The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 38 of 38

Thread: Is it time for the libertarian to rise up and be counted?

  1. #31
    Senior Member Hew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Booty View Post
    That is why the Independent Party movement is growing by leaps and bounds. The Republicans can't shake the Religious Right and the bible thumpers will ride the Republican party into oblivion.
    To which branch of the Indpendent Party do you refer? The one whose candidate for President was staunch anti-abortionist and very religious Alan Keyes, or the off-shoot branch of the Independent Party that put forth the Baptist Preacher/ex-Moral Majority leader at the top of their ticket for President?

    Perhaps things will change, but right now nearly every political party organization beyond the Democrat and Republicans are run like disjointed cluster****s that make the political systems of third world banana republics look fair and organized by comparison. How much respect can one have for the Libertarian Party (not libertarian principles, but the Party) when they allow ex-Republican Bob Barr to walk into their convention and steal the Party's nomination from candidates who actually, ahem, campaigned for the nomination and participated in the primary process? And who was Barr's running mate? Wayne Alan Root, who up until the year before was a Republican. And really, how effective can the Libertarian Party ever be when the bulk of its membership eschew many of the necessary evils needed to effectively run a national party? It's akin to handing out a schedule of events at a three day Anarchist convention. If you want politicians to best represent your beliefs, at this time, far and away the best way to accomplish that is to work within either of the two major parties.

    Lastly, the poll that started this thread is a poll put together by Libertarians. Is it any shock that most people are getting "results" that indicate a libertarian tilt? Here's my equally scientific (i.e. not at all) and equally meaningless poll:

    Do you like breathing air that is untaxed? A M D
    Do you think the US should be capable of defending itself? A M D
    Parents are better suited than govt. to raise their children? A M D

    If you answered A to two or more questions, you're a Conservative. Now if I can just work a link into my poll so that you can contribute money to me like the Libertarians did with their poll.
    Last edited by Hew; 05-12-2009 at 06:59 AM.

  2. #32
    Senior Member Bayou Magic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    OK via LA
    Posts
    904

    Default

    Your PERSONAL issues Score is 40%.
    Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 50%.

    CENTRISTS

    The questions are far too simplistic and limited. I would describe myself as a solid conservative...but what do I know.

    fp
    www.BayouMagicRetrievers.com
    FC AFC Wing Magic's Louisiana Roux MH "Roux"
    Bayou Magic's Road to Hurricane "Roadie" (Knucklehead Puppy)
    Bayou Magic's Tough as a Boot "Boot" (Knucklehead Puppy)


    "Never let the fear of striking out get in your way." -- George Herman Ruth

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Pac NW
    Posts
    4,316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hew View Post
    To which branch of the Indpendent Party do you refer? The one whose candidate for President was staunch anti-abortionist and very religious Alan Keyes, or the off-shoot branch of the Independent Party that put forth the Baptist Preacher/ex-Moral Majority leader at the top of their ticket for President?

    Perhaps things will change, but right now nearly every political party organization beyond the Democrat and Republicans are run like disjointed cluster****s that make the political systems of third world banana republics look fair and organized by comparison. How much respect can one have for the Libertarian Party (not libertarian principles, but the Party) when they allow ex-Republican Bob Barr to walk into their convention and steal the Party's nomination from candidates who actually, ahem, campaigned for the nomination and participated in the primary process? And who was Barr's running mate? Wayne Alan Root, who up until the year before was a Republican. And really, how effective can the Libertarian Party ever be when the bulk of its membership eschew many of the necessary evils needed to effectively run a national party? It's akin to handing out a schedule of events at a three day Anarchist convention. If you want politicians to best represent your beliefs, at this time, far and away the best way to accomplish that is to work within either of the two major parties.

    Lastly, the poll that started this thread is a poll put together by Libertarians. Is it any shock that most people are getting "results" that indicate a libertarian tilt? Here's my equally scientific (i.e. not at all) and equally meaningless poll:

    Do you like breathing air that is untaxed? A M D
    Do you think the US should be capable of defending itself? A M D
    Parents are better suited than govt. to raise their children? A M D

    If you answered A to two or more questions, you're a Conservative. Now if I can just work a link into my poll so that you can contribute money to me like the Libertarians did with their poll.
    Good post!

    The major parties are disorganized enough, except when there is a threat from a 3rd party - they unite then.

    Remember Ross Perot - good message - autocratic organization - DIED.

    When Virginia Postrel was editor of Reason there was a good message that normal people could relate to, when she left that changed quickly. There are only portions of the Libertarian message that are not rehashes of the very Liberal Left.

    The John Birch Society - portions of their message were correct - the delivery & the nutcases who fervently embraced the entire dogma of the society killed that one.

    My thought is - we need to get people in office who know what it's like to earn what they have, who are not interested in mortgaging everyone's future for a series of feel good initiatives based on some mindless theory. Regardless of party.

    JMO
    __________________________

    Marvin S

    Everyone's friend is No One's friend

    Someday your life will flash before your eyes. It's your responsibility to make sure it's worth watching!

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Quartz Hill, CA
    Posts
    319

    Default

    Personal issues 70%
    Economic issues 90%
    Libertarian

    Didn't need a quiz to tell me that though, figured it out last election cycle.
    I reside on the left coast, but my ideals are right wing.
    LQP CN Double Hunter, SH (09/12/1996-12/22/2010)
    Waterstrike's Dynamic Amazon, MH (10/18/2000-09/08/2011)

  5. #35
    Senior Member Sabireley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Culpeper VA
    Posts
    1,102

    Default

    I read this today in the LP news and thought it was worth sharing...

    John Hasnas
    Associate Professor
    McDonough School of Business
    Georgetown University

    Political analysts frequently consider what it means to be a libertarian. In fact, in 1997, Charles Murray published a short book entitled "What It Means to Be a Libertarian" that does an excellent job of presenting the core principles of libertarian political philosophy. But almost no one ever discusses what it feels like to be a libertarian. How does it actually feel to be someone who holds the principles described in Murray’s book?

    I’ll tell you. It feels bad. Being a libertarian means living with an almost unendurable level of frustration. It means being subject to unending scorn and derision despite being inevitably proven correct by events. How does it feel to be a libertarian? Imagine what the internal life of Cassandra must have been and you will have a pretty good idea.

    Imagine spending two decades warning that government policy is leading to a major economic collapse, and then, when the collapse comes, watching the world conclude that markets do not work.

    Imagine continually explaining that markets function because they have a built in corrective mechanism; that periodic contractions are necessary to weed out unproductive ventures; that continually loosening credit to avoid such corrections just puts off the day of reckoning and inevitably leads to a larger recession; that this is precisely what the government did during the 1920's that led to the great depression; and then, when the recession hits, seeing it offered as proof of the failure of laissez-faire capitalism.

    Imagine spending years decrying federal intervention in the home mortgage market; pointing out the dangers associated with legislation such as the Community Reinvestment Act that forces lenders to make more risky loans than they otherwise would; testifying before Congress on the lack of oversight and inevitable insolvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to legislators who angrily respond either that one is "exaggerat[ing] a threat of safety and soundness . . . which I do not see" (Barney Frank) or "[I[f it ain’t broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs [government-sponsored enterprises] ever missed their housing goals" (Maxine Waters) or "[T[he problem that we have and that we are faced with is maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place" (Gregory Meeks) or that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are "one of the great success stories of all time" (Christopher Dodd); and arguing that the moral hazard created by the implicit federal backing of such privately-owned government-sponsored enterprises is likely to set off a wave of unjustifiably risky investments, and then, when the housing market implodes under the weight of bad loans, watching the collapse get blamed on the greed and rapaciousness of "Wall Street."

    I remember attending a lecture at Georgetown in the mid-1990s given by a member of the libertarian Cato Institute in which he predicted that, unless changed, government policy would trigger an economic crisis by 2006. That prediction was obviously ideologically-motivated alarmism. After all, the crisis did not occur until 2008.

    Libertarians spend their lives accurately predicting the future effects of government policy. Their predictions are accurate because they are derived from Hayek’s insights into the limitations of human knowledge, from the recognition that the people who comprise the government respond to incentives just like anyone else and are not magically transformed to selfless agents of the good merely by accepting government employment, from the awareness that for government to provide a benefit to some, it must first take it from others, and from the knowledge that politicians cannot repeal the laws of economics. For the same reason, their predictions are usually negative and utterly inconsistent with the utopian wishful-thinking that lies at the heart of virtually all contemporary political advocacy. And because no one likes to hear that he cannot have his cake and eat it too or be told that his good intentions cannot be translated into reality either by waving a magic wand or by passing legislation, these predictions are greeted not merely with disbelief, but with derision.

    It is human nature to want to shoot the messenger bearing unwelcome tidings. And so, for the sin of continually pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, libertarians are attacked as heartless bastards devoid of compassion for the less fortunate, despicable flacks for the rich or for business interests, unthinking dogmatists who place blind faith in the free market, or, at best, members of the lunatic fringe.

    Cassandra’s curse was to always tell the truth about the future, but never be believed. If you add to that curse that she would be ridiculed, derided, and shunned for making her predictions, you have a pretty fair approximation of what it feels like to be a libertarian.

    If you’d like a taste of what it feels like to be a libertarian, try telling people that the incoming Obama Administration is advocating precisely those aspects of FDR’s New Deal that prolonged the great depression for a decade; that propping up failed and failing ventures with government money in order to save jobs in the present merely shifts resources from relatively more to relatively less productive uses, impedes the corrective process, undermines the economic growth necessary for recovery, and increases unemployment in the long term; and that any "economic" stimulus package will inexorably be made to serve political rather than economic ends, and see what kind of reaction you get. And trust me, it won’t feel any better five or ten years from now when everything you have just said has been proven true and Obama, like FDR, is nonetheless revered as the savior of the country.

  6. #36
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    10,794

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sabireley View Post
    I read this today in the LP news and thought it was worth sharing...

    John Hasnas
    Associate Professor
    McDonough School of Business
    Georgetown University


    Political analysts frequently consider what it means to be a libertarian. In fact, in 1997, Charles Murray published a short book entitled "What It Means to Be a Libertarian" that does an excellent job of presenting the core principles of libertarian political philosophy. But almost no one ever discusses what it feels like to be a libertarian. How does it actually feel to be someone who holds the principles described in Murray’s book?

    I’ll tell you. It feels bad. Being a libertarian means living with an almost unendurable level of frustration. It means being subject to unending scorn and derision despite being inevitably proven correct by events. How does it feel to be a libertarian? Imagine what the internal life of Cassandra must have been and you will have a pretty good idea.

    Imagine spending two decades warning that government policy is leading to a major economic collapse, and then, when the collapse comes, watching the world conclude that markets do not work.

    Imagine continually explaining that markets function because they have a built in corrective mechanism; that periodic contractions are necessary to weed out unproductive ventures; that continually loosening credit to avoid such corrections just puts off the day of reckoning and inevitably leads to a larger recession; that this is precisely what the government did during the 1920's that led to the great depression; and then, when the recession hits, seeing it offered as proof of the failure of laissez-faire capitalism.

    Imagine spending years decrying federal intervention in the home mortgage market; pointing out the dangers associated with legislation such as the Community Reinvestment Act that forces lenders to make more risky loans than they otherwise would; testifying before Congress on the lack of oversight and inevitable insolvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to legislators who angrily respond either that one is "exaggerat[ing] a threat of safety and soundness . . . which I do not see" (Barney Frank) or "[I[f it ain’t broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs [government-sponsored enterprises] ever missed their housing goals" (Maxine Waters) or "[T[he problem that we have and that we are faced with is maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place" (Gregory Meeks) or that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are "one of the great success stories of all time" (Christopher Dodd); and arguing that the moral hazard created by the implicit federal backing of such privately-owned government-sponsored enterprises is likely to set off a wave of unjustifiably risky investments, and then, when the housing market implodes under the weight of bad loans, watching the collapse get blamed on the greed and rapaciousness of "Wall Street."

    I remember attending a lecture at Georgetown in the mid-1990s given by a member of the libertarian Cato Institute in which he predicted that, unless changed, government policy would trigger an economic crisis by 2006. That prediction was obviously ideologically-motivated alarmism. After all, the crisis did not occur until 2008.

    Libertarians spend their lives accurately predicting the future effects of government policy. Their predictions are accurate because they are derived from Hayek’s insights into the limitations of human knowledge, from the recognition that the people who comprise the government respond to incentives just like anyone else and are not magically transformed to selfless agents of the good merely by accepting government employment, from the awareness that for government to provide a benefit to some, it must first take it from others, and from the knowledge that politicians cannot repeal the laws of economics. For the same reason, their predictions are usually negative and utterly inconsistent with the utopian wishful-thinking that lies at the heart of virtually all contemporary political advocacy. And because no one likes to hear that he cannot have his cake and eat it too or be told that his good intentions cannot be translated into reality either by waving a magic wand or by passing legislation, these predictions are greeted not merely with disbelief, but with derision.

    It is human nature to want to shoot the messenger bearing unwelcome tidings. And so, for the sin of continually pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, libertarians are attacked as heartless bastards devoid of compassion for the less fortunate, despicable flacks for the rich or for business interests, unthinking dogmatists who place blind faith in the free market, or, at best, members of the lunatic fringe.

    Cassandra’s curse was to always tell the truth about the future, but never be believed. If you add to that curse that she would be ridiculed, derided, and shunned for making her predictions, you have a pretty fair approximation of what it feels like to be a libertarian.

    If you’d like a taste of what it feels like to be a libertarian, try telling people that the incoming Obama Administration is advocating precisely those aspects of FDR’s New Deal that prolonged the great depression for a decade; that propping up failed and failing ventures with government money in order to save jobs in the present merely shifts resources from relatively more to relatively less productive uses, impedes the corrective process, undermines the economic growth necessary for recovery, and increases unemployment in the long term; and that any "economic" stimulus package will inexorably be made to serve political rather than economic ends, and see what kind of reaction you get. And trust me, it won’t feel any better five or ten years from now when everything you have just said has been proven true and Obama, like FDR, is nonetheless revered as the savior of the country.
    Thanks for sharing!

    The sad reality is that for the most part we are a pop-culture therefore having the leaders we deserve. The average 30 year old knows more about American Idol than the fiasco that is Washington DC.
    It's time we abandon our party affiliations and rather than being good Dems or good Repubs we all become good Americans. MJH345

  7. #37
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    10,794

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sabireley View Post
    I read this today in the LP news and thought it was worth sharing...

    John Hasnas
    Associate Professor
    McDonough School of Business
    Georgetown University

    Political analysts frequently consider what it means to be a libertarian. In fact, in 1997, Charles Murray published a short book entitled "What It Means to Be a Libertarian" that does an excellent job of presenting the core principles of libertarian political philosophy. But almost no one ever discusses what it feels like to be a libertarian. How does it actually feel to be someone who holds the principles described in Murray’s book?

    I’ll tell you. It feels bad. Being a libertarian means living with an almost unendurable level of frustration. It means being subject to unending scorn and derision despite being inevitably proven correct by events. How does it feel to be a libertarian? Imagine what the internal life of Cassandra must have been and you will have a pretty good idea.

    Imagine spending two decades warning that government policy is leading to a major economic collapse, and then, when the collapse comes, watching the world conclude that markets do not work.

    Imagine continually explaining that markets function because they have a built in corrective mechanism; that periodic contractions are necessary to weed out unproductive ventures; that continually loosening credit to avoid such corrections just puts off the day of reckoning and inevitably leads to a larger recession; that this is precisely what the government did during the 1920's that led to the great depression; and then, when the recession hits, seeing it offered as proof of the failure of laissez-faire capitalism.

    Imagine spending years decrying federal intervention in the home mortgage market; pointing out the dangers associated with legislation such as the Community Reinvestment Act that forces lenders to make more risky loans than they otherwise would; testifying before Congress on the lack of oversight and inevitable insolvency of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to legislators who angrily respond either that one is "exaggerat[ing] a threat of safety and soundness . . . which I do not see" (Barney Frank) or "[I[f it ain’t broke, why do you want to fix it? Have the GSEs [government-sponsored enterprises] ever missed their housing goals" (Maxine Waters) or "[T[he problem that we have and that we are faced with is maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place" (Gregory Meeks) or that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are "one of the great success stories of all time" (Christopher Dodd); and arguing that the moral hazard created by the implicit federal backing of such privately-owned government-sponsored enterprises is likely to set off a wave of unjustifiably risky investments, and then, when the housing market implodes under the weight of bad loans, watching the collapse get blamed on the greed and rapaciousness of "Wall Street."

    I remember attending a lecture at Georgetown in the mid-1990s given by a member of the libertarian Cato Institute in which he predicted that, unless changed, government policy would trigger an economic crisis by 2006. That prediction was obviously ideologically-motivated alarmism. After all, the crisis did not occur until 2008.

    Libertarians spend their lives accurately predicting the future effects of government policy. Their predictions are accurate because they are derived from Hayek’s insights into the limitations of human knowledge, from the recognition that the people who comprise the government respond to incentives just like anyone else and are not magically transformed to selfless agents of the good merely by accepting government employment, from the awareness that for government to provide a benefit to some, it must first take it from others, and from the knowledge that politicians cannot repeal the laws of economics. For the same reason, their predictions are usually negative and utterly inconsistent with the utopian wishful-thinking that lies at the heart of virtually all contemporary political advocacy. And because no one likes to hear that he cannot have his cake and eat it too or be told that his good intentions cannot be translated into reality either by waving a magic wand or by passing legislation, these predictions are greeted not merely with disbelief, but with derision.

    It is human nature to want to shoot the messenger bearing unwelcome tidings. And so, for the sin of continually pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, libertarians are attacked as heartless bastards devoid of compassion for the less fortunate, despicable flacks for the rich or for business interests, unthinking dogmatists who place blind faith in the free market, or, at best, members of the lunatic fringe.

    Cassandra’s curse was to always tell the truth about the future, but never be believed. If you add to that curse that she would be ridiculed, derided, and shunned for making her predictions, you have a pretty fair approximation of what it feels like to be a libertarian.

    If you’d like a taste of what it feels like to be a libertarian, try telling people that the incoming Obama Administration is advocating precisely those aspects of FDR’s New Deal that prolonged the great depression for a decade; that propping up failed and failing ventures with government money in order to save jobs in the present merely shifts resources from relatively more to relatively less productive uses, impedes the corrective process, undermines the economic growth necessary for recovery, and increases unemployment in the long term; and that any "economic" stimulus package will inexorably be made to serve political rather than economic ends, and see what kind of reaction you get. And trust me, it won’t feel any better five or ten years from now when everything you have just said has been proven true and Obama, like FDR, is nonetheless revered as the savior of the country.
    Thanks for sharing!

    The sad truth is that we are a pop-culture and have the leaders we deserve. The average 30 something year old knows more about American Idol than the fiasco that is Washington DC.
    It's time we abandon our party affiliations and rather than being good Dems or good Repubs we all become good Americans. MJH345

  8. #38
    Senior Member Ken Bora's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Burlington, Vermont
    Posts
    11,388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by subroc View Post
    How would a libertarian rise up in a 2 party system?
    Yes we have a 2 party system, have had it from the beginning. Yet we have not always had one of these 2 parties in power. George Washington did not belong to any political party when first elected. He later discovered he was a Federalist. In my last visit to my local polling place I voted for members of the republican, green, democratic, and progressive parties simply by voting for the best person for the job. Often swayed by those who took the time to stand on the front porch and get drooled and shed upon by the Chesapeakes….. That goes a long way with me. So how would a libertarian rise up? By having a solid message and campaigning it.
    "So what is big is not always the Trout nor the Deer but the chance, the being there. And what is full is not necessarily the creel nor the freezer, but the memory." ~ Aldo Leopold

    "The Greatest Obstacle to Discovery is not Ignorance -- It is the Illusion of Knowledge" ~ Daniel Boorstin

Similar Threads

  1. Dow tops 9,000 as home sales rise for 3rd month
    By Roger Perry in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 170
    Last Post: 08-30-2010, 08:10 PM
  2. $247 Billion in Medicaid not counted in healthcare costs!
    By Eric Johnson in forum POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-22-2009, 11:30 AM
  3. Which trainer to choose--small-time or big-time?
    By Obabikon in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-28-2009, 01:00 PM
  4. Transformers Rise of the Fallen GDG
    By Jason Glavich in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-24-2009, 02:55 PM
  5. Sun rise photos& funny story
    By D1 in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-21-2008, 07:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •