The Libertarian Effect

Real Clear Politics ^ | 11/13/06 | ROSS KAMINSKY

[jonesboheim]

Egalitarian = socialist = communist = Marxist...

Capitalism = Conservatism = Fascism ????

It doesn't make any sense, my friend.

[jonesboheim]

I should probably insert "authoritarianism" in there somewhere, but my point is that your connection is patently proven false by history. If socialists believe all cultures are fundamentally equal, why did we have a Cold War? There would be no reason for the Iron Curtain to descend and for there to be 40 years of rift between the Soviets and the West if they fundamentally believed all cultures are equal.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

It doesn't make any sense, my friend.

No, you don't...

[Triple]

Not hardly.

Republican on a power hungry spending spree put the dems in control. It is because of republican behavior that they lost.

R next to a name is not a free pass to mis-behave.

[photodawg]

When you have to waffle around about whether out of 47% of the electorate you could find at least 2% Republicans, you're really, really desperate.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

If you would stop wasting our time trying to win an argument and just try to understand what I'm saying we might have a productive conversation. My point remains that you can't productively analyze the logic of a factual occurrence by interjecting hypotheticals. If you would simply admit that logically, if the LIBertarians had voted for republicans they would have beaten the dems we could then move to the more hypothetical issues. The truth of the analysis of the LIBertarian vote, might also apply to the conservative vote, and the catholic vote and many other groups. We can analyze that with hard voting data. The reasons why some republicans, conservatives, catholics and yes LIBertarians just refused to vote at all are also important issues . They just can't be as easily analyzed. There is no single reason why 47% of the voters stayed home, in fact a 53% turnout in a non presidential year is pretty good and also should be analyzed. To make such a simplistic statement as " There were more than enough Republicans in that 47% to get him another 2% and they stayed home. If they do it again, it's going to happen again. Figure it out or get used to losing." is not productive merely vindictive and superficial. '08 has many variables that differ from '06, among them, Presidential vote, presidential candidate selection,changing economic conditions, possibility of terrorist attack in US, war with iran and/or syria, and many more. Please give some thought to what you are saying and doing on this website, while some people are simply here to criticize or argue, many others use it as a source of knowledge, ideas and communication. Nice talking to you.

[tacticalogic]

If you would stop wasting our time trying to win an argument and just try to understand what I'm saying we might have a productive conversation. My point remains that you can't productively analyze the logic of a factual occurrence by interjecting hypotheticals. If you would simply admit that logically, if the LIBertarians had voted for republicans they would have beaten the dems we could then move to the more hypothetical issues.

Sorry, I'm not buying it. One is no more hypothetical than the other, and I think all you're after is agreement on one specific hypothetical so you can "win" a libertarian bashing argument. I serously doubt you're interested in "moving on" to "other hypotheticals" once you've gotten it.

[kinoxi]

It's lame to imply that all the libertarians look at are the fiscal issues. Whatever.

It's lame to say all the conservatives look at are fiscal issues. I fail to see your point. Some semblance of fiscal responsibility would have swayed more voters. Do you disagree?

[Preachin']

"It's lame to say all the conservatives look at are fiscal issues. I fail to see your point. Some semblance of fiscal responsibility would have swayed more voters. Do you disagree?"

No. But don't make it appear that fiscal issues are all that matters to Liberaltarians.

I have contended all along that the GOPs defeat happened because they did not run on the economy, which is roaring.

They would've kept the political middle in their bag.

I speak of the political middle. I do not consider the Liberaltarians to be either. On fiscal issues yes, but on social issues they make the democrats look groovy.

[FYREDEUS]

I'm not sure I'd agree with defining Libertarians as fiscally conservative but socially liberal.

What does "socially liberal" mean? - the problem with defining Libertarians as "socially liberal" imo is that the meaning of 'liberal' CHANGED sometime between the 18th and 20th centuries, being stolen by collectivists of various stripes and used in the 20th century for all sorts of Big Government social agendas that 18th century "liberals" would spin in their graves to see...

And while we're on the subject of nomenclature and definition - since when is subjugating individual rights to social[ist] engineering schemes 'progressive'? - it doesnt seem to me [as someone who always supports REAL Progress for Humanity] to be much 'progress' for The People to be liberated from one form of Tyranny [Of Elites...in Americas case foreign elites at that] into a free Republic of free citizens equal under Law only to later be REsubjugated to another form of Tyranny [of the Majority, which fortunately America didnt fall quite as far into as some countries] over the next couple centuries.

I don't find Socialism 'progressive' at all.

[FYREDEUS]

"They believe in anything but limited government, and they only believe in liberty in one's personal life..."

Except when ones personal liberty is about ones personal PROTECTION - that Democrats DON'T believe in.

Armed Man is free and Free Man is armed - Dems don't get that at all.