why the orphaning of libertarians, seems a reasonable question

So if you believe people are responsible, and shouldn't have obsurd laws denying them machine guns or concealed carry - you are praised on this forum for upholding basic human rights.

However if you believe people are responsible, and shouldn't have obsurd laws denying them the right over what they put into their own body - they are druggies who want mexicans to take over the South West?
 
Mischaracterization my bung-hole!

Ever been to a Libertarian shindig?
Weed central man!
Click to expand...

Mischaracterization indeed. One well known Libertarian who is very much for the repeal of drug laws, Penn Gillette, has never used drugs nor drank a drop of alcohol in his life. He, like many libertarians that don't use drugs (including alcohol), feel that you have no business telling them what they can do with their own bodies.

I'm guessing you've never been to a "libertarian shindig" yourself if you're making the claim that they're "weed central".
 
I've been to many libertarian events. Never saw any such behavior. But maybe Arizona is an outlier.

And, assuming Libertariansuse marijuana as much as the general population, that wouldn't explain the difference between the success of the Demo party (with all of their weed consumption) vs the libertarians'. You might have a bone to pick with libertarians, but your statements don't serve to prove the premise.
 
As to responsibility, it is obvious that people are not responsible. They are not responsible in the area of guns, or the area of what they put into their bodies, or what they do with their bodies.
If they were we would have few problems today in all areas of society and moral behavior. That lack of responsible behavior is what causes laws that intend to prevent irresponsibility. School shootings - more laws about guns and schools.

Jerry
 
Mischaracterization my bung-hole!

Ever been to a Libertarian shindig?
Weed central man!
Click to expand...

Characterizing Libertarians as druggies who just care about smoking weed is as fair and accurate as characterizing gun owners as beer-swilling rednecks who just care about killing deer and carrying weapons into day-care centers, or characterizing Republicans as racist, mint julep sipping fat rich white guys who don't care about anything but their bank accounts.

I highly doubt you've ever been to a "libertarian shindig". In fact, I highly doubt you have even a remote understanding of Libertarianism.
 
Unfortunately, the voting public does believe that the Libertarians are druggies, mischaracterization or not.

There is a reason why Ron Paul gets consistently re-elected when he runs as a Republican, but no votes when he runs as a Libertarian.

LawDog
 
Yes, it's called party infrastructure.

LD, your characterization is almost as off-base as the others.

I'd love to see a poll about whether Libertarians are even on anyone's political radar screen.

Rick
 
LD, your characterization is almost as off-base as the others.
Click to expand...

Why is that? Are you saying that Joe Public doesn't equate the Libertarian Party with druggies?

Or are you saying that Ron Paul could get re-elected as a Libertarian and just keeps running as a Republican for the hell of it?

LawDog
 
I'm saying neither.

1) I've found no polls to suggest that Joe Public, to generalize, knows what a "Libertarian Party" is.

2) Ron Paul needs the infrastructure of the mammoth GOP to get elected, just as most candidates need the support of one of the two major parties. It cuts both ways and sideways. Republicans need the GOP to get elected, and Demos need the Democrat Party to get elected. They need them so much, that conservatives will run as Democrats (Sam Nunn), and liberals will run as Republicans (NYC's Guliani, and Bloomberg. NYState's Pataki, not to mention Senators from Ohio and Maine, et al).

The polls I've seen show that an R or a D after the canditate's name carries a great, and disproportionate weight with voters, even when the candidate's views are 180 degrees out of phase with the voter.

Ron Paul might be able to get re-elected as a Libertarian, but then the GOP, seeing that they have no dog in the fight, would find a dog to put in the fight. Whether Ron Paul would survive this hypothetical (since you've suggested this hypothetical) is anyone's guess, and would be something that local Texas political scientists would be very interested in, for about six months, tops.

Rick
 
I don't see all that much of a "serious debate" in this thread, just a bunch of folks affirming that Libertarians are dope-smoking doctrinaire nutcases who have no morals and want Mexico to take over the Southern U.S.
 
I don't think the Libertarian party has a chance, nationally. You can't convince a majority to vote for a platform that people need to deal with most of their problems themselves. The average citizen these days has 1000 complaints and no time to do anything about any of them. They're desperate to get someone to take care of their problems for them, so they construct an artificial morality around the problems they perceive, and then try to get others to pay for the solutions. Unfortunately, everyone tries that, and not everyone can win the lottery. Some people lose and end up paying more taxes so that the winners have their problems taken care of by government for cents on the dollar (taxes payed vs services received).
 
That is as accurate an assessment of the American electorate as I've ever read this side of H.L.Mencken.

To quote the man himself, every election is a sort of advance auction of stolen goods.

The problem is that nobody wants to vote for anyone who won't promise them either free stuff or a helping hand in ridding society of vice XYZ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top