Moonbat Libertarians
Bill has a good summary of the problems with the Libertarian party:
I would also issue a valid executive order to the BATF and other pseudo police agencies informing them that any agent who confiscates a weapon of any kind, from someone who is not currently engaged in a murder or robbery, will not only be terminated from their position, but they will also be prosecuted for violating the unalienable rights of the citizens they have sworn to protect. …
So says Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate for President. The Libertarians need to limit this notion that they’re going to get into government and disband everything. They need to take a moderate libertarian approach and recognize that people do, in fact, need government to do some things. One commenter quipped:
60 to 80% of Americans support medical marijuana.
Less than .5% support the Lib(ertarian)s.
In other words their support is 1/100th of their potential market.
And why do the Libertarians devote so much of their resources to the presidency? They really need to focus on local and state elections to garner a base.
June 1st, 2004 at 5:48 pm
Libertarians here have managed to get a fairly full slate of candidates in the recent past. Unfortunately, they’re still only getting “margin-of-error” levels of votes.
I’m looking forward to seeing how they do this year, but I’m afraid I’m going to have to vote for a Republican for Congress. I want my “I-support-the-assault-weapons-ban-because-it-keeps-guns-out-of-the-hands-of-criminals-and-The-Children-and-doesn’t-infringe-on-the-rights-of-hunters-and-sportsmen” Democrat congresscritter to LOSE LOSE LOSE!
June 2nd, 2004 at 10:40 am
If you think that the “lesser of two evils” is a good reason to vote for someone you don’t win, at least do the Libertarians the favor of thinking strategically. You may not choose to vote for a Libertarian if the race really is close, but the outcome of such races is rarely in significant doubt. Voting for a candidate who represents your views is a good way to make whoever ends up in office take notice of your views.
June 2nd, 2004 at 3:18 pm
Unfortunately, as long as the libertarian party is defined by mary jane, we will retain our two party system. And along those same lines, using mary jane as a litmus test for libertarians is a good way to alienate conservatives who would otherwise be allies. Perhaps libertarians should focus on their core message of smaller government with less intrusion where it doesn’t belong as opposed to how that core message relates to their recreational activities….
June 2nd, 2004 at 6:35 pm
Good post.
James
June 2nd, 2004 at 7:32 pm
If you’re hearing a focus on the drug war, you’re hearing a focus on one of the major causes for our national transformation into a police state. It’s not about “recreational activities”, it’s about freedom. Ending the war on drugs is a major step on the road to smaller government in general.
I don’t use recreational drugs besides caffeine, but I still think the drug war is a horrid waste of our nation’s resources.
June 3rd, 2004 at 12:29 pm
We obviously disagree on the war on drugs, although I will concede that the WOD, right or wrong, definitely has its problems. But I think that my general point is still valid: if libertarians want to become mainstream it will happen only when they change people’s minds about the role of government. At the very least it is a question of marketing. Which libertarian would have the most influence over the average citizen: the one advocating the decriminalization of drugs, or the one promising real reform in government spending? Even if you take the “WOD is a waste of money” angle, most people will still see you as a bunch of potheads looking for legal weed.
June 3rd, 2004 at 1:30 pm
I’m OK with advocating decriminalization of drugs. What I’m not OK with is hearing the LP’s standard bearer make stupid, unsupportable arguments in favor of it. Reasonable people can argue that prohibition causes more problems than it solves, that legalization will lead to modest increases only, or even that individual autonomy is so fundamentally important that we should repeal drug laws regardless of the consequences. But you almost have to be on drugs to believe Badnarik’s claim that legalization or decriminalization would cause fewer children to take them.
June 1st, 2004 at 11:43 am
Ich bin ein Looneytarianer
Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate for President spoiler, has an interesting explanation of the LP’s support for drug legalization. Get a load of this:
War on Drugs
The government’s war on drugs violates the rights of Americans so egreg…
June 2nd, 2004 at 10:36 am
“Say Uncle” complains about the Libertarian Party…
“Say Uncle” complains about the Libertarian Party…