John McAfee Denied Libertarian Party Nomination For President (reason.com)

SonicSpike quotes an article at Reason: In a decisive rout for pragmatism over purity, the Libertarian Party has nominated former New Mexico Republican Governor and 2012 nominee Gary Johnson for president. Johnson came within an eyelash of winning on the first ballot, pulling 49.5 percent of the vote, just short of the required majority. (Libertarian activist Austin Petersen and software magnate John McAfee came in second and third, respectively, with 21.3 percent and 14.1 percent.) With sixth-place finisher Kevin McCormick (and his 0.973 percent of the vote) booted from the second ballot, Johnson sailed through with 55.8 percent.
John Mcafee answered questions here on Slashdot in 2013. Reason's article includes a video of their interview this weekend with the party's official nominee Gary Johnson, who hopes to qualify for the nationally-televised presidential debates by drawing 15% of the support in national opinion polls.

Comments

"software magnate"

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what kind of magnate he is these days, but it's certainly not one of software. As for the Libertarian party's efforts inside the single-party system, postering as a two-party system, and sometimes as a democracy, that the U.S. is; much fuss for nothing.

Re:"software magnate"

[Applehu Akbar]

They didn't want the campaign slogan to be "Uninstall McAfee" and they especially didn't want Hillary to call herself, "America's Security Essentials."

Re:"software magnate"

[fustakrakich]

single-party system, postering as a two-party system

You're full of shit. There are at least four choices available for president. The voter is the only limiting factor.

Re:"software magnate"

[ShanghaiBill]

There are at least four choices available for president. The voter is the only limiting factor.

Also, third parties do not need to win to matter. The Green Party campaign in 2000 cost the Democrats the election, and sent a clear message that they could lose more votes on the left than they were gaining in the center. Likewise, the Libertarians show that there is a constituency for free market economics without the intolerant social conservatism. Someday the Republicans may stop worrying about toilets and go after those votes. Or maybe the Democrats will start focusing on growing the pie instead of how to slice it up.

The purpose of 3rd parties is to push new ideas into the Overton Window, and get the major parties to adopt them. If you look at American party platfoms in 1900, the most successful political party over the next 100 years was the Socialist Workers Party. They advocated public pensions, welfare, unemployment pay, and free healthcare for the elderly. They didn't win many elections, but all of those policies were adopted, and are now the law of the land.

If you want to make a difference, vote 3rd party, and send a message. This is especially true if you live in non-swing state, as most Americans do, where your vote is otherwise meaningless.

Re:"software magnate"

[fustakrakich]

No, an intentionally 'weak' candidate that presented no real opposition cost the democrats the elections in 2000 (Re, 1968). And this is the intention now. This whole "spoiler" angle is a fraud. A guilt trip brought on by the loser's voters who believe they are entitled to our votes and try to blame us for everything that went wrong.

The Overton Window needs to be smashed. In fact the wall containing it needs to be demolished.

Re:"software magnate"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and you're a Nazi stooge. Please go away.

Re:"software magnate"

[Skuld-Chan]

This is such a myth. Al Gore gave up on Florida recounts where he actually won, and also he couldn't even win his home state - which would have put him over the top anyhow.

Re:"software magnate"

[dgatwood]

Also, third parties do not need to win to matter. The Green Party campaign in 2000 cost the Democrats the election, and sent a clear message that they could lose more votes on the left than they were gaining in the center.

And yet here we are just four presidential elections later, and the Democrats are leaning towards former Secretary Clinton. You can send a clear message all that you want to, but that doesn't make any difference if the people on the other end don't even bother to read the message.

If you look at American party platfoms in 1900, the most successful political party over the next 100 years was the Socialist Workers Party. They advocated public pensions, welfare, unemployment pay, and free healthcare for the elderly.

Maybe, but it could also be argued that they had no effect at all, and that instead, the rise of muckrakers and investigative journalism brought sunshine to dark corners of public policy. It could easily be argued that the decline of American politics into pure noise has been caused by the decline of the news media as a career choice for the best and brightest, caused in turn by a combination of media consolidation and chronically low wages. (Great pun in that last sentence, too.)

If you want to make a difference, vote 3rd party, and send a message. This is especially true if you live in non-swing state, as most Americans do, where your vote is otherwise meaningless.

If I thought that message would have an effect, I would do that. I probably will anyway, but I wouldn't blame the people who don't bother. Unfortunately, at this point, our system of democracy is so broken that, at least at the federal level, our votes are almost as meaningless as in the mock elections that we used to joke about in other countries. The two parties are indistinguishable on all the issues that actually matter and have a nonzero chance of actually resulting in changes to our laws.

You basically have some wedge issues like abortion and the death penalty that tend to divide the parties, with the Republicans coming down on the moral side of abortion and the public good side of the death penalty, and Democrats choosing the opposite sides. These issues are so complex and thorny that nobody wants to touch them beyond using them as a cheap 30-second sound bite, which means no matter who you vote for, we're not going to see anything happen in either area. The only way either will change is through ballot measures.

And then you have the core issues, like privacy, national security, the economy, etc. In these areas, although there's ostensibly a huge difference between the parties, in practice, they're nearly identical.

On the economy, Democrats tax and spend, while Republicans borrow and spend, devaluing the dollar, effectively taxing and spending. In a perverse way, the Republican approach in that area turns out to be more fair because it taxes the rich more than the poor, proportional to their savings and income, but they make up for it by trying to shove regressive tax structures down our throats, so it's basically a wash. At best, Democrats avoid more of the really foolish decisions like lowering taxes on the ultra-wealthy, but that's like saying that shooting yourself in the foot is better than shooting yourself in the gut. It is technically true, but either way, you're still shooting yourself. Neither party is fiscally conservative, because neither party has the self-control to limit spending.

About the only area where they differ meaningfully is in their approach to regulations—whether they favor regulations or trust in the free market. Unfortunately, neither approach works all that well. Both work under certain circumstances. Neither party seems to recognize that, or acknowledge that there are situations where their approach falls apart. This mostly results in bad regulations that don't have the desired effect, coupled with missing r

Re:"software magnate"

[ShanghaiBill]

And yet here we are just four presidential elections later, and the Democrats are leaning towards former Secretary Clinton.

But now the leftist insurgency that Ralph Nader headed in 2000 is happening inside the Democratic party, and instead of getting 1% of the vote, Bernie Sanders has 40%. He isn't winning, but he is doing way better than Ralph did.

Meanwhile, Trump is dragging the Republican Party away from hardline social conservatism (he isn't anti-gay, doesn't care which toilet people use, and is no ideologue about abortion) and focusing instead on economic issues that people (apparently) care about far more.

Re:"software magnate"

[Anonymous Coward]

and who decided who ends up on the ballots for the primaries?

Re:"software magnate"

[dgatwood]

But now the leftist insurgency that Ralph Nader headed in 2000 is happening inside the Democratic party, and instead of getting 1% of the vote, Bernie Sanders has 40%. He isn't winning, but he is doing way better than Ralph did.

Either way, the result is the same, whether the left votes for somebody else or doesn't bother to show up on election day. They failed to learn the real lesson, which was that a centrist Democrat can only win if that candidate is popular and energetic and enthusiastic (like Bill Clinton) and doesn't act like a Republican. If you have a choice between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the Republican will win every time—doubly so if the Republican acts enough like a Democrat.

The only good news is that the President's power is limited by Congress, so no matter who we pick, there's only so much damage that he/she can do in four years, and then we have a chance to try again and maybe get it right this time.

Re:"software magnate"

[fustakrakich]

The voters... Everything depends on the initiative of the voters... The whole routine. This very moment they could turn their back on the the republicans and democrats, turning their money into fertilizer, and make it a race between the Libertarians and the Greens. It is strictly their choice to make.

Re:"software magnate"

[Anonymous Coward]

Algore LOST in FL. After the Supreme Court judgement, when there were no more clocks, the media dug up the votes and manually added everything - chads and all - and still found Bush winning by a whisker. But still winning

Re:"software magnate"

[CAIMLAS]

Sadly, the fact that Johnson is absolutely not "libertarian" and is basically "Donald Trump with Pro-Pot Support" really doesn't push anything new into the political arena, given that in the past 4 years we've seen a move towards near-national pro-pot support at the state level...

Re:"software magnate"

[Coren22]

By the time the elections come around, the Democrats might no longer have a candidate. Is it possible to continue running for President while indicted on federal charges?

Why do we need US political topics?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this on Slashdot? McAfee is a nutjob who hasn't mattered in tech for a couple of decades. This is a political story, and they're always US-centric on here. Why not focus on European politics? The Brexit is far more important than anything going on the US.

Re:Why do we need US political topics?

[Anonymous Coward]

The U.S. is the biggest circus and political clown-force-farcical there is, and in their own minds they matter more than anyone else, and thus deserve the most attention. Who said you can't campaign for 48 months before the actual voting begins?

Re:Why do we need US political topics?

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

If TTIP gets through, the US's broken system will be exported. By "broken" I mean the way that wealthy lobbying groups bribe/finance politicians to get them to pass the laws they want. Simple corruption.

Re:Why do we need US political topics?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the U.S. has a monopoly on corruption. Nobody in any other country is corrupt like they are here.

Grow up and pull your head out. Jackass.

Re:Why do we need US political topics?

[Rei]

Or the fact that the head of Russia's Liberal Democratic Party just stated that he thinks that Russia should obliterate the Faroe Islands as a show of force?

Re:Why do we need US political topics?

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

If - taking a country pretty much at random - Nigeria is corrupt, it does not affect me. If lobbyists in the US get to write their own laws and those laws are then exported to a country I live in via TTIP, that affects me personally. Capito?

Re: Why do we need US political topics?

[Anonymous Coward]

You say "knows", present tense, as if that election is still unresolved. Which implies that you still -- almost sixteen years later -- reject the findings of every recount -- both official and unofficial -- that found George W. Bush to be the legitimate winner.

What's it like to hold a grudge like that? I'm genuinely curious.

Re: Why do we need US political topics?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have -- to be honest -- to admit that I have no idea -- metaphorically speaking -- what you are talking about.

Re:Why do we need US political topics?

[Anonymous Coward]

> If TTIP gets through, the US's broken system will be exported. By "broken" I mean the way that wealthy lobbying groups bribe/finance politicians [...]

Ha, ha, ha. The EU system is more or less as broken as the US is. Guess with whom the EU commissars spend most of their time? Lobbyists (an example here).

Of course the whole purpose of TTIP is to render this broken process ever more efficient. That's why I oppose it.

Remember: rot and corruption is universal. Gotta fight it at home first.

Re: Why do we need US political topics?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Reading about petty US politics that have zero impact around the world is uninteresting. Not saying that /. should abandon US-centric stories altogether, but maybe increase diversity around the topic a bit. Add a few stories from Europe and elsewhere too.

Re:Why do we need US political topics?

[ShanghaiBill]

Nobody in any other country is corrupt like they are here.

This is true. No other country is corrupt in the way that America is corrupt. In other countries, corruption is illegal. Only in America are our most corrupt practices fully legal and right out in the open. Hillary didn't take under the table bribes from Wall Street bankers. Nope, they donated millions to her super-PAC and paid her over $600k in "speaking fees". This was all above board, and reported to the FEC and IRS.

Re: Why do we need US political topics?

[ArmoredDragon]

Or, you're posting to a US based website, hence it is going to focus more on events in the US, just like any other domestic website in any other country would do.

Re:Why do we need US political topics?

[Anonymous Coward]

"No other country is corrupt in the way that America is corrupt. In other countries, corruption is illegal"

Because Zionists.

Re:Why do we need US political topics?

[fustakrakich]

Oh, but it's not "corruption" at all. Everything will consume as much and grow as big as it can until it bumps into some resistance. It is nature, it is life. All things truly are equal. That would include us.

Re: Why do we need US political topics?

[Mr. Slippery]

Which implies that you still -- almost sixteen years later -- reject the findings of every recount -- both official and unofficial -- that found George W. Bush to be the legitimate winner.

1.) State and federal law and international treaty put a variety of requirements on the Florida 2000 selection of electors. These laws were not followed. Ergo Florida never sent a legitimate set of electors to cast their ballots.

2.) The complete Florida recount done by researchers found that, despite the illegal disenfranchisement of many voters, using the "clear intent" standard Gore got more votes in 2000 in Florida than Bush did. The press coverage universally buried the lede and talked about how the limited recounts Gore called for would have left Bush the winner.

Those are the facts. Those of us who push for history to recognize them, and for the political system to make sure the situation does not re-occur, are not "holding a grudge".

Re:Why do we need US political topics?

[epyT-R]

Because this is a US based site. Take your euro (or whatever) supremacist attitude somewhere else. There's no reason we can't cover both.

Re: Why do we need US political topics?

[sumdumass]

Your facts are wrong. The laws were followed including the time limits to certify the results of the election. Florida certainly did send legitimate electors.

Oh, and international law only applies to a country if that country accepts it's application by treaty or if it is imposed by subjugation of their sovereignty. So if you want to cite international law, you must show where we are subject to it. But the supreme court case specifically dealt with this already and said you could not change the rules mid process which is why they could not recount the votes enough for Gore to win in the allotted time span.

Re:Why do we need US political topics?

[Anonymous Coward]

Either you are laughably naive and know nothing of the world or you're being sarcastic and I just missed it.

Re:Why do we need US political topics?

[Anonymous Coward]

because it's neither news for nerds, or stuff that matters?
news for Druggie suspected Murderers maybe

Re:Why do we need US political topics?

[Shirley Marquez]

McAfee has a history as a successful tech entrepreneur and is therefore relevant to Slashdot. He founded McAfee Associates, an early anti-virus company, in 1987; he resigned in 1994 and sold his stake shortly after that. Afterward, he had successful investments in Tribal Voice and Zone Labs. But still later he lost a lot of his fortune due to bad investments and the 2007 financial crash, which caused heavy losses on his stock holdings and his mansions. He continues to start and invest in tech companies.

You have an excellent point about the importance of the Brexit. The site hasn't been completely silent on the subject - see https://politics.slashdot.org/... and https://politics.slashdot.org/... - but there is plenty of room for more discussion of this story.

Re:Why do we need US political topics?

[Coren22]

Look up at the URL of the site you are on, I don't know if you knew this or not, but .org is a US domain, not an EU domain.

Nope, Nope, and double Nope...

[Anonymous Coward]

While Trump is Crazy (like a fox), McAfee is insane...

CAP === 'mortared'

Purity?

[msauve]

McAfee? Purity? They must be talking about his drugs.

Re:Purity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why doesn't he start a "Hookers and Blow" party?

Re:Purity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Purity's referring to Petersen, not McAfee. The summary and title is trying to give McAfee more billing than the original article did, presumably to at least try to be relevant to /.

Re:Purity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Reason apparently thinks pure libertarians are by definition, insane.

Reading Rainbow!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to have a librarian as my president, even if he hates books about viruses!

Lost, not 'denied'

[BitZtream]

He wasn't denied, he just plain lost. Theres a difference.

Denied is a sensationalist headline trying to get clicks.

Lost is the reality of a batshit crazy nut job 'running' for president.

The real story here is that he got any votes at all.

The only question though ... is WHY THE FUCK IS THIS ON SLASHDOT?

Don't care when he shits either, just for reference.

Re:Lost, not 'denied'

[tpgp]

Lost is the reality of a batshit crazy nut job 'running' for president.

*crickets*

Re:Lost, not 'denied'

[mwvdlee]

LMFTFY

Lost is the reality of a not sufficiently batshit crazy nut job 'running' for president.

Re:Lost, not 'denied'

[bill_mcgonigle]

If there's such a thing as "hive mind" here, John is aligned with it very closely.

Take any of the political issues (Snowden, NDAA, DMCA, TPP, etc.) or any of the technocratic issues (copyrighting API's, backdooring NIST standards, etc.) and McAfee was the Slashdot candidate.

I see no evidence at all that Trump or Clinton are any more sane than McAfee.

I see no evidence that Obama is any more moral than McAfee.

He likes to portray the "bad boy" image, and he seems to have some wild ideas, but show me a man without an ego problem and I'll show you somebody who isn't running for POTUS.

Re:Lost, not 'denied'

[BitZtream]

I momentarily forgot about the two front runner candidates when I was making that post :(

Re:Lost, not 'denied'

[Anonymous Coward]

Look it's bitztream, the autism-hating Slashdot troll!

Re:Lost, not 'denied'

[Anonymous Coward]

It's bizstream, the autism-hating Slashdot troll.

The only question though ... is WHY THE FUCK IS BIZSTREAM THE AUTISM-HATING TROLL ON SLASHDOT?

Re:Lost, not 'denied'

[Anonymous Coward]

I have another question, how the F did John Mcafee get a single vote?

Re:Lost, not 'denied'

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey John, how u doing? Any shrooms to spare?

Re:Lost, not 'denied'

[drinkypoo]

I see no evidence at all that Trump or Clinton are any more sane than McAfee.

You don't? It's ample. The first key to someone being a nutball is how broadly they broadcast views which are obviously going to be rejected. It doesn't matter if you're right, if you lose interest in whether people will think you're insane when you speak... you're insane.

I see no evidence that Obama is any more moral than McAfee.

I see no evidence of the opposite, either.

He likes to portray the "bad boy" image, and he seems to have some wild ideas, but show me a man without an ego problem and I'll show you somebody who isn't running for POTUS.

Show me a man without a drug problem, and whose wife didn't die under mysterious circumstances. Even if he's innocent, he'd never win.

Re:Lost, not 'denied'

[bill_mcgonigle]

The first key to someone being a nutball is how broadly they broadcast views which are obviously going to be rejected.

I know, McAfee is always going on about building a two-thousand mile wall and making the people it would hurt pay for it...

I see no evidence that Obama is any more moral than McAfee.

I see no evidence of the opposite, either.

Wow, you can't count the bodies?

Show me a man without a drug problem, and whose wife didn't die under mysterious circumstances. Even if he's innocent, he'd never win.

Nor will Johnson, but Johnson will show the public that Libertarians are Nazi-cake bakin' burka-shaming nuke-droppin' hypocrites, which will set back decades of hard work by many industrious volunteers. By many accounts Clinton has a coke problem but that doesn't seem to disqualify her. I think all Trump is high on is his reflection, but that's why it would have taken a mentally-hardened candidate to go mano-a-mano with Trump in a debate.

If you think that the country will be better off under the leadership of Clinton or Trump, then it's not McAfee who's crazy.

#feelthejohnson

Re:Lost, not 'denied'

[PopeRatzo]

The only question though ... is WHY THE FUCK IS THIS ON SLASHDOT?

Someone needs to start a bot Slashdot account that posts, "Why is this story on Slashdot" in the comments section of every single story. It would be sort of like the "cows say moo" guy, except with "BUT HOW IS THIS NEWS FOR NERDS?"

Re:Lost, not 'denied'

[Anonymous Coward]

He wasn't denied, he just plain lost. Theres a difference.

And 'lost' before the California primary election, so how the California Libertarians vote is irrelevant.

Re:Lost, not 'denied'

[dcw3]

I see no evidence at all that Trump or Clinton are any more sane than McAfee.

Then you should have watched the debates they just showed on CSPAN. 3 of the 5 (including McAfee) were clearly batshit crazy. And I'm saying that as someone who tends to lean toward libertarian beliefs. This was the first Libertarian debate I'd seen, and while many valid points were raised, it looked more like a circus than something that most normal adults would wish to be associated with. Gary Johnson at least came across as a reasonable person, as did Petersen. The other three should have been dragged away for psych evals.

Re:Lost, not 'denied'

[RogueWarrior65]

The only reason this is on Slashdot is that he once had an impact on the world of technology. At least he made a real contribution once instead of being one of many members of a committee that approved funding for ARPANet.

Re:Lost, not 'denied'

[hcs_$reboot]

Maybe he should his own dedicated topic
https://apple.slashdot.org/sto...
https://news.slashdot.org/stor...
https://entertainment.slashdot...
https://it.slashdot.org/story/...
https://features.slashdot.org/...
https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
https://news.slashdot.org/stor...
etc....

Re:Lost, not 'denied'

[ooloorie]

You don't? It's ample. The first key to someone being a nutball is how broadly they broadcast views which are obviously going to be rejected. It doesn't matter if you're right, if you lose interest in whether people will think you're insane when you speak... you're insane.

For Trump and McAffee, holding back their opinions was never professionally necessary, so it wasn't "insane" for them to behave the way they did. And saying stupid things and not holding back seems to be working for Trump.

You're right that for Hillary, as a corrupt, manipulative politician whose wealth and power depends entirely on getting elected, it would have been "insane" to broadcast her actual beliefs. However, she still slipped up numerous times.

I see no evidence of the opposite, either.

Well, if you don't see any evidence for moral differences between Obama and McAffee, that is a stinging indictment of Obama.

Re:Lost, not 'denied'

[Anonymous Coward]

Lost is the reality of a batshit crazy nut job 'running' for president.

In the US, we are well and truly lost.

Re:Lost, not 'denied'

[DrXym]

Lost is the reality of a batshit crazy nut job 'running' for president.

Well there's already one batshit crazy nut job running for president. McAfee should have campaigned from the drug fueled maniac platform.

Re:Lost, not 'denied'

[ColdWetDog]

Anyone actively attempting to be President of the United States should be dragged off for a psych eval.

And left there.

Re: Lost, not 'denied'

[jsh1972]

Obama won after admitting to smoking pot AND snorting coke.

Re: Lost, not 'denied'

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, you clearly don't want to discuss it here.

Re:Lost, not 'denied'

[ooloorie]

As Friedman put it, "Government is the delusion in which you put unselfish and ungreedy men in charge of selfish and greedy men."

Nevertheless, even among selfish and greedy men, there are gradations of ruthlessness and incompetence.

Re:Lost, not 'denied'

[fustakrakich]

WHY THE FUCK IS THIS ON SLASHDOT?

Oh, c'mon, man.. He's an historical figure. He's the Ben Franklin of Belize! Belize is very high tech. Lots of "data" goes through Belize..

Re:Lost, not 'denied'

[dgatwood]

You don't? It's ample. The first key to someone being a nutball is how broadly they broadcast views which are obviously going to be rejected. It doesn't matter if you're right, if you lose interest in whether people will think you're insane when you speak... you're insane.

By that standard, Trump, who appears to have no filter, is clinical. Clinton, who appears to have almost nothing but filter, is sane. I would reject that analysis. Trump is too over-the-top with his speech, and Clinton is too reserved.

There's a happy medium between the two extremes in which people present unpopular ideas and explain why they're the right choice in a way that the people can understand. Sane people try to sway public opinion through always telling the truth and trusting that the public will recognize genuine truth when they see it. They don't throw a bunch of s**t at the wall and see what sticks, and on the other hand, they don't try to protect themselves from criticism by always choosing their words extremely carefully and deliberately, and by never saying anything that they consider controversial, by never taking sides on controversial issues, etc.

What's funny here is that if you look at the way they speak, Clinton, a Democrat, is the most conservative candidate out there, and Trump is the most reactionary liberal. Sanders, who politically qualifies as the lunatic fringe, comes across as the sane one. How the heck did that happen?

Re: Lost, not 'denied'

[Anonymous Coward]

The reality is that everyone who runs for president is a batshit crazy nut job megalomanic narssissit. Think about it, who in their right would actually want that job?

Re: Lost, not 'denied'

[DrXym]

Lots of people quite evidently and while some presidents have exhibited some pattern of mental illness (usually related to depression, alcoholism, bipolar etc.) most of them don't. And certainly not narcissism, sociopathy or psychopathy. Trump must be the first mainstream candidate in recent times who quite obviously suffers from a mental illness.

Libertarians are

[Anonymous Coward]

morons! It is a simple as that.

Re:Libertarians are

[Anonymous Coward]

morons! It is a simple as that.

Then what do you call those that are going to vote for Crooked Hillary! and her lying ass (and it's not like the rest of her ever told the truth, either...) that hasn't accomplished ANYTHING?

Hoping to one day grow up enough to be called morons?

Denied?

[KermodeBear]

You make it sound like the party was colluding against him in dark rooms filled with cigar smoke.

The way I see it, the Libertarian party wasn't being pragmatic at all. You see, there's significant portion of the Republican party that is very, very libertarian leaning. They're concerned about the constitution, the rule of law, and the size of government. When Ted Cruz suspended his campaign, these people had nowhere to go - until Austin Petersen started to court them.

Mr. Petersen started to win these people over in droves. The Blaze, the television network owned by Glenn Beck, even carried the last Libertarian party debate, with several re-run to ensure that many of the conservatives left in the cold could see what was going on, offering them a potential option.

The Libertarians had a chance - a once in a lifetime chance - to grow their party by leaps and bounds with Austin Petersen. He's bright, articulate, extremely dedicated to the rule of law, dedicated to the free exercise of religion, and not doing everything by executive fiat. But the Libertarians decided to puff-puff-pass on him and run Gary, again.

And then there's the whole strip naked on stage thing.

At this point I'm convinced that the Libertarian party isn't serious about electing a president. You cannot win elections when the chairman of your party is stripping naked on stage. It's embarrassing.

On the (R) side we have a crony capitalist progressive who wants to "open up libel laws" so that he can sue people he doesn't like, and on the (D) side we have a marxist criminal progressive who wants to shred the second amendment. What do the Libertarians offer in 2016? Dancing naked and marijuana.

I still think a third party is the answer, but the Libertarian party obviously is not it. They're not serious.

Re:Denied?

[110010001000]

Oh look, a gun nutjob "Libertarian". How original.

Re:Denied?

[Anonymous Coward]

dedicated to the free exercise of religion

I'm quite certain he didn't mean the freedom of extremist islamist religous people exercise the slaughter of infidels their religious believes demand of them, so where (and more importantly; why) does he draw the line?

Re:Denied?

[markdavis]

>"I still think a third party is the answer"

No, it is not the answer. Because no third party ever has any real chance of winning important elections. It is essentially impossible because of the way the system is designed.

The answer is to get rid of the electoral college and change the voting system. Only then can people vote how they want and only then will there be real alternatives to the "rupublicrats".

http://www.fairvote.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Denied?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ted Cruze is a Saudi Arabia level religions nut job, why would any libertarian leaning vote for him?

Re:Denied?

[drinkypoo]

At this point I'm convinced that the Libertarian party isn't serious about electing a president. You cannot win elections when the chairman of your party is stripping naked on stage. It's embarrassing.

So is he batshit crazy, or a plant?

I still think a third party is the answer, but the Libertarian party obviously is not it. They're not serious.

Libertarian is the belief that I'm great, and fuck you. I'm goddamned glad that they have no chance to win, because if anything could be more terrifying than the current one-party system, it's some Randian libertarian seizing the reins and... who knows what they might do? Nothing sensible.

Re:Denied?

[markdavis]

>"Oh look, a gun nutjob "Libertarian". How original."

Troll much?

Re:Denied?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Marxist".

To call anybody in a mainstream US political activity marxist is a staggering misunderstanding as to what the term means.

Re: Denied?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said. I am one of those constitutional conservatives who was interested in Petersen, for exactly the reasons you're describing. And yes, the LP has lost my support, for exactly the reasons you're describing.

Re:Denied?

[PopeRatzo]

the Libertarian party

My favorite part of the convention was when Johnson mentioned that he was OK with the idea of people having to take a test to get a drivers license and the audience started booing and screaming, "BULLSHIT!" When he said he supported the Civil Rights Act - sorta- I thought he was gonna be run out of the venue on a rail.

http://nmpoliticalreport.com/4...

It's a good thing Big-L Libertarians are too high to ever amount to anything, or we'd all be in trouble. But I do like the fact that the candidate for party chair came out on stage and took all his clothes off, proudly displaying his giant Iron Cross tattoo.

Re:Denied?

[mvdwege]

Let's see:

1. Cruz was the libertarian's last hope?
2. Trump is progressive??
3. Hillary is a Marxist???

You, sir, are a complete and utter idiot. I thought that roman_mir calling the genocide on the Native Americans 'a win in the marketplace' was bad, but you are edging pretty damn close to that line.

Re:Denied?

[PopeRatzo]

On the (R) side we have a crony capitalist progressive who wants to "open up libel laws" so that he can sue people he doesn't like, and on the (D) side we have a marxist criminal progressive who wants to shred the second amendment

Neither Trump nor Clinton are progressive, except in the definition you'd find on a drunken Glenn Beck's chalkboard.

Re:Denied?

[Rockoon]

No, it is not the answer. Because no third party ever has any real chance of winning important elections. It is essentially impossible because of the way the system is designed.

Tell that to the Democratic-Republicans, the Whigs, and the Federalists.

Its always been a 2 party system, but it hasn't always been these two parties.

The real collusion against it happening again is the requirement that a candidate get 15% in polling before being allowed in the presidential debates. Most polls dont include 3rd party candidates, therefore a third party candidate cannot get 15% in polls.

Re:Denied?

[Anonymous Coward]

> The way I see it, the Libertarian party wasn't being pragmatic at all. You see, there's significant portion of the Republican party that is very, very libertarian leaning. They're concerned about the constitution, the rule of law, and the size of government. When Ted Cruz suspended his campaign, these people had nowhere to go - until Austin Petersen started to court them.

Yes. The Republican party wants far more military, far more domestic surveillance, far more border guards, far more tariffs, and more government involvement in personal lifestyle and liberties, and far more liberty for the wealthy to do as they wish and rely on the divine right of kings^H^H^H^H moral superiority of the wihte race^H^^H^H^H^H Old testement justice^H^H^H^H^H free markets to prevent abuse.

Re:Denied?

[gfxguy]

Libertarian is the belief that I'm great, and fuck you. I'm goddamned glad that they have no chance to win, because if anything could be more terrifying than the current one-party system, it's some Randian libertarian seizing the reins and... who knows what they might do? Nothing sensible.

No. Despite the politically sophomoric typical slashdotter's opinion, libertarianism is about personal rights and freedoms. It's NOT objectivism. Libertarians don't believe in slavery, or subjugating people "below" them. The misconception about libertarians here is amazing... I realize a few tea partiers and "what's good for me" republicans have used the party name to misrepresent what they really are - the problem is that because you are "libertarian" on one topic doesn't make you a libertarian.

Re:Denied?

[drinkypoo]

Despite the politically sophomoric typical slashdotter's opinion, libertarianism is about personal rights and freedoms.

Ahh, the "no true libertarian" argument. Face it, a massive segment of the libertarian voter base is Randian.

Libertarians don't believe in slavery, or subjugating people "below" them.

That's precisely what they believe in, but they tell a bunch of fairy tell bullshit lies about how the free market will somehow solve everyone's problems if we just neglect them.

I realize a few tea partiers and "what's good for me" republicans have used the party name to misrepresent what they really are - the problem is that because you are "libertarian" on one topic doesn't make you a libertarian.

...and right back to your central fallacy.

Re:Denied?

[ooloorie]

After your belated realization that libertarians are against gun regulations, I'm afraid you're still about a million political insights short of being an informed voter.

Re:Denied?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it really matter what you call them?
The same people we both don't like are called "progressives" by the "right", and "right wing extremists" by the left. They're the same people.
Maybe it's time to look beyond the labels and see we have something in common here.

Re:Denied?

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither Trump nor Clinton are progressive, except in the definition you'd find on a drunken Glenn Beck's chalkboard.

Wrong. Clinton and Trump are crony capitalists. At least Trump is upfront about it. Clinton lies through her teeth while she gets richer, her business friends get richer, and we all get screwed. And by the way Clinton is most certainly a Progressive.

Re:Denied?

[fustakrakich]

Nice post an' all, but don't confuse "progressive" with neo-liberal. And there still is the Greens, if you're looking for a "mature" alternative.

Re:Denied?

[gfxguy]

No, I didn't use the "no true Scotsman" argument; I gave a one liner - an accurate one - about the fundamental concept of libertiarianism. Just like other political parties, there's a wide variety of libertarians, but there is always the one fundamental concept that determines whether or not one is a libertarian: the belief in personal liberties and freedoms.

Re:Denied?

[drinkypoo]

I gave a one liner - an irrelevant one

FTFY

Re:Denied?

[ooloorie]

To call anybody in a mainstream US political activity marxist is a staggering misunderstanding as to what the term means.

The ignorance there is yours. The feminist and racial ideas promoted by Hillary and Sanders are rooted in a mix of progressivism and critical theory, and critical theory is simply another term for "neo-Marxism". That's not an accusation or an interpretation, that's how the people who developed this theory actually understand themselves.

Re:Denied?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because not all libertarians are atheists, the ones who are don't all hate religion and can recognize that people with it can still want to respect people's rights, and they can spell his last name?

Re:Denied?

[ColdWetDog]

You cannot win elections when the chairman of your party is stripping naked on stage.

The Republicans seem to be trying this tactic.

Re:Denied?

[PopeRatzo]

And by the way Clinton is most certainly a Progressive

Sure, just ask her!

Re:Denied?

[PopeRatzo]

Maybe it's time to look beyond the labels and see we have something in common here.

Yes, we all have assholes.

Re:Denied?

[markdavis]

I wasn't talking about just presidential elections. The President holds no more power than Congress (in theory, anyway). But your observation is still valid.

Re:Denied?

[markdavis]

>"Libertarian is the belief that I'm great, and fuck you."

Sorry, but that is just about as narrow-minded as saying Democrat is the belief that people are too stupid to manage themselves and need the government to do it for them.

Libertarianism is a leaning, just like all other political leanings... it is not an absolute. Its general belief is that people can take care of themselves better than a government can, so government should be no larger than absolutely necessary.

>" if anything could be more terrifying than the current one-party system, it's some Randian libertarian seizing the reins and... who knows what they might do? Nothing sensible."

Again, just about as ridiculous as saying "if some Republican gets the reins"... blah blah blah. Any politician or position is going to be held to a variety of pressures and compromises, checks and balances. Throwing all Libertarians into a single basket is not only unfair, it is disingenuous.

Based on the never ending increase in the size, power, expense, complexity, and corruption of the government (most specifically the Federal one), having voices arguing for and pushing for less spending, less taxation, smaller government, more civil liberty, and more freedom is quite compelling and appropriate in many ways.

Re:Denied?

[Anonymous Coward]

> What do the Libertarians offer in 2016? Dancing naked and marijuana.

And what's wrong with that?! :-D

Still a better story than Twilight Drone...

Re:Denied?

[Anonymous Coward]

And atheism is a religion of it's own with more than it's share of fanatics.

Re:Denied?

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like someone who could use a dictionary and a grammar textbook.

Re:Denied?

[dywolf]

marxist

Nope.

criminal

Wrong again.

progressive

Hahahhahaha no.

Re:Denied?

[dywolf]

Doesnt the stench off that massive pile of bullshit you wrote make you gag ??

Re:Denied?

[skam240]

When one refers to another as a Marxist I'm pretty sure it's a given that they would elaborate more if it wasn't about the other's economic policy. Economics being Marx's chief concern and most certainly what he's popularly known for today.

In othet words, calling a candidate like Hilary (who in regards to the economy is a moderate) a Marxist without further elaboration like the above post did is obsurd. It's like calling someone a Nazi because they felt certain points of the Nazi's economic policy had merit.

Re:Denied?

[Anonymous Coward]

And some, like ratzo boy here is a bigger asshole.

Re:Denied?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh look, another pointless post from 110111010100210102. How original.

Re:Denied?

[swillden]

To call anybody in a mainstream US political activity marxist is a staggering misunderstanding as to what the term means.

The ignorance there is yours. The feminist and racial ideas promoted by Hillary and Sanders are rooted in a mix of progressivism and critical theory, and critical theory is simply another term for "neo-Marxism". That's not an accusation or an interpretation, that's how the people who developed this theory actually understand themselves.

While that's true, it's misleading because the word "Marxism" has very nasty connotations that the academic, theoretical aspects of Marx's work don't deserve. I'm not saying Marx's economics was right[*], but Marx himself would have been horrified to see what vicious and power-hungry people were able to do by exploiting his high-minded, if technically erroneous, ideas, and it's the work of those people which Americans associate with his name. Also, it's misleading because the "neo-" is guaranteed to be overshadowed by the "Marxist". Neo-Marxists change Marx's theory in some important ways. They're also wrong, but perhaps less so, and their changes remove some of the ideas which made it easy to justify exploitation by the vicious and power-hungry.

So, "neo-Marxist" is correct in the dry, academic sense, but it's very misleading in terms of the connotations and reactions the phrase will generate.
.
.

[*] Specifically, Marx's labor theory of value completely ignores the extremely important aspect of information flow. This makes his theory very fundamentally wrong in multiple ways. For example, it completely ignores the competitive market forces enabled by innovation. Marx assumed a static economy, where everyone producing widget X did it the same way, with the same inputs of labor and materials. In such an economy, there is no value in competition, and all value really does derive from labor (and materials, but those also boil down to the labor to extract/obtain them). In reality, competition creates various forms of innovation to create efficiencies that drive down the labor and material costs, and to create entirely new categories of goods that obsolete others.

Another important example which I think most people in the world still don't get is that ignoring information flows implies that there is no value in the work done by owners and managers of capital. It implies that those who merely shuffle money (e.g. investment bankers) around are pure waste, which is also very wrong. They and their focus on extracting maximal returns from capital[**] are critically important in ensuring that resources flows to the enterprises that can make most effective use of them, where "most effective" is defined as "pleases the most people as evidenced by their willingness to pay money."

[**] Footnotes with foonotes are awesome. Also, it should be mentioned that some work of owners and managers of capital is not productive, but rent-seeking facilitated by restriction of information flows. Government action is required to prevent that, though it should be done by shining light onto the operations not by trying to regulate their actions. Active regulation creates motive for regulatory capture.

Re:Denied?

[hairyfeet]

Yeah you kinda did. If you want to see what the Libertarian beliefs REALLY are, and not just your sugar coated "tyrue Libertarian" BS? Then look at one of the most popular libertarians ON THE PLANET...Stefan Molyneux. He is hate filled, Randian as fuck, so misogynist that even anti-feminists like myself go "dude you might want to tone that done,mmkay?" and is using cult like tactics such as telling kids to divorce their parents if they don't buy into his Randian bullshit...he calls it "defooing", look it up. He also gets millions of views per day preaching the cult of Supply Side Jesus, probably more than any other "libertarian" on the entire planet!

So sorry, you do not get to dictate what a libertarian is, anymore than a democrat can sing the virtues of the democrat party while they run the most corrupt bitch to ever seek office or the republicans can sing how great their party is when....damn did you see who they ran this year? They didn't have a single choice that wasn't batshit or a trust fund baby insider.

Re:Denied?

[Crosshair84]

Stefan Molyneux is a libertarian in the same way that the Westboro Baptist Church is Christian. It just a front to either make money and/or acquire fame and power, which is why Molyneux finds it necessary to isolate his "followers" from critics. This is starkly opposed to other Libertarian groups who spend considerable time discussing how to engage constructively with critics.

I would also contest the idea that Molyneux is "one of the most popular". He is one of the most visible, there is a difference. He catches a lot of well deserved criticism from other Libertarian individuals and even philosophers for the faulty logic and thinking he uses.

Just a little bit hypocritical on your part to say that they do not get to define what a libertarian is, then promptly proceed to define what a libertarian is.

Re:Denied?

[ooloorie]

While that's true, it's misleading because the word "Marxism" has very nasty connotations that the academic, theoretical aspects of Marx's work don't deserve

I'm not sure what aspects of Marxism you think there are besides "academic, theoretical". Marxism is, and has always been, a "method of socioeconomic analysis". The root problem wasn't that it was wrong, it was that it lacked scientific rigor, falsifiability, and empirical verification. It is that root problem that allowed "vicious and power-hungry people" to misuse it as the basis of totalitarian regimes, just like "vicious and power-hungry people" misused scientific racism and eugenics as another basis of totalitarian regimes.

I'm not saying Marx's economics was right, but Marx himself would have been horrified to see what vicious and power-hungry people were able to do by exploiting his high-minded, if technically erroneous, ideas ... So, "neo-Marxist" is correct in the dry, academic sense, but it's very misleading in terms of the connotations and reactions the phrase will generate.

I think it generates the right connotations: neo-Marxism as a theory fails in the same way that Marxism fails, and it is therefore open to abuse by "vicious and power-hungry people" just like traditional Marxism. The fact that the details of the conclusions that neo-Marxism reaches differ from those of traditional Marxism doesn't change that.

Re:Denied?

[ooloorie]

Economics being Marx's chief concern and most certainly what he's popularly known for today.

No, that's an incorrect interpretation. Marxism is primarily about analyzing history and society in terms of class relations and conflict. Marxism is not a synonym for central planning or Soviet-style communism. In fact, from a Marxist point of view, the class struggle is the real issue, and whether it is ended via increasingly tight regulation of a market economy or via a centrally planned economy is a secondary question.

In othet words, calling a candidate like Hilary (who in regards to the economy is a moderate) a Marxist without further elaboration like the above post did is obsurd

I disagree. Both Hillary and Sanders divide up society into competing groups (primarily "classes" and "minorities") and then advocate policies based on reasoning about power, privilege, exploitation, and oppression between these groups. That is the essence of Marxist analysis. It is the basis for many of their policies related to race and women (in fact, their positions are textbook neo-Marxist), and it is also a justification for economic policies.

Re:Denied?

[ooloorie]

What makes me "gag" is your inability to follow a link and accept simple, basic facts about political science.

Re:Denied?

[skam240]

Of course class was primarily defined by wealth and ones place in the capitalistic economic system so economic issues are key to his philosophies. The proletariat, the bourgeoisie; defined by their place in their current economic system. Of course he does branch off a bit be it's all based off this dominant theme.

You also fail to address the use of the term "Marxist" in modern parlance which is used overwhelmingly in an economic context.

As for your second part, I really have no desire to be drawn into a debate about Liberals being racist, classist or similiar nonsense when both of our parties clearly use ethnic identity and class to further their own gains but not nearly as much as some people like to claim.

Re:Denied?

[ooloorie]

As for your second part, I really have no desire to be drawn into a debate about Liberals being racist, classist or similiar nonsense

I didn't call them "racist" or "classist"; quite to the contrary: both Clinton and Sanders clearly make fighting racism and classism a key part of their politics.

You also fail to address the use of the term "Marxist" in modern parlance which is used overwhelmingly in an economic context.

I suspect that what you are trying to say is that Clinton and Sanders are not "Marxist-Leninists", which they are indeed not. But "Marxism-Leninism" refers to Stalin's ideology, not to Marx's ideology.

Clinton and Sanders objectively are running on ideas that are deeply rooted in neo-Marxism, on race, class, and economics (which are interdependent in neo-Marxist ideology).

when both of our parties clearly use ethnic identity and class to further their own gains

So? Neo-Marxism is only one particular way of "using ethnic identity and class to further one's gain"; there are many others (e.g., fascism). And we're not talking about which party is the better party, we are talking about Clinton's and Sanders' ideology, which is objectively rooted in neo-Marxism. If you want to attempt to make an argument that Donald Trump is also a neo-Marxist, be my guest (I suspect you may find some instances of neo-Marxist reasoning in his speeches, although I think he's simply too incoherent to place him in any category).

Re:Denied?

[danbert8]

So how is Gary Johnson not a competitive candidate but Austin Petersen is? A former governor who won a general election and then a re-election and then went on to get a record number of general election presidential votes in 2012 vs a guy who owns a website and isn't even notable enough to have his own wikipedia page.

If Gary got 1% of the vote between a moderate republican and an incumbent president, imagine what he can do against the two most reviled candidates in modern times?

Re:Denied?

[danbert8]

How exactly do you change the voting system by A) voting for either of the two parties which the current voting system benefits or B) not voting? Or is there another non-third party voting option that will magically bring change to the current broken political process?

Re:Denied?

[danbert8]

Umm, I'm pretty sure the list of most popular libertarians on the planet doesn't include that guy I've never heard of because I AM A LIBERTARIAN. After doing a google search for him, he seems like much more of an anarchist than a libertarian. Also, he's not even an American, so throwing him into a discussion on American politics is a bit of a non-sequitur...

Speaking of non-libertarians, I'm pretty sure they've heard of some famous people who identify themselves as libertarians including:
Penn and Teller (both of them)
Drew Carey
Kurt Russell
Andrew Napolitano
Trey Parker
John Stossel

Re:Denied?

[danbert8]

You have to realize at the convention, it is mostly hardcore libertarians that have the means and desire to go. There are far more libertarians that don't have the time, money, or motivation to attend a 3 day political convention.

I am far down the libertarian trail and I not only believe in tests for driver's licenses, but for more rigorous testing and renewal testing. Driving is a privilege and not a right. You want to drive on your own property, no license is required. If you drive on public roads, you have to meet minimum requirements to be allowed to do so.

Of course, on that issue, self-driving cars will make licenses obsolete in a generation...

Re:Denied?

[PopeRatzo]

I am far down the libertarian trail and I not only believe in tests for driver's licenses

That convention was for big-L Libertarians, which is very different from small-l libertarians like you.

Your form of libertariansism is probably shared in part by most people in this country. Unfortunately, the two get mixed up and you get painted with the same brush as the naked party chair candidate with the Iron Cross tattooed on his arm and the people who think traffic lights are examples of a tyrannical nanny-state.

Re:Denied?

[Agripa]

The real collusion against it happening again is the requirement that a candidate get 15% in polling before being allowed in the presidential debates. Most polls dont include 3rd party candidates, therefore a third party candidate cannot get 15% in polls.

They do even more than that. When I did election security for a couple years in Southern California, I discovered that they did not even *count* the third party votes yet they reported numbers for them which coincidentally kept them below the threshold for being automatically included on the ballot in the next election. Election workers would also take ballot boxes home at night instead of transporting them directly to where they were opened to be counted.

Re:Denied?

[skam240]

Where do you get me calling Clinton and Sanders Marxist-Leninist or even just Marxist? You qoute me talking about how the term Marxism is used in modern parlance and then make up whatever you want. We're talking about another user who called Clinton Marxist. Part of my responce to your claims was that Marxism in the common parlance of our time typically refers to economic issues and not issues of race or gender issues as you described above. ...and then you're diving head first into the tangent that I didnt want to be dragged into and ignoring Marxisms relation to economics which was the point

Re:Denied?

[Anonymous Coward]

You make it sound like the party was colluding against him in dark rooms filled with cigar smoke.

The way I see it, the Libertarian party wasn't being pragmatic at all. You see, there's significant portion of the Republican party that is very, very libertarian leaning. They're concerned about the constitution, the rule of law, and the size of government. When Ted Cruz suspended his campaign, these people had nowhere to go - until Austin Petersen started to court them.

Mr. Petersen started to win these people over in droves. The Blaze, the television network owned by Glenn Beck, even carried the last Libertarian party debate, with several re-run to ensure that many of the conservatives left in the cold could see what was going on, offering them a potential option.

The Libertarians had a chance - a once in a lifetime chance - to grow their party by leaps and bounds with Austin Petersen. He's bright, articulate, extremely dedicated to the rule of law, dedicated to the free exercise of religion, and not doing everything by executive fiat. But the Libertarians decided to puff-puff-pass on him and run Gary, again.

And then there's the whole strip naked on stage thing.

At this point I'm convinced that the Libertarian party isn't serious about electing a president. You cannot win elections when the chairman of your party is stripping naked on stage. It's embarrassing.

On the (R) side we have a crony capitalist progressive who wants to "open up libel laws" so that he can sue people he doesn't like, and on the (D) side we have a marxist criminal progressive who wants to shred the second amendment. What do the Libertarians offer in 2016? Dancing naked and marijuana.

I still think a third party is the answer, but the Libertarian party obviously is not it. They're not serious.

The GOP does not have a significant Libertarian leaning faction. Every candidate who was ever even close to Libertarian in the party - Forbes in 1996 & 2000, Ron Paul & Gary Johnson in 2012 and Rand Paul in 2016 got trounced badly. In Rand Paul's case, NH should have thrusted him, instead of Kasich, as #2 in the race after the Donald, but he read the writing on the wall and dropped out just after IA

Historically, Libertarians got rejected because most Democrats hate their economic ideology (flat taxes, abolition of entitlements, 2nd amendment rights et al) while most Republicans hate their social ideology (acceptance of alternate gender privileges, abortion, et al). This cycle, terrorism is what buried it. Normally, the Libertarian philosophy of allowing in anybody legally into the country is fine, but they have no answer for how to combat Jihadist terror. In this sort of an environment, where that's the #1 threat, it'll bury any party unable or unwilling to combat it

Re:Denied?

[ooloorie]

Part of my responce to your claims was that Marxism in the common parlance of our time typically refers to economic issues and not issues of race or gender issues as you described above.

Yes, and Clinton's political program is neo-Marxist on race, gender, and economic issues. So what exactly are you object to?

Re:Denied?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Marxist".

To call anybody in a mainstream US political activity marxist is a staggering misunderstanding as to what the term means.

If Marxism is conflated with Communist Totalitarianism that was practiced by the Soviets and is still practiced today by the Chinese, Norks and Cubans, then yes, it would be a misunderstanding. But if Marxism is taken by itself - what Marx & Engels wrote and believed in - and then one sees what Sanders, Obama and a number of people on the Left believe, then describing them as Marxist is pretty accurate.

While death camps may be necessary for Marxism to succeed with an informed population, it's by no means required if people are stupid enough to vote in people who promise them level outcomes.

Re:Denied?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK well, I appreciate that you want to promote your candidate, but I think your candidate sucks ass. Austin Peterson has no appeal whatsoever to dissatisfied liberals, and maybe Gary Johnson does -- if he wants to have some chance of winning, you might need that vote.

I am thinking seriously about voting for Gary Johnson in lieu of Hillary Clinton or Jill Stein since we will not get a Bernie Sanders or Lincoln Chafee candidacy. I like none of Johnson, Clinton, or Stein very much (I like Sanders slightly better than those three, enough that I would vote for him). But I would never have considered voting for Austin Petersen under any circumstances ever, even if he has a few good ideas he reminds me of crazy religious nuts way too much for me to begin to take him seriously.

Re:Denied?

[danbert8]

I am a registered big L Libertarian and I went to the national convention in 2012. That being said I wasn't a delegate and just happened to be able to go for the weekend because it was in a city less than 2 hours away from me. The naked party chair was a bit of a weird aberration and isn't normal for even the Libertarians... I don't know if he was on drugs or thought it would be a Trump-esque move just to be shocking and get media attention. He is claiming now it was over a bet. Regardless, not a good move considering the public's perception of third parties in general.

Re:Denied?

[CAIMLAS]

Yep, though I think this time, the establishment may actually allow there to be a -different- party come next election, be one of the chosen two.

It'll be the Democrats and the Libertarians in 2018 or 2020, but all the Libertarians will really just be Republicans...

Re:Denied?

[david_thornley]

Simple: you change the voting system by law or constitutional amendment. As long as we have one-vote plurality-choice voting, the political process will remain as it is, although the players may change.

Re:Denied?

[danbert8]

So how would you propose and pass this law or amend the constitution? Both of these require initiation by state and federal legislatures who are composed of representatives who benefit from the crappy electoral system we currently have. No Republican or Democratic state or federal lawmaker will even consider a bill that makes it harder for them to get re-elected. So again, how exactly do you intend to change the voting system without voting for a third party that actually has election reforms as part of their platform? You can't beat the two-party system by voting for either of the two parties.

Re:Denied?

[david_thornley]

If equal treatment of people regardless of race or sex is neo-Marxist, BRING ON THE REVOLUTION!

To look at this another way, you appear to be claiming that some people who considered themselves neo-Marxists developed something you call "critical theory", and that this is part of what goes into some ideas that Clinton and Sanders hold for reasons you don't specifically know, and therefore they're Marxist? Do you realize how thin that reasoning is? It used to be that anyone with an ancestor from sub-Saharan Africa without many intervening generations in Europe was considered a Negro, no matter what. Do you consider anyone who has an idea traceable to Marxists to be a Marxist? Does this make everyone involved in public education a Marxist? The Communist Manifesto called for it, and hence nobody could have gotten that idea without being Marxist?

Re:Denied?

[david_thornley]

I think it generates the right connotations: neo-Marxism as a theory fails in the same way that Marxism fails

You mean it lacks "scientific rigor, falsifiability, and empirical verification"? In what way does that differ from any other ideology? We've seen enough people with ideologically rigid beliefs in capitalism and democracy*. We've seen all sorts of ideologies abused by vicious and power-hungry people. Marxism is one that's been abused a lot recently, along with capitalism and fascism.

*Democracy is great. It's the basis of the best governments. It also has a tendency to fail, sometimes catastrophically, when dropped on a nation not used to it.

Re:Denied?

[markdavis]

I agree... it is not in the interest for the Republicrats to change the system, so it will likely never happen. So will we will stuck with this horrible voting system forever :(

Re:Denied?

[skam240]

The fact that you keep redefining the conversation
http://www.differencebetween.c...

Re:Denied?

[ooloorie]

In what way does that differ from any other ideology?

You're confusing theory and political/economic systems. Marxism is a theory about economic systems and society, not an ideology, and it happens to be a bad theory. There are multiple ideologies based on Marxism, including Marxism-Leninism and (indirectly, via neo-Marxism) modern social democracies. The fact that Marxism is a bad theory, of course, calls into question whether those are good ideologies.

Many other ideologies are not rooted in economic theories. For example, liberalism ("libertarianism" in the US) is not based on economic theory, it is based on a preference for individual freedoms and autonomy. Theocracies and Christian democracies are based on a preference for adherence to biblical dictates. Etc.

Re:Denied?

[ooloorie]

Do you consider anyone who has an idea traceable to Marxists to be a Marxist?

Neo-Marxist ideas aren't "an idea" that these people have, they are at the core of the political programs of both Clinton and Sanders, including their repeated references to European societies that are structured based on such ideas.

If equal treatment of people regardless of race or sex is neo-Marxist, BRING ON THE REVOLUTION!

Unfortunately, the opposite is the case: neo-Marxists advocate unequal treatment and violations of personal freedoms and property rights in an attempt to achieve equality of outcome. Not only are the policies they advocate arguably unjust, in practice, they fail to yield the promised results and instead lead to economic stagnation and massive government corruption.

Re:Denied?

[ooloorie]

Well, so you agree then that Clinton is a neo-Marxist.

Now you're only quibbling about whether a "neo-Marxist" can properly be called a kind of "Marxist" or not. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

Re:Denied?

[skam240]

You're ridiculous. You've just claimed resolution on a debate that didn't happen

This conversation has never been about neo-marxism but it has seem to have become whatever tangent you want to run to. You clearly can't defend Hillary as a Marxist because all you have done is attempted to change the subject or redefine certain conditions whenever I try to refocus the conversation on the initial issue of whether Hilary cant be properly called a "Marxist".

Given that her platform makes no effort to eliminate economic classes (which is absolutely key to Marxism) you know you don't have a leg to stand on so you keep running off on tangents.

Re:Denied?

[danbert8]

Unless you accept the high likelihood of failure by continuing to vote for a 3rd party or independent candidates... Winning an election is a short term hollow victory if the winner is just as corrupt if not more than their predecessor.

Re:Denied?

[gfxguy]

Even Ayn Rand said libertarians AREN'T objectivists.

Re:Denied?

[david_thornley]

My problem is that you seem to be condemning politics that can trace any line of heritage back to Marx, and thinking that is worth mentioning. You appear to be using it as a term of opprobrium, and you don't seem to care how much stems from Marx, or whether it stems from stuff that Marx got more or less right or stuff that he definitely got wrong. Do you think public education is a bad idea, because it is in the Communist Manifesto?

Re:Denied?

[david_thornley]

You can't beat the two-party system by voting for someone who won't win, either. What we would need to have something other than the current system is some sort of ranked-choice voting (implemented in my city a few years back) or some sort of proportional representation, which parties often have for delegate selection but is not as far as I know used for any elected office in the US.

In the meantime, if you want election reform, get it accepted by one of the major parties. There's not going to be any traction in a third party devoted to election reform, so it will have to be raised in the political process within one or more parties. There's a good deal of dissatisfaction with the way things are working, as shown by Sanders and Trump doing very well. This could be exploited.

Re:Denied?

[danbert8]

It could be exploited, but getting a major party candidate that supports changing the voting system is about as likely as a third party winning an election. So again, your proposed solution is no more likely than mine. I'd rather be counted as not supporting the currently shitty system though.

Re:Denied?

[hairyfeet]

No True Scotsman much? You do know that using the NTS fallacy pretty much negates your argument, as by that logic ANYBODY other than the people the person speaking chooses "don't count" hence why its a fallacy, yes?

Re:Denied?

[ooloorie]

and you don't seem to care how much stems from Marx, or whether it stems from stuff that Marx got more or less right or stuff that he definitely got wrong. Do you think public education is a bad idea, because it is in the Communist Manifesto?

Marxism isn't a collection of policy preferences, it's a method of socioeconomic analysis. What makes Hillary and Sanders (neo-)Marxists isn't an accidental agreement with policies advocated in the Communist Manifesto, it is the way Hillary and Sanders apply that method of analysis and justify policies with them.

(In terms of individual policy preferences (e.g., isidewith.com), there is literally no difference for me between Sanders, Clinton, or Trump.)

My problem is that you seem to be condemning politics that can trace any line of heritage back to Marx

No, I condemn politics that justifies policies the way Marxists justify politics (class/group conflicts), just like I condemn politics that justifies policies based on God (theocracy), utility to race/nation (national socialism), or utility to "society" (progressivism, technocracy).

I'm a liberal, which means that I believe that policies should be justified based on individual rights, personal autonomy, and personal responsibility.

Re:Denied?

[david_thornley]

Thing is, there are class and group and race conflicts in modern society, and they have to be recognized and dealt with. Until people can be convinced not to treat people of different races, classes, economic standings, whatever, individually, as they deserve, the current conflicts and problems are going to continue. Treating people as individuals is the ideal, but when you're dealing with a white guy whose parents put him through college and a black guy who was pulled over for driving while black and given a harsh sentence for a minor drug crime, you need to recognize that they haven't been accorded the same individual rights, they haven't been allowed the same personal autonomy, and their situations in life are a lot less personal responsibility than would be ideal.

Re:Denied?

[ooloorie]

Treating people as individuals is the ideal, but when you're dealing with a white guy whose parents put him through college and a black guy who was

Doesn't it strike you as odd that in the same sentence, you deny the need to treat people individually, and then give examples involving two individuals (and prejudicial and stereotyped ones at that)? It seems you already understand that it doesn't make sense to talk about individuals in terms of class membership. To continue your example, what about a white immigrant who worked his way through college vs a black guy whose parents were rich and privileged doctors and lawyers? You're still going to tell the white immigrant to "check his privilege" and that he is responsible for slavery in the US? Or are you going to go down the rabbit hole of intersectionality where you sit in judgment over the life history, choices, and privileges of every single individual in order to determine what government support, preferences, and protections they ought to receive?

Until people can be convinced not to treat people of different races, classes, economic standings, whatever, individually, as they deserve, the current conflicts and problems are going to continue

Well, and as more than half a century of policies rooted in progressivism and critical theory, both in the US and Europe, those policies are not very effective at delivering the kind of integration and progress they promise. We know that because there are a couple of natural experiments in which progressive politicians attempted to help some groups and ignored others. That is, in addition to being intrinsically unjust and violating individual liberties, such policies simply fail to produce the desired results in practice.

Re:Denied?

[david_thornley]

If I talk about a white guy whose parents put him through college, you can guess some things about him. You don't know his favorite TV show, or what sort of work he's attracted to. You do know that he's got a bachelor's degree without student debt, and comes from a well-off family. He's almost certainly going to do better in life than the black buy I mentioned. It isn't a certainty; the black guy could be brilliant and found a startup and make nine or ten figures out of it, or the white guy could be schizophrenic or suffer from some other disease, but it's the way to bet.

I'm a white cisgender upper-middle-class straight guy of English and Swedish descent, and I haven't deliberately studied problems less privileged people are having, so I can't got into details without mansplaining. From my point of view, people generally treat me as they should, and everyone should be treated the same. In fact, lots of people aren't, because they differ from me in sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or something like that. (There's also an awful lot of random variation going on.) My "privilege" is that I don't get as many unfair and unjust hassles as other people.

Everyone responsible for legal slavery in this country has been dead for a long time now. (There's still human trafficking going on, unfortunately, but I'm not involved in that.) Not that many people actively participate in oppressing other races or sexes or whatever, but not that many seriously try to help. I mostly throw some money where I think it will help the less fortunate. There's an awful lot of social inertia involved, and the worst off tend not to get covered by the media. (I have friends who deal with people on the South Dakota Indian reservations, and hear things I don't find from other news sources.)

So, we need programs to help people who need it. Not necessarily programs to help people in generally needy classes, but it's really hard to tell what help individuals need, and it's a lot easier to go by statistics. (There was a widely-used test that the Department of Labor administered, and race-normed. They'd found that blacks who scored X on the test were about as successful, statistically, as whites who scored Y, where Y was significantly greater than X. Sure, it was an inadequate test, and it was unfair in many cases, but it was useful, and more useful when race-normed.) Back in the 1960s, there were programs and quotas that specifically repressed individuals of certain classes (and the BIA is arguably one to this day), and it was reasonable to compensate for that by class. There's been a lot of stuff tried and continued with that didn't work well.

And, if we want to stay in touch with reality, we have to observe what goes on in practice, and try to deal with things as they are.

Re:Denied?

[ooloorie]

From my point of view, people generally treat me as they should, and everyone should be treated the same. In fact, lots of people aren't, because they differ from me in sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or something like that.

Would you want to work for someone who hates and despises you for who you are, but employs you only because they'd face big penalties for firing you? Because I sure don't, but these non-discrimination laws deprive me of the ability to choose. You think the people supposedly protected by these laws are so far beneath you that they'd rather spend several years in court suing over discrimination (followed by never getting hired again) instead of just picking up again and looking for another job, which is what you would do? You want to force minorities to help racists and homophobes to become wealthy by depriving them of the ability to find out what their bosses are really thinking? You want to force a gay baker to serve Bill Donohue after Prop 8?

So, we need programs to help people who need it. Not necessarily programs to help people in generally needy classes, but it's really hard to tell what help individuals need, and it's a lot easier to go by statistics.

Who is this "we"? I've never met you, and obviously, to you, I'm just a "statistic", like a member of a sick herd of cattle that needs some treatment and extra feed. Don't kid yourself: your political decisions are personal: you want certain government programs, out of a mix of economic self-interest, fear about the likely social decline of your kids, appearing "caring to the less fortunate" to your social circle, and getting people who make you uncomfortable out of your sight.

I'm a white cisgender upper-middle-class straight guy of English and Swedish descent, and I haven't deliberately studied problems less privileged people are having, so I can't got into details without mansplaining.

Well, then you should perhaps have the decency of refraining from coming up with solutions for others or imposing policies on them through government force. The best way of helping others is to just live by your words and actually treat them as equals, not as statistics, not as recipients of your largesse, and not as trophies to your social justice virtues. By all means, seek out minorities as resources to recruit from and do business with, but don't do that out of charity, do it only if it is an actual business opportunity. Voting for rich token-minority politicians promising to pass ineffective laws with grandiose sounding objectives and spread money around, on the other hand, is lazy on your part and says that you neither understand nor really care.

Re:Denied?

[david_thornley]

Man, you're pulling lots of stuff out of your ass and trying to attach it to me.

Has it struck you that I might actually care about helping the less fortunate? Did it occur to you that I wasn't actually advocating specific programs you dislike? Have you noticed that people start unequal, so that treating them as you would equals, and doing nothing more, perpetuates inequality?

Re:Denied?

[ooloorie]

Has it struck you that I might actually care about helping the less fortunate? Did it occur to you that I wasn't actually advocating specific programs you dislike?

Of course you care. You can't have any significant and successful ideology without people caring. Whether it's socialists, monarchists, eugenicists, Marxists, fascists, or theocrats, they all care and they all have good intentions.

Have you noticed that people start unequal,

I haven't just noticed it, I experienced it.

so that treating them as you would equals, and doing nothing more, perpetuates inequality?

Oh, there are many government interventions that end inequality; again, I know that first hand. Unfortunately, they also end justice, liberty, meritocracy, economic opportunity, and economic growth.

Man, you're pulling lots of stuff out of your ass and trying to attach it to me.

You've been quite clear about who you are, haven't you? A "white cisgender upper-middle-class straight guy" who "cares", has the best of intentions, and advocates using government to help those "less fortunate".

Re:Denied?

[david_thornley]

Oh, there are many government interventions that end inequality; again, I know that first hand. Unfortunately, they also end justice, liberty, meritocracy, economic opportunity, and economic growth.

There's a sweeping statement based on ideology. While I do advocate using government to help the less fortunate (no scare quotes - there's a lot of people less fortunate than I am), I'm not going to make statements like that. Some government interventions help things, some hurt things. My experience is that there are a lot of people whose attitude towards government programs intended to help the poor amounts to either "yes" or "no", while I'd like a more evidence-based approach. I'm not in favor of affirmative action, for example, although I could be persuaded to change my mind with enough evidence.

I really don't care about meritocracy. If you do, you really should look at what forms in society would promote it. I assure you that it isn't straight unregulated capitalism, as that leads to rule by the wealthy, not the competent. While the wealthy tend to be competent, the competent don't tend to be wealthy.

Currently, there's a lot of people who really don't have significant economic opportunity, and I'd like them to have it. I don't really care if people fail because they try something and screw up, but I do if they never have a chance to try something. True, some people will thrive and prosper coming from almost any sort of background, but I'm more interested in justice and opportunity for the many. I also think that giving these people a shot at making something of themselves will spur economic growth. For example, the South Dakota Indian reservations (something I have a little knowledge of) are not helping the economy in the slightest.

What I primarily want to do is establish a lower bound for living conditions and opportunity. People will succeed and fail from there, and that's up to them.

Re:Denied?

[ooloorie]

Oh, there are many government interventions that end inequality; again, I know that first hand. Unfortunately, they also end justice, liberty, meritocracy, economic opportunity, and economic growth.

There's a sweeping statement based on ideology.

No, it's a sweeping statement based on lots of economic data and personal and family experience.

Currently, there's a lot of people who really don't have significant economic opportunity, and I'd like them to have it.

Well, gollly, and you think that makes you unique? Believe it or not, that's what people who advocate for economic liberalization, small government, and free markets also want.

What I primarily want to do is establish a lower bound for living conditions and opportunity. People will succeed and fail from there, and that's up to them.

That's nice. Unfortunately, nobody has ever found a way of "establishing a lower bound" through government action that doesn't deteriorate into dependency, corruption, and social decline. Decades of progressive attempts to help people out of poverty and manipulate their behavior through government programs have shown that. You are simply too blind to see it.

Muderer

[110010001000]

Is that like a person being denied life by a murderer? I'm not saying that McAfee is a nutjob murderer who didn't get caught, but if he was it would be just like that.

Other party than the republicrats?

[johanw]

You mean the US CAN vote for someone else than Trump or Hillary? So the people ARE to blame if one of the former becomes president and does something stupid?

Re:Other party than the republicrats?

[rmdingler]

You mean the US CAN vote for someone else than Trump or Hillary? So the people ARE to blame if one of the former becomes president and does something stupid?

Blaming is the illusive game the citizens who have a voting voice are allowed to play.

Every eight years or so, the country's continued downward spiral is blamed on the Party holding executive power, and there's a movement to vote for change.

The modern difference seems to be that the candidates bear little resemblance to competent, intelligent leaders.

Re:Other party than the republicrats?

[mrchaotica]

Technically the choice exists, but because first-past-the-post voting creates a kind of prisoners' dilemma it's unreasonable to expect people to make that choice.

Re:Other party than the republicrats?

[drinkypoo]

Technically the choice exists, but because first-past-the-post voting creates a kind of prisoners' dilemma it's unreasonable to expect people to make that choice.

Land of privatized prisons, home of people too cowardly to vote for a candidate who cares about them. I'm writing in Bernie, and I don't give a fuck. And yes, I expect to have to write him in. Clinton is obviously in the script.

Re:Other party than the republicrats?

[Solandri]

For a party's candidate to appear on a state's ballot, they need to jump through some hoops first (usually gather enough signatures of people saying they support that party - has to be completed far enough in advance of the election for the state to "verify" the signatures are authentic). The Libertarian party is the only 3rd party which has qualified in all 50 states, so is the only 3rd party whose candidates will show up on every state's ballot. Other 3rd party candidates start the election effectively conceding the electoral votes of some states (have no chance to win those states).

An unaffiliated candidate can still appear on a state's ballot if his/her supporters jump through the same hoops. That's what Ross Perot's supporters did in 1992. He did well enough in the polls that the media included him in all the Presidential debates.

Finally, most states allow each voter to write in a candidate of their choice. That's the reason Mickey Mouse and Charles Manson get a few votes each election.

All that said, our one-vote plurality-wins system means if you don't vote for a candidate from the two parties most likely to win, you're effectively throwing away your vote. Mathematically, it's the worst possible way to implement a voting system. There are much better systems out there.

Re:Other party than the republicrats?

[fustakrakich]

So the people ARE to blame if one of the former becomes president and does something stupid?

Yes they are. But evasion is an art form developed over millennia. In the name of convenience and expedience the individual prefers to blame the collective for the choices he makes, to absolve himself.

Re:Other party than the republicrats?

[Anonymous Coward]

Blaming the voters is the illusive game the citizens who believe that the have a useful voting voice are under the illusion that they are allowed to play and that they matter.
The best trick that the devil did was to make the people believe that they weren't manipulated and that they choose on their own free will

Re:Other party than the republicrats?

[fustakrakich]

Well, there is Stein. She'll be on the ballot. And there are several Green candidates running for congress(Clean House, remember?). She is preferable over Sanders*. And you won't be called a 'sexist' for not supporting Hillary.

*If Trump were on the ball, he would have called him "Sheepdog Sanders" instead of "Crazy Sanders", since his real job was to corral the more "left leaning" money into the democrats coffers. So far, he has performed most admirably. He really raked it in, and just like Trump, successfully kept attention tightly focused. And really, we should all raise a glass to Edward Louis James Bernays. His theories are more demonstrable than Einstein's.

The choice is ours, and we are responsible for them, the propaganda and money be damned

Re:Other party than the republicrats?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the question boils down to "Do we really have a choice?" Do you see any candidates for the presidency who are honest, forthright and virtuous? I don't. I haven't seen one in any election as memory serves. To argue that the voters are to "blame" assumes that there is some real choice to be made. There isn't as far as I can tell. The only choice I've seen is "Do you want to have a red hot poker stuck in your eye or have your left hand cut off?". Well, I guess I'll "choose" to have my left hand cut off, but that is hardly a real "choice" in my opinion.

I find myself in this election, as I have in most others, voting *against* someone rather than *for* someone. As such I have to vote for the person who I think has the best chance of winning over the worst case scenario. Casting my vote for a third party member who has no chance of winning only increases the chance that the worst candidate might win. The choice is about limiting the damage that is done, not preventing it.

Personally, I think we would be much better off if we had a viable three-party system as it would stop the current stupid cycle of dems vs repubs trying to bash in each other's skulls instead of collaborating on the greater good. With three viable parties, no one party would find itself in a position to be able to dictate or stonewall because of a majority in some forum. It would force cooperation and compromise because no one party would be able to get a measure through, or block a measure, without help from one of the other parties.

Re:Other party than the republicrats?

[Anonymous Coward]

She was in the script in 2008, too. It all comes down to what the superdelegates decide to do with the information about the popular vote they're getting. In 2008, both D candidates had a gimmick, though, so being the only candidate with a gimmick this year, she'll probably get their support.

Re:Other party than the republicrats?

[skam240]

Don't get me wrong Bernie is my favored candidate for the nomination but this "the system is rigged" stuff being blamed for Bernie's loss has got to go.

Sure, the Democratic nomination system could certainly be better but with Hillary ahead in the popular vote by over three million votes ( http://www.realclearpolitics.c... ) it's pretty clear she has the popular mandate. Not only did Bernie not get enough votes, he's so far behind that he was cleary not the prefered candidate for the voters. There shouldnt be any controversy here.

Re:Other party than the republicrats?

[mrchaotica]

The fact that Sanders has fewer votes is itself entirely due to the fact that the system is rigged. If it weren't for the (establishment) media deceitfully portraying him as if he had no chance from the beginning, and if it weren't for the fact that the DNC convention schedule was designed to favor Clinton, Sanders would have been getting a lot more votes in the early races. The rigged system wasn't enough to shut Sanders out of the race entirely, but it was certainly enough to give Clinton a gigantic head start.

Re:Other party than the republicrats?

[danbert8]

That being said, if you live in a state that generally goes for one party, the electoral college makes your vote wasted anyway. You might as well get counted as not supporting the first past the post two-party monopoly that we currently have.

Re:Other party than the republicrats?

[david_thornley]

The Democratic Party Presidential nomination system is not rigged. Complain about the mainstream media if you like, but that's not run by the Democrats. Journalists tend to be liberal, but not necessarily Democrats, while media owners tend to be Republicans. Sanders had just as much opportunity as Clinton to campaign for delegates.

The existence of superdelegates is a move toward conservatism in nominees, and was designed to avoid another 1972. Sanders is a bit speculative as a candidate, and the Republicans would call him a socialist and all that, and so if he can't win a majority of the ordinary delegates there's really no good reason to nominate him.

Really?

[AndyKron]

John McAfee? Really? I thought he was banned from the planet?

Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[PeeAitchPee]

He wants to deprive gays of the right to marry, and wants to make abortion illegal. These two items are massive infringements on civil liberties and about as far from libertarian ideals as one can get. People like Cruz and Santorum cater to the religious crazy wing of the Republican party and are one of the main reasons the GOP is in such disarray.

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, why even have government recognized marriage at all? What is the compelling state interest in recognizing such a thing or providing benefits based on it?

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[gfxguy]

Being anti abortion (to an extent) is not anti-libertarian. Being against gay marriage certainly is. But if libertarians believe in personal liberties and freedoms - the rights of the individual, then it comes down to when you consider a fetus an individual. You can rail on about how it's not a "person" until it's born, but having the belief that a second or third trimester fetus (or, in extreme cases, at conception) deserves the same rights to life you have is certainly not against libertarian principles - abortion would be as big a debate inside the libertarian party is as it is outside, because it all comes down to when you believe a fetus has that right to life.

For the record, as a libertarian, I'm not against abortion, per se, but I wouldn't suggest someone couldn't be libertarian because they were.

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[ooloorie]

Eh, why even have government recognized marriage at all? What is the compelling state interest in recognizing such a thing or providing benefits based on it?

There is none. However, we live in the real world where thousands of laws reference "marriage" and where the legal environment ensures that you cannot substitute private agreements for government-sanctioned marriage. So, what we are talking about is not what marriage should look like ideally, but what a reasonable and just policy is in the short term, and that is to extend marriage to any two consenting adults. Long term, it would still be nice to get rid of the special legal treatment of marriage, but that is going to take decades.

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[ooloorie]

but having the belief that a second or third trimester fetus (or, in extreme cases, at conception) deserves the same rights to life you have is certainly not against libertarian principles ... because it all comes down to when you believe a fetus has that right to life.

Abortion isn't about whether a fetus "has a right to life", it is about whether a fetus "has a right to live using someone else's body for survival against their will".

If you base your argument for the use of government power to force women to carry a fetus to term against their will on fetal personhood, you then have to postulate a right that no major political ideology recognizes, namely a right of one person to use another person's body for survival against their will. I can't see such a "right" being compatible with libertarianism.

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[_Sharp'r_]

Being against gay marriage certainly is

The libertarian position against gay marriage: Government doesn't need to be in the marriage business and shouldn't be requiring a license for marriage (among many other things), gay or otherwise. Let people make their own contracts, recognize or not recognize what associations they want to and stop deciding it all based on what's popular politically at the time. That way you can contract for whatever special relationship you want, but you stop forcing others to become an unwilling participant to that contract, which is what the pro-gay marriage crowd appears to want to happen.

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[_Sharp'r_]

a right of one person to use another person's body for survival against their will.

If you start transporting a person across a dangerous river, one in which the odds are overwhelming they'll die if not for your boat, then yes, you have an obligation to them to do what you can (without giving up your own life) to transport them to safety.

The time to decide you didn't want to do that was before the trip began, not in the middle of the river crossing when they'll likely die if you suddenly decide they can't "use your body" to drive your boat to safety.

So while you might be able to make a case for abortion situations where the life of the mother is in actual danger, or when they didn't have any choice about starting the trip (which isn't the responsibility of the baby, either), in the case of consensual sex and no danger to the mother's life, I'm amazed you can't see how a right to life for a person could be compatible with libertarianism.

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[Alomex]

right to life for a person

There's your problem. A clump of cells otherwise known as a cygote is not a person. Go back to square one and try again.

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[AmiMoJo]

It's not a moral or rational argument, it's a religious one. It all rests on the foetus having rights the same or similar to a what it has after being born. Science gives us some information on things like brain activity and ability to feel pain, but wanting to completely ban abortion requires assigning those rights from pretty much the moment of conception, for which there is no supporting medical evidence.

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't aware that Ted Cruz doesn't want homosexual males marrying willing females because they're homosexual. When did Ted Cruz proposed such a silly idea? Uh - oh... TRIGGER WARNING!!!! Common sense spotted!

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[Anonymous Coward]

Excepting forms of rape, how can it be against a person's will...they participated in the creation of that fetus...

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[Anonymous Coward]

How about after the point of viability? Certainly the clump of cells is pretty large and complex by then...might still not have a mind...I don't know...

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[Anonymous Coward]

but you stop forcing others to become an unwilling participant to that contract

Who is forcing people to become unwilling participants to a marriage contract?

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[_Sharp'r_]

Try to keep up. The poster I was responding to said that even if you considered a fetus an individual person, he couldn't see how it having a right to life being compatible with libertarianism.

Assuming you meant Zygote in your comment, perhaps you could also consider learning some science? Then maybe you'll be able to respond to the conversation we were having, rather than the one solely in your head?

Are you trolling? You seem to have too low of a user id to be as young and ignorant as your comment makes you appear to be....

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[_Sharp'r_]

If you read the original post I was responding to, the discussion was about what rights a fetus might or might not have (consistent with libertarian views), once you already consider them a person.

We can discuss the various arguments around at what point they should be considered a person, but that _is_ a different discussion. One which I haven't given a viewpoint on and which doesn't directly relate to the one we were having...

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[Anonymous Coward]

I meant to say blastocyst. Even later the embryo is nothing like a person until well advanced in development. Heck, for the first few months of development we have vestigial gills and a tail. I've seen 26 week preemie vegetables who can only live connected to an oxygen tank and are completely unaware of their surroundings. Calling that a person is a stretch.

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[ooloorie]

If you start transporting a person across a dangerous river, one in which the odds are overwhelming they'll die if not for your boat, then yes, you have an obligation to them to do what you can (without giving up your own life) to transport them to safety.

My obligation to you is determined based on whatever terms for transport we agree on. You are welcome to try to argue that conception implies a contract between a fetus and the mother, and hence confers particular legal obligations on the mother, but that line of reasoning is not rooted in a "right to life", it is rooted in arguments about contracts.

In any case, a river crossing example is misleading because its cost structure is wrong. A better example is where you lie dying on the ground (say, you broke your neck) and survive only if someone gives you mouth-to-mouth resuscitation until the ambulance arrives. At least in the US (and under a libertarian understanding), both starting and continuing resuscitation are voluntary. You may well argue that there ought to be a legal obligation to start and continue resuscitation, but such a view is incompatible with libertarian principles (and is also incompatible with contract law as understood in actual legal systems).

I'm amazed you can't see how a right to life for a person could be compatible with libertarianism.

An absolute "right to life" cannot even be defined consistently (go try it). Under libertarianism, if you trespass upon my property or body, whether to remove you from my property or body is my choice, and that is a free and moral choice I make, not a choice that can be compelled by the legal system.

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[ooloorie]

Try to keep up. The poster I was responding to said that even if you considered a fetus an individual person, he couldn't see how it having a right to life being compatible with libertarianism.

Yes, and I responded that your reasoning doesn't reduce to a "right to life" (which libertarianism doesn't recognize anyway) but the "enforcement of an implied contract".

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[Alomex]

Sure thing, somewhere between zero and 40 weeks the fetus becomes a person. I'm equally sure that this is not zero neither its 40. Prochoice people for the most part acknowledge the later (there are heavy restrictions for abortions past week 18 in most prochoice countries), pro-life reject the former on dubious religious grounds which apply only to certain JudeoChristian branches (eg in some Jewish traditions life doesn't start until 24hours after birth).

  Additionally, whatever number we agree to (eg point of viability) this still doesn't imply no abortion past that since we as a society are quite comfortable sacrificing one life for the benefit of others. And I'm talking here capital punishment, wars, castle doctrine, self-defence, and so on.

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[danbert8]

Abortion is a topic which is definitely not resolved within libertarians. It does indeed hinge on the point at which a human exists and has rights. Until we settle that as a society, I can accept "pro life" and "pro choice" views within the party. Myself, I view abortion as a less bad alternative to banning it. Abortions will happen even if it is illegal. The effects of an abortion ban are worse than the reality of legalized, but restricted abortions. From an idealistic perspective, yes abortion shouldn't be allowed. From a realistic view, it's something that people who are desperate will obtain and thus needs to be regulated, but allowed.

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[danbert8]

Arguing that libertarian beliefs are all based on contracts is a poor way to go about the abortion debate. Based on that line of reasoning, parents can "abort" their children until they turn 18. Even if you allowed for a non-legally binding contract of minors, you've moved the abortion line back to where a child can reason enough to make any implied contract with their parents. What compensation does a child offer to bring to the table in a parenting contract?

Taking care of a child is not something that is based on a contract, it's based on the societal obligation to take care of those that cannot care for themselves. How much care is required by law is based on intrinsic human rights, not contracts. Thus we come back to the real argument of abortion, at what point in gestation does an entity acquire rights? It's not an obvious answer from a religious, scientific, or any other basis. Thus I can support libertarians with varying beliefs on it.

From a policy perspective, I think it must remain legal. Even if you believe that a fetus has rights, if you accept that not everyone else believes that, you cannot use the rule of law to force your beliefs on others. I realize this isn't a perfect argument either (it could be used to allow slavery as well). In the interim, the government should definitely get out of restricting access to and education about contraceptive methods. If women (and men) are informed and have access to prevent conceptions they do not want, it will greatly reduce the demand for abortions.

Someday science may make it possible to have perfect and inexpensive contraception that religion accepts and the means of growing a child outside of a womb and we won't have to worry about it anymore except in medical cases.

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[danbert8]

The general libertarian ideal is that marriage not be recognized by the government at all. The practical policy decision is that until marriage laws can be removed from the books, they should be applied to all consenting adults equally. This is what is codified in the Libertarian Party platform: https://www.lp.org/platform

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[ooloorie]

Arguing that libertarian beliefs are all based on contracts is a poor way to go about the abortion debate

I'm not arguing that "libertarian beliefs are all based on contracts"; libertarian beliefs are, in fact, based on the right to be free from violence or coercion. What I am saying is that Sharpr's example was based on an implied contract, instead of a "right to life".

How much care is required by law is based on intrinsic human rights, not contracts. Thus we come back to the real argument of abortion, at what point in gestation does an entity acquire rights?

Under US law, as well as under libertarianism, I am generally not legally obligated to jump into the water to save you from drowning, or to give you mouth-to-mouth resuscitation when you are unable to breathe on your own, or to let you reside on my property and feed you. That is, there is no general legal obligation for one person to keep another person alive (although there is obviously a strong moral obligation). Therefore, even if you postulate that a fetus has the same rights as a person, that is insufficient to argue that there ought to be laws against removing a fetus from the womb.

Even if you believe that a fetus has rights, if you accept that not everyone else believes that, you cannot use the rule of law to force your beliefs on others. I realize this isn't a perfect argument either (it could be used to allow slavery as well).

Well, you are expressing your own political beliefs there, and you are running into a common problem that people who postulate too many rights run into, namely the conflict between negative and positive rights. Libertarianism addresses that conflict by giving primacy to negative rights in law and recognizing that not every moral obligation can be enforced through government coercion and punishment. And I think you are actually tending the same way ("cannot use the rule of law to force your beliefs on others").

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[Talderas]

On the other hand, we refer to the concept as human rights which you are entitled to for being a human, not a person. Abortion is a weird thing for libertarianism if you look at the NAP as the core to the philosophy. You can argue for abortion as the fetus is trespassing. You can also argue against it that the fetus is not trespassing of its own free will since it was put in that position by the parents. Simultaneously, the question of what stage of the human lifecycle something is considered a human, and consequently granted the innate rights that humans enjoy, is a relevant question. There's also the question of the method of abortion and whether it's simply an eviction or it abortion itself kills.

Abortion is anything but a religious issue within libertarianism, but thanks to the fact that Republicans see it as a religious issue and they have very loud voices it's practically impossible to have a reasonable discussion regarding it because the majority of people who support abortion only see the religious argument and won't entertain the thought that there's a non-religious argument against it.

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[danbert8]

Under US law, as well as under libertarianism, I am generally not legally obligated to jump into the water to save you from drowning, or to give you mouth-to-mouth resuscitation when you are unable to breathe on your own, or to let you reside on my property and feed you.

Those aren't exactly analogous. Under US law, if you push someone into the water and then find out they can't swim and you don't render assistance to save them, you can indeed be charged with a crime ranging from manslaughter to murder depending on intent. This is closer to a proper analogy. In this case, you took an action which put a life in the balance. If you choose not to aid to keep them alive then depending on your intent, it could be involuntary manslaugher (pushing them into the water was an accident) or some range of murder if pushing them into the water was intentional.

In the case of abortion if gestational product (whatever it is called) is considered a rights bearing human entity then if the pregnancy was accidental, it would be a lower crime such as criminally negligent homicide. If it was due to rape, than the rapist should also be charged with felony murder rule. If the life of the mother is at risk to carry to term, justifiable homicide is appropriate. If the life of the fetus is at risk to carry to term, euthanasia would seem to be the appropriate term.

If the gestational product is not considered a rights bearing human entity, then removal of those cells should be no different under the law than the removal of any other organ.

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[david_thornley]

The only woman I personally know who I know had an abortion did so because contraception failed. She was on what she legitimately believed effective contraception, and therefore was not consenting to host a fetus. This is in no way analogous to pushing someone into the water, as that is an intentional act deliberately putting someone into a position of likely inconvenience and possible danger.

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[ooloorie]

Those aren't exactly analogous. Under US law, if you push someone into the water and then find out they can't swim and you don't render assistance to save them

That analogy is wrong. Prior to pushing the person into the water, that person exists and would continue living on their own if you hadn't pushed them. A fetus does not exist prior to conception, and it has no independent existence until birth.

In the case of abortion if gestational product (whatever it is called) is considered a rights bearing human entity then

...then that "human entity" becomes a trespasser when its presence is no longer desired. You feel that such an "entity" has a right to trespass based on "private necessity", and that is US law, but I don't see how you can derive such a right from libertarian principles.

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[_Sharp'r_]

The original posted stated you couldn't be libertarian and against gay marriage, so I just posted the obvious libertarian argument against gay marriage licenses by the State. It also happens to be an argument against other types of marriage licenses by the State as well. The official LP platform may be pro-gay marriage, but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of legitimate (small-l) libertarians who don't agree with them.

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[danbert8]

Again, it depends on if you consider the entity a human being created by the mother. Maybe if the pushing someone off the boat analogy doesn't work, how about this one? A mother and a baby are in a space ship and the mother decides she doesn't want to take care of the baby anymore. Can the mother shove the baby out of the airlock? That baby is totally trespassing in the mother's property of the spaceship and has no intrinsic right to be there and share the mother's oxygen and food.

If you consider a gestational entity a human, you cannot terminate its life support anymore than you can pull the plug on someone hooked up to a respirator because you don't want to provide for their care anymore.

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[ooloorie]

A mother and a baby are in a space ship and the mother decides she doesn't want to take care of the baby anymore. Can the mother shove the baby out of the airlock? That baby is totally trespassing in the mother's property of the spaceship and has no intrinsic right to be there and share the mother's oxygen and food.

The question isn't whether you can construct some argument that the mother ought to have a moral or legal duty to keep the child alive under different circumstances, the question is whether such a duty derives from a child's absolute "right to life" or from some other principle. If it derives from some other principle, then that principle doesn't necessarily apply the same way in all these situations. Second, you gloss over what "can" actually means. Obviously she "can" do this physically. The question is what state interventions you are advocating to prevent this. Are you going to install pregnancy monitors on the spacecraft? Are you going to require special codes and government permission to unlock the airlocks? Are you going to have 24/7 camera surveillance?

If you consider a gestational entity a human, you cannot terminate its life support anymore than you can pull the plug on someone hooked up to a respirator because you don't want to provide for their care anymore.

That happens every day, and not just in the US, but also in countries with single payer health care that have constitutional guarantees of health care. It's impossible for things to work otherwise. In the end, there are people who need to work to provide those services, and if the burden becomes large enough on them, they can reasonably refuse to do so, no matter what your ideology may be.

All your examples simply illustrate your belief in an absolute right to life and the ability and necessity of the state to enforce such a right under any and all circumstances. That's a nice belief, but it isn't a libertarian belief, or even US law. From a libertarian point of view, as well as a US legal point of view, there is no positive right to life, and furthermore, even if there were, the state ought not to have unlimited power to investigate and prosecute violations of such a right. What libertarians recognize is a right to self-defense and the possibility to delegate enforcement of that right to the state to the extent that it doesn't infringe with other rights.

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[danbert8]

No, you must have missed my earlier statements. I am arguing that it isn't incompatible with libertarianism to be against abortions. In no way am I advocating for state control of pregnancies or enforcement of carrying to term. I was merely explaining how the law could handle abortions if it were to be made illegal. Again, it all hinges on what rights we consider people to have and what the definition of life is. There is no libertarian consensus on this.

An abortion isn't just deciding to stop supporting a growing embryo or beyond. It's taking active steps to terminate a pregnancy. A mother can't just say, I don't want this fetus inside me and it naturally comes out and dies on its own. You have to either chemically poison it, or physically cut things apart to remove the ability to provide support. I'm not saying there is a good way of using the government to prevent or punish this, but abortion is not a passive thing like telling the fetus to leave. I guess you can claim self defense, but that's a tricky line as well considering through action (coitus) and inaction (insufficient or failed birth control) said party was invited into the property.

Re:Ted Cruz isn't libertarian

[ooloorie]

I'm not saying there is a good way of using the government to prevent or punish this

But that is one of the reasons why anti-abortion laws are intrinsically incompatible with libertarianism, even if you believe that a fetus has a "right to life". A libertarian society simply cannot guarantee a "right to life", not even for adults. Of course, neither can any other kind of society guarantee a "right to life", they merely delude themselves into thinking they can by passing one ineffective and harmful law after another.

That doesn't mean that in a libertarian society, anything goes with respect to abortion. Quite to the contrary: I would expect that in a libertarian society, many private communities, insurance plans, and other institutions would adopt rules and regulations against abortions; the difference is that you are subject to these rules by choice and mutual agreement, as opposed to having people lobby for a single rule imposed on everybody.

Thank You

[snookerdoodle]

That is all I had to say to you other than, "well said."

Ron Paul?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ron Paul ran in the 2008 Republican Primary, and lost to Mitt Romney and John McCain. He ran again in 2012, with more fame and money, and lost to Mitt Romney again. And this is in the Republican Primary, which doesn't have the Bernie Sanders supporters. Ron Paul was 76? years old. He had been a Congressman for 2 decades, and was a doctor whom delivered babies. Ron Paul had ran as a Libertarian in 1988. Ron Paul was ideologically pure, and well versed in ideology, proposing a billion dollar reward for Osama bin Laden, and saying that it would have been cheaper to buy all the slaves than to have the Civil War.

Rand Paul ran as a moderate in 2016, and did badly. He just isn't as good as his daddy. Gary Johnson already ran in 2012, and lost badly. He wants to run again, and with a governor from Massachusetts as VP. Governors of Massachusetts are not Libertarians.

So yeah, Ron Paul 2012, Gary Johnson 2012, Rand Paul 2016, and Ted Cruz 2016 all failed. Gary Johnson 2016 will fail too. Unless he wants to spoil Trump, just like Nader did in 2000.

LIbertarians don't have a chance in 2016

[damn_registrars]

The overwhelming majority of American "Libertarians" are just Republicans with a couple gripes. Their underlying sense of duty to the GOP will come through and they will vote for Trump as they are trained to see nothing worse for the world than anyone named Clinton. They know that they cannot block a Clinton presidency by voting for a third party.

Re:LIbertarians don't have a chance in 2016

[ooloorie]

The overwhelming majority of American "Libertarians" are just Republicans with a couple gripes.

The overwhelming majority of Americans is either Republican or independent.

They know that they cannot block a Clinton presidency by voting for a third party.

You bet that blocking a Clinton presidency may end up being high on the agenda for a lot of people, because Clinton is a lying, incompetent crook, regardless of her party affiliation, or what political goals she pretends to stand for today.

Re:LIbertarians don't have a chance in 2016

[Anonymous Coward]

Shows that you know fuckall about the recent upsurge of Libertarian interest... the majority of those swinging in currently are Democrats.

How does it feel to be a fucktard and a bitch?

Re:LIbertarians don't have a chance in 2016

[King_TJ]

The majority of American libertarians have what I'd call "a couple BIG gripes", actually. Among them is the idea that we need to get rid of the Federal Reserve as manager/manipulator of our currency. I don't think there's almost anyone on the Republican ticket who is really ready to fight that battle.

Until it's taken serious though, it allows Federal government to print more currency "on demand", to cover expenses for initiatives it can't actually afford -- and THAT means there's no real possibility for a small, limited central government that isn't overstepping its boundaries.

Re:LIbertarians don't have a chance in 2016

[damn_registrars]

The overwhelming majority of Americans is either Republican or independent.

That depends on how you define "Independent". Frankly, considering the split is so very very even between the D's and the R's in this country, if you are setting the threshold for "independent" such as to establish an "overwhelming majority" just by combining the independents with republicans, then you could say the exact same thing by substituting democrats in the place of republicans in that statement.

In other words, your statement doesn't mean squat.

Clinton is a lying, incompetent crook

If she is an incompetent crook then how has she made it this far? We have plenty of incompetent crook politicians in jail from all levels of government. There is plenty wrong with Clinton, but I wouldn't say competence is part of it.

So did you foe me because you can't stand reality? You seem to be on something of an anti-truth rant here.

Re:LIbertarians don't have a chance in 2016

[damn_registrars]

the idea that we need to get rid of the Federal Reserve as manager/manipulator of our currency. I don't think there's almost anyone on the Republican ticket who is really ready to fight that battle.

You must be new here. Slashdot conservatives seldom pass at a chance to sing the praises (or worship at the altar) of Ron Paul and his holy son Rand. Sure neither has managed to win the GOP endorsement for president but no other candidate has ever attracted such rabid support here as the two of them.

Re:LIbertarians don't have a chance in 2016

[ooloorie]

That depends on how you define "Independent".

The term "independent" refers to party registration.

If she is an incompetent crook then how has she made it this far?

She is incompetent at government, not at lying. And without Bill Clinton to back her up, she would be a non-entity.

So did you foe me because you can't stand reality?

No, I "foed" you because you are a partisan idiot.

Re:LIbertarians don't have a chance in 2016

[damn_registrars]

That depends on how you define "Independent".

The term "independent" refers to party registration.

Which means that your claim of the overwhelming majority is crap. Even the states with the highest rates of "independent" voters still have that as a small part of their total voting population. Even more so, as the difference in the count between D and R is so razor thin, your statement of "R+I" is no more valid than to say the same of "D+I".

In other words you failed at basic math. You were upvoted because you are preaching to the choir here, who also can't be bothered to handle simple math when it challenges their worldview.

If she is an incompetent crook then how has she made it this far?

She is incompetent at government, not at lying.

So you are incompetent at grammar, then? The phrase "incompetent crook" - which you used specifically - is understood to mean a crook who is not competent at being a crook.

Nevertheless, if she is incompetent as government - as you are now claiming after moving the goalposts - how did she make it this far? If she was that awful at her job she never should have made it as far as she did.

And without Bill Clinton to back her up, she would be a non-entity.

For the start of her career - as US Senator from NY State - sure. But what use would it be for President Barack "Lawnchair" Obama to select an incompetent person for SoS? He has not tried hard to mirror the Clinton Administration in his own.

So did you foe me because you can't stand reality?

No, I "foed" you because you are a partisan idiot.

You established well that you suck at writing. Apparently you aren't very good at reading, either.

Re:LIbertarians don't have a chance in 2016

[ooloorie]

Which means that your claim of the overwhelming majority is crap.

No, it means that your claim of "the overwhelming majority is crap". You just reasoned through the steps yourself:

The overwhelming majority of American "Libertarians" are just Republicans with a couple gripes.

Now:

But what use would it be for President Barack "Lawnchair" Obama to select an incompetent person for SoS?

He may not have expected her to be as incompetent as she turned out to be. Or he may simply not have cared and hired her just out of a political calculation that having her in his administration and control was preferable to the alternatives.

So you are incompetent at grammar, then? The phrase "incompetent crook" - which you used specifically - is understood to mean a crook who is not competent at being a crook.

The error there is in your limited understanding of English, not my grammar.

Re:LIbertarians don't have a chance in 2016

[damn_registrars]

Which means that your claim of the overwhelming majority is crap.

No, it means that your claim of "the overwhelming majority is crap".

So you can't handle reading, writing, or arithmetic. And your demeanor is oh so pleasant... You must be a real hit at your school.

He may not have expected her to be as incompetent as she turned out to be.

That is the closest you have come to a non-partisan claim of Clinton's "incompetence". Care to tell us why you think she was "incompetent" as SoS? What did she do that showed her to be unfit for the job?

having her in his administration and control was preferable to the alternatives.

You're diving into a rabbit hole, there. If Clinton and Obama were as partisan as you seem to be trying to imply, then leaving her in the US Senate - rather than hiring her as SoS - would not have been a bad move for the POTUS. There was even a chance (albeit a very small one) that she could have lost re-election while he was POTUS which would have caused her to fade away that much more quickly.

So you are incompetent at grammar, then? The phrase "incompetent crook" - which you used specifically - is understood to mean a crook who is not competent at being a crook.

The error there is in your limited understanding of English, not my grammar.

You can move the goalposts all you want, kid, but that doesn't change the meaning of what you have written. In your own words you said she was an incompetent crook; now you are pretending she was something else. Didn't your parents teach you that there is no post-submit comment edit function here on slashdot before they signed you up?

I'm sorry that your entire "argument" is fact-free and falls on its face when confronted with simple logic, I feel bad that you made such a total ass of yourself here. But the first thing you should do when you realize you are digging a deep hole that you want to get out of is to stop digging. Put down the shovel, and ask for help, kid.

Re:LIbertarians don't have a chance in 2016

[King_TJ]

Oh, I'm not new here .... not by a long shot.

I also happen to think Ron Paul got a whole LOT of things right. (Arguably, he spent a bit too much time arguing some aspects of foreign policy that America isn't ready for yet -- hurting his credibility. But still, he made MUCH more sense than the mass media wanted to admit.) And honestly? Although he made a lot of references to advocating a return to the days of the "gold standard", I think that's a concept that can be implemented without involving gold at all. The key is simply tying our currency to *something* tangible, rather than backing it with nothing but faith in the monetary system remaining solvent.

Rand is really not that close a follower of Ron's beliefs.... He's much more of a typical Republican, except one who is more in-tune than most with protecting individual freedom from government intrusions of privacy. He never gave me the impression he wanted to do much of anything to put an end to the "war on terror" (beyond reigning in agencies like the TSA or NSA spying on American citizens, perhaps).

In any case, Ron Paul is one of very FEW exceptions as a candidate who was registered on the Republican ticket, yet held very libertarian beliefs.

I think you're selling a lot of people short if you think most Libertarians will just vote Trump out of the belief that "blocking Hillary" is more important than any of their other principles. The problem is, America doesn't have nearly enough libertarian-minded people in the first place. But I predict you'll see at least a doubling of the usual number of votes for the L.P. in this election.

Re:LIbertarians don't have a chance in 2016

[damn_registrars]

I also happen to think Ron Paul got a whole LOT of things right.

From my vantage point he only had a few things right, but none for the right reason. He was right to oppose the war in Iraq, but he did it only because he did not want to pay for it - he couldn't have cared less about the human cost if someone else was willing to foot the bill.

Rand is really not that close a follower of Ron's beliefs....

His cult here on slashdot isn't well versed on the differences between father and son, and tripped all over each other to praise the son's campaign.

I think you're selling a lot of people short if you think most Libertarians will just vote Trump out of the belief that "blocking Hillary" is more important than any of their other principles.

While there are plenty of actual libertarians scattered around the country, the most vocal ones here on slashdot - and in plenty of other places - are just Paullowers who will happily line up behind the GOP endorsement. For an example, take a look at how much the slashdot "libertarian" base was just peachy with the GWB presidency and happily voted for his re-election.

But I predict you'll see at least a doubling of the usual number of votes for the L.P. in this election.

Only time will tell, but I would be surprised if more "libertarians" don't opt for their sense of the "lesser of two evils" approach and vote Trump instead as they can't stand Clinton.

Re:LIbertarians don't have a chance in 2016

[dywolf]

meanwhile back in reality actual demographic and census numbers indicate that no one has a majority, but democrats enjoy a plurality over republicans.

or stated another way: you statement is just as true as the statement that " a majority of americans are either Democrats or Independent".

Re:LIbertarians don't have a chance in 2016

[ooloorie]

or stated another way: you statement is just as true as the statement that " a majority of americans are either Democrats or Independent".

Yes, and guess what? That was the point. Congratulations for figuring it out, even if you seem to be a little slow.

Re:LIbertarians don't have a chance in 2016

[damn_registrars]

The key is simply tying our currency to *something* tangible, rather than backing it with nothing but faith in the monetary system remaining solvent.

I just realized - a few days late - that I didn't respond to this point. I have tried to get people who bring this up to elaborate more on it but nobody has yet done so.

My big question about this is if this is so important, why is there not a single currency of any economic importance in the world today that is doing this? The British Pound Sterling is not pegged to the value of a pound (or any other weight) of anything. No dollar (of any country) is either. Nor is the Euro, the Yuan, the Yen, or any Peso. Same with the Ruble, the Rupee, and the Lira.

If basically the entire world says "no, it's not that important", why are they wrong? Sure, the world has been wrong before; we can think of a time not that long ago when most people in the world thought the world was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth.

I just can't put my finger on what the world is missing. The currency is worth something because someone says so. If I want to trade you 5 bananas for a rusty bicycle and we both think that's a good deal what's the problem with the exchange of non-pegged goods? Currency is just a stand-in. I don't see why it needs to be pegged to a physical commodity as long as all the parties using it agree on what it should be worth.

And frankly as any physical commodity will have a finite supply, how would a pegged currency prevent increasing decreases in personal net worth of the lower economic classes? I appreciate that you did not specify gold, but any other substance will have the same problem unless you want to peg the currency to gaseous carbon dioxide.

Re:LIbertarians don't have a chance in 2016

[hyades1]

Sorry, but the idiocy I see in this exchange is yours.

All wrong

[Hognoxious]

There shouldn't be a libertarian party. Everybody should be his own candidate.

Re:All wrong

[American AC in Paris]

There shouldn't be a libertarian party. Everybody should be his own candidate.

Exactly. The very concept of a "libertarian party" is an oxymoron.

Political parties are about coalition-building, structure, organization, compromise, and incremental, collaborative progress.

The vast majority of modern libertarians--at least the American strain--are all about independence, personal control, certitude, and a fundamental aversion to the organization and structuring of power. A party of this nature looks like...well, it looks exactly like what we saw this week--from the overhead-projected Excel spreadsheet tally of votes right on down to the candidate with the large Iron Cross tattoo who decided to perform a burlesque show on a dare.

Libertarians will never be more than a fringe force on American politics, simply because they're intrinsically unwilling to build kind of structured organization that makes it possible to win tens of millions of votes.

Re:All wrong

[swillden]

Libertarians will never be more than a fringe force on American politics, simply because they're intrinsically unwilling to build kind of structured organization that makes it possible to win tens of millions of votes.

This is true, and it creates an interesting bias in American politics (and perhaps in democratic politics in general). It means that the laws and government structures we define through the system are inherently biased towards interference and imposition because the people who are most effective at pushing their views are those who think in terms of structure and control. Building a party requires leaders who are willing to impose controls on party members and members who are willing to accept them.

Re:All wrong

[American AC in Paris]

It goes beyond politics. In pretty much any human endeavor, odds will heavily favor groups that are well-organized and have clear structures of authority over those that are lacking these things. The larger the group, the more pronounced this becomes.

Humans have gotten as far as we have in very large part because we've successfully exploited the overwhelming power of coordination. Without hierarchy, authority, and structure, coordination is difficult--and becomes increasingly so with each new person you add to the mix.

Become too decentralized, too uncoordinated, and some other large group of humans is going to come along and wipe the floor with you.

Re:All wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Could individuals recognize this and establish such coordination on a temporary basis as needed?

Re:All wrong

[American AC in Paris]

Could individuals recognize this and establish such coordination on a temporary basis as needed?

Sure--but as with so many things, it takes time, resources, and expertise to do so. In a crisis, all three of those things will be in short supply.

The fact that the individuals in question are all accustomed to being their own leader will likely exacerbate things, as well.

Re:All wrong

[dywolf]

oblig: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Oblig

[Anonymous Coward]

WARNING - Your Country May Be Vulnerable To Attack!

Click here to renew your subscription to the US Libertarian Party immediately!

Lesser of Two Evils No More

[wxjones]

Rather than vote for the neo-Jackson fascist (Trump) or the neo-Nixon pathological liar (Clinton), I'm voting for Gary Johnson. I have voted for the lesser of two evils in the past, but never has the lesser been so evil.

Spoiler role of Libertarian Party

[Anonymous Coward]

If they get more than one percent of the vote, they could end up playing a role like Ralph Nader did in Florida in 2000. Small, but decisive.

Everyone seems to assume that the Libertarians would cannibalize votes from Trump, but it's not that clear. Trump's base is white voters in working class or low-paying service jobs. I would expect that most potential libertarian voters are college educated and fairly affluent, and that sector skews towards Hillary in the polls.

The Fruit & Nut Club

[Zobeid]

My view on this. . . The Libertarian Party has long been infested with Fruit Loops, Nut Bars and Bananas. They could have opened a whole snack bar right there at the convention, and they were all outraged at the thought of their beloved party being "taken over" by grown-ups like Johnson and Weld.

From where I sit, Johnson and Weld aren't hijacking the party. They're just trying to rescue it from the Looney Tunes.

You know who I'm talking about. . . I mean the guys in bizarre costumes screaming at Johnson because he won't commit to abolish driver's licenses. . . or legalize all hard drugs overnight. . . or abolish public education. . . or privatize our highway system and make all roads into toll roads. . . Policies that the American people want, deep down in their hearts, if only they realized it! If only everyone would read Ayn Rand and become enlightened!

I'm talking about the faction trying to get "opposition to all forms of government" inserted as a plank the party platform. Here's a hint for you guys: It's the Libertarian Party, not the Anarchist Party. If you love anarchy so much, why not form your own Anarchist Party? Or better yet, move to Somalia and see how you like it!

The Fruit & Nut Club will undoubtedly be gnashing their teeth and retorting that I'm no libertarian and have no libertarian principles. That's not true. I have a very strong believe in libertarian principles. To wit:

1. I favor freedom for the people. They shouldn't trampled by big government or big business or big unions or big religion or big anything.

2. I'm not sure how much government we need, but I'm sure what we have right now is too much.

3. We should really try to keep the country from going broke.

I think if the party would stick with *my* principles, they could have a lot clearer message, focused on what's important, and make some headway with the general public -- as opposed to blathering about Rand, NAP, and anarcho-capitalist doctrine.

LOL@Libertarians McAfee? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that John McAfee got *any* support is hilarious and just goes to show that libertarians are not immune to the "nutcase who believes idiotic things" disease that the other parties suffer from.

Sadly the libertarian party isn't libertarian :(

[Anonymous Coward]

McAffee comes closer to being a libertarian than most of the supposedly libertarian candidates, but I don't think he even understands the ramifications of what a libertarian actually is. The republicans long ago took over the libertarian party which makes it very confusing when we begin to talk about libertarians. There is a real libertarian or two running for president in the libertarian party. Both Marc Allan Feldman and Darryl W Perry score pretty well with real libertarians. Quite frankly I think both have a republican conservative streak to them that sickens me, but largely there politics are what matter and both would stay out of the people's business. Both would pull us out of war, reduce the military, open up the markets, eliminate needless regulation, and put social programs into the hands of the people instead of stealing it from them only to turn the average individual into a government-handout-dependent-slave.

For example if the government stopped taking my money I'd more than be able to cover my childs education and fund (which I already do to an extent) those social programs I agree with. If people care out freedom and having control over there own life I'd suggest you start looking into migrating to New Hampshire. We've got thousands of people moving here and every town and city in the southern part of the state has dozens if not hundreds of libertarians that are making a difference. At the local level there is a lot we can do. Come and check it out at the annual camping festival June 19th-26th: www.porcfest.org. About 10% of 20,000 signers (people who have agreed to move) have already moved too!

Thank you! Lost, not "denied". "Foiled" is ok.

[billstewart]

"Denied" would be the party not accepting him because he's not a member or didn't file the right paperwork or whatever. Dude lost, not only because he didn't have the credibility with most of the party that Gary Johnson has, but also because he's too crazy and embarrassing even for us.

"Foiled" would be ok :-)

Just find another hard-core Republican

[Anonymous Coward]

They just need to find another hard-core, ultra-conservative, Republican, like Ron Paul; who at the time had the most conservative voting record sine WWII. Perhaps Jim Inhofe, seems like he's gotten more conservative recently.

So, basically

[Anonymous Coward]

you are voting for Hillary but do not want to be blamed for what she does. That makes you unprincipled and gutless.

In the US, we only have two viable parties. You either directly support the one most-likely to win in any particular election cycle, or you directly support the underdog, or else you support the winner indirectly and gutlessly by staying home or by tossing your support to a non-vialble third candidate thus splitting the vote of those opposing the one more likely to win.

In 1980, the Dems went Carter, the Repubs went Reagan and the gutless morons went for Anderson. In that race the anti-conservatives split their vote and Reagan won in a landslide. Anderson was a bug on the political windshield.

In 1992, the Dems went Clinton, the Repubs went Bush and the idiots went for Perot. In that race,the anti-liberals split their vote and Clinton won. Perot was the bug on the windshield.

In 2016, the Dems will go Clinton, the Repubs will go Trump, and idiots will be for Johnson. Johnson will never go into the Whitehouse; it's simply impossible in the real world. Unless the FBI decides to make things interesting, the President in January will either be Hillary or Donald. Period. As the Democrat with current demographics, Hillary is the likely winner. If you are pro-Trump you can vote Trump. If you are pro-Hillary or anti-Trump, you can vote Hillary. If you are anti-Hillary then your only rational option is to grit your teeth and vote for Donald. Nobody else has any possibility of victory, so a vote for anybody else becomes a vote for the person already likely to win, which in this case is Hillary.

Re:psst - You inner doctor Mengele is showing

[Alomex]

According to you and the aforementioned late doctor, these people are apparently no longer human and can be disposed of. No matter that many people who are comatose and on life support eventually recover from their injuries/illnesses and resume their lives.

Indeed current practice is to disconnect those people when there are no signs of brain activity. And no, despite what Hollywood tells you not "many people" recover from Vegetative state (VS). Very, very few ever do, and this is often attributed to misdiagnosis of VS.

Please re-read

[Anonymous Coward]

Many people DO recover from a coma.

By presenting people in a vegetative state as an analogue to the unborn (both being not aware and both being dependent on others) and using this as a justification for doling-out death, you were clever because many people approve of "unplugging" those in a VS, but I cite those in a coma because they have the same characteristics which you present as justification for summary murder, yet most people understand how wrong the justification truly is in that context.

A person in a coma is completely dependent upon machines and other humans to live and is generally perceived to be totally unaware of his/her surroundings and self. If these are the qualifications for being stripped of your rights and being killed then we are all in peril. If these are not the criteria, then do not pretend that they are for the unborn just because it makes a clever dodge for ends-justify-the-means third reich style banality.

If you are going to judge a person's status as a human based on something like alertness or independence then such people are easily classified as "not human". In fact, once you start down that very slippery slope, you grant validity to the idea that anybody can arbitrarily draw the lines around which life and death are delimited. You no longer are arguing about human worth and dignity and are then just negotiating about who can be killed today. This is absolutely contrary to the traditional American position our founders referred to in the Declaration of Independence when they wrote: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Probably because...

[Anonymous Coward]

a few of the idiots here think that making YouTubes of one's self with hookers and taking recreational drugs rectally is pretty high-tech. All the medical tech you might need thereafter and all the police tech that might be used to chase you on murder charges might be pretty high-tech too. LOL

come to think of it: McAfee is the PERFECT Libertarian party mascot - a rich guy who confuses "liberty" with "libertine" and convinces young men that it's cool to dispense with all standards and dream of the debauchery that they could get away with if there were no rules for themselves (while everybody ELSE obeyed traditional rules of course) and they somehow could get huge piles of money.

Re: "software magnate

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not sure that Debs was a follower of Trotsky during the first world War. Grin. Perhaps it was all Lucy Burn's fault instead.