Poll: So, why won't YOU vote Libertarian?

AlbqOwl said:

Not okay by me for the reasons I stated.

Click to expand...

Like I said, Gary Johnson is a joke. When it really comes down to it, anything wrong with the Libertarian Party today is because of that wacko.

Henrin said:

Because it's the solution to the problem you presented. If people can't afford the system then it's a problem of cost.

Click to expand...

People should be able to afford lawyers to sue in civil court because someone damaged their property, or in the case of water, lives? Or their out of luck? What is your solution to solve the cost of that problem?

So a thief couldn't provide people with something in return for something he stolen? Why is that exactly? Also, the money is gone, much like your car is gone in your example.

Click to expand...

Why would a thief provide you with anything for stealing your property? Money collected as taxes is turned into the things taxes provide, as I have previously enumerated, from which you gain benefit.

Abbazorkzog said:

Like I said, Gary Johnson is a joke. When it really comes down to it, anything wrong with the Libertarian Party today is because of that wacko.

Click to expand...

I think the Libertarian Party had the problems I object to long before Gary Johnson changed his Republican registration to Libertarian. I have been railing against the Libertarian overreach re religious liberty for decades now. He got more votes than most Libertarian candidates have been able to get though that was probably the result of two unappealing candidates in Trump and Clinton.

Gary really isn't a joke or a wacko. He is an honest, decent human being and is quite lovable and I have a great deal of respect for him and admiration in some things. He made some serious mistakes as governor but in a mostly blue state he was re-elected as a Republican governor in a landslide. But I disagreed on his Presidential views re government control of religion, immigration, and tax policy, all of which most Libertarians (large "L") don't disagree with. He was by far the more congenial, respectable, honest, and pleasant person running in this election. But as a libertarian (little "l") I couldn't support him there.

Gina said:

People should be able to afford lawyers to sue in civil court because someone damaged their property, or in the case of water, lives? Or their out of luck? What is your solution to solve the cost of that problem?

Click to expand...

I don't really know. I would need to think of the problem some to get some idea of how to go about it.

Why would a thief provide you with anything for stealing your property? Money collected as taxes is turned into the things taxes provide, as I have previously enumerated, from which you gain benefit.

Click to expand...

Depends on his goals, wouldn't it? Mobs would basically blackmail people to give some of their property up for protection, which to be honest isn't all that different than what the state does. Really all we are talking about is a forced transfer of property. I take your property in exchange for something. The only difference between this and say a voluntary exchange is that you didn't consent to it.

Henrin said:

I don't really know. I would need to think of the problem some to get some idea of how to go about it.



Depends on his goals, wouldn't it? Mobs would basically blackmail people to give some of their property up for protection, which to be honest isn't all that different than what the state does. Really all we are talking about is a forced transfer of property. I take your property in exchange for something. The only difference between this and say a voluntary exchange is that you didn't consent to it.

Click to expand...

Called it force, I'm good with that because there are consequences for not paying your taxes. It's just not theft. As far as consent, if you agree to live in pretty much any country on the planet, save maybe Somalia, you consent to support that society in the form of taxes, from which you get the benefit of the service I previously mentioned.

Protection provided by "The Mob", is not equivalent to what the government provides.

Gina said:

Called it force, I'm good with that because there are consequences for not paying your taxes. It's just not theft. As far as consent, if you agree to live in pretty much any country on the planet, save maybe Somalia, you consent to support that society in the form of taxes, from which you get the benefit of the service I previously mentioned.

Protection provided by "The Mob", is not equivalent to what the government provides.

Click to expand...

It's not really different. If you don't pay the mob their protection money they come after you just as the government does to people that don't pay their taxes. Sure, the service they provide is different and the way they go about the punishment is different, but underlining workings are the same and so is the principle behind it.

Your consent argument is to put it bluntly horsecrap. It runs right up against the idea that being born or living here or there is consent to some greater authority over you. Sorry, but I don't buy the argument that being born or living here or there is consent or that somehow you can use that argument to say a property transfer was consented to. The fact it's just an argument in search of a justification and finding in the fact that the person is inside the borders.

Goshin said:

:shrug: I disagree, but if that's how you feel about it, then that's how you feel about it. :shrug:

Click to expand...

Well, what's different? Why are they better than Republicans and what similarities do they have with Democrats?