Why do they “have to”?
I’m fairly sure that Badernik got 400,000 votes (cheesy wiki cite) while David Cobb only recieved 118,000 (cheesy wiki cite)
That’s only because Nader didn’t run as the Green candidate. When he did (in 2000), he got 2.9M votes to Browne’s 0.4M.
*Now * I remember why I hate Ralph Nader with every fiber of my being!
“That’s only because…”? C’mon now, you can do better than that. You asserted that the Greens “have to have more” votes than the Libertarians, and then stated that the Greens get 5-10X the votes in “presidential elections”. As far as you’ve shown that is flatly untrue. They got, what? 7.25X the votes in 2000, which is indeed between 5 and 10, but it only happened once. Perot probably got more votes in 92, but his party collapsed as well.
You forgot Type III: The Abstract Politicians - They’re the ones who are obsessed with the subject of political theory but don’t want to get involved in any political reality. So the Libertarian Party is perfect for them: a political party that’s based entirely on theory and has never won an actual election.
Of course it’s dead.
It died as soon as I quit being a poor young kid, and became a comfortable middle-class guy, with health insurance and a guaranteed pension.
What’s the debate?
Unless it’s new legislation on pensions – which is just, like, ANARCHY!
This makes me smile in remembrance of P.J. O’Rourke’s description of a guy (from Modern Manners), who was looking for a job stopping nuclear wars.
Okay, but if I was a Libertarian I’d be trying to downplay the fact that the greatest success my party has ever achieved was getting seven people elected to a school board in Oregon.
Well, My Dog Votes Libertarian, anyway.
To be honest, I think there are probably any number of voters like myself, who have some if not many views that line up with libertarianism but never vote that way because there’s zero chance that a libertarian will ever be elected. Even if everyone one of us voted libertarian there still wouldn’t be enough votes to get anyone elected, so it feels like throwing a vote away. I don’t really see this ever changing.
No, seriously, Bobtheoptimist, how does Lind’s article misrepresent libertarianism? It’s my understanding even moderate libertarians – as well as pseudo-libertarians like W – want to private education and Social Security.
I have trouble taking this thread seriously anymore, but I’ll give it another shot.
I made the comment that Lind implied that libertarians want to shut down schools and do away with social security* and you replied “Don’t they?” No, we do not. (Disregarding fringe members, usually those affiliated with the Libertarian party)
School vouchers? You betcha. It’s not just Libertarians that want a shot at a decent education for their kids. I’m not sure if you’ve ever heard this, but a public school education is frequently seen as a joke (I’m citeless at the moment).
Social Security privatization - Dubya is not a libertarian and his attempt to do whatever it was he was trying to get done is not a good representation of the Libertarian party (IMHO). The whole point is to simplify and get the gummit OUT of personal choices, not complicate things and increase the government.
The misrepresentation comes from comparing the acts of Bush & Co. to the ideals of libertarians. To me it is exactly like saying that the current prescription drug benefits for Medicare recipients are proof the the Democrats are barking up the wrong tree. The President tried it, it sucks and confuses people, so those stupid Dems need to just go away.
The article was full of non sequitur and disingenuous comparisons between the current administration and Libertarian ideas. Claiming that it will soon be shown that tax cuts don’t work because this administration has no rational fiscal policy is insulting and… um, something else…
Apparently Mr Lind can’t tell the difference between Republicans and Libertarians.
Since we don’t have universal health care, is that proof that the Democrats are done? Would a Republican feel ok with having his/her party judged by the things Clinton did?
Read like a Chewbacca defense.
*I’d try to defend that statement, but since you replied so fast with the “don’t they?”, I feel that I was dead on in my assessment.
Hey, I’d take that job. I’ll even refund double my salary ($100k/yr requested) if I fail. 
He is not ignoring the difference; quite the reverse. Lind has made the point elsewhere that radical Libertarianism is something fundamentally different from moderate libertarianism – something more revolutionary, IOW. In this article, he is talking about moderate libertarians, who work within the Republican Party for the most part; not the radical Libertarians of the LP. And his point is that even moderate libertarians have failed to sell their more systemic reform proposals (school vouchers, SS privatization) to the public.
It’s my experience that it’s almost impossible to have a rational discussion of libertarianism on this board. It quickly descends into absurd sterotyping, strawman arguments, and claims that libertarians are evil. And this thread is supposed to be explicitly about small “l” libertarianism, which makes it even more frustrating. Good luck on your efforts to stay engaged, though.
Well, he is free to assert that Bush is acting out libertarian ideals, but I’m going to call bullshit on him. The things that he mentions are just the ones that didn’t pass, and that Bush screwed up anyway.
What about allowing the Clinton gun ban to expire? That’s libertarian as all get-out.
What about same-sex marriage? Libertarian
Abortion rights? Libertarian
End government support of big-business? Libertarian
That’s just off the top of my head, and we certainly don’t hold exclusive rights to any of those ideas. There are many things we are in favor of that don’t have a lot of public backing, occasionally one gets through that we agree with, but those “Republicans who smoke pot” would have to be pretty baked to propose kicking religion entirely out of government and allow consenting adults to boink however they want.
Trying to tie libertarians to republicans demonstrates to me that he doesn’t understand either. “moderate libertarians who work within the Republican party”? I smell a constantly shifting line. Anything a libertarian might agree with that gets smashed down is proposed by these shadow libertarians, anything that passes is obviously a result of the hard work and dedication of our fine public servents?
I’ve not read his other article, and based on what I saw in this one I’ve no desire.
And John Mace, I stayed out of this for as long as possible because I kept reading that this board was chock-full of libertarians… Either they are a lot brighter than me and know to avoid this stuff, or there aren’t as many of us as some people might think.
As long as BrainGlutton is making honest points, I’ll keep tossing out my opinions. But I’ll probably avoid similar threads in the future.
Politics and religion - I keep telling myself to stay out of it, but I just don’t listen to me.
I wouldn’t say “chock-full”, but I’d certainly say overrepresented as compare to the real world. We had one real Libertarian as a long-time poster, but he left a few months ago. The rest, AFAIK, are small “l” libertarian, who are often referred to as “conservative” here.
libertarian=conservative 
People must glance at one or two points and run with 'em.
Yeah John Mace I s’pose there’s no real point in drawing out the debate, no one’s really listening, are they?
Besides, the two-party system is working out so well for us
Sure would be terrible to be associated with a party that’s against that kind of thing.
Even the OP (who was responsible for that quote) dismisses libertarians as covert republicans (or vice-versa). I guess if I got all my information from L Neil Smith and the Democratic party, I’d think libertarians were nutballs too.
I should go back to arguing with Martini Enfield about service rifles…
I never (in this thread) said they were nutballs, only that they are politically marginal and doomed to remain so.
No, that’s fine. I freely admit that there are some serious nutballz out there (remember the blue guy in Montana?)