Libertarians this your time to brag. List your political accomplishments here

[ottumwan in tx]

From the national platform:

"
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market. "
https://www.lp.org/platform


see, people should marry without license nor restrictions from the government. it is not the right of the supremes to say one word about our contracts between human adults. we should be left alone. free market to live with another male or female. or nobody. adults. when the gheys were all excited about the ghey marriage ruling: they were cheering totalitarianism and government intervention.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

Religion has NOTHING to do with libertarianism.

Read some Ayn Rand, for crying out loud.

ayn rand is hardly a good source for anything

 

[KitingHigh]

Yes, the Koch bros toy think tank has occasionally used its clout for good. But let's not get carried away.

Let's not pretend like either major party worked for legalization or gay rights. Each was too afraid to do so. Give credit where it is due.

 

[BABiscuit]

Oh simmer down girl. I didn't see you at any of the marches. Liberals did all that. Go earn your own victories.

Good thing liberals are around to actually tackle those issues while libertarians spend their time telling everybody how smart they are on the internet.

 

[ottumwan in tx]

"Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships."
https://www.lp.org/platform

see that, neither feds nor counties, nobody but nobody, can issue licenses to marry. none. not the supremes, not Obama, not natural, not slieb, nobody, none.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I think the same can be said about most libertarian policies.

I don't advocate for any of them. I believe in them, but I don't see the point in spending my energy on something that is so futile, such as advocating for political change. I advocate with my vote (and caucusing, or at least I did when I lived in Iowa), in conversations on here, and in conversations with friends. I don't see me finding anything I care enough about to write letters or carry signs. Perhaps that will change some day, but I don't ever anticipate the government responding in a way that makes that effort worthwhile.

That said, I am 100% certain that I have advocated on here, repeatedly, for those things (and a few others that would be considered Libertarian).

I give credit for that. FWIW. But most libertarians don't even go that far. And too many who claim to be libertarians routinely show that they really don't know what they are taking about.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Let's not pretend like either major party worked for legalization or gay rights. Each was too afraid to do so. Give credit where it is due.

Don't confuse me with a supporter of either party. But I do give the Dems more credit on both scores than the GOPs.

 

[naturalmwa]

Let's not pretend like either major party worked for legalization or gay rights. Each was too afraid to do so. Give credit where it is due.

Are you kidding me? In Iowa this was entirely the doing of the Vilsack administration and the D speaker of the house Mike Gronstal. One party had my back in demonstrable real ways. The other party attacked. There are real differences about real matters. These aren't just philosophical distinctions or shades of nuance.

 

[KitingHigh]

Don't confuse me with a supporter of either party. But I do give the Dems more credit on both scores than the GOPs.

Gay rights I'll agree. Decrimilization, not so much. Dems didn't get behind either of them though until after libertarians laid the groundwork. Organizations such a NORML and the Innocence Project are libertarian in nature and mostly started ran and funded by libertarians. Libertarians take on issues that neither major party will touch in public.

To claim that libertarians aren't doing anything is flat out ignorant. We might not get the headlines, but we are the ones who get the snowball started and rolling downhill.

 

[KitingHigh]

Are you kidding me? In Iowa this was entirely the doing of the Vilsack administration and the D speaker of the house Mike Gronstal. One party had my back in demonstrable real ways. The other party attacked. There are real differences about real matters. These aren't just philosophical distinctions or shades of nuance.

They didn't have your back until public opinion swayed that way. Libertarians had your back the whole time and worked to sway that public opinion when it wasn't popular. LP was working for you when most everyone else was against you.

 

[MemorialRedWarrior]

That's fair

On top of that, I would like to add that Libertarian Principles are all around you. Those who opposed the wars, those who stood for equal rights, those who stood for personal freedoms have all done their part to contribute.
Libertarians would not oppose any sort of marriage. Libertarians would not lock people up for simple drug offenses. Libertarians would not or did not support the wars, and as a matter of fact are the biggest critics of those wars.
Libertarians offer an alternative that pushes for a less systematic constructing of the human condition and more for the freedom to grow and expand themselves. For some strange reason there seems to be a very wrong perception that Libertarians are simply selfish.
Which goes against the principles as those principles are meant for all, not for just one group.

 

[naturalmwa]

They didn't have your back until public opinion swayed that way. Libertarians had your back the whole time and worked to sway that public opinion when it wasn't popular. LP was working for you when most everyone else was against you.

Work is defined by results my friend.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Gay rights I'll agree. Decrimilization, not so much. Dems didn't get behind either of them though until after libertarians laid the groundwork. Organizations such a NORML and the Innocence Project are libertarian in nature and mostly started ran and funded by libertarians. Libertarians take on issues that neither major party will touch in public.

To claim that libertarians aren't doing anything is flat out ignorant. We might not get the headlines, but we are the ones who get the snowball started and rolling downhill.

I could be wrong, but I think you are claiming credit for libertarians that isn't really warranted.

 

[KitingHigh]

Work is defined by results my friend.

Yes, and you should thank libertarians for doing 95 percent of the work that got you those results.

 

[KitingHigh]

I could be wrong, but I think you are claiming credit for libertarians that isn't really warranted.

Well, you are wrong. There are plenty of liberals and conservatives who do good, but the Republican and Democratic parties never lead the charge when it isn't popular. they are too busy blaming each other for everything and sheparding their flocks.

 

[naturalmwa]

Yes, and you should thank libertarians for doing 95 percent of the work that got you those results.

I imagine there is a term for a person who didn't do any work, but when the project is done wants to take all the credit. That's how I view you.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

So, tell me . . . where do your libertarians stand on immigration? On states rights? On climate change? On abortion? On the death penalty?

I'm being serious. I think there ought to be clear answers to those questions from libertarians, but when I hear self-professed libertarians here talk about such issues, they almost always blow it.

No takers to answer these questions?

The states rights question is one I've always found interesting. Most libertarians here seem to think states rights and libertarianism go together. Decades ago most people who espoused values similar to libertarianism were opposed to civil rights and integration. Many were members of the John Birch Society. It's a sad legacy.

One of the things Ayn Rand never gets credit for is the extent to which she promoted libertarian values while stripping away the racist and religious elements that were too often associated with those libertarian values - racist and religious elements that have significantly reconnected with libertarianism today.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Well, you are wrong. There are plenty of liberals and conservatives who do good, but the Republican and Democratic parties never lead the charge when it isn't popular. they are too busy blaming each other for everything and sheparding their flocks.

Please stop pointing to Republicans and Democrats. We are talking about libertarians vs lefties when we are talking about who were the leading forces in things like NORML or incarceration reform. I give the major credit to the lefties. You'll have to show me evidence to the contrary to convince me otherwise.

 

[KitingHigh]

I imagine there is a term for a person who didn't do any work, but when the project is done wants to take all the credit. That's how I view you.

I view you as obtuse and ungrateful. But I and other libertarians will continue having you back, like we have for the last FORTY THREE years. Leftists weren't doing crap about your rights in the 70's, or 80's or 90's for that matter. The Libertarian party was putting its time and money for your cause. Democrats didn't give a crap about you until Bush Jr. was in office. Before that they were helping Bill Clinton pass the defense of marriage act.

"
In a 5-4 ruling today, the US Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license same-sex marriage and recognize those marriages entered into in other states.

Libertarian candidates, including the party’s 1976 presidential nominee, Roger MacBride, have been bravely calling for marriage equality since long before it was politically correct. In fact, they’ve been doing so when it was considered downright dangerous.

David Boaz, Vice President of the Cato Institute, noted in a column in The Advocate, “The Libertarian Party endorsed gay rights with its first platform in 1972 — the same year the Democratic nominee for vice president referred to 'queers' in a Chicago speech. In 1976 the Libertarian Party issued a pamphlet calling for an end to antigay laws and endorsing full marriage rights.”

“I'm glad to see that the Supreme Court has upheld the equal rights for all Americans that the Libertarian Party has been fighting for, for over forty years," said Nicholas Sarwark, Chair of the Libertarian National Committee.

“We applaud and celebrate this victory, and we will continue to fight for the rights of all Americans to pursue happiness and prosperity in any way they choose,” he said, “as long as they don't hurt others or take their stuff."
"
https://www.lp.org/news/press-relea...vocacy-for-marriage-equality-pays-off-with-us

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I view you as obtuse and ungrateful. But I and other libertarians will continue having you back, like we have for the last FORTY THREE years. Leftists weren't doing crap about your rights in the 70's, or 80's or 90's for that matter. The Libertarian party was putting its time and money for your cause. Democrats didn't give a crap about you until Bush Jr. was in office. Before that they were helping Bill Clinton pass the defense of marriage act.

"
In a 5-4 ruling today, the US Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license same-sex marriage and recognize those marriages entered into in other states.

Libertarian candidates, including the party’s 1976 presidential nominee, Roger MacBride, have been bravely calling for marriage equality since long before it was politically correct. In fact, they’ve been doing so when it was considered downright dangerous.

David Boaz, Vice President of the Cato Institute, noted in a column in The Advocate, “The Libertarian Party endorsed gay rights with its first platform in 1972 — the same year the Democratic nominee for vice president referred to 'queers' in a Chicago speech. In 1976 the Libertarian Party issued a pamphlet calling for an end to antigay laws and endorsing full marriage rights.”

“I'm glad to see that the Supreme Court has upheld the equal rights for all Americans that the Libertarian Party has been fighting for, for over forty years," said Nicholas Sarwark, Chair of the Libertarian National Committee.

“We applaud and celebrate this victory, and we will continue to fight for the rights of all Americans to pursue happiness and prosperity in any way they choose,” he said, “as long as they don't hurt others or take their stuff."
"
https://www.lp.org/news/press-relea...vocacy-for-marriage-equality-pays-off-with-us

Roger was my 2nd choice in 1976.

 

[naturalmwa]

I view you as obtuse and ungrateful. But I and other libertarians will continue having you back, like we have for the last FORTY THREE years. Leftists weren't doing crap about your rights in the 70's, or 80's or 90's for that matter. The Libertarian party was putting its time and money for your cause. Democrats didn't give a crap about you until Bush Jr. was in office. Before that they were helping Bill Clinton pass the defense of marriage act.

"
In a 5-4 ruling today, the US Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license same-sex marriage and recognize those marriages entered into in other states.

Libertarian candidates, including the party’s 1976 presidential nominee, Roger MacBride, have been bravely calling for marriage equality since long before it was politically correct. In fact, they’ve been doing so when it was considered downright dangerous.

David Boaz, Vice President of the Cato Institute, noted in a column in The Advocate, “The Libertarian Party endorsed gay rights with its first platform in 1972 — the same year the Democratic nominee for vice president referred to 'queers' in a Chicago speech. In 1976 the Libertarian Party issued a pamphlet calling for an end to antigay laws and endorsing full marriage rights.”

“I'm glad to see that the Supreme Court has upheld the equal rights for all Americans that the Libertarian Party has been fighting for, for over forty years," said Nicholas Sarwark, Chair of the Libertarian National Committee.

“We applaud and celebrate this victory, and we will continue to fight for the rights of all Americans to pursue happiness and prosperity in any way they choose,” he said, “as long as they don't hurt others or take their stuff."
"
https://www.lp.org/news/press-relea...vocacy-for-marriage-equality-pays-off-with-us

Results are all that matter. How many libertarians were in that 5 person majority? This all changed because people worked within the system to change the system. Sitting on the outside and taking credit while doing nothing is obtuse and ungrateful for the work that was done in the actual arena.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

I didn't see your answer to the OP.
Get in the game first and then we can play.
But being a libertarian I don't see you doing that.

That's what I thought. You have no intentions of owning up to a belief system of wars and theft of the little man. Keep hiding behind your little gotcha question. Personally, I'm glad that libertarians didn't have a hand in our current situation.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Yes, the Koch bros toy think tank has occasionally used its clout for good. But let's not get carried away.

The Koch brothers aren't libertarians.

 

[KitingHigh]

Roger was my 2nd choice in 1976.

Then how are you gonna claim we aren't doing anything? We've been fighting these battles for decades. We are THE third party and have been for a long time. We might not hold offices at the highest level, but we do effect the major parties and the public.

Results are all that matter. How many libertarians were in that 5 person majority? This all changed because people worked within the system to change the system. Sitting on the outside and taking credit while doing nothing is obtuse and ungrateful for the work that was done in the actual arena.

. “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman,”

-Obama 2008

Natural, if you think the tide turned overnight on a whim I don't know what to tell you. One party has been actively helping your cause for four decades and one was against you seven years ago. While democrats were lockstep with republicans Libertarians were actively trying to help you.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Religion has NOTHING to do with libertarianism.

Read some Ayn Rand, for crying out loud.

Ayn Rand was opposed to the libertarian movement of her time. In 1971 she wrote:

For the record, I shall repeat what I have said many times before: I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs.

— “Brief Summary,” The Objectivist, Vol. 10, Sep. 1971


Ayn Rand wasn't a libertarian.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-ideas/ayn-rand-q-on-a-on-libertarianism.html

 

[naturalmwa]

Then how are you gonna claim we aren't doing anything? We've been fighting these battles for decades. We are THE third party and have been for a long time. We might not hold offices at the highest level, but we do effect the major parties and the public.



. “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman,”

-Obama 2008

Natural, if you think the tide turned overnight on a whim I don't know what to tell you. One party has been actively helping your cause for four decades and one was against you seven years ago. While democrats were lockstep with republicans Libertarians were actively trying to help you.

If you think I think that, I don't know what to tell you. A party with out any power isn't helping anyone do anything. It's like rubbing aloe vera on your cancer. If you want to fight, you have to rip you body open and operate on the actual tumor and change the system. Nice platitudes are the reason I have rights. I know how I got rights. It came from engagement. You are selling snake oil.

 

[naturalmwa]

It must be nice to get to define all the teams. But when no one is on your team, is it still a team?

 

[THE_DEVIL]

That's what I thought. You have no intentions of owning up to a belief system of wars and theft of the little man. Keep hiding behind your little gotcha question. Personally, I'm glad that libertarians didn't have a hand in our current situation.

Did you really just throw out the "gotcha question" meme?

 

[BABiscuit]

Then how are you gonna claim we aren't doing anything? We've been fighting these battles for decades. We are THE third party and have been for a long time. We might not hold offices at the highest level, but we do effect the major parties and the public.



. “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman,”

-Obama 2008

Natural, if you think the tide turned overnight on a whim I don't know what to tell you. One party has been actively helping your cause for four decades and one was against you seven years ago. While democrats were lockstep with republicans Libertarians were actively trying to help you.

Maybe I am wrong, but the impression I get from libertarians on this board is they don't care about gay rights as much as they care about the government involvement. For example, don't libertarians believe business owners should be able to discriminate against gays? That doesn't sound like a position that is looking out for gays. Essentially, a libertarian wouldn't care if gays weren't allowed to get married, were denied jobs based on sexual preference, denied housing, or not permitted to receive spousal benefits as long as it was private businesses doing it to them.

 

[KitingHigh]

If you think I think that, I don't know what to tell you. A party with out any power isn't helping anyone do anything. It's like rubbing aloe vera on your cancer. If you want to fight, you have to rip you body open and operate on the actual tumor and change the system. Nice platitudes are the reason I have rights. I know how I got rights. It came from engagement. You are selling snake oil.

Politics isn't surgery. You can't just rip open an issue. It's more like farming. You have to plant a seed and nurture it to fruition. The Dems may have harvested the fruit but Libertarians planted and nurtured the tree. Just a short time ago the Democrats were trying to chop it down.

Your welcome.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Then how are you gonna claim we aren't doing anything? We've been fighting these battles for decades. We are THE third party and have been for a long time. We might not hold offices at the highest level, but we do effect the major parties and the public.

Three things.

First, kudos to you for finding a good example and kudos to Roger and the LP for being correct back then.

Second, he and the LP weren't the only folks who felt that way back then.

Third, what happened since then? LP candidate Bill Barr co-authored DOMA. Ron Paul introduced bills that would let states ban abortion and same sex marriage (even though Paul himself opined that gays should be able to marry). We can go on.

My point is that what you say should be true. But too often it's only true on paper (platform) or for a brief time among a few libertarians.

 

[The Tradition]

Maybe I am wrong, but the impression I get from libertarians on this board is they don't care about gay rights as much as they care about the government involvement. For example, don't libertarians believe business owners should be able to discriminate against gays? That doesn't sound like a position that is looking out for gays. Essentially, a libertarian wouldn't care if gays weren't allowed to get married, were denied jobs based on sexual preference, denied housing, or not permitted to receive spousal benefits as long as it was private businesses doing it to them.

That does go to the right of association. You're free to associate with whomever you want, and not associate with whomever you don't want to associate with.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Politics isn't surgery. You can't just rip open an issue. It's more like farming. You have to plant a seed and nurture it to fruition. The Dems may have harvested the fruit but Libertarians planted and nurtured the tree. Just a short time ago the Democrats were trying to chop it down.

Your welcome.

Most of these good ideas that you are claiming libertarian credit for originated (in the US) among socialists and the anarchist-left early in the 20th century.

Which is to say you get credit for being on board, but you don't own them.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Three things.

First, kudos to you for finding a good example and kudos to Roger and the LP for being correct back then.

Second, he and the LP weren't the only folks who felt that way back then.

Third, what happened since then? LP candidate Bill Barr co-authored DOMA. Ron Paul introduced bills that would let states ban abortion and same sex marriage (even though Paul himself opined that gays should be able to marry). We can go on.

My point is that what you say should be true. But too often it's only true on paper (platform) or for a brief time among a few libertarians.

I'll never understand why the LP let Bob Barr run under their banner. The guy was in no way, shape, or form a libertarian.

As for the Paul situation, abortion should be handled at the state level. It's something too complicated for a one-size-fits-all policy.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

It must be nice to get to define all the teams. But when no one is on your team, is it still a team?

I'm not on any team. I generally vote 3rd party, but it generally isn't the libertarian party. I think being part of a team is one of the biggest problems we have in this country.

 

[naturalmwa]

Politics isn't surgery. You can't just rip open an issue. It's more like farming. You have to plant a seed and nurture it to fruition. The Dems may have harvested the fruit but Libertarians planted and nurtured the tree. Just a short time ago the Democrats were trying to chop it down.

Your welcome.

I like the analogy, but libertarians keep all their seeds in the bag in the basement. Liberals water and tend the fields. You're not getting any credit for liking seeds but not growing fruit. Your entire philosophy is the antithesis of "nurture".

 

[KitingHigh]

Three things.

First, kudos to you for finding a good example and kudos to Roger and the LP for being correct back then.

Second, he and the LP weren't the only folks who felt that way back then.

Third, what happened since then? LP candidate Bill Barr co-authored DOMA. Ron Paul introduced bills that would let states ban abortion and same sex marriage (even though Paul himself opined that gays should be able to marry). We can go on.

My point is that what you say should be true. But too often it's only true on paper (platform) or for a brief time among a few libertarians.

you mean Bob Barr?

Both he and Ron Paul did those things as members of the Republican Party.

I'm not sure if Barr really changed his stances, but I was shocked when he was handed the LP candidacy and abstained from voting in that election.

 

[naturalmwa]

I'm not on any team. I generally vote 3rd party, but it generally isn't the libertarian party. I think being part of a team is one of the biggest problems we have in this country.

I know. It's important to point that out when you're trying to define the libertarian team.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

you mean Bob Barr?

Both he and Ron Paul did those things as members of the Republican Party.

I'm not sure if Barr really changed his stances, but I was shocked when he was handed the LP candidacy and abstained from voting in that election.

Yes, of course, Bob Barr. Brain fart.

If you want to say they aren't good libertarians, or that they were wrong on those issues, that's fine. Nobody's perfect.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

One of these days we should go through the Libertarian platform. It's shorter than Carly Fiorina's tax code.

Many parts of it sound really reasonable. Not only those parts that come from the lefty-socialist tradition, either. A few sound good but seem highly impractical. Several raise questions that need answering. And a few are just dead wrong (imo) - either in assessment of how the world works or in desired objective.