Which party do you think libertarians vote for more?

[sub_thug]

The problem with this is that you're tarring 99% of liberals by trying to associate them with 1%. And I don't think you'd do that unless you were already inclined to oppose them. And it's meaningless to say that anyone is "into regulation or big gov't."

This is where I see a problem. A consistent libertarian would be for less-restrictive immigration policy (or straight-up open borders if they're really consistent), against enforcement of no-compete clauses, against occupational licensing, against housing construction restrictions, against abusive police practices (like we see in places like Ferguson), against the gov't trying to start wars with the media, and OK with environmental regs (preventing externalization of costs is one of the few legitimate functions of the gov't in most libertarian theory). But they're not there fighting those fights. They're cheering on the gov't as it becomes more authoritarian, they're out there saying that victims of police violence should have been more obedient, etc.

But it's not 1%. It's Sen. Al Franken calling people racist when Sen. Elizabeth Warren lies about being Native American. It's Sen. Tim Kaine using strawman arguments like the one in the video I have posted below. It's stuff coming out the mouths of the elected politicians. It's a huge chunk of the vocal liberals on this forum. It's not 1%, and it's not just the whackos out in Berkeley.



I'm not a 100% consistent libertarian, just as few people are 100% conservative or liberal. Those kinds of people are extremists. I think that the government has the authority to control the national borders. The most important purpose of government is to defend the homeland, and that starts with defining and protecting the borders. It has the authority to raise and maintain a military to defend its interests (I largely agree with the Powell Doctrine there). I am against abusive police practices, but that really starts with asking ourselves what laws we need to have in the first place versus which ones we are going to enforce and to what extent. And we aren't cheering on the government. If anything, we have people out there looking to pass constitutional amendments to require a balanced budget instead of increased deficit spending. Those same people are looking to abolish government agencies like the Department of Education, HUD, and others, as well as get rid of things like the PATRIOT Act. And since you want to bring up Michael Brown, you can say what you want about how the environment was bad. But he was killed because he attacked Officer Darren Wilson. If you attack someone, and they shoot you, then that's on you. And no one made Michael Brown attack Officer Darren Wilson. That was his own really, really stupid choice. Libertarian thought holds true that you are fundamentally responsible for the decisions that you make and the things that you do. It holds true consistently in this case. And I don't know a single libertarian that is defending the shooting of Walter Scott, and I personally think that Eric Garner was a problem. I don't think it's murder, but a rear naked choke was applied improperly in such a manner that led to the death of an unarmed suspect. If the problem was with the training, then I think that the NYPD is to blame. If the training was solid, and it was the officer to blame for the misapplication of that training, then I think that he should be held responsible for the wrongful death. And the investigative process should determine that.

 

[JohnnySagebrush]

But it's not 1%. It's Sen. Al Franken calling people racist when Sen. Elizabeth Warren lies about being Native American. It's Sen. Tim Kaine using strawman arguments like the one in the video I have posted below. It's stuff coming out the mouths of the elected politicians. It's a huge chunk of the vocal liberals on this forum. It's not 1%, and it's not just the whackos out in Berkeley.



I'm not a 100% consistent libertarian, just as few people are 100% conservative or liberal. Those kinds of people are extremists. I think that the government has the authority to control the national borders. The most important purpose of government is to defend the homeland, and that starts with defining and protecting the borders. It has the authority to raise and maintain a military to defend its interests (I largely agree with the Powell Doctrine there). I am against abusive police practices, but that really starts with asking ourselves what laws we need to have in the first place versus which ones we are going to enforce and to what extent. And we aren't cheering on the government. If anything, we have people out there looking to pass constitutional amendments to require a balanced budget instead of increased deficit spending. Those same people are looking to abolish government agencies like the Department of Education, HUD, and others, as well as get rid of things like the PATRIOT Act. And since you want to bring up Michael Brown, you can say what you want about how the environment was bad. But he was killed because he attacked Officer Darren Wilson. If you attack someone, and they shoot you, then that's on you. And no one made Michael Brown attack Officer Darren Wilson. That was his own really, really stupid choice. Libertarian thought holds true that you are fundamentally responsible for the decisions that you make and the things that you do. It holds true consistently in this case. And I don't know a single libertarian that is defending the shooting of Walter Scott, and I personally think that Eric Garner was a problem. I don't think it's murder, but a rear naked choke was applied improperly in such a manner that led to the death of an unarmed suspect. If the problem was with the training, then I think that the NYPD is to blame. If the training was solid, and it was the officer to blame for the misapplication of that training, then I think that he should be held responsible for the wrongful death. And the investigative process should determine that.

What am I supposed to be noticing in the video you posted?

 

[Makani]

Whichever party promises to let corporations run amok.

 

[Jack V Savage]

But it's not 1%. It's Sen. Al Franken calling people racist when Sen. Elizabeth Warren lies about being Native American. It's Sen. Tim Kaine using strawman arguments like the one in the video I have posted below. It's stuff coming out the mouths of the elected politicians. It's a huge chunk of the vocal liberals on this forum. It's not 1%, and it's not just the whackos out in Berkeley.

Warren never lied about being Native American. She thought she was 1/32nd Native American because she was told that. And you don't think referring to her as "Pocahontas" is at the very least disrespectful of Native Americans? Don't know what the other stuff you're talking about (don't watch vids here). Can you link to something by vocal liberals here?

I'm not a 100% consistent libertarian, just as few people are 100% conservative or liberal. Those kinds of people are extremists.

Not at all. Liberalism is a way of thinking rather than a set of positions, and lots of people are very consistent with it. Likewise for conservatism. Neither position would be extremist at all. In fact, a perfectly consistent liberal or conservative would be the opposite of an extremist. Libertarianism is an extreme position, but if someone consistently ditches libertarian ideals, at some point we have to wonder if the label is appropriate.

I think that the government has the authority to control the national borders. The most important purpose of government is to defend the homeland, and that starts with defining and protecting the borders.

That's fine if you think so, but it's not libertarian. What's more, don't libertarians argue (wrongly) that gov't use of power is as important as gov't possession of power in determining "size of gov't"? If so, wouldn't it follow that the less-restrictive immigration policy is, the "smaller gov't" it is?

I am against abusive police practices, but that really starts with asking ourselves what laws we need to have in the first place versus which ones we are going to enforce and to what extent.

Sure. Where is libertarian support for Campaign Zero? You'd think that libertarians would be marching with at least some BLM groups, but they're mostly opposed because libertarianism as a movement is really not about libertarianism as an ideology.

And we aren't cheering on the government. If anything, we have people out there looking to pass constitutional amendments to require a balanced budget instead of increased deficit spending.

Balanced budgets are completely irrelevant to libertarian principles. And libertarians are cheering on gov't efforts to fight the free press.

And since you want to bring up Michael Brown, you can say what you want about how the environment was bad. But he was killed because he attacked Officer Darren Wilson

I didn't bring up Michael Brown or that incident. I'm talking about stuff like this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ights-from-the-dojs-scathing-ferguson-report/

 

[sub_thug]

What am I supposed to be noticing in the video you posted?

- Sen Kaine equates the AUMF to the annual NDAA. They are vastly different, as Sec Mattis points out. One is a statement of purpose, to use the Sec's words. In simple terms, it's the authorization to act if the need arises to address time-sensitive targets and missions. The NDAA is basically a budget bill.
- Sen Kaine creates the strawman argument that the annual passage of a budget bill creates precedent for the timely passage of an AUMF, preventing our enemies from "outlasting us." As Sec Mattis points out, he can't get floor votes or even get the time for Generals to brief him. Sen Kaine stayed willfully ignorant of problems throughout the testimony.
- I can tell you from being in both Iraq and Afghanistan that we saw this coming in Iraq. When I was in Tikrit, a future ISIS stronghold, we asked why things were so peaceful and why they weren't really making an effort to fight us Americans. They told us that they were just waiting for us to leave. They knew that they had a bigger fight coming, so why try and go on pointless suicide missions against the Americans? And in Afghanistan, they're doing the same thing. Sen Kaine was just grandstanding, wasting everyone's time with false equivalencies.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

libertarian has always been code for 'i vote republican but dont want to be seen as a christian fundie'. at least for the past 30 years.

I guess you're right but there are some liberal libertarians. Did you see the last Libertarian party conventions? It's filled with purple haired women and all kinds of people you would expect at a liberal arts college.

 

[Jack V Savage]

- Sen Kaine equates the AUMF to the annual NDAA. They are vastly different, as Sec Mattis points out. One is a statement of purpose, to use the Sec's words. In simple terms, it's the authorization to act if the need arises to address time-sensitive targets and missions. The NDAA is basically a budget bill.
- Sen Kaine creates the strawman argument that the annual passage of a budget bill creates precedent for the timely passage of an AUMF, preventing our enemies from "outlasting us." As Sec Mattis points out, he can't get floor votes or even get the time for Generals to brief him. Sen Kaine stayed willfully ignorant of problems throughout the testimony.
- I can tell you from being in both Iraq and Afghanistan that we saw this coming in Iraq. When I was in Tikrit, a future ISIS stronghold, we asked why things were so peaceful and why they weren't really making an effort to fight us Americans. They told us that they were just waiting for us to leave. They knew that they had a bigger fight coming, so why try and go on pointless suicide missions against the Americans? And in Afghanistan, they're doing the same thing. Sen Kaine was just grandstanding, wasting everyone's time with false equivalencies.

I didn't watch the video, and I'm not up on these issues, so I'll defer to you, but granting the Kaine was being a bad boy there, I don't see how it relates to what we were talking about.

 

[JohnnySagebrush]

I didn't watch the video, and I'm not up on these issues, so I'll defer to you, but granting the Kaine was being a bad boy there, I don't see how it relates to what we were talking about.

Yeah, I asked about it. I don’t see the relevance to this thread (consider the proposal Kaine is talking about is bipartisan), but I can see how Kaine could be seen as grandstanding a bit, even though I agree with what he’s saying. But anyway, that’s a tangent.

 

[panamaican]

Real libertarians probably don't vote for either party.

People who like the idea of less federal government (but appear to have no opinion on state gov't) or want lower taxes and thus mislabel themselves as libertarians mostly vote GOP. Interestingly, these people are just as likely to mislabel themselves as conservatives.

 

[TeTe]

Right-wing libertarians (the ones I assume you're talking about) overwhelmingly vote Republican. There isn't any real policy connection between the GOP and libertarianism but then there isn't much of a connection between people's tendency to self-ID as libertarians and their tendency to actually support libertarian principles. It's mostly just code for "I'm on the right but not religious."

I tend to vote for the candidate that I most align with.. if I don't vote libertarian or it isn't an option. I would have voted for Rand Paul had he been nominated but I would have never voted for Trump.

On the flip side, I would have voted for Bernie if he had been nominated over Hillary. Because to me I'd rather have a left wing libertarian who believes in isolationism, ending the War on Terror and Drugs and is willing to call out the Feds on their garbage and clean house with their own brand of left wing politics than vote for some Dem who will only raise taxes just to not cut military spending, perpetuate wars and act as a corporate shill to serve their own best interests. I would rather have Bernie get rid of Obamacare and enact single payer over someone like Hill Dog who do nothing but praise the broken shit system that Obama has created and continue the course.

 

[TeTe]

But I voted for Gary Johnson the previous two elections, knowing that he wouldn't win. But the party is breaking records every election, mostly because of the displeasure with the GOP I'm sure.

I'm perfectly fine with Johnson not knowing cities in Syria. Fucking money pit.

 

[Scheme]

Man, Ron is really twisting himself in all kinds of weird shapes in that one. That was embarrassing. "if it's honest rape"

Honest rape as in an actual rape occurred, and not some 'I was drunk' after-story.

And just because you jizz inside a woman doesn't mean a baby was conceived. Many people try to have babies and realize that there's only a chance of conception each time. I think Piers is assuming that if you jizz inside a woman, a baby is automatically conceived, which is false.

 

[JohnnySagebrush]

Not at all. Liberalism is a way of thinking rather than a set of positions, and lots of people are very consistent with it. Likewise for conservatism. Neither position would be extremist at all. In fact, a perfectly consistent liberal or conservative would be the opposite of an extremist. Libertarianism is an extreme position, but if someone consistently ditches libertarian ideals, at some point we have to wonder if the label is appropriate.

That's fine if you think so, but it's not libertarian. What's more, don't libertarians argue (wrongly) that gov't use of power is as important as gov't possession of power in determining "size of gov't"? If so, wouldn't it follow that the less-restrictive immigration policy is, the "smaller gov't" it is?
/

Very true. Individual beliefs are varied and not necessarily easily codified into a certain political party, but Libertarian philosophy is pretty clear. The most common “but” that you hear among self-identifying Libertarians is, “I’m a Libertarian, but I disagree with open borders.” Which is bizarre, as open borders is such a central tenet to libertarian thought. It’s what really identifies it from a standard conservative platform. At some point, you have to question if someone likes the idea of being a Libertarian more than what being a Libertarian actually entails.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I tend to vote for the candidate that I most align with.. if I don't vote libertarian or it isn't an option. I would have voted for Rand Paul had he been nominated but I would have never voted for Trump.

On the flip side, I would have voted for Bernie if he had been nominated over Hillary. Because to me I'd rather have a left wing libertarian who believes in isolationism, ending the War on Terror and Drugs and is willing to call out the Feds on their garbage and clean house with their own brand of left wing politics than vote for some Dem who will only raise taxes just to not cut military spending, perpetuate wars and act as a corporate shill to serve their own best interests. I would rather have Bernie get rid of Obamacare and enact single payer over someone like Hill Dog who do nothing but praise the broken shit system that Obama has created and continue the course.

I think you have the wrong idea about Clinton and the ACA.

 

[JohnnySagebrush]

But I voted for Gary Johnson the previous two elections, knowing that he wouldn't win. But the party is breaking records every election, mostly because of the displeasure with the GOP I'm sure.

I'm perfectly fine with Johnson not knowing cities in Syria. Fucking money pit.

IMO, the 2-Party system has failed to change with increasing nuance and complexities of voter’s views. You see more and more disenfranchised voters who don’t feel like they belong to any party and thus have no representation. How many folks really think they fit into either D or R? Not me.

In many ways, our plurality system with an electoral college is a moribund anachronism that is failing to function as it should. We’ve become inefficient and the system wasn’t built to change. Our American way of Democracy is built (you could cynically say “rigged”) to be a 2-Party system, when the best thing for the country is probably a switch to a proportional Democracy with multiple member districts.

 

[Thycidides]

I tend to vote for the candidate that I most align with.. if I don't vote libertarian or it isn't an option. I would have voted for Rand Paul had he been nominated but I would have never voted for Trump.

On the flip side, I would have voted for Bernie if he had been nominated over Hillary. .

Rand Paul and Bernie are almost exact opposites. Too be honest I don't think a president Rand Paul would differ in substance from Trump. He would have continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, kept asking for more money for the pentagon and also tried to end Medicaid and Medicare.

Rand Paul talks a big game but is a reliable vote in the senate for the aggressive GOP agenda.

 

[sub_thug]

Warren never lied about being Native American. She thought she was 1/32nd Native American because she was told that. And you don't think referring to her as "Pocahontas" is at the very least disrespectful of Native Americans? Don't know what the other stuff you're talking about (don't watch vids here). Can you link to something by vocal liberals here?

Not at all. Liberalism is a way of thinking rather than a set of positions, and lots of people are very consistent with it. Likewise for conservatism. Neither position would be extremist at all. In fact, a perfectly consistent liberal or conservative would be the opposite of an extremist. Libertarianism is an extreme position, but if someone consistently ditches libertarian ideals, at some point we have to wonder if the label is appropriate.

That's fine if you think so, but it's not libertarian. What's more, don't libertarians argue (wrongly) that gov't use of power is as important as gov't possession of power in determining "size of gov't"? If so, wouldn't it follow that the less-restrictive immigration policy is, the "smaller gov't" it is?

Sure. Where is libertarian support for Campaign Zero? You'd think that libertarians would be marching with at least some BLM groups, but they're mostly opposed because libertarianism as a movement is really not about libertarianism as an ideology.

Balanced budgets are completely irrelevant to libertarian principles. And libertarians are cheering on gov't efforts to fight the free press.

I didn't bring up Michael Brown or that incident. I'm talking about stuff like this:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ights-from-the-dojs-scathing-ferguson-report/

I was under the impression that she knowingly lied about having a Native American heritage. And calling her Pocahantas is a shot at her, not a shot at Native Americans. I see it as a tongue in cheek insult.

I don't see libertarianism as an extreme position. Do you lend to lean to the left on social issues and to the right on economic ones? If so, you're probably a libertarian. Do you think that government is involved in too many issues that the government doesn't need to be involved in? If you said yes, you're probably a libertarian. You don't need any more than that. It's a scale, just as how liberalism and conservatism are. You can be a liberal without being a Communist, just as you can be a libertarian without being an anarchist.

You're twisting things around. But libertarianism isn't about anarchy. A great analogy actually comes from a famous quote in the Bible: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's". I am happy to pay taxes for the things that are within the scope of what the government should do. I am less interested in supporting, financially or otherwise, the things that should not be within the role of the government. The government shouldn't be involved in your personal life. So marry who you want, get as many abortions as you see fit, eat cheeseburgers all day if you care to, and do the drugs that you want to do. It's your life, so live it however you want. But I shouldn't have to pay for your healthcare when you're a fat dope fiend who is pregnant again and needs bailed out. That's libertarianism in a nutshell. So I don't have any ideological problems with allowing the police to enforce the laws that are on the books (although I can disagree with whether or not those laws should be there at all), meaning that I don't have to support Campaign Zero, who are advocated on giving the police less tools to do their job. I don't have to support ineffective policing.

CNN and MSNBC are companies. They may do whatever that they want that is legal, and they do. This is why an adversarial media is what we've had for many years.

Yeah, being focused on revenue is a bad thing. Some departments are like that in the US. I'm not saying that these departments are perfect by any stretch of the imagination. They are made up of humans, so they will never be anywhere close to perfect. And they are filled with government employees, so the outlook is bleak. So maybe the city should reconsider some of its policies in order to ensure that the police aren't a major revenue stream then.

And I cited the Kaine video because it's exactly his attitudes and behaviors why I have had a hard time supporting Democrats in recent elections, the central topic of this thread. But I was happy to support President Obama in his 2008 bid. I did not vote in 2012, as I was unexpectedly called out of the country for work, and thus, unable. However, I was leaning towards voting for him over Gov Romney.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I was under the impression that she knowingly lied about having a Native American heritage. And calling her Pocahantas is a shot at her, not a shot at Native Americans. I see it as a tongue in cheek insult.

Well, she says she thought she was very slightly NA, and some of her family backs her up. She had nothing to gain from it, and her claim was that it was an extremely small amount. And I think you can see how it's disrespectful.

I don't see libertarianism as an extreme position. Do you lend to lean to the left on social issues and to the right on economic ones? If so, you're probably a libertarian.

Well, libertarianism can refer to communist anarchism on the left, which is obviously very extreme, or a system where the "gov't" is just private armies protecting the rich from everyone else on the right, which is also extreme. What you're talking about is not being a consistent libertarian. My point is that a consistent liberal or conservative is moderate, while a consistent libertarian is an extremist of some kind.

Do you think that government is involved in too many issues that the government doesn't need to be involved in? If you said yes, you're probably a libertarian. You don't need any more than that. It's a scale, just as how liberalism and conservatism are. You can be a liberal without being a Communist, just as you can be a libertarian without being an anarchist.

No, people of all ideologies can think that the gov't is involved in issues that it doesn't need to be involved in. Socialists think that, liberals think that, monarchists think it, etc.

You're twisting things around. But libertarianism isn't about anarchy.

Don't know what you think I'm twisting, but anarchy is the endpoint of libertarianism. A right-wing libertarian might prefer a non-democratic gov't that just protects the interests of property owners and extracts taxes from the public to pay for it or even just a slight move in a libertarian direction, though.

A great analogy actually comes from a famous quote in the Bible: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's". I am happy to pay taxes for the things that are within the scope of what the government should do. I am less interested in supporting, financially or otherwise, the things that should not be within the role of the government.

Again, that is not something that distinguishes libertarians from everyone else.

The government shouldn't be involved in your personal life. So marry who you want, get as many abortions as you see fit, eat cheeseburgers all day if you care to, and do the drugs that you want to do. It's your life, so live it however you want. But I shouldn't have to pay for your healthcare when you're a fat dope fiend who is pregnant again and needs bailed out. That's libertarianism in a nutshell. So I don't have any ideological problems with allowing the police to enforce the laws that are on the books (although I can disagree with whether or not those laws should be there at all), meaning that I don't have to support Campaign Zero, who are advocated on giving the police less tools to do their job. I don't have to support ineffective policing.

You're not accurately summarizing the thrust of the proposals, which are largely about preventing abuses of the law. For example, there are plans to end for-profit policing (as described in the DOJ Ferguson report), have independent investigations of police matters, and end broken-windows policing. All things one would expect a libertarian to support. You don't have to like the specific proposals, but the goals would seem to be aligned with libertarian interests. Except that the interests of most "libertarians" aren't actually libertarian.

 

[sub_thug]

Well, she says she thought she was very slightly NA, and some of her family backs her up. She had nothing to gain from it, and her claim was that it was an extremely small amount. And I think you can see how it's disrespectful.



Well, libertarianism can refer to communist anarchism on the left, which is obviously very extreme, or a system where the "gov't" is just private armies protecting the rich from everyone else on the right, which is also extreme. What you're talking about is not being a consistent libertarian. My point is that a consistent liberal or conservative is moderate, while a consistent libertarian is an extremist of some kind.



No, people of all ideologies can think that the gov't is involved in issues that it doesn't need to be involved in. Socialists think that, liberals think that, monarchists think it, etc.



Don't know what you think I'm twisting, but anarchy is the endpoint of libertarianism. A right-wing libertarian might prefer a non-democratic gov't that just protects the interests of property owners and extracts taxes from the public to pay for it or even just a slight move in a libertarian direction, though.



Again, that is not something that distinguishes libertarians from everyone else.



You're not accurately summarizing the thrust of the proposals, which are largely about preventing abuses of the law. For example, there are plans to end for-profit policing (as described in the DOJ Ferguson report), have independent investigations of police matters, and end broken-windows policing. All things one would expect a libertarian to support. You don't have to like the specific proposals, but the goals would seem to be aligned with libertarian interests. Except that the interests of most "libertarians" aren't actually libertarian.

All of this summarizes to one thing: We have a different understanding of what it means to be a libertarian. What then would you call a social liberal and fiscal conservative?

 

[DangDaGawd]

Whichever side has the more unrealistic and uniformed policy as pertaining to a particular issue.