• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Barr may run for president on Libertarian ticket (1 Viewer)

it's certainly possible to be a conservative that believes in big government, and similarly it's possible to believe in small government without being a conservative.

That is definitely true. It would be liberal to destroy all those social things so many union and other such employment contracts have, and had, figured into the retirement plans.

If a person knew Social Security Disability did not exist, and the plant can't open the door on a hot day without violating EPA clean air regulations (in place to save the world at the possible expense of the worker), the employer would have to pay more so the workers would have adequate insurance...
 
Can anyone here rationalize anyone running as a thrid party candidate with actual thoughts of winning? Not being critical (or maybe I am) but isn't this a waste of a vote.....again?

Of course - running for president is a massive stroke of the ego, brings name recognition, provides you with money, and can help in lots of ways. There are plenty of personal reasons to do it, beyond any sense of self-sacrifice.
 
Where n the hell is Cherokee county? Sure would be nice if someone with some creditability would come along, but I need some meat.:confused:

N Georgia suburban Atlanta county...about 25 miles north of downtown.

BB
 
Oops, sorry. We're like waaay off topic.
Back to libertarian presidential candidates.
As if it matters who runs. As if a libertarian would ever be electable.

:roll:

Win? No. Swing an election by siphoning votes from a party? Yes. Think Ross Perot.

BB
 
Win? No. Swing an election by siphoning votes from a party? Yes. Think Ross Perot.

BB

Contrary to popular belief, Perot didn't actually swing that election.

However, running as a 3rd party candidate DOES mean that you have the chance to influence what the other candidates talk about and propose, much like Perot did in 92. If Gore were to mount a 3rd party run, we'd see both other candidates talk more about the environment.
 
Its not just that i have a million reservations about full libertarianism like Who would fight crime?

The police. Maybe you're confusing libertarians with anarchists?

How would you stop big businesses cornering markets?

I wouldn't (nor does our current government, I might add).

A big business cornering a certain market isn't necessarily a bad thing either. In many situations it can lead to a better, safer and cheaper product. In those few situations where companies consolidate, drive up the price, and then get lazy on the manufacture of their product or service, people will look elsewhere. Someone will either create a cheaper, better product or service, invent a new technology that is superior to the old, or wage a PR campaign against the monopoly to bring about a change in its practices.

Business and financial markets, when left alone, are self-correcting.

How would medicine be independently regulated?

Through consumer agencies, just like anything else.

The idea that people are going to start dying off left and right because the FDA disappears is another irrational fear people have. Some people think that the FDA will stop poking around inside drug companies and, all of a sudden, drug companies will switch out Aspirin for snake oil. That's not going to happen. Mostly because drug companies don't want to go out of business and company executives don't want to be prosecuted for killing people.

Of course, there's always the first and most important line of defense against taking bad drugs, or the wrong kind of drugs- your doctor.

Right now the FDA may be hurting as much (or more) than helping many Americans by delaying (or disallowing) the sale of perfectly good, life-saving drugs. Many people would be better off having full and immediately access to any drug that may save their life, presuming, of course, that they follow a doctor's advice (just as is advisable when taking any medication).

Personally though, I'm not as anti-FDA as some libertarians. Libertarians, just like Republicans or Democrats, run the gamut from totally radical bat **** insane anarchists to really pretty moderate/centrist in their views. I'd consider myself a middle of the road libertarian. I don't mind giving up a little freedom for a lot more security. What I don't enjoy is giving up a lot of freedom for a little more (or worse, a lot less) security.
 
Can anyone here rationalize anyone running as a thrid party candidate with actual thoughts of winning? Not being critical (or maybe I am) but isn't this a waste of a vote.....again?

Probably the only rationalization would be the Bloomberg vs. Huckabee vs. Clinton scenario that seemed possible at one point earlier this year. When the two major parties pick two very divisive nominees, there's an opening for a centrist with a boat load of money and some credible supporters (Senators, Governors, military people, etc.) to step in and make a run.

That would be more of an independent than third party run though.

Third parties, at least the ones we have now, have very little shot of ever getting anybody elected to a major office. Greens, if only because of their name, will forever be seen a single issue party. Libertarians are stronger on that front because their party is based on a far-reaching philosophy, but they suffer from problems of public opinion (it's the party of ivory tower Star Trek nerds!) and a "small tent" mindset (if you don't agree with the party line 100%, you're a socialist, a fascist, or both). Socialist is a dirty word in this country, even if that's what most of our politicians are, so the Soclialst Party is dead in the water. Constitutionalists have a god problem.

So, yeah.

As far as whether or not a vote for a third party is wasted, I don't think so. If it's Hillary vs. McCain, I think both of them would be awful for this country, so I could either not vote or register a protest vote for whomever is the LP nominee. Obviously, the LP candidate will never win, but by voting for the LP candidate, I tell the world what I'm looking for next time around.

I use that same philosophy whenever both candidates are equally worthless.
 
Definition #1 applies to Libertarians. They want to restore the traditional idea of limited government in all forms as it use to be. Get back to that form of government and resist changing it. Definition #2 defines "Neoconservatives" who are significantly different from true Conservatives.

Allowing people social freedom is a true Conservative idea as it falls under limited government. Taking away individual rights is a Neoconservative idea.

Definition #2, as originally state, is a common (incorrect) definition of conservative. Neo-conservative just describes a sub-set of conservatives who believe in a different kind of foreign policy.

Conservatives have long believed in limiting individual rights. Prostitution, pornography, sodomy, polygamy, homosexuality, gambling, legalization of drugs, censorship of speech and press, abortion, etc., all usually on moral grounds or in the interests of nationalism. So, by laying claim to conservatism as a libertarian, you rightly claim economic conservatism, but also wrongly claim social conservatism. That's where the problem lies.

Regardless, liberal is the more correct label.

Definition according to Merriam-Webster:

lib·er·al - adjective

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

That is, of course, if you follow dictionary definitions. If you follow Definition #2, which is not in the dictionary but how the word liberal is most commonly applied by most people, liberals are socialists.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom