Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Libertarian Party, Yes or No?

This is pure bullshitt....
The Libertarian party wants to take the control of these issues out of the hands of the oppressive federal government and put it in the states hands where it belongs...

No, No, No & No Friggin way!!!! Read my Lips, " I repeat No Friggin way I will Vote for a Libertarian Canidate!!!!"

The ones I've met are one step away from the Looney Farm. I can't figure if the one step ahead or behind Nobama.

You are wrong.

When George H.W. Bush ran the second time I voted Libertarian. When Bob Dole ran I voted either Libertarian or for Pat Buchanan. Can't remember. I have no problem voting Libertarian, but I'm still a registered Republican so I can try to have some effect on the nominees.

Correct until you said the italicized part. Conservatives don't blindly seek to maintain any status quo. They seek to maintain the tried and true, i.e., those courses which have been approved by long standing tradition, such as marriage being a union of a man and woman, for example. Where those ways have been abandoned, they fight for their restoration, not the preservation of the new status quo.

The Republican party is a joke, unless they would completely revamp their tenants or at least follow through with them. There are very few in that party who practice what they preach. Previous posters have covered what's wrong.

To the question, no I probably wouldn't join the Libertarian party, as I'm not a member of any party anymore. I realized it's all a sham and pointless, so why bother? Yeah, yeah, primary elections. Whatever. FWIW, I voted Libertarian this time around. And I still like Ron Paul.

The fact that the Libertarian party seems to be the only party that actually treats the Constitution as more than a piece of toilet paper, is often enough for me to cast my vote in their favor.

Yep.

Yep.

Yep.

Exactly.

The thought of making their own decisions in life keep many people from becoming libertarians.

They need the big government crutch,...regardless of what form it takes or how much it costs.

Anything is preferrable to being in charge of oneself to those people,...and there's a *lot* of them.

I agree. All the Republican Party needs to do is get back to the basics of conservatism. If they actually pursued some of the aspects of the Libertarian platform like smaller, less intrusive government, there would be no need for the Libertarian Party at all.

Unfortunately, they have watered down their platform or simply haven't agressively pursued their own platform in recent years. If they would just stay true to their own principles and didn't back down on ANYTHING, they would be fine.

Compromise has been a virus that was implanted in the party by moderates and under the guise of political correctness, erroding the core of the platform. I say no compromise or "big tent" bullschitt on anything anymore. Stick to your friggin convictions and real Americans will follow.

Okay I can live with that.

That right there covers about 99% of our nation's current issues.

The Constitution Party is the purist, conservative party there is. Unfortunately, they would need someone who has such amazing carisma as to draw enough people in.

I still believe, practically speaking, the most realistic solution for regaining power is to "unite the clans" against England.

The Republican Party needs to incorperate the best conservative aspects of both the Libertarians' and Constitutionalists' platforms and draw them in as one voting force. As long as conservatives are divided, the liberals will laugh themselves into office in every election.

I am a Constitutionalist, but I voted for Ron Paul. That makes me a terrorist, even though the MSM is courting him now, as he was right throughout the last election, when they blacklisted him from getting any coverage. They aren't laughing now.
Flame away.

Bonehead Idea! We're divided enough right now. Going to a third party is suicide.

The term "conservative" has lost much of its historical etymology over the years. When it was originally coined, the country was vastly devoted to the constitution, liberty, free markets and self accountability. So at the time, maintaining the status quo or "traditional" values made a lot sense, hence the term conservatism.

Unfortunately, as the country has drifted farther away from the core values of our forefathers, the semantically accurate definition of conservatism has lost its meaning because the country has abandone many of the principles for which conservatism was designed to protect.

For those of us who espouse to be conservatives, dare I say, we redefine it to encompass the same concepts for which it was historically originated. We think of conservatism to mean the same as it did for our forefathers even though the country have deviated from those principles.

Problem is, conservatism doesn't have any principles. Instead, it has a seething, teeming mass of inconsistent, conflicting goals, where almost every one is denied by at least some subgroup of people who call themselves conservatives.

For example, one goal is that the government must be small; but another is that it must be big enough to impose democracy on the world. One goal is that individual liberty must be respected; another is that what an individual chooses to put into his own body must be controlled by the State. One goal is that the State should stay out of people's private lives; another is that gay marriage must be prohibited by the State.

Some conservatives think the State should be allowed to torture people; other conservatives don't. Some conservatives think the State should be able to start preemptive wars against nations that pose no threat, as long as their governments are sufficiently undemocratic to be aesthetically displeasing; other conservatives don't.

Given a philosophy as self-contradictory as this, it's impossible to achieve any sort of cohesion without massive compromise. If you insist that only the goals with which you agree be retained, and the goals peculiar to other conservatives be discarded, you'll wind up as a member of a tiny splinter group too small to have any political power at all.

Libertarianism, on the other hand, does have a real principle. Only one, but it is truly a principle, not merely a goal. It's the Non-Aggression Principle, and it goes like this: "No one has the right to initiate force (or fraud) against another." If you can't subscribe to that principle, then you're not a libertarian; if you can, then you are, no matter what else you believe, what culture you belong to, what company you keep, what religion you are, what your race, age, or economic stratum.

The Republican Party supports the War On Drugs not on the basis of any principle, but simply because Republican Party bosses notice that a large number of Americans (at least pretend to) disapprove of drugs of abuse, and calculate that they'll attract more votes by supporting the War On Drugs than by opposing it.

The Libertarian Party, however, has no choice: because it's truly based on principle, it has to oppose the War On Drugs, since arresting somebody for medicating himself is undeniably an initiation of force, which violates the Non-Aggression Principle. Doesn't matter how many votes that position gains or loses the Party; that's the only decision available.

Again, though, the Libertarian Party is very far from being ready for the big time: party of principle or not, it's politically crippled by internal strife and backbiting. Pretty much the entire Party structure would need to be stripped out and replaced with different people who had no history of contention with and resentment of each other; but that's not going to happen.

I would never flame you for voting your conscience. Many of Ron Paul's arguments are strong. To me, the best possible candidate would be some kind of cross between Ron Paul and Ronald Reagan. Smaller, less intrusive government, full fiscal accountability, don't try and save every lost cause in the world, always stay true to America, never appologize for anything, and don't take schitt from anyone.