Tough Luck... The Status Quo Bias Against Libertarian Ideas

[Mott the Hoople]

Mott, you are making all kinds of mistakes and you always seem to have some sort of irrational and emotional response to the word libertarian. I don't think you understand what it is any better than desh understands Austrian economics.

Name one government in history that is based on utilitarian principle that has ever worked? By that, I mean, based solely on utilitarian principle. You will not be able to because it is unworkable. Our nation is not based on it. It is based on a mix of mostly libertarian principles and some utilitarian principles.

As far as building coalitions, libertarians have effectively done so. You have some strange metric on this issue, and you would need to define libertarian and effective. The ACLU is mostly a libertarian organization. The neoconfederates will argue otherwise, but who says they are libertarians, and the ACLU has not always been supportive of civil liberties in commercial acts but they are still libertarian. The ACLU has been quite effective in securing our rights. There is now a coalition forming against the NSA and the surveillance state that will be mostly libertarian.

I'm sorry but you're projecting. I make nothing but well documented observations about Libertarians. It is ya'll who get emotional and irrational when presented with some hard to swallow facts and ya'll just keep whining and making excuses but libertarians rarely, if ever, do a damned thing about. Ya'll are politically inept, ya'll are horrible at building coalitions, ya'll suck at building a politcal base to work from and ya'll have never proven that your ideology can competently manage a large national government. Those are facts, not opinions. Don't tell me about it or call me irrational when I point out these commonly known flaws of Libertarians. Do something about it.

That's where you libertarians fall between the cracks. You know why southern radical conservatives have been able to Co-op the GOP? Cause they show up! They do the hard work needed to build these coalitions. What do libertarians do? Very little to nothing at all. Libertarians have no one to blame for their lack of broad political success but themselves and until they quite whining about how unfair things are and get off their asses and actually do something then that's probably not going to change.

Libertarians seem to be talkers, not doers.

 

[Timshel]

Hey "Libertarians," tell me again how money talks and campaign contributions and lobbying are first amendment protected activity and how corporations have rights too all while bithcing about the "corporate status quo."

Hilarious.

So, the idea, one you blame on libertarians, that political contributions are a form of speech is relevant?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

What is relevant among the ruling philosophies of the two parties? Do you support all of it? If not then why do you think your ideas are relevant?

What is relevent is they get elected and they actually govern. I'm currently a Democrat. Do I believe in all their party line ideology? Of course not. Do I have more interest in common with them than Republicans? Absolutely I do. As for my ideas? What ideas? I'm not trying to create a third party. I've been there before and I've seen first hand how they are build and how they fail. Libertarians largely fail cause they are ideological purist who view themselves as being above politics.

Well guess what? If you don't participate in the process you don't get a whole hell of a lot accomplished.

 

[Bonestorm]

So, the idea, one you blame on libertarians, that political contributions are a form of speech is relevant?

It's relevant to my critcism of so-called "libertarians" bitching about the "corporate status quo." I mean, Jesus Lord Almighty. It's one thing to be libertarian and take what comes from it, but to be "libertarian" and bitch about corporate influence is drool cup stupid.

And I don't blame anything on libertarians. Do libertarians support restricting the use of money for political campaigning activities? Do libertarians support the restriction of corporate money in elections?

 

[Timshel]

I'm sorry but you're projecting. I make nothing but well documented observations about Libertarians. It is ya'll who get emotional and irrational when presented with some hard to swallow facts and ya'll just keep whining and making excuses but libertarians rarely, if ever, do a damned thing about. Ya'll are politically inept, ya'll are horrible at building coalitions, ya'll suck at building a politcal base to work from and ya'll have never proven that your ideology can competently manage a large national government. Those are facts, not opinions. Don't tell me about it or call me irrational when I point out these commonly known flaws of Libertarians. Do something about it.

That's where you libertarians fall between the cracks. You know why southern radical conservatives have been able to Co-op the GOP? Cause they show up! They do the hard work needed to build these coalitions. What do libertarians do? Very little to nothing at all. Libertarians have no one to blame for their lack of broad political success but themselves and until they quite whining about how unfair things are and get off their asses and actually do something then that's probably not going to change.

Libertarians seem to be talkers, not doers.

Bullshit. You have not made one documented observation. You are doing nothing but hurling ad homs.

Libertarians have been quite active and effective in leading or influencing our national government and others. Many libertarians will object that this or that person/organization is not pure, but the fact remains there have been plenty of libertarians in high places and organizations heavily influenced by libertarians that have effectively shaped our course.

Now, how about your example of utilitarian governments? Apparently, this is an idea you support. Where is the Utilitarian Party? What have utilitarians done to implement their ideas other than sitting on their fat asses, bitching and whining? When have you ever lead a nation?

 

[Timshel]

What is relevent is they get elected and they actually govern. I'm currently a Democrat. Do I believe in all their party line ideology? Of course not. Do I have more interest in common with them than Republicans? Absolutely I do. As for my ideas? What ideas? I'm not trying to create a third party. I've been there before and I've seen first hand how they are build and how they fail. Libertarians largely fail cause they are ideological purist who view themselves as being above politics.

Well guess what? If you don't participate in the process you don't get a whole hell of a lot accomplished.

Then you and your ideas are irrelevant.

Again, you are confusing the LP as being the sum of all libertarian political action and influence. It is not. It is but one means to the end.

 

[Timshel]

It's relevant to my critcism of so-called "libertarians" bitching about the "corporate status quo." I mean, Jesus Lord Almighty. It's one thing to be libertarian and take what comes from it, but to be "libertarian" and bitch about corporate influence is drool cup stupid.

And I don't blame anything on libertarians. Do libertarians support restricting the use of money for political campaigning activities? Do libertarians support the restriction of corporate money in elections?

You are dropping the context of my use of the word relevant. I did not challenge its relevance to your bitching about libertarian ideas.

Is the idea that political contributions are a form of speech (one you DO pin on libertarians... like those at the ACLU, I guess) relevant to the current political process? Then libertarianism is relevant and you have contradicted your (and Mott's) own point that libertarianism is irrelevant.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Bullshit. You have not made one documented observation. You are doing nothing but hurling ad homs.

Libertarians have been quite active and effective in leading or influencing our national government and others. Many libertarians will object that this or that person/organization is not pure, but the fact remains there have been plenty of libertarians in high places and organizations heavily influenced by libertarians that have effectively shaped our course.

Now, how about your example of utilitarian governments? Apparently, this is an idea you support. Where is the Utilitarian Party? What have utilitarians done to implement their ideas other than sitting on their fat asses, bitching and whining? When have you ever lead a nation?

You're in denial. What recent political goals or objectives have libertarians accomplished lately? Name some for me. These are not ad homs, these are facts and until you admit them to yourselves and take the appropriate actions, nothing will ever change for Libertarians. You'll still be out on the fringes.

Until Libertarians address some of the hard facts I've stated....ya'll will never get anywere, not as an interest group in either of the two major paries and certainly not as a viable third party.

 

[Damocles]

Mott, I think you are mistaking libertarians themselves for the Libertarian Party.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You are dropping the context of my use of the word relevant. I did not challenge its relevance to your bitching about libertarian ideas.

Is the idea that political contributions are a form of speech (one you DO pin on libertarians... like those at the ACLU, I guess) relevant to the current political process? Then libertarianism is relevant and you have contradicted your (and Mott's) own point that libertarianism is irrelevant.

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say libertarianism is irrelevent. I said Libertarians are. Why? Because they get exactly squat accomplished. Change that and Libertarians will become relevent. That has absolutely nothing to do with me and/or what I may believe in.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Mott, I think you are mistaking libertarians themselves for the Libertarian Party.

I guess that would depend on how broadly you define a libertarian.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Hey "Libertarians," tell me again how money talks and campaign contributions and lobbying are first amendment protected activity and how corporations have rights too all while bithcing about the "corporate status quo."

Hilarious.

what does this have to do with democrats and republicans conspiring to make things difficult for third party organization and ballot access?

 

[Timshel]

You're in denial. What recent political goals or objectives have libertarians accomplished lately? Name some for me. These are not ad homs, these are facts and until you admit them to yourselves and take the appropriate actions, nothing will ever change for Libertarians. You'll still be out on the fringes.

Until Libertarians address some of the hard facts I've stated....ya'll will never get anywere, not as an interest group in either of the two major paries and certainly not as a viable third party.

You are in denial. Anthony Kennedy, who is by most accounts quite libertarian, just delivered several wins, one helped by another rather libertarian lawyer, Ted Olson. An adherent of the Chicago School of economics was just appointed to head India's central bank. On both economic and social issues libertarian ideas HAVE had an impact.

There is never going to be any purely libertarian society which seems to be the only thing you (and coincidentally some of the more delusional libertarian cranks) would accept as a win, effective or having influence.

 

[Timshel]

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say libertarianism is irrelevent. I said Libertarians are. Why? Because they get exactly squat accomplished. Change that and Libertarians will become relevent. That has absolutely nothing to do with me and/or what I may believe in.

That makes no sense. Who is responsible for libertarianism or libertarian ideas other than libertarians?

Again, you seem to demand some all or nothing view and by that your Utilitarianism has nothing. We are much more of a libertarian society than a utilitarian one. I will freely admit that libertarian values must necessarily be checked by utilitarian ones in some cases, but strictly utilitarian ideas are completely immoral/amoral.

 

[blackascoal]

I'm sure there's a case to be made for expanded ballot access for third-party candidates, but focusing on presidential elections is really, really stupid.

Much respect brother, but you don't understand the fight .. which focuses on far more than presidential elections. Presidential elections give you voice that you would otherwise not have.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Mott, I think you are mistaking libertarians themselves for the Libertarian Party.

Yeah Mott. Let me clear it up for you:

One libertarian = Prick.

The Libertarian party = An organization full of pricks.

 

[blackascoal]

That makes no sense. Who is responsible for libertarianism or libertarian ideas other than libertarians?

Again, you seem to demand some all or nothing view and by that your Utilitarianism has nothing. We are much more of a libertarian society than a utilitarian one. I will freely admit that libertarian values must necessarily be checked by utilitarian ones in some cases, but strictly utilitarian ideas are completely immoral/amoral.

Much of the same can be said about libertarian ideas .. which I repeat, can mean just about anything.

A 'laissez-faire' economy exists nowhere on earth, except in the libertarian mind .. for very good reasons.

Although libertarians aren't all defined by the Libertarian Party, so-called 'libertarian' politicians, such as the Paul's, are speaking for you .. and that ain't good.

 

[blackascoal]

I guess that would depend on how broadly you define a libertarian.

Defined to be just about anything one wants .. more specifically defined as disaffected republicans.