From the Libertarian Party website:
The Washington Times has an article in today’s paper that libertarians have good reason to be optimistic, and have made some history.
“A recent Gallup poll revealed that self-described “independents” are the nation’s largest political demographic. Indeed a record-breaking 43 percent of Americans now say they are independents, compared to 30 percent who are Democrats and 26 percent who are Republican. Now comes some promising news for the tenacious Libertarian Party, which plans multiple state conventions in the coming months and offered its own response to President Obama’s State of the Union address last week. The party “enjoyed its best cycle ever in races for the nation’s upper legislative chamber,” reports Eric Ostermeier, a University of Minnesota political professor and founder of Smart Politics, a research group on the campus.”
Click here to read the whole article.
L: Not only does postmodern navel-gazing not blow my mind, it doesn’t impress me in the slightest. It’s an intellectual parlor game that amounts to little more than a huge waste of time.
Me: Talk to us about why you think advocating anarchism is NOT a parlor game?
And what’s wrong with parlor games? In our short time here on this mortal coil, it strikes me that stimulating our consciousness is about the best we can do.
L: Ironically, you mentioned it in this very thread: the Golden Rule. By the way, you never answered when I asked if you believed in it or not.
me: I think the Golden Rule is great, but it’s not a rule. It’s an approach. It contrasts with the 10 Commandments, which is a list of thou shall nots — rules. I can’t tell you how you want to be treated, I can only have the feeling of how I want to be treated, and how it feels when I treat others in that manner, and when I don’t.
L: So, do you have the right to drive 70? If you do, where does this right come from? If not, how do you manage to sleep at night?
Me: No, there’s no such right to drive 70 in a 55. I — and most of the other drivers around me — know that we can almost always get away with it. It’s a commonly flouted rule.
Nor do I have the right to drive drunk. I don’t, knowing the risks.
jk, putting it differently: Some believe Iceland was stateless. Others believe it had a micro state. If that can’t be gotten straight, then further inquiry is pointless.
You said you could think of no examples. That’s different from saying you don’t think existing examples translate well to the modern US. I personally see no reason that stateless systems don’t translate to any time or place, but that’s a separate question.
If you family is big, is it a state too?
JK, to the extent we can rely on records from then in a sparsely populated island, there is question as to whether Iceland was in fact fully fully stateless. Even if it was, it requires heroic effort to port the first-millenial Icelandic experience to these times.
I see tribes and clans as being states, btw.
For examples of stateless law, see ancient Iceland and Law Merchants. http://c4ss.org/content/12581
…why should I expect others to share my moral compass?
Ironically, you mentioned it in this very thread: the Golden Rule. By the way, you never answered when I asked if you believed in it or not.
Signals help me to know the rules, even if I disagree with them. I might drive 70 in a 55 zone, but I might drive 85 otherwise.
So, do you have the right to drive 70? If you do, where does this right come from? If not, how do you manage to sleep at night?
Law without a state is not something I’m familiar with. I can think of no examples of stateless law. UL, for ex., may not be state-enforced, but there is an underlying rule of law in the US.
Right here on IPR, people (including myself) have given you tons of them. You just don’t listen.
L, and, to REALLY blow your mind, I’m not sold on the free will argument. How do you KNOW you have free will, or that Anthony Weiner does? You may think the thoughts you think, but what is doing the thinking, and how do you know it?
I’ve told you before, and I’ll tell you again: Not only does postmodern navel-gazing not blow my mind, it doesn’t impress me in the slightest. It’s an intellectual parlor game that amounts to little more than a huge waste of time. Personally, I use my free will to ignore such nonsense.
L, and, to REALLY blow your mind, I’m not sold on the free will argument. How do you KNOW you have free will, or that Anthony Weiner does? You may think the thoughts you think, but what is doing the thinking, and how do you know it?
Maybe AI is just filling our heads with ideas!
L, what I believe is “right and wrong” can and does differ from what others believe. And even what I think is “right and wrong” MIGHT shift, depending on the situation, e.g., the trolley problem. I am every day stunned by what people do (aren’t you?), so why should I expect others to share my moral compass?
Signals help me to know the rules, even if I disagree with them. I might drive 70 in a 55 zone, but I might drive 85 otherwise.
Law without a state is not something I’m familiar with. I can think of no examples of stateless law. UL, for ex., may not be state-enforced, but there is an underlying rule of law in the US.
It’s still a legal and/or moral term in a polycentric legal order, as opposed to killing in self-defense, killing by accident etc.
I don’t agree that a forced monopoly is the only way to do that, or even really a way to do it at all.
Social cooperation, moral sanction, self-defense and communal defense happen all the time that don’t involve monopoly force. Even if you believe a force monopoly is ultimately necessary, that’s still true.
I’d be curious how you leap to THAT conclusion.
It’s really pretty simple. In the absence of a state, do you believe that murder, rape, etc. are wrong? If not, then what is stopping you from doing these things? If so, then you believe that people still have rights (if murder is wrong, then people have the right not to be murdered).
If we were all plunge into nonarchy tomorrow, I suspect my moral compass would remain the same in terms of my behavior.
In other words, you recognize that right and wrong do not change simply because they are not formally spelled out, which means we agree.
Animals don’t murder, they kill…
This is a bit off topic (and I’m sure some libertarians would disagree with me), but the reason that it makes no sense to speak of murder in the context of animals is because animals are devoid of free will, and hence, incapable of acting morally (or immorally). In other words, animals are amoral beings, which is also why (IMO, at least) the NAP does not apply to them.
Without a rule of law, however, signalling what is and is not appropriate behavior, aggressive behavior would have no check other than individual counter-force.
Putting aside the fact that law can exist without the presence of a state, you have already admitted that you do not need any sort of “signals” to accurately differentiate between right and wrong. Why can’t everyone else be expected to do the same?
fwiw, Donnie Deutsch on MSNBC predicted a Jeb win in 16. Somewhat interesting mostly because he’s quite the liberal, near as I can tell.
pf, I don’t disagree. But it seems to me that Romney had no cake walk. I don’t think Jeb has the weaknesses the extent to which Romney had them, namely RomneyCare and his religion.
Jeb’s wife is Latina and Mexico-born, which addresses the Latin vote issue in interesting ways.
Now, this crowd might view this as a negative, but I saw Jeb on CNBC a few years back in which he said his morning read includes Cato @ Liberty.
I think Jeb will end up closing the deal after a bunch of misdirection with various also-rans having their 15 minutes of leading in the polls, much like what happened in 2012.
pf: making the scenario Capozzi posits at January 28, 2015 at 4:06 pm impossible.
me: Yes, Mitt and Jeb splitting the semi-sane GOP primary goers IS now impossible. A theocrat COULD stll get hot and choke out Jeb. Or another semi-sane-type might arise…I guess Christie would be an example. Or Kasich. Or even Carly Fiorina.
RP2 I consider semi-sane, actually, but is not from the establishment’s perspective.
Agreed. It would also help the growing “libertarianish” contingent swallow the massively stinky turd of a Bush III run and head the LP off at the pass.
l: you would immediately commence murdering, raping, stealing, and so forth, in any situation that you thought that you could get away with it?
me: Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, Langa? I’d be curious how you leap to THAT conclusion.
So, no.
If we were all plunge into nonarchy tomorrow, I suspect my moral compass would remain the same in terms of my behavior. But in a state of nature, killing would not be murder, since “murder” is a legal term. Animals don’t murder, they kill, IOW.
Even WITH a rule of law, some choose to commit crimes, presumably thinking they can get away with it, btw.
Without a rule of law, however, signalling what is and is not appropriate behavior, aggressive behavior would have no check other than individual counter-force.
I really wouldn’t count Rand out.
I think Rand has very little chance at the top of the ticket. He’s too much of a “loose cannon” for the GOP establishment to tolerate. However, I think he has a decent chance at the VP spot, as long as he says all the “right” stuff.
…there are no rights in nature.
So, if the government were abolished tomorrow, you would immediately commence murdering, raping, stealing, and so forth, in any situation that you thought that you could get away with it?
I would.
I really wouldn’t count Rand out.
Looks like it’ll be Bush III for the NSGOP:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/01/30/mitt-romney-2016-presidential-race/22577601/
L: Even a masochist would deserve the right not to be tortured against their will, just as even a very sexually promiscuous person still deserves the right not to be raped.
me: Ya know, I agree with you, and I think the rule of law reflects our subjective opinions. Whether any of this is true in a state of nature, though, I can’t say. It appears to me not to be the case, as there are no rights in nature.
January 28, 2015 at 6:15 pm. And to get back to a prior tangent in the thread that we were discussing before we jumped to this other semi-related topic, my dad tells me that Romney decided against running again, making the scenario Capozzi posits at January 28, 2015 at 4:06 pm impossible.
Paulie “the know-it-all attitudes and petty bickering, and the old boys club atmosphere are what drive people away, keep them from getting involved, keep them from coming back or bringing friends. It’s self-defeating and stupid.”
Hmmm, when did this thread become about California??
Thanks for the pronouncement from on high. I don’t agree with you. And getting back to the original question that led to this tangent, it’s that kind of attitude that keeps our active ranks less diverse, even though our ideological support base and even our voting base is a lot more diverse than you would guess by looking at our meetings. The heavy right-libertarian lean with which libertarian issues are framed and emphasized by active LP/movement groups, the know-it-all attitudes and petty bickering, and the old boys club atmosphere are what drive people away, keep them from getting involved, keep them from coming back or bringing friends. It’s self-defeating and stupid.
Even a masochist would deserve the right not to be tortured against their will, just as even a very sexually promiscuous person still deserves the right not to be raped.
L, a masochist may not agree with you. Not my thang, but some enjoy pain.
…importance is completely subjective.
No, it’s not, your navel-gazing nihilism aside. For example, by any reasonable standard, the right not to be tortured is far more important than the right to pick your nose in public (although I would support that right as well).
It is true that no two people, no matter how reasonable, are ever likely to agree as to the exact ranking of issues, but that is a far cry from implying that the importance assigned to those issues is “completely” subjective. The latter claim, like many of your proclamations, is simply absurd.
The most important issues are as follows:
1) Taxation and government mandated fiat currency. This is the lifeblood of government, and it is also how they control us. Take this away and there are no more government enforcers. Take this away and there is no funding for wars.
2) The right to keep and bear arms. Guns in the hands of regular people is the best defense against a tyrannical government as well as common criminals.
3) Fair jury trials, which include jurors who are informed about the right of jury nullification. If there is going to be any system for justice, then there must be fair jury trials.
I seem to recall that Andy gave us our priorities a few months ago. If I could remember what we were talking about, I’d look for them.
My top priority is stopping wars. It seems to me that if things continue to escalate, someone’s going to start using their nuclear weapons. All other issues will become moot if we kill ourselves off with nuclear bombs.
No one will need firearms if we’re all dead.
This does not appear to be working out too well for the people of North Korea.
Yeah, they rose up? Didn’t know.
A well armed population helps keep the government in check, even without a violent revolution. I’d be willing to bet that the situation with individual freedom in this country would be a lot worse if the gun grabbers got their way and guns were taken away from regular Americans.
Who are you arguing with? I agree with you.
I just disagree that other issues aren’t just as important.
“paulie
January 29, 2015 at 9:54 pm
Yes, and if people find the will to rise up they can get guns legally or not. You can play those mental games all day.”
This does not appear to be working out too well for the people of North Korea.
A well armed population helps keep the government in check, even without a violent revolution. I’d be willing to bet that the situation with individual freedom in this country would be a lot worse if the gun grabbers got their way and guns were taken away from regular Americans.
“have any”
Should read, “have an…”
If you can have a gun you have any effective tool for fighting tyrants and other thugs. If you are disarmed you are at the mercy of tyrants and other thugs.
a: right to keep and bear arms is one of the most important components to being a libertarian, there is a mountain of evidence to back this up,
me: Doesn’t follow. Evidence does not necessarily lead to importance. There may well be evidence that many Ls find the issue to be important, but it’s important that we remember that importance is completely subjective.
R/R were not without emotion, but their emotion sprung from a belief in a rational foundation, per their philosophies. They both displayed MUCH anger when they judged others as being emotion-based. And they both reveled in human accomplishment.
But both had a core thought system that denied that human thought was at root emotional and belief-based. Consciousness, however, if fundamentally emotional, I’d suggest, and not rational, and the human condition springs from consciousness, not math.
Congratulations. I think you have just broken your own record for the most straw man arguments and false dichotomies in a single comment. The idea that cognition can be neatly divided into “intellect” on one side and “emotion” on the other is plainly nonsensical. For example, people’s “emotional” reaction to an event often changes radically after they have had time to rationally think through the implications of it. Also, just because someone says that something just “feels” right (or wrong) doesn’t mean that “feeling” is based on pure emotion. Many times, it is actually based on rational thought that takes place on a subconscious level.
I would suggest that such appeals will be more effective when there’s an underlying recognition that emotions precede rational thought.
So, how did you come to this “recognition” of yours? By rational thought? Pure emotion? Some combination of the two? For that matter, how are you processing the meanings of these combinations of letters? Are you consciously thinking through and deciphering each one? Somehow, I doubt it. Assuming that you’re not, do you think reading is an “emotional” activity?
It seems obvious to me that rights are a function of entering into civil society, made up based in part of what FEELS right. That is, applying something like the Golden Rule to the rule of law.
Interesting that you say that. Do you believe in the Golden Rule? If so, is that belief based on reason or emotion?
Yes, and if people find the will to rise up they can get guns legally or not. You can play those mental games all day. No matter how you slice it, it’s a complete fallacy that the issues we share with conservatives are the only or most important issues. If they are for you personally, fine, but they aren’t for me. Not that they are not important issues, but others are just as important to me or more, where statistically “white” males are the least likely to be on our side.
It is not just my opinion that the right to keep and bear arms is one of the most important components to being a libertarian, there is a mountain of evidence to back this up, and just plain old common sense backs this up. Guns are an effective tool for defending liberty. A free man (or woman), can have a gun, a slave can’t.
As far as being able to leave a country, if you have a gun you can shoot your way out.
In your opinion. Personally, I think the single most important right we have in any country is the right to leave, which doesn’t exist if there is nowhere else that you are allowed to go, so emigration/immigration is a top issue for me, and the drug war, because it has killed so many of my friends. I consider opposing the wars and the police state to be top issues. There are many important issues; and no demographic has a monopoly on them by any means. Taxes and guns may be the most important issues to you but libertarians can reasonably differ on which issues they personally find to be most important.
Self-identified libertarians, maybe. Issue surveys show just as much support on issues or more by other groups. I have seen many, many surveys showing this.
I am classifying anyone who appears to be white by most people as white. So if a person is a white looking Hispanic, or a white person with a distant ancestor who was American Indian or black, or if a person is a European Jew, I am classifying them as white for the purpose of this discussion.
Once again, I want the Libertarian Party and movement to have a lot more people, and to have a lot more women and a lot more people who are not classified as being white. I am just pointing out the present reality.
I have seen surveys that say the opposite, as in surveys have indicated that white males have the highest percent of libertarians.
Another important point to consider is gun rights. The right to bear arms is one of the most important components to being a libertarian. Go to any gun show anywhere in the country, and you will see a crowd that mostly consists of white males. This is not to say that everyone at gun shows is a libertarian, because they are not, although there are some libertarians at every gun show I have attended. If there was a national referendum in the country on whether or not we should have gun rights, and white male “rednecks” were not allowed to vote, do you think we’d still have gun rights in this country? I doubt it.
I do remember that. Can’t remember if you went to the ones in Bham though.
Most appear to be white or at least large part white. I’ve known American Indians and Latinos who appear to be white, and some people may or may not consider various ethnicities to be white including Jewish, Arab, Armenian, etc. I don’t necessarily investigate everyone’s full lineage.
Hard to say since not everyone goes to every meeting nor is everyone there a student, but I’ve definitely been to more than one meeting they had where there were more women than men.
If I showed you the evidence I would then have to kill you.
I agree.
pf: I agree with having a more emotion based appeal.
me: Huge. I would suggest that such appeals will be more effective when there’s an underlying recognition that emotions precede rational thought.
This is probably the biggest diversion that the R/Rs are responsible for…that somehow “rights” can be deontologically discovered and claimed. It seems obvious to me that rights are a function of entering into civil society, made up based in part of what FEELS right. That is, applying something like the Golden Rule to the rule of law.
I’m none of the above.
Alternate Committeeman Canolli: Do you have any evdience there was a trip to Area 51 involved?
Or are you just lamely trying to make a “joke” that only reveals how clueless you and other Libertarians about how real ruthless politics works, and thereby demonstrating why the LP are chronic losers?
The survey evidence is that people of all backgrounds poll about equally libertarian. So the fact that a disproportionate number of people of certain types, not just in terms of gender and ancestry but also of personality types, attend libertarian meetings has more to do with how we recruit people and what goes on at the meetings than any feature of who our message appeals to.
Paul said: “Not enough, apparently. Ever been to the student group meetings in Bham? All-female leadership team last year.”
I’ve been to plenty of libertarian student group meetings all over the country, including Alabama, as you should know, since you and I both attended a Young Americans for Liberty meeting at Auburn University together. That meeting, like every other libertarian meeting or event I’ve ever attended had a majority white males (although there were a few white females).
I’m glad to read that this libertarian student group you are referring to in Birmingham, Alabama has all female leadership. That is a nice change of pace. Are all of the females white? Also, out of the total number of students in the group, what percentage are white males?
I’d love to see any increase in the number of women and non-whites in the Libertarian Party and movement. So when I say that most of the people at libertarian events / meetings are white males, I am not saying that this is the most desirable thing, I am just pointing out the reality of the situation.
It may end up being that no matter what we do, the libertarian movement is always going to be made up of a white male majority, but even if this is the case, I still think that it is possible to increase the number of women and non-whites in the movement. We need more libertarians, and more libertarians from all backgrounds, if we ever hope to achieve any success.
I agree with having a more emotion based appeal. I’m trying to promote the images, videos, and making thereof as much as I can.
jp: Someone has to deny emotion to be a Libertarian? Is this what you’ve been trying to tell me all alon[g]?
me: No, not to be L. To be a Randian, and in many ways to be a Rothbardian. R/R were not without emotion, but their emotion sprung from a belief in a rational foundation, per their philosophies. They both displayed MUCH anger when they judged others as being emotion-based. And they both reveled in human accomplishment.
But both had a core thought system that denied that human thought was at root emotional and belief-based. Consciousness, however, if fundamentally emotional, I’d suggest, and not rational, and the human condition springs from consciousness, not math.
Not enough, apparently. Ever been to the student group meetings in Bham? All-female leadership team last year.
How about a new article on the topic?
Before or after they took him to Area 51?
Reagan chose Bush because Rockefeller, speaking through Kissinger & Ford, told Reagan he’d only ever see the inside of the White House as a tourist if he chose someone else.
The RLC is not tiny in Los Angeles County, certainly as compared to the regular GOP. The latter is practically nonexistent in our county, from what I can tell. The RLC has some very attractive young people in it (has anyone heard of the “Liberty Kids”?), and they go to many events and always seem to have a good time.
I’ll spend some time on our meetings this past year later today. I’m really hoping for a “Eureka” moment concerning my region this year, and could use more discussion from all of you.,
“paulie
January 29, 2015 at 12:41 pm
Depends on which ones. Also various students for liberty and YAL groups, etc. I have seen some that had a much more diverse population than the typical LP event, and the same with some Campaign For Liberty groups. Especially a lot of them have more women involved, but also more of a skin shade diversity to some extent at least”
I have never been to a libertarian type of event or meeting of any kind anywhere in the country where a majority of the people there were not white males, and I’ve been to lots of them.
Martinez (whom I suspect is receiving some serious grooming and coaching) are now odds on favorites no matter WHO is at the top of the ticket. Many boxes ticked.
Among other things, NM, just in case Johnson gains more traction…
RC said: “It may be because denying emotion appeals most to white men, as a general matter. Randian/Rothbardianism attempts to make everything in the human condition “rational.”
I don’t understand. Someone has to deny emotion to be a Libertarian? Is this what you’ve been trying to tell me all alone?
Depends on which ones. Also various students for liberty and YAL groups, etc. I have seen some that had a much more diverse population than the typical LP event, and the same with some Campaign For Liberty groups. Especially a lot of them have more women involved, but also more of a skin shade diversity to some extent at least.
“I don’t think that is it. Ron Paul events had pretty diverse crowds.”
I have attended Ron Paul / Campaign for Liberty events all over the country. Just like Libertarian Party meetings, the crowds at these events were all mostly white males. This is not to say that everyone there was a white male, just like not everyone at every LP meeting is a white male, but I am saying that white males were the majority at these events/meetings.
Jill said liberty groups including RLC, so it’s not just one example. And I can give many other examples myself.
PF, the RLC is tiny iirc, so I would not extrapolate from that one example.
Actually, I think Rubio and Martinez (whom I suspect is receiving some serious grooming and coaching) are now odds on favorites no matter WHO is at the top of the ticket. Many boxes ticked.
Cruz and Paul are unreliable from the GOP bosses’ perspective. Loose cannons. I suspect they learned their Palin lesson, which was desperate and mostly about sex appeal, near as I can tell.
That doesn’t explain why other liberty groups such as the Republican Liberty Caucus don’t have this problem, per what Jill reported above.
I don’t think that is it. Ron Paul events had pretty diverse crowds. Meanwhile, a lot of Green Party and Socialist events I have been to were overwhelmingly paleskins who looked like they probably had male genitalia, although I did not actually check. Maybe it’s the longshot impracticality/long range focus of alt party efforts, the lack of active outreach, and the oneupsmanship/petty bickering/prove you’re worthy atmosphere of alt party activities. Women and people not generally classified as white may be more inclined towards things that are (or seem) more practical and short term oriented.
We have pretty good gender balance at the Birmingham LP meetings, so some of it may just be about who is doing the recruiting and how they go about it.
LOL, nice try at trolling. You’ve built too many levels of absurd into it to take it seriously. Tone it down a couple of notches.
How much of an effort do you make to go to events where most people aren’t “white” and actively invite them to the LP meetings? And what happens at LP meeting that creates an incentive for people to show up?
Being actively engaged with different community organizations that have non “white” majority participation, tabling at their events, etc. You can also try starting a branch of Libertarios in your region. It’s nice if you can bring some Latino Libertarians to community events and tabling in majority Latino areas and events, but even if you don’t have any that are willing to make the effort, just showing up to them (and not just rarely) would help you out a lot. It would also help if you have engaging speakers, videos, and other things going on at your meetings to draw a good crowd and a good way to remind people about them. Meetings should always involve some active planning of outreach activities as well as various ways of actively influencing policy whether by lobbying, protesting, running candidates, etc. None of these are magic solutions, but they help.
I would say there is actually a very good chance. They have done it every other time except 2008.
I can see them thinking that way. A Cruz or Rubio could well “balance” the ticket for Mitt or Jeb. On the other hand, I don’t think tokenism will get them a big chunk of the Latino vote. They need to pull their head out of their ass on immigration, at a minimum, to do that.
Wes Benedict told me that a precinct level analysis of Texas vote results shows we already do better in areas with a high percentage of Latino names, as opposed to ones with an overwhelming preponderance of Anglo names. However, when it comes to active party membership, you are correct. I don’t think tokenism will do it for us either. Biggest problem for us is lack of actively trying to do nearly enough outreach, much less to a variety of different communities.
Thanks. So that bolsters my hypothesis about why Reagan chose Bush as VP, as opposed to the point others made above about presidential candidates selecting someone more along their lines rather than someone to balance the ticket. Likewise when it came his turn, papa Bush – perceived to be more of a moderate – chose Quayle to give the ticket more of a hard right “balance.” Ryan, Kemp and Palin may have been other examples of this. There’s even been some speculation that the choice of Palin had something to do with some Republicans being unjustifiably concerned that Barr would be a bigger deal than he was.
There are enough L-leaner where they could be legitimately concerned about a larger defection to the LP and us gaining too much momentum. Rand Paul will probably do better than Ron Paul in 2008 or 2012, although I don’t think he’ll get the presidential nomination. I think VP is very plausible though. He’ll be out pulling out all the stops to keep quasi-libertarians voting Republican whether he’s on the ticket or not, but will be more effective at it if he is on as VP.
LOL, not up to me. Youtube will keep it until the parent company of comedy central files a copyright claim, or whatever. But I’m sure someone will keep it.
I’m region chair of the Pasadena region in southern Ca. The city, county and entire state are ethnically diverse. Yet, I still have only white men coming to my meetings, with only a few exceptions, It drives me nuts.
My theory is that every other demographic group (besides white men) has been brainwashed into believing that the government is “on their side”, despite all of the evidence to the contrary.
jp: Yet, I still have only white men coming to my meetings, with only a few exceptions, It drives me nuts.
me: It may be because denying emotion appeals most to white men, as a general matter. Randian/Rothbardianism attempts to make everything in the human condition “rational.”
Of course, everything is actually emotion. Rationalism may feel good, but at the most radical level, it comes down to how one feels. Unavoidable, actually.
“Matt Cholko
January 28, 2015 at 11:59 pm
Yeah, I agree that people shouldn’t vote for those reasons, Andy. But, that ain’t how voting works, in practice.”
And this is a big part of the reason why those of us who value individual freedom are in such a bad predicament, as in we are surrounded by idiots who cast votes based on superficial reasons, such as race, ethnicity, proclaimed religious faith, etc…
Yeah, I agree that people shouldn’t vote for those reasons, Andy. But, that ain’t how voting works, in practice.
Contra capo, a succesful NOTA electoral slate would be very interesting! Libertarian electors deciding for themselves who to vote for are very much in the spirit of the great LP hero Roger MacBride, RIP.
Who will they coalesce around to off the House as the third choice? Rand Paul? Bob Barr? It’s great drama. And you know one of them will vote Kubby too, so it’s win-win.
“alleged religious affiliated”
Should read, “alleged religious affiliation…”
“Robert Capozzi
January 28, 2015 at 8:46 pm
‘a: ?anything else beyond where they stand on the issues and do they have the character to do what they say they are going to do, is completely moronic.’
me: Likely very high percentages of complete morons, then?.”
You are right about this, and this is all the more reason for libertarians to band together and form a Libertarian Zone ( https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/andy-jacobs-the-libertarian-zone/ ).
a: …anything else beyond where they stand on the issues and do they have the character to do what they say they are going to do, is completely moronic.
me: Likely very high percentages of complete morons, then….
““A recent Gallup poll revealed that self-described “independents” are the nation’s largest political demographic. Indeed a record-breaking 43 percent of Americans now say they are independents, compared to 30 percent who are Democrats and 26 percent who are Republican.”
I have long said that the biggest potential support bases for the Libertarian Party are independents and non-voters.
“Matt Cholko
January 28, 2015 at 5:59 pm
I think there is virtually no chance that the Repubs put two white men with American sounding names on the ticket. There will be one of those sorta Hispanic dudes, or a woman, as VP, if the POTUS candidate is a regular old white guy Republican.
If I were a Repub shot caller, I’d try very hard to get a real latino on the ticket. They’re totally fucked in the medium to long term if they don’t figure out how to get a good chunk of ‘the latino vote.'”
The entire notion of voting for somebody based on their race, ethnicity, alleged religious affiliated (I say alleged since most people who proclaim a religion are hypocrites), age, sexual orientation, or anything else beyond where they stand on the issues and do they have the character to do what they say they are going to do, is completely moronic.
Matt, I completely agree. We need more women ,too, but that’s another topic. I’m region chair of the Pasadena region in southern Ca. The city, county and entire state are ethnically diverse. Yet, I still have only white men coming to my meetings, with only a few exceptions, It drives me nuts.
The two prior chairs, plus our current chair, of Los Angeles County are Latino. Yet, that doesn’t seem to help. Once in a while Alan and I go to other liberty events in Los Angeles county, and they have plenty of ethnicities, especially the Republic Liberty Caucus here.
Any suggestions from leaders in other areas?
I think there is virtually no chance that the Repubs put two white men with American sounding names on the ticket. There will be one of those sorta Hispanic dudes, or a woman, as VP, if the POTUS candidate is a regular old white guy Republican.
If I were a Repub shot caller, I’d try very hard to get a real latino on the ticket. They’re totally fucked in the medium to long term if they don’t figure out how to get a good chunk of “the latino vote.”
The same goes for the LP, by the way. We really need to reach out to latinos.
pf, Anderson went indie well before the GOP convention and the selection of GHWB.
I hear Zimbabwe is nice! 🙂
JP, I hear you. Anything’s possible, but I’d say if one of them were nominated, they would most likely be trounced.
JK, agreed. One could imagine the HC would be the MOST hawkish of the prospects, in part to somehow “prove” how “tough” she is.
All the more important to have an L voice calling for a more peaceful approach to the world. I’m not sure NOTA has the pipes to send that message! 😉
I think that, if Santorum/Huckabee miraculously won the Presidency (or the other wayaround), it just might be the “nail in the coffin” to get me to finally leave this country. I don’t know where I’d go–but it least it makes me feel better to dream about the possibilities.
The problem is that most Democrats don’t find Hillary a scary war monster. Most people aren’t political buffs.
PF, yes, but I don’t think there are enough L-leaners in the GOP. Mostly the vp is someone who won’t embarrass the candidate, who offers a wing of the party, who provides regional balance.
Doesn’t always work out, of course, witness: Palin, who gave Dr. Strangelove a bump but proceeded to remind us that he’s a synapse away from Alzheimer’s.
PF, keep that tape! Killin’ pigs! Maybe he was riffing off Joni Ernst, but that was a D-!
(Still, his voice modulation is as good as it gets, actually.)
From the perspective of moderates, no. From the prospective of libertarian-leaning Republicans, he does.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lybL9ybl00E
Wildly speculating, but were one of the theos to get the nomination, Rand Paul doesn’t balance that ticket. He makes it more unbalanced.
Think Graham or Thune or Kasich, I’d say.
Rand Paul MIGHT balance Romney or Bush, but I’d say Rubio or Martinez would be the more likely play.
mp, yes, I agree that’s more likely. It’s not inconceivable, though, that one of the theocrats could get hot early, and Jed and Mitt might split the semi-sane element of the GOP. Huckabee especially is very articulate, masking his really disturbing worldview.
VP almost never matters in the generals.
HC could be a landslide. GJ or another mainstream-ish L cannot win, of course, but I’d say a half Perot result is a longshot possibility.
The establishment parties don’t want to alienate large portions of their base, so in cases where they pick a candidate who appeals to only one side of their party they usually try to balance the ticket. For example, Reagan would have probably preferred someone other than Bush for VP, but picked Bush because he did not want to lose moderate Republicans to Carter (or Anderson – I’d have to look up whether Anderson was running yet at that point). If it’s Huckabee or Santorum, which I also don’t think will happen, they will need to pick someone from the “libertarian” or moderate wings of the NSGOP if they don’t want to lose to the Democrats in a landslide (and even then, a landslide loss is still quite possible). Since the LP will be a real option for voters on the ballot, a “libertarian” VP would be plausible to head us off at the pass. However, they also don’t want to lose the mushy middle or the country club Republican donors, so it would be interesting to see what they would do.
If Huckabee or Santorum were the nominee (not going to happen, IMO) I think they would be more concerned with finding an ideologically similiar VP, vs. balancing the ticket. And both are way too hostile, and publicly hostile, to Rand to ever pick him. There’s a limit to how far ticket-balancing can go, more often the nominee picks somebody they can work with.
If the Republicans were to pick someone like Santorum or Huckabee, which I don’t think is likely, they might run Rand Paul for VP. I see a Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney type as more likely to be the nominee though. Santorum, Huckabee or Paul would all be more likely to get a VP than a top spot.
JK, I don’t think it’s just the millenials. Freedom leaners of all ages who find theocrats scary, and another, more hawkish, more big-government Clinton almost as scary.
A no-name or NOTA L is not likely to be interesting, however.
Huckabee/Santorum vs. Clinton vs. whoever has the potential to be interesting. It’s actually possible if enough young people flee the GOP to tip that primary to the old folks. The question is – will the millenials who will make it interesting show up to vote and volunteer, or just walk around in skinny jeans and weird glasses, sipping fancy cocktails out of mason jars, and eating $50 hamburgers in places that used to be icons of opportunity, such as the LES?
If the GOP were to nominate Huckabee or Santorum, 2016 could be an interesting year indeed.