Question for the Libertarians on the forum

[Jamie Young]

For those of you that are actually registered as Libertarians, have any of you considered registering as a Republican so you can vote in the Primaries for Ron Paul?

The reason I ask, I know an enormous number of people that have left the Democrat and Republican Party as far as voter registration, but I think the present crop of Republican Candidates may bring more people back into the Republican Party.

I think Ron Paul is going to do a lot better than people think and he seems to represent you as well as the Libertarian Party would.

 

[Pat H]

I think you have a valid point, and I know several people who voted Republican four years ago that will only vote Ron Paul this time, and I know several registered libertarians that plan on voting for Ron Paul this time, even if it means re-registering as Republicans. While my examples are anecdotal, I think there's a trend beginning.

 

[tony pasley]

In North Carolina you are either a D or R or independant but as a ind. you can vote in the primaries. The state is so locked into the parties that they don't want anyone else running. I think that the parties should have to pay for the primaries not the tax payers.

 

[Jamie Young]

I'm a registered Democrat and voted for some of these Blue Dog Democrats in the last election (cleaned out some Republican bums in PA) and lost absolutely nothing as far as being a gun owner, but I'm definitely registering as a Republican and going to vote for Huckabee or Ron Paul in the Primaries. Mike Huckabee gained some ground on me last Sunday and agreed with Ron Paul on not following Bush's Foreign policy for spreading Democracy around the world.

 

[Danzig]

No. But that is because I am a Libertarian, not a Republican. To call myself a Republican would be a lie.

I believe that to change my party affiliation simply so that I could vote for Ron Paul in the primary would be ideologically dishonest.

 

[mountainclmbr]

May switch from L to R for primary. The two things I disagree with L's on is isolationalsim and drug decrimminalization. The isolationalism is my biggest issue. With ICBM's and crazy dictators I don't think you can wait for the attack (especially when they threaten attack). I like Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee the most. As much as I like many of Ron Paul's positions, he comes across as being as wacky as Dennis Kuchinich to many people. He does not have a chance to win.

 

[Justme]

Why does everyone always assume that libertarians tend toward being republican? I am a libertarian democrat and do what I can within that party to promote libertarian principles. There are a few libertarian republicans, primarily in New England. The rest of the republican party wants to impose a theocracy socially and has already imposed a state/corporate model financially.

Ron Paul is not a libertarian, he is an idiot, there is a subtle but significant difference.

 

[johnbt]

"The rest of the republican party wants to impose a theocracy"



Oooookay. If you say so. I'm in an agreeable mood this morning, compared to most days.

John

 

[Manedwolf]

I am a libertarian democrat

Got a little contradiction in terms there. Dems = big government, raised taxes, protect you from yourself. Libertarian = small government, little or no taxes, leave you alone. Does not compute.

The rest of the republican party wants to impose a theocracy socially and has already imposed a state/corporate model financially.

I could say what I think of that statement, but it'd be deleted, so I'll just call it asinine, ignorant, and insulting. I'm a Republican, a conservative, and somewhere between agnostic and atheist. My summation of how I feel about government is that I want it to organize the national defense and take care of non-profitable essential infrastructure, but otherwise leave me alone. Read Barry Goldwater and try again, mkay?

 

[Musketeer]

I consider myself a Libertarian but am registerred Republican so I can vote in the primary for the Republican candidate I

1. Agree with the most.
2. Think has a reasonable chance of victory.

Sorry but that is not Ron Paul. He is there with most of the ideology but will not win the national. I do not want to see Rudy get it though so I have to go towards a more right wing candidate who at least has a chance. That is Thompson.

My mother is registerred Democrat but that is so she can try to nominate the most fringe candidate who will draw the most national hatred. Her goal is basically to sabotague the Dems. My dad was a lifetime union worker Dem who considerred all Reps criminals. The majority of his leanings were really to the right but there was no way he would ever admit the reps fit him better than the dems. Mom averted arguments by simply saying "I'm a registerred Dem" then going on to vote in the primary with the goal of destroying the viable candidate, which she didn't bother to tell dad.

 

[Musketeer]

Got a little contradiction in terms there. Dems = big government, raised taxes, protect you from yourself. Libertarian = small government, little or no taxes, leave you alone. Does not compute.

Reps have also aligned themselves with the Christian Conservative right to pick up states they would otherwise loose. That wing of the party is very vocal about how religion should take a larger role in national policy and is pretty scary to someone who is a supporter of the separation of Church and State. Nobody can make the claim that the reps are not about "Big Gov't" after the last 7 years. Spending through the roof and vast expansion of federal powers indicates the Reps are just as happy to take/spend money and stick their noses into others' business.

I find though that those on the right do not seem to mind the drunken spending and expansion of powers as long as they are in agreement with their own agendas...

Both parties are full of corrupt lying theives looking to forward their own agendas. The hope is by having opposing theives fighting with each other a modicum of "honesty" will be maintained. At least neither side wants the other to get away with something.

 

[Pat H]

The Libertarian Party, which is about 35 years old; is a mere shadow of its former self, a sort of Republican lite.

The Republican Party, founded on the Henry Clay big government school of Internal Improvements, aka federal corporate welfare, has in many ways simply returned to its roots via the take over of the party by the neocons. Suffice it to say that Teddy Roosevelt would be right at home in today's Republican Party with its Project for the New American Century philosophy.

What the neocons did to the Republican Party, the socialist/fascists did to the Democrats long ago. Some point to the populism of Woodrow Wilson, with his "War to save Democracy" which became a war against America; while others say that it was the fascism of Franklin Roosevelt that drove the final nails into the party of Thomas Jefferson, arguably the first libertarian president.

So, if you are merely a Libertarian Party member, ce la vie; but if you're genuinely a libertarian in fact and philosophy, then you should know what to do.

 

[Pat H]

Perhaps the white paper, Six Myths About Libertarianism by Murray Rothbard would help in this quest for knowledge.

 

[Erich]

I'm a lib but I'm registered Republican. I am of the considered opinion that Paul doesn't have a snowball's chance. Not sure what I'm going to do in the primary.

 

[MrApathy]

curious of the so called libertarians here how many supported Badnarik in 2004?

 

[Manedwolf]

No. Because we need a libertarian candidate who isn't a nut.

Badnarik's book, Good To Be King contains some controversial assertions, in which Badnarik suggests that it is unnecessary to have a driver's license to drive, the IRS has no Constitutional authority to collect taxes, and common law marriages are valid in all 50 states.

 

[Pat H]

curious of the so called libertarians here how many supported Badnarik in 2004?

I voted for him, who else was there? The sociofascist from Party D or the sociofascist from party R. Some choice.

 

[gordo_gun_guy]

For the L's

What's the registered Libertarian thought on the Republican Caucus for Liberty? As a registered R, I'd like to throw in with them.

Other than voting, I can't participate much in the political process; I'm kind of busy defending that process....as I suspect are many others in this forum.

 

[Justme]

I didn't say you were a neofascist warmonger that wanted to institute a theocracy Manedwolf, I implied that the republican party was like that.

At this point in time it is my opinion that the democrats have their socialist element under better control than the republicans have their fascist corporate welfare and theocracy elements under control. Thus I believe that on balance the democrats are actually less of a threat to freedom than the republicans.

Consider one of the most controversial topics of all, national single payer health insurance. Now many people will argue that this is a good example of the govt interfering with the market. But the fact is the govt already intereferes with this market plenty, not least of all by subsidising the health insurance of serfs by giving their masters tax breaks. With a single payer plan self employed people would be on the same level playing field. Not having to work for someone else just to be able to have health insurance strikes me as an increase in freedom, not a decrease.

It's sometimes tricky to understand the difference between corporate freedom and individual freedom. One is more important than the other, but the two parties have different opinions about which is most important.

 

[Pat H]

Other than voting, I can't participate much in the political process; I'm kind of busy defending that process....as I suspect are many others in this forum.

What, are you involved in litigation on the process?

If you mean military action, please, do be more circumspect.

Also, Badnarik is correct about driver's licenses. Do research on the Right to travel which includes driving a car without licensure. Only commercial drivers require licenses by law, but I'd guess most of you don't know that.