Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by KenH, Oct 19, 2007.
From the source linked above: "...But the party that does well in the future will be the one that makes the better guess about where to place its bets. My money's on the libertarians. People were shocked a couple of weeks ago when Ron Paul--one of those mysterious Republicans who seem to be running for President because everyone needs a hobby--raised $5 million from July through September, mostly on the Internet. Paul is a libertarian. In fact, he was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1988. The computer revolution has bred a generation of smart loners, many of them rich and some of them complacently Darwinian, convinced that they don't need society--nor should anyone else. They are going to be an increasingly powerful force in politics."
It is no surprise to me that Ron Paul raised $5,000,000 this summer.
I have long been saying that Libertarians are fairly rich people although I have not called them Darwinian as the article does but Darwinian does seem to be a good label for them.
In 1988, Ron Paul got nearly a half million votes. That is a good measurement of the size of the Libertarian Party.
Clearly, Ron Paul is the de facto head of the Libertarian Party to this day and they has the same anti-Bush element. The problem for the Libertarians is that they cannot carry enough precincts to elect any more than a handful of delegates to the GOP convention. Libertarians have only gained a modicum of power by caucusing with the GOP and by pretending to be Republicans.
In short, their numbers are small, their wallets are large, and they are losers at elections.
Only 3 - 5% of the American colonists supported the idea of a revolt against King George...at first. Numbers mean nothing in the begining of a struggle. People are tired of hearing the same old lies from their public servants CMG. Ron Paul is doing something no one else is...telling the truth and people know it. I don't know if libertarians are all rich Darwinians or not, I have my doubts about all that personally. I have no doubt however that after dealing with the Malthusian elite's minnions in the democrat and republican parties and hearing their Machiavellian doublespeak for so long people no longer have any faith in them. Well, people who haven't been totally blinded by their non stop corporate PR and the effects of their constant mind numbing social engineering propaganda that is.
Besides Darwinists have had their theory of evolution turned upside down since the discovery of the bacterial flagellar motor. :smilewinkgrin:
As a Libertarian, do you think a woman should be able to have an abortion if she chooses?
Gay marriage and abortion is probably one of the issues that drive many conservatives away from the libertarian party. As well as legalizing drug use.
Also, why should we trade with a country that has a nuclear missile pointed at one of our allies? How far are Libertarians willing to go as far as freedon concerning sexual issues?
As far as replacing "welfare" with private charity, which I am all for, and Rush Limbaugh proved last week what can be done with private donations, I have known many Libertarians over the years and found them to be "as tight as a fiddle string" when it comes to their wallet.
1) No. www.l4l.org
2) I believe in the separation of marriage and state. Since marriage is holy matrimony, then it is a matter for the church alone. Period. End of discussion. Drop one's voice.
3) I am in favor of the decriminalizing of drug use among adults.
4) We traded with the Soviet Union. We have a huge amount of trade with China today. So the answer is yes.
5) Actions among consenting adults should be decriminalized.
6) You can find people whose wallets are "tight as a fiddle string" among all ideologies. I don't think that one's political beliefs have anything to do with that.
Well, this libertarian is neither rich(although most Americans are certainly rich compared to most of the people in the world) nor a Darwinian.
Ken, now stop yer fussin and get into that little box. You know you either have to be all libertarian or all republican or all democrat or whatever. There's no such animal as mixed bred political ideologies. Why the very thought of it reeks of Malthusian Darwinism! :laugh:
Well it seems that there is just as much division in the libertarian party as there is in the other two. What would you do if a pro-choice libertarian ran against an anti-abortion Republican? Let me guess. You would stay home.
Poncho, I am not sure that Libertarians are even 3% of the electorate. I think that they number well less than 1,000,000. I think that the author called Libertarians "Darwinian" because they seem to advocate survival of the fittest in social issues. Afterall, if you want to "live and let live" as the Libertarians say that they do on their website, then you have to get rid of Christianity and Darwin gives Libertarians political cover.
1) The actual number is around 15% being voters that support less government interference in economic and personal issues(this is not saying that they are big L libertarians but small l libertarians) - www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6862.
2) That can't be true as I am a Christian and not a Darwinian. Do you honestly believe that I want to ger rid of Christianity?
No, I don't stay home. Too many men and women have sacrificed their lives for me to be able to freely vote to stay home(at least for major elections).
Abortion does not drive my vote. It is simply one issue among a plethora of issues that I consider. Since 1974 I have voted for candidates for offices in various levels of government from the Democratic Party, Republican Party, Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, Green Party, and also independent candidates, and even wrote in a non-candidate one time.
The so-called 15% includes many Democrats who want abortion (less interference in personal issues) and gays and lesbians who want same-sex marriage (less interference in personal issues). However, I don't think that Ron Paul, a Libertarian with both a big L and a small l, can draw the Democrats to his side. Nor can he attract Republicans, as we are now seeing.
If you truly want a live and let live society, Ken, as the Libertarian website says that all Libertarians want, then you have to attract what your website said were Darwinians among the Libertarians. Libertarians believe in survival of the fittest because their live and let live philosophy says that if you are stupid enough to take hard drugs, then the government ought to let you and let you die. This is also echoed in same-sex marriage, prostitution, abortion, euthanasia and other social issues which the Libertarians wish to turn their backs and pretend not to see the demise of the unfit. To my thinking, it is a form of shoot your wounded on social issues--or leave your wounded behind. However, I don't want to overemphasize that analogy for fear of being labelled a flame thrower. :laugh:
Yes, that is what I want as far as government interference in society is concerned. I do not want the government dictating my life(such as how I spend my money, what food and drink I consume, my relationship with God, etc., etc., etc.)
The trouble is, Ken, what Libertarians put in their platform for live and let live is legalized drugs, prostitution, same-sex sex, and abortion.
I am not even sure that the Libertarians are going to extend any medical help to the victims of the above activities.
I think what the majority of Americans want in both of the major parties is to build a fence so that people do not fall over the cliff. Most Americans think that these activities are a sign of petty criminality and anti-social behaviour. Of course, abortion is murder so we cannot tolerate it as the Libertarians say that they can in their platform. And Ron Paul himself is 100% against the Republican platform on abortion which calls for a constitutional amendment to protect human beings from the government.
Which two items I agree with decriminalizing.
Seems like we keep mowing the same patch of grass over and over.
Adults should be free to consentually do anything they wish sexually. Your turn: how far are conservatives not willing to go on sexual issues? Should divorce be illegal? Should porn be illegal? If the answer to either of the last two questions is, "Yes," then half the [offensive comments snipped]should be incarcerated. To ignore the two most pressing issues of the day in favor iceburg tips such as homosexuality and prositution requires neither courage nor principle and I'd like to think more highly of you.
Ahem, Pot thy name is Marijuana:
Giuliani not only supports abortion but partial birth abortion at that! Perhaps you should interogate members of your own party and spend less time worrying over self professed pro-lifer KenH.
Not after Ken. After Ron Paul for his 100% opposition to the Republican National Coalition For Life and the Reagan plank calling for a constitutional amendment to preserve human life.
I live in a crime-ridden neighborhood. A few years ago we were invaded by gangs from Detroit, Chicago, and California and my neighborhood became the murder capital of Indiana, outpacing Gary, Indiana, a city not unlike East Saint Louis, Illinois. The things that the Libertarian Party says should be legal are practically legal out here because the Democrat Mayor of Indianapolis is soft on crime, to say the least. This part of Indianapolis is a dangerous cesspool. So much for legalized drugs and prostitution--all they make is a terrible place to live. That is the reason that I suspect that many "live and let live" Libertarians are, as one of their own suggested, well-heeled and Darwinian.
Michael Kinsley is not a libertarian. He is a liberal.