Why Don't More Leftists Support the LP?

from JoeUser Forums

I am working on a number of items I hope to eventually be able to present to the Libertarian Party, in the state, or hopefully, national conventions.

One of the points I am working on is why the Libertarian Party is a party of inclusion that all Americans should consider.

Interesting, isn't it, that despite years of recruiting at "hempfests" across the country, the Democrats have YET to produce serious legislation as to the legalization or decriminalization of industrial hemp, let alone Marijuana? This is because the Democrats are busy pandering to a populace they do not intend to represent. The Libertarian Party, on the other hand, has consistently supported marijuana decriminalization, along with a host of other victimless crimes.

But even more compelling is the chief issue that draws me, as a pacifist, to the LP. That is the issue of a dollar for dollar tax credit for money donated to charitable organizations. Because the LP believes that charity is the responsibility of the individual, rather than the government, this is the proposed step in removing the country from a system of government subsidized dependence. This, in effect, would allow me and others to "vote with my wallet" and send my money to aid programs rather than fund a war machine I'm rather ambivalent about.

The reason, to answer my own question, that the left does not support the Libertarian Party is that the left does not support the concept of liberty. The left envisions a world where personal responsibility is given to the government, who benignly shepherds over us. They would surrender our jobs, our individual rights, and our children to a socialist machine where free thought is a virus.

And they must be stopped. At any cost.

politics
5,685 views 22 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm not a leftist, so this article wasn't targeted towards me, but the LP would have had me years ago if they would drop the requirement to sign the "Pledge" from their membership form.

Of course, that is me, and they have every right to decide what they will require of their members and what they won't, so more power to them. Until they do though, I'll vote Libertarian when I feel compelled by idiology to do so, but I'll have to do it from the outside looking in.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
You cannot be serious Gid... It's the DEMOCRATS fault?

Try the Petrochemical industry. And WHO gets a lot of $$$ from them?

The GOP!

We don't support the libertarians for a number of reasons. For instance their schitzophrenic philosophy. Compound that with some of the half baked (no ganja pun intended) stuff you guys come up with, and not ever having a viable contender for any top office and you have your answer. I think that if your party took the time to get organized and come up with some centrist philosophies (much like the GOP and DNC need to do in all fairness) you would have a legitimate shot.

Until then i cant see them as being a force for change. And just so you know, I am all for more than a two party system.
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

Actually Gid, you confuse the religious right with conservatism.  True conservatives are closer to your ideals as they believe that the government that governs least, governs best.

Unfortunately, there are not a lot of them in Washington. But there are a lot of them out in fly over country.  You should read my aunt's stuff. You would love her!

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Leftists don't support the LP because Libertarianism is founded on the principle that everybody should be almost entirely free to manipulate their neighbors for their own profit. If people make poor life choices, they should be free to suffer the consequences of those choices, without government assistance or baiouts.

Liberal philosophy, on the other hand, is founded on the principle that people should not be so free, and that the profits of those who make good life choices should be taxed to subsidise the recovery of those who make poor life choices.

Liberals and Libertarians would only get along until the Liberals suggested taxing everybody to pay for a welfare program.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Leftists are diametrically opposed to personal freedoms, which are what the LP banks on. Leftists are about imposition of the state, state control, state sponsor, state ownership.

The only "liberty" leftists are interested in is the right to take control and impose biased standards.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Leftists are diametrically opposed to personal freedoms, which are what the LP banks on. Leftists are about imposition of the state, state control, state sponsor, state ownership.

The only "liberty" leftists are interested in is the right to take control and impose biased standards.


Exactly! And the only reason they mouth support for liberalization of drug laws is for the votes. Even if they did vote to legalize it, they would control it worse than Guns and Alcohol!

But the pot heads are too stoned to realize that.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually Guy, I think that it would be regulated by the same rules they use for cigarettes. But i don't think Gid's original beef was for smoking it. It was for using hemp to make fuel, paper, cloth and stuff like that. Which is a damn good idea. If we had thought of this and NOT changed the laws over the years, the whole gulf issue would be a NON issue. We wouldn't need as much of their oil. But unfortunately OPEC, american and british oil now has their claws so deep in our wallets and governmental infrastructure that it would be next to impossible to dislodge them.


I hope i didnt mess up your original point too badly Gid. I agree with you 110% on the issue of industrial hemp usage. It's just the politics behind it are where we disagree i guess.

As far as the entire left wanting to regulate personal freedoms. You guys really come off as hypocritical with some of the crap the GOP is pulling nowadays. Sorry to be so blunt about it, but i don't see the right offering any other viable solutions except to scare us into further invasions of our privacy and violations of our rights for "security".
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually Guy, I think that it would be regulated by the same rules they use for cigarettes. But i don't think Gid's original beef was for smoking it. It was for using hemp to make fuel, paper, cloth and stuff like that. Which is a damn good idea.


No, Actually Libertarians think as long as it is a victimless crime, it is not a crime. And so do I.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
As far as the entire left wanting to regulate personal freedoms. You guys really come off as hypocritical with some of the crap the GOP is pulling nowadays. Sorry to be so blunt about it, but i don't see the right offering any other viable solutions except to scare us into further invasions of our privacy and violations of our rights for "security".


Thank god neither of is GOP! I vote it only because it is closer to my values, but I dont like it. They are only a mild version of the democrats.

As it is, since the democrats are self destructing, I very well may vote Libertarian. And more of us may in the future if the democrats dont have a real candidate.

Go with Hillary. And be wandering for the next 40 years like the Repubs did. Hillary is your Hoover.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
While I am not a member of any political party (I'm just not a labels kinda person) I probably lean more toward the Libertarian ideas as any in a lot of areas. But I don't agree 100% with some of their nuttier ideas either.

I would try to found a Common Sense party but I'm afraid membership would just be too low.
Reply #11 from PolMach Forums Top
Why are you all assuming you know why or why not specific elected officials voted on this issue the way they did? Where did the Democrats reject this idea, and how was it a party-wide issue and not specific people in the legislature?
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Guy,

I loathe the idea of Hil in the big chair as much (if not more) than you do. I'm thinking more along the lines of a Bill Richardson, or perhaps even George Clinton (minus Funkadelic of course) rather than her. I just dont see her like i see bubba. She's just too liberal.

Ok, lets change GOP to.....FAR right? happy now?

Shingo1 makes a good point too.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
But I don't agree 100% with some of their nuttier ideas either.


I went back and did some additional reading on Libertarianism and the Libertarian Party. I retract the word "nuttier" from my previous post on the matter. While I do see some potential problems in some areas, I have to say over-all I agree with their philosophies.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
She's just too liberal


Now, I'm not a HRC supporter, but that's a fallacy--if you look at HRC's voting record in the Senate (and that's what we care about right? what she did when given the choice to make law.) she is not nearly as left as everyone pegs her. In fact, she often votes more conservative than the all-hailed Democrat, Lieberman.

Gideon--I don't have much to say on your article--I think you are fundamentally mistaken when you claim that the left does not support the concept of liberty.

There seems to be this mistaken idea that liberals are all cookie cutter images of one another who all believe the same thing and who, apparently, are all utterly senseless and hypocritical. In fact, it's tiresome to read about it at this point.

As I've been told many times on this site, I'm fairly left--and personal freedom is very high on my list of priorities (hence my stand on abortion). However, the world is not black and white and when subtle nuances shift my positions in to grey areas, that does not mean that I am a hypocrit--it means that I had to weigh what was important to me--sometimes when two ideals come into conflict, one has to be foresaken.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Interesting, isn't it, that despite years of recruiting at "hempfests" across the country, the Democrats have YET to produce serious legislation as to the legalization or decriminalization of industrial hemp, let alone Marijuana? This is because the Democrats are busy pandering to a populace they do not intend to represent. The Libertarian Party, on the other hand, has consistently supported marijuana decriminalization, along with a host of other victimless crimes.


I agree with you on the marijuana issue, and have a feeling we both share similar social policy, but my economic policy is more in line with socialism or communism.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
the world is not black and white and when subtle nuances shift my positions in to grey areas, that does not mean that I am a hypocrit--it means that I had to weigh what was important to me


Well said. It sounds like you're capable of finding that middle ground. Sadly, for some people it IS black and white and they are incapable of shifting their ideas as appropriate to the issue. For some it's an all the way or nothing thing. Those are the nuts IMHO.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
The problem with libertarians isn't their philosophy. The problem is their idea of how to implement their philosophies as government.

From everything I've ever learned about the Founding Fathers, I'm convinced that if they thought libertarianism would work, that's what we'd have today.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Do you honestly believe the mess we call a government is what the founding fathers intended?
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
i think they would have thrown a few revolutions over the years. But hey...That's just me!
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
i think they would have thrown a few revolutions over the years. But hey...That's just me!


We do throw a revolution, every four years for president, two years for the House of Representatives and 6 years for the Senate.

But then again, wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said, "Every generation needs a revolution"?. ;~D I would say that tossing the whole (Unconstitutional) Democrat/Republican domination of our system would be a revolution worthy of this generation.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
To me, the left's rejection of the LP is proof positive that they aren't about civil rights, they're about government imposition.

The LP espouses pretty much every civil liberty that the left claims to champion, yet they reject the LP outright. Why? Because the LP does not think it's the government's place to force people to care.

Kind of makes you sick, don't it. ;~D
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top

Yes, it does, para...I'm hoping to "bring down the house" in '08 with a speech I am preparing to try to advance to the national convention in which I suggest changes in the way the LP presents itself that it can/should make to bring in the disenfranchised leftists who have no political home.

I have a very busy planned schedule over the next few years.