A lone Libertarian

[JohnTheHenchman]

I can't say I've met another Libertarian, because I haven't. A friend voted Libertarian for Congress but that's pretty much because he wanted to support someone who wasn't Republican or Democrat.

Anyway, I guess ever since last year when I started college, I had been searching for myself politically. And while I was always aware of Libertarians, I had no idea what they stood for until last spring. Civil liberties are clearly of paramount importance. Government interference in the lives of its citizens should be non-existant. Fiscally, they are for a national sales tax, dissolution of the IRS, and a free market.

The only thing I feel they do not have a strong stance on is the preservation of the environment, but hey it could be changed.

Anyway, I don't know any others like me. Are there any others out there?

[Zebra 3]

About a decade ago, I met a Libertarian three blocks away from the Hill in Ottawa and in all honesty he appeared to have a possible mental problem.

[Twisted Sister]

Hey, John,

I seem to be going through what you did when you figured out that you're a Libertarian. I do not feel that either major party represents me, but since I know I'm not a Republican, I voted as a Democrat last week. I wonder how many more like me are out there.

In principal, I agree with the Libertarian convictions you stated. I'd like to know more if you have some good resources.

Nice thread.

[jeo4]

I've said it a couple of times before, but it bears repeating. We need more third party candidates. It gets really old choosing between the two bourgeois parties, both of whom have candidates that are at best questionable on issues. Their campaigns are usually horrid mud fests as well. Choosing one on election day is like trying to pick which bullet will do the least damage to your skull when fired. We need more parties like yours.

[The Postmaster General]

That rings loud and clear on this side, buddy. I ran into the same problems in my Freshman year only it wasn't Libertarian, it wasn't even political. I just started hanging out with a bunch of Amish kids. It was pretty cool until I realized you couldn't get drunk or stoned, so I turned in my hat and beard then headed back to find myself. Soon enough I met some nice Gothic kids and started a comedy troupe called Peter's Dragons.

Stand by who you are man. Be honest in who you are, and then you won't find yourself, but people will find you.

[Jim H]

Libertarian is the closest to my own views, but I'm really more of a moderate. If I have to support one party over the others though, it is usually the libertarians.

The most extreme version of libertarianism (that is, the government does basically nothing besides protect people from violence and protect property from theft/exploitation) I disagree with strongly. I don't think it would work, and I don't think it should work.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by Twisted Sister
Hey, John,

I seem to be going through what you did when you figured out that you're a Libertarian. I do not feel that either major party represents me, but since I know I'm not a Republican, I voted as a Democrat last week. I wonder how many more like me are out there.

In principal, I agree with the Libertarian convictions you stated. I'd like to know more if you have some good resources.

Nice thread.

www.lp.org and www.badnarik.org

The first is the party's website and I believe they have links to every state party as well. It's a good way to get a general overview of what's what with them.

The latter is the website of Michael Badnarik the 2004 Presidential candidate. He was an under dog to win the nomination but he got it because he was clearly the most powerful when speaking. He has some great ideas, wrote a book on the constitution, and formed an alliance with David Cobb (The Green Party candidate) in an effort to protest the debates for not letting other parties in, they were both arressted. Badnarik is a man of strong conviction and only received 17,000 votes less than Nader. I'm hoping he runs again in 2008.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by jeo4
I've said it a couple of times before, but it bears repeating. We need more third party candidates. It gets really old choosing between the two bourgeois parties, both of whom have candidates that are at best questionable on issues. Their campaigns are usually horrid mud fests as well. Choosing one on election day is like trying to pick which bullet will do the least damage to your skull when fired. We need more parties like yours.

The Libertarians are a great party. Even though I don't agree with them on much more than civil liberties and a few other things, The Green Party is full of people who genuinely love this country. The Constitution Party reminds me of christian conservatives, but they are actually against the war and stuff.

The Reform Party I just don't know about. Perot seemed like an alright guy. It seemed like a party that didn't neccessarily have a set doctrine, but rather a refuge for independents. Jesse Ventura was great. But then they put up Pat Buchanan, who I respect but he's nothing like the other notables and this year they put up Nader....so well, they just fucking confuse me, haha.

[JohnTheHenchman]

Originally posted by Jim H
Libertarian is the closest to my own views, but I'm really more of a moderate. If I have to support one party over the others though, it is usually the libertarians.

The most extreme version of libertarianism (that is, the government does basically nothing besides protect people from violence and protect property from theft/exploitation) I disagree with strongly. I don't think it would work, and I don't think it should work.

I see plenty of similarities between Libertarians and Republicans in the economic sense. I would have no probem voting for a Republican with a more Libertarian as opposed to conservative ideology.

And yeah, the most extreme version should and could never work. No extreme form of government should work. I figure though, that the party just wants to make some big changes for the country, but not neccessarily things so drastic.

[The Postmaster General]

Jesse actually left the reform party and is now part of the Independence Party.

Check into them too, John.

[The Postmaster General]

bump

[Raoul Duke]

Libertarians are probably closest to my views as well I suppose..I try to be a moderate on most things.

Hey John, what do you think of the ACLU aka NAMBLA?

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
Hey John, what do you think of the ACLU aka NAMBLA?

John doens't like them, but your comment is a bit underhanded and incomplete. .

The ACLU/NAMBLA case was because there was a lawsuit were a murder occured and the family of the victim tried to sue NAMBLA because the people were members?

Wouldn't you applaud the ACLU if they represented Martin Scorcese after someone tried to sue him because John Hinkley Jr. was really into Taxi Driver?

It's not about man/boy love, it's about freedom of speech. The people on this forum are currently involved in a shit storm of protest because of THE WAR ON PORN (http://joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=94410) -- Look at the defenses in that thread. Everyone is screaming that you can't take porn away because of a feew bad apples.

Obviously, NAMBLA is a shitty organization, but you can't deride freedom of speech (no matter how stupid the speech is) because of a few bad apples.

When movies, porn, and music is involved - I see you people railing for freedom of speech, but when an organization you disagree with comes into play, all of a suddent its a matter of doign what's right.


[i]In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.[/i[

http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=8100&c=86



No one agrees with NAMBLA, but we all agree with freedom of speech and that you can't hold that accountable for real crimes. The right to advocate an unpopular opinion is essential to democracy.

Goes back to that quote that's often mistakingly credited to Voltare: " I may not agree with what you say, but to your death I will defend your right to say it." - Evelyn Hall, Friends of Voltare

[Raoul Duke]

Ah...Well, I was mostly just quoting Jon Stewart, but that was interesting none the less.


"But dude...You guys have sex...with children!"

- South Park

[The Postmaster General]

Damn, you just reminded me I need to re-up on my Comedy Central viewing habits.

Yeah, Stewart's zings totally rock, but they are usually lost without the set-ups.

And that South Park episode was gold.

[JohnTheHenchman]

I dislike the ACLU regardless of whethet or not they defended NAMBLA.

I don't see how a majority of what they do is for the good of America's civil liberties. I just don't see it.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
I dislike the ACLU regardless of whethet or not they defended NAMBLA.

I don't see how a majority of what they do is for the good of America's civil liberties. I just don't see it.


Well, you take the good and you take the bad. The way I look at it, I'm just glad to see someone fighting in the name of (Dun-a Dun-a) Sorry Rage Against The Machine guitar lapse there...

I am not totally in favor of every action they take, but what they stand for is, in theory, a great thing. They don't always hit it the way they should, but the world is pretty complex, so they are forced to fight a lot of battles that seem frivolous.

They fought against the court interventions with the Schiavo case, and while that could be reduced to them wanting to kill a helpless woman --- My biggest problem with that case was the right to privacy, and I felt Terri's was clearly being violated, and often said I wouldn't want to be on TV in that state ---- The ACLU sent their lawyers to represent in that case for just that reason -- They saw Rights to Privacy being trampled on. And the way the legal system works little injustices pave the way for larger injustices. Just as in the NAMBLA case, but siding with a clear villian, they may have very well closed the door on precedents that could be used to ban Marty, and other things that are a matter of personal choice which in of themselves cause no harm.

[outsyder]

Actually Bubba, it's Killing in the Name Of.