I don’t know of any Libertarian here who has not conceded that the immediate dismantling of tyranny would lead to nothing but more tyranny. “Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind the slime of a new bureaucracy.” — Franz Kafka
It is remarkable that someone would argue (proudly no less), “I have messed things up so bad that were I to release control, you and all the king’s men would be unable to straighten them out.”
I’m going to try to take the opportunity that Libertarian’s post affords to try to bring this thread back to the original question of Why do Libertarians do Poorly in General Elections and away from Why does(n’t) Libertarianism Rule (sic).
What I find remarkable Lib is that the Libertarian Party believes that failing to provide a serious reform agenda makes it a party of principle. Surely it makes it an irrelevant bystander, comfortable in making criticisms of the status quo in the knowledge that it will never have to face the task of dealing with the brute realities of politics and basking in the self-deluded moral superiority that this pretence of principle is a substitute for effective political action.
It is hardly surprising that a party that congratulates itself on putting everything in the “too hard” basket attracts little electoral support. What’s the Party slogan -“Allowing members to feel self-righteously alienated for ever”?
picmr
I’m not a party member anymore, but I do think you’ve mischaracterized their platform inasmuch as it indeed does “provide a serious reform agenda”. It provides for reform of everything from immigration to tort law. But it is a very statist approach, walking the thin line between principle practicing and political maneuvering. And that’s why I split.
Libertarianism must be implemented voluntarily. For obvious reasons.
The answer to your question is plain and simple…
The reason is because the vast majority of voters (and the population as a whole) lack common sense. They view everything by the package its presented in. They also go by how something will affect them personally, not if it’s right or wrong or an infringement upon someone’s rights, other than their own. For example, they don’t like eating in a restaurant where someone is smoking a cigarette…so, they vote to make a law that bans smoking in restaurants. Period. Another example…seatbelts. Seatbelts save lives. Make a law that you must wear one. They aren’t satisfied just strapping on their own belt, if they choose to, they want me to have to wear mine, too.
Not to mention the fact that people who present themselves as Libertarians say things like this and actually seem to belive that it won’t make that senseless majority of the population think, Wow, those Libertarians are a bunch of elitist asses.
Because I am a Libertarian, I respect your right to your own opinion and your right to free speech to express that opinion.
But, the bottom line is, I’m right.
Man, that was a great thread. Takes me back. 
And I miss Phil.
So, did Phil leave for good? I know I haven’t seen him lately, and his profile says that he hasn’t posted since November, but I thought either he or Peta posted during that time period where the messages got erased.
I miss Phil as well, a stellar gentleman and exemplary scholar whose “conversion” to libertarianism took place right here on these boards.
Incidentally to Ms. Libertarian, there is no such thing as any right of free speech.
The US is a 2 party system. All third parties are screwed. This will not change without a major constitutional upheaval, which would require the co-operation of the 2 major parties.
About what?
Methinks Ms. Libertarian is a “mis-libertarian,” if you know what I mean.
Well, first and formost, there is no ONE libertarian philosophy. If you put 200 libertarians in the same room (I guess that’s the approximate attendance at the National LP convention) they have a hard time finding agreement on just about every issue. I’ve heard self identified Libertarians debate abortion, gun control, drug legalization, environmental protection, etc. amongst themselves and the fact is, most of them can’t even find a common ground.
As Izzy pointed out with the Howard Stern for Governor race, the LP runs it’s share of crackpots.
If you think about it; A true grit, 100% libertarian believes there should be NO government whatsoever. That being the case, wouldn’t it be hypocritical, duplicitous and defeatist to elect a Libertarian into government office?
Freedom of Speech, is that better? Or, are you saying “there is no such thing as any right of” Freedom of Speech, either?
All rights accrue from ownership of property. You may speak on property that belongs to you, or to someone who has given you permission to speak. But you may not speak on property where you are not welcome, nor may anyone speak on yours without your permission.
This message board is an example of the libertarian rights concept in action. We do not exercise any so-called freedom of speech here. Rather, we enjoy the permission of the site owners to speak within the boundaries they proscribe.
Libertarians may reasonably disagree about specific issues such as abortion, for example, but each draws his conclusions from the same principle of noncoercion — opposition to the initiation of force or fraud. If a libertarian opposes abortion, it is because he believes that a fetus is a human being, and is subject to protections from violent slaughter. On the other hand, if a libertarian supports abortion, it is because he believes that the fetus is an organ, and as such, is the sole property of the woman who carries it. Disagreement among abortion supporters might also involve the rights of the father, always in the context of property ownership, i.e., his shared ownership of the fetus.
And as long as someone is on their own property or public property, I believe they have a right to freedom of speech. I respect the right one has to think and state an opinion. Expressed opinions are beautiful to me, no matter what stance is taken because I think everyone has a right to theirs.
If you don’t get it by now, I don’t know what to tell you.
Y’know, this is like one of those comic books of the 50s, where Superman meets Ms. Superman, who claims to be better than Superman. But then Ms. Superman runs into a problem, and is revealed as incompetent, and the real Superman saves the day. Ms. Superman is chastened, and vows never to challange Superman’s supremacy again.
Gah. You’re right. Apologies, Ms. Libertarian.
See, I told you.