PDA

View Full Version : why do both the Libertarian and Constitutionists parties exist?




nbhadja
06-23-2008, 11:03 AM
you think they would be smarter and join forces to double their party size. They basically have the same views. They don't have the luxury of making 2 different parties based on one small difference (immigration for the most part, but doesn't matter since they both are against welfare). Be smart and combine them!

OhioMichael
06-23-2008, 11:04 AM
Be smart and combine them!

I would like to see them combine as well. It would create a 'big-tent' where libertarian ideas could develop.

LABELtheTRAITOR
06-23-2008, 11:07 AM
i believe the Constitution party is more theocratic, whereas the liberatarian party is not... once again religion divides the best of us!

FrankRep
06-23-2008, 11:09 AM
Divide and conquer. It works pretty well doesn't it.

Kalifornia
06-23-2008, 11:13 AM
Minor social issues are what divide them for the most part. The libertarian party seems to be controlled by godless atheistic borderline anarchists hellbent on destroying U.S. sovereignty. The constitution party seems to be controlled by bible thumping fundamentalists who want small central government, but still want to keep religion involved.

What is funny to me, as a sort of deist "small l" libertarian nationalist, is that I like the nationalism of the constitution party, and the secularity of the libertarian party. If they struck a compromise, they would probably end up with a platform that sits right where I do.

acptulsa
06-23-2008, 11:26 AM
Divide and conquer. It works pretty well doesn't it.

Have yet to see a whiff of the religion question fail to divide these boards...

JosephTheLibertarian
06-23-2008, 11:30 AM
Minor social issues are what divide them for the most part. The libertarian party seems to be controlled by godless atheistic borderline anarchists hellbent on destroying U.S. sovereignty. The constitution party seems to be controlled by bible thumping fundamentalists who want small central government, but still want to keep religion involved.

What is funny to me, as a sort of deist "small l" libertarian nationalist, is that I like the nationalism of the constitution party, and the secularity of the libertarian party. If they struck a compromise, they would probably end up with a platform that sits right where I do.

you don't have a say if you aren't an active member of the LP.

steph3n
06-23-2008, 11:30 AM
why does any party exist? because someone has an ego trip and wants CONTROL.

fr33domfightr
06-23-2008, 11:32 AM
Minor social issues are what divide them for the most part. The libertarian party seems to be controlled by godless atheistic borderline anarchists hellbent on destroying U.S. sovereignty. The constitution party seems to be controlled by bible thumping fundamentalists who want small central government, but still want to keep religion involved.


I think it's anticipated a President will have some sort of religious beliefs. The problem comes from him/her imposing their will on Americans. Is that what the Constitution Party believes??


FF

JosephTheLibertarian
06-23-2008, 11:37 AM
why does any party exist? because someone has an ego trip and wants CONTROL.

private organizations. problem?

Kalifornia
06-23-2008, 11:39 AM
you don't have a say if you aren't an active member of the LP.

care to elaborate on that point? Cause it isnt making a whole lot of sense.

Kalifornia
06-23-2008, 11:41 AM
I think it's anticipated a President will have some sort of religious beliefs. The problem comes from him/her imposing their will on Americans. Is that what the Constitution Party believes??


FF


well the constitution party seems to go so far as to officially recognize christian ideals. Thats a little farther than just accepting people have religion.

AJ Antimony
06-23-2008, 11:42 AM
I generally agree, but both are pretty small so it wouldn't really matter

JosephTheLibertarian
06-23-2008, 11:44 AM
care to elaborate on that point? Cause it isnt making a whole lot of sense.

You can't change anything when you're whining on the sidelines.

micahnelson
06-23-2008, 11:45 AM
Why do both the Republican and Democrat parties exist?

you think they would be smarter and join forces to double their party size. They basically have the same views. They don't have the luxury of making 2 different parties based on one small difference (immigration for the most part, but doesn't matter since they both are for welfare). Be smart and combine them!

JosephTheLibertarian
06-23-2008, 11:46 AM
Why do both the Republican and Democrat parties exist?

you think they would be smarter and join forces to double their party size. They basically have the same views. They don't have the luxury of making 2 different parties based on one small difference (immigration for the most part, but doesn't matter since they both are for welfare). Be smart and combine them!

for the illusion of a choice.

Kalifornia
06-23-2008, 11:46 AM
You can't change anything when you're whining on the sidelines.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt that says "former party officer". Excuse me for refusing to waste anymore time on the debatatarianism.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-23-2008, 11:48 AM
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt that says "former party officer". Excuse me for refusing to waste anymore time on the debatatarianism.

I guess you're just a sucky leader.

Theocrat
06-23-2008, 11:50 AM
you think they would be smarter and join forces to double their party size. They basically have the same views. They don't have the luxury of making 2 different parties based on one small difference (immigration for the most part, but doesn't matter since they both are against welfare). Be smart and combine them!

In the interest of more information, you can view the Constitution Party's and the Libertarian Party's platforms on this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=143959). I think after you read both of their platforms, you'll understand why they are so different from one another.

Kalifornia
06-23-2008, 11:50 AM
I guess you're just a sucky leader.

Not so much that, as the job felt like being a guide at the zoo for retarded kids.

Kalifornia
06-23-2008, 11:51 AM
In the interest of more information, you can view the Constitution Party's and the Libertarian Party's platforms on this thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=143959). I think after you read both of their platforms, you'll understand why they are so different from one another.

Im pretty sure I know which party Theo supports. :)

micahnelson
06-23-2008, 11:53 AM
for the illusion of a choice.

The two party system exists because acting bipartisan gives you 3-4 points in most polls.

Theocrat
06-23-2008, 11:56 AM
Im pretty sure I know which party Theo supports. :)

I support the party which honors our Constitution, not libertinism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertinism). ;)

nbhadja
06-23-2008, 11:59 AM
for the illusion of a choice.

Exactly, that is the reason. The constitution and libertarian parties are not trying to make a illusion to fool people.

FrankRep
06-23-2008, 12:00 PM
It doesn't really matter if you're a Libertarian or a Constitutionist, you're probably gonna lose either way. Splitting hairs over petty details.

Kalifornia
06-23-2008, 12:00 PM
I support the party which honors our Constitution, not libertinism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertinism). ;)


I guessed as much. In fairness I find as much fault with the Libs as with your position, but its too bad you guys cant just leave your god in your hearts instead of bringing him into your politics.

Theocrat
06-23-2008, 12:03 PM
I guessed as much. In fairness I find as much fault with the Libs as with your position, but its too bad you guys cant just leave your god in your hearts instead of bringing him into your politics.

Are you forcing your beliefs on me by telling me I can't inculcate my God into politics, Kalifornia? Why don't you take your own advice and leave your doubt inside your own heart instead of bringing it into your politics? ;)

acptulsa
06-23-2008, 12:06 PM
Are you forcing your beliefs on me by telling me I can't inculcate my God into politics, Kalifornia? Why don't you take your own advice and leave your doubt inside your own heart instead of bringing it into your politics? ;)

I just want to find a common ground where we can utilize the strength of our numbers instead of dividing ourselves into political uselessness. Wonder if God would approve of us being an undivided force for good in the world? Ya think?

JosephTheLibertarian
06-23-2008, 12:09 PM
Not so much that, as the job felt like being a guide at the zoo for retarded kids.

retards? can't be worse than GOP regulars

Kalifornia
06-23-2008, 12:10 PM
Are you forcing your beliefs on me by telling me I can't inculcate my God into politics, Kalifornia? Why don't you take your own advice and leave your doubt inside your own heart instead of bringing it into your politics? ;)

Forcing? No. Just pointing out that everyone has a different religion, and by forcing your religion into politics, you immediately alienate others who dont share your exact beliefs. Id like for people to respect their differences whereever possible.

I have no doubts about anything. If you are referring to my relationship with God, its a personal one. My lack of a need to force it on others is no indication of a lack of faith. I just dont feel the need to attempt to force others to emulate it by regulating what they do with or put into their own bodies.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-23-2008, 12:10 PM
I support the party which honors our Constitution, not libertinism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertinism). ;)

sounds good to me. ;)

acptulsa
06-23-2008, 12:13 PM
I have no doubts about anything. If you are referring to my relationship with God, its a personal one. My lack of a need to force it on others is no indication of a lack of faith. I just dont feel the need to attempt to force others to emulate it by regulating what they do with or put into their own bodies.

Oh, I see. You give God credit for being a good enough Father to meet each of His children on his or her own terms without playing favorites and without forcing them into a "one size fits all" mold. What a concept!

Doesn't seem too much to ask of the omnipotent to me...

Theocrat
06-23-2008, 12:27 PM
Forcing? No. Just pointing out that everyone has a different religion, and by forcing your religion into politics, you immediately alienate others who dont share your exact beliefs. Id like for people to respect their differences whereever possible.

I have no doubts about anything. If you are referring to my relationship with God, its a personal one. My lack of a need to force it on others is no indication of a lack of faith. I just dont feel the need to attempt to force others to emulate it by regulating what they do with or put into their own bodies.

Acknowledging God in politics (as many of our Founders did) is not "forcing" my beliefs on anyone. However, the removal or disallowal of God in politics is an imposition of a non-belief in God. There is no neutrality. You need to understand that because, sadly, that's how the secularists are trying to win the battle for political domination.

Theocrat
06-23-2008, 12:28 PM
sounds good to me. ;)

Then you're not a true American, in my opinion.

Kalifornia
06-23-2008, 12:35 PM
Acknowledging God in politics (as many of our Founders did) is not "forcing" my beliefs on anyone. However, the removal or disallowal of God in politics is an imposition of a non-belief in God. There is no neutrality. You need to understand that because, sadly, that's how the secularists are trying to win the battle for political domination.

Acknowledging the creator in each of our lives is considerably different than allowing one person's or a group of persons' flawed understanding of God's will (As ALL of our understandings are deeply flawed.) to affect the policy of a government which has been created by men UNDER God.

The removal of religion from politics merely allows us to focus on finding common ground. I have no problem with atheists, or buddhists, or or any religion, for that matter, so long as they agree to acknowledge that I have fundamental rights, that they will not trample upon. I see them as given to me by my creator. If they want to view it in another right, that is their choice.

The fact that you view it as a sort of religious battle says alot about you theo. What makes you so different from a Jihadi?

Theocrat
06-23-2008, 12:45 PM
Acknowledging the creator in each of our lives is considerably different than allowing one person's or a group of persons' flawed understanding of God's will (As ALL of our understandings are deeply flawed.) to affect the policy of a government which has been created by men UNDER God.(emphasis mine)

You must be deeply flawed in your understanding of what the Creator requires of His creatures' involvement in politics, then. ;)


The removal of religion from politics merely allows us to focus on finding common ground. I have no problem with atheists, or buddhists, or or any religion, for that matter, so long as they agree to acknowledge that I have fundamental rights, that they will not trample upon. I see them as given to me by my creator. If they want to view it in another right, that is their choice.

It is impossible to separate religion from politics, even for secularists. They religiously believe that religion has no place in politics, yet theirs is a religion of humanism. That's my point.


The fact that you view it as a sort of religious battle says alot about you theo. What makes you so different from a Jihadi?

What makes me different from Jihadists is that I don't strap bombs to myself in order to convert others to my beliefs. Rather, I strap "bombs" to others' worldviews and let them implode on themselves. The former uses weapons of mass destruction, while the latter utilizes words of mass instruction. ;)

By the way, the current battle that is raging in our society is a war of philosophical beliefs and ideas, whether it's in politics, economics, or ethics. Even Congressman Paul acknowledges this. What you believe determines how you behave, and that has impacts on society, whether you're a theist or "atheist."

acptulsa
06-23-2008, 12:49 PM
You must be deeply flawed in your understanding of what the Creator requires of His creatures' involvement in politics, then. ;)

He does think he's a prophet! May the Lord have mercy on his soul!

Truth Warrior
06-23-2008, 12:54 PM
why do both the Libertarian and Constitutionists parties exist?

As a political party "home and refuge" for mostly frustrated, discouraged, and disgruntled Conservative GOP refugees and defectors!<IMHO> :D

Kalifornia
06-23-2008, 12:57 PM
(emphasis mine)
You must be deeply flawed in your understanding of what the Creator requires of His creatures' involvement in politics, then. ;)

That is my point. No one truly knows God's will. Which is why I will stick to making decisions for myself, and limit my politics to ensuring everyone else gets to make their own decisions, so long as they harm no one else directly.


It is impossible to separate religion from politics, even for secularists. They religiously believe that religion has no place in politics, yet theirs is a religion of humanism. That's my point.

That is simply not true. I separate the two quite easily. Now if you are saying that YOU are unable to do so, for whatever reason, that makes me sad for you.


What makes me different from Jihadists is that I don't strap bombs to myself in order to convert others to my beliefs. Rather, I strap "bombs" to others' worldviews and let them implode on themselves. The former uses weapons of mass destruction, while the latter utilizes words of mass instruction. ;)

so is it fair to characterize you as a non-violent jihadi? If so, how do you ever seek to build consensus with those who dont share your beliefs? Do you intend to convert enough people to your way of thinking that you can use the power of the state to compel them to obey your belief system by law? If so, then would it be fair to characterize you as a jihadi who doesnt use violence personally, but is willing to employ the violence of the state to do your bidding?


By the way, the current battle that is raging in our society is a war of philosophical beliefs and ideas, whether it's in politics, economics, or ethics. Even Congressman Paul acknowledges this. What you believe determines how you behave, and that has impacts on society, whether you're a theist or "atheist."

I agree, which is why Im attempting to adhere to the philosophy that ensures the most liberty for the most Americans, without destroying our national identity, culture, and sovereignty.

libertarian4321
06-23-2008, 01:23 PM
The Constitution Party is for less government spending on most things. However, there is a strong theocratic trend in the CP- most of them have no problem with government legislating Christian "morality".

The Libertarian Party believes you should be free from unnecessary government intrusion for both economic and social issues.

If you are a "libertarian" who thinks the Inquisition was a good idea, you probably would prefer the CP. If you are a libertarian who doesn't think burning at the stake for "impure" thoughts is a good idea, you probably belong in the Libertarian Party.

acptulsa
06-23-2008, 01:26 PM
That is my point. No one truly knows God's will.

Thank you for not claiming to be omnipotent and/or falsely posing as a prophet! We appreciate you very much!

Kalifornia
06-23-2008, 01:27 PM
If you are a libertarian who doesn't think burning at the stake for "impure" thoughts is a good idea, you probably belong in the Libertarian Party.

Unless of course you believe in protecting U.S. sovereignty and nationhood, or seek limits on trade with nations who do not engage in fully free trade, or are not a complete anarcho-capitalist, in which case, you probably dont.

crazyfacedjenkins
06-23-2008, 01:28 PM
why does any party exist? because someone has an ego trip and wants CONTROL.

HAHAHAH, how true is that?

Ron LOL
06-23-2008, 01:34 PM
you don't have a say if you aren't an active member of the LP.

You, personally, and all of your little "ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAR LIBERTY ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAR" clones are why we'll never have someone like Ron Paul for president. It has nothing to do with media bias or some kind of plot by The Man to keep Ron Paul down -- Ron Paul's ideas transcend that stuff. Which is fine. If the media won't give us an outlet, we'll make our own. But there's one small problem! "It's the supporters, stupid." You are fundamentally incapable of expressing even the simplest thought without putting someone down. Awesome.

I'm so turned off to this whole movement now because of loudmouth doofuses like you utterly ruining things. You are, IMO, worse than any "neo-con." Because while they merely steer our country astray for fun and profit, you actively poison people's minds to things like personal liberty and national sovereignty. Are you by chance that weird uncle nobody wants to invite to family functions?

I was totally psyched up by this Ron Paul republicanism stuff, too. So if you can turn someone like ME off, just imagine what the average voter must think of you. Yup, you.

I'm no fairweather fan; I'll continue to vote for good folks. But going out and campaigning is a waste of my time and money with idiots like you around "helping out." With "friends" like you, who needs enemies.

To be succinct, then: [Redacted by Mod].

Why don't you go find a deserted island somewhere to go live out the rest of your days? Somehow I get the impression you'd be only too happy to do so.

If you and those like you could just put a cap on your collective vitriolic bloviating, this movement might have a fighting chance.

Andrew-Austin
06-23-2008, 01:41 PM
I support the party which honors our Constitution, not libertinism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libertinism). ;)

"libertine practices or habits of life; disregard of authority or convention in sexual or religious matters. "

That definition is refering to a philosophy that an individual holds to himself.

You can't use that word when refering to libertarianism, because libertarianism is a philosphy meant to apply to all of society and our government. Its not the same thing. A libertarian is not neccessarily a libertine.

Libertine:
Libertine has come to mean one devoid of any restraints, especially one who ignores or even spurns religious norms, accepted morals, and forms of behaviour sanctioned by the larger society. The philosophy gained new-found adherents in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, particularly in France and Britain. Notable among these were John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester, and the Marquis de Sade. "Libertine", like many words, is an evolving one, defined today as "a dissolute person; usually a person who is morally unrestrained".
Its really not surpising you would use this definition when refering to libertarianism to obfuscate things. Hey man, sorry I don't believe things such as rights, morality, law, etc are completely baseless when not refering to a diety like you.

TurtleBurger
06-23-2008, 01:43 PM
If you are a "libertarian" who thinks the Inquisition was a good idea, you probably would prefer the CP.

I'm a CP person then! I think the Inquisition got a bad rap. As far as I'm concerned, if you are going to burn anyone at the stake it should be folks who killed priests, raped nuns, and burned down churches with their congregations in them (as the "heretics" were known to do). The problem is people nowadays think of heretics as hippies sitting around a campfire singing Kumbaya, and then are horrified how they were treated. The fact is, a lot of these people got what they had coming to them, and actually got treated a lot better by the Church than they would have by the Spanish secular government.

crazyfacedjenkins
06-23-2008, 01:44 PM
Then you're not a true American, in my opinion.

HAHAHAHAHA, "true American." That's doesn't make any sense. If you are born in America, you're an American. How can that be fake?

hypnagogue
06-23-2008, 02:01 PM
Stuff I really do understand your sentiments. I want to point out though, this is the internet. I've done some active campaigning in my area and none of the people I've met are nearly so condescending. Remember, the internet turns normal people into assholes.

mediahasyou
06-23-2008, 02:06 PM
Constitution party is the pro life libertarian party.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-23-2008, 02:10 PM
Constitution party is the pro life libertarian party.

that believes in protectionism and outlawing pornography. oh yea

familydog
06-23-2008, 02:14 PM
that believes in protectionism and outlawing pornography. oh yea

The Libertarian nominee is a protectionist. I'm willing to bet the party will fall in line accordingly.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-23-2008, 02:15 PM
The Libertarian nominee is a protectionist. I'm willing to bet the party will fall in line accordingly.

Don't bother posting your outdated article bullshit anymore, protectionist. tool

RoamZero
06-23-2008, 02:15 PM
If they want to make an impact both parties need to dissolve into the Republican party and fight to change it from within on a common platform. Otherwise they're both forever doomed to be protest-vote parties.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-23-2008, 02:16 PM
If they want to make an impact both parties need to dissolve into the Republican party and fight to change it from within on a common platform. Otherwise they're both forever doomed to be protest-vote parties.

that's pretty ignorant. mass exodus to a prowar party? haha

libertarian4321
06-23-2008, 02:17 PM
Unless of course you believe in protecting U.S. sovereignty and nationhood, or seek limits on trade with nations who do not engage in fully free trade, or are not a complete anarcho-capitalist, in which case, you probably dont.

I'm not sure what you are referring to. The Libertarian Party stands for "nationhood" and a strong defense.

It does not, however, advocate pointless wars of aggression (e.g. Iraq).

FYI, I'm a 27-year Army veteran and a long time Libertarian.

familydog
06-23-2008, 02:18 PM
Don't bother posting your outdated article bullshit anymore, protectionist. tool

I'm not a protectionist. This goes to show once again you really have no idea what you are talking about. You've embarassed yourself here one too many times. I have yet to hear Bob Barr "convert" on those issues. He is, therefore a protectionist.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-23-2008, 02:20 PM
I'm not a protectionist. This goes to show once again you really have no idea what you are talking about. You've embarassed yourself here one too many times. I have yet to hear Bob Barr "convert" on those issues. He is, therefore a protectionist.

You're a protectonist if you support Baldwin haha

familydog
06-23-2008, 02:24 PM
You're a protectonist if you support Baldwin haha

You don't deny your nominee is a protectionist? Like I said, if Barr is any sort of a success in the fall, you will see the party change gradually to look more conservative and less libertarian.

For the record, I'm writing in Ron Paul. Your argument fails. Try again.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-23-2008, 02:26 PM
You don't deny your nominee is a protectionist? Like I said, if Barr is any sort of a success in the fall, you will see the party change gradually to look more conservative and less libertarian.

For the record, I'm writing in Ron Paul. Your argument fails. Try again.

More conservative? Kind of hard when the party is called the LIBERTARIAN party

Theocrat
06-23-2008, 04:58 PM
"libertine practices or habits of life; disregard of authority or convention in sexual or religious matters. "

That definition is refering to a philosophy that an individual holds to himself.

You can't use that word when refering to libertarianism, because libertarianism is a philosphy meant to apply to all of society and our government. Its not the same thing. A libertarian is not neccessarily a libertine.

Libertine:
Its really not surpising you would use this definition when refering to libertarianism to obfuscate things. Hey man, sorry I don't believe things such as rights, morality, law, etc are completely baseless when not refering to a diety like you.

I consider myself to be a libertarian. Liberty comes from God, not man nor the State (a self-evident truth). True liberty is not license; it contains responsibility, based on a solid moral code. Liberty allows us to do what we ought to do, not what we necessarily want to do. The problem with many so-called "libertarians" is that they often confuse libertarianism with libertinism. For instance, they feel it's okay to watch child porn, murder babies in the womb, practice homosexuality, etc. Those acts are not consistent with true liberty, which is founded on acting morally and responsibly before God and man. Libertinism allows for men to act freely based on their lusts, essentially, and through such hedonistic behavior, chaos, greed, and confusion are birthed. Our Founding Fathers did not advocate such behavior worthy of men in a civil society, and definitely not behavior suitable for one to be involved in public office. Libertarianism is not libertinism; the two are mutually exclusive, and never the twain shall they meet.

fxmercenary
06-23-2008, 05:02 PM
you think they would be smarter and join forces to double their party size. They basically have the same views. They don't have the luxury of making 2 different parties based on one small difference (immigration for the most part, but doesn't matter since they both are against welfare). Be smart and combine them!

2 people got into a disagreement about something petty and people picked teams, basicly the same thing a couple hundred years ago with repubs and demos.

Peace&Freedom
06-23-2008, 05:07 PM
The petty sniping that this thread has descended into explains why the two parties are distinct. From the sound of the participants here, it appears neither side respects the other. The CPers don't seem to understand free trade, and how it can be perfectly compatible with national sovereignty (the thing they really want to protect). The LPers don't want to understand a view of God and government that conflicts with their secularist or Randian one, that they mistakenly presume is the "default" position everyone is supposed to settle on.

There are also clearly two ways to view how liberty can apply to the social issues. All I know is, Paul closed the divide between the two this year, as both were ready to nominate him if he had wanted it. Thus, the simplest way to merge the two groups is to field candidates who are like Ron Paul (pro-life Libertarians committed to the Constitution). Let the two factions express their differences through their parties, then get together behind a Revolution candidate. We have the template for a solution, folks---let's use it, and stop prattling over details we're never going to agree on.

Grimnir Wotansvolk
06-23-2008, 06:05 PM
Not only the libertarian and constitutionalist, but all of the relatively large third parties should band together as an emergency coalition ticket, then work out the lesser differences once they've secured a win. I don't understand how any of them can expect to be taken seriously as iconoclasts when they continue to combat one another for 0.00032% of the vote.

alaric
06-23-2008, 06:20 PM
you think they would be smarter and join forces to double their party size. They basically have the same views. They don't have the luxury of making 2 different parties based on one small difference (immigration for the most part, but doesn't matter since they both are against welfare). Be smart and combine them!

YES! +2008

alaric
06-23-2008, 06:21 PM
Not only the libertarian and constitutionalist, but all of the relatively large third parties should band together as an emergency coalition ticket, then work out the lesser differences once they've secured a win. I don't understand how any of them can expect to be taken seriously as iconoclasts when they continue to combat one another for 0.00032% of the vote.

absolutely! +2008

alaric
06-23-2008, 06:22 PM
The petty sniping that this thread has descended into explains why the two parties are distinct. From the sound of the participants here, it appears neither side respects the other. The CPers don't seem to understand free trade, and how it can be perfectly compatible with national sovereignty (the thing they really want to protect). The LPers don't want to understand a view of God and government that conflicts with their secularist or Randian one, that they mistakenly presume is the "default" position everyone is supposed to settle on.

There are also clearly two ways to view how liberty can apply to the social issues. All I know is, Paul closed the divide between the two this year, as both were ready to nominate him if he had wanted it. Thus, the simplest way to merge the two groups is to field candidates who are like Ron Paul (pro-life Libertarians committed to the Constitution). Let the two factions express their differences through their parties, then get together behind a Revolution candidate. We have the template for a solution, folks---let's use it, and stop prattling over details we're never going to agree on.

hey, I've got an idea: combine them and name it the RON PAUL party!:cool:

alaric
06-23-2008, 06:41 PM
ok gang, while i was on this thread, i got a call from the LP on ballot access. well, i told her if we all united, we wouldn't have these problems. Stop all the sniping about the LP not being religious enough or the CP being too moral. When you are up to your ass in alligators, you must remember that the objective is to drain the swamp!

Kalifornia
06-23-2008, 06:49 PM
hey, I've got an idea: combine them and name it the RON PAUL party!:cool:

ugh, the hero worship inherent in that statement made me just cringe so hard I accidentally pissed myself.

stevedasbach
06-23-2008, 07:57 PM
It would be very difficult to devise a position on abortion that would be acceptable to both parties. IMO, that is the biggest stumbling block.

My own experience while national chair and ED for the LP was that there was mutual respect and a spirit of cooperation between the leadership of most of the larger minor parties, especially on ballot access.

Alex Libman
06-23-2008, 08:08 PM
There's nothing wrong with having multiple libertarian parties. I would very much support a second no-compromises anarcho-capitalist party... But the Constitution Party is only hiding behind fiscally conservatism, and there isn't a shred of social liberalism in their ideology.


---

Baldwin reminds me of Hitler before he came to power, and this forum needs to get rid of the theocratic nut-jobs by ostracizing them before they completely ruin Ron Paul's legacy! Sure, he's saying all the right things now, but imagine what his Prohibition, errr, I mean """Constitution""" party would do if they came to power on state level! They won't just stop at outlawing gambling and pornography as their platform is calling for, no sir! We're talking about Christian Taliban here! :eek:

DeadtoSin
06-23-2008, 08:10 PM
Personally, I think it is great that there are so many libertarian groups. I think that they can come together on big things, but they balance each other out as a party on other things. Conflicts within a party in my eyes are a good thing. I wish the Republicans and Democrats had real mavericks (not McCain lol).

Soccrmastr
06-23-2008, 08:14 PM
constituion party consist of Old Right conservatives, not libertarians

Alex Libman
06-23-2008, 08:17 PM
REALITY CHECK:

If you believe abortion should be outlawed, then you're not a libertarian.

If you believe "child pornography" should be illegal, then you're not a libertarian.

If you believe torturing and killing animals for sport should be illegal then you're not a libertarian.

If you believe government can use "IN GOD WE TRUST" as a national motto, then you're not a libertarian.

If you believe government should prohibit three men and a toaster from marrying each-other, then you're not a libertarian.

Etc.


---

Baldwin reminds me of Hitler before he came to power, and this forum needs to get rid of the theocratic nut-jobs by ostracizing them before they completely ruin Ron Paul's legacy! Sure, he's saying all the right things now, but imagine what his Prohibition, errr, I mean """Constitution""" party would do if they came to power on state level! They won't just stop at outlawing gambling and pornography as their platform is calling for, no sir! We're talking about Christian Taliban here! :eek:

DeadtoSin
06-23-2008, 08:17 PM
If you believe government can use "IN GOD WE TRUST" as a national motto, then you're not a libertarian.

If you believe government should prohibit three men and a toaster from marrying each-other, then you're not a libertarian.

If you believe "child pornography" should be illegal, then you're not a libertarian.

Maybe not your kind of libertarian.

Andrew-Austin
06-23-2008, 09:04 PM
I consider myself to be a libertarian. Liberty comes from God, not man nor the State (a self-evident truth). The God you speak of can be just what you make "him" to be. So whenever you start to tell me what God is and what "he" is about is the second I laugh at you.



True liberty is not license; it contains responsibility, based on a solid moral code. Liberty allows us to do what we ought to do, not what we necessarily want to do. The problem with many so-called "libertarians" is that they often confuse libertarianism with libertinism. For instance, they feel it's okay to watch child porn, murder babies in the womb, practice homosexuality, etc.

No most don't think its okay, they just think its horrendous when a government authoritarian bureaucrat tells them what is moral and immoral. And Libertarians worry that these practically non-issues (real intelligent of you to mention ****-sexuality) will just be drummed repeatedly in order to impose fascist anti-privacy measures (and they inevitably will).

The means of enforcing some moral laws (for ex. anti-drug, anti-gambling laws) is simply not worth it. Policemen end up enforcing the laws in very discriminatory ways. For example a closeted gay politician may be spared from some anti-**** law, or black neighborhoods will be targeted almost exclusively for drug laws.






Those acts are not consistent with true liberty, which is founded on acting morally and responsibly before God and man.

One of the results of a libertarian society is social progress. Social progress arises naturally in a truly free state, morality does not need to be (falsely, often hypocritically, and weakly) enforced via state bayonet by some pig pretending to know God's will. Life is about learning from mistakes, and what is truly wrong humans learn to stay away from. Petty legislated moral codes mean absolutely nothing to the common man when he is not given the opportunity to understand it though experience, instead he is given an "exciting taboo" to break. The idea that morality needs to be pounded into man is atrocious, stupid, unworkable, a slippery slope, and even in some cases (such as drug laws) counter-productive. The state can NEVER improve man's nature, liberty however can. Liberty provides man an opportunity to learn from his mistakes/sins and become responsible. This does not entail some pig authoritarian to enforce anti-****, anti-gambling, anti-drug, etc laws via bayonet. If your God is apart of this universe in any metaphysical sense then he will naturally bring about moral progression, but not through means of government bayonet. Morality/virtue must arise through man's heart, its time for you to believe in your brothers and stop being such a closet statist.



Libertinism allows for men to act freely based on their lusts, essentially, and through such hedonistic behavior, chaos, greed, and confusion are birthed. Our Founding Fathers did not advocate such behavior worthy of men in a civil society, and definitely not behavior suitable for one to be involved in public office. Libertarianism is not libertinism; the two are mutually exclusive, and never the twain shall they meet.

Your just twisting shit to reach some delusional theocratic goal that would never work. The second we elect people like you (who pretend to know God's will) and set up some moral authoritarian theocracy, is the day when government starts corrupting more rapidly then ever. The church has already had its opportunity to improve the nature of man and it failed miserably. Liberty is natural, "God" is natural. Enforcing petty moral laws that some delusional theocrat crafts is unnatural. God's will cannot be expressed in any human language, in the written or spoken word. Have you ever heard of natural rights and law? Liberty allows for them to arise without being distorted.

The issue of child porn is pretty straight forward. Production of child porn should be illegal because that is infringing upon the young victim's mind and person. Libertarians simply detest/are wary of the government control of the internet, its a very slippery slope that is almost determined to go wrong. No need to drumbeat this non-issue.

LibertyEagle
06-23-2008, 09:45 PM
well the constitution party seems to go so far as to officially recognize christian ideals.

What's the matter with that? :confused: So did our Founding Fathers.

LibertyEagle
06-23-2008, 09:51 PM
I'm telling you folks, if we don't stop this bickering over minor issues, we will NEVER get anywhere in this movement. Instead of focusing on what we DO agree on, it appears that we have chosen instead to beat someone to a bloody pulp, who shares the same core principles, but differs on a couple of side issues.

I'm not a member of the Libertarian Party, but is it possible that it is this kind of thing that has hampered that Party from getting much of anywhere? Not accusing; just asking.

LibertyEagle
06-23-2008, 09:54 PM
constituion party consist of Old Right conservatives, not libertarians

Actually, the CP is largely comprised of traditional conservatives (aka libertarian-conservatives).

LibertyEagle
06-23-2008, 10:04 PM
that believes in protectionism and outlawing pornography. oh yea

Well, maybe you will be allowed to keep your porn when you are DRAFTED in a few years to fight more wars for conquest, or when you are sitting in a Gulag here in America. :rolleyes:

Yeah pornography is such a major issue. Let's all forget about returning government to its constitutional levels, sound money, stopping no-win and unconstitutional wars, reinstating the Bill of Rights, etc. Because pornography, even kiddie porn, is MUCH more important. :rolleyes:

Peace&Freedom
06-24-2008, 01:30 AM
REALITY CHECK:

If you believe abortion should be outlawed, then you're not a libertarian.

If you believe "child pornography" should be illegal, then you're not a libertarian.

If you believe torturing and killing animals for sport should be illegal then you're not a libertarian.

If you believe government can use "IN GOD WE TRUST" as a national motto, then you're not a libertarian.

If you believe government should prohibit three men and a toaster from marrying each-other, then you're not a libertarian.

Etc.

COUNTER-REALITY CHECK:

If you believe over a million unborn per year may be forcibly deprived of their right to life, you're not a libertarian.

If you believe porn based on statutory rape should be legal, you're not a libertarian.

If you believe in forcing a one-size-fits-all acceptance of animal torture on every community in America, you're not a libertarian.

If you believe in imposing national secularism on a largely Christian country, you're not a libertarian.

If you believe in imposing acceptance of homosexual marraige on half the population, you're not a libertarian.

Etc.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-24-2008, 01:43 AM
Well, maybe you will be allowed to keep your porn when you are DRAFTED in a few years to fight more wars for conquest, or when you are sitting in a Gulag here in America. :rolleyes:

Yeah pornography is such a major issue. Let's all forget about returning government to its constitutional levels, sound money, stopping no-win and unconstitutional wars, reinstating the Bill of Rights, etc. Because pornography, even kiddie porn, is MUCH more important. :rolleyes:

That's not what voting for your principles is about.

Truth Warrior
06-24-2008, 04:32 AM
constituion party consist of Old Right conservatives, not libertarians
Libertarian Party consists of Old Right conservatives, not libertarians. ;)

There is NO political party for libertarians. Political parties are statist, by definition.

BTW, we still want our name back, whenever the LP is through abusing it. :D

MMolloy
06-24-2008, 05:57 AM
COUNTER-REALITY CHECK:

If you believe over a million unborn per year may be forcibly deprived of their right to life, you're not a libertarian.

If you believe porn based on statutory rape should be legal, you're not a libertarian.

If you believe in forcing a one-size-fits-all acceptance of animal torture on every community in America, you're not a libertarian.

If you believe in imposing national secularism on a largely Christian country, you're not a libertarian.

If you believe in imposing acceptance of homosexual marraige on half the population, you're not a libertarian.

Etc.

+1776

The State has a vested interest in breaking the bonds of loyalty people have to their family and to their God... Is it any wonder that Christianity is misrepresented in STATE schools? and that Family is being redifined by both the State schools and the MSM?

This thread has proven one thing: Education is the Key

LibertyEagle
06-24-2008, 06:07 AM
Libertarian Party consists of Old Right conservatives, not libertarians. ;)



You have GOT to be kidding. :rolleyes:

LibertyEagle
06-24-2008, 06:08 AM
That's not what voting for your principles is about.

You "principle" is kiddie porn? :confused:

speciallyblend
06-24-2008, 06:09 AM
well these 2 parties were formed because they saw the corruption in the gop way before we did;) and they did something about it, now is the time to unite everyone together again and take back the party or form a new larger Liberty party;) never say never NEW PLATFORM and it will include people from all parties;)

Truth Warrior
06-24-2008, 06:41 AM
You have GOT to be kidding. :rolleyes:
Not at all! :p

Where were you in 71 - 72? ;)

BTW, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context

AGAIN!!! :p :rolleyes:

BTW # 2!

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/lewrock0305a.gif

JosephTheLibertarian
06-24-2008, 07:04 AM
You "principle" is kiddie porn? :confused:

Do you see me supporting Mary Ruwart? Bob Barr is a moderate, too bad you never do any research. At least I'm not supporting a theocratic dick.

FindLiberty
06-24-2008, 10:42 AM
Some posters here couldn't recognize a libertarian (even the rabid BIG L type) if that Libertarian ran out right after a Church service and bit 'em on the leg.

Stereotypes and divisiveness, labels and disinformation... what a load of crap.

Freedom is indeed a BIG TENT, and you are all welcome if you leave force, fraud and coercion at home.

JosephTheLibertarian
06-24-2008, 10:54 AM
Some posters here couldn't recognize a libertarian (even the rabid BIG L type) if that Libertarian ran out right after a Church service and bit 'em on the leg.

Stereotypes and divisiveness, labels and disinformation... what a load of crap.

Freedom is indeed a BIG TENT, and you are all welcome if you leave force, fraud and coercion at home.

lol. Talking to me?

acptulsa
06-24-2008, 10:56 AM
Post ninety and no concensus yet. There seem to be two parties so their members will be at liberty to disagree (to put it mildly) with each other.

In other words, so we can defeat ourselves by splitting our voting bloc.

acptulsa
06-24-2008, 10:56 AM
lol. Talking to me?

Are you the one that bit Theocrat on the leg?

koob
06-24-2008, 11:26 AM
libertarian minded people are just too independent. they don't like joining groups such as parties. they rarely will compromise on their beliefs. that's why ron paul was so great because he was able to unite people.

Original_Intent
06-24-2008, 11:59 AM
I find that I agree with the Llibertarians on drugs and sexual orientation rights and the CP on abortion.

No, I don't feel like enslaving women to a patriarchal society that can tell them what to do with thier bodies. I believe that fetuses are a human life, and deserve protection, just like I would be against infanticide even though allowing kids to live certainly imposes a big inconvenience on mom and dad.

If you don't want to have a baby, don't get pregnant.
If it was forcible rape then kill the "dad" not the kid.

Anyway, I am sure that will get a bunch of arguments going, I am generally libertarian but very opposed to them on their abortion stance and to me it is important enough to be a deal breaker.

Marriage should be a religious issue, the state should not treat people different if they are married or cohabitating and should not be involved in the marriage debate one way or the other.

my two cents

Ninja Homer
06-24-2008, 12:32 PM
This thread has very successfully demonstrated the answer to the original question.

FindLiberty
06-24-2008, 01:45 PM
I find that I agree with the Libertarians on drugs and sexual orientation rights and the CP on abortion.

...I believe that fetuses are a human life, and deserve protection.

...I am generally libertarian but very opposed to them on their abortion stance and to me it is important enough to be a deal breaker.

I think a fetus is a human life too, but I think there must be a better solution than to depend on government. As Harry Browne used to say, "Make a law banning abortions and within five years, men will be having abortions!"

Most Libertarians see most if not all laws have unintended or horrid negative consequences...

Say some lobby group thinks that the human knee deserve "our protection" because it's the most perfect part of the human body. Does that give "us" the democratic majority power over you or the right to "protect" you from the risk of ingesting some harmful substance that might reduce you to crawling on all fours or falling and scraping a knee? (thus justifying the insane support of the war on some drugs - to protect those lovely knees of yours, you know...) Should they consider banning using in-line skates without government approved knee protection?

Same logic could be used to snatch away a beer or cigarette from a possible pregnant mother to be, before she can harm the baby inside her. Or, to protect those visual memories in our mind, someone might propose a law to ban fat people from wearing swimming suits. ( of course all these plans have downsides, such as nude fat people basking near the pool.)

Come up with a better idea, a free market solution, anything... but don't think that another law will "solve" anything except bring more government and take away more freedom.

Truth Warrior
06-24-2008, 03:01 PM
libertarian minded people are just too independent. they don't like joining groups such as parties. they rarely will compromise on their beliefs. that's why ron paul was so great because he was able to unite people.
My first sig quote speaks for itself.<IMHO>

Unite people who do compromise on their beliefs? :confused:

Original_Intent
06-24-2008, 03:02 PM
Thanks for your response.

I disagree with a lot of what you say. There are laws against killing and although it doesn't prevent it, it does deter it and it punishes those that do it.

If a pregnant woman wants to drink, smoke, or whatever that is in my opinion a bad choice but it is hers to make.

Abortion is not just a bad choice that has negative "side effects" for the child. It is an act that the sole purpose is to end that child's life. I think this falls within the government's proper role of protecting life, liberty, and property.

Now do I think that means we surrender our rights to the government to protect our own lives, liberty, and property? NO! The government should enhance our right to protect ourselves, not replace it.

Where am I going with this? Simply that a fetus has not yet developed the ability to defend its own life, and this would be a proper role of government - to protect the lives of those who cannot protect themselves.

Now, you might say that could be extended to protect the well being of the unborn by snatching cigarettes and alcohol from expectant mom's - again I say no, by argument that means that an alcoholic parent could have their kids taken away "for the good of the children" parents could be prohibited from smoking in their own home due to second-hand smoke, etc. Does smoking, drinking make one a less than perfect parent? YES! But it does not equate or even compare to a parent that would kill their own child.

My 2 cents.

The_Orlonater
06-24-2008, 03:24 PM
I disagree on abortion issues. I think people have the right to abort their child before it starts to begin life. What if you have a kid who is going to have some kind of mental disease like Down Syndrome, what if it's a girl who got raped and is pregnant and she doesn't want the kid? Would you want that kid to live with the thought that he was unwanted and is an outcome of rape? I think people have the right to abort their child and the government, Federal and State should not interfere. I know a lot of you will disagree with me, but I just felt the need to say that.

Alawn
06-24-2008, 03:41 PM
Both parties are too stubborn to do what is best for their cause. They are very close and both of them have members that could easily fit in either group. The differences are not that big. They don't care if they split the vote and never do anything. By combining and doubling their size they would easily become four times as powerful.

MMolloy
06-24-2008, 05:42 PM
I disagree on abortion issues. I think people have the right to abort their child before it starts to begin life. What if you have a kid who is going to have some kind of mental disease like Down Syndrome, what if it's a girl who got raped and is pregnant and she doesn't want the kid? Would you want that kid to live with the thought that he was unwanted and is an outcome of rape? I think people have the right to abort their child and the government, Federal and State should not interfere. I know a lot of you will disagree with me, but I just felt the need to say that.

This is one of THE issue separating the two parties so a discussion of it is certainly in order:

From RPs web site: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/
As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies (approximately how many are dying due to abortion everyday in this country). That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.

Life begins at conception! There is no other rational/scientific starting point, so you can't abort BEFORE life begins... it is not physically possible!

The elites love abortion and population control... they go hand in hand i.e. China's One Child Per Family Policy (leaving a huge imbalance in the male to female ratio in China)

Read a brief overview of "The War Against Population" by Dr. Jacqueline Kasun, Ph.D. and then go buy the book.
http://www.orwelltoday.com/populationwar.shtml

MMolloy
06-24-2008, 05:50 PM
More food for thought: Have the Government Schools you went to influenced your view on the right to life issue? The elites see us as cattle so there is no issue of morality for them, it's simply herd management!

And George Bush and John McCain are NOT Pro-Life!
The National Right to Life is just like the NRA on gun issues... an appendage of the Republican Party and no one who is serious about either the Abortion issue or the 2nd Amendment takes either of these two groups at face value!

Alawn
06-24-2008, 05:54 PM
The libertarian party is not pro abortion. It is split down the middle. Some are for it and some are against it depending on when they believe life begins.

Joseph Hart
06-24-2008, 05:58 PM
Republican's Libertarian sub Party
Republican's Constitutional sub Party
I dont understand how they are considered parties.

MMolloy
06-24-2008, 06:14 PM
The libertarian party is not pro abortion. It is split down the middle. Some are for it and some are against it depending on when they believe life begins.

Correct the party is split and

Life begins at conception! There is no other rational/scientific starting point!

And my main focus is trying to get everyone on this forum to understand the elitist nature of the whole Abortion/Population Control movement... i.e. break through the rhetoric and re-examine the whole issue! Do some objective reevaluation and stop taking this issue at face value (or the State/MSM portrayal of the issue).

aravoth
06-24-2008, 06:29 PM
you think they would be smarter and join forces to double their party size. They basically have the same views. They don't have the luxury of making 2 different parties based on one small difference (immigration for the most part, but doesn't matter since they both are against welfare). Be smart and combine them!

They exist to be a distraction. They are there so you feel like you can make a difference. It keeps you from getting just pissed off enough to run for office on your own. With Libertarians out there at least "someone" believes in liberty right? Better go and vote for that guy! Doesn't matter if he/she doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected. At least it keeps us from actually changing national policies.

They give you the feeling of hope, that somewhere out there, there might be a chance to fix things. Thats all it is though, a feeling. That is why they exist. Has to be, because they accomplish absolutley nothing else.