We've got our own neos now...

[John Dibble]

...and I think I'm one of them.

http://www.neolibertarian.net/blogs/

Read this, password is tnlv1i1
http://www.neolibertarian.net/articles/tnlv1i1.pdf

[Bono]

...and I think I'm one of them.

http://www.neolibertarian.net/blogs/

Read this, password is tnlv1i1
http://www.neolibertarian.net/articles/tnlv1i1.pdf

What do you mean now? This is the CATO veriety libertarian, it has existed for a while.
As for me, always a paleo!

[John Dibble]

...and I think I'm one of them.

http://www.neolibertarian.net/blogs/

Read this, password is tnlv1i1
http://www.neolibertarian.net/articles/tnlv1i1.pdf

What do you mean now? This is the CATO veriety libertarian, it has existed for a while.
As for me, always a paleo!

Well, whatever. I'm declaring myself a neo-Libertarian.

[ATFFL]

Well, whatever. I'm declaring myself a neo-Libertarian.

[John Dibble]

Well, whatever. I'm declaring myself a neo-Libertarian.

LOL! Not that kind of Neo, silly.

Though, then again I bet we'd get a lot of votes from younger people if our candidates were like that.

[ATFFL]

Well, whatever. I'm declaring myself a neo-Libertarian.

LOL! Not that kind of Neo, silly.

Though, then again I bet we'd get a lot of votes from younger people if our candidates were like that.

Only if they never saw the sequels.

[Jake]

Is this a standard economic right, social left libertarian with an interventionist foreign policy?

[John Dibble]

Is this a standard economic right, social left libertarian with an interventionist foreign policy?

It's more of a "we're not too stubborn to compromise" libertarian. Principle is great, but if you stand by it to the point where you ultimately get nothing accomplished, then priniciple is pretty much worthless.

[David S]

Is this a standard economic right, social left libertarian with an interventionist foreign policy?

It's more of a "we're not too stubborn to compromise" libertarian. Principle is great, but if you stand by it to the point where you ultimately get nothing accomplished, then priniciple is pretty much worthless.

How much of our principles do we have to sell down the river to get elected?

How about this for a platform to please everyone;

-Free everything for everyone
-A chicken in every pot
-We are for the working man
- No more abortion
-End all taxes
-You are free to live your life as you see fit .
- You are free to dictate how your neighbor lives his life too.
-Abortion on  demand.
-We are for big business

If we are willing to give up all of our principles and lie like hell maybe we could get elected. Count me out.

[Jake]

Is this a standard economic right, social left libertarian with an interventionist foreign policy?

It's more of a "we're not too stubborn to compromise" libertarian. Principle is great, but if you stand by it to the point where you ultimately get nothing accomplished, then priniciple is pretty much worthless.

That's how you get people elected.  A very small portion of the electorate wants to gut the government and liberalize all the laws.

[John Dibble]

Is this a standard economic right, social left libertarian with an interventionist foreign policy?

It's more of a "we're not too stubborn to compromise" libertarian. Principle is great, but if you stand by it to the point where you ultimately get nothing accomplished, then priniciple is pretty much worthless.

That's how you get people elected.  A very small portion of the electorate wants to gut the government and liberalize all the laws.

Yeah, which is why this is the better kind of libertarianism - it might actually be able to do something.

[MaC]

I have to agree with David S over Dibs on this one.  At what point do we have to conform to fit into the mold of a standard politician?

What I fear is if we conform, just to get elected then we head down the road of becoming a corporate party.  Sure, we'll get elected but in time we may become the very thing we hate.

What we need to work on is the pitch.  Anyone who doesn't know how to sell the idea of libetarianism can pick up  some pointers on the Oct. 23rd Harry Browne radio show.

And, if you have the social left, and fiscal right without foreign policy based on peace and free trade, then it's not real libertarianism.  The ideology may be libertarian leaning, but not truly it if you think you can force other countries to do what you want, or support one side over another in a war.

[Gabu]

So, do you guys know Kung Fu yet?

[John Dibble]

A compromise doesn't mean selling out our principles, and it's not the same as conforming. The problem with many libertarians is that they must have it all or none, and guess what they get - none. Many big Ls refuse to hear anything about incrementalization. Well all at once isn't gonna happen. If a small move towards libertarian principles works out, people will be more likely to vote for more of them. We have to operate in the real world, we can't act like spoiled children and expect to have everything our way right away.

From the article I linked:

"Politics is the art of compromise, which is to say, the art of the possible. Politics is the means whereby we try to reconcile the competing interests of society in order to come to a generalized solution that is acceptable to the whole. To be successful at this reconciliation, one must be willing to compromise. Certainly, one can try to get as much of one's program enacted as possible, but, at the end of the day, you have to have a firm grasp on the sense of where the limits of possibility lie. In doing so you have to determine that accomplishing a little bit of something is better than accomplishing all of nothing."

[Jake]

You two are part of the reason the LP will never gain power in America.  If you become the party of fiscal conservatism, states rights, and liberal social values, you can appeal to those suburban voters who seem fine voting for one of the monolithic parties.  If  the Libertarians ran as little "l" libertarians, I could see them taking two house seats in PA alone.  PA-7 and PA-8 are libertarian leaning area, and would vote for a good moderate libertarian nominee.  Not sure about the other Philly seats, PA-6 and PA-13.

[David S]

So, do you guys know Kung Fu yet?

LOL.  There is no animosity between us. There is no one on this forum whom I agree with, or respect, more  than John D. But we don't always agree. Heck sometimes I don't even agree with me.

I can accept John's idea of incrementalism, moving the needle toward Libertarianism. That's the technique the left used to get us where we are now. But I won't change my principles for political expediency.

[Bono]

No, the problem witht he libertarian party is that the party structure is made of idiots who are more interested in gaining party positions than in actualy forwarding the party and that mostly have no concern for personal hygiene.
The libertarian party focus too much of their funds on presidential and nationwide campaigns, while they shuld focus on building a suceseful grassroots structure and electing people to state offices. Until they gain common sense, I'll stay a republican and have something to cheer about.

[A18]

If you can't even take over the party closer to your views, you're never going to take over the country.

The Libertarians should follow the Ron Paul model and run candidates for the Republican nomination.

[David S]

No, the problem witht he libertarian party is that the party structure is made of idiots who are more interested in gaining party positions than in actualy forwarding the party and that mostly have no concern for personal hygiene.
The libertarian party focus too much of their funds on presidential and nationwide campaigns, while they shuld focus on building a suceseful grassroots structure and electing people to state offices. Until they gain common sense, I'll stay a republican and have something to cheer about.

Ok I take exception to everything you said in the first sentence, plus I find them offensive and unfounded.

As for being a Republican and having something to cheer about, here's what you get to cheer:
-Campaign finance reform which restricts first amendment rights.
-Patriot Act which infringes 4th amendment rights.
-Half a trillion dollar deficit.
-$7 trillion national debt.
-A war in Iraq which has cost over 1500 American lives and $100 billion  and was started on the basis of faulty intelligence which even Bush admits to now.
-A President who said he would support the Assault Weapons Ban.
-Bush administration imprisoning at least one American citizen without charges and without access to a lawyer, in violation of the 5th and 6th amendments and also denying him the writ of Habeas Corpus.

Now I'm certainly not saying the Democrats are better, but I don't find much to cheer about in getting the lesser or two evils.

[David S]

If you can't even take over the party closer to your views, you're never going to take over the country.

If you are suggesting that not all Libertarians see thing the same way I would say the Libertarians are probably much more united on most issues than the Republicans or Democrats. I would also suggest that not all Republicans agree with you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who said we aren't doing that too?

[Bono]

No, the problem witht he libertarian party is that the party structure is made of idiots who are more interested in gaining party positions than in actualy forwarding the party and that mostly have no concern for personal hygiene.
The libertarian party focus too much of their funds on presidential and nationwide campaigns, while they shuld focus on building a suceseful grassroots structure and electing people to state offices. Until they gain common sense, I'll stay a republican and have something to cheer about.

Ok I take exception to everything you said in the first sentence, plus I find them offensive and unfounded.

As for being a Republican and having something to cheer about, here's what you get to cheer:
-Campaign finance reform which restricts first amendment rights.
-Patriot Act which infringes 4th amendment rights.
-Half a trillion dollar deficit.
-$7 trillion national debt.
-A war in Iraq which has cost over 1500 American lives and $100 billion  and was started on the basis of faulty intelligence which even Bush admits to now.
-A President who said he would support the Assault Weapons Ban.
-Bush administration imprisoning at least one American citizen without charges and without access to a lawyer, in violation of the 5th and 6th amendments and also denying him the writ of Habeas Corpus.

Now I'm certainly not saying the Democrats are better, but I don't find much to cheer about in getting the lesser or two evils.

Sorry if I offended you, but I took this from a column by Steven Greenhut who is himself a libertarian. I doubt they apply to mimost f any libertarians in this forum, but they do apply to alot of them out there, especially randroids.

Anyways, I know it's a shame how the administration is doing, and I hope the republicans in congress would stop worshiping His Elected Majesty, but the pooint is, it's never going to change unless we try to influence the republican nomination process.

[A18]

If you can't even take over the party closer to your views, you're never going to take over the country.

If you are suggesting that not all Libertarians see thing the same way I would say the Libertarians are probably much more united on most issues than the Republicans or Democrats. I would also suggest that not all Republicans agree with you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who said we aren't doing that too?

I'm saying third parties are useless in our plurality voting system. If you can't convince the major party closer to your views that you're right, you're never going to convince the country as a whole that you're right.

[David S]

No, the problem witht he libertarian party is that the party structure is made of idiots who are more interested in gaining party positions than in actualy forwarding the party and that mostly have no concern for personal hygiene.
The libertarian party focus too much of their funds on presidential and nationwide campaigns, while they shuld focus on building a suceseful grassroots structure and electing people to state offices. Until they gain common sense, I'll stay a republican and have something to cheer about.

Ok I take exception to everything you said in the first sentence, plus I find them offensive and unfounded.

As for being a Republican and having something to cheer about, here's what you get to cheer:
-Campaign finance reform which restricts first amendment rights.
-Patriot Act which infringes 4th amendment rights.
-Half a trillion dollar deficit.
-$7 trillion national debt.
-A war in Iraq which has cost over 1500 American lives and $100 billion  and was started on the basis of faulty intelligence which even Bush admits to now.
-A President who said he would support the Assault Weapons Ban.
-Bush administration imprisoning at least one American citizen without charges and without access to a lawyer, in violation of the 5th and 6th amendments and also denying him the writ of Habeas Corpus.

Now I'm certainly not saying the Democrats are better, but I don't find much to cheer about in getting the lesser or two evils.

Sorry if I offended you, but I took this from a column by Steven Greenhut who is himself a libertarian. I doubt they apply to mimost f any libertarians in this forum, but they do apply to alot of them out there, especially randroids.

Ok no problem.

[Angel of Death]

Sorry, guys, the term has already been laid claimed to.

[Brandon H]

Well, whatever. I'm declaring myself a neo-Libertarian.

LOL! Not that kind of Neo, silly.

Though, then again I bet we'd get a lot of votes from younger people if our candidates were like that.

Only if they never saw the sequels.

Well I'm sure Neo is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment as most Libertarians are.