LINOs?

[Citizen James]

Are members of the Libertarian reform caucus real Libertarians, or simply LINOs?

[True Federalist]

I must object to the term LINO, as it doesn't duplicate the phonetics of an animal.  Better to call them Libertarians In Only Name (LIONs).

[Grad Students are the Worst]

They are real Libertarians.  Are they real libertarians?  Moderate ones, mostly, I imagine.

I must object to the term LINO, as it doesn't duplicate the phonetics of an animal.  Better to call them Libertarians In Only Name (LIONs).

[afleitch]

Like other realistic, grounded moderates of any party, I would say they were exceptional libertarians.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

Yes, they are. They espouse libertarian principles, they just would prefer to get things done rather than advocate positions that are so unpopular that you could hardly get anyone elected to any major office under them.

[MaC]

and you'd have no base voting for you Dibble.  You at least need to reach your base if you ever want to expand outward. 


At this point we've nothing to loose-so extremism is the only way people will listen.  All attention is good attention at this point.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

and you'd have no base voting for you Dibble.  You at least need to reach your base if you ever want to expand outward. 

At this point we've nothing to loose-so extremism is the only way people will listen.  All attention is good attention at this point.

You fundamentally misunderstand. Our objective is to strengthen the base. Can you build a tower on a base only strong enough to support a one story house? The answer is no. I've seen too many people who might have supported or actually did support our party leave it behind because of that damned extremism you talk about to believe you on this. We need a large, strong base on which to build our party upwards. This is what your extremism does:



How can we outreach to people with extremism when they have alternatives that don't make them feel so alienated? The idea that we can turn enough voters into purist Libertarian zealots to effect change is ludicrous. The idea that we can build a large base of moderate libertarians is not. So long as we scare away those moderates with our extremism, we won't ever win. We've been using extremism for decades now, ever since the party was founded, and where has that gotten us? WHERE? We're still a minor party that has little influence or power. Politics is a game of the possible - any party, regardless of ideology, that can't look at the big picture realistically will inevitably fail. You can keep espousing a way that has proven time and time again to fail to attract much more than our base, but I would prefer to try something different in the hopes that it will actually work.

[frenger]

I must object to the term LINO, as it doesn't duplicate the phonetics of an animal.  Better to call them Libertarians In Only Name (LIONs).

What about Libertarians Only in Name (LOINs)

[frenger]

and you'd have no base voting for you Dibble.  You at least need to reach your base if you ever want to expand outward. 

At this point we've nothing to loose-so extremism is the only way people will listen.  All attention is good attention at this point.

You fundamentally misunderstand. Our objective is to strengthen the base. Can you build a tower on a base only strong enough to support a one story house? The answer is no. I've seen too many people who might have supported or actually did support our party leave it behind because of that damned extremism you talk about to believe you on this. We need a large, strong base on which to build our party upwards. This is what your extremism does:



How can we outreach to people with extremism when they have alternatives that don't make them feel so alienated? The idea that we can turn enough voters into purist Libertarian zealots to effect change is ludicrous. The idea that we can build a large base of moderate libertarians is not. So long as we scare away those moderates with our extremism, we won't ever win. We've been using extremism for decades now, ever since the party was founded, and where has that gotten us? WHERE? We're still a minor party that has little influence or power. Politics is a game of the possible - any party, regardless of ideology, that can't look at the big picture realistically will inevitably fail. You can keep espousing a way that has proven time and time again to fail to attract much more than our base, but I would prefer to try something different in the hopes that it will actually work.

But where are these moderate libertarians?
One would think that if there were really such a big moderate libertarian poll of voters, that in your mind are only waiting for the libertarian party to moderate to start voting for it, there would be plenty libertarians in congress from the two major parties.
But there are only a few, probably countable by the fingers of two hands.

[CARLHAYDEN]

and you'd have no base voting for you Dibble.  You at least need to reach your base if you ever want to expand outward. 

At this point we've nothing to loose-so extremism is the only way people will listen.  All attention is good attention at this point.

You fundamentally misunderstand. Our objective is to strengthen the base. Can you build a tower on a base only strong enough to support a one story house? The answer is no. I've seen too many people who might have supported or actually did support our party leave it behind because of that damned extremism you talk about to believe you on this. We need a large, strong base on which to build our party upwards. This is what your extremism does:



How can we outreach to people with extremism when they have alternatives that don't make them feel so alienated? The idea that we can turn enough voters into purist Libertarian zealots to effect change is ludicrous. The idea that we can build a large base of moderate libertarians is not. So long as we scare away those moderates with our extremism, we won't ever win. We've been using extremism for decades now, ever since the party was founded, and where has that gotten us? WHERE? We're still a minor party that has little influence or power. Politics is a game of the possible - any party, regardless of ideology, that can't look at the big picture realistically will inevitably fail. You can keep espousing a way that has proven time and time again to fail to attract much more than our base, but I would prefer to try something different in the hopes that it will actually work.

But where are these moderate libertarians?
One would think that if there were really such a big moderate libertarian poll of voters, that in your mind are only waiting for the libertarian party to moderate to start voting for it, there would be plenty libertarians in congress from the two major parties.
But there are only a few, probably countable by the fingers of two hands.

LOINs.  Hmm. Are these the people that Opebo wants to feed the 'religious' to???

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

But where are these moderate libertarians?
One would think that if there were really such a big moderate libertarian poll of voters, that in your mind are only waiting for the libertarian party to moderate to start voting for it, there would be plenty libertarians in congress from the two major parties.
But there are only a few, probably countable by the fingers of two hands.

Lots of places - my former neighbor next door, my neighbor down the street, the guy who owns the car repair shop, and many more just in my own personal life. I've met a number of people that fit the bill. Some polls have said that maybe 16% of the population or so might fit into the libertarian category. Currently people like that really don't have much of a home politically. The majority of them are too moderate for the extreme Libertarian party, so they are torn between the Republicans, the Democrats, and just plain not voting out of frustration. So just supposing they were split evenly between the two major parties it still doesn't make enough to get a majority ideology in that party. Their ideas might be listened to and the candidates might throw them some lip service(though rarely fulfilling promises made), as I've seen the Republicans often do, but ultimately there's not enough of them in any organized state to greatly affect the results of a primary within either major party, so you get very few libertarian candidates within either party. However, if even half of the libertarian population were to join the LP and vote for their candidates, the effects on the political system would be much greater.

But still that doesn't get to the heart of my point - even if they don't exist in such numbers we would be much more likely to convince others to become moderate libertarians than we would for them to become purist libertarians. You have to give people something they can swallow. Stuff like abolishing public schools, tearing the federal government to shreds overnight, ect. is not going to fly with enough people to bring about any meaningful change.

[jokerman]

Well, don't they dominate the party now?  They staged a coup at the convention and rewrote 90% of the platform to make it much more moderate, especially on foreign policy.

Dibble, do you know if there has been a measurable amount of members emmigrating to some fringe party?

[MaC]

Think about this one John, if we libertarians keep giving in to say " um, well, some state control is okay, but not a lot..." how good do we look when proving a philosophical point.  More or less, if we move to be more moderate, the statist side will move to be more statist.  We would be playing their game and we need them to play ours to get anything accomplished.

For example, people say 'you guys will never get elected president'.  I don't care if that's the case if we got the two mainstream parties to become more libertarian philosophically.  This can be done.  Look at the early 1900s when socialists ran, now I'm not 100% sure on the numbers, but I can tell you Debs didn't get a large portion of the vote.  However, he did influence enough people with his rhetoric that the two major parties adopted plenty of the socialist platfrom into their policies and it's had it's place in society for many years after Debs ran.

We need a hard philosophical base on which we can promote our ideals. 

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

Well, don't they dominate the party now?  They staged a coup at the convention and rewrote 90% of the platform to make it much more moderate, especially on foreign policy.

Dibble, do you know if there has been a measurable amount of members emmigrating to some fringe party?

Well, it's more that they managed to get 90% of the platform scrapped altogether. No new planks were added IIRC. Next convention I imagine more planks may be added. It's a definite start, but we've still got a long road ahead.

As for your question, I don't know. I know after the news of the platform changes I read a few disgruntled purists mumbling about leaving, but I doubt any significant number of members have left.

Think about this one John, if we libertarians keep giving in to say " um, well, some state control is okay, but not a lot..." how good do we look when proving a philosophical point.

First off, if you say it so weakly you're not going to get a point of cross. Second, yes, some state control is okay - I'd rather not deal with anarchy, would you? Anarchy would more than likely result in warlords taking over, which would be statist as hell, so let's not delude ourselves into thinking that a little bit of government isn't necessary.

More or less, if we move to be more moderate, the statist side will move to be more statist.  We would be playing their game and we need them to play ours to get anything accomplished.

Doubtful. They don't really listen to us now. They'll listen to us when we're a political force to be reckoned with, not before.

For example, people say 'you guys will never get elected president'.  I don't care if that's the case if we got the two mainstream parties to become more libertarian philosophically.  This can be done.  Look at the early 1900s when socialists ran, now I'm not 100% sure on the numbers, but I can tell you Debs didn't get a large portion of the vote.  However, he did influence enough people with his rhetoric that the two major parties adopted plenty of the socialist platfrom into their policies and it's had it's place in society for many years after Debs ran.

We need a hard philosophical base on which we can promote our ideals. 

The socialists had a little something called The Great Depression going for them. People wanted change, they wanted hope. They wanted someone to do something for them, and the government seemed a cure-all in the form of a few socialist ideas. And let's face it: socialism sounds better than libertarians. You don't hear many people saying socialists are heartless, do you? Libertarians on the other hand get accused of it often, regardless of whether it's true or not. We are not in an environment where people are drastically looking for new ideas, especially not libertarian ones. Lip service is paid to those who like them and still bother voting, but when it comes down to it there's just not enough of us to get anything more than lip service.

And if it's so possible, why hasn't it happened yet? As I've said, we've been at it for decades and it hasn't sunk in. As I said before, moderate libertarian ideas are given lip service but when it comes down to it the way we've been doing things doesn't get thigns done. Under the current political reality we can't get them to play our game unless we actually do get a chunk of the vote. We have to look at reality objectively, and doing so will show us that the extremist way isn't gonna work. Go on and tell people that you want to abolish public schools - how many will listen? Few, very few. You have to have ideas people are willing to listen to, something they can accept as a possibility. The extremist ones aren't gonna fly with enough people to work.

[frenger]

Well, don't they dominate the party now?  They staged a coup at the convention and rewrote 90% of the platform to make it much more moderate, especially on foreign policy.

Dibble, do you know if there has been a measurable amount of members emmigrating to some fringe party?

Well, it's more that they managed to get 90% of the platform scrapped altogether. No new planks were added IIRC. Next convention I imagine more planks may be added. It's a definite start, but we've still got a long road ahead.

As for your question, I don't know. I know after the news of the platform changes I read a few disgruntled purists mumbling about leaving, but I doubt any significant number of members have left.

Think about this one John, if we libertarians keep giving in to say " um, well, some state control is okay, but not a lot..." how good do we look when proving a philosophical point.

First off, if you say it so weakly you're not going to get a point of cross. Second, yes, some state control is okay - I'd rather not deal with anarchy, would you? Anarchy would more than likely result in warlords taking over, which would be statist as hell, so let's not delude ourselves into thinking that a little bit of government isn't necessary.

More or less, if we move to be more moderate, the statist side will move to be more statist.  We would be playing their game and we need them to play ours to get anything accomplished.

Doubtful. They don't really listen to us now. They'll listen to us when we're a political force to be reckoned with, not before.

For example, people say 'you guys will never get elected president'.  I don't care if that's the case if we got the two mainstream parties to become more libertarian philosophically.  This can be done.  Look at the early 1900s when socialists ran, now I'm not 100% sure on the numbers, but I can tell you Debs didn't get a large portion of the vote.  However, he did influence enough people with his rhetoric that the two major parties adopted plenty of the socialist platfrom into their policies and it's had it's place in society for many years after Debs ran.

We need a hard philosophical base on which we can promote our ideals. 

The socialists had a little something called The Great Depression going for them. People wanted change, they wanted hope. They wanted someone to do something for them, and the government seemed a cure-all in the form of a few socialist ideas. And let's face it: socialism sounds better than libertarians. You don't hear many people saying socialists are heartless, do you? Libertarians on the other hand get accused of it often, regardless of whether it's true or not. We are not in an environment where people are drastically looking for new ideas, especially not libertarian ones. Lip service is paid to those who like them and still bother voting, but when it comes down to it there's just not enough of us to get anything more than lip service.

And if it's so possible, why hasn't it happened yet? As I've said, we've been at it for decades and it hasn't sunk in. As I said before, moderate libertarian ideas are given lip service but when it comes down to it the way we've been doing things doesn't get thigns done. Under the current political reality we can't get them to play our game unless we actually do get a chunk of the vote. We have to look at reality objectively, and doing so will show us that the extremist way isn't gonna work. Go on and tell people that you want to abolish public schools - how many will listen? Few, very few. You have to have ideas people are willing to listen to, something they can accept as a possibility. The extremist ones aren't gonna fly with enough people to work.

The great depression in 1912?

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

The great depression in 1912?

Bono, you and I both know that the big government craze really took off with FDR.

[frenger]

The great depression in 1912?

Bono, you and I both know that the big government craze really took off with FDR.

That wasn't waht he was talking about.
And anyways, I place the start of the big government era earlier, with either Wilson, Lincoln or TR.

[Buddha]

I still don't know what party best reflects my philosophy which could be described as very libertarian and liberal at the same time. I could call myself a libertarian liberal, liberal libertarian or perhaps even a moderate libertarian. The bottom line is that I think a strong third party would be good for this country. I don't necessarily agree with everything the Green party supports, but I think they are on the right track.
I think the biggest hurdle third parties have is the 'spoiler argument' which I think is a bogus one, for many reasons.
Because of the 'spoiler argument', however, in a practical sense, a third party which is seen as near equally threatening to both Dems and Reps may be the third party with the best chance for success.
Traditionally, most third parties have been seen as hurting one party more than the other. I am concerned that too many people have been brainwashed by the 'lesser of two evils' paradigm.

[Buddha]

As far as the link goes, I am not exactly sure what these people believe.
Can someone like me feel at home with them?

[Buddha]

I believe all third parties should be working together and be looking for common ground, but I also think independent Democrats and Republicans (Ron Paul comes to mind) should be included in the discussion.
What concerns me is the fact the other voices have not been included in the debate. The two parties still have differences, but the are coming closer and closer together to the point where we all have less and less of a choice in elections. The Democrats particullary have been trying to sound too 'moderate'. We need more choices and more voices.

[MaC]

Of course you'd say socialism sounds friendlier if there're as many college Marxists on your campus as there are mine.  It's all a matter of painting though John.

For example, we need to liken socialism to communism (which there aren't any significant differences any ways.  When explained what socialism is and what libertarianism is, in the right way-I'm sure we can get more people on our side than the socialistic side. 

Stuff like-socialists think you're too stupid to spend money for yourself so they'll let government steal it for you.  Granted these phrases won't work with intelligent people, but most of the world isn't intelligent, so it's all a matter of painting.

I don't know if you're an official Libertarian Party member, but some time ago we got a magazine describing the different personality types and how the best way to persuade them is.  'Green' types shouldn't be a problem.  But 'Gold' types can't be won over by "libertarians think you should do anything you want, as long as you don't hurt anyone else".  'Gold' types are better persuaded by phrases like "libertarians want to protect the traditional values held by our founding fathers, such as a government limited by the constitution".  It's not about 'moderating' as much as it is, finding that individual's appeal and focusing our ideology toward what appeals to them

As for your positions, yes we can get the government totally out of some areas.  Yes, the public school system would be nice if it were completely abolished-but we can't deal well with the backlash that proposing to get rid of it would entail.  But you seem to believe that there's no area we can't completely eliminate government in.  The FCC has no place in a free society, but you still persist that it exists, as long as it's downsized.  Of course I was not refering to totally eliminate the state (as much of a nice pipe dream that is) rather I was stating that it's a weak position to say that 'less government' in smaller matters is a rather weak position that won't make us signifcantly different than Republicans.

Also, you seem to think that the platform is a huge deal, when in reality it isn't.  If you read the Democratic platform, or Republican for that matter you'll still be able to find extremism.  People don't really read into the platforms, so it's not much difference.

[True Federalist]

Granted these phrases won't work with intelligent people, but most of the world isn't intelligent, so it's all a matter of painting.

No better way to win friends and influence people than to call them stupid, or worse to think they're stupid.  That's a major flaw of the extremes of most minor parties in the United States, and why they never seem to manage third party status.  It's hard to win firends when you're looking down they're noses at them because they don't already agree with what seems self-evident to you.

The FCC has no place in a free society, but you still persist that it exists, as long as it's downsized.

Actually the FCC is one of the more essential pieces of the government.  It's badly managed and pverly political, but there does need to be some regulation of what frequencies are used for which purposes. For example, do you really want an airplane being unable to land because someone decided that it would be really neat to broadcast their audio talk show on the air traffic control frequencies?

[MaC]

All I'm saying is you have to play down to people's level sometimes to get the point across.  I didn't say stupid, just not particularly smart.

[adam]

No, they just aren't extreme anarchist Libertarians like some of their party leaders had gotten used to.