I'm no libertarian, but they have the right to be on the ballot

[Rational Gaze]

Libertarians

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Darth Executor]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I know exactly what it means.

[Truthseeker]

Wow, Darthy and Epoety actually think that the more powerful our governments are, the better the world will be. It doesn't matter that the common folk will not be able to keep sociopaths out of powerful governments. Augusto Pinochet is a good example of a sociopath in government.

Ron Paul is one of the most influential libertarians in the world.

I don't know what Darthy thinks libertarianism is. My definition is somewhat like this: Everyone is free to use his own time and property anyway he sees fit, provided only that he accords everyone else the same freedom.

If you accept that definition, you can see that Ron Paul is not a consistent libertarian.

Every established government on earth is more-or-less based on the philosophy that everything belongs to the State. What freedom we have, the State is gracious to allow.

[KingsGambit]

Just to be clear, when I'm talking about libertarians here, I'm talking about the actual Libertarian Party and their right to follow the procedures for ballot access. Ron Paul may be a libertarian but for partisan purposes, he is a member of the Republican Party.

[Darth Executor]

Wow, Darthy and Epoety actually think that the more powerful our governments are, the better the world will be.

No, Darthy and Epoety know that if you don't have a powerful government backing the kind of world you want to live in, you will live in the world of those who do.

It doesn't matter that the common folk will not be able to keep sociopaths out of powerful governments. Augusto Pinochet is a good example of a sociopath in government.

The common folk will not be able to enforce a libertarian society anymore than they would be able to keep sociopaths out of powerful governments. That's why I don't base my politics on the whims of "the common folk".

Ron Paul is one of the most influential libertarians in the world.

His few good ideas are illibertarian, so that influence doesn't seem to amount to much.

I don't know what Darthy thinks libertarianism is. My definition is somewhat like this: Everyone is free to use his own time and property anyway he sees fit, provided only that he accords everyone else the same freedom.

I'm fine with your definition, it encompasses the cretinism of libertarianism perfectly.

If you accept that definition, you can see that Ron Paul is not a consistent libertarian.

One of his few redeeming features.

Every established government on earth is more-or-less based on the philosophy that everything belongs to the State. What freedom we have, the State is gracious to allow.

Which is an accurate description of how things actually are.

[Rational Gaze]

I ain't figured out why you guys* think there should only be two parties.

Why think that there should be any political parties at all? The UK has plenty of political parties, and they're all crap. Even if they weren't full of millionaire career politicians with zero real-world experience, the politicians who make up such parties would still vote and act in ways that put their interests and the interests of their parties first, which typically involves pandering to the biggest party donors such as big businesses, corporations, unions, etc. It's in their interests to keep us the way we are: an unsuspecting, mute, blind, controllable herd made up of chattel slaves and serfs.

[Rational Gaze]

Wow, Darthy and Epoety actually think that the more powerful our governments are, the better the world will be.

I guess they must think that the last twenty dozen attempts or so being massive failures is some kind of fluke.

[Teallaura]

I wonder if Americans would be in favour of Proportional Representation? My country's Government has now passed a two round voting system although the Government preferred proportional representation. ^[1]

[1]. They did this because it didn't need a special majority unlike proportional representation.

Absolutely not.

[Teallaura]

Wow, Darthy and Epoety actually think that the more powerful our governments are, the better the world will be. It doesn't matter that the common folk will not be able to keep sociopaths out of powerful governments. Augusto Pinochet is a good example of a sociopath in government.

Ron Paul is one of the most influential libertarians in the world.

I don't know what Darthy thinks libertarianism is. My definition is somewhat like this: Everyone is free to use his own time and property anyway he sees fit, provided only that he accords everyone else the same freedom.

If you accept that definition, you can see that Ron Paul is not a consistent libertarian.

Every established government on earth is more-or-less based on the philosophy that everything belongs to the State. What freedom we have, the State is gracious to allow.

Libertarian has been traditionally defined as fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The modern Lib party fits that definition as a general rule.

[Truthseeker]

Just to be clear, when I'm talking about libertarians here, I'm talking about the actual Libertarian Party and their right to follow the procedures for ballot access. Ron Paul may be a libertarian but for partisan purposes, he is a member of the Republican Party.

He is? I don't think so. I think, he is not any more.

[Truthseeker]

No, Darthy and Epoety know that if you don't have a powerful government backing the kind of world you want to live in, you will live in the world of those who do.

Off topic, but if you start a thread on this, I would wade into your fray and fray your nerves.

[Darth Xena]

What does "many other libertarians" mean? Every survey I can find has them as a distinct minority.

I'm bored and since this is something I know about, I am going to add something. The isidewith polls are difficult, as they acknowledge, because they allow gray area answers that are not included, and libertarians are notoriously bad at polls, parsing out things in a ridiculous manner. The most popular position with many libertarians (or at least many) is evictionism which doesn't neatly fall in these areas.

However, since this thread is talking about the LP and not "libertarians" in general,

“As far as LP members are concerned, I think many of you already know that things are a lot dicier than the Platform and the press releases would indicate. When libertarians and LP members have been polled, the odds have been pretty stable: In roughly ballpark terms, a third are pro-life: they say we're persons with rights from fertilization onward, and abortion is aggression; it can be outlawed. Yes, there are points of difference and emphasis, but the basic agreement is there.

Another third are the hardcore of abortion choice supporters: Regardless of anything else, they insist that there should be no restrictions on abortion at any time up until birth, maybe even until the umbilical cord is cut. Here, too, there are points of difference (such as infanticide), but the basic agreement is there.

And finally, there's the middle -- where everything is differences and there's hardly any basic agreement at all.

I do not mean that things are a tidy 33-1/3 percent each, but the odds hover in that neighborhood. Pro-lifers are sometimes down to 20 percent or so; the opposite side likewise. The middle is never less than a third.” http://www.l4l.org/library/lp-silen.html, accessed April 16, 2015.

This article is from 2000 but I see no reason to see that things have changed. NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING divides Libertarians like abortion, and in discussions, it is pretty much about 1/3 are hardcore pro life. And though guys such as Gary Johnson are described as pro-choice, it is technically more accurate to call him partially pro-choice as he does believe there is a point where it should be outlawed, and if technology progressed to say, artificial wombs, that is the way to go (he is basically an evictionist without describing himself that way).

And, at many Conventions, the abortion plank comes close to being removed from the Platform.There isn't a majority to remove it, but it has come close, so things are not this "distinct minority" said here, at least in the LP. AND some of the people that wish not to remove it are not pro-choice in the traditional way, they just believe the intrusion of the State would be worse. Right or wrong, that is what they think.

[Darth Xena]

I wonder if Americans would be in favour of Proportional Representation? My country's Government has now passed a two round voting system although the Government preferred proportional representation. ^[1]

[1]. They did this because it didn't need a special majority unlike proportional representation.

Yes to alternative voting methods that are not the exclusionary zero sum way we do it now. Here is one method that some Libertarians get behind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

It is the method I support.

[Starlight]

I wonder if Americans would be in favour of Proportional Representation?

Yes, among those of them who know what that is. But changing an entrenched existing system is never easy.

[Darth Xena]

Yes, among those of them who know what that is. But changing an entrenched existing system is never easy.

That is true. Though I would have been in favour of this before, had I heard of it. It never occurred to me. I think it will help avoid the tremendous dissatisfaction and disenfranchisement that is rising at the popular level.