervention in the market, but without that intervention, there's the significant risk of there not being much of a market at all.

The entire concept of the free market depends on the existence and availability of competition. Competition spurs innovation, keeps prices and services competitive, and ensures that providers of goods and services maintain an interest in their consumers or else risk losing them to other providers.

Monopolies, including government monopolies, lack that competition. They don't have to worry about losing customers, because there's nowhere else for those customers to go. They can charge whatever they want, and let the quality of their service be miserable, because the only other consumer option is to do without. (Which, admittedly, is still one step better than government monopolies, which are capable of taking away the "choose to do without" option too. See Social Security.)

And that's not a market. Markets demand more than one competitive player, and the ability to choose between them. Anti-trust laws may not be your expected libertarian fare, but they operate in defense of the free market, and that's good enough for me.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Personally, I think anti-trust laws aren't all that anathema to the libertarian philosophy. They may involve government intervention in the market, but without that intervention, there's the significant risk of there not being much of a market at all.

Bingo. I'm very libertarian in regard to financial matters, but I'm a firm believer in anti-trust laws and some other sorts of laws regarding business practices. Such laws are necessary because business is conducted by humans and some humans are gonna do dishonest things.

That said, I think anti-trust laws are sometimes applied unfairly. I question the legal and ethical rationale for some of the assaults on Microsoft, for example.

[Dreadstar]

Bingo. I'm very libertarian in regard to financial matters, but I'm a firm believer in anti-trust laws and some other sorts of laws regarding business practices. Such laws are necessary because business is conducted by humans and some humans are gonna do dishonest things.

That said, I think anti-trust laws are sometimes applied unfairly. I question the legal and ethical rationale for some of the assaults on Microsoft, for example.


You and Loren take the words right out of my forebrain.


I want them back.

[Cephus]

Keep in mind that the traditional Republican stance on things - i.e., before the Reagan era - tended to be strongly libertarian. Limited government, fiscal responsibility... sure, today's GOP largely ignores those principles, but that used to be what it was about. Back before it was the party of God and totalitarianism and corporate pork.

Which is, of course, why I say I agree with the more moderate Libertarian economic ideas. We should have a limited government and fiscal responsibility, but limited does not mean none and fiscal responsibility does not mean "we got ours, screw you". There is a balance that a lot of Libertarians just don't seem to have, especially when you get out toward the fringes.

[TheTen-EyedMan]

I wish my scanner worked so I could scan my actual business card. Hell, now I'm considering adding "Nuts" to it.


Aw, shucks, thanks.


http://www.thetalentshow.org/images/analrapist.jpg

[Cephus]

Bingo. I'm very libertarian in regard to financial matters, but I'm a firm believer in anti-trust laws and some other sorts of laws regarding business practices. Such laws are necessary because business is conducted by humans and some humans are gonna do dishonest things.

Precisely. Sheesh, I'm agreeing with you way too much today, knock it off. :)

One of the cornerstones of American capitalism is competition. If we allow one, or even a small number of massive corporations to simply buy up and shut down the competition, then we've lost what makes capitalism work. We strive for a free market, but, as you point out, some humans need a little pushing in the right direction to understand the concept of "free".

[Lorendiac]

A few years ago I read the SF novel Freehold by Michael Z. Williamson when it was first published by Baen books. Set on another planet, a few hundred years from now, it depicted a society that was meant to be really, really libertarian, with what Williamson apparently sees as the bare minimum of government regulation for a modern society to survive without actually collapsing into violent anarchy.

The heroine is an Earthwoman (originally from Minneapolis, I think) who ends up emigrating and spends several chapters experiencing massive culture shock as she learns how different things are in the Freehold.

(Later on, we get plenty of action scenes as the armies of the United Nations invade the Freehold and try to rearrange its political and economic systems "for your own good" and are then shocked at how vigorously they are resisted by a local population that really doesn't want them there, in a society which had something like zero "gun control laws" before the UN arrived, with the result that just about everybody and his brother has a few assault rifles, shotguns, grenades, etc., stashed away for a rainy day.)

There were things about his imaginary society that I disapproved of. There were other things that I thought simply wouldn't work in the real world in the long run, no matter how appealing they might seem at first glance. But overall I admitted the book was thought-provoking.

I mention all this because anyone who actually feels an interest in looking at a detailed, reasonably entertaining fictional rendition of what is probably meant as a "libertarian near-utopia" is free to go read the entire thing without paying a penny! Williamson agreed to let his publisher post the entire text on their website for all comers.

http://www.baen.com/library/mzwilliamson.htm

If you follow this link, and click on the title "Freehold" on the left, it will take you to the online text of the novel, each chapter formatted as a separate webpage. On the other hand, if you click on the "Select Format" pulldown menu on the right, you have the option of downloading the entire thing in any of several formats, as a zip file you can unzip and read at your leisure.

[heretic]

Take the Libetarian Puirty Test.

I scored a 34

http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi
11 here, mainly due to Civil Libertarian leanings.

Anyone in the triple digits needs to move somewhere like Somalia to see the wonders of Anarchy firsthand.

HTG

[Wesley Dodds]

Somalia's not anarchy; Somalia's chaos.

Obviously, they're not the same thing. I personally believe that it would be possible for people to live without government and to live in peace.

[spoon_jenkins]

I scored a 15.

[Gingold]

I scored a 14. Pretty amusing test.

[Tages]

11 here, mainly due to Civil Libertarian leanings.

Anyone in the triple digits needs to move somewhere like Somalia to see the wonders of Anarchy firsthand.

HTG
And anyone who's not an anarchist should live in North Korea or Zimbabwe to see the wonders of government firsthand.

Or maybe there are more alternatives than just two extremes.

[Weapon Ick]

I recommend Harvey Pekar's Ego and Hubris if anyone wants to read a really fantastic book about what it's like to be living a libertarian life and how it affects ordinary day-to-day trials like jury duty and college. It is my favorite work by Pekar so far.

Although I'm always hesitant to label myself I have to say that most of my beliefs are anarchist in nature.

I remember a few years ago there was supposed to be a libertarian movement to populate New Hampshire and turn it in to a libertarian state. I guess that hasn't worked out yet. I hope the movement hasn'rt died.

Do Libertarians/Anarchists support NAMBLA? I'd think they would have to.

[Cephus]

Do Libertarians/Anarchists support NAMBLA? I'd think they would have to.

I can't see where they could philosophically disagree with it, same with bestialists, child molesters and all the other really disgusting sexual kinks. Given a willing victim, could a Libertarian deny the snuff freak carving up said victim on the sidewalk of any large city? After all, you can't have government telling them what to do, can you?

[BlairH]

Do Libertarians/Anarchists support NAMBLA? I'd think they would have to.

By the same token, they would also "support" vigilante action against groups like NAMBLA.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Do Libertarians/Anarchists support NAMBLA? I'd think they would have to.

Libertarians, at least sane ones, are perfectly against those who harm others. Using the law to prosecute and deal with those sorts is one of the few essential uses of law/government.

Libertarians, other than the most extreme anarchist ones, or the most self-centered Randian ones, view some level of government as a necessary evil, because of these sorts of problems. They are about individual rights and individual responsibility, and beleve that when you behave irresponsibly - and doing things to harm others is definitely irresponsible - you should suffer consequences, including potential loss of freedoms.

[Mike Smash!]

I can't see where they could philosophically disagree with it, same with bestialists, child molesters and all the other really disgusting sexual kinks. Given a willing victim, could a Libertarian deny the snuff freak carving up said victim on the sidewalk of any large city? After all, you can't have government telling them what to do, can you?

No, they don't support NAMBLA, no more than being a Libertarian or Anarchist would support rape or murder. It's clearly a crime with a victim and children cannot consent to sex.

There's a difference between thinking that consenting adults have the right to do as they please save harm others, but a child is a very different thing.

[Wesley Dodds]

"I don't like the idea of government."

"Then logically you must support people who advocate boy-rape!"

"Bwa?"

[Noah Johnson]

Well, it does open up an interesting area of discussion. How do libertarians/anarchists feel about the age of consent?

I mean, a central tenet of their philosophy is that whatever two reasonable people agree to is nobody else's business, as I understand it. And that's cool, but then there's that fuzzy gray area around "reasonable people."

Screwing a ten-year-old; not okay. Screwing a twenty-year-old; okay. What about a seventeen-year-old? Sixteen? Fifteen? At what point does the ability to make decisions about one's life suddenly kick in?

[JeffreyWKramer]

Well, it does open up an interesting area of discussion. How do libertarians/anarchists feel about the age of consent?

I mean, a central tenet of their philosophy is that whatever two reasonable people agree to is nobody else's business, as I understand it. And that's cool, but then there's that fuzzy gray area around "reasonable people."

Screwing a ten-year-old; not okay. Screwing a twenty-year-old; okay. What about a seventeen-year-old? Sixteen? Fifteen? At what point does the ability to make decisions about one's life suddenly kick in?

Every bit of personal observation and experience, and scientific data, I'm aware of indicates that competence to give consent is not something that magically occurs at - or is necessarly present after or absent before - a certain age. Some people are more or less mature at a given age than others. Thus, some folk of sixteen are probably a lot more competent than some at 19. Unfortunately, the law doesn't work well with shades of gray, and as such it's probably better that states set specific "age of consent" laws to set firm parameters. It's not a perfect solution, but it probably works better than not. In this case, it's probably better for the sake of protecting some younger people from exploitation for some who don't really need the protection to receive it anyhow.

However, some other areas of the law recognize that competence can occur at different ages for different people. Consider, for example, "emancipated minor" statutes, which allow minors to be on their own and act in their own behalf before age of majority. Such generally requires demonstrations of competence beyond what is considered typical for age.

Interestingly, I'm familiar of a case of a young but adult man who faced potential statutory rape charges, only to have them dropped when the authorities realized the young person in question was an emancipated minor. I don't know offhand whether sexual consent is considered inherent in Iowa statutes re: emancipated minors, or whether the authorities felt it was just not worth testing the law in that way.

[ragnarok_2012]

Well, it does open up an interesting area of discussion. How do libertarians/anarchists feel about the age of consent?

I mean, a central tenet of their philosophy is that whatever two reasonable people agree to is nobody else's business, as I understand it. And that's cool, but then there's that fuzzy gray area around "reasonable people."

Screwing a ten-year-old; not okay. Screwing a twenty-year-old; okay. What about a seventeen-year-old? Sixteen? Fifteen? At what point does the ability to make decisions about one's life suddenly kick in?

It's an interesting question. At what point does a person become an adult? I've met some pretty childish adults.

I would take exception with the phrase "reasonable people." I don't think many libertarians would argue that every adult is a completely rational creature. I think the word you're searching for is responsible person.

I've thought about when a person becomes an adult. I think there are levels of responsibility that a child and adolescent is able to reasonably assume as they develop. While I've not fathered any children....that I know of :)....I currently think that one of the tricks of parenthood is to find the right level of responsibility to let your child assume for where they're at at that point in their physical and psychological development.

Some people are able to take on more responsibility at an earlier age than others. For simplicity's sake, I consider them to be an adult once they hit 18. I believe there are cultures with no concept of adolescence. For them, once you've hit puberty, you're considered an adult. There is certainly room for debate.

I've also considered people with developmental problems. If you suffer from a physical problem (brain damage, etc.) then I don't think you can reasonably assume adult responsibility.

I am not the most consistent guy when it comes to libertarianism, but IMO there are three sorts of "real crime." To be a real crime, there must be a victim, and it must include one of three elements:
Force
Theft
Fraud

If there isn't force, fraud or theft, there isn't a crime. I prefer distinguishing between "real crime" and "regulation."

And Weapon Ick? That was uncalled for.

[Tages]

I can't see where they could philosophically disagree with it,
Simple. Children are not capable of consent, do not fully understand the nature of the act, and cannot reciprocate said pervert's feelings.

Would it really take too much time out of your day to ask a libertarian what he or she believes instead of making assumptions?

[Spike-X]

Do Libertarians/Anarchists support NAMBLA? I'd think they would have to.

They might support the organisation's right to exist, and to espouse their views, but I doubt they'd be at all supportive of them acting on said views.


I can't see where they could philosophically disagree with it, same with bestialists, child molesters and all the other really disgusting sexual kinks. Given a willing victim, could a Libertarian deny the snuff freak carving up said victim on the sidewalk of any large city? After all, you can't have government telling them what to do, can you?

Might as well edit this one before Cronin does. I'll just let that remarkable statement speak for itself.

[Cephus]

No, they don't support NAMBLA, no more than being a Libertarian or Anarchist would support rape or murder. It's clearly a crime with a victim and children cannot consent to sex.

There's a difference between thinking that consenting adults have the right to do as they please save harm others, but a child is a very different thing.

But why? Groups like NAMBLA are very clear that they think children not only can, but do consent to sexual acts, just like a lot of bestialists claim that animals can and do consent to sex. The only thing that makes it illegal is that the law arbitrarily sets ages for what constitutes legal consent. Anyone who does not believe the government has any place setting such arbitrary standards really can't support them setting standards in these cases, can they?

Or is this going to be another one of those "we want to be able to do anything we want, but we still want to be able to control what you do" things?

[Cephus]

Might as well edit this one before Cronin does. I'll just let that remarkable statement speak for itself.

Because it's something that you can't answer. Given the fact that there *ARE* in fact, consenting adults who agree to be killed, eaten, mutilated, etc. out there, are Libertarians going to permit this kind of thing, or are they going to ban it? It seems that they're in a no-win situation either way, doesn't it? But everyone who has responded has done so emotionally, not in holding to the logical ramifications of libertarian thought. Do you set arbitrary standards based on emotional reactions or do you push for freedom, even if it makes you emotionally uneasy?

[Spike-X]

Are you seriously saying that Libertarians are in favour of people being allowed to have sex with children, or kill and eat each other?

Seriously?

[Alex]

Are you seriously saying that Libertarians are in favour of people being allowed to have sex with children, or kill and eat each other?

Seriously?
From the Libertarian parties official webpage.
"What is a Libertarian?



Libertarians believe that you have the right to live your life as you wish, without the government interfering -- as long as you don’t violate the rights of others."
Theres more, but that was the relevant bit.
So...no, i would assume libertarians consider having sex with a six year old and eating him would be a violation of rights.
As for anarchists, as i understand it, if a anarchist society exsisted, no one would actually want to eat another person or rape a child.

[Noah Johnson]

So...no, i would assume libertarians consider having sex with a six year old and eating him would be a violation of rights.
You're ignoring what Cephus said. Given the various CONSENTING ADULTS who want to be killed and eaten, should that be permissible?

[K'Nort]

I only got 20. I was expecting higher. But I didn't select any of the multi-point ones. And I get the feeling my definitions of some things were different from theirs.

[K'Nort]

You're ignoring what Cephus said. Given the various CONSENTING ADULTS who want to be killed and eaten, should that be permissible?

Wouldn't that fall under the same reasoning as children though? Ie, incapable of actually giving consent. In this case because they're clearly insane.

[Alex]

You're ignoring what Cephus said. Given the various CONSENTING ADULTS who want to be killed and eaten, should that be permissible?
Ahh, but if you consider that, you have to ask if a raging nutball can actually give consent, and people who want others to kill them and then eat their bodies, are crazy.

[Alex]

Wouldn't that fall under the same reasoning as children though? Ie, incapable of actually giving consent. In this case because they're clearly insane.
I POSTED THIS FIRST BUT YOU HIT THE BUTTON FASTER!
I WILL KILL AND EAT YOU! CONSENT!

[K'Nort]

I POSTED THIS FIRST BUT YOU HIT THE BUTTON FASTER!
I WILL KILL AND EAT YOU! CONSENT!

Neener neener.

[JeffreyWKramer]

But why? Groups like NAMBLA are very clear that they think children not only can,
And anyone with a brain in their heads doesn't care what NAMBLA members think, or claim to think, so it's irrelevant.


Anyone who does not believe the government has any place setting such arbitrary standards really can't support them setting standards in these cases, can they?
As with everything, there are various flavors of libertarian. The one you describe is the one with nothing but nuts. That's not the only one. Sane libertarians recognize that, humans being what they are, a certain degree of government is a necessary evil. They want as little government as possible, and prefer that most decisions be made at as local a level as is feasible, but they don't have a problem with a system of laws being in place to deal with those who harm, steal from, defraud or unjustly interfere with the rights of others. Fucking kids qualifies as harm, thus NAMBLA sucks to any sane libertarian, just as much as would Al Qaeda or the Manson Family.


Or is this going to be another one of those "we want to be able to do anything we want, but we still want to be able to control what you do" things?
Cephus, you write a fair amount of dumb things here and there, but you aren't a moron, so stop with the absolutist and dichotomous thinking.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Because it's something that you can't answer. Given the fact that there *ARE* in fact, consenting adults who agree to be killed, eaten, mutilated, etc. out there, are Libertarians going to permit this kind of thing, or are they going to ban it?
Given the high likelihood such adults are insane, probably not. Just like we aren't going to be in favor of blind people being cab drivers.


But everyone who has responded has done so emotionally, not in holding to the logical ramifications of libertarian thought. Do you set arbitrary standards based on emotional reactions or do you push for freedom, even if it makes you emotionally uneasy?

How about reasonable standards based on practical judgment and rational thought?

I know a lot more than you about the logical ramifications of libertarian thought. You seem to have gotten your concept of libertarianism by reading the ramblings of the most insane lib contingent. I'd recommend reading someone more sane, maybe starting with PJ O'Roarke.

[JeffreyWKramer]

You're ignoring what Cephus said. Given the various CONSENTING ADULTS who want to be killed and eaten, should that be permissible?

The question would be, are they capable of really giving consent, vs. insane. It is hard to imagine a sane person wanting to be part of that scenario.

[o1pickleboy]

The question would be, are they capable of really giving consent, vs. insane. It is hard to imagine a sane person wanting to be part of that scenario.


Which opens the question defining insane. Whose definition our we using? Yours? Mine? Do we have to keep a national standred on what is considered insane? Or will we find each region having different standreds. As I could see it happening. With such radical differnces between areas like the south and Calfornia.

[Dan Apodaca]

Which opens the question defining insane. Whose definition our we using? Yours? Mine? Do we have to keep a national standred on what is considered insane? Or will we find each region having different standreds. As I could see it happening. With such radical differnces between areas like the south and Calfornia.

As far as I know, insanity isn't measured socially. There are medical determinations.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Which opens the question defining insane. Whose definition our we using? Yours? Mine? Do we have to keep a national standred on what is considered insane? Or will we find each region having different standreds. As I could see it happening. With such radical differnces between areas like the south and Calfornia.

Sanity and insanity are legal concepts, as is "competency" and as such, definitions vary from place to place, along with the laws. "Mental illness" and related concepts are somewhat easier to define, though there are some differences in such definitions across cultures, despite efforts such as the ICD-9 to standardize diagnosis.

In either case, such diagnosis should probably be left to those qualified to make such determinations.

[JeffreyWKramer]

As far as I know, insanity isn't measured socially. There are medical determinations.

Well, no (see above). Insanity is technically a legal concept, though mental illness is one factor which can go into the determination. There is a certain degree of overlap between the two terms, though insanity is specifically concerned with the competence of a person to make decisions, and the person's degree of responsibility for his or her own behavior, capacity to tell right from wrong, etc.

You're right, however, that insanity is not just a matter of purely social judgment, in the manner of, say, popularity, or fashion. There are commentators who have suggested otherwise, most notably Szasz, but their observations are both badly outdated and largely inconsistent with reality.

[o1pickleboy]

As far as I know, insanity isn't measured socially. There are medical determinations.


which is always challenged. There are always experts on each side of a issue. So shrink's almost disagree with each other as much as we as a society do. At one time homosexuals and others with sexual deviantcy(for the lack of a better word) where considered insane.

Plus there is a difference between legaly insane and medically insane. If the libertarians want move standreds down to the local level. I could see the standreds varing from state to state and varing to the extremes.

If they remove any legal standred at all and just go my the medical standred. Then they will vary from shrink to shrink and the current standred they set. Which could change alot time to time. At one time Froid's work was the cornerstone of the mindscience. Now it is agrued and discredited all the time. Half the field still believing and practicing it. The other not.



Dam, Jeffrey two post before I finished mine. Your quick and ten times better at explaining it then me

[Tommy]

Obviously, they're not the same thing. I personally believe that it would be possible for people to live without government and to live in peace.
Which leads me to believe politics is a circular system. Since you are a COMMUNIST! Huzzah!

Of course it is impossible to get to the place where Communism and anarchy peacefully collide. Except in a utopia and that will never happen. Ever.

Of course with Libertarianism one must know that where we are now is a direct result from more Libertarian times. The early 1900's are not exactly known as a golden age of humanity.

[Tages]

Which leads me to believe politics is a circular system. Since you are a COMMUNIST! Huzzah!

Of course it is impossible to get to the place where Communism and anarchy peacefully collide. Except in a utopia and that will never happen. Ever.

Of course with Libertarianism one must know that where we are now is a direct result from more Libertarian times. The early 1900's are not exactly known as a golden age of humanity.
You mean the early 1900s that gave us the income tax, the Federal Reserve, massive tariffs and protectionism, Jim Crowe, and World War I?

I agree. The early 20th Century was a libertarian paradise.

[ragnarok_2012]

You mean the early 1900s that gave us the income tax, the Federal Reserve, massive tariffs and protectionism, Jim Crowe, and World War I?

I agree. The early 20th Century was a libertarian paradise.

You forgot Prohibition.

[Tages]

When im having sex, i make my girlfriend call my Tages.
But we aren't sure how it's actually pronounced, so she calls me mom instead.
Rhymes with "pages."

[Tages]

You forgot Prohibition.
Gah, how could I? Toss that on the pile.

Also forgot the Spanish-American War.

USA: "We've had enough. Here is a list of our demands."
Spain: "We agree to all your demands, just don't hurt us."
USA: "This is an insult we cannot tolerate. Prepare yourselves for war!"

[ragnarok_2012]

Gah, how could I? Toss that on the pile.

Also forgot the Spanish-American War.

USA: "We've had enough. Here is a list of our demands."
Spain: "We agree to all your demands, just don't hurt us."
USA: "This is an insult we cannot tolerate. Prepare yourselves for war!"

Whenever I hear an adult ask me what Prohibition is, I want to cry.

[Cephus]

Wouldn't that fall under the same reasoning as children though? Ie, incapable of actually giving consent. In this case because they're clearly insane.

Ah, so you just declare anything you don't personally approve of as being insane and take away their rights.

How about we declare homosexuality to be insane? It was considered such at one time. Or interracial couples? Or drug users? Take your pick, it all works the same way.

In the end, it's the hard questions, like this one, that a political system needs to be able to face and so far, Libertarians here haven't been able to address it, they simply keep dodging it. You don't get to trumpet your system as wonderful and then sweep all the nasty little parts under the rug when they become embarassing.

[Cephus]

And anyone with a brain in their heads doesn't care what NAMBLA members think, or claim to think, so it's irrelevant.

That answers nothing and you know it. Shall we substitute "Libertarian" for "NAMBLA"? Might as well, makes as much sense.


As with everything, there are various flavors of libertarian. The one you describe is the one with nothing but nuts.

As has been pointed out, this is the definition off the web page, but even allowing that, how does pointing out the inherent insanity and irrationality of the stated Libertarian position mean anything different than Libertarians only addressing whacko Neo-Con Republicans?


Cephus, you write a fair amount of dumb things here and there, but you aren't a moron, so stop with the absolutist and dichotomous thinking.

I'm not, I'm asking a question and *EVERYONE* is dodging it because it has uncomfortable ramifications. What we've learned here today, boys and girls, is that even Libertarians don't really understand or take their political philosophically seriously.

[Cephus]

You're right, however, that insanity is not just a matter of purely social judgment, in the manner of, say, popularity, or fashion. There are commentators who have suggested otherwise, most notably Szasz, but their observations are both badly outdated and largely inconsistent with reality.

In the end, who decides? Is being suicidal insane? What about having terminal cancer and wanting a death with dignity, is that insane too? So if we get the terminal patient who wants to be eaten alive as their form of death, where do we put that? Seriously, you can't just subjectively pick one thing as being okay and another not, simply because it squicks you.

Hard questions need serious answers. If you can't provide serious answers, then maybe it's time to reconsider the position.

[JeffreyWKramer]

As has been pointed out, this is the definition off the web page,

And do you really need it pointed out that reality is often more complex than what you find on a web page?


I'm not, I'm asking a question and *EVERYONE* is dodging it because it has uncomfortable ramifications. What we've learned here today, boys and girls, is that even Libertarians don't really understand or take their political philosophically seriously.

Your illogic here is just astounding.

[Dreadstar]

What we've learned here today, boys and girls, is that even Libertarians don't really understand or take their political philosophically seriously.

Yep.

Oh wait, I thought of another possiblity to explain it!

Just maybe it's not the libertarians that don't really understand?

Maybe?



....nah, couldn't be.

[JeffreyWKramer]

In the end, who decides?
Generally, qualified experts.


Is being suicidal insane?
Sometimes such decisions are irrational and due to mental illness, sometimes not.

What about having terminal cancer and wanting a death with dignity, is that insane too? So if we get the terminal patient who wants to be eaten alive as their form of death, where do we put that?
This is one of the times when suicide is sometimes arguably a rational choice.


Seriously, you can't just subjectively pick one thing as being okay and another not, simply because it squicks you.
Good thing I'm not doing that, then.

The reality is, there are certain sorts of behaviors - such as hallucinations, paranoid delusions, cannibalism - which are generally a very reliable sign of severe psychistric disturbance of one sort or another. This isn't just a matter of "we don't like that, so we'll call that nuts." Granted, that has happened in the past, more than should have been the case, but the trend has been away from that for decades now. Get with the modern, real world and your critiques may be taken more seriously.


Hard questions need serious answers. If you can't provide serious answers, then maybe it's time to reconsider the position.
You're the only one who seems to think you're asking "hard questions." This misperception of yours is apparently based on your distorted and innacurate view of libertarian concepts, and an apparent tendency toward absolutist and dichotomous thinking.

[o1pickleboy]

What was that old saying "only crazy people deal in extremes' or something to that effect.

There are big differences between Anarchists and libertarians.

[Tages]

I'm not, I'm asking a question and *EVERYONE* is dodging it because it has uncomfortable ramifications. What we've learned here today, boys and girls, is that even Libertarians don't really understand or take their political philosophically seriously.
Yes, because a sample consisting of a single-digit number of members of a political philosophy encompassing millions of people is enough to make that declaration.

We've answered your objections. You just refuse to understand our answers.

[BlairH]

Cephus, did a libertarian run over your dog or something?

[Spike-X]

Cephus, did a libertarian run over your dog or something?
The dog obviously wanted to be run over, or it wouldn't have run out in front of the car like that!

[Lorendiac]

What was that old saying "only crazy people deal in extremes' or something to that effect.

There are big differences between Anarchists and libertarians.

I remember Obi-Wan saying to Anakin in the latest Star Wars movie, "Only the Sith deal in absolutes."

Which I thought was awfully funny. Because when you say "only" the Sith do something, you are making an absolute statement that doesn't allow for any exceptions in specific cases. So logically, what Obi-Wan was saying translated to: "Only the Sith deal in absolutes. And I can only make such sweeping, dogmatic statements because I am secretly a Sith myself! And you're too dumb to notice the logical implications of what I just said!" :D :D :D

[Tommy]

I agree. The early 20th Century was a libertarian paradise.
Are you seriously claiming that the 1900's were not a more libertarian time? Seriously? Really?

[Paul McEnery]

Rhymes with "pages."
You're out there pretending to be a 16 year old boy to entrap congressmen, aren't you?




















Or is it pretending to be a 52 year old congressman to snare 16 year old boys?:D

[Paul McEnery]

The question would be, are they capable of really giving consent, vs. insane. It is hard to imagine a sane person wanting to be part of that scenario.
Well, it saves on funeral costs.

[Noah Johnson]

Or is it pretending to be a 52 year old congressman to snare 16 year old boys?:D
Yeah, 'cause tricking a 16-year-old boy into sex requires subterfuge.

Teenage sex is like a murder mystery; means and motive are already established, so the question becomes one of opportunity.

[Cephus]

And do you really need it pointed out that reality is often more complex than what you find on a web page?

So basically, you're telling the Libertarian Party that they have no right to define what they think Libertarianism is. And you think I'm messed up?

[JeffreyWKramer]

So basically, you're telling the Libertarian Party that they have no right to define what they think Libertarianism is. And you think I'm messed up?

Yes, I do. I think you're woefully ignorant about this topic. You don't understand libertarian thought at all.

Keep in mind, libertarianism, as a political philosophy, predates the current Libertarian Party by almost 200 years. Not all libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, any more than all believers in democracy are members of the Democratic Party.

Historically, the Libertarian Party has largely consisted of assorted nutcases who represent only a fraction of people embracing some brand of Libertarian philosophy. Specifically, the LP contains a lot of Randian objectivists, anarchist-leaning sorts, etc. That's starting to change, as more people of a libertarian mindset get fed up with the major two parties and drift to the LP, but the nuts and flakes are still a major component in the party, possibly still a majority. The traditional home of a lot of libertarian thinkers was the GOP, which used to focus on things like fiscal responsibility and limited government.

One of the most notable public figures espousing libertarian ideals today is PJ O'Roarke, who is (or was, last time I noticed) a registered Republican.

[Tages]

Are you seriously claiming that the 1900's were not a more libertarian time? Seriously? Really?
Claiming that the early 1900s had the problems they had because of a political philosophy (modern libertarianism) is quite specious logic. You didn't even specify in what ways the early 1900s were supposedly more libertarian, or why this proto-libertarianism is to be blamed for whatever problems you were thinking of.

[o1pickleboy]

So basically, you're telling the Libertarian Party that they have no right to define what they think Libertarianism is. And you think I'm messed up?



Define Democrat. Whatever answer you give I'm Joe Liberman and Russ Feingoid would agrue it and both would give completly different answers when they are asked to define democrat.

Every party has differences in some beliefs and how strong or how far they go.

[Tages]

So basically, you're telling the Libertarian Party that they have no right to define what they think Libertarianism is. And you think I'm messed up?
No more than the Republican Party has the right to define republicanism.

[Cephus]

Not all libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party, any more than all believers in democracy are members of the Democratic Party.

Since this thread is specifically about VOTING LIBERTARIAN, that's what I'm addressing. If you want to run off on a tangent, go ahead, I'm following the thread.

[Hoss]

I forgot to ask, Hoss... Was this an ideological shift for you or a partisan one?

Did you join the Libertarian Party, as the thread title seems to imply? If so, word is that they really moderated their platform at their last national convention.

No, I have not joined the liberterian party.

And I should probable be writing "liberterian" instead of "Liberterian."

I'm fairly sick of politicial parties - which means I'm still completely disqusted with the national Republican party and starting to get fed up with the Dems. I'm pretty sure that I'll be carrying the independent tag for a while. As you know, I've been one of those ultra partisans for a while and I'm a bit sick of it.

Funny enough, the move that the grassroots with Lamont and Lieberman really fired me up for ideology over party. I need to concentrate on supporting the right candidate for the right reasons and worry less about the war between the Dems and Reps.

[JeffreyWKramer]

I need to concentrate on supporting the right candidate for the right reasons and worry less about the war between the Dems and Reps.

You are progressing, young padawan.

[Loren]

I'm fairly sick of politicial parties - which means I'm still completely disqusted with the national Republican party and starting to get fed up with the Dems.

*cough*Bull Moose*cough* (http://www.bullmoose.org)