correct. you, as well as most party loyalists, are blinded and foolish. you hear what libertarians say and adopt that as your philosophy.
You've got that backwards, martin. Discovering my alignment with the libertarian philosophies manifested the association. Remember, earlier in this thread when I suggested that many Americans beliefs are in tune with the LP, but that they didn't realize it? Well, that was me for quite a while. Additionally, I have certain stances that deviate somewhat from the traditional LP provisions. They are few, and sometimes varying only in degree, but they exist none the less.
i was asking on which issues you differ from your libertarian party. i suspect that you are a blind party loyalist, thats why i asked. if you dont want to answer, ok. i know you would rather take shots at people than answer questions. i'm curious, on which issues do you disagree with your libertarians? or just by chance are they exactly aligned with your views?
martin has suggested this before and there are indeed indications that there is wide support for some libertarian issues. Then why can't the libertarian party capture any attention in national politics? Any self-respecting libertarian must have a few beliefs that only he recognizes.
Personally, I believe it is simply because we have always been a 2 party system (with certain factions and splinters within those parties), and people in general can't wrap their minds around the concept of a third party.
^^^I totally agree, burlesontiger. I think that most people are afraid of new things on such a large scale. That's why it has to happen slowly. And slowly, the LP has gained more recognition and public servants. But any significant impact will take generations to occur. No, martin. You asked which issues the LP did not 'dictate my views to me'. If you want me to answer your questions or even take them seriously, try posing them with a little dignity, rather than superimposing them with what you'd like to believe. See, that's how you should ask a question that you really want the answer to. For the sake of brevity, the main issues that I don't completely agree with are their views on welfare and drug legalization. Although I think that our current welfare system is a manipulated and abused disaster, I don't think that private funding by itself could adequately address the poverty problem. I believe that some government assistance is necessary for some people as a temporary measure to help them while they get in a position to not need help. The current system doles it out entirely too liberally and indefinitely. But I do think that private funding and the dollar-for-dollar tax incentives could help alleviate some of the burden from the government. As far as drug legalization, while I agree that most of them should be legal, I don't think that I could condone the legalization of substances like crack or PCP, which often cause individuals to harm others. The LP believes that they should all be legalized. There are others, like Badnarik's 'solution' to the outrageous cost of pharmaceuticals. But, you see, the fundamental principle in the LP is one of individual freedom. Therefore, as an individual whom has always maintained such an ideal, it is perfectly logical for me to be in congruence with views based around such.
That's the bottom line. For better or worse, the LP has aligned its goals consistently with their overarching philosophy. Unfortunately, the other two parties have not done that in quite some time. While some (Red) may say that the parties have simply compromised in a move to a centrist position, I think they have gone well past that, and represent no consistent ideal or philosophy. I wish that wasn't the case, because it would be great to know where the candidates stand and vote accordingly. Instead, we just get a bunch of double talk, misinformation, and pandering.
Exactly. All the money spent on campaigns is worthless to the voter who wishes to be informed. It's all about sound bites and photo ops, but nothing of real substance. Even when you spend a little time and dig deeper, it's still nearly impossible to really find out a candidate's stance on issues. Past performance is about all there is to go on, and in most cases that only shows a candidate's ability to pander to certain interests. Real change will only come when the political system reverts back to being a public service, not a comfy career.
