http://progressivenation.us/2009/10/28/the-growing-rift-between-libertarians-and-republicans/

The Republicans seem to have completely hijacked the Tea Party protests from the Libertarians and are even now purging Libertarian members from their ranks in Florida.  Aside from fiscal conservatism, the two groups have almost nothing in common.  The only real surprise is how long it's taken for the two groups to come to the realization that they don't share as much in common as they think they do.

http://progressivenation.us/2009/10/28/the-growing-rift-between-libertarians-and-republicans/

The Republicans seem to have completely hijacked the Tea Party protests from the Libertarians and are even now purging Libertarian members from their ranks in Florida.  Aside from fiscal conservatism, the two groups have almost nothing in common.  The only real surprise is how long it's taken for the two groups to come to the realization that they don't share as much in common as they think they do.


Republicans and fiscal conservatism?  That doesn't compute.

I've always thought the Democratic Party should ally itself with the Libertarians; really on most issues except for fiscal conservatism, Dems and Libertarians have a lot in common. The Libertarians don't really have a major party to call their own, and thus no real voice--And they are mocked and rejected by most of the party faithful Republicans (I go on quite a few Republican/neo-con boards and see this a lot) I think the Democratic Party should reach out to the Libertarians, and say "psst, you guys have more in common with us then those wretched old neo-cons"--The Libertarians could become the conservative wing of the Democratic Party and become just another guest in the party's already huge tent.

No.  The Libertarians can't agree with themselves on much. They seem to me to be more about personal agendas and selfishness than about cohesive policy.  Let them stay where they are and do whatever it is they do.

It seems like most libertarians vost republican for some reason. Most think republicans are the lesser of the two evils.

I have a mix of libertarian and liberal views.

True Libertarians want no part of either party, but seeing that neither party is even close to fiscally conservative these days, I think more libertarians are voting democrat - begrudgingly...

Ant

No.  The Libertarians can't agree with themselves on much. They seem to me to be more about personal agendas and selfishness than about cohesive policy.   Let them stay where they are and do whatever it is they do.


However they are willing to share bunker designs among each other and suggest how to paint and decorate. :)

I think Libertarians are Red-Violet...or Violet-Red. (They're Republican, but are more progressive).

I also think Libertarian is the new Third Party!

I also think Libertarian is the new Third Party!




I think the Libertarians are the new Fifth Column

I think the Libertarians are the new Fifth Column


There's so many parties in America, it's just that the Democrats and Republicans are the stronghold!

I think the Libertarians are the new Fifth Column


Like all modern schools of though, Libertarianism had its origins in the Enlightenment.  It concerned itself with the rights of man and that man had rights independent of authorities secular or ecclesiastical.  One might call Henry David Thorough and Ralph Waldo Emerson "Libertarian."  One might call old-time Anarchist such Joseph Déjacque, who wanted to abolish personal property, "Libertarian," or an Empiricist such as John Locke, who believed personal property was fundamental to man's liberty, a "Libertarian." 

However, today's Libertarians take their cues from more vulgar fare, such as Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises, and even their ideas have been degraded to the point where Libertarianism post-Goldwater became a bizarre form of fascism in which any asshole with two acres and a shotgun got to be Mussolini. 

Again and again I hear self-described "Libertarians" damning ANYTHING connected to the word "government" while being utterly blinkered to the unaccountable tyranny handed BY government TO corporations via Reagan Republicans.

Ron Paul gets it.  He's figured out the corporations have become the new tyrants...but he's too damn proud to admit.  Thus, when Michael Moore confronted him about corporate influence in the continuing futile wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Dr. Paul went on a rant about how the "free market" wasn't allowed to truly be "free."  It reminded me of the way the soft-in-the-squash Marxist-Leninists I used to hang out with would trot out the argument about imperialist corruption of Communist governments, such as Soviet Russia or Maoist China.  Purist ideals are unattainable.  However purist idealists are always low-hanging fruit for cynical forces.

Mind you, the "teabaggers" aren't ideological purists, they're just a bunch of pissed-off knuckle-draggers!

If the Libertarians REALLY want a to start an effective political party, they need to call corporations what Noam Chomsky has been calling them for decades: "Unaccountable tyrannies," and then perhaps read some Voltaire and Thoreau.  That, however, would start a revolutionary movement, and most Libertarians are comfy suburbanites who just don't want to pay their taxes.
::)

Civil Libertarianism makes a lot of sense.  Economic Libertarianism is just loony....

Civil Libertarianism makes a lot of sense.  Economic Libertarianism is just loony....


Can we just start with "civil" part?

::)

Can we just start with "civil" part?

::)


we already had one of those wars... didn't turn out so well for the part of the country that tends to vote for these two parties. 

we already had one of those wars... didn't turn out so well for the part of the country that tends to vote for these two parties. 


I mean like civil civil, you know, ample parking day or night, people spouting Howdy neighbor!

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/farmerjohn.gif

we already had one of those wars... didn't turn out so well for the part of the country that tends to vote for these two parties. 


Well, it did turn out well for the Republicans.  They won the war and then won the area of the country that they defeated.

Granted, they did lose the North for the most part, but the South and West are where all the population growth is.

Well, it did turn out well for the Republicans.  They won the war and then won the area of the country that they defeated.

Granted, they did lose the North for the most part, but the South and West are where all the population growth is.


You got it backasswards.  The Republicans (Lincoln was one) lost the South for 100 year until LBJ signed the Civil Rights legislation.  The South has been solidly Republican as far as national offices go since Goldwater took SC through MS in 1964.

You got it backasswards.  The Republicans (Lincoln was one) lost the South for 100 year until LBJ signed the Civil Rights legislation.  The South has been solidly Republican as far as national offices go since Goldwater took SC through MS in 1964.


I can see how my response might have seemed that way, but I was referring to how the GOP won the Civil War and then gained the South later on at the same point in time that population growth there began to pick up.

Essentially, the GOP ditched the North right at the point where the growth there began to stagnate.