Libertarian Party Boss says Vote for Romney

[Hotdoger]

I don't really care what Root thinks, nor do I really care much about the so-called 'libertarians' who are voting for Romney. Conservatives are in the closet all over our movement, and the sooner we get rid of them, the sooner we can draw from the democrats who seek more individual liberty and to encourage the market to produce socially desirable results. They are out there, but they do not want to join a party that is full of Republican rejects, often who support aggressive foreign policy and xenophobic immigration policy, both of which are severely at odds with the libertarian idea of market solutions to problems rather than protectionism or force.

Why should conservatives want to join a bunch of pothead stormfront everthing is the jews fault Libertarians?

 

[hacksawfg]

I assume we will hear the same thing about Johnson when he goes back to the GOP to run for Senate in a few years. He wasn't a real Libertarian, just a Republican hack.

Even if Johnson was in the GOP, I would still vote for him based on his positions and track record. It's not about the party for me, it's about the person. Same reason I voted for Ellsworth over Coates in 2010.

Unfortunately, the CURRENT Republican and Democrat candidates just don't mesh with my views on the world at all, and there's more than just 2A rights to worry about. I know that's probably blasphemy on a gun board (and I'm putting my flame suit on right now), but personal freedoms and liberty ARE important. Being able to talk on the phone without worrying if the government is listening IS important, and I don't see either R's or D's addressing that AT ALL. If it doesn't bother you that much, que sera sera, vote Romney. You'll probably still have gun rights at the end of his presidency, hopefully he'll do a better job picking SCOTUS members than previous Republicans, just don't expect much else to change.

 

[downzero]

Why should conservatives want to join a bunch of pothead stormfront everthing is the jews fault Libertarians?

They shouldn't, and we don't want them.

Conservatism is a political ideology without any philosophical basis. Preserving the status quo is nothing other than a political position without a defense.

That is why conservatism can never be the answer to progressivism. Resisting change merely slows the pace--it cannot change the outcome.

Liberalism and Marxism really are opposites. Conservatism is merely a bystander in the real debate.

 

[88GT]

They shouldn't, and we don't want them.

That much is obvious. Though I struggle to see how you expect to make any progress in terms of succeeding in getting your candidates elected without expanding the bloc of voters that find the LP appealing. Perhaps you don't.

Conservatism is a political ideology without any philosophical basis. Preserving the status quo is nothing other than a political position without a defense.

That is why conservatism can never be the answer to progressivism. Resisting change merely slows the pace--it cannot change the outcome.

Liberalism and Marxism really are opposites. Conservatism is merely a bystander in the real debate.

Conservatism isn't a political ideology either. You can't have an ideology without a philosophical basis. But if you really want to dive into the semantics (I know, you don't, it exposes your position as one of half-truths), you would admit that conservatism in America is based originally on the founding principles of limited government. The use of the word has continued even though the platforms of those using it has changed. So we have these silly little discussions by people who want to bash conservatism as a bankrupt political philosophy on one hand while simultaneously claiming it isn't one on the other.

 

[Expat]

That much is obvious. Though I struggle to see how you expect to make any progress in terms of succeeding in getting your candidates elected without expanding the bloc of voters that find the LP appealing. Perhaps you don't.

It makes it easier to complain and maintain your ideological purity, if you have no chance of actually getting in the game. They get under 1% of the vote and genuinely seem satisfied with that. That tells me a lot.

 

[downzero]

Conservatism isn't a political ideology either. You can't have an ideology without a philosophical basis. But if you really want to dive into the semantics (I know, you don't, it exposes your position as one of half-truths), you would admit that conservatism in America is based originally on the founding principles of limited government.

It appears that is you who wants to make this a discussion about definitions. Without digging out the definition (although I suggest you do so), there is no reason to believe that any type of "ideology" cannot be based on faith rather than a philosophical basis. Conservatism is, from my perspective, just that--a set of conclusions about the world without a basis. That is, unless you consider "conserving" the status quo or restoring the status quo ante a basis. In that sense, its basis is a tautology (something along the lines of "that's how it, because that's how it is [or had been], and that's how it'll always be...").

I don't wish to debate definitions, but under my definition of an "ideology," a set of conclusions without any rationale still qualifies as an ideology, even though it is void of any real basis.

Whatever conservatism is, it is not based on any principle of limited government. Conservatives favor using the wealth, force, and power of government to restrict immigration and to police the world. If conservatism had any relationship to limited government at all, the military would be the first of thing it would fear, because nothing encourages the health of a powerful (and possibly, oppressive) state like a strong military. If anything, conservatives' willingness to restrict immigration and to pour money into the military industrial complex seriously questions any discussion that they favor limited government at all. Just like the federalists that came before them, they seek a large, powerful national government and flirt with mercantilist ideas of protectionism for their cronies.

It is the myth that conservatism has some relationship to limited government that keeps the modern GOP going. If that were severed, and if the American people finally realized that Republicans do not care to bring them a limited government, but instead, a different big government, the GOP will be finished, because the number of votes that the democratic party can buy with the wealthy's money is endless compared to the single vote that each wealthy person has.

The fiscal mess we are in began with Reagan, who is regarded as a conservative icon. It was his idea that deficits didn't matter, and his path of spending future generations' money to buy votes today that forged the path toward the Bushes and Obamas of today.

Conservatives care about limited government when it benefits them. Otherwise, they cannot resist the opportunity to use the wealth and power of the people's own government to restrict their personal liberties through blue laws and other moral legislation, fight with the rest of the world, and assure that xenophobia is the law of the land.

 

[downzero]

It makes it easier to complain and maintain your ideological purity, if you have no chance of actually getting in the game. They get under 1% of the vote and genuinely seem satisfied with that. That tells me a lot.

I guess being "right" is determined, in your world, by how many people agree with you. I wonder what conservatives would really think about the idea that "consensus" was the determination of what is "right."

 

[hacksawfg]

It makes it easier to complain and maintain your ideological purity, if you have no chance of actually getting in the game. They get under 1% of the vote and genuinely seem satisfied with that. That tells me a lot.

Hypothetical situation -if a candidate with positions & qualifications (especially on 2A) the exact same to Johnson ran as a Democrat against Romney in 2016 (basing his party choice on his stances on social issues), and therefore had a legitimate shot at winning, would you vote for him (or her) despite the "D"?

I voted for Barr in 2008, haven't whined about it at all. Am I satisfied with the fact that Obama is in office? No. Would I have been satisfied if McCain was in office? Maybe, but the fact that Sarah Palin was a heart attack away from the presidency scared the ever-lovin' s*** out of me. No matter if Romney or Obama is elected, the day after the election I'll know that we'll still be living under the Patriot Act, I'll still have to deal with TSA on this side of the border, the IRS isn't going away, the budget still won't be balanced in 4 years, the list goes on. No sense in complaining because unless somebody with radically different ideas on how to do things gets elected it's never really going to change, we'll just keep riding the see-saw.

 

[Expat]

I guess being "right" is determined, in your world, by how many people agree with you. I wonder what conservatives would really think about the idea that "consensus" was the determination of what is "right."

I would say that if you are a political party that is seeking to elect individuals to office and you are unable to garner even 1% in most elections, then you have to take a long hard look at either your message or your messengers.

 

[Expat]

Hypothetical situation -if a candidate with positions & qualifications (especially on 2A) the exact same to Johnson ran as a Democrat against Romney in 2016 (basing his party choice on his stances on social issues), and therefore had a legitimate shot at winning, would you vote for him (or her) despite the "D"?

If the above was true, I would gladly vote for him. Although I would keep wondering what happened to the libtards that allowed the guy to get into that position. I would also make sure everyone in the party hierarchy knew that I was doing it and why.

 

[88GT]

It appears that is you who wants to make this a discussion about definitions.

Dang skippy. When you premise your argument on incorrect definitions, I think a discussion on the definition of the words being bandied about is rather important.

Without digging out the definition (although I suggest you do so),

Way ahead of ya.

there is no reason to believe that any type of "ideology" cannot be based on faith rather than a philosophical basis.

Never said there was. But I did say that conservatism isn't an ideology because an ideology comes with a unique set of parameters that define it and set it apart from all other ideologies.

What is conservatism's ideology?

Conservatism is, from my perspective, just that--a set of conclusions about the world without a basis.

Conservatism doesn't exist without a basis. In fact, conservatism absolutely relies on a pre-existing basis.

That is, unless you consider "conserving" the status quo or restoring the status quo ante a basis. In that sense, its basis is a tautology (something along the lines of "that's how it, because that's how it is [or had been], and that's how it'll always be...").

Nonsense. Preserving the status quo is not tautological unless your reason for preserving the status quo is to preserve the status quo. That isn't always what conservatism is about.

I don't wish to debate definitions, but under my definition of an "ideology," a set of conclusions without any rationale still qualifies as an ideology, even though it is void of any real basis.

Of course you don't. Because then you'd have to admit that conservative doesn't have a stand-alone set of ideals, that it always relates back to an absolute, and that absolute can be anywhere on the political spectrum. It's much more convenient to point fingers and play the blame game when you can control the definition of what a conservative is and make all your conclusive statements about that singular, limited, and potentially incorrect definition. In that regard, it's not unlike the racist label being used by the left.
But I'm curious, what are these conclusions that lack basis?

Whatever conservatism is, it is not based on any principle of limited government.

It may or may not be. It is because you don't understand or recognize this that have a problem with your entire argument.

Conservatives favor using the wealth, force, and power of government to restrict immigration and to police the world. If conservatism had any relationship to limited government at all, the military would be the first of thing it would fear, because nothing encourages the health of a powerful (and possibly, oppressive) state like a strong military. If anything, conservatives' willingness to restrict immigration and to pour money into the military industrial complex seriously questions any discussion that they favor limited government at all. Just like the federalists that came before them, they seek a large, powerful national government and flirt with mercantilist ideas of protectionism for their cronies.

This is ludicrous. You might have a point if you limit the discussion to modern American conservatism as it is illustrated in the voting habits of those who self-identify as such. But that isn't the definition of a conservative. That's the definition of one type of conservative, and it's a definition which I would argue has been hijacked, bastardized, and manipulated for the convenience of those who would like to paint others in a negative light.

It is the myth that conservatism has some relationship to limited government that keeps the modern GOP going. If that were severed, and if the American people finally realized that Republicans do not care to bring them a limited government, but instead, a different big government, the GOP will be finished, because the number of votes that the democratic party can buy with the wealthy's money is endless compared to the single vote that each wealthy person has.

The whole premise of your point is that people still think conservative means what you're arguing it doesn't mean. How does that work, exactly? If people still think conservative means limited government, then how is that not what it means? I suppose it's a political impossibility for someone to cloak himself in a label with a known and specific definition/set of values for the sake of being elected without actually adhering to those values in his voting record. Yeah, that never happens.

The fiscal mess we are in began with Reagan, who is regarded as a conservative icon. It was his idea that deficits didn't matter, and his path of spending future generations' money to buy votes today that forged the path toward the Bushes and Obamas of today.

Well, at least you didn't blame Bush.

Conservatives care about limited government when it benefits them. Otherwise, they cannot resist the opportunity to use the wealth and power of the people's own government to restrict their personal liberties through blue laws and other moral legislation, fight with the rest of the world, and assure that xenophobia is the law of the land.

I'll give you this much, you are staying true to the "lib" root of your political persuasion. Right down to the ridiculous talking points and baseless claims.

 

[88GT]

Hypothetical situation -if a candidate with positions & qualifications (especially on 2A) the exact same to Johnson ran as a Democrat against Romney in 2016 (basing his party choice on his stances on social issues), and therefore had a legitimate shot at winning, would you vote for him (or her) despite the "D"?

I voted for Barr in 2008, haven't whined about it at all. Am I satisfied with the fact that Obama is in office? No. Would I have been satisfied if McCain was in office? Maybe, but the fact that Sarah Palin was a heart attack away from the presidency scared the ever-lovin' s*** out of me. No matter if Romney or Obama is elected, the day after the election I'll know that we'll still be living under the Patriot Act, I'll still have to deal with TSA on this side of the border, the IRS isn't going away, the budget still won't be balanced in 4 years, the list goes on. No sense in complaining because unless somebody with radically different ideas on how to do things gets elected it's never really going to change, we'll just keep riding the see-saw.

I hate to burst your bubble, but none that would change the day after the election regardless of who won.

And there's no guarantee of it would change even if Paul or Johnson could win. As the libers are so fond of saying when defending Obama, the president doesn't really have all that much power. So how much could we really bet on Johnson achieving in this world of impotent POTUSes?

 

[hacksawfg]

I hate to burst your bubble, but none that would change the day after the election regardless of who won.

And there's no guarantee of it would change even if Paul or Johnson could win. As the libers are so fond of saying when defending Obama, the president doesn't really have all that much power. So how much could we really bet on Johnson achieving in this world of impotent POTUSes?

Don't know, but based on his track record in New Mexico, I'm betting he would least veto a lot more BS than the other two. What's the worst that could happen after four years of Johnson? Nothing gets done? Partisan bickering continues? We still have the Patriot Act, TSA? People are concerned about their 2A rights, and conservatives and liberals still hate each other? That's all happening right now, but I'd rather be able to say "You know what, we tried it and it didn't work, we need to do this differently," than "Eh, it will never work so don't even bother."

If Romney is elected, I would love to see him succeed because I want America to succeed - at the same, and I'll say it again like a broken record - personal liberty, privacy, the ability to express unpopular opinions and NOT have the government involved in every single f***ing bit of people's private lives are important too. This country has survived for over 236 years, I don't think it's going to disappear no matter who gets elected. The big question is, how much liberty are we willing to give up or take away from other people because we don't like how they live their lives or what they say? I myself have come to the conclusion that we've given up too much, and I can't in good conscience vote for someone who isn't going to at least ATTEMPT to stop going down that road RIGHT NOW, whether that's a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or whomever.

NSFW language in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zc0BI7T1LA

 

[downzero]

I would say that if you are a political party that is seeking to elect individuals to office and you are unable to garner even 1% in most elections, then you have to take a long hard look at either your message or your messengers.

And I would say that if you don't recognize the one thing the two major parties agree on--that they don't like competition--then you've completely missed the point.

I also think it's a mistake to think that I do not influence policy because my views will not ever engulf a major political party. Ideas are powerful and libertarians are in both major parties and at all levels of government.

I would cite our modern monetary policy goals as an example. Before a certain libertarian explained the natural rate of unemployment to them, those who make our monetary policy had a completely unrealistic goal. I also think that most would agree (even those who are not anti-fed libertarians) that monetary policy is among the most powerful tools government has.

If you don't think libertarian ideas influence policy, I think you're really missing out on a lot. Because I don't care if no person from the national LP is ever elected to office. As long as voters, you included, care about liberty and vote accordingly, my policy influence is inevitable.

 

[lucky4034]

Most everyone knows that a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama, as they are both so similar.

You MAY be right... Its not a proven fact... but quite POSSIBLE.

However, one FACT that we do know is any vote NOT for Romney is a GUARANTEED vote for Obama.

 

[Ted]

Like it or not, Romneycare isn't unlawful. While I still don't agree with it, as I know a bit about its failings, its within the power of the state.

If anyone should have a problem with it, it should only be the residents of Massachusetts.

[SIZE=+1]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. [/SIZE]

 

[88GT]

Don't know, but based on his track record in New Mexico, I'm betting he would least veto a lot more BS than the other two. What's the worst that could happen after four years of Johnson? Nothing gets done? Partisan bickering continues? We still have the Patriot Act, TSA? People are concerned about their 2A rights, and conservatives and liberals still hate each other? That's all happening right now, but I'd rather be able to say "You know what, we tried it and it didn't work, we need to do this differently," than "Eh, it will never work so don't even bother."

How is it that you're okay with a status quo under Johnson (or Obama) but not under Romney?

No snarkiness intended. But the inherent contradiction in most of the resident libertarian arguments makes me giggle.

Never said it wouldn't work IF he could get in office. The problem is getting someone like Johnson in office without upsetting the apple cart and helping the other guy in the process.

 

[hacksawfg]

How is it that you're okay with a status quo under Johnson (or Obama) but not under Romney?

No snarkiness intended. But the inherent contradiction in most of the resident libertarian arguments makes me giggle.

Never said it wouldn't work IF he could get in office. The problem is getting someone like Johnson in office without upsetting the apple cart and helping the other guy in the process.

Not saying I would happy with the status quo under Johnson, but on the chance that he wasn't able to get anything meaningful done regarding the Patriot Act, Fair Tax, ending the drug ward, etc. how would it be any different than where we would be under Romney or Obama, who aren't even going to TRY and address those issues.

For example - Johnson is the only candidate who said he would get rid of the Patriot Act. Will he able to? Don't know, but I'd put a higher chance on him getting rid of it than Romney or Obama, who aren't even going to try. Would I be happy? No, but at least somebody tried to change it. Four years later, you try again. Maybe more Americans shift towards those positions and force the Republicans/Democrats to adapt to regain the presidency. That's not such a bad thing either.

If insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, why don't we end the insanity, try something different, and see if we don't get a different result?

BTW, I don't consider my a "true" libertarian. I believe in personal freedom, getting the government out of our personal lives, and doing only what they're supposed to do according to the limits set forth in the Constitution. If I thought either Romney or Obama would do that, I would vote for them. I voted for Bush twice because he wasn't the other guy; I'm not doing that again.

 

[ATM]

You MAY be right... Its not a proven fact... but quite POSSIBLE.

However, one FACT that we do know is any vote NOT for Romney is a GUARANTEED vote for Obama.

If everyone that doesn't want to vote for either one of them voted for Johnson, it would be a landslide victory for him.

Sadly, it's like pulling teeth to convince folks that merely voting against someone only serves to strengthen the control of the establishment duopoly.

 

[Willie]

Those Libertarians are smart people.. In this election we don't need another Ross Perot split the vote....