I mean you can keep beating your head against the wall pretending that your battle is the equivalent of trying to rid the world of crime or you can think about this in a political context. Why is it that RP usually gets like 4 or 5 percent of the vote? Why does that happen?
What does that matter?
If the Republican Party goes any further right or just towards libertarianism in any significant way, it risks losing the religious right, it risks losing the social conservatives it risks losing the minor amount of support it gets from minorities and most importantly, it risks losing the centrists/independents who kinda swing back and forth depending on the candidate and the platform. You cannot win election with 10 percent of the general vote.
Rush Limbaugh has 15 million listeners
Sean Hannity has 14 million listeners
Levin has 6.25 million listeners
Gullible people.
Thus according to some, that is a ‘security risk.’ They have an implicit argument that for the US to be safe we need to be self-sufficient and thus protectionist.
NAFTA isn’t free trade.
Well, we can’t just keep borrowing from the Chinese forever. It would be nice if we weren’t so reliant on them.
Well there is a difference between deficient spending and free trade. I’m against the debt and deficient spending so yes I would like to see a decrease of borrowing from China. However, in asking for that decrease I am not saying we should close down our borders or that individuals who voluntarily exchange with the Chinese people should be shut down.
I’m not either. Who said this?
Yes. It would also be nice if the country would live within its means, if we didn’t have a negative savings rate, and if people could differentiate between starving and having fewer cars. It would also be nice if we didn’t live within one bubble after another since 1912. What has your party done about this? Smeared its one member who brings it up, mostly. Let’s not forget who killed this idea last time (before 1912) they tried it. He was no Republican, you might recall.
Sure it matters. You are slamming a strategy as inefficient all the while your own strategy has been even more so.
From what I understand, the business cycle goes back to way before the creation of the Fed. All RP points out is that when the Fed gets monetary policy wrong (which it inevitably does) you get an exaggerated boom with an exaggerated bust. But bubbles can and have happened without central banks and they have happened with central banks. There is no guarantee against bubbles and busts. They’re part of the game. They can happen as long as credit expansions and monetary expansions can occur. What the central bank does is it creates the illusion of safety and also exacerbates booms and busts by simply creating bigger credit and monetary expansions than would probably otherwise be possible. The safety illusion isn’t entirely untrue. I mean, they were able to contain this recession. All they’ve done is kick the can, but it looks good for a while.
Anyways, the central bank is never going to be undone. Never. It’s too convenient for both parties to essentially have a government financing arm. It’s also incredibly convenient for the major member banks to have unlimited financing in the event that they become more insolvent than usual. Also, the central bank gives them someone to turn to whenever depositors get worried. I mean there are too many people who stand to gain from the existence of a central bank.
As far as people learning to live within their means, it could happen. But it doesn’t seem like enough humans have a medium to long term time preference, so there’s always going to be people willing to spend beyond their means in the short term without regard for long term consequences. No political party can change human nature.
What I’m trying to say is that there is nothing we (as Republicans) can do about these problems from a political standpoint. Too few people have any real reason to be upset with the things that bother most libertarians. So we have to cater to the broader trends. For Republicans, it’s religion and protecting established money and adhering to traditional values. That’s our brand name and the limited government side is a minority. I’m a minority within my own party. RP and Jim Demint are the only two guys who really say the things I agree with. End rant.
I’m just saying, the Libertarian platform will never have a broad audience. It never has. Libertarians are marginal.
I actually think the real question should be: do libertarians hurt the Republicans? I think the obvious answer is yes. If RP (or any other candidate) runs on a libertarian ticket and pulls even 5 percent of the vote away from the two major parties, that can turn the tides toward the side that doesn’t suffer from that pull away of votes. So really, the main thing the libertarian party can do is reduce votes for Republicans. That hurts us.
Good!
Unless you are gay, or like drugs, or are non-christian.
Anti-sodomy laws, Jim Crow, apartheid, the war on drugs, blue laws for liquor, etc. I don’t understand how economic freedom could not completely coexist with these laws. It would just be selective freedom.
Libertarians are marginal because there are so few. People like you number in the tens of millions jet still you are just as marginal in your influence. And you are going to continue to be so as long as Republicans can take your vote for granted.
So don’t tell us about how “libertarians hurt themselves in the political arena”. You’re not qualified.
Alright, whatever.
I’m not gay, I don’t do drugs, and I’m not Christian but they’re really not trying to force me to be Christian. Yet.
As much as I obviously detest many of the things you listed, they don’t/wouldn’t affect me as directly as taxes do. But they’re still important to me. Just not as important as being able to keep my money. I’m pretty straight laced tbh. Also, I’m white.
BTW, Jackson, I must admit you make some good points. Didn’t want you to think I didn’t realize the points you were making.
I think this mentality has allowed our government to get to the level where it’s gotten today. “Oh it’s perfectly fine if we place taxes and/or crackdown on such and such because it doesn’t affect me”
And we still see it today and people are proud to brandish their myopic views.
I think the Republican platform and party is particularly harmful because it revolves around completely deceitful tactics. Besides, more often than not as in specific cases (like my father, for example) Republicans will make themselves look like arrant ninnys in the process ( anyone that smears Reagan is not for free enterprise, even when that person raises the question of TEFRA and his protectionist policies).
But, to be quite honest with you guys, I honestly don’t believe there is such a thing as the left-right paradigm in this country ( I don’t necessarily care for conspiracy theories) just look at the American politics of the past 60 years.
It’s more of just at what pace are we going to dismantle this countrys economy and destroy the future(s) of our posterity (while making ourselves richer in the process).
It takes the utmost patience to look a registered Republican in the eye and not tell him what you really think of his politics. Especially when they bring mercantalist economic policies into play and proceed to call you an idiot because you disagree.
I’m not saying that you specifically have it. I’m saying that it is a general position of the Republican party. Sure there are free-trade people who are in the Republican party who are trying to reform this position but they are on the margin.