Libertarians and Reality

[NeverTrump]

Indeed. Both Republicans and Democrats have picked up on ones they felt most amenable to their bases, and now support them. You are demonstrating the point, that the popularity of the libertarian party =/= the popularity of many libertarian ideas.

They likely did it without any or very little thought about what Libertarians were doing or thinking at the time. They just realized that was where the beliefs were heading. No one points and names the Libertarians responsible for any political shifts. Except of course Libertarians who seem to act like they can change everything without actually changing anything, even all at the same time! Whoopy!

Until you can actually provide me with some evidence that some Democrat or Republican official somewhere thanked Libertarians or other outsiders for coming up with these ideas. You have not proven your points.

 

[Thrilla]

Can you tell me the mental processes you go through when I give you two real life examples which destroy any semblance of a point your tried to make suddenly turn into evidence of your point?

Take me step by step how you arrive at that conclusion.

2 modern dudes that barely make a decent showing .. versus many many who not only had a good showing, but won the top office in the land.

it's almost as if something changed .. hmm... wonder what that could be?....
might it be election laws put in place that were not there back in the day?... hmm.. maybe
might it be ballot access laws that didn't exist or weren't nearly as restrictive?... hmm.. maybe.

or maybe i'm off base and you are correct that every single voter in America finally decided that the 2 major parties were the only valid choices they could make in any election.


i'm sure you're right.... it's not the restrictive laws.. it's the voters

derp derp

 

[NeverTrump]

no more effort will be expended on you ,dude... you've proven unworthy of it.

Now I was aware that Libertarianism can be like a religion but I didn't know it was...Why I am also unworthy to talk to you? You are the second person to come out and say this on this thread to me. I asked a simple question, you failed to provide an answer.

 

[Thrilla]

Now I was aware that Libertarianism can be like a religion but I didn't know it was...Why I am also unworthy to talk to you? You are the second person to come out and say this on this thread to me. I asked a simple question, you failed to provide an answer.

it's a "fool once once" deal dude... you fooled me once, and that was your only chance.... it's time to put on your big boy pants and do your own work.

 

[Bigfoot 88]

This thread is incredibly stupid.

The failure of the Libertarian Party to win elections is not a failure of the philosophy, but a political failure.

The American people have not rejected libertarianism. Most don't even know what the Libertarian Party planks are, let alone the philosophical foundations of libertarianism. To reject libertarianism, you first have to know what it is.

Many libertarians-like myself-are Republicans. Others are independents. And then there are some self-described conservatives who are really indistinguishable from libertarians.

So yeah, this whole argument about the LP is stupid. I actively root for the party to fail, because third parties are mathematically challenged from the beginning. Engaging in third party politics is like cutting your leg off and then participating in a race.

 

[Master PO]

This thread is incredibly stupid.

The failure of the Libertarian Party to win elections is not a failure of the philosophy, but a political failure.

The American people have not rejected libertarianism. Most don't even know what the Libertarian Party planks are, let alone the philosophical foundations of libertarianism. To reject libertarianism, you first have to know what it is.

Many libertarians-like myself-are Republicans. Others are independents. And then there are some self-described conservatives who are really indistinguishable from libertarians.

So yeah, this whole argument about the LP is stupid. I actively root for the party to fail, because third parties are mathematically challenged from the beginning. Engaging in third party politics is like cutting your leg off and then participating in a race.

Grover Cleveland where are you, america needs you NOW!

 

[Ockham]

I have posted nothing as nonsense.

That's all you post.

I have created no strawmen.

You create them, I ignore them.\

I never claimed zero Libertarians were elected.

Of course you did....#346 let me quote you:

I already did that.

ZERO.

So they are indeed rejected on a state level as well.

I clearly told you that an alderman is NOT a member of the State Legislature and is by definition then NOT a State legislator.

You clearly did not know that an Aledrman was a legislator until I corrected you.

every thing I posted about the numbers was and is correct and you have corrected nothing.

You're Wiki post was incorrect as I have already proven multiple times in this thread.

No - it was you who was incorrect about a local town alderman being a state legislator.

You were incorrect - sorry.

Now you are shifting gears and changing the subject. Fine.

No we can stay on your basic mistakes about local government as well as incorrect information about Libertarian elections if you'd like.
What so called "ideology" do I have by the way?

I provided no misinformation, I did provide an article which was opinion orieneted and welcomed discussion of it.

I've already proven all you do is provide misinformation. Not because I think you intend to but because you don't know any better.

I also provided data from verifiable sources and stand behind that and no person has shown it to be wrong.

The Salon opinion article? Of course you stand behind it - it's what you want to believe not what the facts are. It's your Modus Operandi.

Why would I try to convince you of something that you already have made your mind up about to the extent that you to the absurd lengths to try and pretend that a local town alderman is a state legislator? I know better than to try and convince you of anything.

Boring accusations.... I really don't care what you think haymarket. I just like making you look foolish by posting facts. It's your lacking credibility - did you know? Your credibility has been tanking for years now. Flatline.

The numbers speak for themselves no matter what you call the people elected as Libertarians under that party label.

Too bad life isn't a popularity contest or you might have a glimmer of a point - alas you don't.

Let me know when you want some more learnin' haymarket. I'm always up for educating you.

 

[American]

I cam across this article from a few months ago and do not remember any discussion of it here. While I am not familiar with the author, it is extremely well written and thought provoking. Warning: it is rather lengthy and the middle and end of it is just as vital as the beginning so if you tackle it, please stick with it.

Libertarians’ reality problem: How an estrangement from history yields abject failure - Salon.com

Since we have a sizable number of posters here who identify as libertarians, I thought this would spur discussion. Your thoughts on the content of the article are most welcome.

The irony of you writing about reality. BWuwhahahaha

 

[cpwill]

Sorry but a libertarian patting libertarianism upon its back is not evidence of anything other than a belief in your self imposed belief system.

<--- not a libertarian.

You know who else isn't a Libertarian? The New York Times

Has the Libertarian Moment Finally Arrived?

...today, for perhaps the first time, the libertarian movement appears to have genuine political momentum on its side. An estimated 54 percent of Americans now favor extending marriage rights to gay couples. Decriminalizing marijuana has become a mainstream position, while the drive to reduce sentences for minor drug offenders has led to the wondrous spectacle of Rick Perry — the governor of Texas, where more inmates are executed than in any other state — telling a Washington audience: “You want to talk about real conservative governance? Shut prisons down. Save that money.” The appetite for foreign intervention is at low ebb, with calls by Republicans to rein in federal profligacy now increasingly extending to the once-sacrosanct military budget. And deep concern over government surveillance looms as one of the few bipartisan sentiments in Washington, which is somewhat unanticipated given that the surveiller in chief, the former constitutional-law professor Barack Obama, had been described in a 2008 Times Op-Ed by the legal commentator Jeffrey Rosen as potentially “our first president who is a civil libertarian.”...

Now all you have to do is produce verifiable evidence that libertarians were the first to champion any of these things.

...you really need me to demonstrate to you that the libertarian party was the first party to support pot legalization?

 

[cpwill]

They likely did it without any or very little thought about what Libertarians were doing or thinking at the time. They just realized that was where the beliefs were heading.

:shrug: so?

Maybe this is a distinction between ideologues and partisans - ideologues don't care which party gets the credit, and partisans care only about which party benefits.

Until you can actually provide me with some evidence that some Democrat or Republican official somewhere thanked Libertarians or other outsiders for coming up with these ideas. You have not proven your points.

:doh

 

[haymarket]

2 modern dudes that barely make a decent showing .. versus many many who not only had a good showing, but won the top office in the land.

it's almost as if something changed .. hmm... wonder what that could be?....
might it be election laws put in place that were not there back in the day?... hmm.. maybe
might it be ballot access laws that didn't exist or weren't nearly as restrictive?... hmm.. maybe.

or maybe i'm off base and you are correct that every single voter in America finally decided that the 2 major parties were the only valid choices they could make in any election.


i'm sure you're right.... it's not the restrictive laws.. it's the voters

derp derp

Wallace and Perot disprove your argument. Perot basically won over half of all available votes the could have gone his way and that qwas rather incredible and not at all "barely a decent showing".

Of course the two parties try to maximize their advantage. But at the same time Perot was getting 19% of the vote, the Libertarian was getting 0.28% of the vote that year. Its the message that turns off Americans. When Perot comes along with a message they respond to , they follow with their votes.

 

[haymarket]

This thread is incredibly stupid.

The failure of the Libertarian Party to win elections is not a failure of the philosophy, but a political failure.

The American people have not rejected libertarianism. Most don't even know what the Libertarian Party planks are, let alone the philosophical foundations of libertarianism. To reject libertarianism, you first have to know what it is.

Many libertarians-like myself-are Republicans. Others are independents. And then there are some self-described conservatives who are really indistinguishable from libertarians.

So yeah, this whole argument about the LP is stupid. I actively root for the party to fail, because third parties are mathematically challenged from the beginning. Engaging in third party politics is like cutting your leg off and then participating in a race.

In 1992 Perot on a third part garnered 19% of the popular vote. The Libertarian Party candidate drew 0.28% of the vote.

Perot and his third party did 76 times better than the Libertarians and they had been around a while.

This disproves your contention that it is not libertarianism that is being rejected by the American people.

Add to that the reality that in election after election since the best the Libertarians can get is just under 1% of the vote in presidential elections.

Add to that the numbers provided by the Libertarian Party itself that people running on the Libertarian label account for but 52 elected offices in the USA and that comprises a grand total of 0.0001% of elected offices.

The Libertarian Party is an abysmal failure is like the skull and crossbones on a medicine bottle at the ballot box.

 

[haymarket]

<--- not a libertarian.

You know who else isn't a Libertarian? The New York Times





...you really need me to demonstrate to you that the libertarian party was the first party to support pot legalization?

Referring to Obama as a civil libertarian is NOT the same thing as Obama being a libertarian and I strongly suspect a person of your intellect knows that darn well.

In 1972 I was elected as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Miami Florida for George McGovern. Both in Michigan and again in Miami I appeared on a panel at a press conference of other Democrats announcing our support for marijuana reform and decriminalization. Some on the panel advocated complete legalization. The group that sponsored it was called NORML.

Individual Democrats have supported things like that for a while now and to say that advocating such things is a "libertarian position" is not at all accurate as they cannot claim ownership of it. Policy ideas do not work that way.

 

[haymarket]

The irony of you writing about reality. BWuwhahahaha

I see the insult directed at me but where is the refutation of anything in the article or any post here?

 

[haymarket]

You clearly did not know that an Aledrman was a legislator until I corrected you..

Originally Posted by Ockham
American's don't reject them on a state level.... perhaps you can post how many Libertarian state legislators there are?

The site identified him as such and that means he is NOT a STATE LEGISLATOR and that was the category of office you inquired about.
A town alderman is NOT a STATE LEGISLATOR.

You're Wiki post was incorrect as I have already proven multiple times in this thread.

Originally Posted by Ockham
American's don't reject them on a state level.... perhaps you can post how many Libertarian state legislators there are?

No it was not incorrect. It gave the figures for Federal offices and gave the figures for state legislatures and those are accurate and you have never given one iota of data to show otherwise. It was State legislators you asked about and that is the information you were provided with.

I just like making you look foolish by posting facts.

Such as a town alderman is a state legislator? Now that is indeed foolish

Too bad life isn't a popularity contest or you might have a glimmer of a point - alas you don't.

Public elections are very much a popularity contest. And public elections are what we are talking about here.

Let me know when you want some more learnin' haymarket. I'm always up for educating you

Yes - your last lesson that a town alderman is a state legislator was extremely informative. Although what it informed me about was hardly anything about government but more about your own tactics and intellectual shortcomings.

I am ignoring the rest of your post which has already been thoroughly refuted and I will not participate in you chasing your tail yet again.

The reality is that elected Libertarians account for 0.0001% of elected offices in the USA. And no amount of tail chasing you want to do can change that hard and cold fact of electoral reality.

And that even counts your precious town alderman in the mix - no matter how badly you misclassify him and misrepresent his status.

 

[Ockham]

The site identified him as such and that means he is NOT a STATE LEGISLATOR and that was the category of office you inquired about.
A town alderman is NOT a STATE LEGISLATOR.

Yeah already addressed. :yawn:

No it was not incorrect.

So you deny facts. Interesting.

Such as a town alderman is a state legislator? Now that is indeed foolish

That you claimed an Alderman wasn't part of the legislature. Very foolish indeed.

Public elections are very much a popularity contest. And public elections are what we are talking about here.

As opposed to an non public election of state officials?

Yes - your last lesson that a town alderman is a state legislator was extremely informative.

Well let's just hope it sticks with you.

I am ignoring the rest of your post which has already been thoroughly refuted and I will not participate in you chasing your tail yet again.

You can't refute anything because your ideology and posted misinformation doth protest too much.

The reality is that elected Libertarians account for 0.0001% of elected offices in the USA.

And I already addressed that in one of my first posts.

Again, your credibility is the factor here. You've offered no explanation why anyone would take your posted views seriously given that historically, posts by you are either false, misinformed (and that's being kind) or outright ideologically based. It shows you actually DON'T know... perhaps going into a discussion with that view would be better. Just a tip there.

 

[cpwill]

Referring to Obama as a civil libertarian is NOT the same thing as Obama being a libertarian and I strongly suspect a person of your intellect knows that darn well.

I'd agree (somewhat) with that - there is significant overlap. But as usual, you are attempting to divert the conversation.

In 1972 I was elected as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Miami Florida for George McGovern.

Yes, we know you are an old party hand, and that what you care about is party power, Haymarket

Both in Michigan and again in Miami I appeared on a panel at a press conference of other Democrats announcing our support for marijuana reform and decriminalization. Some on the panel advocated complete legalization. The group that sponsored it was called NORML.

Individual Democrats have supported things like that for a while now and to say that advocating such things is a "libertarian position" is not at all accurate as they cannot claim ownership of it. Policy ideas do not work that way.

1972 Democrat Party Platform

But do tell us, Haymarket, more about this fascinating idea of yours that it is possible to discuss ideas separate from a party. I do believe not a page ago you were refusing to acknowledge this was possible.

 

[Bigfoot 88]

In 1992 Perot on a third part garnered 19% of the popular vote. The Libertarian Party candidate drew 0.28% of the vote.

Perot and his third party did 76 times better than the Libertarians and they had been around a while.

This disproves your contention that it is not libertarianism that is being rejected by the American people.

Add to that the reality that in election after election since the best the Libertarians can get is just under 1% of the vote in presidential elections.

Add to that the numbers provided by the Libertarian Party itself that people running on the Libertarian label account for but 52 elected offices in the USA and that comprises a grand total of 0.0001% of elected offices.

The Libertarian Party is an abysmal failure is like the skull and crossbones on a medicine bottle at the ballot box.

Everything I wrote went right over your head....zoom!

 

[blaxshep]

Everything I wrote went right over your head....zoom!

That is how it goes with the hayman.

 

[haymarket]

That you claimed an Alderman wasn't part of the legislature. Very foolish indeed.

Here is what you asked for

Originally Posted by Ockham
American's don't reject them on a state level.... perhaps you can post how many Libertarian state legislators there are?

I did . The answer is ZERO out of 7,383 state legislators.

A town alderman is NOT a state legislator. The local town alderrman does not change the total of ZERO out of 7,383 state legislators being Libertarian.

 

[haymarket]

Everything I wrote went right over your head....zoom!

Everything you wrote was proven not to be true by the experience cited from the real world and real election results.

 

[blaxshep]

Here is what you asked for


I did . The answer is ZERO out of 7,383 state legislators.

A town alderman is NOT a state legislator. The local town alderrman does not change the total of ZERO out of 7,383 state legislators being Libertarian.

Why do you insist that only politicians that run under the "Libertarian" party have libertarian principles to the exclusion of all others and that is the basis for what people vote for?

This idea you seem to be suggesting is so absurd it negates the credibility of your entire argument.

 

[haymarket]

I'd agree (somewhat) with that - there is significant overlap. But as usual, you are attempting to divert the conversation.

You just agreed with my point which refuted yours. How is that a diversion?

Yes, we know you are an old party hand, and that what you care about is party power, Haymarket

Which was not the point of the post.

But do tell us, Haymarket, more about this fascinating idea of yours that it is possible to discuss ideas separate from a party. I do believe not a page ago you were refusing to acknowledge this was possible.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Be specific. What did I say that you object to. Give me a quote from me instead of what you "believe" I may or may not have said.

 

[haymarket]

Why do you insist that only politicians that run under the "Libertarian" party have libertarian principles to the exclusion of all others and that is the basis for what people vote for?

This idea you seem to be suggesting is so absurd it negates the credibility of your entire argument.

I have already stated that there are Republicans who have ideas that overlap with positions held by persons who claim to hold libertarian ideas.
I have already stated that there are Democrats who have ideas that overlap with positions held by persons who claim to hold libertarian ideas.
In addition to that, there are Green Party members who have ideas that overlap with persons who claim to hold libertarian ideas.
There are Socialists who have ideas that overlap with persons who claim to hold libertarian ideas.

So where do you or anyone else get the corner on the market for what you claim are libertarian principles?

The reality is that the most obvious and significant time the American public sees the designation of LIBERTARIAN is on the election ballot where people running for public office say they are LIBERTARIAN and run on what they claim are LIBERTARIAN principles.

 

[blaxshep]

But having "Libertarian" as a party on the ticket is not the reason they fail because of their principle of ideas as you are trying to claim, they fail because they are not in the two party system. Republicans and Democrats that have libertarian ideas are elected all the time.

The argument you are trying to make is ridiculous.