Talk Elections

Horrible Party.

As a Libertarian in philosophy, the idea of the Libertarian philosophy having a party is absolutely ridiculous. The party steals votes from candidates (mostly Republicans,) and hands elections to candidates who wouldn't necessarily win in a head-to-head match up. If Libertarians truly wanted to "fix" the system, they'd infiltrate the Republican and Democratic parties and have them change their platforms. But instead, they want to start their own club at the expense of true democracy. Don't get me wrong, I support their right to exist, but their existence, frankly, isn't necessary.

FP for this reason and a few others, namely giving me someone to vote for if I am stuck with two awful major party candidates.

They've done good things in Ohio, and presumably other states, when it comes to fighting legal battles in favor of increased ballot access for third parties.

I also find your opinion that they should just infiltrate the Republican Party and try to change it from within, instead of trying to build a separate institution, ridiculous and amusingly American. As if the Republicans have and must always exist and no party has a right to ever dethrone the two-party system. Such opinions are why our political system sucks.

If you honestly believe a third party will rise and challenge the two major parties any time soon, you should have your head checked cuz it ain't gonna happen.

I prefer the Constitution Party only because I am against Free Trade, but otherwise FP.

I'm inclined to agree that for third parties, it's better to infiltrate the two main parties and try to steer them in the direction you want them to go. To use an example, most, though not all, Libertarians at least were favorable to Ron Paul. Had the party made a full fledged effort to register its voters for the Republican primary, maybe he could have won Iowa and done better in New Hampshire. A stronger Paul candidacy in the Republican party would arguably do more for the cause of liberty(as Libertarians see it) then a third party Libertarian ticket, even one as relatively strong as Gary Johnson.

That being said, ether way Paul was unlikely to be successful, and what are Libertarians to do then when Romney ends up being the nominee?  Heck, what if Santorum had become the nominee, someone most Libertarians strongly dislike? If there was no third party alternative, those voters would be left with no option but to stay home or cast a vote for one of two options they find repugnant. So I think there's a role for third parties to play in serving as a sort of "non dirty" option. Some people just can't vote for someone whose not completely pro life, or completely non interventionist. I think they deserve an option they can support in good faith. So definitely freedom party.

Now, ideally though, I think the the Constitution party should infiltrate the Republicans, the Greens should infiltrate the Dems, and  the Libertarians should work with whichever party was more dominant on a local level. It seems to me that this sort of activism within the major parties is more likely to accomplish something then a third party campaign that counts itself as extremely successful if it can crack 5% of the vote in a statewide election. And if we look at some of the third party friendly candidates (such as Medina, Schiff, and the Pauls, for the Republicans, and that guy who ran against Graham for the dems) that ran in a major party's primary, they tend to get far more votes and raise more awareness for their cause then they would running a longshot third party campaign.  

Marokai is the only person that's somewhat made any sense in this thread so far.

Agreed in principle.

There is a difference between whether or not I think there will be a rising third party in the near future, and whether or not I want to go out of my way to discourage that from happening in every way I can. I don't think a third party movement is going to gain traction, but I at least want that to happen and don't go out of my way to talk sh*t about it for seemingly no reason.

Almost any time in American political history that one of our parties has undergone ideological change, it's been because a third party or ideological movement rose up and didn't take power themselves, but rather, prevented one target or another from taking power. If Libertarians get 3-10% in any given election and prevent a Republican from winning, Republicans will take notice of them and start catering to their needs. That's how ideological change happens, at least here. No "infiltrating" will almost ever be successful unless there is actual, noticeable force in numbers. No change would happen if Libertarians just didn't exist.

Who said I was trying to "talk sh*t" on the potential rise of a third party? I was simply expressing my dislike of the Libertarian Party.

Marokai has a point historically speaking. Given how tiny Libertarians really are as a group "infiltrating" is just going to get you ignored completely. However, obviously given the changes to ballot access, campaign finance not to mention all the organizations that specifically target libertarians even that seems a bit pie in the sky to me. 1992 was probably the last possible chance for any 3rd party to really gain influence.

I think like any radical group in general the best approach for libertarians to take would be is to ignore conventional politics outside of the local level. It's just way too rigged to bother with. Instead, they should focus on developing their intellectual infrastructure while also attempting to creatively disengage from the state and/or form alliances with other minority groups.

 Once in a while there is a Libertarian candidate where one major party candidate is clearly better from a libertarian point of view, so that's pointless. But a lot of the time,  both major party candidates are authoritarian knuckleheads and it's good to have a third option - even if there's no chance of winning, so that people don't feel completely shut out of the democratic process and can voice their protest with their vote.

The biggest obstacle for the LP right now is there's this division between whether it's more important to be ideologically pure or to have some electoral success, and that's something they haven't been able to reconcile.

They're nothing like the Republican Party. One of them supports corporatism and social conservatism and the other supports free markets and liberty.

Noted.

I have occasion to offend friends when I have a lack of sleep.  Like one time I posted some maps of the greatest winners in each state in the random map thread and made the comment "funny how the supposedly progressive FDR was second after Jackson in the South."  AN embarrassingly retarded argument with Antonio later and suddenly I realized that having two hours of sleep affected my judgement.

Anyway, I do still have to point out the flaws in your premise, for mostly the reasons that Marokai listed.  Hell, even in the early years of the republic non-duopoly elections had an effect on political parties.  The Election of 1824 is perhaps the greatest example of political factions have a dramatic effect on the political landscape.  Before 1824 the Democratic Republicans pretty much dominated American politics in the Era of Good Feelings.  If the men who ran for president in 1824 simply sat by the wayside and did nothing in the interest of not causing their party votes, there is the possibility that we might be a legitimate one party state today.

I for one am thankful we're not.

Yeah now that I've slept a bit even I can't make sense out of the OP of this thread :P

I'd like the Libertarians better if they did the smart thing and exclusively focused on local and state politics. Messing around with the presidential elections before your party is strong enough to dethrone the Big Two is a stupid idea.

The intelligent thing to do is go for libertarian-leaning constituencies in states that are friendly to such philosophies (New Hampshire and Alaska, maybe), and focus your money and attention on them. Build up an intellectual, partisan, and alliance-building infrastructure in those states, and run the most popular (not necessarily the most ideologically pure) candidates. Take over the libertarian-leaning states city by city.

It wouldn't be easy, but it'd be smarter than the frankly pathetic third party focus on the presidency.

Philosophically repugnant, but very much positive for Marokai's reasons.

HP. Libertarianism is a uniquely American form of authoritarianism that I would never support.

Fixed.

If you think that letting your boss do whatever he wants to you while you're on the clock is 'anti-authoritarian', then sure. But you just have a weird definition of what is and isn't authoritarian, in that case. Libertarianism is nothing more than inverted Marxism.

You don't have to work for that boss, you can go work for another boss, which puts that guy out of business, which fixes the issue. While a genuine free market would probably need some restricts on the creation of monopolies, the issue can be fixed without resorting to massive government involvement. Ideally the government checks corporate power and the people check both.

...I like them but they are to radical .
A more pragmatically libertarian party would be more my "thing".
Basically like the UK "Liberal Vision" LibDems.

Studying economics consistently for less than a year will provide anyone willing to invest in a basic understanding of it with a plethera of reasons why libertarian philosophy on the matter is more or less drivel that indeed does lead to quite an authoritarian conundrum. It's not rooted in reality, it's rooted in hypotheticals that contradict human behavior. And contradict modern society far more, especially in our corporatist system.

The party is an interesting grab-bag of stunning intellectuals, gadfly also-rans and transgendered strict constructionists. I do not think that the party I belong to is ran by competent individuals but since it is a "libertarian" party it would make sense. While the party will never hold any office higher then a state legislator (and to an extent that is pushing it) I like the party platform and most of the people in it. Thus, it is a good party and for classical liberals like myself I find it to be the best party in terms of "fitting in" with the philosophy espoused. I've tried to be a Republican and can tell you it simply makes me feel itchy and gross.

You're implying that most people could and would just simply quit their jobs because they don't like who they're working for, and that that would put that person out of business instantly.

Libertarianism is such a cute ideology.

Are you suggesting that a business can work without employees?

The Libertarian Party would be a major party, if elections was decided on how much time people waste on discussing on the internet, in the real world on the other hand, it's a deeply irrelevant party, which has failed to get any but the most microscopic influence.
I long for the day I didn't know the party existed, as it's less relevant for our life than Trotskyism, which at least has historical significance. At such the party are not even worth the time I have wasted on writing this, to say nothing about the time I had to waste checking the spelling of "Trotskyism".

Their ideas doesnt work in a modern society with enormous concentrations of capital. Big corporations will be even more dominant, than they are today in a Libertarian society, leading to less freedom for ordinary folks. In the 1800th century their ideas would have been fine (all though still pretty hard to implement).

On Social issues I find that I agree with Libertarians more than with progressives and conservatives.

Conservatices just seem way to radical with their views whiles I tend to agree with progressives on most issues but at the same time I feel their vision of the future isn't always a better vision for society(Sometimes on isues involving gun rights and on issues involving abortion where I feel I fall into the libertarian for life catagory which semes to be pretty significant.

No, I'm suggesting that it is entirely naive to think that the boss couldn't find people to work for him or her when unemployment is upwards of 8%.

that's still not coercion. mind you, i don't think a coercion free society is possible at this point. it was viable in pre revolutionary days (take your pick) but not so much now. people just don't think like libertarians (right or left) overwhelmingly. even something like minarchism is obviously not viable in a democratic society, it might be under monarchism or some sort of un-democratic state but that would be 'forcing people to be free.'

(obvious disclaimer: i am not a minarchist either.)

     Poorly run & subject to questionable interests, though distinctly better than any practical alternatives. I have to admit that Mint is ultimately right; democracy tends against libertarianism over time. I don't see any alternative succeeding, though.

Essentially they are just an extension of the GOP.

No that's the Green Party. Libertarians help Democrats.

No, the Constitution Party helps Democrats. Libertarians draw from both sides (with a slight GOP lean), but a good chunk is people who wouldn't vote GOP or Dem anyways.

^^^^

left wing minor party candidates hurt left wing major parties and right wing minor party candidates hurt right wing major parties.