I read that as Librarians at first.


That makes sense too, honestly.

Subby, many groups will have more success making inroads and progress during Obama's Presidency then they did under Bush.

Although libertarianism would initially be thought to be allied more closely with republicans, during Bush the GOP didn't give a shiat about good, bad, or any ideas. They had their preconceived notions of how things "ought to be" and moved forward no matter what the realities of the world were.

No, the libertarians won't get a lot of what they want. And no, none of their more extreme positions will be seriously considered. But they will be listened to and any good ideas brought to the table will have a better shot under an Obama admin. then they did under a W. admin.

Obama should resign and put RON PAUL into office.
RON PAUL is the one, the savior, and the way.
RON PAUL will deliver our country from evil.
RON PAUL
RON PAUL
RON PAUL!


/ libertarian
// Ever since RON PAUL, he changes the subject whenever someone asks about his political ideology.

I Said: They had their preconceived notions of how things "ought to be" and moved forward no matter what the realities of the world were.

Again, why shouldn't the Republicans have done this when the Democrats have never learned not to do it?

Alan Greenspan = card-carrying Ayn Rand cult member

Good riddance to the lot.

randomjsa: Again, why shouldn't the Republicans have done this when the Democrats have never learned not to do it?

While I disagree with you about the dems, and even the repubs before W. weren't as stubborn either, are you saying that because the dems do something wrong the repubs should be allowed to as well?

Jonathan Hohensee: Obama should resign and put RON PAUL into office.
RON PAUL is the one, the savior, and the way.
RON PAUL will deliver our country from evil.
RON PAUL
RON PAUL
RON PAUL!


/ libertarian
// Ever since RON PAUL, he changes the subject whenever someone asks about his political ideology.

RON PAUL

randomjsa: Again, why shouldn't the Republicans have done this when the Democrats have never learned not to do it?

Or, to answer your question: They shouldn't do it because it is wrong and hurts the nation. Stop making excuses for bad governing just because it's your "team".

Ughh...this article is full of shiat.

Bush wanted partial privatisation of the SSA. Just because it wasn't the wet dream of some stupid policy maker doesn't mean Bush wasn't partially for your idea. THIS JUST IN- when you deal with other people you have to compromise. (Further, since SS is 'pay as you go', Bush's plan would have likely been a transitionary plan if it had become popular, which is needed anyways).

Also, if Libertarians are so into property rights- why are you against cap and trade? It's the closest you can get to a property right system for pollution.

And on the drug issue- which I support you on- the problem is not with politicans dumbfarks! Yes politicians appear to two timing weasels when it comes to drugs because they support anti-drug campaigns but have been on/enjoyed drugs themselves. A lot of this comes from the reality that much of the public is anti-drug. Only recently have we seen the tides slowly change with Mary Jane, but don't expect the same thing to happen with cocaine or meth.

Like the rest of the fringe parties, Libertarians have no power in DC so nobody ever listens to them. Regardless of what strategy the author advocates it's still tilting at windmills.

Run, Sarah, run!

I can already hear the "FOUR MORE YEARS" chant coming from a victory celebration in 2012.

ah, shiat - wrong thread, sorry

/sharp knees

Yes, because after the last 8 years of limited government intervention in the Marketplace, we want even less government regulation.

Aint seen SherKhan or MaxxLarge recently, so I thought I'd fill the void (thanks to Jonathan Hohensee for the inspiration):

Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul,
Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul.
Ron Paul Ron Paul,
Ron Paul Ron Paul;
Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul.

// poet laureate-worthy

Komplex: Yes, because after the last 8 years of limited government intervention in the Marketplace, we want even less government regulation.

There is more to libertarianism than fiscal policy.

So, Neocons are now trying to morph themselves into Libertarians?

It's an interesting strategy. And it says a great deal about them and their goals.

Libertarians need to be elected to the small offices first, all across the country. They need to fill the void left by the republicans by reminding people what the republicans USED to stand for. If the current love for Palin is any indicator, I don't think the republican party will break apart any time soon. The fiscal conservatives who are already civil libertarians just have to suck it up and join the party that in the long term will he best for everyone.

CaesarSneezy: Komplex: Yes, because after the last 8 years of limited government intervention in the Marketplace, we want even less government regulation.

There is more to libertarianism than fiscal policy.

Sadly, there is. There's a disastrous vision of domestic policy, and what amounts to an isolationist and naive foreign policy up in there. Domestically, Libertarians might as well simply be throwing bones up into the air, and hoping that enough people will want roads to fund them, and hope that there are companies that will bet on such instability to provide services.

sloppy shoes: A lot of this comes from the reality that much of the public is anti-drug. Only recently have we seen the tides slowly change with Mary Jane, but don't expect the same thing to happen with cocaine or meth.

Being anti-drug is not the same thing as supporting the war on drugs. I am against the use of cocaine or meth, and I would never do so nor advise anyone I know to do so, but I'm against the war on drugs. Why is it just assumed that prohibition is the best solution if you're anti-drug when it's proven to be a failure? A lot of the public was against alcohol, too, before Prohibition.

Dr Dreidel: Aint seen SherKhan or MaxxLarge recently, so I thought I'd fill the void (thanks to Jonathan Hohensee for the inspiration):

Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul,
Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul.
Ron Paul Ron Paul,
Ron Paul Ron Paul;
Ron Paul Ron Paul Ron Paul.

// poet laureate-worthy

Let me give this a shot...

The economy started to fall
On Fark Politics t'was a call,
"The person who can
Save us - only one man:
The world-famous Doctor RON PAUL!!!"

/RON PAUL
//^{ron paul}
///_{RU PAUL}

"inroads"?

Well, considering Libertarians are largely just republicans who like to smoke pot Quatchi suggests they start there.

There's "green jobs" aplenty if that shiat can be legalised.

"I watched the Social Security campaign unravel from the inside," Kibbe remembers.

Well boo-freaking-hoo. The plan to put everyone's social security money into the market that just took a shellacking, or even better, into funds managed by the likes of Madoff somehow failed. Color me devastated that the plan to inject a couple hundred million naive investors into an overheated and corrupt market was headed off at the pass.

Mnemia: sloppy shoes: A lot of this comes from the reality that much of the public is anti-drug. Only recently have we seen the tides slowly change with Mary Jane, but don't expect the same thing to happen with cocaine or meth.

Being anti-drug is not the same thing as supporting the war on drugs. I am against the use of cocaine or meth, and I would never do so nor advise anyone I know to do so, but I'm against the war on drugs. Why is it just assumed that prohibition is the best solution if you're anti-drug when it's proven to be a failure? A lot of the public was against alcohol, too, before Prohibition.

There is a difference in not wanting to take drugs, and not wanting to funnel so much of our money into what amounts to a useless and ineffective prison industry. The War on Drugs is wasteful and ineffective, and the only advantage that it has had, is to allow officials and those close to them to buy up large amounts of property from seizures, and get contracts for building and maintaining prisons, while the rise in prison populations has done little to actually stem the flow of drugs into the country, and has instead managed to disenfranchise large portions of the population due to felony convictions.

I am not a fan of weed--but I also recognize that the evidence that was trumped up by Hearst back in the day is still just as specious today as it was then. Simply put: we cannot afford to keep at this ridiculous War on Drugs, and expect that our society will be any better off.

My problem with the War on Drugs stems from its fiscal impossibility, as well as the phenomenal waste in resources.

I Said: Subby, many groups will have more success making inroads and progress during Obama's Presidency then they did under Bush.

Although libertarianism would initially be thought to be allied more closely with republicans, during Bush the GOP didn't give a shiat about good, bad, or any ideas. They had their preconceived notions of how things "ought to be" and moved forward no matter what the realities of the world were.

No, the libertarians won't get a lot of what they want. And no, none of their more extreme positions will be seriously considered. But they will be listened to and any good ideas brought to the table will have a better shot under an Obama admin. then they did under a W. admin.

What part about drowning the federal government (in debt) is not part of the Libertarian gameplan?

hubiestubert: My problem with the War on Drugs stems from its fiscal impossibility, as well as the phenomenal waste in resources.

There are other aspects of it that also bother me a lot: its effect on U.S. foreign policy, the militarization of civilian police forces it encourages, the deterioration of civil liberties encouraged by the laws' failure, and the lack of justice and effective treatment for users. I actually think the disenfranchisement of lots of people over minor drug offenses is actually one of the major intended consequences. Rich elites have made it part of their program to disenfranchise as many poor people as possible for some time. They couldn't do it based on property ownership, or literacy, or skin color anymore, so now they're succeeding by branding them as criminals. This seems to be more effective because it undercuts public sympathy for the people who lose their voting rights.

Switchblades

Libs, you might wonder, "Where are they?"
Those champ'yuns of broad'r rights for compadres.
They stamp and they shout,
But they don't have much clout.
(That's small 'l' liberatrians.) Tu madre.

// watching the game, Q&D

hubiestubert: So, Neocons are now trying to morph themselves into Libertarians?

We've seen several morph right before our very eyes here on TF over the last few years...

Mnemia:
Being anti-drug is not the same thing as supporting the war on drugs. I am against the use of cocaine or meth, and I would never do so nor advise anyone I know to do so, but I'm against the war on drugs. Why is it just assumed that prohibition is the best solution if you're anti-drug when it's proven to be a failure? A lot of the public was against alcohol, too, before Prohibition.

I didn't say being anti-drug is the same as being for the War on Drugs. I should have clarified- many Americans are for both. But, there is a strong reason to say that anti-drug does in fact lead to the War on Drugs for many people. Many people will vote for political platitudes stating dislike for drugs and the urge to do something about it. The common political solution has been prisons and an increased police force. There has been general acceptance and approval of this.

Like I said, I'm not for the War on Drugs; I just said it was popular.

sloppy shoes: Like I said, I'm not for the War on Drugs; I just said it was popular.

Then this is based solely on ignorance and lack of education. There should be a full-court press to educated the public about the indisputable fact that the war on drugs is a failure and that there are other alternatives (like harm reduction approaches) that don't just involve throwing users in prison but still do not necessarily approve of drug use.

Mnemia:
Then this is based solely on ignorance and lack of education. There should be a full-court press to educated the public about the indisputable fact that the war on drugs is a failure and that there are other alternatives (like harm reduction approaches) that don't just involve throwing users in prison but still do not necessarily approve of drug use.

That may or may not work. I think that as the prison population has grown and become more of a burden on state budgets (at least here in Michigan), people have become more wary of its effects. I also think that courts have become more welcome to other harm reduction approaches as well rehabilitating users.

But there are still moral issues- many, many people believe drug use is morally wrong. Further, many people believe that without cutting out supply, things will only get worse. That means prosecuting dealers and users. And, yes, the government can contribute to these perceptions. But so do people who get off drugs.

This is somewhat similar to the problem of abortion- very few people are actually "pro"-abortion. However, many people recognize that they will happen anyways and that it should be a personal right. But there are many people that view the complete opposite, and think that all means necessary to root out this social evil are okay.

And like with the Drug War, if you get enough people on the firm, totalitarian side you get inept, uncompromising policy. Look how long it took to reform sex laws in this nation? It will take just as long with the drug laws. Education and policy move slow.

Dr Dreidel: Switchblades

Libs, you might wonder, "Where are they?"
Those champ'yuns of broad'r rights for compadres.
They stamp and they shout,
But they don't have much clout.
(That's small 'l' liberatrians.) Tu madre.

// watching the game, Q&D

Shut up, I know the rhyme is a bit off.

Now, I take it this might sound quite gauche
But ever since Lyndon LaRouche
He made me inspired
After that I felt tired
Every candidate since was a...gentleman not quite meeting my standards.

Mnemia

Lots of people don't read the paper every day. Lots of people don't research their political opinions and ideologies. There's no requirement for people to vote (which drastically weights political policy in favor the fervent, staunch supporters of certain issues). Lastly, lots of people simply don't want to be educated. They believe what they believe. For most people to be worldly, they have to be worldly. For drugs, at least, a lot of people have seen first hand what many drug abusers become- they then associate this with all drug users. We can argue all day about what should or ought to be, but there is more to the political realities of shaping public opinion and approval. The new wave of decriminalization of marijuana laws will make progress, hopefully. If people can lighten up on that, and more importantly, see the benefits of lightening up on that- then we can move on to the next step.

But even Amsterdam is moving back in our direction. (Not sure why though- could be politics, social opinion, etc...)

sloppy shoes: Look how long it took to reform sex laws in this nation?



Sex laws have been reformed?


Sex and Drugs FTW.

Yeah, good luck with that libertarians. Something tells me this will end the way it always does, with you shaking your clenched little fists and writing manifestos to posthumously baptize historical figures as libertarians.

Phil Herup:
Sex laws have been reformed?

Yes. Sodomy and position laws have been struck down. "Gayness" is no longer a mental disorder for which people were locked up in institutions. Marriage is open to "sexual deviants" in a few states now- or at least civil unions. Rape laws have reformed- the ability for women to present themselves at trial has reformed. Marriage laws have reformed concerning women and divorce (though sometimes they are out of hand).

Sex offender registries have gotten out of hand, yes, but that's really a singular issue. Also, statutory rape needs to be reformed to accomodate people closer in age- like 18/16 types; but, things are still much better than they used to be.

Switchblades: Now, I take it this might sound quite gauche
But ever since Lyndon LaRouche
He made me inspired
After that I felt tired
Every candidate since was a...gentleman not quite meeting my standards.

Jackass? Tool? Help me out...

If only the party would see
Philosophy's the thing that should be
Enacted by law -
More freedoms for all! -
Don't nominate Bobarr or [RP].

It's a shame so many self declared "libertarians" kiss the anus of the freedom hating theocrats of the republican party.
Puts the stink of dishonesty and stupidity on the whole idea.

CaesarSneezy:

...There is more to libertarianism than fiscal policy.

Feel free to try to convince me otherwise, but judging by a quick skimming of this article, libertarianism's nothing more than another flavor of "Dogma!!! Ours is the only correct one!! Yay dogma!!!1!!!", and quite likely just as divorced from reality as any other true believers anywhere else on the spectrum.

For me one of the big lessons of the last 8 years is that it's foolish to start with the ideology and pretend everything's just gonna work out if we just believe. So, it's kind of tragically amusing to hear the libertarians say 'maybe this time we might get our way once in a while', the conservatives say 'if only Bush had been more ideologically pure' and my people say 'our turn, yippee!!!'...

The real reason I voted Obama & was happy with his victory is because he seems like he just might be someone who thinks 'fark the dogma, let's just find some shiat that actually works'. Let's hope it plays out that way.

Komplex: Yes, because after the last 8 years of limited government intervention in the Marketplace, we want even less government regulation.

The ignorance of this statement is overwhelming.

Even after one of the largest failures of big Government the world has ever seen, there are still those who will flock to defend it and insist that the problem is that Government wasn't big enough to stop it.

mmm... pancake: Komplex: Yes, because after the last 8 years of limited government intervention in the Marketplace, we want even less government regulation.

The ignorance of this statement is overwhelming.

How so?

40yoVirgin: hubiestubert: So, Neocons are now trying to morph themselves into Libertarians?

We've seen several morph right before our very eyes here on TF over the last few years...

i was a democrat until 2006.

2000 ended in disappointment for me but i didn't really care that much about politics. No didn't vote for Nader i was a mindless sheep voter. 2004 came along was disappointed yet again but cared much more about politics. I started to question wtf is wrong with the democrats why do they worship bipartisanship more than principle? 2006 dems won i was happy but quickly realized they lied about stopping the war and other things to get elected. Once again They rolled over for the republicans.


Then a old white republican man came on stage and said everything i wanted to hear a democrat say for 7 years and he had a 30 year voting record to back it up. WTF is this shiat?? was my first thought.

Ron Paul happened. the rest is history. He's not perfect by any means but close enough.

Same as it ever was (new window)

sloppy shoes: Ughh...this article is full of shiat.

Bush wanted partial privatisation of the SSA. Just because it wasn't the wet dream of some stupid policy maker doesn't mean Bush wasn't partially for your idea. THIS JUST IN- when you deal with other people you have to compromise. (Further, since SS is 'pay as you go', Bush's plan would have likely been a transitionary plan if it had become popular, which is needed anyways).

Also, if Libertarians are so into property rights- why are you against cap and trade? It's the closest you can get to a property right system for pollution.

The article is not full of shiat, it's right on point. Of course compromise is inevitable, but Bush's Social Security take was half hearted at best, and seeing how his party had control of Congress for the most part of his administration, you would figure a look into Social Security would be for the path of stronger reform. None of that happened, it was pretty much lip service.

And as for cap-and-trade - actually Reason editor Radley Balko has expressed support for it.

sloppy shoes: How so?

Figure it out. You're a big boy.

Deftoons:
Also, if Libertarians are so into property rights- why are you against cap and trade? It's the closest you can get to a property right system for pollution.

The article is not full of shiat, it's right on point. Of course compromise is inevitable, but Bush's Social Security take was half hearted at best, and seeing how his party had control of Congress for the most part of his administration, you would figure a look into Social Security would be for the path of stronger reform. None of that happened, it was pretty much lip service.

And as for cap-and-trade - actually Reason editor Radley Balko has expressed support for it.

Well,

1. I was basing my cap-and-trade statement off the article's preferences.

2. One of the major reasons Bush and Republicans were not successful with "reforming" social security is not because they were paying lip service to it, but that it's a very popular public program and there was a lot of public skepticism about their reforms. People like the SSA, and there are more than a few qualified individuals who will tell you that- with social security- much of the criticism is either ideological or over-bloated. Even the worst projection- which is unlikely- is still relatively mild.

3. The article was completely full of shiat. It merely underscores the reality that Libertarians are against most compromise, as well as have no understanding of politics. The vast majority of the public does not like many of your ideas- since we are a democratic republic- they aren't too likely to get implemented to the degree or scale you wish.

mmm... pancake:
Figure it out. You're a big boy.


You mean like how the SEC transferred a lot of regulation to companies themselves, exempted the major firms from leverage ratios; Bush had a major signatory/photo op event in 2004 showing how much regulation he had cut; Reason admitted that while regulatory spending increased, financial regulation actually decreased; credit default swaps, in-rate auction securities, credit derivatives, and many other recent financial inventions all went unregulated, etc...

You're right- I am a big boy, and I know the reality of the situation.

sloppy shoes: Also, if Libertarians are so into property rights- why are you against cap and trade? It's the closest you can get to a property right system for pollution.

Because it essentially allows the government to coin fiat money by raising caps and auctioning new licenses? Which is very likely to be the response (under industry pressure) if environmentalists succeed in banding together to purchase such licenses at auction to NOT use them?

sloppy shoes: You mean like how the SEC transferred a lot of regulation to companies themselves, exempted the major firms from leverage ratios; Bush had a major signatory/photo op event in 2004 showing how much regulation he had cut; Reason admitted that while regulatory spending increased, financial regulation actually decreased; credit default swaps, in-rate auction securities, credit derivatives, and many other recent financial inventions all went unregulated, etc...

You're right- I am a big boy, and I know the reality of the situation.

And then when it came time for the companies who made bad financial decisions to pay for their choices what happened? Did they go out of business? Did the free market absorb their assets in selloffs? Oh yeah, that LIMITED GOVERNMENT policy of Congress and the White House dedicated TRILLIONS to bail them out. Limited government indeed. Would you like to try again? You're as ignorant as the first fool if you think Bush and Congress are proponents of limited government in the marketplace.

mmm... pancake: Even after one of the largest failures of big Government the world has ever seen, there are still those who will flock to defend it and insist that the problem is that Government wasn't big enough to stop it.

You guys need to stop focusing on "big" vs. "small" government and start focusing on "smart" and "good" government.