| Let's Try Something New “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”
Keep voting for the RepubliCrats and expect a different result.
»www.lp.org |
|
| said by eugenegill:“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” Keep voting for the RepubliCrats and expect a different result. » www.lp.org I don't see it ever happening. In general, people are unwilling to think for themselves (hence the term "sheeple"). They fall for the same old song and dance every election year, being more concerned about who's going to win Survivor than who's running the country.
I'm not advocating the Libertarian party or any other. In fact, we'd probably be better off with someone who's not affiliated with any party. |
|
|
|
| reply to eugenegill
said by eugenegill:“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results” Keep voting for the RepubliCrats and expect a different result. » www.lp.org Until you get the lobby money out of Washington and do real campaign finance reform that would limit donations to caps from individuals from their districts only, it doesn't matter if it's Rep, Dem, OR Lib... the song will remain the same. |
|
| said by Uncle Paul:Until you get the lobby money out of Washington and do real campaign finance reform that would limit donations to caps from individuals from their districts only, it doesn't matter if it's Rep, Dem, OR Lib... the song will remain the same. We are veering off topic here, but let me add this: All campaign finance "reform", donations caps, etc. legislation should be completely repealed. At the same time, the power of congress to grant special favors should be removed. All laws should apply to all people. Lobbyists can never be legislated away, you can only remove the reason for their existence. |
|
| I feel that if you only allow politicians to receive money from individuals (and only individuals not groups or companies) who's primary residence is in the district (or state) the politician is to represent, you would remove the largest power a lobbyist has... money. Then, cap the amount each individual person can give. To me that would make politicians actually more like representatives than politicians.
But yea.. off topic. |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to digitalfreak
said by digitalfreak:» www.lp.orgI don't see it ever happening. In general, people are unwilling to think for themselves (hence the term "sheeple"). No political party which calls its potential constituents "sheeple" will gain relevance. That's the reason the Libertarian Party consistently garners the same 2% of the vote for the past *37 years* since its formation.
Libertarianism isn't realistic because it uses hyperbolic, principle-laden terms to claim a moral high ground over others, while ignoring the practical application of those principles to real social issues.
Libertarians like to invoke the "goose bumply" feeling among potential converts (and I call them "converts" because it's more like a religion than a political party), but avoid "rubber-meets-the-road" topics because Libertarians recognize they'll either 1) undermine their own principle-laden rhetoric (revealing they're as realistic/pragmatic as anyone else, and it's just a matter of degrees). Or, 2) corner themselves into irrelevancy with unpopular/unrealistic positions -- continuing to receive 2% of the vote.
That's why Libertarianism seems more like a religion (cult) than a political movement.
1. They try to obscure the true meaning to prospective converts.
2. They constantly undergo internal schism as pragmatists come out of the closet and battle with purists (instead of other political parties). I.e., Ideology is more important than practical application.
3. A strong sense of "in group" versus "out group." Terms like "sheeple," etc. to crisply identify the "out group" and maintain control over the "in group." (No balanced view, nor middle ground.).
Mark |
|
| I think people don't vote Libertarian because they have a tendency to rate choices on a scale of how much I agree with them. They feel there isn't enough people voting for their favorite to win so they pick one of the major party candidates because they don't want least favorite to win. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by Uncle Paul:I think people don't vote Libertarian because they have a tendency to rate choices on a scale of how much I agree with them. There's definitely a human tendency that you describe, exemplified by West Coast voters not going to polls based upon what they hear during election eve news.
However, I don't believe that explains all of Libertarianism's problem, nor why its election results (and party membership) haven't improved in *37 years.*.
Libertarians propose vague social policy because they don't want to commit themselves to specifics. It's always "the government shouldn't be involved in that." But, if you take their principle-laden rhetoric literally, government shouldn't be involved in anything except national defense, criminal prosecution, etc. No public roads. No libraries. No regulation of banks and the stock market.
That's why they like to use principle-laden rhetoric while avoiding specifics. If a pragmatic Libertarian steps forward and says "public roads are justified", the purists will attack him for endorsing "coercion" (forcing individuals to pay for roads which they didn't "consent" to.).
I'm talking about Big-L Libertarians (the Libertarian party). Small-l libertarians are the pragmatists who use the heady, principle-laden rhetoric without taking it seriously. They like the goose-bumply feeling you get from talking big. But, they recognize the irrelevancy that comes with actually taking that rhetoric seriously.
I tend to have more respect for Big-Ls because at least they're consistent (even if consistently irrelevant). I don't have much respect for people who claim a moral high-ground they don't deserve. Who act like they have "principle" on their side, but really just compromise differently than everyone else (but can't articulate why, thus requiring "principle" to hide behind).
That's why I think both Big Ls and small will never gain much traction. Most people have a built-in BS detector. Both flavors of libertarianism set it off like crazy.
Again, who in their right mind would believe you can attract support by calling potential supporters (who prefer more individual freedom) "sheeple" just because they aren't absolutists (or pretend to be, like small Ls)?
Mark |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:said by digitalfreak:» www.lp.orgI don't see it ever happening. In general, people are unwilling to think for themselves (hence the term "sheeple"). No political party which calls its potential constituents "sheeple" will gain relevance. That's the reason the Libertarian Party consistently garners the same 2% of the vote for the past *37 years* since its formation. Libertarianism isn't realistic because it uses hyperbolic, principle-laden terms to claim a moral high ground over others, while ignoring the practical application of those principles to real social issues. Libertarians like to invoke the "goose bumply" feeling among potential converts (and I call them "converts" because it's more like a religion than a political party), but avoid "rubber-meets-the-road" topics because Libertarians recognize they'll either 1) undermine their own principle-laden rhetoric (revealing they're as realistic/pragmatic as anyone else, and it's just a matter of degrees). Or, 2) corner themselves into irrelevancy with unpopular/unrealistic positions -- continuing to receive 2% of the vote. That's why Libertarianism seems more like a religion (cult) than a political movement. 1. They try to obscure the true meaning to prospective converts. 2. They constantly undergo internal schism as pragmatists come out of the closet and battle with purists (instead of other political parties). I.e., Ideology is more important than practical application. 3. A strong sense of "in group" versus "out group." Terms like "sheeple," etc. to crisply identify the "out group" and maintain control over the "in group." (No balanced view, nor middle ground.). Mark Don't quote me if you're not going to do it in context. I specifically said "I'm not advocating the Libertarian party or any other. In fact, we'd probably be better off with someone who's not affiliated with any party." |
|
DesdinovaPremium
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | reply to amigo_boy
"No political party which calls its potential constituents "sheeple" will gain relevance. That's the reason the Libertarian Party consistently garners the same 2% of the vote for the past *37 years* since its formation."
I'm not sure the labeling is the problem with the Libertarian Party's level of acceptance (or non-acceptance). For your argument to hold true, it implies that the remaining 98% of the country (or at least a significant portion) needs to be following the LP's positions and comparing and contrasting those positions with other political choices, and sadly, I don't think the typical American is informed enough or cares enough to do so.
I tend to support Libertarian IDEALS (but not always their practices) and in casual conversations with many folks, the majority are either a.) completely unaware of the party or b.) know vaguely of its existence but nothing more than that. |
|
