Yes of course but first we need to become more known.
Yes but we will never get elected.
No and I'm damn glad of it.
No because we will never get well known/enough votes.
This is a multi-faceted question.
First, there is not simply one type of libertarian. You've got your extreme ones that are closer to anarchists, your more moderate ones that realize there is a place for government and account for the reality of modern days, you have your hawkish ones, etc. However, since it says Libertarian Party we'll go for a more generic middle road libertarian.
In that case I would say it depends greatly on the time span that said policies would need to be enacted and whether said Libertarian actually has the forethought of dealing with reality rather than ideals, something many simply do not. I think a gradual removal of old policies that run counter to the libertarian philosophy as libertarian policies are pushed COULD potentially work. However, if they instead went for a quick say...4 year roll out of their policy (and thus roll back of old policy) I think it could potentially cripple the country.
This is of course for a broadscale libertarian policy focus. Individual libertarian policies can have a chance for working here and there far better than the idea of the entire platform at once.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
You do have the freedom to starve. You also have the freedom not to starve. It's your choice...or is choice a bad thing now?Or, as Isaac Asimov accurately described libertarianism. "I have the freedom to get rich and you have the freedom to starve."
Sorry if a meritocratic system leaves behind a few lazy douchebags. Subjective touchy-feelyism is a dog that won't hunt.
but ignoring the plight of the children of the lazy douchebags i do not
or a willingness to disregard any other element of our society which needs help thru no fault of their own
that indifference, that willingness to dismiss those unfortunates in very real circumstances may be what prevents the libertarian alternative from gaining traction as a political force
So you're going to overhaul an entire economic and governing system because I show you a couple pictures of homeless kids whose ribs stick out? Sorry, but nobody said life is fair. I'm not about to condone a communist society just so we can shoulder the pain of a few kids who got dealt a crappy hand in life.Originally Posted by justabubba
Bringing up something like that is just cutting off your nose to spite your face. If you bend over backwards trying to help every soul you can, all the ones that are normally taken care of are going to fall by the wasteside, and your heart will have to bleed over there for a while. Sorry if I don't have enough fingers to plug all the holes in a dam.
So you condone a reality where no child goes hungry and everyone lives happily and peacefully ever after.Originally Posted by justabubba
Whatever you got, pass it over here. I don't want to feel any pain either.