• 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!

Can the Libertarian party or policies ever work?

Should/Can libertarianism work?

  • Yes of course but first we need to become more known.

    Votes: 18 31.6%
  • Yes but we will never get elected.

    Votes: 5 8.8%
  • No and I'm damn glad of it.

    Votes: 27 47.4%
  • No because we will never get well known/enough votes.

    Votes: 7 12.3%

  • Total voters
    57
Yeah, and the way things are moving, I'd say most of the people voting are either stupid or ignorant of reality.

So what is your response? Complacency? Vive le democracie! gogo activism


Competition of ideas man, Mill knew what was up
 
So what is your response? Complacency?

My response is that it is my responsibility to vote, to manage and support my own life, and watch while this once-great nation starts slowly going the way of other failed and economically stagnating democracies.
 
My response is that it is my responsibility to vote, to manage and support my own life, and watch while this once-great nation starts slowly going the way of other failed and economically stagnating democracies.

good. you and me bro. The rest of America is too apathetic to know whats up.
 
actually, i heartily embrace a government which is willing to work to see that no child goes hungry and lives in a peaceful environment
in the view of this old fart, if you can't dream it, then you will never accomplish it.


"Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"
- Dickens
 
Even the most democratic government only represents 50.1% of us

Than I suggest the other 49.9% get off their ass and vote. We get the government we deserve.
 
AND.. another interesting point.

The more democratic you go the more pissed off people get.

Congress? Terrible approval ratings and the most transparent institution/most democratic

Supreme Court? High respect and not very transparent

Abolish the electoral college some people say? Rofl. And then what, the NSM wins 35% plurality in Arizona and we have a Nazi in the House of Representatives?

People like to hate to love democracy :p
 
I think the Libertarian Party is just a distraction.

It would be my preference that they unite behind Ron Paul, and mobilize to take back the GOP, which was founded on many of the ideas that libertarians hold dear.

Anything other than that is going to be a hard and long fight.

I've lost all faith in the GOP. They sold out generations ago. They deserve to go the way of the dinosaur so we can get an actual small government party in office. The best thing to do would be for the actual small government component (or what's left of it) of the GOP to understand the futility of changing the status quo through support of the status quo and come over to support the libertarian candidates.
 
Than I suggest the other 49.9% get off their ass and vote. We get the government we deserve.

Or they can be left alone to decide what is in their own interest. Like I said, pure democracy is nothing more than a glorified lynch mob. I don't care if it's the "tyranny of the few" or the tyranny of the majority". It's that first word in each that's important.
 
I don't care if it's the "tyranny of the few" or the tyranny of the majority". It's that first word in each that's important.

So, you don't wish to have a government run by the few, and you don't wish to have a government run by the majority?

What's left, a government run by the one? And you think that would result in less tyranny?

My opinion is that many in our population are not very bright, mostly interested in short-term gains for themselves personally regardless of harm to others, with little thought for what's better for future generations.

It seems to me our government has represented us very closely.
When we evolve as a people, so will those that represent us.

As I said before, we get the government we deserve.
 
Last edited:
Suffice it to say the more participatory and vocal we are in democracy, the better democracy becomes. Look at places like France, their government is like the way it is because the administration is scared **** less of the activism and protest.
 
So, you don't wish to have a government run by the few, and you don't wish to have a government run by the majority?

What's left, a government run by the one? And you think that would result in less tyranny?

No, the founders had an excellent system of checks and balances. That allowed for the people to steer their government, but not based on their fickle whims. Democracy has its place, but individual rights are more important. Note how I said, "pure democracy." Just because most people want doesn't mean that it's the right policy. Besides, an authoritarian state often just enriches intself.

My opinion is that many in our population are not very bright, mostly interested in short-term gains for themselves personally regardless of harm to others, with little thought for what's better for future generations.

And yet their vote counts just as much as a genius's.

It seems to me our government has represented us very closely.
When we evolve as a people, so will those that represent us.

As I said before, we get the government we deserve.

A large government can't represent the interests of millions of people nearly as well as they can represent themselves with a small government to protect them.
 
I don't entirely understand big government as a concept.

People abstractly are conservative. No one wants "big government"

People programatically liberal, whether its pro-war, education, health care

Big government isn't something you can really measure. The PATRIOT Act is more big brother than anything Obama is doing.
 
I don't entirely understand big government as a concept.

People abstractly are conservative. No one wants "big government"

People programatically liberal, whether its pro-war, education, health care

Big government isn't something you can really measure. The PATRIOT Act is more big brother than anything Obama is doing.

Who said that it wasn't? "Big government" is used for the sake of brevity. Both terms are generraly reletive
 
Last edited:
So, you don't wish to have a government run by the few, and you don't wish to have a government run by the majority?

A government that does less avoids the problem that both of these options can create.
 
Lets let the Parent keep the kid, but subsidize them with money and health care (of course hoping the money actually all goes to helping the kid).
Or take the hated big-government approach and take the child AWAY from the irresponsible parent...
Natural monopolies are very rare. It's extremely difficult to convince buyers to buy only your product for any stretch of time.
Consider the following: You are a big business. Big. You walk into small town A with fifteen million dollars, open a department store for $10 million, and use the other five million to sell your products below cost. You lose money for a short while, but people buy your goods--so all your local small-business competitors go out of business. Then you're the sole store of the kind in the area, and that's when the brutal fun of a monopoly comes in. Just raise prices to astronomical levels, making your money back, and repeat with small town B. There are many unethical business practices that can create monopolies.
 
Or take the hated big-government approach and take the child AWAY from the irresponsible parent...

Usually this does far more harm to the child than giving some assistance or counseling. Child Services rarely ever take the kid away from their parents.

Consider the following: You are a big business. Big. You walk into small town A with fifteen million dollars, open a department store for $10 million, and use the other five million to sell your products below cost. You lose money for a short while, but people buy your goods--so all your local small-business competitors go out of business. Then you're the sole store of the kind in the area, and that's when the brutal fun of a monopoly comes in. Just raise prices to astronomical levels, making your money back, and repeat with small town B. There are many unethical business practices that can create monopolies.

Natural monopolies are very rare. Even with tons of resources. It's very difficult to satisfy the needs and wants of every little niche of consumer demand. What makes it far easier is government regulation. While big business can often get around or absorb the impact of taxes and regulation, small business is left in the dust. Even if their is an exemption for small business, this discourages growth. Hell, many corporations actually help write the regulations themselves. This top-down approach is generally toxic to the atmosphere of innovation and diversity that small entrepreneurs thrive in.
 
Why aren't you big government types out doing charitable work or something? You constantly bitch about the plights of all these people, yet you sit on your ass all day in an internet forum when you could be out there helping someone. What have you done to alleviate their plights? How much of your own time and money have you dedicated to other people's health care, hunger, and shelter? No, you'd rather just sit on your ass bitching, asking the government to take care of your pet projects. God forbid all the big mouth liberals out there actually DO SOMETHING themselves...
 
They'd rather you shoulder the burden. Liberals know more about legalized theft than charity, and they have no problem proving it to you.
 
No, the founders had an excellent system of checks and balances. That allowed for the people to steer their government, but not based on their fickle whims. Democracy has its place, but individual rights are more important.


I don't see Democracy as a threat to individual rights, I see it as supportive of individual rights and the collective good as spelled out in our constitution.

Note how I said, "pure democracy." Just because most people want doesn't mean that it's the right policy.

A large government can't represent the interests of millions of people nearly as well as they can represent themselves with a small government to protect them.

A government that does less avoids the problem that both of these options can create.

Who would you have call the shots if not "We the People" as spelled out in the Constitution?
 
I don't see Democracy as a threat to individual rights, I see it as supportive of individual rights and the collective good as spelled out in our constitution.


As we've seen countless times in history, the majority often isn't interested in the rights of the minority. Look at Jim Crow and the recent laws against gays in Uganda.


Who would you have call the shots if not "We the People" as spelled out in the Constitution?

The Founders specifically say that they didn't want too much democracy. They kept it in line with checks and balances.
 
Who would you have call the shots if not "We the People" as spelled out in the Constitution?

I'm fine with "We the People", but we the people are supposed to follow the Constitution. ;)
 
As we've seen countless times in history, the majority often isn't interested in the rights of the minority. Look at Jim Crow and the recent laws against gays in Uganda.

The way I read it, the majority is what ended Jim Crow and what is likely to end the recent laws against gays in Uganda.

The Founders specifically say that they didn't want too much democracy. They kept it in line with checks and balances.

Yep, not perfect, but a pretty good system.
 
Back
Top Bottom