# Why doesn't the Libertarian party do any better? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 31, 2004, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-libertarian-party-do-any-better/262379 "2004-08-31T05:52:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-libertarian-party-do-any-better/262379/21 "2004-09-03T01:49:46Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Firstly I’ll disagree that libertarians cannot be found overseas. > > Most euros for example, when they hear the word “liberal” think of what we call “libertarian.” > > Somehow in American history the meaning of the word liberal changed. Originally liberals wanted small government across the board, government is inherently evil, an evil that must be accepted, but begrudgingly. > > Eventually for whatever reason liberal in America came to be more synonymous with quasi-socialist, leftist, or “social democrat.” > > So libertarian was a word developed to differentiate the “classic liberals” from the “new liberals” who were nothing like the old meaning of the word. > > Some people still use the term classic liberal. > > This distinction causes a lot of difficulty and confusion on forums where I post. Brits will often for example not realize when someone is talking about “liberals” they are really talking about what in the UK would be called a “socialist.” Maybe so, but the British Conservative Party is not a **consistently** libertarian or classical-liberal party, like the American LP. Neither is the French Conservative Party or the German Christian Democrats or any other European political party, so far as I have been able to determine. I would speculate that the American LP’s ideological purity and consistency exists because (1) there is a libertarian, antistatist strand in the American political tradition that is unique in all the world, and (2) the LP has never been a governing party in any state or locality, nor won significant representation in Congress or any state legislature, and therefore has never come under any pressure to make compromises to get things done. > [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Also I’m not sure what the Libertarian Party thinks about proportional representation (a flawed idea for America if I ever heard one) but the Cato institute comes out strongly against it, because it is felt to erode the power of the states. Something classic liberals dislike because it is felt local government is less dangerous and more responsive than national government, and erosions on its power hurt the people. You think? See the following links: [http://www.lp.org/lpn/9910-proportional.html](http://www.lp.org/lpn/9910-proportional.html) [http://www.lp.org/lpn/9904-proportional.html](http://www.lp.org/lpn/9904-proportional.html) [http://www.lp.org/lpn/9510-proportion.html](http://www.lp.org/lpn/9510-proportion.html) I’ve known libertarians who see nothing to choose between federal, state and local government and who consider it a dangerous canard to identify decentralized government with small government or libertarian government. State and local governments can also encroach on liberty, and have. Furthermore, proportional representation does not necessarily “erode the power of the states” – it merely allows a wider range of viewpoints to be represented at any level of government where the PR system is used. PR could allow Libertarians (and Greens, Socialists, America Firsters, etc.) to win seats in Congress, state legislatures, county commissions, city councils and local school boards. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-libertarian-party-do-any-better/262379/22 "2004-09-03T01:56:45Z")
The GOP is plenty libertarian for most of us, as are wings of the Democrats. Mainly those who are pure ideological libertarians are disenchanted enough with the majors to vote for the Libertarian Party. The major parties are less ideological than self-interested/pragmatic. This appeals to a lot of people: if you’re a _laissez-faire_ businessman, why vote for a libertarian principle when you can get pro-business policies justified by libertarian arguments but mixed with subsidies & kickbacks for you you you? And of course, some people (like me) strongly disagree with pure Libertarianism. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-libertarian-party-do-any-better/262379/23 "2004-09-03T02:03:04Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > Eventually for whatever reason liberal in America came to be more synonymous with quasi-socialist, leftist, or “social democrat.” … This distinction causes a lot of difficulty and confusion on forums where I post. Brits will often for example not realize when someone is talking about “liberals” they are really talking about what in the UK would be called a “socialist.” Are you _serious_?! Mainstream American liberals are to the _right_ of the Conservative Party in the UK. Only the nutty edge comes close to what Europe considers left-wing. When Americans talk about liberals, unless they’re talking about the very bleeding psycho edge of the spectrum, they’re definitely not talking about anything the UK would consider “socialist”… ---
**Author:** ![capacitor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e47774/32.png) [@capacitor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/capacitor)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2004, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-libertarian-party-do-any-better/262379/24 "2004-09-03T02:31:45Z")
The Libertarian’s idea for a public rally is to distribute toy guns to kids in Harlem. This stunt made Lyndon LaRouche look sane. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2004, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-libertarian-party-do-any-better/262379/25 "2004-09-04T19:50:08Z")
Thanks for all the replies. Thanks to **Brutus** for the link. I was one of those people who thought libertarianism was all about low taxes and legal weed but after looking at that platform I can only say :eek: . I guess that answers my question:Most people don’t vote Libertarian because Libertarians are friggin nuts (the party that is, not small l libertarians.) Not all of course but enough to scare off the average voter, even one who is sympathetic to “small l” libertarianism. **aahala’s** post bears this out. I’d heard of but forgot about Stan Jones. Also, **astorian** is right. Too man people hate entitlements for the other guy, but cling to their own with great tenacity. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2004, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-libertarian-party-do-any-better/262379/26 "2004-09-04T19:51:41Z")
too **many** people ---
**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:** [September 4, 2004, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-libertarian-party-do-any-better/262379/27 "2004-09-04T20:13:08Z")
Where I think there is a huge gap that could be filled with a new party would a moderate ‘freedom’ party. One that picks up the social liberalism of the Democrats, and marries it with the economic conservatism of the Republicans. I think the God/relligion/anti-gay/anti-stem cell platforms of the Republican party keep a LOT of otherwise sympathetic Democrats from joining them. And I think the big government, more-entitlement and regulation, nanny-statism of the Democratic party keeps away a LOT of Republicans who would support Democratic social ideals. Create a party that supports low taxes, regulatory reform, strong defense, secular government, tolerance for gays and other lifestyle choices, strong support for the 2nd amendment, and an emphasis on personal responsibility. That party should work hard to keep the nutbars out. The ‘fringes’ of their thought and policies should be moderate. For instance, it can tolerate the economic fringe wing of the party advocating a flat tax or replacing income taxes with sales taxes. It cannot tolerate the fringe talking about abolishing taxes and selling off government assets to pay for it. It can tolerate the social wing talking about allowing the states to choose whether to legalize marijuana or not. It can’t tolerate that wing talking about legalizing all drugs for everyone, everywhere. Keep it moderate and sane, and back up every policy with sound research. The CATO institute or Brookings are acceptable research cites. PETA or the Ayn Rand Institute are not. Now go and find a charismatic, popular leader for this party. Arnold Schwartzenegger comes to mind, if that amendment could be repealed. Or someone like him. Perhaps a respected ex-politician like Newt Gingrich could step back into the fray (probably not Newt himself - his negatives are too high). A party like that isn’t going to win the election, but it could do well enough to pull maybe 15%-20%. Enough to get federal election funds, get a seat in the debates, and act as a check on the grossest abuses of both parties. If it were moderate enough, it could be the natural refuge of independents whenever the mainstream parties go too far in one direction or another. Eventually, it could elect a few representatives and have direct influence in government. It would be very healthy for everyone. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2004, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-libertarian-party-do-any-better/262379/28 "2004-09-04T20:44:13Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Create a party that supports low taxes, regulatory reform, **strong defense,** secular government, tolerance for gays and other lifestyle choices, strong support for the 2nd amendment, and an emphasis on personal responsibility. One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn’t belong. ---
**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:** [September 4, 2004, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-libertarian-party-do-any-better/262379/29 "2004-09-04T20:50:33Z")
Really? You don’t think strong defense is a mainstream issue? You don’t think moderate conservatives and moderate liberals don’t both support a strong defense? I’m talking about building a party that takes over the area of intersection between the two parties - the area where there is common ground. A strong defense certainly fits into that. And besides, if you take a party like I described and throw in the anti-war peacenik side, you’ll lose EVERYONE. Sorry, but the doves are definitely on the fringes. Why do you think Kerry had to scramble back to the center after he won the nomination and start saying things like he would have voted for the war resolution even if he knew there were no WMD? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2004, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-libertarian-party-do-any-better/262379/30 "2004-09-04T20:56:04Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Really? You don’t think strong defense is a mainstream issue? You don’t think moderate conservatives and moderate liberals don’t both support a strong defense? > > I’m talking about building a party that takes over the area of intersection between the two parties - the area where there is common ground. A strong defense certainly fits into that. > > And besides, if you take a party like I described and throw in the anti-war peacenik side, you’ll lose EVERYONE. Sorry, but the doves are definitely on the fringes. Why do you think Kerry had to scramble back to the center after he won the nomination and start saying things like he would have voted for the war resolution even if he knew there were no WMD? My point was, every Libertarian I’ve ever known, big-L or small-l – and I’ve known quite a few – hated our bloated national defense establishment and military-industrial complex every bit as much as the Greens do. And this is not incidental to their world-view. They are not pacifists or “doves” in principle, but they are in principle opposed to “big government” – that’s what libertarianism is all about – and the U.S. Defense Department is the most obvious example of “big government” there is. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2004, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-libertarian-party-do-any-better/262379/31 "2004-09-04T21:25:10Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Mainstream American liberals are to the _right_ of the Conservative Party in the UK. Having lived and studied politics in both countries, I disagree. There are a couple _specific_ issues that the Tories–in general, with a number of exceptions–tend to be left on by American standards, but your average mainstream American liberal would be much more comfortable in New Labour than in the Conservative Party. ---
**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:** [September 4, 2004, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-libertarian-party-do-any-better/262379/32 "2004-09-04T21:25:53Z")
…And that’s party why they do so badly. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2004, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-libertarian-party-do-any-better/262379/33 "2004-09-04T21:28:12Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > …And that’s party why they do so badly. No doubt. But if they gave up ground on that issue they wouldn’t be libertarians any more. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2004, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-libertarian-party-do-any-better/262379/34 "2004-09-04T22:17:45Z")
**Sam Stone** , are you familiar with Israeli party politics? Becaue the theoretical party you presented is nearly identical to Israel’s “Shinui” (change) party, which reinvented itself a few years ago by choosing a charismatic leader (former newspaper editor and TV pundit Tommy Lapid) and took 15 seats - out of 120 - in last year’s elections. [Here](http://www.shinui.org.il/elections/eng/) is some background and [here](http://www.shinui.org.il/elections/eng/principles.html#top) is their platform. ---
**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:** [September 5, 2004, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-libertarian-party-do-any-better/262379/35 "2004-09-05T00:12:25Z")
> [@](#): > > No doubt. But if they gave up ground on that issue they wouldn’t be libertarians any more. Not true at all. Libertarians are split right down the middle on the matter of interventionist foreign policy. First, Libertarians accept that one of the valid roles of government is to provide for the national defense. The sticking point is the ‘non-initiation of force’ concept, which some have embraced to mean a strictly isolatonist foreign policy. But others (such as myself) feel that this is one of those ‘purist’ positions that simply don’t make sense in the real world. I’d say at least half of the people who consider themselves ‘libertarian’ strongly support at least the war in Afghanistan, and many support the war in Iraq. I read Libertarian journals and web sites. This debate over foreign policy is at least as contentious among Libertarians as it is between Republiicans and Democrats. But I never SAID they would be Libertarians. The whole point to my post was to suggest a new party that was able to advance the cause of smaller government and personal freedom, without carrying the extremist baggage on either side that prevents a strong nationwide following. ---
**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:** [September 5, 2004, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-libertarian-party-do-any-better/262379/36 "2004-09-05T00:18:30Z")
**Alessan:** Thanks for the link. That’s an interesting party. Certainly something along the lines of what I was thinking about, although their platform also consists of free health care for everyone and free education for everyone, both of which would be considered more socialist than I would like. They sound more like social democrats, or the type of government that you’d get from the Democrats if they had been wise and turned towards the Bill Clinton / Democratic Leadship Council wing of the party instead of embracing the moonbat left. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2004, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-libertarian-party-do-any-better/262379/37 "2004-09-05T01:05:15Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > They sound more like social democrats, or the type of government that you’d get from the Democrats if they had been wise and turned towards the Bill Clinton / Democratic Leadship Council wing of the party instead of embracing the moonbat left. 😕 Sam, I think you are confusing John Kerry with Dennis Kucinich. Kerry is only one or two degrees further left than Clinton was. ---
**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:** [September 5, 2004, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-libertarian-party-do-any-better/262379/38 "2004-09-05T03:29:11Z")
Oh, not that again. Look, I know what a moderate looks like. I know that right now Kerry is trying to play one on TV. I also know how he actually behaves when the cameras are elsewhere. His voting record is very liberal. Far more liberal than average for Democrats. But more to the point, they embraced the moonbat left. That was Michael Moore sitting with Jimmy Carter at the convention, wasn’t it? You can’t get much farther to the left or to the moonbat cave than Michael Moore. [MoveOn.org](http://MoveOn.org) is out on the left end of the Democratic spectrum, and that organization has had a revolving door with former campaign officials for Kerry. Look at Al Gore - reduced from being a fairly moderate Vice President into a shrieking crazy man. You should blame Howard Dean and the media. That screaming freak came out of nowhere and jumped to an early lead, and the media proclaimed him the saviour of the Democratic Party, and the rest of 'em bought that line of BS and started moving his way. Imagine how much easier it would be on Kerry today if he didn’t have that NO vote on the 87 billion hanging over him. It’s hanging over him because Howard Dean pulled him to the left at a very inopportune time. If Kerry had said at the time, “I understand the anti-war point of view, and I respect it. However, having voted for the war authorization it would be irresponsible to vote against the funding for it,” then today he could parlay that whole episode into an example of resolute leadership rather than having to constantly play defense on the whole issue. ---
**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:** [September 5, 2004, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-libertarian-party-do-any-better/262379/39 "2004-09-05T04:00:13Z")
To answer the OP, simply to to the Libertarian home page and look at some of the positions they advance: [Link](http://www.lp.org/) Here are some basic positions: > [@](#): > > Military Policy and the War in Iraq > The War in Iraq is a failure, and the U.S. government should never have waged it. As your president, one of my first tasks will be to begin the orderly process of bringing our troops home as quickly as can safely be accomplished. > > More and more Americans are coming to oppose the war, the war hawks and high government officials are beginning to distance themselves from the president, and the U.S. seems more willing than ever to pull out of Iraq. > > But this is not enough. We need to learn how this disaster happened, so we can prevent future disasters from happening. > > … > [@](#): > > Gun Control Means Being Able to Hit your Target > If I have a “hot button” issue, this is definitely it. Don’t even THINK about taking my guns! My rights are not negotiable, and I am totally unwilling to compromise when it comes to the Second Amendment. > > Let me reiterate an axiom of my philosophy. Rights and privileges are polar opposites. A right is something that I can do without asking. A privilege is something that a higher authority allows me to do. It is utter nonsense for us to accept government permits in order to exercise an inalienable right. Allow me to point out some fallacies in the arguments frequently used by the anti-gun movement. > > First, it is impossible for the Second Amendment to confer a “community right”, because communities HAVE no rights. Individuals are real. Communities are abstract concepts. You can have individuals without communities, but you cannot have communities without individuals. Ergo, individuals must come first, and only the individuals that make up a community can have rights. > > … > [@](#): > > How to Empower Minorities Without Reverse Discrimination! > “Prejudice is fading, yet minorities still lag behind economically. A labyrinth of licensing laws and regulations constitute the hidden roots of modern racial and ethnic discrimination.” > > Most minorities feel that something about our “system” still discriminates against them, but can’t quite identify its cause. Establishment politicians propose more quotas and affirmative action, creating animosity between those who are favored by such legislation and those who are not. Since these programs must be funded by taking money from the private sector, jobs, primarily those held by unskilled minorities, are destroyed. The few who benefit from quotas and affirmative action do so at the expense of their less advantaged brethren. > > Establishment politicians don’t have solutions that work in the real world because they aren’t asking the tough question: “What, in these days of diminishing prejudice, stands in the way of minority progress?” > > Libertarian Steve Mariotti, mugged for the paltry sum of $10, decided to teach inner city teens how to become successful business men and women so that they wouldn’t have to steal. His organization, the National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship (NFTE), gave Kansas high school student Monique Landers their annual award when she started her own hair braiding business called “A Touch of Class.” The Kansas state government wanted to put teen age Monique in jail for braiding hair without a cosmetology license, which takes a year of schooling and several thousand dollars in tuition to obtain. > > Throughout our nation, entrepreneurial African-American hair braiders have been similarly threatened. Would-be van operators and taxicab owners face prosecution unless they pay thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars, for a permit. In some areas, newcomers are routinely denied permits no matter how much they are willing to pay. Minorities, the poor, and the disadvantaged have a difficult time jumping these costly hurdles. Without the ability to go into business for themselves, their opportunities are much more limited than the average middle-class American. Employers can more easily exploit them when self-employment is not an option. > > Only Libertarians recognize that the golden door of opportunity has been slammed shut by such regulations. The Institute for Justice, the nation’s premiere libertarian public interest law firm, has racked up a number of landmark victories defending—pro bono—minority hair braiders, van operators, and taxicab drivers, and other victims of excess regulation (for examples, see [www.ij.org](http://www.ij.org)). > > … > [@](#): > > Libertarian foreign policy: Ending welfare for nations – foreign aid > BY MICHAEL TANNER > Foreign aid is little more than welfare for nations – with the same disastrous effects as domestic welfare programs. > > The U.S. currently spends approximately $14 billion per year on foreign aid – far less than most people believe, but still a substantial sum. Since the end of World War II, the United States has spent more than $400 billion on aid to other countries. But there is little evidence that any of these programs has significantly improved the lives of the people in countries receiving this aid. Instead, foreign aid has typically slowed economic development and created dependence. > > Indeed, the U.S. Agency for International Development itself admits, “Only a handful of countries that started receiving U.S. assistance in the 1950s and 1960s has ever graduated from dependent status.” In fact, despite massive amounts of international aid, the average annual increase in per capita GNP has declined steadily in developing nations since the 1960s, with many of the Third World’s heaviest aid recipients actually suffering negative economic growth. > > Tanzania provides a perfect example. Since the early 1970s, Tanzania has received more international aid per capita than any other country. Yet, the country remains the world’s third-poorest nation and has had no per capita GNP growth between 1980 and 1992. During the same period, inflation averaged 25% and energy and agricultural production declined dramatically. > > … In a nut shell, many of their policies are unrealistic, though interesting. However, the crux is that their positions are all over the board, and while a conservative might agree with, say, the position that ‘Gun Control Means Being Able to Hit your Target’ (got to love this :)), and with some of the fiscal positions privatization (though certainly not all), they aren’t going to go for the dismantling of the military or the withdrawl of troops from Iraq and everywhere else. Liberals may like the stances on gay marriage and legalization of drugs and other vices, but they aren’t going to like the completely free market ideas, dismantling and privatization of social programs etc. So, while SOME of the ideas the Libertarians have appeal to the majority of Americans, taken as a whole it appeals to a very few. -XT ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2004, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-libertarian-party-do-any-better/262379/40 "2004-09-05T04:58:20Z")
I couldn’t agree more. This calls to mind a quote by (I think) George Bernard Shaw: “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.” I get into countless arguments with “conservatives” who, after much thought, have decided that it’s OK that I (a childless, self-described fiscal moderate) should pay taxes to fund the education of their children. But they want vouchers, because, “Dammit, people deserve _choice!_” > [@astorian](#): > > (snip) > > Nobody thinks of himself as a parasite feeding at the public trough, but to some extent we all are! When we hear Libertarians talk about wasteful spending, we applaud because we’re sure they don’t mean US- they mean those OTHER folks receiving perks from the government. > > And think about this: a Libertarian running for Congress or the state legislature is at a huge disadvantage, because his opponent’s will campaign largely on a platform of “I’ll fight to bring federal dollars to our district!” How does a principled Libertarian respond to that? “I pledge to bring you NOTHING from the federal government”? > > Pork-barrel is a zero sum game. You start with 435 Congressmen fighting for a piece of the pie. If one principled Libertarian Congressman stands up and says, “This pork-barrel is wasteful, and must be eliminated,” the other 434 will simply smile and say “Thank you! We’ll carve up what would have been your share and divide it amongst ourselves.” > > In other words, right now, a lone Libertarian lgislator can’t shrink government spending- he can only ensure that his constituents never benefit from any of it. > Meaning that, until such time as the Libertarians are a majority in Congress, it makes NO sense for any one district to elect one! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-libertarian-party-do-any-better/262379.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-doesnt-the-libertarian-party-do-any-better/262379.md?page=3)