Whig Liberty Caucus

[Jerseyrules]

Mission Statement:

Our mission is to produce libertarian candidates for public office across Atlasia.  We champion limited government with emphasis on the role of the individual and the liberty of the individual.  Our goal is to promote freedom and libertarian ideas to the people of Atlasia, and to help elect candidates reflecting these values.  Members of other political parties are welcome to join, as are unaffiliated politicians.

[Jerseyrules]

Can socially conservative libertarians join?

So long as you are pro-civil liberties, etc., anti-wiretap, and the like, you are welcome to join! 

[Jerseyrules]

Can I join the caucus? Or am I too much of a Neocon?

Nah, you're good.

[Jerseyrules]

Interesting, pray tell more.

Well I'm going to leave a lot of specifics up to the members of the caucus; we will jointly vote on a platform after a Chairman is elected.  We should give people time to join before we do either, but why don't we schedule elections for a Chairman of the Caucus for...Monday?

[Jerseyrules]

Everyone else?  Anyone want to run for Chairman?  I'm announcing my candidacy for Chairman of the Liberty Caucus.  Also, I propose that we change our name to "Inter-Party Liberty Caucus" or something like that to show we are not a party-based organization, and will break from our political parties to fight for libertarian principles.  All in favor?

Also, I propose we endorse JBrase for President.  Those in favor?

[Jerseyrules]

I vote AYE to both proposals.

[Jerseyrules]

I might consider joining this. However, I'm not exactly sure where I stand. I could easily be just as authoritarian one day as "libertarian" the next.

I understand completely.  If you join, there's no compulsion to agree with or express publicly any of our positions; it's more of a guideline than law.  It's mainly just a home for people who consider themselves libertarian compared to the average Atlasian to congregate.

[Jerseyrules]

I don't think a person can call oneself a libertarian unless they legitimately believe that every aspect of government ought to be minimized and not expanded in any way, shape, or form -- hence why I stopped using the word to classify my ideology a long time ago, but that's just me.

What about roundabout arguments (sort of recognizing that while the government and other individuals can infringe on liberty, the corporation is just as capable of doing so; thus, the proper role of government is to protect our liberties from both other individuals and corporations)? Roundabout arguments like the idea we need freedom of movement, so yes, the government can build the roads. We need freedom to live without being poisoned, so yes, the government can create national parks, restrict pollution, etc. People aren't really free unless they're free to actually live, so yes, the government can set a minimum wage. No one can be truly free if they are in fear for their lives, so yes, the government can fund emergency services and even some welfare programs. Government isn't the solution to the nation's problems, but it isn't so much about minimizing government intrusion, it's maximizing individual freedom through those who can protect them best from those who would infringe on them.

Well, what you said is mainly what a small minority of libertarians believe -- those being, of course, left-libertarians.  Personally, I've mostly encountered the 'Austrian school-type' libertarians who seem to want to tear every wall of government down, or at least just short of doing so, so that we're living in the kind of country Murray Rothbard idealized: no government whatsoever, including a privatized judicial system.  I know that, obviously, not all libertarians subscribe to the anarcho-capitalist ideology, but their long associations with the Chicago and Austrian schools makes them appear overly idealistic to me; in many ways, the Libertarian Party as a whole is much more liberal than the GOP, but it is also more conservative just for its economic platform alone.

Maybe I'm libertarian in the way that I absolutely despise the idea that we should all sacrifice constitutionally-protected liberties and privacy rights for some politician's perverted idea of "security," but that's about it.

Well then I'd consider you as libertarian as Russ Feingold.  You're a libertarian on civil liberties issues, if you aren't rabbid gun control, etc.

[Jerseyrules]

Hmm, don't really think this is for me. I'm not a libertarian at heart. I, for one, love wire-tapping, the PATRIOT Act, the 'War on Drugs'; not to mention my 3rd favourite pastime is 'smelling the napalm in the morning'.

Oh well.

It's only your third favorite pastime? What are the other two?

My second is destroying healthcare and making sure only the top 1% can access it. My favourite pastime of all though is drinking inexcusable amounts of alcohol.

[insert joke about how this is why you Brits spell everything wrong]

[Jerseyrules]

While this is not the perfect caucus for me - I don't exactly qualify as a "libertarian" - I wish this caucus well. There are many good people in it!

Thanks governor, and good luck to you in your bid for re-election

[Jerseyrules]

Napoleon for second preference?  I'm undecided for mine, but should we even endorse someone for second pref?

[Jerseyrules]

I think we should only make one presidential endorsement, since only one person can become president.

Yeah; the runoff voting thing never really made any sense to me.

[Jerseyrules]

Bump.

[Jerseyrules]

[1] Jbrase

He's not even running!

[Jerseyrules]

[1] Jbrase

He's not even running!

I think he was voting on who we should endorse for president, not who should be chairman.

Oh.  I'm sorry, I had a massive brain fart .  I just kinda figured that was already decided unanimously .

Anyway, for the presidential endorsement

[1] JBrase

[Jerseyrules]

Alright so now let's start voting on party chairman.  (Unless anyone's opposed to doing so).  If RP jumps in he has my endorsement.