Thing you hate about the Libertarians the most

[A18]

Don't like drugs? Don't take them. Don't like a business? Don't buy from it.

Liberty is freedom. Not government-induced euphoria as you seem to think it is.

[TomC]

That they don't have more actual power in government.

I'm not a libertarian and I do find numerous areas where i want government to play a role in society; however, the GOP and the Dems are currently both big government parties- which concerns me...where's the check and balance on that???

[John Dibble]

That they don't have more actual power in government.

I'm not a libertarian and I do find numerous areas where i want government to play a role in society; however, the GOP and the Dems are currently both big government parties- which concerns me...where's the check and balance on that???

Now there's a good answer.

By the way, the LP could always use a donation. Funding is probably our biggest obstacle.

[TomC]

By the way, the LP could always use a donation. Funding is probably our biggest obstacle.

Noted, genuinely.

[John Dibble]

By the way, the LP could always use a donation. Funding is probably our biggest obstacle.

Noted, genuinely.

Much appreciated.

[Inverted Things]

If government is the answer, then it was a stupid question.

[Smash255]

I would say that they don't think the governmentshould put limitations on some business's no matter how much they screw up.  For example (some not all) libertarians think that if a company such as Enron completley cooks the books & lies about everything that they shouldn't be punished for it

[John Dibble]

I would say that they don't think the governmentshould put limitations on some business's no matter how much they screw up.  For example (some not all) libertarians think that if a company such as Enron completley cooks the books & lies about everything that they shouldn't be punished for it

No libertarian (nor Libertarian) I know is in favor of fraud. One of the few roles most libertarians agree on with regard to the proper role of government is the establishment and maintenance of a court system to keep things fair and just.

Quite right. If I'm not mistaken, the two main things that the LP says government should protect people from are force and fraud.

[Bono]

I would say that they don't think the governmentshould put limitations on some business's no matter how much they screw up.  For example (some not all) libertarians think that if a company such as Enron completley cooks the books & lies about everything that they shouldn't be punished for it

The Government should not be involved in the stock market. The London Exchange is not regulated by the British Government, they themselves fiscalize teh books. The NYSe should addop the same posture, and the unconstitutional SEC should be ended.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I would say that they don't think the governmentshould put limitations on some business's no matter how much they screw up.  For example (some not all) libertarians think that if a company such as Enron completley cooks the books & lies about everything that they shouldn't be punished for it

The Government should not be involved in the stock market. The London Exchange is not regulated by the British Government, they themselves fiscalize teh books. The NYSe should addop the same posture, and the unconstitutional SEC should be ended.

The Republicans in the 20s followed those policies. There was a minor problem in October 1929.

[Bono]

I would say that they don't think the governmentshould put limitations on some business's no matter how much they screw up.  For example (some not all) libertarians think that if a company such as Enron completley cooks the books & lies about everything that they shouldn't be punished for it

The Government should not be involved in the stock market. The London Exchange is not regulated by the British Government, they themselves fiscalize teh books. The NYSe should addop the same posture, and the unconstitutional SEC should be ended.

The Republicans in the 20s followed those policies. There was a minor problem in October 1929.

Yes, that had nothing to do with Taft-Hartley and money supply manipulations.

[Erc]

I would say that they don't think the governmentshould put limitations on some business's no matter how much they screw up.  For example (some not all) libertarians think that if a company such as Enron completley cooks the books & lies about everything that they shouldn't be punished for it

The Government should not be involved in the stock market. The London Exchange is not regulated by the British Government, they themselves fiscalize teh books. The NYSe should addop the same posture, and the unconstitutional SEC should be ended.

The Republicans in the 20s followed those policies. There was a minor problem in October 1929.

Yes, that had nothing to do with Taft-Hartley and money supply manipulations.

Taft-Hartley?

Do you mean Smoot-Hawley?

[Bono]

I would say that they don't think the governmentshould put limitations on some business's no matter how much they screw up.  For example (some not all) libertarians think that if a company such as Enron completley cooks the books & lies about everything that they shouldn't be punished for it

The Government should not be involved in the stock market. The London Exchange is not regulated by the British Government, they themselves fiscalize teh books. The NYSe should addop the same posture, and the unconstitutional SEC should be ended.

The Republicans in the 20s followed those policies. There was a minor problem in October 1929.

Yes, that had nothing to do with Taft-Hartley and money supply manipulations.

Taft-Hartley?

Do you mean Smoot-Hawley?

Probably.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Funding is one of the least of the Libertarians problems. 
The biggest problem with the Libertarians is that they are completely self-delusional.  They think that everyone would ultimately agree with them if they just heard their message, and every year, they think the next election will be the one where the finally "break out". 

It's not going to happen.  They should have had a perfect chance in 2004, with the Republicans running on an overtly moralist, intrusive-government platform.  What do the libertarians do?  They nominate a candidate with no political experience who brags about how he drives without a license and never files income tax. 

Yet still they believe he's the one.  There were several libertarians on this board that claimed that Badnarik would win 5% in many states states, and a couple that genuinely believed he would win states.  Yet the Libertarians managed their worst result ever, failing to get close to 1% in a single state.

If the Libertarians were really serious about one day becoming politically relevant, they wouldn't nominate some wacko in every district who is destined to poll 0.5%.  Seeing that result across the board just reinforces their joke status.  If they were serious, they would give real funding and support to a few candidates in a few local races, concentrated in a single state, where they could actually be competitive.   

Look at the Vermont Progressive Party.  Get a single Congressman, even a couple state legislators somewhere.  Don't bother running nobodies for President until you've proven you have actually appeal in a well-funded race.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Funding is one of the least of the Libertarians problems. 
The biggest problem with the Libertarians is that they are completely self-delusional.  They think that everyone would ultimately agree with them if they just heard their message, and every year, they think the next election will be the one where the finally "break out". 

It's not going to happen.  They should have had a perfect chance in 2004, with the Republicans running on an overtly moralist, intrusive-government platform.  What do the libertarians do?  They nominate a candidate with no political experience who brags about how he drives without a license and never files income tax. 

Yet still they believe he's the one.  There were several libertarians on this board that claimed that Badnarik would win 5% in many states states, and a couple that genuinely believed he would win states.  Yet the Libertarians managed their worst result ever, failing to get close to 1% in a single state.

If the Libertarians were really serious about one day becoming politically relevant, they wouldn't nominate some wacko in every district who is destined to poll 0.5%.  Seeing that result across the board just reinforces their joke status.  If they were serious, they would give real funding and support to a few candidates in a few local races, concentrated in a single state, where they could actually be competitive.   

Look at the Vermont Progressive Party.  Get a single Congressman, even a couple state legislators somewhere.  Don't bother running nobodies for President until you've proven you have actually appeal in a well-funded race.

No kidding, a sudden strong third party needs one of the following:

massive splinter of existing parties: 1860
established candidate running: 1912
two really crappy 2 party choices: 1924 (didn't come close to winning)
self funding billionaire: 1992 (didn't come close to winning)

Those tend to be pretty rare.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here's something usefull the Libertarian party could do: run a candidate against every uncontested Republican in Congress. They might win one of those.

[Bono]

Funding is one of the least of the Libertarians problems. 
The biggest problem with the Libertarians is that they are completely self-delusional.  They think that everyone would ultimately agree with them if they just heard their message, and every year, they think the next election will be the one where the finally "break out". 

It's not going to happen.  They should have had a perfect chance in 2004, with the Republicans running on an overtly moralist, intrusive-government platform.  What do the libertarians do?  They nominate a candidate with no political experience who brags about how he drives without a license and never files income tax. 

Yet still they believe he's the one.  There were several libertarians on this board that claimed that Badnarik would win 5% in many states states, and a couple that genuinely believed he would win states.  Yet the Libertarians managed their worst result ever, failing to get close to 1% in a single state.

If the Libertarians were really serious about one day becoming politically relevant, they wouldn't nominate some wacko in every district who is destined to poll 0.5%.  Seeing that result across the board just reinforces their joke status.  If they were serious, they would give real funding and support to a few candidates in a few local races, concentrated in a single state, where they could actually be competitive.   

Look at the Vermont Progressive Party.  Get a single Congressman, even a couple state legislators somewhere.  Don't bother running nobodies for President until you've proven you have actually appeal in a well-funded race.

No kidding, a sudden strong third party needs one of the following:

massive splinter of existing parties: 1860
established candidate running: 1912
two really crappy 2 party choices: 1924 (didn't come close to winning)
self funding billionaire: 1992 (didn't come close to winning)

Those tend to be pretty rare.

Calvin Coolidge was pretty well liked.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Here's something usefull the Libertarian party could do: run a candidate against every uncontested Republican in Congress. They might win one of those.

They already run a candidate in almost every race.  That's part of their problem.  They disperse their funding and their candidate poll to a ridiculous extent, and then complain about not having funidng. I just lets them continue their claims that everyone will someday agree with them, without every having to show any electoral success.

How about this for the Libertarians: run one single experienced, serious candidate in one House race where someone is running without major party opposition.  Given him all the funding that you were going to disperse to the 500 candidates you would otherwise run.  And then we'll see if your ideas actually have any traction when they can get heard.

[A18]

My adivce to the Libertarians: fix the platform. It's insane.

[Frodo]

My adivce to the Libertarians: fix the platform. It's insane.

there is a caucus within the Libertarian Party to do exactly that:

http://www.reformthelp.org//home/intro/

i posted this before, but no one ever paid attention to it -so i'm posting it again.

[A18]

They still say the income tax is unconstitutional. It's a step in the right direction, but still nutty.

[The Vorlon]

My adivce to the Libertarians: fix the platform. It's insane.

Correct

[The Vorlon]

Permission is given when the government received its mandate from the people to carry out its agenda.

So if, say 85% of the people (Whites) voted to enslave 15% of the population (Blacks) that would be ok then..?

Or if 51% of the popoulation voted to simply take all the money of the other 49%, that would be fine too I guess...?

[WilliamSeward]

The libertarians should join the Republicans

[A18]

The libertarians should join the Republicans

Why?

So that they have some actual say and representation in government. And more importantly, to mitigate the effects of the religious right.