Is there a chance for major growth of the Libertarian party?

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake

Given the complete clowns running for president from both the Republican and Democratic parties, and the fact that both parties are corrupting the process and distorting the results of the primary process, I have to wonder, is it possibly time for a viable third party? Someone not beholden to an establishment, to corrupt interests (either unions or big business). A party that respects individual's freedom to choose on a variety of areas (what guns to own and rather to have an abortion). One that respects freedom but also respects private property rights. Something needs to change. The 2 establishment parties have become a joke.

A viable libertarian party would also become a joke in short order because the problem isn`t the parties...it`s the voters.


2.2% of the population contributes to political campaigns.


0.01% of the population contributes more than $2,500.


When the money is all added up, 2/3 of all political contributions come from the 0.01% who contribute more than $2,500.


With the possible exception of Trump, everyone running for office owes their first allegiance to the 0.01% donor class, and regardless of what they say, they will do the bidding of the individuals and organizations that that put their name in front of the voters.


This isn`t the fault of the politicians or the parties.


They are simply playing the cards they have been dealt.


It isn`t entirely the fault of the 0.01% donor class.


They are simply taking advantage of legalized bribery.


The real problem is that any retard can vote in this country.


Nothing will change until that changes.

[pknopp]

How much did you get for your vote?

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by turkey-head

We spend far more money on corporate welfare than on social welfare. If Libertarians were serious and actually believe what they claim to believe, they could prove it by going after corporate welfare FIRST. But they don't and they never will... because the root of their ideology isn't freedom. It's conceit and wealth-worship.


So yeah, go after corporate welfare. End the 'war on drugs'. End interventionist foreign policy. Champion civil rights. End the police/surveillance state. Do something for ME. And then *maybe* I'll take y'all seriously again.

But currently all I see outta y'all is billionaire-worship. Sympathy, socialism, and turning a blind eye to theft by the wealthy... nothing but contempt and vicious competition for everybody else. Waxing philosophical to defend discrimination and corruption... but turning to crass legalism to defend people who benefit from corporate welfare, monopolies, etc.

This is why Libertarians will never get beyond single digit percentages. Only a select few among us can accept such obvious hypocrisy.

And you'll be rushing to vote for Clinton who is all about corporate welfare and endless wars on top of her war on women and hypocrisy on practically every front.

[Linda_d]

Originally Posted by turkey-head

We spend far more money on corporate welfare than on social welfare. If Libertarians were serious and actually believe what they claim to believe, they could prove it by going after corporate welfare FIRST. But they don't and they never will... because the root of their ideology isn't freedom. It's conceit and wealth-worship.


So yeah, go after corporate welfare. End the 'war on drugs'. End interventionist foreign policy. Champion civil rights. End the police/surveillance state. Do something for ME. And then *maybe* I'll take y'all seriously again.

But currently all I see outta y'all is billionaire-worship. Sympathy, socialism, and turning a blind eye to theft by the wealthy... nothing but contempt and vicious competition for everybody else. Waxing philosophical to defend discrimination and corruption... but turning to crass legalism to defend people who benefit from corporate welfare, monopolies, etc.

This is why Libertarians will never get beyond single digit percentages. Only a select few among us can accept such obvious hypocrisy.

Well said!

[Old Gringo]

Probably not. They aren't a serious political entity. They're more like a club.

[victorianpunk]

Originally Posted by turkey-head

As long as Libertarians' singular goal is upward wealth redistribution- no, they won't grow beyond their two main constituencies:

1. Hicks with Stockholm Syndrome who worship billionaires and guns.

2. Basement-dwellers who are smart enough to be attracted to the libertarian ideology's fairly consistent internal logic- but without the life experience to see that it bears little resemblance to the outside world.

Okay, I see. So all of us who read up on the subject and understand the history of voluntary society and how examples exist throughout history of communitarianism being far better than statist welfare systems don't get a category. Yep, you got it all figured out.

I arguably fit into both/either group as a young man, and was still registered as a Libertarian until a few weeks ago when I switched to Democrat so I could caucus for Bernie. I still agree *in theory* with much of the libertarian platform. But as long as their primary focus is upward wealth redistribution, they'll never have my support.

I have yet to hear any Libertarian talk about "upward wealth redistribution". The opposite, actually, as most of the ones I've met are anti-capitalist. I am pretty critical of capitalism myself, but it needs to die a slow death. What will replace it? A free-market system. Capitalism is, by definition, "rule of capital." A Free-market is a natural organic state of voluntary human interaction, with only the market and the people who use it (all of society) running the show, and not a handful of rich people on the top who bribe politicians.

And Bernie will be the most pro-capitalist, pro-big business president in history, even if he intends the opposite. The very rich will always find a way to use whatever regulation comes out to their advantage. They can always move and set up "international companies" and have just enough stockholders in foreign countries to work the system, and the only ones damaged by a Bernie regime will be the small businesses and medium sized companies who don't have the connections of the people on the top.

The only thing the capitalist class fears is a free-market, because it would mean they would suddenly have to contend with naturally occurring competition, where before they had the protections that regulations provided them with. There is a reason this is the most popular Libertarian images in recent years:



And I will ask you the same question I ask every critic of Libertarianism, but that no critics of libertarianism have been able to answer: name three schools of Libertarian thought. And no, I don't mean silly stereotypes, but I mean real schools of thought. I can do so with socialism:

Social-Democracy: redistribution of wealth through a welfare state while keeping a market economy
Maoism: A form of revolutionary socialism that calls for cultural as well as economic and political revolution with emphasis on peasants and students and not the traditional industrial proletariat
Democratic Socialism: slow transition to total socialism through the democratic process, usually starting with a social-democratic style welfare state.

Now, can you do that with Libertarianism? I doubt it.

And I love how the same people who would flip out on anyone who compares Bernie Sanders to Stalin have no problem comparing Karl Hess to Ayn Rand

And who was Karl Hess? Just the libertarian who coined the phrase "99% vs the 1%" and talked about income inequality back in the 70s...but I am sure he, too, just wanted to "redistribute wealth to the top"

The radical right-wing roots of Occupy Wall Street