Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[FoolKiller]

Yes I am aware of that party, if I was an American I would of voted for Ron Paul as Republican Party nominee though.

Thus the difference between Libertarian and libertarian. There are Libertarian Party candidates. A Libertarian will be registered to vote under the party and vote for every Libertarian Party candidate, automatically assuming they are the best because they are a party member.

Similarly, my grandfather proclaimed himself a Democrat. When he voted he only marked the option for straight-line Democrat. This automatically makes your vote for the Democrat in every election. Last election there was a straight-line Libertarian option here in Kentucky.

For me personally, I actually get a sample ballot in advance and research each candidate. If they held office before I will look at their voting history and weight that over what they are saying. But, I am a registered Libertarian on my voter registration. It has four purposes: 1) It makes Republicans mad any time they lose an election. 2) No one from either party calls, writes, or knocks on my door in election season. 3) No prosecutor wants an open libertarian on his jury. Putting me on a jury is a great way to risk a hung jury or 12 Angry Men scenario, as I will disagree with most laws and enact my right to jury nullification. Their worst case scenario is that I would convince the entire jury of the idea of jury nullification. 4) The general, ignorant voter will ask, "What's that," causing them to have opened the conversation to my political philosophy. I get an opening to try to change their political beliefs without looking like an ass that interjected it against their will.

 

[KSaiyu]

Would a libertarian ever have enough power to enforce change?

 

[mustafur]

Would a libertarian ever have enough power to enforce change?

In American Politics, No.

Infact anyone not willing to succumb to Corporate interests has zero hope of any progress in American Politics.

 

[FoolKiller]

In American Politics, No.

Infact anyone not willing to succumb to Corporate interests has zero hope of any progress in American Politics.

I'm not 100% convinced of that. By getting elected and changing the system, I highly doubt it, but serious change in policy has rarely come from within.

That said, until the us vs. them mentality of the two-party system is ignored by enough people no movement for change will be large enough to take hold.

 

[mustafur]

I'm not 100% convinced of that. By getting elected and changing the system, I highly doubt it, but serious change in policy has rarely come from within.

That said, until the us vs. them mentality of the two-party system is ignored by enough people no movement for change will be large enough to take hold.

The only way it can possibly change is if a new party gets in, both dems and Repubs won't allow a non self supported candidate from getting the nomination, this was proved by the Ron Paul debacle in the last Republican Nomination(They were breaking the Nomination rules to stop his support).

 

[FoolKiller]

The only way it can possibly change is if a new party gets in, both dems and Repubs won't allow a non self supported candidate from getting the nomination, this was proved by the Ron Paul debacle in the last Republican Nomination(They were breaking the Nomination rules to stop his support).

If people can stop seeing the two parties as teams that they cheer for or against then that won't be necessary. When news tried to be entertaining it left a wide opening for those in political power to distract the American people.

Every civil rights movement came from causing people to see things differently. But those usually take generational changes too.


Ultimately though, you can't stop trying, or else it will never be able to change.

 

[mustafur]

If people can stop seeing the two parties as teams that they cheer for or against then that won't be necessary. When news tried to be entertaining it left a wide opening for those in political power to distract the American people.

Every civil rights movement came from causing people to see things differently. But those usually take generational changes too.


Ultimately though, you can't stop trying, or else it will never be able to change.

Basically, the Left vote for Democrats who never live up to Left standards and the Right vote for Republicans who don't live up to Right Politics.

Its possible but it would require some wide spread political education, I think Mianstream shows such as Last Week Tonight definetly help people wake up to the political corruption though so its slowly hitting the average person.

 

[KSaiyu]

Do you not think libertarianism is a case of Batman's "what the people deserve, but not what they need"?

 

[Keef]

Do you not think libertarianism is a case of Batman's "what the people deserve, but not what they need"?

Actually, it is both what they need and deserve. Fairness, justice and freedom of choice for everybody, not just those who are friends with the powerful. However, it may not be what people want. There are many people who would love receive free handouts, etc. Such things would be very limited in a libertarian society and possibly not exist at all.

 

[KSaiyu]

I've been banned from neogaf for posting a comment saying that virgins are a curious breed in a thread about the Feminism movement in gaming and police stopped my friend, breathalysed her with a count of 20 while I'm still serving a DVLA ban for drinking despite the 3 times I've been breathalysed it returning a score of zero.

Very close to signing on the dotted line.

 

[FoolKiller]

I've been banned from neogaf for posting a comment saying that virgins are a curious breed in a thread about the Feminism movement in gaming

Neogaf is not a government-owned entity, correct? If so, libertarians side with them on that one. Their site, their rules.

and police stopped my friend, breathalysed her with a count of 20 while I'm still serving a DVLA ban for drinking despite the 3 times I've been breathalysed it returning a score of zero.

Clearly, you all measure blood alcohol different than we do. I have no clue what a count of 20 means in our terms of blood alcohol percentage.

And the circumstances surrounding her being stopped would determine the legitimacy of the situation from a libertarian point of view. If it was a random stop without reason, that's totally uncool.

 

[KSaiyu]

Neogaf is not a government-owned entity, correct? If so, libertarians side with them on that one. Their site, their rules.

Quite, but what happens when it becomes state level (see Holocaust denial laws in Europe). And this defence is pretty flaky with neogaf since I really doubt I would be banned for making an off-the-cuff reply like "Ahh you Brits, such imperialist tendencies." For reference their justification was:

"Coming into a thread to drop pointless and insulting comments about "virgins" does nothing to improve the level of discourse."

I invite you to go into any thread and find comments that also don't "improve the level of discourse" and see if the posters are banned. I know the answer's simple - I will just try and avoid the place in future but my concern is if it creeps into state laws.

Clearly, you all measure blood alcohol different than we do. I have no clue what a count of 20 means in our terms of blood alcohol percentage.

And the circumstances surrounding her being stopped would determine the legitimacy of the situation from a libertarian point of view. If it was a random stop without reason, that's totally uncool.

I was banned for admitting to having a problem with drinking, never for drink driving. It was assumed that because I had a drink problem logically I would be a drunk driver. I have no problem with the random stop of my friend, but with the faux-safety interest of the DVLA. To compound the issue I just finished booking my "random" blood test 3 weeks from the date which will test for evidence of drinking...

* Also the limit is 35 so cue a telling off from the police to my friend

 

[Omnis]

Thus the difference between Libertarian and libertarian. There are Libertarian Party candidates. A Libertarian will be registered to vote under the party and vote for every Libertarian Party candidate, automatically assuming they are the best because they are a party member.

The way I've always understood it is that a libertarian is philosophically so and a Libertarian is politically so. A "Big L" Libertarian is someone that is trying to advance a Libertarian agenda through political power. A "small L" libertarian just wants to be left alone, often wanting nothing to do with politics. The difference between a libertarian and a Libertarian is that the latter aren't productive with their time.

 

[FoolKiller]

Quite, but what happens when it becomes state level (see Holocaust denial laws in Europe). And this defence is pretty flaky with neogaf since I really doubt I would be banned for making an off-the-cuff reply like "Ahh you Brits, such imperialist tendencies." For reference their justification was:

"Coming into a thread to drop pointless and insulting comments about "virgins" does nothing to improve the level of discourse."

I invite you to go into any thread and find comments that also don't "improve the level of discourse" and see if the posters are banned. I know the answer's simple - I will just try and avoid the place in future but my concern is if it creeps into state laws.

If it were a state entity it would be a problem. I do disagree with holocaust denial laws or any other restrictions of speech that are not intended to directly incite rights violations, such as violence.

I was banned for admitting to having a problem with drinking, never for drink driving. It was assumed that because I had a drink problem logically I would be a drunk driver.

That's a thing? Admitting to a problem in advance indicates an intent to fix it. Having a problem with drinking does not mean you will drink and drive. I know plenty of alcoholics who arrange for a designated driver.

I have no problem with the random stop of my friend,

I do. Stopped without cause? No.

but with the faux-safety interest of the DVLA.

The stop without cause is a faux-safety issue. At that point the breathalyzer is just stacking on, although once stopped it can be argued something gave them cause since blowing anything indicates that she had alcohol of some form.

* Also the limit is 35 so cue a telling off from the police to my friend

Wasn't she below the limit? Sounds like he is pissed he can't stop her.

 

[KSaiyu]

That's a thing? Admitting to a problem in advance indicates an intent to fix it. Having a problem with drinking does not mean you will drink and drive. I know plenty of alcoholics who arrange for a designated driver.

That's what my reasoning was. Unfortunately my licence was taken without being given a medical and it took many letters from health professionals to start getting my licence back before the official 12 month ban was over.

I do. Stopped without cause? No.

Around here it's usually an "in" to find other things wrong with the car/driver. My first stop was a few weeks after I passed my test. The reason given was because I was looking in my mirror too much, which led to them searching my car and taking away a screwdriver (I was a mechanic at the time, apparently we can't be trusted with tools). The worst are the "I smell cannabis, this is grounds for doing a strip search against a wall". The red face after finding nothing more sinister than A-level books and laughing from a passer by nurse more than makes for it however.

The stop without cause is a faux-safety issue. At that point the breathalyzer is just stacking on, although once stopped it can be argued something gave them cause since blowing anything indicates that she had alcohol of some form.

Which is why I think America is different in that they have to do a test before having the right to breathalyse. I have been breathalysed 3 times, each time showing a reading of zero. Yes that's right, the guy with an alcohol problem has never flagged a breath test.

Wasn't she below the limit? Sounds like he is pissed he can't stop her.

Could be worse. I was in handcuffs on New Years Eve for the grand crime of running and dumping my girlfriend and her sisters handbags into her car. I was so wishing the cop would check my medical student ID to add further embarrassment on their nonsense subsequent search of the car.

Oh dear, I think my experiences are going to rattle quite a few libertarians and it's no surprise I'm not keen on our cops being allowed tasers.

 

[FoolKiller]

The rules for when a breathalyzer test is allowed differe from state to state. I would refuse if asked, but now there have been a few cases of taking them in and the warrant they receive is not for a breathalyzer, but a blood draw, where they either hold or tie you down.

 

[KSaiyu]

The rules for when a breathalyzer test is allowed differe from state to state. I would refuse if asked, but now there have been a few cases of taking them in and the warrant they receive is not for a breathalyzer, but a blood draw, where they either hold or tie you down.

I learn not to bother refusing - refusal here is the same trip to a station where they then do a blood draw. Waste of time to make a point.

-----

I suppose I would describe liberterianism as an ideal to me, but I still can't accept it as the best form of government with the state the world is in now. Far too many people need protection, and with my experiences in a failing hospital and knowing about a failing school and their subsequent transformations I can't imagine that safety net being removed.

 

[Danoff]

@KSaiyu

The more you take on the job of protecting people form themselves, the less of it they do on their own.

 

[KSaiyu]

Yeah, but it's hard to ignore how much of a difference a mandated takeover has had on the hospital and school in my area. One "thank-you" from a mum who's child was almost radicalised is enough of an incentive for me.

 

[Famine]

It's interesting that you describe unpleasant situations where laws are restrictive and those charged with enforcing those laws overstep their bounds... then suggest that people need protection by means of restrictive laws and people to enforce them.

 

[KSaiyu]

...which is where government should ideally step in. Police the 'police' - whether that's CQC (for hospitals), OFSTED (for schools) or whoever is responsible for holding such powers.

What we don't need is more intervention from government in the traditional ways.

 

[Famine]

...which is where government should ideally step in. Police the 'police' - whether that's CQC (for hospitals), OFSTED (for schools) or whoever is responsible for holding such powers.

More levels of bureaucracy! Just what's needed!

 

[KSaiyu]

No less. You get rid of the state education sector as it is and NHS hospitals that aren't foundation trusts. That way everyone can be an academy or private (education) or a foundation or private (hospital). This frees up the government (local authorities) from having to manage them, and instead focus on maintaining standards.

 

[mustafur]

Ok enough about dabble walling useless topics, heres a good video on some massive issues America faces in the basic level of Civil Rights:

 

[FoolKiller]

I think this would be better in the America thread, as this is not just a libertarian issue.

 

[Rich S]

No prosecutor wants an open libertarian on his jury. Putting me on a jury is a great way to risk a hung jury or 12 Angry Men scenario, as I will disagree with most laws and enact my right to jury nullification. Their worst case scenario is that I would convince the entire jury of the idea of jury nullification. .

I would say that not registering would give you a chance to have that option.

I have sat in court once or twice before, its actually more interesting than most other things in life. (not a reference to me, lol other people's cases.)

 

[FoolKiller]

I would say that not registering would give you a chance to have that option.

Getting selected for jury duty is no longer based on voter registration here. It's drivers license now.

 

[KSaiyu]

One thing I can't find clear reasoning behind is the mentality towards drink driving. What is the trade-off in deliberately making roads un-safer? Surely this would only benefit those that "know their limit" and are still capable enough behind the wheel above the current drink drive limit, but if the roads are inherently more dangerous where will they enjoy this freedom?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Libertarianism isn't a blank cheque to do as you please, despite your frequent attempts to prove it to be. Libertarians simply argue for an increase in personal freedoms and a decrease in institutional interference.

 

[KSaiyu]

It's not a blank cheque but you don't have a deterrent. Are you honestly saying even the extreme threat of lifelong institutionalism for killing while drunk behind the wheel would be strong enough? Look up homicide rates in states with the death penalty compared to others - even the strongest deterrent isn't strong enough.