**official Vote Libertarian Thread**

[wilheldp 0]

I have seen this topic popping up in all of the online poker ban threads, so I thought I would give the Libertarians on this forum to make a compelling case in a single thread. Below are some snippets from other threads, including my case for voting Libertarian.

I voted Libertarian in the last presidential election. If anybody had actually taken the time to look at what Michael Badnarik had to say, a lot of other people would have done the same. Instead, they just do exactly what their party leaders told them to do, or what the media told them to do and voted Red or Blue. I don't give a rat's *** when people tell me that I flushed my vote down the toilet, or that I'm a nutjob for voting 3rd party. I voted for the candidate that I thought would do the best job. I have heard countless people saying that they voted AGAINST Bush, or AGAINST Kerry. I say that THEY are the ones that flushed their vote down the toilet because they didn't vote for the candidate that they thought would do the best job...they just voted against the one that they thought would do slightly worse.And before you go railing against my attack on the media above, let me ask you something. If a candidate for President of the United States was arrested during the campaign, do you think you would have heard about it? Well, Badnarik and the Green Party candidate, David Cobb, were arrested outside of the St. Louis Presidential Debate because they tried to serve a Order to Show Cause that those two candidates were excluded from the debate. This news didn't exactly make it into the nightly news or the newspapers the next morning because, who cares? They were just candidates to lead our country.

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers and then you cash in on guilt."Ayn Rand --- Atlas Shrugged --- 1957

Ayn Rand was a noted Libertarian. Coincidentally, Alan Greenspan was a student and collaborator of Any Rand's...until he became Fed Chief and completely trampled the Libertarian ideal of a gold standard.

I will vote Libertarian the moment the Libertarian party becomes relevant and runs a candidate that has a chance. Seriously I agree with alot of Libertarian ideals, but the biggest problem with our government really is the 2-party system and I see no way of changing that right now.

Hint: Elections are not like the roulette, where if you pick the winner you get a prize. They are your chance to speak your voice. If you vote based on "who has a chance", even if they disagree with you, you have completely defeated the point of elections, and harm yourself in the long run.

Seriously, voting in this election is like voting between eating filet mignon, a piece of **** with peanuts, or a piece of **** without peanuts. And everyone's saying, well pieces of **** usually win, so I'm gonna vote for the one with peanuts since that has more nutritional value then the one without. Either way you're voting for the same thing, and it's destroying the country.

[Balloon guy 158]

I've always kind of liked libertarianism, but Someone once said something that made alot of sense;If this country was libertarian from the get go, there would never have been roads, dams, police forces, armies, etc.I know this is generalized, and there are some great men that are libertarian, like William F. Buckley, so I'm not saying I would never vote this way. Just don't see it happening in the near future.

[wilheldp 0]

If this country was libertarian from the get go, there would never have been roads, dams, police forces, armies, etc.

Those things would exist, but they would be built and maintained by private industries. I know this sounds like a bad thing on the surface, but think of the value of competition in roads and dams...they would be better built and better maintained so that you would pay to use one company's roads over another. That's right...you would have to pay to use roads...but you wouldn't have to pay to build roads in places that you never visit, as you are doing right now (through taxation).Capitalism thrives in the Libertarian utopia (that will never exist).

[nutzbuster 7]

YO!Sadly this country seems to be heading towards one with 2 extreme parties...hard left and hard right.What the Helll happened to moderation? Republicans (generalization) used to follow the less is more matra, I.E. smaller less intrusive gov., lower taxes and strong defense. Im not so sure they are about that anymore, not now, and it sadens me greatly.Democrats seem Helll bent on moving towards socialism more than ever before. I think this is a very bad course for this country although I cannot deny some of their doctrine has merit.What happened to the middle ground? The first candidate to figure this out and put together a moderate campaign, to exploit this situation and run to correct it, will be the next president.

[Scanner313 0]

All I have to say is that anyone who has never checked out the Libertarian website should do so now. Read about what they stand for and make an informed choice. If you like it, great. If not, that's fine.

[wilheldp 0]

The first candidate to figure this out and put together a moderate campaign, to exploit this situation and run to correct it, will be the next president.

Therein lies the problem. Badnarik spent over $1 Million on his campaign, and had I not mentioned him before, most people wouldn't know who the hell I was talking about when I mention his name. The media typically picks one particularly useless 3rd Party candidate (it was Nader during the last election), makes some jokes at his expense, and that is their "comprehensive coverage" of the 3rd Party ticket. The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is led by former party leaders from the Republicans and Democrats. What chance is there that a 3rd Party candidate can even make it on the stage with the "Big Two" to debate real issues (not just the respective talking points of the Republicrats)? None...in fact, if they try to get in, they get arrested quietly outside of the venue.

[Scanner313 0]

Those things would exist, but they would be built and maintained by private industries. I know this sounds like a bad thing on the surface, but think of the value of competition in roads and dams...they would be better built and better maintained so that you would pay to use one company's roads over another. That's right...you would have to pay to use roads...but you wouldn't have to pay to build roads in places that you never visit, as you are doing right now (through taxation).

Perfectly stated.

Capitalism thrives in the Libertarian utopia (that will never exist).

Sadly, if people don't wake up and realize that the government controls their lives, you're right. It never will exist. But if enough people can spread the word and get other people to wake up, anything is possible. Don't forget all of the "major" parties that came and went over the history of America... the "Federalist" party, the "Whigs", oh, and yes, there was once even a "Democratic-Republican" party. Can you believe that? The separate "Democratic" and "Republican" parties didn't really come into their current positions of power until the mid to late 1800's. So nothing is impossible if people truly want change. It's waking people up to what is going on around them that is the hardest part. I don't think most people care, which is truly sad!

[hblask 1]

If this country was libertarian from the get go, there would never have been roads, dams, police forces, armies, etc.

I refer to this as the "Pounding Rocks Theory". The basis for it seems to be that humans, as a group, would all be living in caves pounding rocks together unless wise bureaucrats from an overzealous central government were there to lead them to wisdom and light. Historically, there seems to be no evidence for such a theory, yet it comes up again and again as evidence for the need for central planning.It's interesting to note the quality of these things as run by the gov't sector as compared to the quality of various products and services in the free market. If I built a store with a bottleneck at the checkout so that it added 20 minutes to my shopping time, how long would I stay in business? Yet that is exactly what happens with roads all the time -- poor design *guarantees* delays of 20 minutes or more. Or visit the DMV. Or your local SS office. And ask a non-rich non-white city dweller what they think of the gov't run police forces.The history of humanity is that free trade with rule of law and secure property rights leads to innovation and wealth. Central planning and control-by-politics leads to poverty, death, and harm.Placing things into the hands of the least efficient institution in all of society is just plan bad policy. The Libertarians are the ONLY party that wants to give people their lives back.

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

Bill Maher is Libertarian, and I'll do whatever he tells me.only half kidding, I like Bill Maher

[keith crime 8]

Doug Stanhope in 08 he's running libertarian

[Dirtydutch 8]

Doug Stanhope in 08 he's running libertarian

He's got my vote, and I'm not entirely joking. He'll never get the nod, but if he does, I'm voting for him. The two parties lost their minds long ago, and it's since become pointless to choose Turd Sandwich over Giant Douche; they're both so bad it almost doesn't matter.

[wilheldp 0]

He's got my vote, and I'm not entirely joking. He'll never get the nod, but if he does, I'm voting for him. The two parties lost their minds long ago, and it's since become pointless to choose Turd Sandwich over Giant Douche; they're both so bad it almost doesn't matter.

If more peole would realize this, then Libertarians would cease to be "irrelevant" and may even win some seats in Congress after a while. After that, it isn't far fetched to believe that a Libertarian presidential candidate actually stands a chance. But none of this will be possible until people wake up and vote for the best candidate instead of the less useless of the Big Two candidates.

[iggymcfly 0]

I've always kind of liked libertarianism, but Someone once said something that made alot of sense;If this country was libertarian from the get go, there would never have been roads, dams, police forces, armies, etc.I know this is generalized, and there are some great men that are libertarian, like William F. Buckley, so I'm not saying I would never vote this way. Just don't see it happening in the near future.

What do you think Thomas Jefferson was? Put his ideals in line with a modern party, and they'd be waaaaaaaaaaaaay waaaay closer to Libertarian than Democratic or Republican. In fact, I'd say that's the ideal that the country was founded on all the way up until the early twentieth century.For the record, the modern Libertarian party certainly doesn't believe in dismantling the Army or the police forces, and in fact is generally tough on violent crime. They just believe that your everyday Joe should be able to play poker in peace, smoke a joint occasionally if he wants to, and not have to give half of his earnings to the government if he does well.

[ShakeZuma 585]

do libertarians like black people? cause this is a make or break kind of thing for me

[Petoria 0]

I'm going Libertarian in the next election most likely. The only thing I really don't like is their drug policy.

[pckt10s 0]

are these librarians gonna be hot...

[Dirtydutch 8]

do libertarians like black people? cause this is a make or break kind of thing for me

Well we do have a lot of breeding programs, but most of them are more an effort to get laid than anything.

[mk 11]

Yeah, remember the Articles of Confederation? Didn't work.

[wilheldp 0]

I'm going Libertarian in the next election most likely. The only thing I really don't like is their drug policy.

What don't you like about it? Just like "moral" issues like gambling, abortion, gay marriage, etc., the Libertarian stance on drugs is that it isn't any of the government's ****ing business.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I'm more of a civil Libertarian. Does that count?

[mk 11]

I'm more of a civil Libertarian. Does that count?

Me too. I love what they have to say about social issues, but when it comes to economic issues, libertarians are just as crazy as say, communists.

[CobaltBlue 662]

Yeah, remember the Articles of Confederation? Didn't work.

QFT.That's been my main beef with Libertarianism since I started working out my political views in high-school. Every time this country has flirted with the notion (Articles of Confederation, wildcat banks, CSA), it's ended in failure/chaos. I've always preferred the Federalists (Hamilton) to the Anti-Federalists (Jefferson). I'm sympathetic to the libertarian ideal, but it's not practical.That said, I'm pretty pissed about this poker thing...and I really don't know what to do. The Libertarians certainly share my view on this issue (even though I disagree with most of their other policies), the Democrats seem pretty split, and the Republicans should be on my side if they actually stuck to the small-government ideals that they espoused. Essentially, I'm effed when it comes to voting.As for "vote wasting", I've voted for McCain in the past two Presidential elections. Pretty funny how riled up that gets people.

[Ron_Mexico 4,219]

Me too. I love what they have to say about social issues, but when it comes to economic issues, libertarians are just as crazy as say, communists.

ya can't have it all

[wilheldp 0]

Me too. I love what they have to say about social issues, but when it comes to economic issues, libertarians are just as crazy as say, communists.

What is so crazy about Libertarian economic policy? The people get to keep as much of thier hard earned money as humanly possible, and the government doesn't provide nearly as many useless services as it does today. The people get to decide what ex-governmental services were important to them, and pay for them with the money that the government is no longer stealing from them through taxation.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

My problem with the uber-privitization of governmental services is that certain situations are INHERENTLY unprofitable, and the private sector- by definition- operates according ONLY to profit.What if there were a road on which few people drove. Perhaps a few neighborhood farmers, a few times a week. There's no real "thru-traffic" and it's not a major thouroghfare. If a private corporation decided to collect affordable, reasonable tolls, they'd soon find that the construction, upkeep, maintenence, and man-hours would outweigh the net-income collected from said road.So what would they do?Ignore the road. I have NO PROBLEM subsidizing a road in hicksville Northern Michigan, even though I generally only drive in high-traffic areas. I'm willing to pay a premium- and even suffer the inevitable ineffeciency of road-work on "MY" roads- for the peace of mind that comes with knowing all (or most) roads are at least somewhat of a priority.Another problem is the myth of "competition." If one company is neglecting a stretch of road, could a separate corporation take over? Maybe. But there'd be haggling, negotiating, and the costs of the transfer could be prohibitive for all parties, especially the people who need to use said road for their businesses and lives.I'm tired and hungover, so I'm not articulating myself very well, but I'd much rather put up with an inefficient bureaucracy than the alternative. I'm not well versed on the subject, but I'm willing to allow that privitization of certain government sectors would lead to an OVERALL increase in net benefits. But, as with most situations, the benefits would likely be spread among those in slightly-negative, neutral, and positive situations, at the expense of those already in clearly negative situations. The rich get richer, and the have-nots have less. That's how profit-driven situations generally work...Wang