wrote:
I went and had a look at the Libertarian site to see what they are and why. In their platform preamble they say "The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power."
Isn't this anarchy?
Isn't this anarchy?
30 October 2008 03:08:40
danimal wrote:
Lee,
HUOH. now you done IT! Of course the libertarian party don't see it that way, but by thier own statement....yes, that IS anarchy.
HUOH. now you done IT! Of course the libertarian party don't see it that way, but by thier own statement....yes, that IS anarchy.
30 October 2008 04:56:32
Susan wrote:
Lee, have you been taking lessons from politics? Picking out one sentence, and using it out of context to fit what is convenient for your own debating purposes is what politicians do best. "Anarchy" implies disorder and lawlessness. That is not at all what the Libertarian party wants. "The Libertarian way is a logically consistent approach to politics based on the moral principle of self-ownership. Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud." Now, when you see THAT part of the Libertarian philosophy, who wouldn't want to live in a society like that?
30 October 2008 08:04:47
wrote:
I think if the Libertarians can get some press and maybe nominate a real candidate next time, they could really hold some sway in future elections. The small, efficient government philosophy really resonates with a lot of American young people. A lot of people I went to college with care most about economic and foreign policy, but are quite permissive or apathetic towards a lot of social ideas. There is also a large amount of dissatisfaction with the welfare state and, in turn, the welfare culture that it helped to create. Personally, I was planning on voting Libertarian until they nominated Bob Barr. He used to be a very big proponent of the drug war, which is completely inconsistent with a Libertarian philosophy. I will be very excited if the Libertarian Party can make a strong showing this election and in the future. The Libertarian Party could be the new hope of America-- corporate power has no interest in controlling a government which stays out of its citizens individual lives and offers a non-interventionist foreign policy.
30 October 2008 08:14:59
russramey6 wrote:
I understand your viewpoint, voted for Ron Paul in the primary, and test very high regarding the Libertarian Party platform.
That being said I am concerned that we will not have a future option once the social activists and big government thugs aka Obaminoids take over the government. Look at the historical track record of violence, governmental abuse of power, and outright intimidation from ACORN on up. This election could lead to bananna republic type riots that we simply cannot relate to in a classic liberal Western style democracy. I would suggest they think again about such tactics of using the Law against us before armed citizens decide to take care of business ourselves. That is our heritage...
We need to build a ground swell of citizens interested in liberty, prosperity, and personal responsibility. The nanny state has the opposite motive, now the plebes have already been bought and the politicians are fleecing the only segments left to rob...
If you beleive the Obominoids have the majority of responsible Americans in mind for this outright robbery and redistribution guess again.
That being said I am concerned that we will not have a future option once the social activists and big government thugs aka Obaminoids take over the government. Look at the historical track record of violence, governmental abuse of power, and outright intimidation from ACORN on up. This election could lead to bananna republic type riots that we simply cannot relate to in a classic liberal Western style democracy. I would suggest they think again about such tactics of using the Law against us before armed citizens decide to take care of business ourselves. That is our heritage...
We need to build a ground swell of citizens interested in liberty, prosperity, and personal responsibility. The nanny state has the opposite motive, now the plebes have already been bought and the politicians are fleecing the only segments left to rob...
If you beleive the Obominoids have the majority of responsible Americans in mind for this outright robbery and redistribution guess again.
30 October 2008 16:05:26
wrote:
russramey6:
Haven't been on here for a few weeks now. How refreshing it is to log in to see another Ron Paul liberty lover! Nice post.
Cheers,
Eleanor
Haven't been on here for a few weeks now. How refreshing it is to log in to see another Ron Paul liberty lover! Nice post.
Cheers,
Eleanor
30 October 2008 18:22:23
HappyG wrote:
Russramey, Agree! I believe it will be easier to return to a conservative agenda by voting for McCain, even though he is a RINO. At least, we will have something to work with. Having Obama at the helm, along with a super majority of dems, and more liberal judges, we will not stand of chance of getting near what we are now, let alone reaching our goals of conservatism. It will be easier to become communists than hang onto our republic form of government, which is where we are headed. I envision nothing but total destruction by liberals taking control.
30 October 2008 18:58:59
wrote:
"Look at the historical track record of violence, governmental abuse of power, and outright intimidation from ACORN on up."
Are you kidding me? Try the Nixon, Reagan and Bush administrations.
Are you kidding me? Try the Nixon, Reagan and Bush administrations.
Using 
Mozilla Firefox 3.0.3 on 
Windows Vista
30 October 2008 22:12:09
Mozilla Firefox 3.0.3 on Windows Vista30 October 2008 22:12:09
Scant wrote:
Matt,
You forgot about including Clinton in on that list. The FBI files, using the IRS to intemidate people and all the lies. Fair is fair, bucko.
You forgot about including Clinton in on that list. The FBI files, using the IRS to intemidate people and all the lies. Fair is fair, bucko.
Using 
Internet Explorer 7.0 on Windows XP
31 October 2008 00:35:04
Internet Explorer 7.0 on Windows XP31 October 2008 00:35:04
wrote:
Clinton was not so hot either, you're right. Just to keep tabs, though -- does that make Nixon, Reagan and Bush any better?
Using Mozilla Firefox 3.0.3 on Windows Vista
31 October 2008 00:45:34
Mozilla Firefox 3.0.3 on Windows Vista31 October 2008 00:45:34
Scant wrote:
Matt,
Give me the dirt on Regan. I am curious, or are you just throwing out all of the repub presidents as an attempt to cover Clinton?
Give me the dirt on Regan. I am curious, or are you just throwing out all of the repub presidents as an attempt to cover Clinton?
Using Internet Explorer 7.0 on Windows XP
31 October 2008 01:22:52
Internet Explorer 7.0 on Windows XP31 October 2008 01:22:52
Lucente wrote:
Lee,
To add to what Susan already said, libetarians (classical liberal is a more accurate term) is about limited government rather than no government. Government has a legitimate role, but one that is limited to protecting the rights of its citizens, such as through national defense and prosecuting and punishing criminals (for real crimes with victims, not fake crimes such as drug use and prostitution).
Ultimately, it means that I can do whatever I like so long as I don't interfere with your right to do what you want. Another way to look at it is that no one has the right to initiate force against another accept in self-defense. And that rule would extend to the government as well.
~tjl~
To add to what Susan already said, libetarians (classical liberal is a more accurate term) is about limited government rather than no government. Government has a legitimate role, but one that is limited to protecting the rights of its citizens, such as through national defense and prosecuting and punishing criminals (for real crimes with victims, not fake crimes such as drug use and prostitution).
Ultimately, it means that I can do whatever I like so long as I don't interfere with your right to do what you want. Another way to look at it is that no one has the right to initiate force against another accept in self-defense. And that rule would extend to the government as well.
~tjl~
Using Mozilla Firefox 3.0.3 on Windows Vista
31 October 2008 02:14:47
Mozilla Firefox 3.0.3 on Windows Vista31 October 2008 02:14:47
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.lucente.org/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
2008 election tied for most candidates in history
This item comes from Ballot Access News. You will notice that the Libertarian Party once again has the widest reach of all third-party candidates with Bob Barr's name appearing before 94.5 percent of the voters.
Also, what the list doesn't say, is that only the top six are actually on the ballot in enough states to garner the required 270 electoral votes. I also took the liberty to alter the list by pointing out the candidates who will appear on the Ohio Ballot. Those in blue will be on Ohio's ballot and those in red will be write-in candidates in Ohio. Not included in the list are Ohio write-in candidates, Donald Allen (independent), James Germalic (independent), Platt Robertson (independent), and Joe Schriner (independent)
I will be voting for Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate. If you are tired of the direction of the country, as polls indicate that 90 percent of Americans are, then it makes absolutely NO SENSE to vote for Barack Obama or John McCain. They are representatives of the two parties that have controlled this country for 150 years. Nothing is going to change until the American people send a signal to Washington by voting en masse for third-party candidates.
However you vote, though, please make it an informed decision and not one based on advertising, skin color or false promises.
category | Election 2008
author | Lucente