libertarian party US prez candidate

His name is Bob Barr, and after hearing him in an interview (on the Colbert Report) he sounded like the biggest hypocrite ever. Even Colbert joked that Barr wanted to “make the government so small it can fit in the bedroom”

I looked him up, he was the most vocal proponent for the ‘war on drugs’, he wrote the ‘defense of marriage act’, an opponent of abortion (and his wife had an abortion), tried to get the pentagon to ban Wicca in the military…

yeah, all of this is very libertarian. (It’s not that I’m in completely favor of the things he opposed (I don’t like wiccans :laughing:) ) but that he would adopt completely opposite views when running for the Libertarian party candidacy, and that he actually won!

I also heard the speech by a libertarian party chairman, they were complaining that the republican party had lost its way, that the GOP had “become the democrats”. Basically saying “we dislike republicans because they are in league with the evil democrats, that’s why we’re libertarian. We’re the rightful heirs of the republican throne”

I should stop watching c-span, I’m starting to hate libertarians. I saw this other interview, where they were asking this guy to explain the libertarian party platform, and the kind of people who make it up. The answer was something along the lines of: compromisers (whose goal is to actually get elected), anarchists (that want to get rid of government completely), objectivists (that consider it a ‘heroic struggle’ for ‘freedom’)…

I could not stop laughing, I was expecting him to add “right-wing hippies, democrat hating crypto-republicans, and finally conservatives that want it to merge back with the republicans”. Next time someone tells me they’re a card carrying member of the libertarian party, I’m gonna punch’em in the face!! :laughing:

US politicians certainly seem to be developing random, weird ideas. I read a comment that Ron Paul was in favour of allowing handguns on airplanes. Surely some mistake?

ha ha ha, what?! that sounds insane!! If I had heard that I would have reconsidered voting for him in the primaries. I REALLY liked his foreign policy, but on domestic stuff he’s a bit nuts. (he’s also a creationist :laughing: )

No, I doubt it was a mistake. I think Ron Paul’s positions on everything can be assumed. If it’s anything that is a law, he’s against it. I think he’s for abolishing just about every government program or agency.

He’s said that if people had guns on the plane, 9/11 would have been averted. He’s said school shootings could have been averted if students and teachers were able to carry concealed weapons also.

Actually, I believe the pilots now have a gun in the cockpit cabin on flights now. I recall a story of one accidentally being fired mid-flight.

Yeah, absurd as it may seem, this is the sort of thing one hears a lot from anti-gun-control people, who seem to think that if everyone is armed, the good guys will all be able to instantly–and with flawless precision–take out a potential attacker at the first sign of trouble. I think they learned this from action movies.

Yes, I think the major miscalculation comes when you see how many people actually own guns. Guns are pretty easy to obtain right now. I think relaxing the laws would do nothing, it won’t increase gun sales or gun ownership. They are as lax as they can get right now, and I don’t have a gun. It won’t arm a single person on an airplane, but, of course, the bad guys would all be completely armed.

It’s all a numbers game. there were an average of 65 people on the 9-11 flights, about 5 hi-jackers per flight. It’s safe to assume that if they allowed guns on planes, they would all have them. Now, how many regular people would have guns? I honestly have no idea, but if a hijacker starts shooting and is shot back at, hidden hijackers could wait and see who pulls out their guns.

Here’s the thing about libertarianism as a movement:

They wrap themselves in the libertarian banner to break down -federal- regulations on stuff like abortion and homosexuality. That’s because they want the freedom to decide, at the state level, to start burning people at the stake.

They also tend to be very hard-hitting on federal economic measures because only the federal government really -is- in a position to regulate commerce in any meaningful way. They support states’ rights there, because the states really can’t do a damn thing individually to enforce labor laws on companies that employ Chinese prison slave labor.

I’m a libertarian (in general), and I vote Democrat, because Democrats actually support personal freedoms…and, compared to the Republicans, -much less government-!

The Libertarian Party needs to be executed en masse.

It is ironic and really annoying to hear someone threaten to punch libertarians and someone else say to execute them. Why the hostility against a group which insists on ‘the non-aggression principle’.

It’s also very, very wrong to say that libertarians want to burn people at the stake, even when they advocate state’s rights. I support decentralization because it’s more efficient and creative. I want progress. Behemoth organizations do not advance progress, nor do bureaucracies or the inherently limited variability of centralized policies. Decentralization allows a great variability of methods and policies to be tested and compared. This creates, in exchange for short-term inefficiencies (as compared to centralization), a long-term upwards pressure on governmental quality and efficiency. It can also allow the smaller areas, when they disagree with each other, to engage in different policies peacefully.

To sum, I believe in state’s rights as part of my beliefs in advancing technology and human happiness. I have no illusions that the results will be everywhere positive. (It is unlikely I will want to move to Alabama or California under a less federally-dominated scheme, for very different reasons on each.) It is however that variability itself which makes decentralization superior. A panoply of policies can only improve our ability to make lasting progress.

One problem is that one could make a formally identical argument in favor of anarchism. Of course, the reason why such an argument wouldn’t work is that the benefits of variability and creativity only go so far in an anarchic system, whereas the short-term inefficiencies are legion. Indeed, when left unchecked, many of these inefficiencies will persist and even increase.
And since we all agree that at least some amount of consolidated government power is needed to keep this from happening, it becomes an empirical question of exactly what flexibility:efficiency ratio will best ensure this upwards pressure. Certainly, there are some ruts that the government’s lack of versatility has gotten it stuck in, but there are plenty of other cases in which the inefficiencies of decentralization wouldn’t just be “not everywhere positive,” but would be utterly devastating. I’m no less suspicious of the claim that decentralization is inherently superior than I am of the same claim made about bureaucracy; it’s all about finding a balance.

Businesses tend to dislike decentralisation, because it makes the cost of doing business rise. If every state has its own laws and regulations, it becomes almost more trouble than it is worth to sell your product in another state.
If Every school board has its own standards, its far more expensive to provide teaching materials for the whole country, etc etc.

A monumental study of devolution was carried out in Italy about 20 years ago that demonstrated the positive effects devolved administrations could have on economic wellbeing. In particular the Emilia-Romagna region benefited greatly from devolution, rising from the second poorest region in Italy to the second most affluent. The study showed that high trust societies, with very high associational and group membership, a strong civic culture with a large and also dense concentration of small businesses, gained great rewards from regional and local administration. The reason for this is that devolved administrations are more responsive to community needs, while central governments are bureaucratic and inflexible.

The study was so influential it created a large academically based communitiarian movement that is having a profound affect on public policy.

Oh absolutely, I’m not saying that from a position of how it affects society a a whole, that centralisation is good. I’m a strong believer in local democracy and a sense of community. I’m just pointing out the business argument against devolving stuff like regulation.
The problem that I see in the UK with local democracy is that participation is minimal. The percentage of people voting for councillors is tiny, and council meetings are practically empty. It doesn’t help that local officials themselves are contemptuous of the electorate, holding public meetings on weekday afternoons, and not worrying if they are elected by 10% of the electorate.
We need stronger local democracy, there’s no doubt of that, but solving this is linked to other issues, such as local government budgets being controlled by central government. What’s the point in voting in a council from party A, when central party B will just slash their funding out of spite?

we need soviet democracy.

And that would accomplish what?

it would not have the issues of number of partys in de facto.

You don’t seem to be aware of what really went on in the Soviet Union. The poor that socialism/communism is supposed to care so much about suffered the most. There still was a wealthy class, maybe not as wealthy in free market countries, but a separate class from the rest, mainly bureaucrats, who shopped in their own stores, with goods imported from other parts of the world. Have you ever read “Animal Farm”?

  1. socialism has to be for the people, if it is not, it is not socialism
  2. you should study more on the soviet union from non-capitalist sources
  3. yes I have read that stupid book.

See, I’m a left-libertarian. I agree that taxes should be kept low, the Fed should definitely be investigated and the stimulus has changed my views on government’s role in the economy.

However, unlike Ron Paul I am STRONGLY opposed to states rights on issues like abortion, gay rights, and religion. See, most libertarians support states rights because they believe in freedom for gays to be exterminated in concentration camps by suspender-wearing Evangelists and redneck fascists.

Indeed the so-called libertarians and constitutionalists are worse than the Republicans. They keep espousing this view that courts should be banned from ruling on same-sex marriage and that marriage should not be recognized by the government. Call me crazy but I think this is a cop-out strategy to avoid being marked as homophobic but still guaranteeing that the government NEVER acknowledges gay rights or homosexuality for that matter.

I believe in gay marriage, I believe in marijuana, I believe in banning hate crimes and workplace discrimination. I don’t think people have a “constitutional right” to fire someone for being gay and they certainly don’t have a right to commit hate crimes. Ever since Prop 8 passed in CA hate crimes have skyrocketed!

The Founding Fathers believed in state’s rights for a reason, and not the reason you mention. A big reason was because of the threat of the federal government getting too many powers, becoming oppressive. Go read the Federalist Papers to get a good idea of what the Founders intentioned. You’ll find true liberals (libertarians) stand for the same.

I don’t understand your homosexual thing. To clear the issue, a lot of Libertarians are proponents of FairTax (another problem with this game), which is a national consumption tax. Taxes are paid when something is bought on the retail level. And look at that, problem solved, the government doesn’t give any tax credits to married couples. Happy now?

I bet you believe in Affirmative Action too, huh?

Just be happy we live in a republic and not a democracy, where a simple 51% popular vote could decide what is law and what isn’t.

the founding fathers were elitists.