• 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!

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

Why you are hesitant to vote Libertarian?


  • Total voters
    25
  • Poll closed .
I will gladly join the Libertarian Party and would vote consistently Libertarian IF they adopted the libertarianism of the Founders instead of pushing their own form of authoritarianism.

Gary Johnson was my governor and was well liked though he made some really serious mistakes as governor. But I would have been tempted to vote for him anyway except for two reasons:

1. His open borders policy.

2. His anti-religion policy.

The Libertarian Party -- call it the big "L" policy -- differs from libertarianism -- little "l" -- in that it would use the power of the federal government to restrict the ability of the people to exercise their religion in any manner that the Libertarians see as the least bit offensive or discriminatory to anybody. And that is so far off the mark of how the Founders saw liberty that Libertarians don't deserve the name they give themselves.

And I believe in this modern world, a nation needs one language, one culture, and strong borders or it isn't really a nation at all. And open borders would so dilute the American culture that we would no longer be America and would lose all our ability to be that city on a hill--a shining example to the rest of the world to emulate. We haven't been that for some time now and I for one think that dream is worth shooting for. Libertarians for the most part don't.



??? the poll is supposed to stay open for 60 days... is it really not open?
 
Some of my LP friends got really mad at me when I posted a pic I called "A Libertarian privately-built highway"


View attachment 67209865

Entirely likely. lol. Still, I can't say I'm all that threatened by a problem that exists because roads are literally the worst solution ever.
 
Entirely likely. lol. Still, I can't say I'm all that threatened by a problem that exists because roads are literally the worst solution ever.



Could you expand on that please?
 
Happens to almost everyone if you live long enough.


I'm currently laid up with a blown out knee, just started going out a little yesterday. I'm grateful for ramps, self-opening doors, and other things that make access easier for a gimp.

I expect to recover fully in time, but it isn't the first time I've been disabled for a good long while.


Getting disability is hard, I know people that need to be on it and can't get it.

Rest well. I hope you have a speedy return.
 
The LP had arguably its best showing in the last Prez election, yet still only polled about 3.2%, despite how hated the main party candidates were.


Why won't YOU vote Libertarian? Or what gives you pause about voting for them? Specifically?


I lean libertarian-ish on a good many issues, but I didn't vote for them this time for a number of reasons. One was the snowball-in-hades chance of winning, as my main purpose was NeverHillary. Other issues I have with libertarians are the overly-absolutist positions on border/immigration and foreign policy.


So let's find out.... if you have any inclination at all to favor the LP, answer the poll about why you didn't vote for them or have reservations about them.

In the last two elections I did vote for Gary Johnson. But this election my vote had more to do with my detesting both Clinton and Trump. They were both horrible candidates and in my opinion, whichever one won would definitely leave this country much worst off once they left office than when they first entered.

In 2012, I had lost faith in Obama and didn't trust Romney, Johnson was a logical choice. I trusted him much more that the other two to do what is best for this country. Now I have always classified myself as a Goldwater conservative with some of Ross Perot thrown in. But looking at what Libertarians stand for, perhaps I need to rethink that

I firmly believe the U.S. shouldn’t get involved in other countries business or go to war unless our national security is directly threaten. Then if we go to war, the congress needs to declare war, none of this resolution for the use of military force, no bypassing congress, they either declare war as the Constitution states or we don’t go to war or use military force.

Now I am against illegal immigration and loose borders. I think this country ought to control its borders and only allow people to enter this country that go through the proper framework, paperwork, background checks, obtain visas etc.

As for abortion, I believe that is strictly up to the woman, it’s her body and she can do with it as she chooses. I am also in favor of legalizing prostitution as I stated, it is the woman’s body. Along the same lines that government should be totally out of marriage and if two men or two women want to get married, that is up to them. I also think if someone wants more than one wife or husband, that is totally up to those involved, not the government.

Legalization of drugs, I am against this for most drugs that are already illegal.

Social programs, I grew up in the 1950’s when family took care of family, neighbors took care of neighbors, when churches, charities such as the Red Cross, Salvation Army, Jaycees, etc. helped the poor and the sick. No government involvement. It worked then, why not now.

Fair tax, flat tax doesn’t bother me. I am of the mind that come tax time one should be able to do their taxes on a 3 X 5 card. Our tax system today is the government’s way of influencing and controlling its citizens behavior.

I oppose almost to all gun control measures, the second amendment states shall not be infringed and I take it that is what it means.

Small government, the Federal government should look after the country as a whole, national security, foreign relation and little else. Let each state take care of their people or the welfare of its own people.

Perhaps I am more of a Libertarian in most aspects than I ever thought. But elections for me still boils down to the candidate. I always have and always will vote for whom I deem the best candidate available regardless of party and that includes third parties and independents.
 
And I believe in this modern world, a nation needs one language, one culture, and strong borders or it isn't really a nation at all. And open borders would so dilute the American culture that we would no longer be America and would lose all our ability to be that city on a hill--a shining example to the rest of the world to emulate. We haven't been that for some time now and I for one think that dream is worth shooting for. Libertarians for the most part don't.

I actually agree with that. My reasons are however probably different than yours. If you want to maintain a certain governmental level then you have to maintain a certain culture that supports it. That means among other things that you have to control who comes in. If you just let anyone in then you will quickly find your culture will be altered and with it the belief in limited government.

Of course, other libertarians hate that view because it limits freedom of movement, but I think it is necessary to control these matters in order to maintain everything else.
 
It doesn't to the extent the farmer guy does, but it speaks to the argument that we are interconnected and people/companies, at the least, act with their own interests at heart, not that of the wider community. He was ok with that. We should wait until we are harmed before then seeking legal remedies. Regulations do prevent most people/companies from fouling water, for instance and provide a solution that does not rely on the resources of the individual harmed but the power of the government. That's good because most individuals do not have the financial resources to sue in civil court.

Wouldn't that only mean reform to civil law is needed?

No taxes are not theft. Taxes support roads other kinds of infrastructure, fire and police, schools so we educate the populace so they are prepared to take their place in supporting themselves and society. Etc... This speaks directly to the argument that no man is an island.

Nothing you said after the first sentence even gets close to debunking the argument. The only way you could debunk the argument is to show that the word theft is being wrongly applied, but simply saying that it pays for all these things is only speaking towards what the stolen money is used for, not if it is stolen in the first place.
 
??? the poll is supposed to stay open for 60 days... is it really not open?

I saw that after I posted--originally misread the date-so I took out that comment in an edit. Sorry about that.
 
Wouldn't that only mean reform to civil law is needed?



Nothing you said after the first sentence even gets close to debunking the argument. The only way you could debunk the argument is to show that the word theft is being wrongly applied, but simply saying that it pays for all these things is only speaking towards what the stolen money is used for, not if it is stolen in the first place.

That was his point. Which I did not agree with. We need government regulations to help keep water, for instance, clean.

Theft means your stuff is gone. In the case of taxes, you are getting something for your money. As I have previously listed. If your car is stolen. That's it. Nothing further comes of it except that you have to replace it.
 
Because Trump didn't run as a libertarian..
 
Johnson has gotten a bit lazy and just didn't draw me in. I voted mostly on issues this time around and ignored the presidential tickets altogether. None of them excited me.
My guess as to why everyone is so reluctant to vote 3rd is
a...the assumption anything outside the status quo can't win
b...vote against the "other side" candidate and keeping the party afloat is of most importance, more so than issues and convictions.
It is a guess.
 
I actually agree with that. My reasons are however probably different than yours. If you want to maintain a certain governmental level then you have to maintain a certain culture that supports it. That means among other things that you have to control who comes in. If you just let anyone in then you will quickly find your culture will be altered and with it the belief in limited government.

Of course, other libertarians hate that view because it limits freedom of movement, but I think it is necessary to control these matters in order to maintain everything else.

We aren't all that different in that respect. There was a time long ago that open borders were pretty much the standard all over the world. Certainly there were no immigration policies which have been a fairly recent thing in world history. But in this day and age they are necessary if we are to retain our value systems, the liberties we cherish, and a culture that should be a shining example for all.

It is not that the Libertarians have their own value system and wish to exercise it. I'm with them regarding that. It is that they would use federal powers to force everybody to utilize the same system. And that is not what the Founders intended.
 
A party who officially states that they want to end medicare, social security and (I think) every other entitlement program?

Yeah, I don't need to see any more. If they shift away from this Ayn Rand insanity and become a party that advocates for minimalism, populism and entitlement reform instead of killing entitlements altogether, I'd be on board. But that's not libertarianism. I want to see a new, Bernie Sanders style party that stops the war on drugs, stops for profit prisons, stops the death penalty, but doesn't go after guns or the military and reforms all entitlements - welfare first and foremost. What would that be called? Liberaltarianism?

I'd still tax the hell out of the super rich. I'm guessing Trump hasn't paid income taxes in 3 decades and that's why he doesn't release his returns. I'm not down with that.
 
We aren't all that different in that respect. There was a time long ago that open borders were pretty much the standard all over the world. Certainly there were no immigration policies which have been a fairly recent thing in world history. But in this day and age they are necessary if we are to retain our value systems, the liberties we cherish, and a culture that should be a shining example for all.

It is not that the Libertarians have their own value system and wish to exercise it. I'm with them regarding that. It is that they would use federal powers to force everybody to utilize the same system. And that is not what the Founders intended.



An argument in favor of state autonomy is that each state could implement differing systems and you could vote with your feet.


Can't really happen with the Fedgov running almost everything...
 
An argument in favor of state autonomy is that each state could implement differing systems and you could vote with your feet.


Can't really happen with the Fedgov running almost everything...

The problem comes in that states start to get out of control and become essentially little tyrannies in of themselves. What makes it worse is that they start to copy each other and before you know it a bunch of states have the same oppressive laws. It's all fine and good to limit the federal government, but state governments need a great deal of restraint too.
 
The problem comes in that states start to get out of control and become essentially little tyrannies in of themselves. What makes it worse is that they start to copy each other and before you know it a bunch of states have the same oppressive laws. It's all fine and good to limit the federal government, but state governments need a great deal of restraint too.


The states have their own constitutions, a republican form of government, and elections. As long as people can vote by moving to another state, there would probably be sufficient checks and balances against most states going to extremes.
 
The LP had arguably its best showing in the last Prez election, yet still only polled about 3.2%, despite how hated the main party candidates were.


Why won't YOU vote Libertarian? Or what gives you pause about voting for them? Specifically?


I lean libertarian-ish on a good many issues, but I didn't vote for them this time for a number of reasons. One was the snowball-in-hades chance of winning, as my main purpose was NeverHillary. Other issues I have with libertarians are the overly-absolutist positions on border/immigration and foreign policy.


So let's find out.... if you have any inclination at all to favor the LP, answer the poll about why you didn't vote for them or have reservations about them.

I would have been fine with voting for Gary Johnson if he wAsnt such a clueless putz. Libertarians need to stop embracing Democrat and Republican losers and start cultivating internal talent.
 
I would have been fine with voting for Gary Johnson if he wAsnt such a clueless putz. Libertarians need to stop embracing Democrat and Republican losers and start cultivating internal talent.

No, they need to realize that the overwhelming majority of American voters have no interest in their platform. They don't lose because they keep putting clueless putzes like Johnson on the ticket, they keep losing because nobody takes their ridiculous platform seriously.
 
BTW, discussion of these issues, and what the LP could do to broaden its support, is also invited and encouraged.

Dramatically change it's platform. That's the only way.
 
That was his point. Which I did not agree with. We need government regulations to help keep water, for instance, clean.

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

Theft means your stuff is gone. In the case of taxes, you are getting something for your money. As I have previously listed. If your car is stolen. That's it. Nothing further comes of it except that you have to replace it.

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



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.



You haven't answered how do you run even a minimal gov't without taxes.
 
You haven't answered how do you run even a minimal gov't without taxes.

He won't answer the question because he has no answers. A lot of libertarians have a ridiculously unrealistic view of the world. They just want things to happen, they have no clue how they actually would. They have no plan, they just have dreams. That's why libertarianism is so laughably ridiculous.
 
An argument in favor of state autonomy is that each state could implement differing systems and you could vote with your feet.


Can't really happen with the Fedgov running almost everything...

Exactly.
 
Back
Top Bottom