Giant_Joe: All true. Also, crime will never be eradicated, so let's stop fighting crime.
All true.
Also, crime will never be eradicated, so let's stop fighting crime.
I mean you can keep beating your head against the wall pretending that your battle is the equivalent of trying to rid the world of crime or you can think about this in a political context. Why is it that RP usually gets like 4 or 5 percent of the vote? Why does that happen?
Marko: And how much influence have you had, political strategy genius?
And how much influence have you had, political strategy genius?
What does that matter?
If the Republican Party goes any further right or just towards libertarianism in any significant way, it risks losing the religious right, it risks losing the social conservatives it risks losing the minor amount of support it gets from minorities and most importantly, it risks losing the centrists/independents who kinda swing back and forth depending on the candidate and the platform. You cannot win election with 10 percent of the general vote.
bloomj31:Meh, I think you give too much weight to punditry. I don't listen to any of it, I still vote Republican.
Rush Limbaugh has 15 million listeners
Sean Hannity has 14 million listeners
Levin has 6.25 million listeners
bloomj31:Whatever, who cares what he says?
Gullible people.
bloomj31:Who said that China was a security risk because they hold our debt? I think the position is that they just kinda own us now because they have trillions of dollars in reserves and we owe them tons more
Thus according to some, that is a 'security risk.' They have an implicit argument that for the US to be safe we need to be self-sufficient and thus protectionist.
bloomj31:Didn't W fight pretty hard to maintain NAFTA? But I mean, let's be honest, are you really ever going to consider anything "free trade" unless they're advocating the abolition of the state? How free trade does someone have to be to satisfy your criteria?
NAFTA isn't free trade.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Well, we can't just keep borrowing from the Chinese forever. It would be nice if we weren't so reliant on them.
bloomj31: Well, we can't just keep borrowing from the Chinese forever. It would be nice if we weren't so reliant on them.
Well there is a difference between deficient spending and free trade. I'm against the debt and deficient spending so yes I would like to see a decrease of borrowing from China. However, in asking for that decrease I am not saying we should close down our borders or that individuals who voluntarily exchange with the Chinese people should be shut down.
Andrew Cain: Well there is a difference between deficient spending and free trade. I'm against the debt and deficient spending so yes I would like to see a decrease of borrowing from China. However, in asking for that decrease I am not saying we should close down our borders or that individuals who voluntarily exchange with the Chinese people should be shut down.
I'm not either. Who said this?
bloomj31:Well, we can't just keep borrowing from the Chinese forever. It would be nice if we weren't so reliant on them.
Yes. It would also be nice if the country would live within its means, if we didn't have a negative savings rate, and if people could differentiate between starving and having fewer cars. It would also be nice if we didn't live within one bubble after another since 1912. What has your party done about this? Smeared its one member who brings it up, mostly. Let's not forget who killed this idea last time (before 1912) they tried it. He was no Republican, you might recall.
bloomj31: Marko: And how much influence have you had, political strategy genius? What does that matter?
Sure it matters. You are slamming a strategy as inefficient all the while your own strategy has been even more so.
JAlanKatz: bloomj31:Well, we can't just keep borrowing from the Chinese forever. It would be nice if we weren't so reliant on them. Yes. It would also be nice if the country would live within its means, if we didn't have a negative savings rate, and if people could differentiate between starving and having fewer cars. It would also be nice if we didn't live within one bubble after another since 1912. What has your party done about this? Smeared its one member who brings it up, mostly. Let's not forget who killed this idea last time (before 1912) they tried it. He was no Republican, you might recall.
From what I understand, the business cycle goes back to way before the creation of the Fed. All RP points out is that when the Fed gets monetary policy wrong (which it inevitably does) you get an exaggerated boom with an exaggerated bust. But bubbles can and have happened without central banks and they have happened with central banks. There is no guarantee against bubbles and busts. They're part of the game. They can happen as long as credit expansions and monetary expansions can occur. What the central bank does is it creates the illusion of safety and also exacerbates booms and busts by simply creating bigger credit and monetary expansions than would probably otherwise be possible. The safety illusion isn't entirely untrue. I mean, they were able to contain this recession. All they've done is kick the can, but it looks good for a while.
Anyways, the central bank is never going to be undone. Never. It's too convenient for both parties to essentially have a government financing arm. It's also incredibly convenient for the major member banks to have unlimited financing in the event that they become more insolvent than usual. Also, the central bank gives them someone to turn to whenever depositors get worried. I mean there are too many people who stand to gain from the existence of a central bank.
As far as people learning to live within their means, it could happen. But it doesn't seem like enough humans have a medium to long term time preference, so there's always going to be people willing to spend beyond their means in the short term without regard for long term consequences. No political party can change human nature.
What I'm trying to say is that there is nothing we (as Republicans) can do about these problems from a political standpoint. Too few people have any real reason to be upset with the things that bother most libertarians. So we have to cater to the broader trends. For Republicans, it's religion and protecting established money and adhering to traditional values. That's our brand name and the limited government side is a minority. I'm a minority within my own party. RP and Jim Demint are the only two guys who really say the things I agree with. End rant.
Marko: Sure it matters. You are slamming a strategy as inefficient all the while your own strategy has been even more so.
I'm just saying, the Libertarian platform will never have a broad audience. It never has. Libertarians are marginal.
I actually think the real question should be: do libertarians hurt the Republicans? I think the obvious answer is yes. If RP (or any other candidate) runs on a libertarian ticket and pulls even 5 percent of the vote away from the two major parties, that can turn the tides toward the side that doesn't suffer from that pull away of votes. So really, the main thing the libertarian party can do is reduce votes for Republicans. That hurts us.
bloomj31: I actually think the real question should be: do libertarians hurt the Republicans? I think the obvious answer is yes. If RP (or any other candidate) runs on a libertarian ticket and pulls even 5 percent of the vote away from the two major parties, that can turn the tides toward the side that doesn't suffer from that pull away of votes. So really, the main thing the libertarian party can do is reduce votes for Republicans. That hurts us.
Good!
bloomj31:But I think that with economic freedom comes social freedom.
Unless you are gay, or like drugs, or are non-christian.
bloomj31:I just don't see how you're going to get oppressive social policy if there is lots of economic and political freedom.
Anti-sodomy laws, Jim Crow, apartheid, the war on drugs, blue laws for liquor, etc. I don't understand how economic freedom could not completely coexist with these laws. It would just be selective freedom.
bloomj31: Marko: Sure it matters. You are slamming a strategy as inefficient all the while your own strategy has been even more so. I'm just saying, the Libertarian platform will never have a broad audience. It never has. Libertarians are marginal.
Libertarians are marginal because there are so few. People like you number in the tens of millions jet still you are just as marginal in your influence. And you are going to continue to be so as long as Republicans can take your vote for granted.
So don't tell us about how "libertarians hurt themselves in the political arena". You're not qualified.
Alright, whatever.
Jackson LaRose: Unless you are gay, or like drugs, or are non-christian.
I'm not gay, I don't do drugs, and I'm not Christian but they're really not trying to force me to be Christian. Yet.
Jackson LaRose: Anti-sodomy laws, Jim Crow, apartheid, the war on drugs, blue laws for liquor, etc. I don't understand how economic freedom could not completely coexist with these laws. It would just be selective freedom.
As much as I obviously detest many of the things you listed, they don't/wouldn't affect me as directly as taxes do. But they're still important to me. Just not as important as being able to keep my money. I'm pretty straight laced tbh. Also, I'm white.
BTW, Jackson, I must admit you make some good points. Didn't want you to think I didn't realize the points you were making.
bloomj31: Jackson LaRose: Unless you are gay, or like drugs, or are non-christian. I'm not gay, I don't do drugs, and I'm not Christian but they're really not trying to force me to be Christian. Yet. Jackson LaRose: Anti-sodomy laws, Jim Crow, apartheid, the war on drugs, blue laws for liquor, etc. I don't understand how economic freedom could not completely coexist with these laws. It would just be selective freedom. As much as I obviously detest many of the things you listed, they don't/wouldn't affect me as directly as taxes do. But they're still important to me. Just not as important as being able to keep my money. I'm pretty straight laced tbh. Also, I'm white.
I think this mentality has allowed our government to get to the level where it's gotten today. "Oh it's perfectly fine if we place taxes and/or crackdown on such and such because it doesn't affect me"
And we still see it today and people are proud to brandish their myopic views.
I think the Republican platform and party is particularly harmful because it revolves around completely deceitful tactics. Besides, more often than not as in specific cases (like my father, for example) Republicans will make themselves look like arrant ninnys in the process ( anyone that smears Reagan is not for free enterprise, even when that person raises the question of TEFRA and his protectionist policies).
But, to be quite honest with you guys, I honestly don't believe there is such a thing as the left-right paradigm in this country ( I don't necessarily care for conspiracy theories) just look at the American politics of the past 60 years.
It's more of just at what pace are we going to dismantle this countrys economy and destroy the future(s) of our posterity (while making ourselves richer in the process).
It takes the utmost patience to look a registered Republican in the eye and not tell him what you really think of his politics. Especially when they bring mercantalist economic policies into play and proceed to call you an idiot because you disagree.
bloomj31:I'm not either. Who said this?
I'm not saying that you specifically have it. I'm saying that it is a general position of the Republican party. Sure there are free-trade people who are in the Republican party who are trying to reform this position but they are on the margin.
Nitroadict: bloomj31: Nitroadict: Idiotic. The least you could do is allow that the Republican Party does not really represent conservatives anymore. It comes closer to representing conservatives like myself than the Democratic Party does. I mean I'm really more of a classical liberal, but I know full well that most of my ideas are considered extreme nowadays. So I just vote for the party that most closely approximates my ideas and has a chance of winning (why I don't vote libertarian.) That's the Republican Party right now. So your going to rationalize a party that rapes small c conservative, libertarian & anti-federalist rhetoric in order to achieve their goals of socially conservative, theocratic derivative neo-conservative policy, different shade of liberalist-statism that ultimately does not reflect remotely anything libertarian beyond a kleptocratic acknowledgment towards their fellow political peers? Stupid.
bloomj31: Nitroadict: Idiotic. The least you could do is allow that the Republican Party does not really represent conservatives anymore. It comes closer to representing conservatives like myself than the Democratic Party does. I mean I'm really more of a classical liberal, but I know full well that most of my ideas are considered extreme nowadays. So I just vote for the party that most closely approximates my ideas and has a chance of winning (why I don't vote libertarian.) That's the Republican Party right now.
Nitroadict: Idiotic. The least you could do is allow that the Republican Party does not really represent conservatives anymore.
Idiotic. The least you could do is allow that the Republican Party does not really represent conservatives anymore.
It comes closer to representing conservatives like myself than the Democratic Party does. I mean I'm really more of a classical liberal, but I know full well that most of my ideas are considered extreme nowadays. So I just vote for the party that most closely approximates my ideas and has a chance of winning (why I don't vote libertarian.) That's the Republican Party right now.
So your going to rationalize a party that rapes small c conservative, libertarian & anti-federalist rhetoric in order to achieve their goals of socially conservative, theocratic derivative neo-conservative policy, different shade of liberalist-statism that ultimately does not reflect remotely anything libertarian beyond a kleptocratic acknowledgment towards their fellow political peers? Stupid.
Dammmnnnnn!
Well, I'll be myopic then.
This conversation has made me tired.
bloomj31:I mean how much of the Democratic platform do you agree with and how much of the Republican platform do you agree with?
I agree with the Franklin D. Roosevelt platform 1932 more than the Republican platform.
Caley McKibbin: I agree with the Franklin D. Roosevelt platform 1932 more than the Republican platform.
You must've voted for Obama then.
bloomj31: Caley McKibbin: I agree with the Franklin D. Roosevelt platform 1932 more than the Republican platform. You must've voted for Obama then.
You do realize what FDR's 1932 platform encompassed right? It was vastly different from how he manifested himself in office.
Again, I'm not trying to be harsh with you in particular (I hope you don't take it that way either), I just think the modern Republican platform/ party is beyond silly (and justification for that matter).
If anything the republican party just creates fodder for the left and seriously discredits capitalism. They scream about capitalism, and when in power setup fascism. Most people on the left are justified in their hatred of capitalism, they think it's what the republican party has always brought to them, fascism.
I do think the republican party hurts us, they discredit our terms, and mis-represent the mechanics of the economic system. If I was economically ignorant I'd be running from them as well.
bloomj31:You must've voted for Obama then.
Have you ever read the 1932 platform?
On your points on money, you've done a fine job of illustrating why most of us here have no interest in either party. To say "we can't take a position that challenges the status quo on central banking because we think we'd fail" is not quite true, but if it were, it wouldn't be much of a reason to support that party.
bloomj31:I'm not gay, I don't do drugs
I guess that's why you are a Republican then
bloomj31:but they're really not trying to force me to be Christian
Right. They just force you to adhere to Christian moral values.
bloomj31:But they're still important to me. Just not as important as being able to keep my money.
Which is why you choose to be a Republican. One party isn't really superior to the other, it just depends on what you value more.
Anyways, I can see why libertarians would feel the Republican Party hurts them. It makes sense. But it's just not quite like that imo.
The libertarian party, to borrow a phrase, is always trying to "ice skate up a hill."
Sure, the cause is worthy I suppose, but it's a fight that isn't likely to be won. At least not the way they're fighting it. In my opinion of course.
bloomj31: Anyways, I can see why libertarians would feel the Republican Party hurts them. It makes sense. But it's just not quite like that imo. The libertarian party, to borrow a phrase, is always trying to "ice skate up a hill."
The original question was about libertarians, not the LP. I didn't take it to be about the GOP hurting the LP at the polls. I took it to be about the GOP hurting libertarians and/or liberty. It hurts libertarians in that our arguments are linked in the public imagination to the arguments of a bunch of corporate welfare types, and people can't hear "free market" without hearing "crony capitalism" due to the behavior of the GOP. The GOP cynically uses libertarian talking points while promoting something that is just as far from a free market as what the Dems suggest. That the GOP destroys liberty in the country goes without saying - I for one certainly remember a world without the Patriot Act, Real ID, nationalized airport security, a prescription drug benefit, the ADA... I am not old enough to remember, but can read in books, about Nixon, the gold window, wage and price controls... and that cynical bastard Stein has the nerve to go on about free markets...even Chomsky has pointed this out, saying that he could not understand how any libertarians could support Reagan, while Reagan was promoting facism in the name of free markets, simultaneously taking away economic freedoms while smearing the free market cause.
Welp, it's like Sowell says, politics has much less to do with facts and logic than what people believe. Maybe the libertarians should trademark all their terminology and then no one will be able to use it without libertarian consent. Lol, I'm just kidding, it's a joke.
Also, I get what you mean about separating libertarian ideology from the LP but you know...this is a thread about Republicans and we're a political party. So it's kinda weird to have a discussion about political ideology without having a discussion about political parties. But I get what you mean nonetheless, don't worry.
As people have been saying, Republicans really hurt libertarians, because they falsely represent capitalism and free markets. Every time I throw out an argument, I have some sort of response talking about how free markets failed under Reagan or Bush. Its incredibly hard to get past this block in people's mind. This is the Republicans fault; they had a lot of power and used it unwisely and misrepresented legitimate ideas.
When Republicans win elections, we do not win anything. They are just as destructive, if not more so, than the Democrats. When the Democrats screw up, we can point to it and talk about how big government fails. When Republicans screw up, we have to explain how it wasn't actually free markets and how it also shows that big government fails. As a party, the Republicans are patently anti-liberty and only a select few of their members deserve even a small amount of support. The party as a whole is an appalling show.
Nitroadict: Marko: bloomj31: So I just vote for the party that most closely approximates my ideas and has a chance of winning (why I don't vote libertarian.) That's the Republican Party right now. Republican Party has ideas? Not until they get the Tea Parties to assimilate into their collective. For now, they are just hoping every old white guy is excited enough to see Palin to haul their oxygen tanks to the polls.
Marko: bloomj31: So I just vote for the party that most closely approximates my ideas and has a chance of winning (why I don't vote libertarian.) That's the Republican Party right now. Republican Party has ideas?
bloomj31: So I just vote for the party that most closely approximates my ideas and has a chance of winning (why I don't vote libertarian.) That's the Republican Party right now.
So I just vote for the party that most closely approximates my ideas and has a chance of winning (why I don't vote libertarian.) That's the Republican Party right now.
Republican Party has ideas?
Lol
I just peed a little.