-------------------------->

4/12/2006 4:40:00 PM

If you pin your hopes on those who's chief political concern is the legalization of marijuana, then you deserve whatever lack of credibility and influence you get.

4/12/2006 4:41:42 PM

double post

[Edited on April 12, 2006 at 4:42 PM. Reason : but nobody should view that as more than a very peripheral issue]

4/12/2006 4:41:42 PM

quote]That is the problem right now, most people are being told you have to be one of the 2 main parties.[/quote]

I don't think this is the case. Most people make rational choices and compromises to work with groups to get some of their ideas across on a political level. It's not as subversive as libertarian supporters seem to make it sound. Its not the case that if only people could see the light they'd surely follow... i think they are making some reasonable decisions. I know some communists think communism is inevitable, and salisburyboy does all he does b/c he thinks the winning of his side is inevitable, I don't want to think of libertarians as in the same group who think their position will inevitably win as people see the light. They are going to have to make some compromises... but I'm not sure how they can with only one real selling point.

4/12/2006 4:49:50 PM

^^^ It doesn't work as a centerpiece, but any good libertarian platform should involve legalization or at least nationwide decriminalization of pot. The current status quo on pot (and a few other drugs) is analogous to a ban on private ownership of guns; something that would cause coronaries for most libertarians.

4/12/2006 5:04:29 PM

i'm personally more attached to the gun issue, but i do believe that pot should be legalized/decriminalized, as long as a well-conceived plan to do it is figured out.

but like I said, it should never be more than a peripheral issue. Partially b/c there are far, far bigger fish to fry, partially b/c you don't want a bunch of stoners carrying the weight and driving the party, and partially b/c you don't want to be known as "those guys who want to legalize pot...oh, and I think they want tax reform or something, too."

4/12/2006 5:13:34 PM

its called choosing your issues.

in 2004 bush had questionable poll numbers, but he was viewed as being trustworthy and strong on defence. So, he talked about the war on terror and he made kerry look like a liar. It worked.
The libertarian party has yet to realize this lesson. If they talked about making government smaller, and talked about how the republicans have abandonded their principles of fiscal conservatism they would gain ground. But they feel the need to always explain every little bit of their platform every time. i think the words "small steps" are currently banned by the party (unofficially of course)

4/12/2006 5:23:41 PM

Part of what it would take is people actualy voting. I can't begin to count how many people I know that just hate both parties but don't think anyone else could win, so they basically flip a coin and vote. If more people like that simply decided to vote for someone else, it may not win elections at first but it will give some life to the possibility of other candidates. If the electoral vote gets significantly split (hell if even one or two states go third party) it could do a whole lot to convince people that there is a viable alternative out there.

That said ^ is also a good point. Libertarian ideas sell themselves to be sure, but there doesn't seem to be a real libertarian message other than "what we have now is wrong", which to many people is very akin to Kerry's old message "I'm not Bush".

Still what they really need is a sort of home grown get out and vote campaign. Something like where you have a pool of people who pledge to vote libertarian if the pool grows to a certain size. So say it will take a million votes to make a showing in the elections, you create a web site or something where people can register and promise to vote libertarian if a million promises are made. Sure you'll probably get some faking and some people who decide against it, but at the very least it might make people feel like they wouldn't be wasting their vote.

4/12/2006 6:27:25 PM

i was going to vote Picard/[No]Guy but my boss gave me $20 to vote for kerry.

4/12/2006 6:30:35 PM

Quote :

"most people are being told you have to be one of the 2 main parties."

Yeah, good point. Maybe the libs should just join the dems and try to push them in the direction of small government, lower taxes, etc.

4/12/2006 6:57:20 PM

^^ Great deal. You should have taken the $20 and then voted for the other guy just to be smart

4/12/2006 7:48:50 PM

im very hesitant about any plan that involves getting people to vote who do not normally vote. i just dont see it happening in any large amount.

why dont we change to same day registration and weekend voting instead?

4/12/2006 9:58:26 PM

Quote :

"If they talked about making government smaller...they would gain ground."

The LP needs to come down from the mountain and show voters that Libs can run the gov't, cut deals, and get things done. There are alot of disenfranchised voters out there - sick of both mainstream parties. Politically homeless.

Perhaps instead of talking about legalizing pot, we should talk about what a failure the war on drugs has become. How we waste resources and prison space for drug-using crimes. We should talk about the police corruption in property seizures for minor drug infractions. We should point out that people own their own bodies.

4/12/2006 10:45:13 PM

Quote :

"why dont we change to same day registration and weekend voting instead?"

Which day? Sunday would offend the christians. Saturday would offend the jews (i think).

4/12/2006 10:54:53 PM

Quote :

"Partially b/c there are far, far bigger fish to fry, partially b/c you don't want a bunch of stoners carrying the weight and driving the party, and partially b/c you don't want to be known as "those guys who want to legalize pot...oh, and I think they want tax reform or something, too.""

...what makes you think stoners would carry the weight of any political party?

Anyway, the point wasn't that pot should be a centerpiece issue. The point was that it belongs in pretty much any libertarian platform for the exact same reason that the abolition of overarching gun control measures do: the object isn't the crime, its misuse is. It'd be flagrantly hypocritical for a libertarian to argue otherwise.

Seems to me that the legalization of pot would become a salient issue for a particular voting block of libertarians; and that the promise to do so would sell better than the effect of doing so. This is not unlike the Republicans' decades-old war on abortion, used specifically to mobilize the evangelical base and for no other purpose. Otherwise, we'd have banned abortions by now (after what, 4 years of a legislative majority in Congress?).

Honestly though, I don't see why legalizing it would subject a party to anymore than 5-10 years of identity with the decision (and I'd be surprised if it lasted that long). Something tells me that a libertarian platform would include far more impactful issues that would resonate with much broader segments of the population for far longer than simply decriminalizing marijuana: namely the free-market legislation. If anything, the libertarian party would be identified as the party that wants to privatize the Police and Fire Department.

[Edited on April 12, 2006 at 11:07 PM. Reason : ...]

4/12/2006 11:02:10 PM

In the 2000 election, 4 of the 5 "somewhat major" candidates: Bush, Gore, Harry Browne of the Libertarians, Ralph Nader of the Greens, admitted to at one point in their life smoking marijuana. The only exception was Pat Buchanan of the Reform ticket.

4/13/2006 12:03:10 AM

Quote :

"We should point out that people own their own bodies."

[Edited on April 13, 2006 at 12:58 AM. Reason : imgsrc]

4/13/2006 12:58:38 AM

I don't think the party needs to change. I think the country needs to change.

4/13/2006 2:22:08 AM

Hold your breath and wait.

4/13/2006 2:38:57 AM

or think and hope in one hand and shit in the other, and see which one fills up first.


the Libertarian Party changing would be a big step towards changing the country, anyway.

4/13/2006 2:50:58 AM

Bingo.

Quote :

"1. The cart goes: a) On the horse. b) Under the horse. c) Before the horse. d) Behind the horse."

4/13/2006 2:58:39 AM

yep...waiting for the unwashed masses to spontaneously align themselves with a totally out of touch Libertarian Party is a silly, futile plan, yet exactly what the Libertarians seem to view as their ticket to the big time.

It's like an old lady on welfare blowing her money on lottery tickets, except for worse. there's a CHANCE that she might strike it rich.

4/13/2006 3:05:01 AM

It's almost as if the Libertarian party faithful have all the arrogance of the two major parties ("you gotta see it this way and if you don't, you just have to wake up"), but none of the voting/donation support.

4/13/2006 3:07:24 AM

I suspect there is going to be mini-backlash from inside the Republican Party come 2008. It is going to nominate someone slightly more traditional such as a modern-day reaganite or Bush #1. Whether this person will then win the election I do not know, but I do hope-so, because this evangelical thread of the Republican party has been way over-played.

4/13/2006 9:38:24 AM

Quote :

"Quote : "why dont we change to same day registration and weekend voting instead?" Which day? Sunday would offend the christians. Saturday would offend the jews (i think). "

Why isn't Election Tuesday a federal holiday?

[Edited on April 13, 2006 at 9:46 AM. Reason : .]

4/13/2006 9:45:30 AM

if we elect another reaganite this country will be fucked. im tired of deficit spending from the same people who try to make it impossible to get out of bankruptcy from credit card debts because, "you fucked up by buying more than you can afford"

i agree with super ben. election day should be a holiday.

4/13/2006 10:49:11 AM

How exactly is reshaping itself to fit within the system going to help to bring about any sort of significant change? It defeats the purpose of the Libertarian movement. The system is flawed, it is far disconnected from any sort of absolute morality or rationality and persists in its present form as an institute almost exclusively for the furthering of politicos' individual (non-representative) agendas. Millions of Americans are being oppressed by this system, being denied their "inalienable rights" to further the economic and political interests of a practically insignificant (size, not influence) minority. Where diplomacy is ignored, individuals from other countries take it into their own hands to kill us because we insist on imposing our corrupt ideals upon them. We're spending several hundred billion dollars to fight a war that does not even respond to those attacks, and seems almost singularly intended to line the pockets of those within and close to the administration. If you think the system still works, and think the Libertarian party should work within the system, just fucking vote Republican and don't dilute the consensus of an organization that is the most significant third party in the history of US politics and does intend to provoke change not within itself but within the cult of the omnipotent state. And defend the rights of the motherfucking individual.

[Edited on April 13, 2006 at 1:57 PM. Reason : *]

4/13/2006 1:55:14 PM

would you rather accomplish, say 10% of what you want, or 0%?

because the Libertarians will NEVER accomplish anything--ANYTHING--as long as they keep holding to that attitude.

4/13/2006 2:12:57 PM

Quote :

"Why isn't Election Tuesday a federal holiday?"

4/13/2006 2:16:31 PM

^^ Uh, we already have a republican party. moderating the libertarian party would actually accomplish -10% of what they want because then both parties would always lose.

4/13/2006 2:20:01 PM

Isn't that the very definition of compromise, though? Nobody gets what they want, but instead a watered down version of the two?

4/13/2006 2:22:14 PM

look, the Libs will never get elected to anything meaningful (and not in meaningful numbers in the small time races) with the views they hold now. therefore, they aren't going to accomplish anything at all except for having a political pity party for themselves.

If they moderated their views some, then they could get elected every now and then and start chipping away at the problems.

4/13/2006 2:37:05 PM

I don't see libertarians listening to a course in political reality anytime soon, Duke. You might have to wait a while.

4/13/2006 2:38:36 PM

You can't compromise with liberty. That's called oppression.

4/13/2006 2:41:17 PM

Oh really?

Explain all those police officers.

4/13/2006 2:42:10 PM

Uh... instruments of oppression? I don't really see what you're getting at.

Libertarians want your fucking rights back. It's pathetic that you think that's "too extreme" to ask for.

[Edited on April 13, 2006 at 2:58 PM. Reason : *]

4/13/2006 2:57:24 PM

Sorry, but when a police officer tackles and cuffs some shithead who's decided he wants to play punching bag with his wife, I don't consider him an instrument of oppression.

And no. What's pathetic is your inability to read. Where'd I say I didn't want my rights back, chief? Your extremism is all too typical of libertarianism, and is, I think, precisely what prevents the party from becoming a viable alternative to our current political dichotomy. Nobody's going to listen to your message once "Police are instruments of oppression" comes out of your mouth; nobody except angry, pissant college kids, who in reality DO NOT vote in large enough numbers to effect election outcomes.

Keep taking it out on those who have constructive criticisms, though. You're sure to win votes that way.

[Edited on April 13, 2006 at 3:01 PM. Reason : ...]

4/13/2006 2:59:19 PM

How much of his time do you think a police officer spends cuffing some shitbag battering his wife, versus harassing motorists, blacks, college students, etc for either the suspicion of an offense or utterly trivial non-violent, victimless offenses? Hint: there are statistics, and they don't look pretty. Police exist in their present form as primarily instruments of oppression and revenue generation. That's a statement which is logically sound, however "extreme" you feel it may be.

4/13/2006 3:11:05 PM

NO ONE IS ARGUING WITH YOU!!!!
police are oppressors. we agree with you. what we are saying is that those that vote in elections do not agree with you, therefore you will not win an election by saying something that a vast majority of americans disagree with.

4/13/2006 3:17:11 PM

I don't get what you're saying then. Being apalled at the reality of the situation is too "extreme" to win votes? Maybe we should compromise our platform to maintain the pharmaceutical monopolies somehow so we win their financial support. Then we can compromise our platform to maintain the legislated morality a substantial portion of Christians seem to think we should live under. Hell, why don't we compromise the whole party beyond recognition and call ourselves the Republicrats! Then we'll damn sure have a chance of winning an election... wait, didn't we have goals? Ahh, fuck 'em, we're in power now, we can just line our pockets like the guys before us...

4/13/2006 3:21:28 PM

Actually, the amount of time a police officer spends enforcing the law is nothing compared to the amount of time he spends aimlessly patrolling and doing paperwork. In any case you seem to be faulting the police officer for doing his job. He didn't write the laws he enforces.

Seems to me your real beef is with the unjust laws the officer is there to enforce, and on that point, you're not going to find much opposition here. I happen to think that no society is utopian enough to operate without law enforcement officers. But I do certainly believe that a society can function with significantly fewer laws, particularly victimless and moral crime laws, than we have. If we narrowed the scope of our laws, I highly doubt you'd view police officers as instruments of oppression.

I'd like to see these statistics you're talking about.

^ Ok. So tell me, what is your plan to get the big "L" libertarian party elected? Please outline how you plan on winning enough votes to effect change without compromising any principles.

[Edited on April 13, 2006 at 3:23 PM. Reason : ...]

4/13/2006 3:22:42 PM

have you ever heard the expression "Rome didn't fall in a day?"

personally, what I want is a lot more moderate than what you're calling for...but even if you want XTREME LIBERTARIANISM, the way to get it isn't by taking the approach you (and most of the Libertarian Party) want to go with. That route is absolutely an exercise in complete futility.

[Edited on April 13, 2006 at 3:26 PM. Reason : asfd]

[Edited on April 13, 2006 at 3:27 PM. Reason : the Religious Right tends to miss the forest for the trees, too, but not as much as the Lib Party]

hell, talk to Kris. even he understands that the way to turn America into a country full of dirty commies is by waging and winning one small battle at the time. Sometimes you have to pick your battles and let other things slide.

[Edited on April 13, 2006 at 3:29 PM. Reason : asdf]

4/13/2006 3:25:17 PM

He's thinking in a political vacuum; like most people do. No room for strategic thought, there. If you are elected in a compromising position, you can't possibly begin to slowly change that position once your legislative power increases. It'd be like dividing by zero or something.

4/13/2006 3:28:32 PM

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/viortrdtab.htm

Number of arrests for violent crimes decreases drastically over the studied time period

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/tables/arrtot.htm

Number of arrests for drug crimes (non-violent, no property damage, i.e. victimless) increases drastically over the studied time period

Thoughts? Comments? Questions?

4/13/2006 3:30:12 PM

1. Ok. So tell me, what is your plan to get the big "L" libertarian party elected? Please outline how you plan on winning enough votes to effect change without compromising any principles.

2. What does the decrease in the number of arrests for violent crimes have to do with your point?

3. Do you realize that the increases in drug law enforcement were more a product of enforcement priority assigned from above?

4. What do the number of arrests in both categories have to do with the amount of time police officers are spending doing those, and not other things?

4/13/2006 3:33:51 PM

our system is corrupt.

now how are you going to convince the rest of america that #1 that is true and #2 that libertarians have the answer?

4/13/2006 3:35:50 PM

My plan is to rant and rave on message boards until people realize that they are being lied to, cheated, oppressed, and taken advantage of. Damnit, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a political strategist. But seriously, I have no idea. I made myself aware of the issues and I concluded that the Libertarians were by far the most representative of my interests, individual and humanitarian. What more do you want from me?

4/13/2006 3:45:40 PM

Let's say that you want to legalize all drugs. I don't think that's a good idea, but whatever.

You can come strutting into town and be like "OK, WE WANT TO LEGALIZE ALL DRUGS, AND RELEASE ALL OF THE INMATES WHO ARE LOCKED UP BECAUSE OF DRUGS, BECAUSE IT'S MY HOT BODY AND I DO WHAT I WANT. WE NEED TO GET RID OF HALF OF THESE STUPID GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, LET GAYS GET MARRIED AND DO WHATEVER THEY WANT, GET RID OF WELFARE AS WE KNOW IT, AND PRIVATIZE EVVVVVVERRRRRRYTHING!"

the way to do it is to be like "Government has overstepped the bounds of what is permitted by the Constitution, and is no longer by the people, for the people. We're all paying too much in taxes, and that money is being wasted in an inefficient system. blah blah blah, etc, etc, free markets, blah blah blah, civil unions so as to not penalize gay couples under our tax system until we can come up with a better tax plan, blah blah blah, decriminalize marijuana, because the resources we expend policing it and problems we cause for outselves by making it criminal greatly outweigh any minor benefits of its prohibition, blah blah blah, trim welfare rolls by 10% over the next 5 years, blah blah blah, etc etc. We need to start to wean ourselves from the socialism that has insidiously been creeping into our way of life. The more we can keep the government out of the way, the more efficiently things run, and the more the society benefits.

[Edited on April 13, 2006 at 3:48 PM. Reason : like i said before, drugs should be a very peripheral issue. that's small time stuff.]

[Edited on April 13, 2006 at 3:48 PM. Reason : and you don't have to be a slave to the ideology. there's a place for common sense and moderation.]

4/13/2006 3:46:36 PM

Quote :

"My plan is to rant and rave on message boards until people realize that they are being lied to, cheated, oppressed, and taken advantage of. Damnit, Jim, I'm a doctor, not a political strategist. But seriously, I have no idea. I made myself aware of the issues and I concluded that the Libertarians were by far the most representative of my interests, individual and humanitarian. What more do you want from me?"

given the size of the libertarian party right now? come up with a better idea and implement it.

4/13/2006 3:50:58 PM

it just occured to me that you still aren't going to get it, based strictly on what i just wrote.

if you still wanted to legalize all drugs, the way to do it is to get what i just outlined accomplished first and let people see that it's ok, a few growing pains notwithstanding.

then you could push it further (not that pushing it to the ideological limit is always a good idea, but that's another argument for another day)

4/13/2006 3:51:22 PM