Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[ledhed]

Out of curiosity, what changed your mind about finding his "crap" interesting?



I haven't read a lot of Chomsky, but I agree with a lot of what I've read so far... I guess that makes me an intellectually bankrupt radical idiot/slacker/pseudo-intellectual. Anyway, great way to make your point, I should do the same on Rand's readers.


There's something I've found that just made my day. (links not safe for the humour-impaired libertarians)

LIBERTARIANISM IN TWO LESSONS:

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/onelesson.html
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/twolesson.html

My favorite line:

I've read most of everything he has written ( that isnt obscure at any rate ) . His logic and his conclusions are faulty IMO . He approaches a subject with a conclusion already in mind . He is intellectually bankrupt for that reason among others . Rand has her own set of issues . they both require you to wade through the crap to unearth a nugget .
Its one thing to read what he's written and aggree with some points , its quite another to accept everything written as " truth " and elevate the writer to " sage " status . Some who have a radical bent to begin with look on Chomski as a guiding light . Others just feel that he's on to something just because he is going against the tide . The problem is that doesnt justify his way of thinking as " right " ...its just different and based on huge jumps of logic and reason . I have trouble with anyone who expects you to accept anything on " faith " .
Why anyone would limit themselves to follow one persons way of thinking or blindly believe the same things they have decided to believe , independent of further study is beyond my grasp .

 

[Duke]

Then how would explain Jim Crow and Apartheid?

Because those things are not fair. They carry the mandated power of legislated separation. This legislation is of course backed up by executive force. Force denies fairness and liberty.

So how do either Jim Crow or apartheid relate in any way to fair inequality?

 

[ledhed]

Duke would Thomas Paine be considered a libertarian ?

 

[Duke]

My gut reaction is yes, but let me read up a little on his specific political views and get back to you.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Brian,

This would be more appropriate to move to the libertarian thread. But these questions have quick answers.

Transferred.

Government initiates force all the time. Some of it is justified, some is not. The simple response to your earlier question is that corporations do not initate force via property rights, only the government does that. Whether or not the government force is justified is a whole nother issue.

Who sets the standards as to what is or is not justified?

Any lawmaker that tried to do the "public will" in this regard would be violating the constitution - just as much as if the majority of the public wanted a law against jewish people living here.

So, the law wouldn't be passed then?

 

[Danoff]

Who sets the standards as to what is or is not justified?

The people who write the constitution and bill of rights and... arguably... the people who vote to ammend the constitution.

So, the law wouldn't be passed then?

If it were passed it would be stricken down by the supreme court.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

The people who write the constitution and bill of rights and... arguably... the people who vote to ammend the constitution.

Here you said "write" and not "wrote"... I'm assuming you're referring to a re-written (or brand new constitution). Who would be responsible for drafting the new/revised constitution or bill of rights?

If it were passed it would be stricken down by the supreme court.

Interesting...

 

[Duke]

If I am, it's not intentional. I'm simply trying to get to the bottom of these beliefs... I want to know the truth.

Then give actually listening to us a try.

For example:

Would you prefer to eliminate intellectual property rights, then?

Government initiates force all the time. Some of it is justified, some is not. The simple response to your earlier question is that corporations do not initate force via property rights, only the government does that. Whether or not the government force is justified is a whole nother issue.

In no way did this answer my question. Then if I make a statement along the lines of "so you don't believe in intellectual property rights, but you believe in soverign property rights... sounds contradictory to me"...

That's because we answered this question, several times, several months ago in the Libertarianism thread where we told you repeatedly that we support intellectual property rights every bit as much as physical property rights. This was after you told us that Libertarianism must lead directly to the abolishment of patents and copyrights, because those things would restrict freedoms.

I am accused of "... continuously and seemingly mis-representing what we believe, and then telling us we believe it."

Because that's what you do. You fundamentally refuse to accept that Libertarianism is not the same as Anarchism. The thousands of words I, Dan, Sage, //M-spec, and others have typed have done nothing to change that in your heart of hearts. You may say on the surface that you understand this difference, but it seems from your continued tone of discussion that you fundamentally do not believe it.

I wouldn't "continuously and seemingly mis-represent what you believe, and then tell you that you believe it" if I had straight answers.

You ignore them when you get them.

2 more unanswered questions:

Do you mean you're only against new initiations of force?

Why do "right" Libertarians limit "freedom" to being defined as non-inititation of force ("freedom from")? Whatever happened to "freedom to"?

This is precisely why I say that you don't listen to us, and why I say you fundamentally refuse to believe that Libertarianism is NOT Anarchism. Follow me here. I'll give you a straight answer.

Libertarians are AGAINST the INITIATION of force. We believe force is only to be used DEFENSIVELY by individuals. Force used to defend yourself against force is perfectly acceptable, but by definition an individual who INITIATES force against another is a criminal.

THERE IS NO FREEDOM TO INITIATE VIOLENCE AGAINST SOMEONE BECAUSE THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH THAT PERSON'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FREEDOM FROM HAVING VIOLENCE INITIATED AGAINST THEM.

Is that clear enough? Is that straightforward enough? Do you get it yet?

There are NO POSITIVE RIGHTS. No one has the right TO INITIATE FORCE (a positive right) - they only have the right to NOT HAVE FORCE INITIATED AGAINST THEM (a negative right).

Libertarians believe that GOVERNMENT exists largely to PROTECT THE RIGHTS of individuals. Therefore, there are times when the GOVERNMENT has the RIGHT and DUTY to INITIATE FORCE in order to protect those individual rights.

This is why we believe that government and law are necessary and good - when they are properly focused and used. No matter how many times you try to convince me that I don't believe in government because it restricts my freedom TO do things, I will tell you you are still incorrect - I believe in government because its role is to protect my freedom FROM things (including itself).

 

[Danoff]

Interesting...

That shouldn't be all that interesting to you since that's how America is designed to work. The supreme court tests the laws that congress makes for constitutionality.


Brian, please read what Duke wrote above and take special notice of this part

I believe in government because its role is to protect my freedom FROM things (including itself).

He's explaining (as I have, and others) that Libertarians recognize the need for government to exist. We recognize that the government exists to prevent force from being used to strip us of our freedom - a crime which we are premitted to use force to defend against.

Here's that quote from Ayn Rand again.

Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Rand

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Libertarians are AGAINST the INITIATION of force. We believe force is only to be used DEFENSIVELY by individuals. Force used to defend yourself against force is perfectly acceptable, but by definition an individual who INITIATES force against another is a criminal.

Got that part.

THERE IS NO FREEDOM TO INITIATE VIOLENCE AGAINST SOMEONE BECAUSE THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH THAT PERSON'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO FREEDOM FROM HAVING VIOLENCE INITIATED AGAINST THEM.

Is that clear enough? Is that straightforward enough? Do you get it yet?

Yes.

There are NO POSITIVE RIGHTS.

Why?

No one has the right TO INITIATE FORCE (a positive right) - they only have the right to NOT HAVE FORCE INITIATED AGAINST THEM (a negative right).

Why?

Individual freedom, however defined, cannot mean freedom from all forms of dependency. [negative rights] No human being can single-handedly create all the preconditions for his own action. ... Liberal theory [or Libertarianism in this case] should therefore distinguish freedom, which is desirable, from nondependence, which is impossible. [...but they don't... why?]

Libertarians believe that GOVERNMENT exists largely to PROTECT THE RIGHTS of individuals. Therefore, there are times when the GOVERNMENT has the RIGHT and DUTY to INITIATE FORCE in order to protect those individual rights.

Just out of curiousity... would the war in Iraq be considered an example of government exercising their right (or duty) to initiate force in order to protect individual rights?

This is why we believe that government and law are necessary and good - when they are properly focused and used.

Who/what sets the standard for what is proper and what is not?

No matter how many times you try to convince me that I don't believe in government because it restricts my freedom TO do things, I will tell you you are still incorrect - I believe in government because its role is to protect my freedom FROM things (including itself).

If that's really the only role of government, why then has history deviated from this goal?

He's explaining (as I have, and others) that Libertarians recognize the need for government to exist.

I'm not denying that.

Here's that quote from Ayn Rand again.

Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy.

Wholly subjective. I could just as easily argue that civilization is the progress toward a society of equality.

The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men. - Rand

The modern conservative [or Libertarian in this case] is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

 

[Danoff]

Why?

Why does noone have the right to initate force with anyone else? Because man cannot be free if he is subject to force from others. We are slaves to the extent that we are forced to act against our will. That's the whole point of government, to free us from those who would seek to rob us of our freedom.

Just out of curiousity... would the war in Iraq be considered an example of government exercising their right (or duty) to initiate force in order to protect individual rights?

International activities are not quite the same. Nations exist in a state of anarchy with one another (ie: there is no government governing nations). We must determine which of our actions are just and which are not. There is no law preventing any action, only the threat of a response.

Who/what sets the standard for what is proper and what is not?

The writers of the constitution and those that ammend it (I already said this).

If that's really the only role of government, why then has history deviated from this goal?

Because government has fallen down on its promise to protect people from force - resulting in many people using the government to exert force.

Wholly subjective. I could just as easily argue that civilization is the progress toward a society of equality.

Equality is neither attainable, nor desireable.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Why does noone have the right to initate force with anyone else? Because man cannot be free if he is subject to force from others.

But any interaction with landowners or business owners is strictly voluntary. [/sarcasm]

We are slaves to the extent that we are forced to act against our will. That's the whole point of government, to free us from those who would seek to rob us of our freedom.

That includes landowners and business owners -- not just government.

International activities are not quite the same. Nations exist in a state of anarchy with one another (ie: there is no government governing nations).

Which is why the United Nations and its charters need to be strengthened.

Anyway, so is that a "yes" or a "no"?

The writers of the constitution and those that ammend it (I already said this).

Constitutionalism and democracy are mutually exclusive.

Because government has fallen down on its promise to protect people from force - resulting in many people using the government to exert force.

Why has government fallen down on its promise? Why do people use government to exert force?

Equality is neither attainable, nor desireable.

An unrestricted meritocracy (what you would consider "attainable" and "desirable") gives rewards to those with the most success. In order to acheive this type of society, the rules need to be relaxed (or eliminated entirely).

As such, an unrestricted meritocracy is like a knife fight. There are no rules and the stronger fighter will kill the weaker.

A total equal society (what you would consider "unattainable" and "undesireable") gives rewards to everyone equally -- regardless of success. In order to acheive this type of society, everyone must submit to the rules.

As such, a totally equal society has no incentive to succeed with anything.

The idea is to combine the best of both worlds... balance is attainable and desireable... not extremism.

*continued from last week*

Yes, force can be initiated to protect property rights. For example, you can kill someone who is attacking you. You can use force to defend your freedom, but you have to keep in mind that the court will decide whether you were in fact defending your property.

...and yes, property rights can be violated without initiating force. Here's a good example. You sign a contract, the person you sign it with breaks the contract. They have now violated your property (by contract) without initiating force.

What's your point?

So the latter would be legal then? Technically, no force can be initiated against me since I have not inititated force against someone else...

No. Freedom and property are two completely different things. Your freedom is to own property and not have it forcibly stolen from you. How much property you have is up to you, but the same basic freedom applies.

So what amount of taxes would be considered fair then?

ROW is bad for one reason and one reason only. It isn't just (ie: it isn't earned by those who are getting it, and it is forcibly taken from those who have). That's it.

Since the state must necessarily provide subsistance for the criminal poor while undergoing punishment, not to do the same for the poor who have not offended is to give a premium on crime.

Those are not examples of ROW. Those are examples of (1) state services, and (2) punishment for crimes. ROW refers to the taking of possessions from those who have them and giving them to those who do not, simply because they did not have them. Not out of retribution for wrongs done, and not as a state service (which would necessarily need to be available to everyone).

ROW to prevent starvation is retribution for a wrong as well.

1) I can't think of any that aren't.

What about a voluntary transaction that has negative consequences on a third party not in any way involved with said transaction? Now can you think of any voluntary transactions that are unjust? Or are all voluntary transactions just?

2) Yes.

Then retribution for wrongs done is "unjust" according to this answer because it is not a voluntary transaction. Yet according to you, if a wrong has been committed, then a forcible redistribution is called for. This is inconsistent.

3) Yes.

Then taxation for public defense is a violation of my negative rights to property.

Efforts to mitigate inequality have the lovely side effect of mitigating responsibility and consequences... which is why it erodes at society.

From each according to their gullibility, to each according to their greed.[/satire]

Free exchange and soverign property rights under unequal circumstances increases inequality between individuals. That inequality has the lovely side of effect of producing social relationships based on hierarchy and domination (not freedom).

 

[Duke]

Having said that, when I said "equality" I wasn't referring to the distribution of income. I was talking about equal opportunities... like voting for example. Blacks and women were prevented from voting in this country for many years, but I guess that's "desirable". Segregated schools... "desirable".

I already answered this, a week ago, in post 662, on this very page.

You're not listening, you have no interest in actually learning about this subject, and I'm tired of you lying to me and telling me that you are. I'm tired of wasting my time and having you steamroll your party line through by refusing to listen to what I'm saying.

Enjoy your life. Just know that I'll be cancelling your vote on anything and everything I possibly can.

 

[Danoff]

Brian, it is fundamentally astounding to me that you can do this. That you can contort the discussion to fit your purposes at all is mind boggling.

But any interaction with landowners or business owners is strictly voluntary. [/sarcasm]

Yes it is.

That includes landowners and business owners -- not just government.

Of course. That's what the police are for... that's what government is for. (I seem to remember saying that in the previous post)

Which is why the United Nations and its charters need to be strengthened.

Rather, abolished. The citizens of the world are not prepared to submit to a world government. Were one to exist, your notions of government would be all the more dangerous.

Anyway, so is that a "yes" or a "no"?

Let me check... yes.

Constitutionalism and democracy are mutually exclusive.

You don't even understand your own government...

Why has government fallen down on its promise? Why do people use government to exert force?

Greed.

An unrestricted meritocracy (what you would consider "attainable" and "desirable") gives rewards to those with the most success. In order to acheive this type of society, the rules need to be relaxed (or eliminated entirely).

As such, an unrestricted meritocracy is like a knife fight. There are no rules and the stronger fighter will kill the weaker.

The concept of rights eliminates the "strong will kill the weak" argument. It is just that those with the most success gest the most rewards.

I was talking about equal opportunities

The only thing that must be equal is the government's treatment of people.

So the latter would be legal then? Technically, no force can be initiated against me since I have not inititated force against someone else...

No. Libertarians recongnize other key legal issues, such as breach of contract, as necessary areas where the government must necessarily get invovled.

So what amount of taxes would be considered fair then?

It's not an amount, but rather how they are used.

ROW to prevent starvation is retribution for a wrong as well.

It is not always unjust that someone starve.

What about a voluntary transaction that has negative consequences on a third party not in any way involved with said transaction? Now can you think of any voluntary transactions that are unjust? Or are all voluntary transactions just?

If it violates the rights of the 3rd person then it is criminal. Otherwise it is just.

Then retribution for wrongs done is "unjust" according to this answer because it is not a voluntary transaction. Yet according to you, if a wrong has been committed, then a forcible redistribution is called for. This is inconsistent.

The government is the only entity that we give the power to enforce law. It is the only entity that we afford the ability to rectify injustices. The government alone is above the law. There is no inconsistency here.

Then taxation for public defense is a violation of my negative rights to property.

Your property does not exist without a government to maintain your rights - and so taxation is just... so long as it is done fairly, without discrimination.

Free exchange and soverign property rights under unequal circumstances increases inequality between individuals. That inequality has the lovely side of effect of producing social relationships based on hierarchy and domination (not freedom).

Once again, the government is the only entity capable of removing your freedom - and has the responsibility to ensure that that remains the case. You have yet to make the case for why a free exchange under unequal circumstances increases inequality. Your assertion that it is so is not sufficient for me.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Brian, it is fundamentally astounding to me that you can do this. That you can contort the discussion to fit your purposes at all is mind boggling.

I've edited the post... I realize now that that statement was out of line... I reacted before thinking.

Yes it is.

So when a landowner evicts a tenant or when a business owner fires someone, this a voluntary action?

Rather, abolished. The citizens of the world are not prepared to submit to a world government. Were one to exist, your notions of government would be all the more dangerous.

How so?

You don't even understand your own government...

According to you the only exception to freedom should be that I do not violate the rights of others. Since democracy can violate the rights of the minority, a constitution that protects the rights of individuals is needed -- but individual rights are difficult to define because they are not absolute. So when the constitution supercedes a bill supported by the majority, democracy is no longer used. The two can be mutually exclusive.

Greed.

I know that. But you said "better to have a system based on greed than a system based on attempted control..." or something like that -- in the other thread. If greed is what corrupted our current system, then why make that comment?

It's not an amount, but rather how they are used.

True, but a certain amount would still need to determined in order to figure out how its going to be allocated. What income tax rate would personally prefer to see?

It is not always unjust that someone starve.

When is it just? When is it not just?

If it violates the rights of the 3rd person then it is criminal. Otherwise it is just.

Does that mean then that all negative externalities are criminal?

 

[Danoff]

So when a landowner evicts a tenant or when a business owner fires someone, this a voluntary action?

An agreement of any kind (eg: purchasing an apple, offering services as an employee, or renting land or housing) must be voluntary by both parties. If it is not, then it is not voluntary. You cannot simply turn the problem on its head and say that the lack of action is not voluntary.

Here's an example. I want to buy an apple at 1 cent/lb. The grocery store does not want to sell me an apple at that price. That does not mean that the grocery store used force against me - or that the agreement was somehow involuntary. The agreement (or lack of agreement ) was voluntary. Here's why.

The grocery store offered to sell me the apple for 1 dollar/lb. I did not agree to that price... so the lack of agreement was voluntary on both parts. I chose not to purchase the apple at the asking price, and the grocery store chose not to sell me the apple at my offered price.

Do you see the logical fallicy in your argument yet?

Involuntary is when someone is forced to perform some service or give up some property against their will. A refusal of one side to perform some action is not force against the other party.

According to you the only exception to freedom should be that I do not violate the rights of others. Since democracy can violate the rights of the minority, a constitution that protects the rights of individuals is needed -- but individual rights are difficult to define because they are not absolute. So when the constitution supercedes a bill supported by the majority, democracy is no longer used. The two can be mutually exclusive.

No, they work together... and rights are absolute.

I know that. But you said "better to have a system based on greed than a system based on attempted control..." or something like that -- in the other thread. If greed is what corrupted our current system, then why make that comment?

Because our current system (bill of rights) is not sufficiently "based on" greed. It does not take greed into account. It fails to protect the minority from the greed of the majority. It fails to protect a specific segment of our country from immoral action from the majority through the only means of force anyone has available - the government.

True, but a certain amount would still need to determined in order to figure out how its going to be allocated. What income tax rate would personally prefer to see?

A fair rate to all citizens. A rate that does not discriminate. And I would like to see a rate that corresponds to essential government duties.

When is it just? When is it not just?

It is just when it is the fault of the person starving.

Does that mean then that all negative externalities are criminal?

Define "negative externality" for me.

 

[Danoff]

Well, I think it's time to revisit the Libertarian party here. I voted Barr in this election. My wife did the same. I know several others who did as well.

Yet Barr took fewer votes than Nader. With only about 500,000 votes nationwide, Barr's showing was poor to say the least. I don't know how this stacks up with trends from prior elections, but I honestly think this is the most disappointing result from the election.

When has there ever been so little difference between Republican and Democrat? I can't remember a time. And yet Americans are still not motivated to move in numbers to a real alternative. It's beyond frustrating.

 

[Duke]

We did our part. I was even able to vote Libertarian for my US congresscritter (he got about 1.5% of Delaware's vote) and my district representative in the State House (he got about 25% of the vote, but only because he ran as both a Republican AND a Libertarian).

 

[V1P3R]

When has there ever been so little difference between Republican and Democrat?

It's why I voted Barr... We'll see how stuff goes soon, all I know is I'll sleep better with my decision.

 

[FoolKiller]

In Kentucky we had 5,986 votes for Barr out of 1.8 million. 0.3%

I tried what I could via word-of-mouth and magnets on my car, but yesterday some of my friends who said that they agreed with me admitted to voting for McCain. Their reasoning was that they knew McCain would take Kentucky but Obama would win overall and they wanted the popular vote percentages to not give Obama too much credit.

I swear it is a brick wall getting people to look at actual principles. Even the ones who agree with you have a brain fart when they get in the booth.


I am seriously contemplating getting a bit more active. I have a feeling that if we want change to happen it has to be focused on the entire next term, not just the last six months leading up to the election.

People are stuck in their mindsets and it is annoying. I too am guilty of only really saying things in the past year, unless something really got me upset. From here on out I will not let a political discussion pass without bringing up the principles of freedom and how they apply to the topic at hand. I have a pocket-sized copy of the Constitution (thanks Ron Paul) and I intend to always keep it on me.


My question is: If the party basically disappears except for once every four years how do we get the message out there? The problem is that we spend 3 and a half years hearing about Republicans and Democrats and when the big elections come around the average voter forgets that anyone else exists. Is there anything to be done to help the party's image between now and 2012?

 

[YSSMAN]

My question is: If the party basically disappears except for once every four years how do we get the message out there? The problem is that we spend 3 and a half years hearing about Republicans and Democrats and when the big elections come around the average voter forgets that anyone else exists. Is there anything to be done to help the party's image between now and 2012?

Don't get too disenfranchised, we still have to wait and see if the Republicans split up or not. I'm under the impression that intellectual conservatives will likely partner again with the old Libertarian/Republican alliance, but what that means for both I am not certain. This all assumes that the GOP either fractures or resets itself in a proper manner.

That being said, we had a few Libertarian candidates that I voted for on our local and state ticket who performed pretty well, but Barr did terribly state-wide. I'm under the impression that people were so dead-set on assuring that either McCain or Obama would not get elected that some who would seriously consider a third party would opt out and go mainstream... We'll have to see what happens as more data comes out later on.

We'll see what happens, Libertarians will stick around, but the future of the GOP will likely determine what happens with a lot of those who wouldn't consider themselves a part of the Obama Coalition.

 

[Pupik]

There was zero talk about the Libertarian Party on any major network this time around. Nothing...you had to do your own research.

I read up on Barr, and to be honest, I disagreed with some of his views (which seemed a little against the platform). I did not vote Libertarian this time for that reason. There were no other candidates for any other race in my area (although there was one in the primary for a county commissioner's seat).

After some thought, yes, I admit I voted for Obama. I think he's going to make people feel good, but I do not honestly think the world and the United States are going to improve overnight. I think he was the best of what was seriously running for office, despite a lot of flawed economic ideas. Mainly, and I know this also stings, I disagree with the waste of life, money, and potential security The War has done to our nation's stability.

Start hurling the rocks at me for being a traitor.

 

[V1P3R]

There was zero talk about the Libertarian Party on any major network this time around. Nothing...you had to do your own research.

Yeah, no kidding...

I read up on Barr, and to be honest, I disagreed with some of his views (which seemed a little against the platform). I did not vote Libertarian this time for that reason.

I did last minute and also disagreed. I should have written in and voted Ron Paul but didn't think of it til after. (Not that it matters anymore.)

 

[Pupik]

Why Ron Paul didn't put on a serious attempt at being running as a Libertarian Party candidate was beyond me; he had lots of press and supporters (he was the darling of NPR, to be honest), but the TV networks said zilch about him.

I really felt he could have made a big pickup with the apathy between the two parties, as well as independents; even if it was only to get 5% of the public vote for assistance in 2012. Then again, I suppose he would have been vehemently against that kind of assistance...Talk about sticking to your principles!

Was he on the presidential ballot anywhere?

 

[V1P3R]

I don't remember seeing him on there, but I know a few people that wrote him in.

 

[Omnis]

Well, I think it's time to revisit the Libertarian party here. I voted Barr in this election. My wife did the same. I know several others who did as well.

Yet Barr took fewer votes than Nader. With only about 500,000 votes nationwide, Barr's showing was poor to say the least. I don't know how this stacks up with trends from prior elections, but I honestly think this is the most disappointing result from the election.

When has there ever been so little difference between Republican and Democrat? I can't remember a time. And yet Americans are still not motivated to move in numbers to a real alternative. It's beyond frustrating.

I didn't expect much from Barr. He got the most media coverage of any LP candidate ever, but he never showed up with other candidates to duke it out. Frankly, I think he couldn't see through his ego. In my county, freakin Charles JAY got more votes than Barr did.

But considering the money spent, it was only natural that everyone would get buried. Barack Obama probably went through about 2 billion dollars worth of publicity since getting primed to run 2 years ago. I just think it's funny that Barr got buried by Nader.

 

[Pupik]

I didn't expect much from Barr. He got the most media coverage of any LP candidate ever, but he never showed up with other candidates to duke it out. Frankly, I think he couldn't see through his ego. In my county, freakin Charles JAY got more votes than Barr did.

http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/FL/Broward/8512/13332/en/summary.html

Charles Jay was the Boston Tea Party candidate, which apparently is a self-styled offshoot of the Libertarian Party.

I just think it's funny that Barr got buried by Nader.

Name recognition?

 

[Omnis]

Name recognition?

Absolutely. That's what I'm saying... LP was a fail. Oh and Jay got more in my precinct not my county. At least when I first checked.

 

[V1P3R]

Name recognition?

 

[Keef]

I really can't believe Nader runs any more. My theory is that people vote for him as a joke.

Maybe Ron Paul will make a showing again in 2012. Hopefully before then. Also, I'm curious to see how the future of the Republican party pans out because I'm very frustrated with how far they've moved off course and I'm sure many of themselves are too.