Libertarians

[Drummond]

The alternative is to allow the two parties to continue as they are. Not acceptable. Not voting is also not acceptable to me. Thus, as necessary I'll continue to vote for whichever candidate best reflects my point of view on issues.

I really do not care about their party affiliation.

When it comes to President, there really is no alternative to the two main parties at this time, the Libertarians are a joke on national scene.

Thus for this round, anyone other than (D), I'm no longer convinced of the inevitability that it will be Hillary.

If enough people do what you're considering doing yourself, and for similar reasons ... then you could be ensuring a GENERATION, if not longer, of continuous Democrat victories. I'd have thought that this was the most undesirable, least acceptable, outcome imaginable ?

... and I wouldn't write off any one minor Party, not even the Libertarians. If any get ENOUGH support, they could enjoy rollercoaster success over successive elections.

Here, we now have UKIP ... a creditable Party, wanting us out of Europe, firm control on immigration .. laudable policies. A decade ago, they were in the political wilderness, existing, but nobody took them seriously. Today they are still a 'minority' Party, but now a serious threat to the major ones, nonetheless. They could cost our Conservatives the upcoming election through taking too many votes away from them. Result .. LABOUR gets in, probably propped up by the SNP ... and neither of those Parties, if they win, will allow the British people any Referendum on continued membership of the EU. We'll all just be stuck with it.

Perhaps this'll appeal to minority voting-wannabes ? It's a Party Political broadcast by one Al Murray ... standing for election in South Thanet, in Kent. He IS actually standing for election, though it's also a purely joke candidacy. Al Murray, AKA 'The Pub Landlord', is a comedy creation.

Here's his election video --- enjoy ! ---

[Kathianne]

If enough people do what you're considering doing yourself, and for similar reasons ... then you could be ensuring a GENERATION, if not longer, of continuous Democrat victories. I'd have thought that this was the most undesirable, least acceptable, outcome imaginable ?

... and I wouldn't write off any one minor Party, not even the Libertarians. If any get ENOUGH support, they could enjoy rollercoaster success over successive elections.

Here, we now have UKIP ... a creditable Party, wanting us out of Europe, firm control on immigration .. laudable policies. A decade ago, they were in the political wilderness, existing, but nobody took them seriously. Today they are still a 'minority' Party, but now a serious threat to the major ones, nonetheless. They could cost our Conservatives the upcoming election through taking too many votes away from them. Result .. LABOUR gets in, probably propped up by the SNP ... and neither of those Parties, if they win, will allow the British people any Referendum on continued membership of the EU. We'll all just be stuck with it.

Perhaps this'll appeal to minority voting-wannabes ? It's a Party Political broadcast by one Al Murray ... standing for election in South Thanet, in Kent. He IS actually standing for election, though it's also a purely joke candidacy. Al Murray, AKA 'The Pub Landlord', is a comedy creation.

Here's his election video --- enjoy ! ---

and if folks don't adhere to their principles they are guaranteed to have more of what has been happening. The only hope is that there are some real conservatives in the GOP that want to repeal much of what has been happening since at least 1900.

[Gunny]

Gunny, you're trying to defy the saying 'No man is an island'. Fact is that none of us are immune to being influenced by what we see, hear, learn about the world we live in. Everything has its input. And there are those who understand this, and try to be opportunistic on the back of it.

In my society, Socialists are forever preaching in some form or other, trying to set parameters of what they say are 'decent beliefs and standards' ... which is how our NHS is so well respected (despite the many disasters it's visited upon us), or why so many not only shun the idea of carrying guns, but even consider the very notion of it 'uncivilised'. Or how to be critical of Muslims, or Islam, or not believe that 'Islam is a religion of peace' means that you're bigoted or racist, or both.

They've worked on this process for decades and have done much to shape attitudes here. The principle is tried and tested: 'plug into society, and society plugs into you'.

Americans place a greater value on freedoms, liberty, etc ... so are protected from massive excesses of what I'm talking about. But nobody is immune. Can you guarantee to watch or listen to a debate programme, or news item, or current affairs broadcast, and know it cannot possibly shape any view of yours, or sway you even a little ?

You say you can't be labeled. But you carry SOMETHING of what has been fed to you through the media. We all do.

Your 'Ask FJ' suggestion, by the way, is meaningless. FJ professes to be something he's not .. he identifies with labels, deliberately so, but FALSELY. He'd have me believe he's a Thatcherite (he is not) and a Libertarian, both at the same time. That males zero sense ... Margaret Thatcher was no Libertarian, she FOUGHT Libertarians in the UK, and did it through State machinery.

There are those who understand it. They take facts, logic and common sense and form an opinion. That isn't the case here. One more time, your definition of libertarian and ours are not the same. You have steadfastly refused to accept that basic concept. I GET the fact politics are different in the world. I'm not sitting here telling you that you have to accept our definition. I'm telling you that you need to understand it's not the same; otherwise, you are arguing against a strawman -- something that doesn't exist.

"Libertarian" in this country means anarchist at worst -- the opposite of socialism -- isolationist, fiscal conservative and moral conservative at best. Those who are labeled libertarians now are just right wing conservatives that got the rug yanked out from under them when the paridigm shifted left. They're really nothing more than conservatives that are out of their time.

Having seen the stupid pie chart on who falls where, I understand there are leftwing libertarians. That's not what we're talking about where the US is concerned.

[Drummond]

There are those who understand it. They take facts, logic and common sense and form an opinion. That isn't the case here. One more time, your definition of libertarian and ours are not the same. You have steadfastly refused to accept that basic concept. I GET the fact politics are different in the world. I'm not sitting here telling you that you have to accept our definition. I'm telling you that you need to understand it's not the same; otherwise, you are arguing against a strawman -- something that doesn't exist.

"Libertarian" in this country means anarchist at worst -- the opposite of socialism -- isolationist, fiscal conservative and moral conservative at best. Those who are labeled libertarians now are just right wing conservatives that got the rug yanked out from under them when the paridigm shifted left. They're really nothing more than conservatives that are out of their time.

Having seen the stupid pie chart on who falls where, I understand there are leftwing libertarians. That's not what we're talking about where the US is concerned.

Can you tell me why you believe your Libertarians will never change, then ? What is it about them which will ensure they never alter their thinking, or their methodology ?

UK Libertarians see no issue involved with getting involved in the machinations of Governmental politics .. be it directly, from forming their own Party and publishing a manifesto, from which they hope to gain votes in our General Election, or, more indirectly, thinking that wielding power via collective action will give them power.

I think that if you're right about your own Libertarians, they'll get fed up of being 'on the fringes'. One day, they'll want real power. One day, they'll do what it takes to acquire it.

You think this is a totally static situation. I fail to see what guarantees that it'll remain so.

[Drummond]

and if folks don't adhere to their principles they are guaranteed to have more of what has been happening. The only hope is that there are some real conservatives in the GOP that want to repeal much of what has been happening since at least 1900.

As I think I've indicated, I respect your point of principle.

But you're nevertheless risking the possibility of Dem after Dem victory coming out of sufficient numbers of people splitting the vote of the Dem opposition.

Is repeated Democrat terms of Office, one after the other, continuing maybe for a generation, actually a fate worth having, as a conscious preference ? Does it justify the continuation of 'fracture voting' ?

[Kathianne]

As I think I've indicated, I respect your point of principle.

But you're nevertheless risking the possibility of Dem after Dem victory coming out of sufficient numbers of people splitting the vote of the Dem opposition.

Is repeated Democrat terms of Office, one after the other, continuing maybe for a generation, actually a fate worth having, as a conscious preference ? Does it justify the continuation of 'fracture voting' ?

If there isn't change in GOP, you're likely correct. I hope that some folks that want to serve and have the wherewithal stand up and run.

[Drummond]

If there isn't change in GOP, you're likely correct. I hope that some folks that want to serve and have the wherewithal stand up and run.

I'd also suggest another interpretation entirely.

Let's say that 'fracture voting' continues .. voting being split enough so as to guarantee further Dem victories. Well ... what if the GOP sees the Dems continuing to win, and so in order to capture the 'pro-Dem trend', all those victories see the GOP shape their policies towards a more liberal direction ?

Then again, and as I've suggested before, with repeated Left-leaning victories, comes the repeated chance of drumming home liberal sensibilities. Here, we've had GENERATIONS of their propaganda working on us. Result ? A Conservative Prime Minister who believes gay marriage is worth fighting for (!) ... and who professes to 'love' State healthcare.

More Dem victories will be opportunities, I suggest, that the Dems will NOT want to waste.

[Kathianne]

I'd also suggest another interpretation entirely.

Let's say that 'fracture voting' continues .. voting being split enough so as to guarantee further Dem victories. Well ... what if the GOP sees the Dems continuing to win, and so in order to capture the 'pro-Dem trend', all those victories see the GOP shape their policies towards a more liberal direction ?

Then again, and as I've suggested before, with repeated Left-leaning victories, comes the repeated chance of drumming home liberal sensibilities. Here, we've had GENERATIONS of their propaganda working on us. Result ? A Conservative Prime Minister who believes gay marriage is worth fighting for (!) ... and who professes to 'love' State healthcare.

More Dem victories will be opportunities, I suggest, that the Dems will NOT want to waste.

If that is what it takes for possible eventual change? Perhaps it will be so, I won't live to see the change then. It took over 150 years to declare seperation from the king, still 1/3 of the people weren't convinced by the beginning of the Revolution! Some people just must hit 'rock bottom' before recovery.

You've nearly convinced me to stop voting for 'best of the worst' for President. Maybe it's time to explore the 'no chance' candidates.

[tailfins]

I'd also suggest another interpretation entirely.

Let's say that 'fracture voting' continues .. voting being split enough so as to guarantee further Dem victories. Well ... what if the GOP sees the Dems continuing to win, and so in order to capture the 'pro-Dem trend', all those victories see the GOP shape their policies towards a more liberal direction ?

Then again, and as I've suggested before, with repeated Left-leaning victories, comes the repeated chance of drumming home liberal sensibilities. Here, we've had GENERATIONS of their propaganda working on us. Result ? A Conservative Prime Minister who believes gay marriage is worth fighting for (!) ... and who professes to 'love' State healthcare.

More Dem victories will be opportunities, I suggest, that the Dems will NOT want to waste.

The effect is even stronger here in the US than the UK. When Libertarians get US votes, there's nothing to show for it. At least in the UK, if the UKIP were to pick up some seats, they could force the Tories to pick between a UKIP coalition or handing the keys to 10 Downing Street over to Labour.

[Drummond]

If that is what it takes for possible eventual change? Perhaps it will be so, I won't live to see the change then. It took over 150 years to declare seperation from the king, still 1/3 of the people weren't convinced by the beginning of the Revolution! Some people just must hit 'rock bottom' before recovery.

You've nearly convinced me to stop voting for 'best of the worst' for President. Maybe it's time to explore the 'no chance' candidates.

I'm sorry, but it must surely be obvious that voting for a 'no chance' candidate will render your vote effectively wasted. Every vote which can't be picked up by the 'best chance' candidate, and Party representing effective opposition to the Democratic Party, IS a vote which will not counterbalance those the Dems WILL receive.

Voting for 'no chance' candidates on the Right must surely GUARANTEE future Dem victories. The more such victories they can get, the greater the permanent, i.e irremediable, damage they can do.

Imagine, for example, a society where Leftists have had so very long, and so many chances, to drum home their message. Imagine a society where to even voice resistance to immigration is deemed a racist act. Imagine a society where you're considered uncivilised if you ever voice disapproval of gay marriage. Or where to be publicly critical of a faith you want to express opposition to, automatically earns you a 'hatespeech' charge, actionable in law, leaving you liable to arrest and prosecution.

Do you REALLY want to give your Dems such a clear run, Kathianne, that they can dripfeed propaganda to people which instills such attitudes and beliefs in them, where those opposing them are seen in antisocial terms ??

It's up to you. If I were in your position, I'd want to fight to rob the opposition of such successes. And not instead fritter a vote away on anyone incapable of successful opposition !

But, that's just me. You may continue to be convinced that it's worth it.

[Kathianne]

I'm sorry, but it must surely be obvious that voting for a 'no chance' candidate will render your vote effectively wasted. Every vote which can't be picked up by the 'best chance' candidate, and Party representing opposition to the Democratic Party, IS a vote which will not counterbalance those the Dems WILL receive.

Voting for 'no chance' candidates on the Right must surely GUARANTEE future Dem victories. The more such victories they can get, the greater the permanent, i.e irremediable, damage they can do.

Imagine, for example, a society where Leftists have had so very long, and so many chances, to drum home their message. Imagine a society where to even voice resistance to immigration is deemed a racist act. Imagine a society where you're considered uncivilised if you ever voice disapproval of gay marriage. Or where to be publicly critical of a faith you want to express opposition to, automatically earns you a 'hatespeech' charge, actionable in law, leaving you liable to arrest and prosecution.

Do you REALLY want to give your Dems such a clear run, Kathianne, that they can dripfeed propaganda to people which instills such attitudes and beliefs in them, where those opposing them are seen in antisocial terms ??

It's up to you. If I were in your position, I'd want to fight to rob the opposition of such successes. And not instead fritter a vote away on anyone incapable of successful opposition !

But, that's just me. You may continue to be convinced that it's worth it.

It's never a waste in standing up for what you believe is right. We disagree.

[Drummond]

The effect is even stronger here in the US than the UK. When Libertarians get US votes, there's nothing to show for it. At least in the UK, if the UKIP were to pick up some seats, they could force the Tories to pick between a UKIP coalition or handing the keys to 10 Downing Street over to Labour.

Your analysis of the UK situation is spot on, so I must take it that the same is true for your US analysis. Well said.

[Drummond]

It's never a waste in standing up for what you believe is right. We disagree.

Then we do, I'm afraid.

An action of tilting at windmills in a society where iron control is held by your opposition, and where that control is being guaranteed through any lack of effective opposition to it, is a total waste, achieving nothing of practical value. Such actions may appear principled and even noble. But if they bear no authoritative weight, then nothing is really achieved.

Agreeing to prefer to see a society go down the pan, for the sake of saying 'I think I did the right thing', really does nobody any good. It's not just your own sense of self esteem and 'being true to yourself' that matters in such a situation, but the freedoms and welfare of millions of people having to take the fallout from an otherwise wholly avoidable position.

[Noir]

At least in the UK, if the UKIP were to pick up some seats, they could force the Tories to pick between a UKIP coalition or handing the keys to 10 Downing Street over to Labour.

There's a thought, would Cameron rather climb into bed with UKIP and the DUP, or hand over to Labour, such choices.

[fj1200]

Pay no attention to the elephant in the room. There are right and left libertarians. It's obvious the ones in the UK are left libertarians and and not right libertarians like we have here.

I'm not so sure about that. They may be fine tuned for across the pond realities but they are far from "left."

From anything I can tell, 'left libertarians' would be better be called 'anarchists', think 'occupy Wallstreet' types. Certainly not for any social order of any size.

A "left" Libertarian isn't really a Libertarian. OWS was no where close to Libertarian in nature.