Liberals don't like the LP's opposition to federal social programs. Conservatives don't like the LP's desire to abolish "morality laws", especially legalizing hard drugs.
Well, yes and no.
A lot of people dont see a problem legalizing WEED.... but a majority still have a big problem with the LP notion of legalizing everything.
Liberals don't like the LP's opposition to federal social programs. Conservatives don't like the LP's desire to abolish "morality laws", especially legalizing hard drugs.
It is going to take a while for attitudes to change enough for the LP to become a major party... IF they ever do.
Now "Libertarian Lite" could stand a MUCH better chance MUCH sooner.... but most libertarians won't compromise towards the middle enough to be considered "Libertarian Lite".
This is why Ron Paul doesn't actually win in actual elections.... he takes things further than most people can accept.
I will never compromise. I support legalizing all drugs.
And there's the problem.
I'm an ex-cop and I could care less if you legalize weed and cocaine, as long as the entire production chain is "brought into the light" to undercut the cartels and gangs.
Crack and meth are just too damn toxic... no legal corp could produce and sell it, they'd have liability out the wazoo.
Heroin is terribly addictive and can get debilitating for heavy users. LSD is a crap shoot as to whether you have a pleasant trip or burn out your brain like my cousin.
And then there's BATH SALTS.... you know, the one people keep having violent psychotic breaks on, as bad or worse than PCP...
And this typifies the problem with "absolutely no compromise Libertarians"..... Politics IS the "art of compromise". Without compromise you are left with dictatorship.
In your opinion, what minor party has the best chance of becoming a major party nationwide or in at least three states?
I believe that honor belongs to the Libertarian Party, largely because the Justice and Green parties haven't been very successful in recruiting Democrats to their parties.
I'm an ex-cop and I could care less if you legalize weed and cocaine, as long as the entire production chain is "brought into the light" to undercut the cartels and gangs.
Crack and meth are just too damn toxic... no legal corp could produce and sell it, they'd have liability out the wazoo.
Heroin is terribly addictive and can get debilitating for heavy users. LSD is a crap shoot as to whether you have a pleasant trip or burn out your brain like my cousin.
And then there's BATH SALTS.... you know, the one people keep having violent psychotic breaks on, as bad or worse than PCP...
And this typifies the problem with "absolutely no compromise Libertarians"..... Politics IS the "art of compromise". Without compromise you are left with dictatorship.
Most people wouldn't do meth, heroin or bath salts if marijuana and cocaine were legal. I'm not saying heroin should be widely available, I'm just saying for a very high price people should be able to use it if they wish. If they become addicted, and want to receive treatment, then we will have treatment/rehab centers specifically catering to heroin addicts. Otherwise, let them die. It's their life, to enjoy or destroy.
Compromise is not a good idea. I don't want anyone to compromise. I abhor neo-liberalism, but I don't want them to compromise with me. I want a full conversion or no conversion at all.
Let's face it, if we had 20 LP Congressmen who could keep the R's and D's in check, Washington would work a lot better.
_____
I support drug education programs in the schools, just like sex education. It's important people know the effects of drugs in a non-biased manner. Just the facts. Don't even tell the children they shouldn't do them. Just get to them before the drug dealer does.
I would never do drugs, nor would anyone I know. (or at least, that's what they say now)
However, it is my firm belief that my opposition to something does not equal good legal policy. I'm not the one writing the laws. Crimes need a victim. Charlie Sheen is not a victim.
Legalizing weed and plain coke, I'm okay with. Heroin, LSD and peyote I'm not sure about. Crack and Meth are too toxic to be produced and sold legally, no legit company would touch the stuff in today's litigation climate.
There will be NO parties before a third party becomes major,
The problem is the parties are currently WAY to polarized and partisan and to polluted with hacks but even with that said no other party even has a fighting change because they also have hacks and unfortunately the hacks are usually the loudest and get the most press,
SO there will be no parties ?(only meaning there wont be such stupid strict partisan guidelines to be in a party) or the current parties will have to kick out the hacks.
It is true that crack was a reaction to a rise in cocaine prices, partly due to law enforcement efforts to cut into the trade. Meth was a reaction to gov't making crack ingredients difficult to obtain. Yes, some people would do cocaine instead if it were legal and reasonably cheap. But not all.
Legalizing weed and plain coke, I'm okay with. Heroin, LSD and peyote I'm not sure about. Crack and Meth are too toxic to be produced and sold legally, no legit company would touch the stuff in today's litigation climate.
The problem here with no-compromise Libertarianism is that only about 2% of the population wants to live under that system. If you refuse to compromise what will you do with the 98% who disagree? There's your problem, and there's the reason the LP almost never wins an election, as much as the structurally-imbedded two-party preference.
Libertarian Lite COULD win elections... start off with just legalizing weed, removing unConstitutional restrictions on the right to bear arms and self-defense, and trimming the Social Welfare state down to a more modest "safety net" that is focused on "giving a hand UP" instead of a "hand-out". Do this instead of trying to legalize EVERYTHING all at once, and instead of trying to end ALL social welfare INSTANTLY, and you might get some traction.
Focus on minimizing our involvement in foreign wars rather than foreswearing all military action unless we're actually invaded, and people will see that as a more reasonable and desireable position.
Spend more time focused on restoring the liberties people are most interested in, and minimizing the bureaucracy nobody likes, and more middle-of-the-road positions on most other things.... extreme positions and calls for instant and catastrophic change tend to scare people off.
You may, over time, be able to get where you want to go (more or less) by incrementalism, but when Libertarians take an "ALL or nothing, NOW or never" attitude they turn off the majority of voters.
There are only two ways to have everything YOUR way with ZERO compromise...
1. Total dictatorship (a total contradiction to all Libertarianism stands for)
Or
2. Almost everyone agrees with LP on effectively everything (never happen... you can scarcely get 2/3rds to agree on ANYTHING, let alone 90%+ on EVERYTHING).
Any democratically based system, by necessity, operates on compromise.
It is true that crack was a reaction to a rise in cocaine prices, partly due to law enforcement efforts to cut into the trade. Meth was a reaction to gov't making crack ingredients difficult to obtain. Yes, some people would do cocaine instead if it were legal and reasonably cheap. But not all.
Legalizing weed and plain coke, I'm okay with. Heroin, LSD and peyote I'm not sure about. Crack and Meth are too toxic to be produced and sold legally, no legit company would touch the stuff in today's litigation climate.
The problem here with no-compromise Libertarianism is that only about 2% of the population wants to live under that system. If you refuse to compromise what will you do with the 98% who disagree? There's your problem, and there's the reason the LP almost never wins an election, as much as the structurally-imbedded two-party preference.
Libertarian Lite COULD win elections... start off with just legalizing weed, removing unConstitutional restrictions on the right to bear arms and self-defense, and trimming the Social Welfare state down to a more modest "safety net" that is focused on "giving a hand UP" instead of a "hand-out". Do this instead of trying to legalize EVERYTHING all at once, and instead of trying to end ALL social welfare INSTANTLY, and you might get some traction.
Focus on minimizing our involvement in foreign wars rather than foreswearing all military action unless we're actually invaded, and people will see that as a more reasonable and desireable position.
Spend more time focused on restoring the liberties people are most interested in, and minimizing the bureaucracy nobody likes, and more middle-of-the-road positions on most other things.... extreme positions and calls for instant and catastrophic change tend to scare people off.
You may, over time, be able to get where you want to go (more or less) by incrementalism, but when Libertarians take an "ALL or nothing, NOW or never" attitude they turn off the majority of voters.
There are only two ways to have everything YOUR way with ZERO compromise...
1. Total dictatorship (a total contradiction to all Libertarianism stands for)
Or
2. Almost everyone agrees with LP on effectively everything (never happen... you can scarcely get 2/3rds to agree on ANYTHING, let alone 90%+ on EVERYTHING).
Any democratically based system, by necessity, operates on compromise.
The onl;y party that represents US Citizen interests
America First Party
GOP is for foreign corps
DEms are for foreign criminals
"Fighting for Faith..."
So that means Atheists would not be allowed to join AFP?
In your opinion, what minor party has the best chance of becoming a major party nationwide or in at least three states?
I believe that honor belongs to the Libertarian Party, largely because the Justice and Green parties haven't been very successful in recruiting Democrats to their parties.
The Libretarian Party. I think as our youth becomes more educated in politics, you will se a very young and strong libertarian party. Most people that I know that label themselves as Republican are better represented by the Libertarians. I don't think that they are gonna become one of the Major parties, but I think they will have an increasing impact over the next 20 years.
In your opinion, what minor party has the best chance of becoming a major party nationwide or in at least three states?
I believe that honor belongs to the Libertarian Party, largely because the Justice and Green parties haven't been very successful in recruiting Democrats to their parties.
None. We will always have two parties in the US. Its our tradition. That's how our electoral system is set up to deter third parties.
I think expansion of online registration - especially with facebook will help get everyone signed up, so that at least they can vote if they want to. That should raise the overall minor party vote from 3% in Presidential races to 30% by default. There are enough Americans pissed off with both Repubs/Dems to vote against them every chance they get.
Other: The Republican party. Bah dum bum
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?