# Where the Fuck is My Political Party? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 5, 2005, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-the-fuck-is-my-political-party/306952 "2005-06-05T01:10:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-the-fuck-is-my-political-party/306952/61 "2005-06-06T00:35:55Z")
> [@Neurotik](#): > > While I agree with you on general social engineering (vice taxes, etc.) what about externalities and various other market distortions? Certain activities have a cost that is not borne by the person who does that activity, but rather by society as a whole. An example might be air pollution generated by a car vs an SUV. Legalized gambling (in terms of casinos) tend to bring an increase in crime, so then perhaps it becomes fair for the casino to pay an extra tax to compensate for the social costs it is inflicting on the community. As far as I’m concerned, ‘paying for what you use’ includes paying for the external costs of your choices that you impose on others who do not choose to accept those costs but have no way of stopping you. Therefore, I support either A) market-based reforms to correct this and get polluters to pay for their pollution, or B) Some amount of regulation to control this. Again, I base this on a consistent viewing of what it means to be a citizen in a free country. You are free to live as you see fit, so long as you do not force your preferences on others, and so long as you pay your own way. ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-the-fuck-is-my-political-party/306952/62 "2005-06-06T00:42:38Z")
> [@Gangster Octopus](#): > > You know, the one that is full of religious extremists or social engineers? The one that doesn’t lie and resort to dirty tricks? Where th fucking hell is the party that is touch with the peole and not the powerful minorities that pull the strings? Where is the party that represents me, the fiscal conservative and the social liberal? Preach it, brother! Preach it! Lisa, dipping into her pocket as Gangster’s hat is passed. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-the-fuck-is-my-political-party/306952/63 "2005-06-06T01:05:33Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Again, I base this on a consistent viewing of what it means to be a citizen in a free country. You are free to live as you see fit, so long as you do not force your preferences on others, and so long as you pay your own way. Fair enough. I pretty much agree. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-the-fuck-is-my-political-party/306952/64 "2005-06-06T01:28:06Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > As far as I’m concerned, ‘paying for what you use’ includes paying for the external costs of your choices that you impose on others who do not choose to accept those costs but have no way of stopping you. Cool, so when can those of us who saw Iraq as a poor use of our government’s resources expect to receive our tax cut? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-the-fuck-is-my-political-party/306952/65 "2005-06-06T01:46:21Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Cool, so when can those of us who saw Iraq as a poor use of our government’s resources expect to receive our tax cut? Kind of a ridiculous assertion, and not even in the ball park of what Sam was getting at (I’m sure you know this)…but sure. When I get a refund for all the government programs I figure were a poor use of resources. :smack: -XT ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-the-fuck-is-my-political-party/306952/66 "2005-06-06T02:35:23Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > If George Bush came out and said that everyone was going to be issued travel cards, and would need permission from the state to travel from city to city, would you think that social liberals would oppose that? Would it violate the constitution? I believe your answer would be “Yes, and yes”. > Now, how about we don’t do that, but we institute a gasoline tax to discourage travel? Oh, but we’ll give special exemptions to the ‘right’ kind of people and businesses. Same result, but this one’s okay because it’s only ‘economic’? My answers: Violates the constitution due to invasion of privacy and freedom to travel. I would be vehemently opposed. I know you’ve already “seen” me rail against guzzler taxes AND mileage taxes. A straight sales tax is fairer, but tends to get jacked up out here on the “left” coast. By the way, California is talking about mileage taxes yet. These guzzler and mileage taxes are punitive – they punish you for having the “wrong” car, when you are already paying more than most people due to the poor mileage. They are used to pressure you into a “politically correct” car. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > shrug when the government institutes a special tax to punish people who don’t behave the ‘right way’, or even just add taxes to people’s lives that force them to work extra days of their lives to feed the beast. Same thing. You’ve already “seen”me bitch about punitive excise or “sin” taxes that penalize unpopular or easily targeted behavior – junk food, beer, cigarettes etc. People who don’t use these things support such taxes because they won’t have to pay. Either tax straight across the board, or don’t tax. Don’t target specific agroups or specific “unwanted’ types of behavior. It is a form of tyranny by the majority. On drug laws – I think the police should have better things to do than chase some pot head. So, lega pot is OK to me. However, I don’t think the “hard” stuff such as PCP or heroin should be legal. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > To me, if you’re socially liberal, that means you believe that the government has no right to run people’s lives. But too often, ‘social liberals’ tend to oppose only the restrictions on liberty that Republicans like. They’ve got no problem telling you how to run your life in myriad other ways. Now that is something that makes me think you’ve been reading my mind. We already have enough restricitons. > [@Measure for Measure](#): > > Therefore, it may make sense to place greater taxes on certain undesireable activities (like drinking) than on other more beneficial ones (like working). There is a tax rate (on alcohol or some other dubious endeavour) which maximizes tax revenue. Unfortunately, the decision on who to tax more, too often rests on getting the support of those who will not be paying it. If the logic is, you can tax me for an occasional drink or for smoking because you don’t, then I should be able to refuse paying various other taxes because I have no children – why support schools I don’t use? Why not just raise your taxes sky high and not tax me at all? Who decides what is dubious behavior, and should they even have the right to do so? I can accept a reasonable excise tax on the things I want, but when the tax is several times the value of the item (ciggies or cigars are a great example) that is too much. Again, it is a tax levied on some minorty (who has to pay it) by a mojority (who won’t be paying it). > [@Sam Stone](#): > > And there it is. You’ve just casually moved from, “You must pay for what you use” to, "The government should be in the business of social engineering - using punishments and rewards to manipulate the population and force people to behave the ‘right’ ways. > This is the antithesis of social liberalism in the classic sense. Amen amen amen. And here we get to the dreaded “nanny government”. Here we get into the “Big brother knows what is best” area. I’m liberal to the extent that government should be responsible to its citizens, and should have a “safety net” for those who, through no fault of their own just can’t make it – the old, the infirmm, the insane, abandoned wives or children etc. That’s about as far as it goes. I don’t believe government has any right to decide what is good for me or to “punish” something that is none of their business. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-the-fuck-is-my-political-party/306952/67 "2005-06-06T02:46:43Z")
And while we’re at it, let’s head off at the pass the next claim to come along, which is that since smoking adds a burden to the health care system, the state then has a right to prevent people from smoking (or overeating, or…) The flaw in this argument is that I did not choose to have the state pick up my health care tab. A duty cannot be imposed by others. Now, on the other hand, if I need private insurance and the insurer says that they won’t insure me unless I stop smokling, that’s perfectly fine. I am being offered a voluntary contract, and it is my choice to meet their conditions or try to find a contract elsewhere. And if smoking is bad enough for me that no insurers will underwrite me, or they’ll charge me a hefty premium, then that’s also fine. Becase in the end, the choice is ultimately mine to make. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-the-fuck-is-my-political-party/306952/68 "2005-06-06T02:52:41Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > And while we’re at it, let’s head off at the pass the next claim to come along, which is that since smoking adds a burden to the health care system, the state then has a right to prevent people from smoking (or overeating, or…) > > Becase in the end, the choice is ultimately mine to make. That’s right. Example: I pay X dollars every month to an HMO (Kaiser) whether I need their services or not, so there is zero load on the public health care system. Take if further… no smoking, no drinking, no potentially dangerous sports or hobbies or jobs even, all of us safely wrapped in our big bubbles. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-the-fuck-is-my-political-party/306952/69 "2005-06-06T02:55:19Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Oh, it absolutely does. For example, if I’m cold and hungry and want to build myself a structure somewhere, but you tell me that you own all the land around these parts and I may not erect a shelter to keep myself protected from the elements, because only you have the right to use that land, then your economic policies are infringing on my liberty. > > I wouldn’t say that you’re a market fundamentalist: I’d say you’ve got an unearned reverence for property rights, a reverence that tends to dash other rights to pieces. Get rid of that reverence, and we’d agree on a lot more issues. > > Daniel I’m not a market fundamentalist because I agree with you to some extent, at least in the specifics of your example. What if you live in a valley, and someone buys up the only road out of the valley and starts charging $10,000 per trip, which you can work off through long hours at low pay, or starve? A more realistic example would be the airwaves. I support regulation of the airwaves because they are a public good and in finite supply, and therefore you can’t just leave it entirely to the market. My position is that a functioning market is one in which the the price system is working, there is reasonable supply and demand, there are no externalities that prevent the cost of a transaction from being reflected in the price, etc. This describes the market in the vast majority of transactions. But market failures do happen, and I believe the correct role of government in such cases is to set up a regulatory regime that keeps the market functioning. I have no problem with that. That would include the regulation of waterways, public lands, national landmarks, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-the-fuck-is-my-political-party/306952/70 "2005-06-06T02:56:45Z")
I should add that many Libertarians would disagree with me on this, so you can’t call this an accepted libertarian position. But I’m not a doctrinaire libertarian anyway - I just lean more in their direction than anyone else’s. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-the-fuck-is-my-political-party/306952/71 "2005-06-06T03:53:35Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Maybe…but then again, maybe those ‘shiny weapons’ are force multipliers that make the US’s military light years ahead of anyone else’s in terms of actual capability? Just a thought. That, being the default opinion, was of course implied as a possibility. But it’s only natural that those without the ability to bring home the pork will vote against military spending (which, along with highways are probably the highest location-specific items in the budget) no matter what the efficacy of it, and those who can bring it to their home districts will vote for it no matter the efficacy. Even if the funds could be better spent elsewhere, even on an alternative military program. Or armor for vehicles. Just a thought. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-the-fuck-is-my-political-party/306952/72 "2005-06-06T05:53:54Z")
**Sam**. Where to start? Keep in mind that I was principally trying to reconstruct from memory John Stuart Mill’s approach to the problem, c. 1850. Admittedly, I don’t have much problem with it, though unsurprisingly the argument could certainly be updated. Let me go back to the “Fundamentalist” bit, because that may shed some insight on the differences between modern conservatives and contemporary lefties --something which continues to puzzle me-- rather than rehashing the justifications for governmental intervention --something we’re both familiar with. ------ Would you then consider yourself a ‘speech fundamentalist’? Or an ‘abortion fundamentalist’? Abortion: Here lefties have 2 prongs. One, they support a woman’s _right_ to chooses, which has the flavor of a non-negotiable demand. But consider the second. In [Roe v. Wade](http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/), Blackmun posited that the state had an, " important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life," one which however had to be balanced against other interests, among them the health of the mother. Here, we have a drift into medical issues and the language of tradeoffs. We veer away from an absolutist reliance on non-empirical principles. Speech Fundamentalism: This one is more interesting. Firstly, I wouldn’t mind being called a "Free Speech Fundamentalist: it sounds a lot like “First Amendment Absolutist”, a moniker which I have on occasion applied to myself. Yet neither is entirely accurate. There are solid pragmatic grounds for supporting a free press, among them social and technological advance. Yet, I would also consider the right to free expression an intrinsic good (though it is also an extrinsic one). The issue gets confusing, since I can’t remember coming across a decent empirical argument against free speech, so I’m not sure which basis I would use to defend it. What I’ve seen are “right against right” arguments. Specifically, wannabe censors point out that certain articles are repulsive for various reasons. But that hardly shows compelling harm. Where compelling harm can be shown, it usually falls under, “Time, Place and Circumstance”, which I don’t have a problem with regulating (along US lines). What you would have to show, Sam, is an example whereby a social or economic conservative proposes an empirically-based argument against free speech, and our hypothetical liberal rejects it purely on the grounds of freedom. * * * (( My speech argument seems weak here, btw. )) To sharpen the debate, let me offer a working hypothesis: Modern conservatives have a greater tendency to use absolutist arguments and an aversion to empirical analysis, relative to contemporary liberals. It’s not that liberal analysis never utilizes abstractions such as privacy or personal freedom. Rather, I’m saying that some sort of empirical justification typically leavens such appeals. [1] * * * Incidentally, methinks that **Sam** is far too sensible an individual to be a Fundamentalist anything, _per se_. However, since he’s reasonably adept at constructing market fundamentalist arguments, it may aid the fight against ignorance to assume otherwise for the sake of argument. [1] I’m guessing that the roles may have been reversed in the 1970s. Nixon liked to claim that both Republicans and Democrats would set up certain social programs (e.g. the EPA); the difference between them was that the Repubs would do things right (In Nixon’s Less Than Entirely Humble Opinion). ---
**Author:** ![Andros\_X](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/49beb7/32.png) [@Andros\_X](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andros_X)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-the-fuck-is-my-political-party/306952/73 "2005-06-06T05:56:20Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > On drug laws – I think the police should have better things to do than chase some pot head. So, [legalized] pot is OK to me. However, I don’t think the “hard” stuff such as PCP or heroin should be legal. So, you believe in infringing on the freedoms of PCP and heroin users? Or are you a hypocrite? > [@Sam Stone](#): > > The flaw in this argument is that I did not choose to have the state pick up my health care tab. A duty cannot be imposed by others. Now, on the other hand, if I need private insurance and the insurer says that they won’t insure me unless I stop smokling, that’s perfectly fine. OK, but what about your secondhand smoke affecting my health? Don’t I have a say in what you do if your actions affect me? A better example: consider the SUV – it caues increased wear and tear on the roads by virtue of its increased weight, causing an increase in road maintenance costs. By your arguments, that implies that SUV drivers should be charged more for using the highways than the driver of a sedan would. But SUV taxes are decried as a violation of personal freedoms. How do you reconcile these two viewpoints? ---
**Author:** ![Andros\_X](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/49beb7/32.png) [@Andros\_X](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andros_X)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-the-fuck-is-my-political-party/306952/74 "2005-06-06T06:13:48Z")
Where is my party, the one that cares about and listens to _all_ of its citizens, not just the rich ones that give them bribes? Where is the party that believes that “separation of church and state” means that nobody’s religion gets practiced or promoted inside of a government building, and that nobody’s politics get practiced or promoted inside of a church? Where is the party that believes that decent education and infrastructure are more important to fighting terrorism than all of the bombs, guns, and obtrusive laws cooked up to date? Where is the party that believes that the right to free speech is absolute and universal, and not restricted to when, where, and how the government says one can have it? Finally, where is the party that thinks the Constitution is more than a set of helpful guidelines? ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-the-fuck-is-my-political-party/306952/75 "2005-06-06T06:18:25Z")
> [@Andros\_X](#): > > A better example: consider the SUV – it caues increased wear and tear on the roads by virtue of its increased weight, causing an increase in road maintenance costs. By your arguments, that implies that SUV drivers should be charged more for using the highways than the driver of a sedan would. But SUV taxes are decried as a violation of personal freedoms. How do you reconcile these two viewpoints? In most, if not all states, highway taxes are funded by a tax on gas, so by virtue of driving gas guzzlers, SUV owners are paying more money to use the roads than a Prius owner. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-the-fuck-is-my-political-party/306952/76 "2005-06-06T11:18:25Z")
> [@Measure](#): > > Ron also wants to repeal federal anti-drug and prostitution laws (huh) and supports no role for the US overseas. He advocated a $150 billion cut in defense spending and the abolition of the Department of Education. > > The Almanac of American Politics said that, “…he has reached a point that he is probably the least dependable and persuadable Republican in the House…”, and “…some liberals have begun to praise him.” Gay, you’re right. I should have said he is great, not just pretty good. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-the-fuck-is-my-political-party/306952/77 "2005-06-06T15:26:55Z")
> [@Andros\_X](#): > > So, you believe in infringing on the freedoms of PCP and heroin users? Or are you a hypocrite? PCP (angel dust, sherm) causes many of its users to become extremely violent, and incredibly strong – they become dangerous. Heroin users become so strung out that they will rob and steal or even kill to support their habit. These are a far cry from the pot head who gets high at home and bothers no one. > [@Andros\_X](#): > > OK, but what about your secondhand smoke affecting my health? Don’t I have a say in what you do if your actions affect me? No comment, this has been beat to death before. Before this thread gets derailed into another “evil smokers are killing me” derailment, all I am going to say is if you don’t like my smoke, stay the hell away and don’t crowd me. When did I ever expose you to any of my smoke anyway (in real life and literally)? Never. So bullshit. > [@Andros\_X](#): > > By your arguments, that implies that SUV drivers should be charged more for using the highways than the driver of a sedan would. But SUV taxes are decried as a violation of personal freedoms. How do you reconcile these two viewpoints? I posted against guzzler/SUV taxes. I said they were punitive. I said I was against mileage taxes. I said owners of guzzler SUVs were already paying a “premium” just through the sales tax on the larger amount of gas they already have to buy. Just as Tuckerfan just said above. Read the damn words I wrote, or don’t bother to play. ---
**Author:** ![kidchameleon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-the-fuck-is-my-political-party/306952/78 "2005-06-06T16:59:32Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Not I. I think in retrospect Clinton was probably right in cashing in on the 'peace dividend…I think it helped spark the whole 90’s thing in fact. Call me crazy, but I think the 90’s had already started before Clinton got involved with the federal government. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2005, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-the-fuck-is-my-political-party/306952/79 "2005-06-06T17:10:00Z")
> [@Andros\_X](#): > > So, you believe in infringing on the freedoms of PCP and heroin users? Or are you a hypocrite? It is because of dumb ass arguments like that which lead to marijuana being criminalized to the level of meth and crack. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2005, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-the-fuck-is-my-political-party/306952/80 "2005-06-07T01:47:27Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Only if I agree with you that there is no such thing as private property, or that your need trumps my own…brothers keeper and all that. You have no right to demand the use of my house, my car, my bank account…just because you perceive the need or that by my owing said house, car, bank account somehow infringes on your liberty. No: your using force to keep me from shelter may, or may not, infringe on my liberty. That’s the difference. > [@](#): > > myself, I think individual property rights is fundamental to all those other rights. Sam can of course speak for himself (and better than I), but this is a fundamental issue which means that we won’t be agreeing on a lot more issues if its necessary to give this up. Its like saying if I could only give up all that free speech non-sense and agree that the government should have final say in whats printed we could all just get along. Not going to happen. 🙂 Fundamentally different. Speech isn’t finite: if I speak all day long, it doesn’t prevent you from speaking. Land (and other material goods) is finite: the borders on your land that you protect with violence can have direct impact on your neighbors. No rights depend on property rights. In fact, there’s plenty of times in our society that property rights as imagined by Locke et al simply don’t work. Instead, we have **usage** rights: certain items are for us (and us alone) to use for a bit, but only in certain ways. See zoning laws, car insurance laws, noise ordinances, anti-pollution laws, etc. That’s a very different concept, and one that I think ought to be expanded. US libertarians reject the concept, and thereby relegate themselves, in my opinion, to the same irrelevance enjoyed by Moonies and PETA-ites. Daniel [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-the-fuck-is-my-political-party/306952.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/where-the-fuck-is-my-political-party/306952.md?page=5)