I agree, it has become something different. I would make the point again though that the country is ripe for not a third party but a second party of limited government. There are those on the left who are socially conscious and want to solve poverty, homelessness and education but are starting to become uncomfortable at the progressive’s movement toward large centralized government. On the right those who have settled in the conservative branch of the republican party have become disenfranchised with the bank bailouts last year and the conservative platform of legislating morality and larger military interventionism overseas. I think a party that ran as a ‘second party’ replacement of republican or democratic party could pull the left and the right into it. When you study the dissolution of the Whig party although different issues there were similar dynamics at work that had many move from Whig and Democratic-Republican party into the Republican party. Unfortunately the conservative movement within Republican party is looking at recent elections and polls showing declining favorability of Democrats as a mandate for a conservative platform. Both parties solutions are big government but their way. I think we need to present directly to the American people an alternative.
I like this idea. I think the hardest part will be branding the party and getting the ideas it represents into the public consciousness so they don’t feel strange, foreign or unknown.
In a way, I think this is what the tea party movement represents to an extent: a demand for a return to conservative principles within the Republican party. And I think that maybe if it were sold right, it might even be able to draw some Democrats in.
My hope is that the conservative image gets redone so i can go back to calling myself a conservative without having people think it means I’m a “racist” or that I want to institutionalize hatred for gays or make sure creationism is taught in public schools.
Great points regarding Tea Party movement. I also participated in first one. Regarding the word ‘conservative’ and general values of the conservative movement. The progressives and the conservatives have done a good job at defining issues/solutions and marginalize alternatives (as you mentioned in previous post) to those two camps and a moderate position which is a mix of the two. There was an interesting article in the Financial Times this morning criticizing the climate-gate incident and how there’s a bias and marginalization of ideas within scientific community. The article makes the point that Science is objective but Scientists are not, In politics you have that as well and for a new movement to happen it needs to define itself and differentiate between the two parties. The nay sayers who believe we should stay in the process of the two parties and effect change and compromise, I might have agreed with before the influence of internet and its decentralizing of information. People are not stupid, they may be lacking information, they may have given up on Washington, but offered an alternative I think you could see a mass exodus out of both parties. The key in demographically building a new party is to pull from the right and the left.
I hate to say it my friends but if the idea of the libertarian party becoming a viable 3rd option is incompatible with our current system. We would have to replace one of the other two parties. Furthermore, in doing so we would loose the substance of the libertarian party as we know it. It would not be any better then the republican party and the core principles of libertarianism would be conveniently tossed under a rug.
Furthermore if you have strong reservations in your personal philosophies which seems to conflict on these matters then I strongly urge you to continue reading the core principles of libertarian thought. Your missing several irrefutable points economists and philosophers ahead of you have already made.
I refuse to accept that libertarians will be relegated to complaining about the state forever with no recourse for taking action because it conflicts with their “core principles” and " irrefutable economic and philosophical points." You might be right. But I think there is a way to get limited government.
That’s an extreme idea.
Perhaps it is. Especially nowadays.
The Internet may solve this problem before any of us really gets the chance to.
‘Furthermore, in doing so we would loose the substance of the libertarian party as we know it. It would not be any better then the republican party and the core principles of libertarianism would be conveniently tossed under a rug.’
I’ve heard it said that trying to get Libertarians together on anything is like ‘herding cats’. To be honest, I don’t want to be a proverbial ‘freedom fighter’ who sits around sipping coffee and spewing libertarian jarbs and shooting down the next good idea. Then go home to work my crummy government job, pay my mandatory taxes and suffer under my mandated poor health care. I became a granddad for the first time yesterday (most of you are probably under 25 and haven’t lived yet). Let’s get off are arses and do something! BTW - it is not extreme - they’ve moved the Overton Window on you. Universal health care is extreme. Nationalizing auto industry is extreme.
I agree to that statement. I wish my Gdad was more like you. 
Seconded.
Do you see what I did there?[:)]
Sure. You’ve pointed out that your position and my position will both be considered extreme by some if not many. I think you’re probably right.
you got it. [Y]
cool…[:)]