Why is the liberty movement not in the Democratic Party?

[givemeliberty2010]

I have nothing to argue with about there being a liberty movement in the Republican Party. I just want to step back for a second and ask "why." I realize the strategic significance of focusing the organization mostly in one party while seeking viewpoint changes in both parties. However, why the Republican Party and not the Democratic Party? In the mainstream, I'm not sure there are more commonalities between us and the mainstream Republicans compared to us and the mainstream Democrats.

From my perspective, the issue of taxes, probably the most significant issue that the Republicans make a better stand on than Democrats, is almost worthless if borrowing and spending is not controlled. I suppose the Republicans, especially the Tea Party, also make a better stand on that, but that's not mainstream in the party.

On the other hand, the liberty movement is composed of both social conservatives and social liberals. First, the social liberals aren't always welcomed in the Republicans Party; second, the anti-spending and anti-debt policies in the party are often associated only with the social conservatives, so the socially liberal people in the liberty movement are left without many allies because neither the anti-spending social conservatives will accept us nor will the more socially liberal Republicans.

What do you think? As I said, I'm not making an argument for now, and I think a good case can be made for going with the Republicans. I just think this concern needs to be addressed.

[givemeliberty2010]

This assumes that all types of socially liberal people, including anti-spending ones, are more welcome with the Democrats. But that case could be made.

[Elias Graves]

Because most social liberals advertise that if you care about something, the government must come in and save the day with a new program. Further, they equate not wanting those programs to hating brown people.

[KEEF]

Cause Ron Paul was in the Republican party and so it was the most convenient. In all honesty, there is no difference in the parties other than name, we just had to go with one of them to make any traction in this broken two party system that we have.

[fisharmor]

If the liberty movement was in the Republican party, then we'd be listening to president Mittens explain why he should be trusted with PRISM data.
The point is we're not in either party. If it was about party then we'd be living the "contract with America" dream right now.
Why don't we push for liberty candidates in the Democrat party? I don't know. We should. Perhaps they're better about keeping people out.
Though I can't imagine what is more effective than breaking old people's hips and shutting down conventions.

[givemeliberty2010]

Cause Ron Paul was in the Republican party and so it was the most convenient. In all honesty, there is no difference in the parties other than name, we just had to go with one of them to make any traction in this broken two party system that we have.But would Ron Paul have gotten any traction in the party if he were not a social conservative? So then what about those of us who aren't?

[givemeliberty2010]

Because most social liberals advertise that if you care about something, the government must come in and save the day with a new program. Further, they equate not wanting those programs to hating brown people.Are those beliefs universal in the Democratic Party? If the bad parts in the Republican Party are not universal, then the bad parts in the Democratic Party are not necessarily evidence.

[givemeliberty2010]

The springboard for my question was my fatigue this week with people like John McCain and Peter King. Aarggh!

[Spoa]

Because Democrats want to expand the unconstitutional parts of the government including the Departments of Education, Energy, Agriculture, Interior, IRS, etc.

Have you heard a Democrat supporting the end to these unconstitutional parts of government?

The Republican problem is that they want to expand the Department of Defense...which isn't unconstitutional, it's just dumb when we are in a fiscal crisis.

[ClydeCoulter]

@Spoa,
Perhaps that seems so in much rhetoric, but these things have expanded under Republican control as well.
And a standing army is unconstitutional.

[Antischism]

They haven't had a Ron Paul figure to unite people behind the message of liberty. Simple as that.

[Brian4Liberty]

The Democrat "solution" to every "problem" is more government. Tends to clash pretty badly with liberty. Big government is their mantra.

"Solution" and "problem" are in quotes due to the fact that there is usually no real problem, just hype, and the solution is usually no solution to anything, other than money and power for government and cronies.

That being said, in Democrat dominated areas, socially liberal, libertarian leaning Democrats should run for office.

[DonVolaric]

A social liberal is a person who believes that everyone should start out with an equal chance. He would not have supported Jim Crow laws prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but he also does not support the current minority programs which actually unfairly create reverse discrimination. He does not cry "racism" at every turn because he does not see race; he sees the person and his individual actions. Welfare and other social programs are not on his list of things that have made this country great. He believes every man, woman, and child should be provided with an adequate education and then be required to stand on his own two feet to make it in the world rather than be propped up by the government. "All men are created equal" and the "right to the liberty and the pursuit of happiness" aren't suggestions. They are rules to live by for every legal resident and citizen of the United States. A fiscal conservative believes in a pay as you go system. All programs of the federal, state, and local governments should be required to have the funding to pay for each thing it does prior to enacting the program rather than writing tax increases in to the law to pay for the program at some time in the future. These same people are not suffering during the current credit card crisis because they do not use credit cards to buy things they cannot afford, or they pay off the credit cards monthly rather than racking up large debts. The two ideals are not opposed because the foundation of each is pride and personal responsibility. A social liberal differs from a social conservative in this since because he does not seek to impose his views on others by speech or by law. It is the fiscal liberal who seeks to solve all of our country's problems by government funding of right not to work for a living programs. My Freedom of Opinion :)

[EBounding]

Because the liberty platform aligns most closely to the supposed Republican platform of following the Constitution and limited government. Democrats have open disdain for the Constitution, while the Republican party pretends to respect it. Even if Ron wasn't socially conservative, I think he still would have been isolated in the Democrat party.

[BSU kid]

In the future the liberty movement might only survive within the Democratic Party, if America is to no longer be majority White by 2046 and most ethnic groups in this country are firmly in the Democrats camp...I don't see how the GOP will be viable at all.

[Antischism]

I would more quickly vote for an anti-war Democrat than a Ted Cruz type who's bad on foreign policy or an Israel firster. The Dems would really need a staunch anti-war, anti-drug war, non-interventionist, though. A Dennis Kucinich.

[John F Kennedy III]

Occupy is pretty badass and they vote Dem.

[green73]

Lefties are economic ignoramuses. If we could just get them to read Economics in One Lesson, we might get somewhere.

[Antischism]

I think the thing with a lot of the more liberty-minded 'left' is that they don't believe in working within the system, because they believe once you do that, it starts to change you and your ideals. Let's face it, Ron Paul is one in a million. So they prefer to work outside of it which is why we see all the demonstrations, occupy movement, anarchist movement, food not bombs, etc.

[Carlybee]

No other than the anti war stance Ron Paul wouldn't have gotten any traction in the Democrat party except among the 2nd amendment supporters because of his stance on abortion. Most liberals and progressives I know thought he was worse than the neocons. They don't get Austrian economics or the concepts of individuality.

[ClydeCoulter]

No other than the anti war stance Ron Paul wouldn't have gotten any traction in the Democrat party except among the 2nd amendment supporters because of his stance on abortion. Most liberals and progressives I know thought he was worse than the neocons. They don't get Austrian economics or the concepts of individuality.

That is why education is important (personal, not schooling).
And I disagree that we can put all liberals/democrats in a box. The concept of individuality is there in that camp, maybe not a majority at this time, but the concept of "being left alone" is among them.

[AuH20]

Occupy is pretty badass and they vote Dem.

Based on the extensive video series Adam Kokesh conducted on the Occupy movement, many appeared to be glorified extortionists as opposed to any type of longterm, cerebral force. Simply lamenting that your class doesn't wield as much as governmental & insititutional power as high finance or the corporate world isn't anything to be proud of. They were there in large part to plead for concessions (student debt, health care, material benefits etc.) to be met and their grievances would cease. With that said, that's not to say the Occupy movement wasn't buoyed by serious, transformative individuals, but they were few and far between.

[ClydeCoulter]

So, people think the left is more ignorant than the right? Let's get "out of the box".

[AuH20]

So, people think the left is more ignorant than the right? Let's get "out of the box".

Ignorant is a subjective term. Human beings will subconsciously tailor their belief system to the lifestyle that benefits them most. That's the left in a nutshell. It's not that they are necessarily dumb. In fact, most left minded folks are erudite, but self-imposed barriers of perception are difficult to overcome.

[cajuncocoa]

Lefties are economic ignoramuses. If we could just get them to read Economics in One Lesson, we might get somewhere.
^^^^^this^^^^^

[Cleaner44]

Maybe Dennis Kucinich or someone should start a movement within the Democrat party. As of now it seems that Democrats are content to watch their establishment leaders act like neocons. They don't seem to have the balls to be anti-war in the face of Obama. They don't seem to care about corporations like Monsanto taking over the FDA as long as a Democrat is in the White House. They don't seem to mind a corrupt Attorney General as long as it isn't Alberto Gonzalez. In short, they don't seem to have a faction willing to stand up to the establishment.

[Bastiat's The Law]

The Democrat "solution" to every "problem" is more government. Tends to clash pretty badly with liberty. Big government is their mantra.

"Solution" and "problem" are in quotes due to the fact that there is usually no real problem, just hype, and the solution is usually no solution to anything, other than money and power for government and cronies.

That being said, in Democrat dominated areas, socially liberal, libertarian leaning Democrats should run for office.
I agree with the first part.

Second part is to get started reforming the republican party in those areas. If its democrat dominated then liberty activists should be at the helm of the republican party very quickly (if they have their shit together). Then comes the longer battle of engaging the democrats with worthy libertarian leaning republicans. It might take years to have a break through, but it will happen eventually.

[AuH20]

The democratic party wasn't always the party we know now:

http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0674064305


In his first term in office, Franklin Roosevelt helped pull the nation out of the Great Depression with his landmark programs. In November 1936, every state except Maine and Vermont voted enthusiastically for his reelection. But then the political winds shifted. Not only did the Supreme Court block some of his transformational experiments, but he also faced serious opposition within his own party. Conservative Democrats such as Senators Walter George of Georgia and Millard Tydings of Maryland allied themselves with Republicans to vote down New Deal bills.

Susan Dunn tells the dramatic story of FDR’s unprecedented battle to drive his foes out of his party by intervening in Democratic primaries and backing liberal challengers to conservative incumbents. Reporters branded his tactic a “purge”—and the inflammatory label stuck. Roosevelt spent the summer months of 1938 campaigning across the country, defending his progressive policies and lashing out at conservatives. Despite his efforts, the Democrats took a beating in the midterm elections

[Elias Graves]

Are those beliefs universal in the Democratic Party? If the bad parts in the Republican Party are not universal, then the bad parts in the Democratic Party are not necessarily evidence.

Much of it is in the platform.

[BAllen]

The main reason, is that they believe government should used as a tool of FORCE for belief systems such as environment, equality based on success rates (rather than actual effort), etc. They trust government to solve their problems for them. They think we're somehow different, and won't fall under the same trap as Hitler Germany, Stalinist Russia, Mao China, etc. It's like they have a disconnect from reality.
Granted, there are phony Republican neo-cons such as McCain and Graham, but the core belief of free markets and personal freedoms is in the Republican Party, and we can take it back, one at a time.

[oyarde]

Are those beliefs universal in the Democratic Party? If the bad parts in the Republican Party are not universal, then the bad parts in the Democratic Party are not necessarily evidence.

On a National level , yes , universal.There may be one Dem Congressman ( Ga) remaining with a semi decent voting record....

[Bastiat's The Law]

Based on the extensive video series Adam Kokesh conducted on the Occupy movement, many appeared to be glorified extortionists as opposed to any type of longterm, cerebral force. Simply lamenting that your class doesn't wield as much as governmental & insititutional power as high finance or the corporate world isn't anything to be proud of. They were there in large part to plead for concessions (student debt, health care, material benefits etc.) to be met and their grievances would cease. With that said, that's not to say the Occupy movement wasn't buoyed by serious, transformative individuals, but they were few and far between.
Andrew Breitbart helped unmask them.

[Carlybee]

That is why education is important (personal, not schooling).
And I disagree that we can put all liberals/democrats in a box. The concept of individuality is there in that camp, maybe not a majority at this time, but the concept of "being left alone" is among them.

Most of them don't want to get it because of their collectivist mentality. They want to "save the world" by whatever mthod works and the best method to them is through govt mandates and taxation. Most of the ones I know are borderline communists. Many I know don't want to work and believe the govt should take care of them. Trust me, I am involved in the literary community and see a lot of people who just want to sit on their asses and "pursue their art" which pays nothing. Meanwhile they are all armchair activists who have no concept of what it takes to pay for programs or why less govt not more is important. They get emails from Change.org and Geo Soros daily and do everything they tell them they should be doing. They want to take care of the world with tax dollars when many of them don't even pay taxes. Bunch of hypocrits. I used to be one before Ron Paul....but the light bulb has to want to change. When I was a Dem I always worked and never took one dime of assistance believing it was for those who couldn't help themselves. Thank my protestant work ethic for that.

[oyarde]

Lefties are economic ignoramuses. If we could just get them to read Economics in One Lesson, we might get somewhere. And there lies the problem , they love your money, hate your guns and hate you

[cajuncocoa]

That is why education is important (personal, not schooling).
And I disagree that we can put all liberals/democrats in a box. The concept of individuality is there in that camp, maybe not a majority at this time, but the concept of "being left alone" is among them.
From my experience in dealing with progressives, they are grounded in the belief that collectivism is superior to individualism. This, coupled with an elite mindset that has them looking down on almost everyone who thinks differently than they do makes them more difficult to educate than those who consider themselves conservative. Conservatives already believe a lot of the same things we do, they just need need to be educated on the fact that they don't practice what they preach!

[AuH20]

Most of them don't want to get it because of their collectivist mentality. They want to "save the world" by whatever mthod works and the best method to them is through govt mandates and taxation. Most of the ones I know are borderline communists. Many I know don't want to work and believe the govt should take care of them. Trust me, I am involved in the literary community and see a lot of people who just want to sit on their asses and "pursue their art" which pays nothing. Meanwhile they are all armchair activists who have no concept of what it takes to pay for programs or why less govt not more is important. They get emails from Change.org and Geo Soros daily and do everything they tell them they should be doing. They want to take care of the world with tax dollars when many of them don't even pay taxes. Bunch of hypocrits. I used to be one before Ron Paul....but the light bulb has to want to change.

Like I said, the policies the democrats promote dovetail perfectly with their lifestyle choice. In other words, any type of potential conversion is extremely difficult because you aren't just asking them to alter their philosophy, you're essentially asking them to change their lives.

[jbauer]

In the future the liberty movement might only survive within the Democratic Party, if America is to no longer be majority White by 2046 and most ethnic groups in this country are firmly in the Democrats camp...I don't see how the GOP will be viable at all.

There will always be 2 parties. You'll find times when it heavily favors one and then that one will screw up an the other one, or a completely new one will rise.

[AuH20]

From my experience in dealing with progressives, they are grounded in the belief that collectivism is superior to individualism. This, coupled with an elite mindset that has them looking down on almost everyone who thinks differently than they do makes them more difficult to educate than those who consider themselves conservative. Conservatives already believe a lot of the same things we do, they just need need to be educated on the fact that they don't practice what they preach!

Conservative types exhibit a more independent streak certainly, but their desire for "order at all costs" leads them to some false conclusions about national security mainly. That's really the soft underbelly that makes them vulnerable to the overtures of Neoconservative think tanks and media personalities.

[Carlybee]

I should add that as a libertarian I also don't like what conservatives do with trying to legislate morality. To me there is a distinction between libertarianism and the liberty movement in that the latter is more inclusive of the foibles of the Republican party.

[KEEF]

But would Ron Paul have gotten any traction in the party if he were not a social conservative? So then what about those of us who aren't?
I think it is because what the majority of what Dr. Paul is about is what the original Republican party was about.

[georgiaboy]

The springboard for my question was my fatigue this week with people like John McCain and Peter King. Aarggh!

As opposed to fatigue with Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein, Reid, Durbin, Kennedy(RIP), ??? Aarggh indeed.

I get what you're saying about McCain & King, though. Thing is, the Republican party is supposed to be the party of small government, low taxes, individual responsibility. It's in our platform, our history, and in our rhetoric. We have leverage within the party to use this as the billy club to get people to move in our direction. I see no such ability within the Democrat Party.

At least we can point to Taft, Goldwater, Coolidge, early Reagan, Paul, and Paul. Where are the small gov't Democrats?

[Spoa]

@Spoa,
Perhaps that seems so in much rhetoric, but these things have expanded under Republican control as well.
And a standing army is unconstitutional.


Oh...I agree with you completely. But when was the last time you heard the Democrats supporting the end to these programs? Name one.

[AuH20]

Oh...I agree with you completely. But when was the last time you heard the Democrats supporting the end to these programs? Name one.

Larry McDonald but they killed him. :)

[Christian Liberty]

A lot of us, although not all, are pro-life. And a lot of us, although again, not all, don't think that recognition of gay marriage is really a good ida or really makes us more free. With the huge amount of deviation from the Democratic agenda that would be required for even a moderate "Liberty" message on economics, you'd basically have to toe the party line on social issues to have a chance. I think a libertarian leaning liberal like Gary Johnson might have a shot in the Democratic Party. Not so with someone who's more conservative in attitude, even though libertarian in substance, like Ron Paul. That, and I think the average Republican loves liberty more than the average Democrat even though the party establishments are not.

[Danan]

Oh...I agree with you completely. But when was the last time you heard the Democrats supporting the end to these programs? Name one.

Grover Cleveland.

[Sam I am]

I have nothing to argue with about there being a liberty movement in the Republican Party. I just want to step back for a second and ask "why." I realize the strategic significance of focusing the organization mostly in one party while seeking viewpoint changes in both parties. However, why the Republican Party and not the Democratic Party? In the mainstream, I'm not sure there are more commonalities between us and the mainstream Republicans compared to us and the mainstream Democrats.

From my perspective, the issue of taxes, probably the most significant issue that the Republicans make a better stand on than Democrats, is almost worthless if borrowing and spending is not controlled. I suppose the Republicans, especially the Tea Party, also make a better stand on that, but that's not mainstream in the party.

On the other hand, the liberty movement is composed of both social conservatives and social liberals. First, the social liberals aren't always welcomed in the Republicans Party; second, the anti-spending and anti-debt policies in the party are often associated only with the social conservatives, so the socially liberal people in the liberty movement are left without many allies because neither the anti-spending social conservatives will accept us nor will the more socially liberal Republicans.

What do you think? As I said, I'm not making an argument for now, and I think a good case can be made for going with the Republicans. I just think this concern needs to be addressed.

There most certainly are liberty-minded people in the democratic party, including Dennis Kuschninich and The only senator to vote against the USA Patriot Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2001/s313)

[Danan]

A lot of us, although not all, are pro-life. And a lot of us, although again, not all, don't think that recognition of gay marriage is really a good ida or really makes us more free. With the huge amount of deviation from the Democratic agenda that would be required for even a moderate "Liberty" message on economics, you'd basically have to toe the party line on social issues to have a chance. I think a libertarian leaning liberal like Gary Johnson might have a shot in the Democratic Party. Not so with someone who's more conservative in attitude, even though libertarian in substance, like Ron Paul. That, and I think the average Republican loves liberty more than the average Democrat even though the party establishments are not.

I don't believe that a huge majority of libertarians believe that recognition of gay marriage is bad, are pro-life, or socially conservative in general. Most people on this board are probably, but that's because Ron Paul held those views (not saying that he caused people to adopt his views, but that the segment of the population joining Ron Paul forums has more likely similar views than a random libertarian).

And I also believe that the average "overall" conservative is more in line with many libertarian principles than the average "overall" liberal.

[Keith and stuff]

I have nothing to argue with about there being a liberty movement in the Republican Party. I just want to step back for a second and ask "why." I realize the strategic significance of focusing the organization mostly in one party while seeking viewpoint changes in both parties. However, why the Republican Party and not the Democratic Party? In the mainstream, I'm not sure there are more commonalities between us and the mainstream Republicans compared to us and the mainstream Democrats.

The liberty movement is in the Democratic Party. Most notably in New Hampshire. There is a group of dozens of pro-liberty Democrats in New Hampshire. Several of them are currently elected to office. 3 of them are even New Hampshire State Representatives. 1 of them is on his 3rd term as a NH State Rep. and he is perhaps the most popular Rep. in the largest city in NH (Manchester). He might even be able to win if he ran for higher office some day.

And it's not like political geeks all over the country don't know about liberty Democrats being elected in NH. 1 of them made national news, including Comedy Central, dailykos, FreeKeene, RonPaulFlix, Reason, Mother Jones and so on.

http://www.indecisionforever.com/files/2012/11/tim_NH.jpg


New Hampshire, you are a weird granite nut to crack. Remember when a group of people calling themselves Free Staters piled into a van and moved to New Hampshire, where they planned turn the state into America's #1 libertarian stronghold?

The Free Staters are still outnumbered by Regular Staters, but according to the New Hampshire Union Leader, they're sneaking into state races like sneaky little sneaksters. Take Tim O'Flaherty, a Free Stater who's running for state rep in Manchester as a Democrat against Republican Free Stater Dan Garthwaite, who is also Tim's roommate. There are so many more layers to this onion.

The opponents live together in a Free State group house, which is something that actually exists in this world. We must assume there's eight gallons of milk in the fridge, because there’s no sharesies for this bunch. And apparently, Tim is more of an "anarchist Free Stater," while Dan is more of a "statist Free Stater." Tension! Maybe? Also, Free Staters prefer to be called porcupines? We're learning so much.

Roommates and campaign opponents: that this is not yet a sitcom is a travesty. Just think of all the hilarious shenanigans they'd get up to! One doesn't do the dishes, while the other launches a vitriolic attack ad comparing his roomie to Hitler. Cue the laugh track! Cue the bro hug, the awwwws and fade out.

There's no doubt that O'Flaherty's situation is absurd. But it's not even the most absurd part of this story. Fact: Tiny New Hampshire has 400 state representatives. In other words, pretty much everyone who lives there is a state rep candidate at some point. If you're running for state rep, your opponent might be campaigning from INSIDE your house. Happy Halloween or Election Day or whatever, everybody!

***WHOA, UPDATE***

Oh boy, there is a lot to unpack here. Backstory: Before sending the final draft of this post to my [brilliant, gracious, patient -ed.] editor, I emailed Tim to get the scoop on his race, and, well… I've lost my grasp on what is real in this world.

Here is what Tim told me when he finally replied, or at least these are the words that appeared in front of me. This may be a symphony written by a ghost orchestra. Are we dreams that feast on illusions?

Things were hot and heavy when Dan and I first met and we found ourselves living in the same boarding house. We have had some heated political arguments but I haven't been able to persuade Dan to turn from his Statist beliefs. Lately we've been looking for ways to keep things interesting in the bedroom and we've been exploring some roleplaying. Dan likes to play the cop/thug, forcing me to lick his jackboot.

I've become concerned recently that our roleplaying was counter-revolutionary and contrary to my anarchist principles. Violent revolt was a looming prospect but Dan (the consummate Statist and devout believer in the Democratic Faith) suggested we put the matter to a vote. We agreed we would both run for State Representative but on opposite sides of the ticket, the winner gets to choose his role to play in the bedroom.

Now voters in Manchester's Ward 5 will decide the outcome. If Dan beats me in the election his Statist domination will continue unchecked. If voters should choose me they will quite literally be saying "Fu*% the State(ist)." Please tell your readers to spew their vitriol on my Facebook page.

Goodnight and good luck. Sweet criminy, good luck.
http://www.indecisionforever.com/blog/2012/11/06/one-of-a-kind-candidate-tim-oflaherty-state-representative-manchester-nh

[compromise]

Democrats are scum and they have done more damage to this country than anyone over the last century. Republicans have sucked too, but they haven't been the ones pushing through the New Deal, Great Society and Obamacare. People like Kucinich would do immense damage if elected and I personally would never consider voting for a guy like that. A lot of people on here won't vote for a Republican that backed Manchin-Toomey...so why are the standards different for a guy like Kucinich who wants a total ban on handguns?

Kucinich will:
- Disarm you
- Tax you to death
- Bring in UK-style socialist rationed healthcare
- Allow the UN to continue destroying our country's sovereignty

It is pathetic that people on here support someone like that.

@The OP - I notice you mentioned Peter King. Did you know he's a social liberal too? McCain isn't particularly socially conservative either.

[July]

To answer that question, I think you have to trace back the history of the liberty movement, and it's connection as part of the Old Right. After the "Old Right" was purged from the Republican Party, during the 60s and 70s, some did attempt to form coalitions with the individualist and anti war elements of the "New Left" movement. Those elements were similarly purged from the Democratic Party. Enter Ron Paul. Ron represents a throwback and link to the Old Right. Rand perhaps does even more so, given he is arguably more conservative/fusionist whereas Ron is more libertarian...but point being, Ron was a link back to some of the ideas of the Old Right, and the movement has been able to use that to build off and reform coalitions on the Right. The Tea Party created opportunity to ride the anti establishment wave of sentiment following the bailouts, and we were able to use that momentum to our advantage to get some candidates elected, etc. So I think it's a combination of things really. The timing played a part....certain conditions just happened to unfold at just the right time.

[Keith and stuff]

Oh...I agree with you completely. But when was the last time you heard the Democrats supporting the end to these programs? Name one.

I could name well over a dozen New Hampshire Democrats but none of them are Congressmen, which might be what you are looking for... Being elected to a local board or 2 or State Rep. isn't exactly the same as being elected to Congress. But anyway, since it is very well known on this forum that there are liberty Democrats getting elected and reelected, you might want to be more specific in your questions if you don't want me to respond to such questions in the future. Then again, I like responding to them ;)

[Pericles]

In general - our conversation with Republicans centers around acting consistent with professed beliefs, while conversations with Democrats center around changing professed beliefs. Which is the easier route.

(A) If you believe in small government, individual liberty, and the Constitution, why do you ....

(B) If you believe the Constitution is outdated and want the government to ...

[Carlybee]

Democrats are scum and they have done more damage to this country than anyone over the last century. Republicans have sucked too, but they haven't been the ones pushing through the New Deal, Great Society and Obamacare. People like Kucinich would do immense damage if elected and I personally would never consider voting for a guy like that. A lot of people on here won't vote for a Republican that backed Manchin-Toomey...so why are the standards different for a guy like Kucinich who wants a total ban on handguns?

Kucinich will:
- Disarm you
- Tax you to death
- Bring in UK-style socialist rationed healthcare
- Allow the UN to continue destroying our country's sovereignty

It is pathetic that people on here support someone like that.

@The OP - I notice you mentioned Peter King. Did you know he's a social liberal too? McCain isn't particularly socially conservative either.

Gw Bush and ilk started the Patriot Act which has led to the decimation of freedom as we know it so its certainly not just the Dems who have damaged this country possibly irreparably. Not to mention the perpetual war state funded under his administration.

[donnay]

What's the difference? It just a other wing of the same vulture. Get out of the phony left/right paradigm--that's is what will make a difference.

Even third parties are questionable anymore. Let's face it Glenn Beck claims to be a libertarian.

[NOVALibertarian]

Some Liberty Democrats might be able to win on the state and local level but on the federal level, you'll get tuned out once you even mention reducing the power of the federal government. You'd be fighting a losing battle for the most part.

At least with the Republican Party, they'll listen to you if you talk about reducing the size of the federal government.

[compromise]

Gw Bush and ilk started the Patriot Act which has led to the decimation of freedom as we know it so its certainly not just the Dems who have damaged this country possibly irreparably. Not to mention the perpetual war state funded under his administration.

Patriot Act, while bad, was pretty minor compared to this. There is a chance at repealing the Patriot Act as Americans are increasingly against it. There is no chance of repealing the big gov't programmes brought in by Democrats in the 30s and 60s. Most Americans very strongly support these programs. That's what makes them so dangerous. The Democrats bring something in, idiotic Americans love it, Republicans are therefore forced to defend it, then they talk about saving it from the next Dem big gov't programme.

Right now the Republicans are against Obamacare, but you think they'll still feel the same way 20 years down the line if it's not repealed immediately? The main issue is the Dems that are constantly introducing this crap and trying to turn the US into an EU-style state.

[AuH20]

What's the difference? It just a other wing of the same vulture. Get out of the phony left/right paradigm--that's is what will make a difference.

Even third parties are questionable anymore. Let's face it Glenn Beck claims to be a libertarian.

Beck isn't a doctrinaire libertarian certainly, but he could pass as a general libertarian type. I don't understand why some people are so guarded over mere labels like paranoid indy rock fans.

[supermario21]

We've made lots of progress in the Republican party, believe it or not, a few years ago Ron would have been the only one at Rand's NSA presser. Even on civil liberties issues we're making progress. Same with fiscal issues. I look at a guy like Tom DiLorenzo, who has said that without economic freedom, there can be no freedom. That almost by default makes me a Republican, at least they give that lip service. All I hear from Democrats is how much they want to centralize everything...they are the party of Hamilton and Lincoln.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't believe that a huge majority of libertarians believe that recognition of gay marriage is bad, are pro-life, or socially conservative in general. Most people on this board are probably, but that's because Ron Paul held those views (not saying that he caused people to adopt his views, but that the segment of the population joining Ron Paul forums has more likely similar views than a random libertarian).

And I also believe that the average "overall" conservative is more in line with many libertarian principles than the average "overall" liberal. Regarding gay marriage, the only reason I don't like it is, essentially, I'm completely for the government leaving victimless evil alone, but I don't want them to flat out ENDORSE it. That's my more conservative side. My more liberal side on this issue is that I'd rather government be out of marriage altogether. Gay marriage isn't what's killing our country though, quite frankly. Out of control spending, endless war, the destruction of our gun rights, and the War on Drugs are destroying our country. Not gay marrriage. So I really don't care, and I also agree with the 10th amendment that its a state issue if its an issue for any level of government.
Abortion, on the other hand, I believe to be murder so that I do want to be illegal, although I also support the 10th amendment here and want to leave this to the states.

Democrats are scum and they have done more damage to this country than anyone over the last century. Republicans have sucked too, but they haven't been the ones pushing through the New Deal, Great Society and Obamacare. People like Kucinich would do immense damage if elected and I personally would never consider voting for a guy like that. A lot of people on here won't vote for a Republican that backed Manchin-Toomey...so why are the standards different for a guy like Kucinich who wants a total ban on handguns?

Kucinich will:
- Disarm you
- Tax you to death
- Bring in UK-style socialist rationed healthcare
- Allow the UN to continue destroying our country's sovereignty

It is pathetic that people on here support someone like that.

@The OP - I notice you mentioned Peter King. Did you know he's a social liberal too? McCain isn't particularly socially conservative either.

In what ways is Peter King a social liberal? I honestly don't know his social stances so I'm just curious what you mean. Now, as for Kucinich, in all seriousness, I respect him for his foreign policy, and I honestly would prefer him over someone like Lindsey Graham, because I care a lot about foreign policy and Lindsey SUCKS at it. That said, I wouldn't ever vote for Kucinich unless I were guaranteed the deciding vote and the opponent was Hitler or something. I don't actually like him for the reasons you described, even though I respect him. If Ron Paul really were Kucinich's VP, as was discussed at one point, honestly, I wish Ron Paul wouldn't take it but if he did I'd still just write in Ron Paul, and honestly, hope that somehow Kucinich ended up dying during his term. I know that's mean, and as I said, I respect the man, so its harder to say that than it is about someone like Obama or Bush. But one man vs the country? Yeah, I want Ron Paul in office, quite frankly. I'd hope for "Bad luck."

[supermario21]

Peter King supports an assault weapons ban, I don't know about his other social stances.

[compromise]

In what ways is Peter King a social liberal? I honestly don't know his social stances so I'm just curious what you mean.

King is pro-choice after a few weeks I believe.

[AuH20]

Gw Bush and ilk started the Patriot Act which has led to the decimation of freedom as we know it so its certainly not just the Dems who have damaged this country possibly irreparably. Not to mention the perpetual war state funded under his administration.

The Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party you're referring to. Unfortunately, they have wielded a stanglehold over the party's purse strings, management and ultimately it's entire falsified image.

[Christian Liberty]

King is pro-choice after a few weeks I believe.

Which is consistent with the rest of his murderous ideology...

[Carlybee]

Patriot Act, while bad, was pretty minor compared to this. There is a chance at repealing the Patriot Act as Americans are increasingly against it. There is no chance of repealing the big gov't programmes brought in by Democrats in the 30s and 60s. Most Americans very strongly support these programs. That's what makes them so dangerous. The Democrats bring something in, idiotic Americans love it, Republicans are therefore forced to defend it, then they talk about saving it from the next Dem big gov't programme.

Right now the Republicans are against Obamacare, but you think they'll still feel the same way 20 years down the line if it's not repealed immediately? The main issue is the Dems that are constantly introducing this crap and trying to turn the US into an EU-style state.

The Patriot Act will never be repealed as long as the Repubs are owned by War Inc. ..Dems too for that matter. It has allowed them to shred the Constitution and give unprecedented power to the Executive branch. Once all our freedoms are gone the rest of those issues become secondary.

[pcosmar]

The Liberty Movement transcends Party.

people within the liberty movement may work with one party or the other..But Liberty has no Party.

Both "R" and "D" are the same party really. The differences are minor and they provide the masses with a illusion of choice.

[AuH20]

The Liberty Movement transcends Party.

people within the liberty movement may work with one party or the other..But Liberty has no Party.

Both "R" and "D" are the same party really. The differences are minor and they provide the masses with a illusion of choice.

At the management and leadership levels, yes. Absolutely. On the ground, not so much.

[supermario21]

The Patriot ACT doesn't need to be repealed, just not reauthorized. The Great Society and New Deal programs don't have that chance to be stopped.

[AuH20]

The Patriot ACT doesn't need to be repealed, just not reauthorized. The Great Society and New Deal programs don't have that chance to be stopped.

Remember what the great republican Dwight D. Eisenhower (perhaps the first prominent Rockefeller Republican president) said?

http://www.cityprofile.com/forum/attachments/national-politics-debate/36684d1316799630-funny-political-cartoons-memes-quote-eisenhower-social-security-jpg.jpg

[supermario21]

Yeah but Eisenhower is wrong. I'd argue the post-2010 GOP would be 70-80% in favor of privatizing SS and Medicare if not more.

[donnay]

Beck isn't a doctrinaire libertarian certainly, but he could pass as a general libertarian type. I don't understand why some people are so guarded over mere labels like paranoid indy rock fans.

I am not paranoid I just realize that both parties have been infiltrated with a corrupt agenda and it is not unreasonable to think third parties have been too. I have run into so many 'Libertarians' who think the Corporatocracy we have is A-Okay--Private entities can be just as tyrannical as anything other entity.

How about we use this label - "Free thinking liberty loving Americans."

I knew I would get neg reps for pointing out some of the obvious things--oh well.

[Antischism]

Noam Chomsky is someone who would probably be good at uniting people who identify as Democrat. I have a lot of respect for Chomsky.

[jkr]

they H8 freedom

$LAVERY!

ROADS!

EDUCATION!

FAIR SHARE!


SOCIALIST CONTRACT!

[AuH20]

I am not paranoid I just realize that both parties have been infiltrated with a corrupt agenda and it is not unreasonable to think third parties have been too. I have run into so many 'Libertarians' who think the Corporatocracy we have is A-Okay--Private entities can be just as tyrannical as anything other entity.

How about we use this label - "Free thinking liberty loving Americans."

I knew I would get neg reps for pointing out some of the obvious things--oh well.

I'm not calling you paranoid, but libertarian seems to be this term that has become exclusive rather than inclusive. And let me state that I'm not one who advocates for libertarians to personally dilute their beliefs for personal gain. But I do think they should lighten up abit with the Salem Witch Trial attitude. I think there are many forms of libertarianism, from Georgian to An cap to pragmatic.

[donnay]

I'm not calling you paranoid, but libertarian seems to be this term that has become exclusive rather than inclusive. And let me state that I'm not one who advocates for libertarians to personally dilute their beliefs for personal gain. But I do think they should lighten up abit with the Salem Witch Trial attitude. I think there are many forms of libertarianism, from Georgian to An cap to pragmatic.

Oh my apologies, I misunderstood you. There are certain things I agree with libertarians, but the illusion of a free market is not one of them.

[enhanced_deficit]

Domestically they are puppets of Wall Street bankers etc and on foreign policy democratic party is called party of Israel.

Which pro-liberty American would support such a platform?

[AuH20]

Oh my apologies, I misunderstood you. There are certain things I agree with libertarians, but the illusion of a free market is not one of them.

A free market is virtually impossible, but we definitely can shoot for a truly competitive and more robust marketplace than the cruel joke we have been accustomed to. I don't think there ever can be a truly egalitarian solution for absolute market fairness, due to the flawed nature of our species.

[Danan]

Noam Chomsky is someone who would probably be good at uniting people who identify as Democrat. I have a lot of respect for Chomsky.

Chomsky is an asshole. I don't see how this guy would be a huge improvement over Obama. (Of course his views on foreign policy are better, but I doubt he'd have the guts or the determination to actually change anything.)

[Antischism]

Chomsky is an asshole. I don't see how this guy would be a huge improvement over Obama.

Foreign policy/war on drugs. Done.

[Keith and stuff]

A free market is virtually impossible, but we definitely can shoot for a truly competitive and rmore obust marketplace than the cruel joke we have been accustomed to. I don't think there ever can be a truly egalitarian solution for absolute market fairness, due to the flawed nature of our species.
We should shoot for what happens at Porcfest every year. If the US economy was that free market oriented, most of our economic problems would either be greatly reduced or eliminated. Come check out Agora Valley sometime, it's likely more free than many libertarians can even imagine.

You might even see elected, pro-liberty Democrats there :eek:

[BAllen]

Liberty provides the opportunity to succeed. What a person does with that opportunity is their choice, and their fate. Socialist Democrats want a measure of guaranteed success, and guaranteed 'fairness' based on results, irregardless of squandered opportunities and poor choices.