When will American's embrace Libertarian views? (Page 2)

I hear what you are saying... but for me, I'm tired of voting for evil. And if it is between evil and nothing, I'll take nothing. I'm done playing a part.

Yeah.....I feel that way.  I've never missed my chance to participate in an election.....but I'll opt out too.  I'm done.  If all I get is the "lesser of two evils"......I'll stay home.

It's Friday night, for heaven's sake.  Social Liberals have numerous opportunities to violate the moral code of the Religious Right.  I'm just out having a good time, trying to hold up my end of the failed social experiment.  CHEERS! 

And they are in no way a threat to the U.S. Sorry, they're not. They are a threat to do a terrorist attack... but that has nothing to do with the nation. It is a law enforcement issue. It's a black ops mission... it isn't projecting global military power, and playing Globo Cop because Syria isn't playing nice.

Not even close to being the same thing. I have no problem fighting guerrilla warfare with guerrilla warfare. And if you want to attack our country, then you are an enemy of the state... and a drone or men dressed in black will see you soon. Other than that, everyone needs to come home... and maybe, just maybe, if we stop interjecting ourselves into everyone else's business, then maybe we can be done with all this nonsense.

Staying home is fine. That puts more power into the hands of the politicians... No vote means no voice, means no need to take any of what the citizens cares are into consideration.

It's actually more important to get out there on election day to vote for your local politicians.. Far more important than than the presidential election. Your congressmen and senators need to be held responsible for their actions. The ONLY way that is possible is with voter turnout. 

The Libertarian view is NOT isolationist anyway.  I don't know why some folks take the position that we either have to be in everyone's business or we are isolationist.  Perhaps, just perhaps, the taxpayer dollar can go just for national defense and not to become the offense for a large number of other sovereign nations. 

No.

Here's the thing about history... it isn't necessarily right or wrong... there is just YOUR take on it. Or Founders did not want a military Empire such as England's. Our only taxes were tariffs and we did not go about the globe forcing things that favored us... all the way up till WWII. We most certainly played our part in stoking the Cold War. We were just as aggressive as Russia. We have interjected our selves into every corner of the world, in this Global Policy every since... because some how or another, we think we can't be safe here, if the rest of the world isn't.

Yet this country thrived and flourished for a long time with no such policy. And today, one can certainly make the case that all this hatred for our country in the world, is a direct response to our involvement in it. I do not think America is some oppressive military Empire. Nor do I think it is "justified" do what extremist do. But I also do not see a strong case for us being safer because we have taken the world by the horns and controlled it to our "benefit" through military action.

You want to know what I see as a threat to the U.S. ... unsustainable military spending. Unsustainable military control over the globe. Endless military engagements that keep our country in a state of fear and aggressiveness. I see those things as a much bigger threat to this nation than terrorists.

yes

That sounds great on paper... but what exactly do you have control over? Voting for evil or voting for evil? If both parties are now controlled by money, and both parties only do what benefits them and their money, then how is voting solving anything?

Not voting only puts more power in the hands that do. But it does not change anything since both votes are bad.

You say hold them accountable, but how is voting for them doing that? All they do is the same thing... they say one thing and do another. So you hold them accountable and vote for someone else from the same R or D pool and all you did was change the name... because you still have another R or D that said one thing and did another.

Now if a significant number of voters decided to vote for a third party, and a R or a D could not get elected, that accomplishes something. Yet so far that has not happened. I'm not sure it will.

About the only thing I could see working is a concerted effort to hold their feet to the fire, then do a recall if they don't do what they said. But doing recall elections all over the country when they don't act right seems more unlikely than a 3rd party voting block.

Honestly, who can argue with cynicism? If one choses not to vote, then they lose their voice. period. 

So then what you are saying is that playing Pollyanna is much better?

I want you to explain to me how voting for evil is a good use of your "voice"?

OK

That's a very subjective assumption..

Again, I am not arguing that one doesn't have their citizen right not to vote.

If you make that choice then, as LB wrote.. OK.

I get to choose for you. 

Don't screw it up.

Well then you simply have it wrong. Sorry, but you do.

...and real quick, I never said it was voting for the lesser of two evils... someone else did. And if you took a poll, the majority would say they are doing exactly that. Not voting for the person that is most representitive of their views... but the lesser of two evils. It is what I have done for the alst few election cycles.

"Less government" is not what has concentrated wealth. And "deregulation" didn't either. There is no such thing as "free markets". There hasn't been for about 200 years. What there has been is politicians rigging the game. And every single one of them does it.

What do you think subsidies for solar are? It's rigging the game to benefit those that own solar companies. Oh ya, but it has to compete with coal. Do you know why coal is so cheap... well, because they have rigged the game to stifle competion. So that has nothing to do with free markets. It has to do with one guy rigging the game, then the next to suit him, then the next to suit him... and 200 years later you have the mess we are in.

"Less government" is doing away with all that, and providing a level playing field for ALL. That is the role of government in a free market capitalist economy. Not to pick winners and loosers, but to provide a field where all can play, and the best wins. Wealth is being concentrated by the ridiculous tax code and endless regulations with sweet heart back door deals and loop holes. That's MORE government intervention that has caused this.

And so then your solution to all this is more regulation, and more rigging of the game to fix the rigging of the game. How in the world do expect that to solve the problem of the game being rigged?

You are doing a terrible job.

Not anything you need to concern your pretty little head about... 

Not to single you out...

But I think this is the first major hurdle for a more libertarian Washington. We all hate the two party system but many of us feed into it by "voting for the lesser of two evils". 

I personally struggled with this the last time around. Was a vote for Johnson a vote I was taking away from Romney that would keep him from beating Obama? Was Romney the lesser of the two evils? 

The more I see the more I find that both parties are exactly the same. Both are for big government and for big spending, they just both think they can do it better than the other. All they do is try to predict what style of pandering they need to win and then once in they do what they want.

So for me, I will no longer vote based on the lesser of two evils premise. I will vote for the person who I want to represent me no matter their chance of winning. Until we all decide to do that, the two party system will never go away.

I was encouraged to see how many votes Johnson got, if we all vote our convictions and not whichever loser the R's or D's present to us I think we can see a shift away from the 2 party system where they get more and we get less.