Why the Libertarian Party is Hurting Liberty

[Chef Ramsay]

It is an interesting dilemma that true pro-liberty Americans find themselves in during 2015. On one hand, it is important for us to vote our consciences and not just for party affiliation after a candidates name. On the other hand, we have a widening gap between Republicans and Democrats with conservatism enveloping the establishment on the right and socialism swallowing the old school Democrats whole. What does a person concerned with protecting freedom do come election time to make sure that ours isn’t the generation that watches liberty die a horrible death? Well, it starts with utilizing common sense and it ends with not being a petulant child…let me explain…

Let’s evaluate 4 reasons why the Libertarian Party and their candidate, Gary Johnson, are actively hurting our nation by running a third party candidate in 2016 and, when it all comes down to brass tacks, why the Libertarian Party isn’t pro-liberty to begin with.

1. Gary Johnson is all for growing government as long as it fits his agenda.

Gay marriage is a hot topic today, however, most have no idea what the history of government regulation of marriage is or why it is an incredible violation of privacy and rights to have government involved in our marriages in the first place. The LP, as a party, is for gay marriage rights. On the surface this looks very “liberty driven” to most in the nation until you realize all this is doing is extending to the government the right to financially incentivize MORE relationships through taxation instead of taking their existing power with straight marriage away form them. Why is it that we are all for MORE government as long as we feel that the MORE apply’s to everyone? Call me crazy, but Governor Johnson and the LP’s stance, as a whole on marriage, seem to be anti-liberty, not pro.

2. Limiting government in and of itself doesn’t solve our problem long term, which is a concept that eludes most in the LP.

Look, I am all for ending the welfare state and all of the alphabet soup government agencies as soon as possible, but if we did this, all at once, there would literally be looting and mass hysteria in the streets. It is borderline comical to me to listen to Libertarian Party members chat with each other about ending foreign wars and about getting rid of taxes in one fell swoop without any real plan of how we will deal with loss of revenue and structure in the short term. Having a vision for the future is one thing, but without a bridge to get you there we will all end up drowning in the waters before we achieve our goals. Taking a more balanced, libertarian conservative approach, and cutting the waste in our nation and phasing out government agencies that are completely worthless allows us to build the structure necessary to keep the bureaucracy gone for good.

More...http://blog.libertyconservatives.com/why-the-libertarian-party-is-hurting-liberty/

[Mike Christ]

Politics and liberty are diametrically opposed: one frees, the other limits.  I'm sure the LP is well meaning but, as with anyone who lives with a political-centric mindset, they're naive; only thing the LP would be able to do is either slow/halt the state or repeal law, and the latter is just impossible--the state is like a business, and none of the business's many wealthy benefactors are going to accept less influence.  These men don't play by the rules, they make the rules for the naive to abide by, which is why they have the power and those who play by the rules do not, but wind up, at best, as enforcers of the rules.

Anyway, a silly article written by a silly person: once again, anarchism is misunderstood as some impossible ideal where some centralized use of force is necessary for survival because "we don't live in a perfect world with perfect people"--but perfect enough to maintain a centralized monopoly over the use of force, apparently, because that's always worked out peachy right?  Oh what's this, a piece of paper limiting the power of government, enchanted by almighty Zeus no less?  Oh wow where have I heard this one before...oh that's right, back in the 1700's, a time where slavery was still a-ok, used with a nation that became the greatest force against liberty known to date, which wound up getting ignored in the end anyway.  Goddamnit, Jeff, just get a fucking gun and do your own dirty deeds if you really feel force is a good thing, stop supporting the enslavement of those around you just so you don't have to sort out your own conflicts and apparent bloodlust.  Oh, and this is just the icing on the cake:

I'm a Christian Conservative Constitutionalist (in that order). I own a marketing company in Northern Indiana & I ran for US Congress in 2014 as a liberty candidate.

What a hypocrite; he's no better than the people he's calling out.  Fucking unreal.

[TheButterZone]

The government is most certainly capable of liquidating all assets, property, and land. The ~$18 trillion worth of national debtholders should hold the US in default and serve warrants, requiring either liquidation and repayment within 1 year or forfeiture of like value, and reduce the credit rating to junk status so no new bonds can be stacked up to pay old ones and perpetuate the cycle. If the government refuses to comply with legal process and responds with military action, it would be condemned as criminal, further delegitimizing the government and justifying defensive mutiny by US citizens to avert a nuclear, probably extinction-level-event WWIII with US.gov as the aggressor.

[Chef Ramsay]

Just for the record, the website where this was written is owned by a heavy Catholic Constitutional type guy so I'm sure that has some bearing on the site's commentary. They mean well but they take the dismissal approach to voluntarism. They support Rand so I'm cool with that. However, the owner does not like Bitcoin at all.