While there are many reasons for the failures of the libertarian party, this is among the least IMO. The top reason is that somehwere between 40 and 80% of voters will vote their party. Many (if not most) voters vote according to their preacher, who their parents voted for, who their friends are voting for, etc. The majority of the remainder aren't particularly poltically savy either and would not vote for a third party even if it directly aligned with every single one of the voter's issues. In other words, the libertarian party isn't winning because it's a third party in a two party world. Just like every other third party. The second biggest reason is that we Americans very much enjoy telling other Americans what they can do, what they must do and what they cannot do. The first article I read about the failure of libertarians commented that they would go to an NRA meeting and say good things about the second amendment and how government does not have the right to ban guns. The crowd would cheer long and hard. Then they'd say good things about other parts of the constitution and say the government does not have the right to ban pot. The crowd would boo! Then they'd go to a meeting of the pot smokers association (forget the name). They'd say good things about other parts of the constitution and say the government does not have the right to ban pot. And the crowd would cheer long and hard. Then they'd say good things about the second amendment and how government does not have the right to ban guns. And the crowd would boo! Both groups want their specific right, but they want even more to limit the rights of others. And the final major reason the libertarians fail is that very few really, truly want smaller government. Sure, everybody talks a good game. All presidential candidates have to speak to reducing government waste and cutting taxes. But voters and lobbyists are completely committed to growing all goverment programs. People will clap when polticians talk in general terms of less government and less taxes. But when it's time to cut one program or another, they get on the phones! They send money to lobbyists! They organize a mass movement to bring as much force as possible to stop any reduction in increases, let alone a real cut (heaven forbid!) It is impossible to engage in any serious reduction of government given the current situation of lobbyists, voters, media and polticians, not to mention the dire economic conditions. From here, we can only march to more government and less liberty. Why do you think even the republicans have abandoned free markets and smaller government? Because they know that'll only get them thrown out of office. We're not turning this train around, the track is set. All we can do is slow it down some so it doesn't crash during our lifetime. Sucks to be the next few generations, but we already know they'll almost all be little marxist bastards anyway.
No. It is in the manner and depth with which you express your views that helped me draw my conclusion. You do not know what you are talking about but you present yourself with an arrogant swagger. Are you merely being glib or is your understanding really that shallow? Perhaps my calling you a "dolt" was a bit harsh. I don't much like labels, but I am inclined to respond in kind. You will recall that you referred to me and "my kind." See, that's another label. "My kind" also don't like to be labeled. However, to conclude that your ideas, or certainly the manner in which you presented them, were vacuous, is nothing short of accurate. Surely you can appreciate the clarity, for which you thanked me earlier in this thread.
You will be labeled as what you are: a guy who wants to use Keynes style economics to try and dig us out. I disagree.
I'm fine with that, just as long as you distinguish between real Keynesian economics and the perverted variety of always spending and always cutting taxes irrespective of the economic cycle. And supply-side so-called "economics?" Fuhgeddaboudit.
Good post. My film project takes the same view: all politicians regardless of party stripe just want to be elected/reelected. That's their goal.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VoxDyC7y7PM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VoxDyC7y7PM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
The Cato Institute? The "institute" whose board Rupert Murdoch joined in the '90s? The "institute" that published an article in the '90s downplaying the link between cancer and smoking? The "institute" funded by tobacco, fossil fuel, investment, media, medical, and other regulated industries? That Cato Institute? You're kidding, right? http://world.std.com/~mhuben/cato.html
No. Happy nonsense talk is when you give a pat answer to a complex question. Remember what Einstein said: Simple as possible, but no simpler. Portraying a simpleton does not score you any additional points.