Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
December 16, 2014 at 11:42 am (This post was last modified: December 16, 2014 at 11:42 am by The Grand Nudger.)
-and your take on the "libertarian" candidates we've seen of late would be?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
(December 16, 2014 at 7:47 am)Nope Wrote: I have met libertarians who are pro-choice and pro-same sex marriage. They hold right wing views on everything else but believe that adults should be able to do what they want with their own bodies.
Seems that would include pro-drug legalization or at least anti-drug war. Free speech. Freedom of relgion. Strong on civil rights in general, I would think.
(December 16, 2014 at 7:47 am)Nope Wrote: Some of them are also open borders but their view on the borders has nothing to do with their love for their fellow man.
Is that what they told you or what you inferred from not liking libertarians?
(December 16, 2014 at 7:47 am)Nope Wrote: They believe that business would somehow do better if people could freely and easily move from one place to the other.
I've met quite a few libertarians, and although the open boarder types are sadly not as common as they used to be, the primary argument I heard was that people would do better if they could freely and easily move from one place to the other.
(December 16, 2014 at 7:47 am)Nope Wrote: This is the problem. He gives money to candidates that support things that will most likely hurt the country.
One thing you can count on them for is to not give any money to the Libertarian Party or LP candidates. I know they have a history with the LP, but they're definitely republicans now. Or perhaps more accurately, pro-whatever they think is good for their oil business, including special tax breaks and regulations that favor them.
December 16, 2014 at 11:46 am (This post was last modified: December 16, 2014 at 11:47 am by Thumpalumpacus.)
(December 16, 2014 at 11:42 am)Rhythm Wrote: -and your take on the "libertarian" candidates we've seen of late would be?
My take is that those who were comfortable with the rise of the Security State stayed with the Republicans, and in doing so betrayed their core values. To my mind, the essence of Libertarianism is not small government for its own sake -- it is the insurance against an overweening government. It's a subtle difference.
December 16, 2014 at 11:48 am (This post was last modified: December 16, 2014 at 11:51 am by Heywood.)
(December 16, 2014 at 11:45 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: One thing you can count on them for is to not give any money to the Libertarian Party or LP candidates. I know they have a history with the LP, but they're definitely republicans now. Or perhaps more accurately, pro-whatever they think is good for their oil business, including special tax breaks and regulations that favor them.
This is false. The Koch brothers are against government subsidies even when they are the beneficiaries of such subsidies.
Quote:"Koch Industries has opposed federal mandates and subsidies for decades," the letter to Coburn, written by the Kochs' lobbyist, reads. "Our aim is to create a free market where consumers decide winners and losers based on which products they decide to buy, instead of government picking winners and losers based on which friends or products it chooses to subsidize. One such government intervention is the tax credit that provides about $6 billion each year to blenders of ethanol."
(December 16, 2014 at 8:39 am)Tonus Wrote: Libertarians in the USA strike me as an attempt by the GOP to expand without alienating an important core constituency (the religious right).
I don't think that's what actually happened.
(December 16, 2014 at 8:39 am)Tonus Wrote: They're really just Republicans who take a slightly more liberal stand on social issues... sometimes.
They do pick up their share of disaffected Republicans.
(December 16, 2014 at 8:39 am)Tonus Wrote: I think that the GOP is understandably concerned with getting them back into the fold, since a split could be devastating for them in future elections.
I doubt they're concerned, but demographics will make the GOP more libertarian, as their hard-core social conservatives are dying off.
(December 16, 2014 at 8:39 am)Tonus Wrote: An honest-to-goodness libertarian party would be more liberal than conservative, IMO.
I agree. I sometimes refer to myself as a 'liberaltarian', but I'm barely to the left of what should be the libertarian center, classic liberalism.
(December 16, 2014 at 8:39 am)Tonus Wrote: Therefore, if the migration goes in that direction (ie, GOP towards libertarianism) it's probably better for the country in the long run.
A congress that mainly just argued over budgets would be an improvement, I think. Maybe I'm nostalgic, but it seems to me that in my youth it was more like that (probably because Democrats were more socially conservative back then); like parents arguing over the family budget.
Good god MA...where would we get our entertainment from?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
December 16, 2014 at 11:57 am (This post was last modified: December 16, 2014 at 12:19 pm by Mister Agenda.)
(December 16, 2014 at 8:50 am)Rhythm Wrote: Ask our friends across the pond and they'll tell you that our "libertarians" have shifted right with the rest of our government - to the point where they don't seem like "libertarians" to other "libertarians" anymore. Hell, they're even shifting away from what american libertarians consider to be their position. I don't see any reason to assume that this pattern will stop, or that if it does, why any libertarian remnants will even be relevant. "Libertarian" in the states is shifting towards the GOP's positions..the GOP is not moving towards libertarianism.
I feel you on the libertarian shift, especially here in SC, I feel like they've moved to my right when I used to be pretty much in the middle, libertarian-wise. I'm especially troubled by the move away from open borders.
The GOP IS moving toward libertarianism, just not consciously. As I alluded to above, their social conservatism is largely in their older members (who also happen to have the most political power), as they die off, the GOP will inevitably become more socially liberal. Economically, I'm concerned that they will still favor vast military expenditures and regulations favoring big corporations, but I think the change will be an improvement for the country. Basically the Slacker generation is going to take over.
(December 16, 2014 at 11:32 am)Heywood Wrote:
(December 16, 2014 at 11:08 am)Rhythm Wrote: You only need to pigeonhole someone when said someones aren't beating the doors down themselves Heywood. "Libertarians" have been working hard to erase any defining line between themselves and republicans - no one is forcing their hand. Even "libertarians" have been complaining about this.
Well if were just making stuff up now, How about this: Socialist and democrats have been working hard to erase any defining line between them as well.
And if we're not just making stuff up, the Democrats have been moving to the right as well. Our left would be the middle in most other countries. Our president is barely to the left of Reagan and our last Republican president was well to Reagan's right.
(December 16, 2014 at 11:39 am)Nope Wrote: Right wing Republicans, for whatever reason, have taken on the worst traits of both Christianity and Libertarianism and combined them. If I was either a Libertarian or a Christian, that would piss me off.
Simplistically, Democrats are socially liberal/fiscally liberal, Libertarians are socially liberal/fiscally conservative, and Republicans are socially conservative/fiscally conservative. And yes, I know the spending of Republicans puts drunken sailors to shame, but I admit this is simplistic.
So a Republican being fiscally conservative is being a Republican, period. It's what Republicans are supposed to be. To be more libertarian, a Republican needs to be more socially liberal and a Democrat needs to be more fiscally conservative.
And Neocons of whatever party stripe are right out.
(December 16, 2014 at 11:42 am)Rhythm Wrote: -and your take on the "libertarian" candidates we've seen of late would be?
The only one I've nearly liked, which means I liked him more than any Democrat or Republican candidate ever, was Gary Johnson. If he had gotten the Republican nomination, I would have voted Republican for president, which I haven't done since Dole.
(December 16, 2014 at 11:48 am)Heywood Wrote:
(December 16, 2014 at 11:45 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: One thing you can count on them for is to not give any money to the Libertarian Party or LP candidates. I know they have a history with the LP, but they're definitely republicans now. Or perhaps more accurately, pro-whatever they think is good for their oil business, including special tax breaks and regulations that favor them.
This is false. The Koch brothers are against government subsidies even when they are the beneficiaries of such subsidies.
Are you under the impression that 'subsidy' is a synonym for 'tax break' or 'regulation'?
(December 16, 2014 at 11:48 am)Heywood Wrote: The Koch brothers are ethanol blenders.
I think they are on the right side of ethanol subsidies, but they certainly haven't used their clout to end them. They get to have the libertarian opinon without actually risking their income stream.
December 16, 2014 at 12:29 pm (This post was last modified: December 16, 2014 at 12:31 pm by Heywood.)
(December 16, 2014 at 11:57 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:
(December 16, 2014 at 8:50 am)Rhythm Wrote: Ask our friends across the pond and they'll tell you that our "libertarians" have shifted right with the rest of our government - to the point where they don't seem like "libertarians" to other "libertarians" anymore. Hell, they're even shifting away from what american libertarians consider to be their position. I don't see any reason to assume that this pattern will stop, or that if it does, why any libertarian remnants will even be relevant. "Libertarian" in the states is shifting towards the GOP's positions..the GOP is not moving towards libertarianism.
I feel you on the libertarian shift, especially here in SC, I feel like they've moved to my right when I used to be pretty much in the middle, libertarian-wise. I'm especially troubled by the move away from open borders.
The GOP IS moving toward libertarianism, just not consciously. As I alluded to above, their social conservatism is largely in their older members (who also happen to have the most political power), as they die off, the GOP will inevitably become more socially liberal. Economically, I'm concerned that they will still favor vast military expenditures and regulations favoring big corporations, but I think the change will be an improvement for the country. Basically the Slacker generation is going to take over.
(December 16, 2014 at 11:32 am)Heywood Wrote: Well if were just making stuff up now, How about this: Socialist and democrats have been working hard to erase any defining line between them as well.
And if we're not just making stuff up, the Democrats have been moving to the right as well. Our left would be the middle in most other countries. Our president is barely to the left of Reagan and our last Republican president was well to Reagan's right.
(December 16, 2014 at 11:39 am)Nope Wrote: Right wing Republicans, for whatever reason, have taken on the worst traits of both Christianity and Libertarianism and combined them. If I was either a Libertarian or a Christian, that would piss me off.
Simplistically, Democrats are socially liberal/fiscally liberal, Libertarians are socially liberal/fiscally conservative, and Republicans are socially conservative/fiscally conservative. And yes, I know the spending of Republicans puts drunken sailors to shame, but I admit this is simplistic.
So a Republican being fiscally conservative is being a Republican, period. It's what Republicans are supposed to be. To be more libertarian, a Republican needs to be more socially liberal and a Democrat needs to be more fiscally conservative.
And Neocons of whatever party stripe are right out.
(December 16, 2014 at 11:42 am)Rhythm Wrote: -and your take on the "libertarian" candidates we've seen of late would be?
The only one I've nearly liked, which means I liked him more than any Democrat or Republican candidate ever, was Gary Johnson. If he had gotten the Republican nomination, I would have voted Republican for president, which I haven't done since Dole.
(December 16, 2014 at 11:48 am)Heywood Wrote: This is false. The Koch brothers are against government subsidies even when they are the beneficiaries of such subsidies.
Are you under the impression that 'subsidy' is a synonym for 'tax break' or 'regulation'?
(December 16, 2014 at 11:48 am)Heywood Wrote: The Koch brothers are ethanol blenders.
I think they are on the right side of ethanol subsidies, but they certainly haven't used their clout to end them. They get to have the libertarian opinon without actually risking their income stream.
The reason Libertarians tend to vote republican is because of strategic voting. The reason the Koch brothers lend their financial support to republican candidate is exactly the same. While the Koch brothers would like to see Libertarian candidates elected, that is not going to happen so they would rather see Republicans instead of Democrats.....so they hold their noses and back Republicans.
The Koch brothers have certainly lobbied to end Ethanol subsidies. I posted a link detailing one attempt. The fact that they haven't been successful in no way means they haven't tried or are not trying now.
(December 16, 2014 at 12:29 pm)Heywood Wrote: The reason Libertarians tend to vote republican is because of strategic voting. The reason the Koch brothers lend their financial support to republican candidate is exactly the same. While the Koch brothers would like to see Libertarian candidates elected, that is not going to happen so they would rather see Republicans instead of Democrats.....so they hold their noses and back Republicans.
Nonsense. There are dozens, if not hundreds of small elections that LP candidates would have a good chance in if they were better funded. Considering it's nearly impossible for them to get air time or a place at debates, they get pretty close sometimes. The Koch brothers petty cash fund could change that if they really cared about libertarianism, even the right-leaning kind.
(December 16, 2014 at 11:48 am)Heywood Wrote: The Koch brothers have certainly lobbied to end Ethanol subsidies. I posted a link detailing one attempt. The fact that they haven't been successful in no way means they haven't tried or are not trying now.
Good point. I mean, what can they do? It's not like they're billionaires with dozens of congress critters in their pockets, or didn't have to wait until it was pretty much too late to change the vote to speak up. And there's no way their competitors not getting the same subsidy could turn out to be worth losing the subsidy.
