Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Governments aren't perfect, but .....

Governments aren't perfect, but it's the libertarians who bleed us dry

"Northern Rock's former chairman liked to rage against regulation, until his bank had to beg 16bn pounds from the detested state
"

read all about the free-marketarians who now have the begging bowl out

oh how things change.

its said that a liberal is a conservative who has never been mugged, i wonder can we say something similar for libertarians - or at least those who spout libertarianisms for their won benenifit?

In fairness, I think libertarians express that philosphy because they feel it is a benefit for all, not just for themselves.

ahh but ardy im not really talking about libertarians but those who latch onto the political philosophy in order to ride both horses, as we see here with Mr Evolutionary Economucks himself.

its does beg the question, though because i have seen "opt in/out" of the state libertarians. like this guy im wondering how many would opt in when theyre in the sh*t, how many would remain true to their principles of non-interference.

now im not taking issue with the streams of libertarian thought (i do think its an unreachable impractical utopia they want but thats another thread entirely) as it has a valuable balancing place. I am taking issue with the fellow travellers who will use anything to their advantage, and drop it when they feel like it.

Libertarians are nothing but fronts for the Republican party.

They talk about "getting the government off of our backs", but only actually apply that standard to Democratic politicians. Republicans can intrude the government aywhere they want, knowing full well that the most they will suffer are a couple of Libertarian "boo-hoo's". When it comes time to actually vote in elections, Libertarians will give their votes (at better than 90%) to Republicans. Every time. No matter what. And Republicans know this.

Watch in 2008. We have Mike Huckabee, the "Christian Candidate" for President. Based on his past positions we can certainly count on the Religious Right extending government intrusion into every aspect of decision making (both on the part of the government and the part of the individual).

Will Libertarians vote for a Democratic candidate for president, who might be "bad", but certainly not the Theocrat that Mike Huckabee certainly is? Of course not.

Will Libertarians even "stay homer", or "vote third party"? Of course not, since that will also have the effect of making a Democratic politican president.

Libertarians will vote overwhelming Republican, then complain that "we were fooled again" starting in January 2009.

As always.

JUST FOR YOU Phily Steve!

The Libertarian Vote

Oh, my goodness. This may be one of the dumbest articles written by perhaps one of the most ignorant writers I have read in many years -- Yes, even considering that it is in The Guardian. It saddens me to see how deeply England has sunk into a mindless state of nannyism, but I am absolutely flummoxed at the level of utter ignorance (or is it intentional deception?) that is displayed.

I would ask the author to explain what a "libertarian business plan" is, but his answer could surely do nothing more than highlight his stupidity on the subject. I am also shocked that he could write, and apparently expect readers to be so dismally sheep-like as to believe, that a bank could exist in an environment of "unregulated free enterprise" in Britain, a premier nanny state! Pity.
Yours,
Issodhos

well, this thread is about perceptions and stated political and economic beliefs which evaporate when apparently neccessary.

whatever about the rest of the article.

Mr Northern Rock used libertatarian arguments when it suited him and now is suckling at the teat.

thats the point

Thanks, I believe youw ere trying to be supportive.

However I consider this article from the Cato Institute (another bedrock Republican supporter) to just further my opinion.

The author considers it to be a revolutionary event when the "Libertarien" vote for George W. Bush was "only" 59%!

That still means that 2/3 of Libertarians would vote for the largest spending President since WW II (more than Lyndon Johnson), the peptrator of domestic spying on a grand scale, the backer of the marriage amendment, the president who rushed back to Washington to sign legislation intervening in the famly decision as to the care of Terri Schiavo!

George W. Bush did all that, and still 2/3 of Libertarians voted for him!

Why?

Because Libertarians are just Republicans who provide the "fiscal cover" that actual Republicans (the ones in office) ignore.

Come 2008, when the Republican Presidential candidate is again a "blank slate", Libertarians will paint thier usual visions on whomever the Republicans nominate. If it is Mike Huckabee, they will pretend that he will NOT intrude the government into still more of Americans' lives, despite everything the Religious Right wants him to do (and he will likely do).

They will vote Republican, at rates much greater than Bush's 59%, because "Hillary/Obama/Edwards would be worse". Despite the fact they likely would not be worse, but would at least be competent at what the did do. (Libertarians also appear, like most Conservatives, to admire incompetence in governance, because it reinforces their political posturing).

"NeoConservatives" are Republicans who blatantly lie to America.
"Libertarians" are Republicans who lie to themselves.

I agree completely, and extend it to all candidates who appeal to the "Libertarian" voter.

Were they "libertarian" arguments or distorted free market arguments, Schlack? And why would any intelligent person put any stock in anti-establishment comments made by a consumate establishment insider? Kinda stupid, wot?;-)
Yours,
Issodhos
p.s. Philly, decide if you are referring to the Libertarian Party (capitalized) or libertarian philosophy (uncapitalized) and it will be easier to understand what you are referring to.;-)