What's the point of being Libertarian? Is it futile?

[Rightwing86]

Hey all. Hope everyone had a wonderful 4th!
I am a Libertarian but sometimes I just feel that it is futile.. it makes me not want to vote.. I mean sure I could have voted for Bob Barr.. but he kinda irked me in a way I cannot explain. I could have voted for Ron Paul even though he was on the Rep. ticket...

Well ok, where am I on the political scale? I have taken all those X axis Y axis tests and all that.

To give you an example..

Pro Choice. (states)
Favor small government.
Favor privatization of most industry in the U.S.
Pro gay marriage (states)
I do support the War in Afg. (Even tho Libertarians tend not to).
Against gun control.
For stem cell research (states)
I am for individuals rights until it infringes upon someone else's.
For legalization of most drugs with certain rules and regulations to prevent driving, working on drugs etc.

Don't I fall into their camp? If I do... I just feel that it's a fruitless endeavor to try and explain my views... we will never win an election it seems, our time has come and gone considering we are pretty much classical liberals of the era of our founding fathers.

We make up such a small portion of the country... everyone thinks were nuts. It's just damn depressing. I don't want to throw myself into the other two main parties cause I don't like hardcore liberalism and I do not like the religious right trying to ban porn, and all these other things they try and do really make me mad. (not just the banning of porn either.. lol

And how would Libertarianism really work.

I tell people that I support Kavorkian (sp) because if someone wants assisted suicide than that is their choice and the government should not be able to intervene. But.. what happens if a person is mentally unstable and than gets the doctor to help them commit suicide.. should we have to test the mental stabability of every person who wants assisted suicide?

Or how about like a case I learned about in Criminal Law: A man wanted his wife to stop drinking and being an alcoholic, she wanted to stop was well. So she signed a written agreement that she wrote herself giving her husband permission to beat her if she drank. He ended up beating his wife a lot, and the police got involved and he went to prison. What would a libertarian's position be in this position? Considering an adult signed a consenting agreement to be beaten by her husband?

Thanks all I await your answers!

 

[Civil1z@tion]

Of course there is a point to being libertarian! There is a point to being a part of any political ideology. The point is that even though you may not get exactly what you want you can shift the spectrum towards your position. No ideology gets everything that it wants (unless they happen to take in and institute a totalitarian dictatorship), but the more libertarians who vote and fight for that ideology, the closer the political spectrum comes to us.

Take heart! Even if our candidates lose their ideas can be adopted by those that win.

 

[German guy]

Take heart! Even if our candidates lose their ideas can be adopted by those that win.

Couldn't agree more! Even a small success d'estime of a third party can have significant impact, because the large parties realize there is a crucial additional percent to make in an election.

Maybe this example from Germany is suited to encourage you: Parties that don't reach 5% of the votes are not represented in the parliament. Yet the Pirate Party, a kind of ad-hoc alliance of people against Internet regulation and in favor of private data protection shook up the last election in September. They won a success d'estime of 2.0% of the votes -- votes that would have most likely gone either to the progressive Green Party or the libertarian FDP.

Before that happened, nobody in the established parties cared much for the rights of internet users. Instead, internet regulation was often used as a populist scapegoat to bait older people with no knowledge of new medias, who believe the internet is a hellhole of child porn, neo-Nazis and islamists.

But this has changed: The libertarian FDP has joined the new government as junior partner -- and got through that a controversial law for online censorship was cancelled. They took notice of these 2% and now attempted to win these voters back.

Here you go -- even small successes can make a difference!

 

[R. Shackleferd]

Pro Choice. (states)

Abortion is a clash on the right to life and the right to property (self ownership). In my honest opinion I do not see that pro-life or pro-choice is libertarian. About the only united libertarian stance on abortion is that it shouldn't be funded by the State.

Favor small government.

Libertarian.

Favor privatization of most industry in the U.S.

In a hypothetical libertarian society, what industries should not be privatized? Because of the rule of law and the size of Government, I understand that many libertarians want incremental privatization and that's reasonable so long as the libertarian party is consistent on moving into the right direction of economy.

Pro gay marriage (states)

In my understanding of the libertarian theory, pro gay marriage as we have marriage now would only be done to maintain no discrimination in things that the state has oversight in. However I believe that it's more libertarian to get the Government out of the marriage business all together and make partnerships and marriage a private matter only.

I do support the War in Afg. (Even tho Libertarians tend not to).

As far as I can tell, the reasoning for war in Afghanistan is totally justified even under nonaggression since we were attacked and that the taliban were in lockstep with Al Qaeda. The problem is however, the execution of the war, the rebuilding of the nation, and setting up a new government for it, and other things that may have went beyond our obligation to defense.

Against gun control.

Libertarian.

For stem cell research (states)

The state funding there of or the legal right to do research ?

For legalization of most drugs with certain rules and regulations to prevent driving, working on drugs etc.

So for instance, if you're driving drunk or high or whatever or if you're being a hostile individual in public while high on something, that would be illegal still. I may have to say that this isn't libertarian because it may not be seen as a prevention of aggression. I however would say that the line is drawn there and that it should not be crossed.

Don't I fall into their camp? If I do... I just feel that it's a fruitless endeavor to try and explain my views... we will never win an election it seems, our time has come and gone considering we are pretty much classical liberals of the era of our founding fathers.

While libertarians should campaign with the intent on winning elections, we should realize that the biggest part of campaign is gaining a share in the voting market through proactive campaigning to help us win in future elections. For this reason it cannot be seen as futile.

I tell people that I support Kavorkian (sp) because if someone wants assisted suicide than that is their choice and the government should not be able to intervene. But.. what happens if a person is mentally unstable and than gets the doctor to help them commit suicide.. should we have to test the mental stabability of every person who wants assisted suicide?

Since this deals with the life of someone it is absolutely valid to think that perhaps the state of mind of the person who wants to die should be analyzed. A step further from this is for someone to provide a service to help convince the suicidle to commit suicide and in my opinion this infringes on the persons right to life and in some cases may be an issue of fraud. I myself don't believe that assisted suicide in and of itself is a persons right. It is a persons right however, to have the plug pulled on them if their life is being supported (and hindered) by machines.

Or how about like a case I learned about in Criminal Law: A man wanted his wife to stop drinking and being an alcoholic, she wanted to stop was well. So she signed a written agreement that she wrote herself giving her husband permission to beat her if she drank. He ended up beating his wife a lot, and the police got involved and he went to prison. What would a libertarian's position be in this position? Considering an adult signed a consenting agreement to be beaten by her husband?

Good question. I believe that this contract would legally be null and void. I believe so because in a libertarian society, people who commited murder never agreed to a contract that they'll be prosecuted for murdering someone and despite never agreeing to this, they still get prosecuted. The contract is trivial here because under the law he's still using aggression on her even if there's a contract and she breaks the contract by saying that she doesn't want to be hit anymore.

I have not yet reached to a conclusion of if you are libertarian or not. With what I know and assume though, you're libertarian.

 

[4776]

Perhaps (like many Libertarians and Independents) you are actually a Federalist. That's what the Founders were. The 10th Amendment was added because most States wouldn't ratify the Constitution without a "garauntee" that the States and the People would be a check on the power of the central government. That's a fight you/we can wage on legal grounds.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Hey all. Hope everyone had a wonderful 4th!
I am a Libertarian but sometimes I just feel that it is futile.. it makes me not want to vote.. I mean sure I could have voted for Bob Barr.. but he kinda irked me in a way I cannot explain. I could have voted for Ron Paul even though he was on the Rep. ticket...

Well ok, where am I on the political scale? I have taken all those X axis Y axis tests and all that.

To give you an example..

Pro Choice. (states)
Favor small government.
Favor privatization of most industry in the U.S.
Pro gay marriage (states)
I do support the War in Afg. (Even tho Libertarians tend not to).
Against gun control.
For stem cell research (states)
I am for individuals rights until it infringes upon someone else's.
For legalization of most drugs with certain rules and regulations to prevent driving, working on drugs etc.

Don't I fall into their camp? If I do... I just feel that it's a fruitless endeavor to try and explain my views... we will never win an election it seems, our time has come and gone considering we are pretty much classical liberals of the era of our founding fathers.

We make up such a small portion of the country... everyone thinks were nuts. It's just damn depressing. I don't want to throw myself into the other two main parties cause I don't like hardcore liberalism and I do not like the religious right trying to ban porn, and all these other things they try and do really make me mad. (not just the banning of porn either.. lol

And how would Libertarianism really work.

I tell people that I support Kavorkian (sp) because if someone wants assisted suicide than that is their choice and the government should not be able to intervene. But.. what happens if a person is mentally unstable and than gets the doctor to help them commit suicide.. should we have to test the mental stabability of every person who wants assisted suicide?

Or how about like a case I learned about in Criminal Law: A man wanted his wife to stop drinking and being an alcoholic, she wanted to stop was well. So she signed a written agreement that she wrote herself giving her husband permission to beat her if she drank. He ended up beating his wife a lot, and the police got involved and he went to prison. What would a libertarian's position be in this position? Considering an adult signed a consenting agreement to be beaten by her husband?

Thanks all I await your answers!

All you can do is go for what you think is right. Do it for yourself.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Perhaps (like many Libertarians and Independents) you are actually a Federalist. That's what the Founders were. The 10th Amendment was added because most States wouldn't ratify the Constitution without a "garauntee" that the States and the People would be a check on the power of the central government. That's a fight you/we can wage on legal grounds.

The 10th Amendment was more of a nod to anti-federalists, than to Federalists.

 

[4776]

Yes as in my post I am referring to post "Bill of Rights Federalists"