Posted on 12/20/2006 3:27:19 PM PST by neverdem
In a recent column, I discussed the disaffection of libertarians within the conservative coalition, suggesting that many might be more at home on the political left. A number of readers wrote to say that they agreed with my analysis and had left the Republican Party for the Libertarian Party. Among these is former Republican Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, who officially joined the Libertarians last week.
Of course, people are free to do what they want to do, and if they want to join the Libertarians, that's their business. But if their goal is to actually change policy in a libertarian direction, then they are making a big mistake, in my opinion. The Libertarian Party is worse than a waste of time. I believe it has done far more to hamper the advancement of libertarian ideas and policies than it has done to advance them. In my view, it is essential for the Libertarian Party to completely disappear before libertarian ideas will again have political currency.
The basic problem with the Libertarian Party is the same problem faced by all third parties: It cannot win. The reason is that under the Constitution a candidate must win an absolute majority in the all-important Electoral College. It won't do just to have the most votes in a three- or four-way race. You have to have at least 270 electoral votes to win, period.
Theoretically, this is no barrier to third parties at the state and local level. But in practice, if a party cannot win at the presidential level, it is very unlikely to achieve success at lower levels of government. In short, the Electoral College imposes a two-party system on the country that makes it prohibitively difficult for third parties to compete.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
You got that right... And they all seem to be cheering on their favorite RINO's.
An excerpt from a debate I participated in over 20 years ago:
..."Libertarians within an existing party could work to not only influence, but eventually convert the entire party to a libertarian perspective and program."
This argument underestimates the intelligence and the political skills of the current leadership of any party libertarians might join. These men are acquainted with libertarian thought; they are not ignorant of the ideas we profess and the kinds of policies we would like to see instituted - they simply believe otherwise - they oppose us, and they would charge libertarians within their party who attempted to change that party with subversion - and they would be right. A party so enfeebled as to be taken over in this manner would be an empty prize.
*****************************************************************
Twenty years down the road, I'll settle for a reasonably sympathetic party, which in Canada is the Conservatives. I'm not so sure about your Republicans.
[Amendment X] The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Any functions of those organizations that step on either of the above are not legitimate function given to government. NASA, the FAA, the FCC, the BATFE, ect... all explicitly are extra-Constitutional and should be disbanded.
Penumbras and emanations are not allowed.
Right. So I guess we should just let airplanes go up and fly around with no sort of regulation, huh? This sort of reasoning is exactly why Libertarians are losers.
Yes. Private solutions would already have had the GPS system up and running. Radio station indicators were a private companies idea for finding their way around the country, but only government regulation has kept this outmoded practice up and running.
And that is just one SMALL piece of that particular topic. The types of aircraft, included safety features, performance, ect... are so tightly controlled it is almost impossible to move an experimental aircraft into the open market.
All because of an organization at the Federal level that has no Constitutional authority to exist. If you WANT the FedGov to have that power, Amend the Constitution. That is what it is there for.
The fact that you CAN'T seem to reason at all is why you get your ass handed to you on these threads. You make such a blanket stupid statement like that, then will spend the next several threads trying to dodge it. If you would have just THOUGHT a bit about how a private market solution could have come up with an air traffic system, you wouldn't have made yourself look like an idiot.
The good, old "necessary and proper" clause. Yes, true enough, congress has the authority to pass laws which are to enforce and carry out its LEGITIMATE authority, as SPECIFIED. However, nowhere in the Constitution is FedGov granted authority to get into retirement, education, transportation, energy or any of the other things it is into, period. The CLOSEST it comes to transportation is the building and maintenance of POST ROADS. That's it and all. Nor is the Federal Government granted authority in criminal matters, EXCEPT ONLY for three or four things... treason, piracy, counterfeiting and one other that slips my mind right now. Unless something takes place on a military reservation, which, legitimately, is the only land the feds are supposed to own outside DC, the seat of government (or SOG or Soggy Bottom). So your response is no more than one would expect from a big government liberal. I would suggest you go to http://www.Constitution.org and read the Constitution for the United States, AND the other founding documents. See for yourself what the Founders had in mind. And stop trying to blow smoke up other folks's skirts about what the Constitution means when it says something. You sound like that idiot congresswoman, Elaine Tauscher, who said that the Constitution was like her old blue dress... that fit her one time but is no longer useful to her...
The problem is, the Republicans haven't given people who don't agree with the religious right, pork-barrel spending, or general incompetence much of an alternative.Exactly! Neither of the two major parties are even close.
I do believe you're correct. Except that today's Republican Party is already an enfeebled, empty shell, with no principles and no position except expediency and get-elected-itis. It's "OUR team can do no wrong because they have the magic letter after their names, while the other team can do no right because they have the wrong talisman... they have the evil D."
Even though growth of government under the Magic Talisman has been exponentially GREATER than under the evil and vile clowntoons... Billy Jeff, for all his trashing of all I hold dear, could NOT have grown, and did not grow, government to anywhere NEAR the degree accomplished by Bush, the republican shaman, with the kind cooperation of the republican congress, who took great umbrage at passing the spending bills of the Ds.
All too often, I face the "lesser of two evils" and, as we all know, the "lesser" is still "evil".
Let me put it this way, Merle Haggard's "Big City" could be my theme song.
Regards
Could be, could be... I gave up on the LP a long time ago, right after its local organizer (I use the term loosely) tried to hold a meeting on the sidewalk, in the dark, because he'd neglected to make sure the meeting hall would be open.
So, where are all the LP Mayors and Selectmen and all the veteran workers from their campaigns who now, hardened and made expert by political combat, stand ready to work for the LP candidate for Governor?
Then you've voted Democrat. But by all means vote as you must, but while the Democrats go power crazy then don't whine.
I'm curious as to just how "I've NEVER voted socialist or socialist-lite" translates into "Then you've voted Democrat." Please enlighten me (and many others, I'm sure, who have the same question).
The Republican party is not some sort of top-down fascistic organization
You want to know how to run as a Republican for office? Go to the proper office and fill out the forms to run as a Republican. That's it. In most states, if you win the primary, you're the nominee, that's it.
But the Libertarian party, by definition, represents libertarian philosophy. It is such a top-down organization. It does enforce its will on its candidates.
As such, if you call yourself a libertarian, you're adhering to the principles that the LP states that it supports simply because it defines libertarianism.
Both of the major parties are socialist. The difference is, the Republicans practice theirs in the name of God. As He is my witness, I don't ever want to hear the phrase "Compassionate conservatism" ever again.
Over the last 225+ years, the development of new technologies has created something of a need for the government to do things not authorized in the Constitution. The proper reaction to such technologies, however, is not to simply declare that the government should be able to do anything it deems necessary, but rather to amend the Constitution to allow the new powers that are required.
I would much rather have a dozen real amendments to the Constitution, authorizing things like the Air Force, FCC, etc. than have thousands of de-facto amendments by judges who ignore parts of the Constitution that have become impractical in their unamended form.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.