With a Socialist being elected to the United States Senate, the Libertarians responded with some very important victories: Durham Soil & Water District Supervisor Robert Rosenthal 53% Winner! joking aside, lets look at the numbers: In the entire US, with 33 senate seats, 435 house seats, thousands of state house ...
11-10-2006, 04:41 PM
| #1 | ||||
| Banned - Self Imposed  Progressive Philadelphia, PA 
| So when is the "Libertarian year" With a Socialist being elected to the United States Senate, the Libertarians responded with some very important victories: Durham Soil & Water District Supervisor Robert Rosenthal 53% Winner! joking aside, lets look at the numbers: In the entire US, with 33 senate seats, 435 house seats, thousands of state house and state senate seats, the libertarians won... Zero Their biggest victory, besides a few local dog catchers and sewer cleaners, was one, at the local level of tens of thousands of seats, they managed to get a city district seat in Alaska...please, stop the applause, I have to finish my post In yet another year of disgust with both parties, people thought the republicans abandoned their principles, the people didn't see a big plan by Democrats, and no other 3rd party made a real stab at any seats In 1992 a third party candidate got 19% of the vote, 1 out of 5 voters, that set a precedent, people disgusted with both parties could enter politics, in the mid 90s libertarians flooded in the internet with their message, people all across the country, supposedly successful people, were all libertarians So 1994 comes, the Republican revolution, the Democrats are out, the field is open again 1996 comes, people hate Clinton, yet Bob Dole is seen as a failing candidate, do the Libertarians come in with a big national movement? No, the Reform party is hijacked by paleoconservative Pat Buchanan, he gets 8% of the vote without barely trying, Libertarians are no where to be seen Ok, here comes 1998, people still hate Clinton, but a majority support him, but they definately don't like Democrats, and Republicans overstretched in the impeachment...people are tired of partisan politics and want a third way...with the Reform Party pretty much dead, its the Libertarian Year! Or not...they didn't pick any house seats or really anything That's ok, so they failed time after time, here is 2000, the "boring election" where people think Bush is stupid and Gore is boring, and both are saying the same thing about a lot of issues and being moderate, blah blah, here is the time for a bold libertarian candidate to get something out of 96 like 8% of the vote that Buchanan got! Nader is running, Greens are supporting him in droves, the libertarians will surely rise to the level of the Greens! They end up with 0.4% of the vote, the Greens get EIGHT TIMES the votes the libertarians get Alright, another major setback, but hey 2002 is right around the corner, people don't trust Dems with national security, yet the GOP looks weak during midterms...Libertarians come up with nothing 2004, People loathe Kerry and despise the Bush policies, great shot for Libertarians, since they can capture the middle or ALL the people who reject the big government of Kerry and Bush...their vote slips to 0.3% down from 2000 2006, Moderates and libertarians completely abandon the GOP party, but what else is there, big tax and spend Democrats? Oh wait, Libertarians are still around! We can vote for them! As mentioned before, they go down in a humiliating defeat, especially in TX-22, where ultra-conservatives who elect Tom DeLay would rather vote in a Democrat as opposed to a Libertarian, who only got 6% of the vote for 10 years straight and 5 elections straight, Libertarians have proven to be either too inept to run a campaign, or too cheap to support their fellow libertarians No matter how good the situation looks for them, they get nowhere...so will there ever be a real libertarian candidate? Are Libertarians basically set to be the next Constitution Party? Basically ignored and unknown and doomed to insignifance? In the following years, catholic hispanics who want a pro-active government are set to turn out in high numbers for Democrats...as seen in past elections, 43-45% of Americans are reliable voters for liberal Democrats, with or without a third party...add in the Hispanic vote increase, and it looks like a Democratic lock As technology, trade and techniques improve, libertarians seemed destined to become less and less relevant or of having any importance as the years go on...as the prices of healthcare and other issues fall, so will budget problems, and taxes will fall naturally, just as you can't pry medicare and social security away from the American people, programs like universal healthcare and public right to not only high school but community college, etc will become so popular and cheaper as time goes on, that it seems as though libertarianism had its shot and went nowhere | ||||
     |
|
11-10-2006, 04:58 PM
| #2 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est  Pragmatist North Carolina
| Never. Until they moderate themselves, they'll continue to be rejected by the vast majority of the American public.. they have some good ideas, but like I've pointed out many times.. the Libertarian set of ideals requires a utopian society that simply does not exist. It's the exact same reason that Communism failed. Communism is supposed to be a utopia where everyone works for the benefit of the community and the nation and whatnot, but we saw what a practical application of that looked like.. Hardcore Libertarianism in today's world would be no different. It could work much easier when the world was much smaller like it was when the nation was founded. | ||||
| |
|
11-10-2006, 05:23 PM
| #3 | ||||
| Perpetual Noob Independent
| Your assumption is that members of the libertarian party are the only persons who hold libertarian ideals. This is false, and why the entire post is nonsense. keep the trolling coming though, it keeps us entertained to continue to summarily shoot it down. | ||||
| |
|
11-10-2006, 05:26 PM
| #4 | ||||
| ipsa Scientia Potestas est Pragmatist North Carolina
| I think there's a broad range of people who like certain Libertarian ideas, the problem is that the Libertarian party is too far out on a limb for those who like some of the fiscal responsibility, but like their national parks, etc.. I don't see how I'm trolling, though. Care to enlighten me? | ||||
| |
|
11-10-2006, 05:27 PM
| #5 | ||||
| Banned - Self Imposed Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by Phantom Didn't say that, I said Libertarian candidates in general
And what a bunch of a junk with the "libertarian ideals", pleaes, lets make this so abstract that everyone is a libertarian | ||||
| |
|
11-10-2006, 05:34 PM
| #6 | ||||
| Perpetual Noob Independent
| Originally Posted by Thorgrim could you be more specific?
What is junk? I see your post as very simple. 1) Libertarians party cancdidates don't hold seats in elected office. 2) their influence is declining 3) therefore, libertarianism must be dying. The big pink elephant in the room is that you limit the set of persons holding the ideals of the libertarian party to those persons who label themselves libertarian. This simply does not represent reality, and you know it. (BTW, this is the trolling Motivez) Everyone knows that "Democrats" and Republicans" are not groups of persons with homogenous sets of beliefs. There are neocon reps, there are libertarian reps, there are Regan reps etc, just like there are socialist Dems, moderate dems, populist dems etc. | ||||
| |
|
11-10-2006, 05:56 PM
| #7 | ||||
| Common Sense Conservative  Realist
| Originally Posted by motivez I agree, except I heard something yesterday which made me think...
This girl I'm dating, who doesn't really follow politics closely, said she voted for a lot of libertarian candidates in this recent election. I asked her why. She said because she wanted to show support for the 3rd party. Upon further investigation, it became clear she had no fucking clue what the Libertarian party platform was, and, in fact, was quite shocked when I told her a few things. It made me think that the Libertarian party could have a future beyond its unrealistic extremism, simply as the premier protest party of convenience with a catchy title. | ||||
| |
|
11-10-2006, 06:00 PM
| #8 | ||||
| Common Sense Conservative Realist
| Originally Posted by Phantom Yeah, but the Democratic and Republican parties try to hold themselves out as moderates to appeal to the greatest number of people, although there are some extremists within them. The Libertarian party does the exact opposite...they hold themselves out to be extremists, yet have a variety of moderate people within their ranks. Go to the LP.org site and you'll plainly see that they want to legalize all drugs, privatize everything, completely open the borders, etc., etc. So long as the official party platform is so extreme, it'll never catch on as a mainstream political party, although there may be some more moderate folks who consider themselves "libertarian."
| ||||
| |
|
11-10-2006, 06:12 PM
| #9 | ||||
| Banned - Self Imposed Progressive Philadelphia, PA
| Originally Posted by Phantom I didn't isolate this to the libertarian party...
If people are too scared to label themselves a libertarian...i think thats a fair point | ||||
| |
|
11-10-2006, 08:24 PM
| #10 | ||||
| Pinko Commie Bastard  Communist Moscow
| Originally Posted by motivez Every founder was a libertarian. MOST libertarian "ideals" would work fine today, if not to "libertarian perfection", they would benefit from a much more libertarian viewpoint. No "perfect world" is required for libertarian ideals to function effectively. That's simply hogwash, no matter how many times you'd like to say it.
| ||||
| |
|
11-10-2006, 08:47 PM
| #11 | ||||
| I DIDNT KNOW THAT  Corpus Christi, Texas
| thanks to this forum, I have a better understanding of libertarians ideals and the same question always comes to me. Where are the boundries that would stop corruption and greed from taking the country into anarchy?
__________________ KatKanPlay My goal in life is to be as good of a person as my dog already thinks I am!  | ||||
| |
|
11-10-2006, 08:50 PM
| #12 | ||||
| Last Starfighter  Independent Northern California
| One question I've always asked that has never been answered is this: According to them their whole system is that of having a mediator to handle a conflict between two parties. What's to prevent the party who was ruled against to go to the government to get it overturned and to protect their interests? BEcause that is what is happening in America today, and what is ruining America today. | ||||
| |
|
11-10-2006, 09:06 PM
| #13 | ||||
| Pinko Commie Bastard Communist Moscow
| Originally Posted by KatKanPlay in what area specifically? that's kinda broad
| ||||
| |
|
11-10-2006, 09:08 PM
| #14 | ||||
| Common Sense Conservative Realist
| Originally Posted by thomez I'm not sure what you're talking about...maybe the confusion here is due to what exactly a "libertarian" is. Libertarianism as advocated by the Libertarian Party, advocates virtually no immigration laws, no income tax, total legalization of drugs, total military isolationism, etc. That conception of libertarianism is indeed unrealistic and I don't think fits the description of many founders.
As an example of how unrealistic the LP is from Official Website of the Libertarian National Committee
Now you may argue the Libertarian Party doesn't represent every libertarian, but people who run as "libertarians" will continue to have serious problems making inroads so long as the Libertarian Party continues to advocate positions like that. | ||||
| |
|
11-10-2006, 09:13 PM
| #15 | ||||
| Pinko Commie Bastard Communist Moscow
| a little l libertarian and a big L Libertarian are not the same thing notice my lack of big L's | ||||
| |
|
11-10-2006, 09:14 PM
| #16 | ||||
| Common Sense Conservative Realist
| Originally Posted by thomez I know, but I'll repeat:
| ||||
| |
|
11-10-2006, 09:19 PM
| #17 | ||||
| Pinko Commie Bastard Communist Moscow
| Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo they need a new name, theirs has been bastardized by radicals
| ||||
| |
|
11-10-2006, 09:25 PM
| #18 | ||||
| I DIDNT KNOW THAT Corpus Christi, Texas
| Originally Posted by thomez Economics...
I see wealth distribution creating great dynasties of power in this country. Two or three generations have never done anything in their lives but take on popular hobbies and live off great grandpappies success. Much power in this country was gained as the result of corruption and greed. How would libertarians address the social suppression that greed and corruption creates? Money gets you power, power gets you money, then money gets you even more power, and on,,,, I see the Libertarian ideals to be rather naive. | ||||
| |
|
11-10-2006, 09:29 PM
| #19 | ||||
| Common Sense Conservative Realist
| Originally Posted by thomez Why a new name? Just run as an independent who has libertarian principles...you don't even need to give them a label. Just talk about the issues consistent with a libertarian philosophy. It doesn't make sense to run as a "libertarian" and then claim the Libertarian Party doesn't represent you. If you have a label after your name in an election, it refers to your political party, and the only political party with the word "libertarian" in it is the Libertarian Party. And if you insist on a label, just run as a reform Republican who wants to return to real conservative principles, because reasonable libertarians are really just old school Republicans, right?
| ||||
| |
|
11-10-2006, 09:37 PM
| #20 |
| Pinko Commie Bastard Communist Moscow |
