RP Listener Forum - Radio Paradise - eclectic commercial free Internet radio
[ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Photography Forum - Your Own Photos; Please Limit to 510 ... - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Apr 26, 2015 - 11:39pm
 
Name My Band - buzz - Apr 26, 2015 - 9:59pm
 
Movie rental suggestions & reviews - Netflix or Blockbuster - buzz - Apr 26, 2015 - 9:54pm
 
• • • Lost and Found • • •  - oldviolin - Apr 26, 2015 - 9:39pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - ScottFromWyoming - Apr 26, 2015 - 8:42pm
 
What makes you smile? - Manbird - Apr 26, 2015 - 8:05pm
 
What Did You Do Today? - buzz - Apr 26, 2015 - 5:11pm
 
The Dragons' Roost - triskele - Apr 26, 2015 - 4:02pm
 
Things I Saw Today... - triskele - Apr 26, 2015 - 3:53pm
 
Stuff I've Said Out Loud - haresfur - Apr 26, 2015 - 3:16pm
 
Counting with Pictures - Proclivities - Apr 26, 2015 - 3:02pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - Alexandra - Apr 26, 2015 - 2:53pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - Manbird - Apr 26, 2015 - 2:37pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - kurtster - Apr 26, 2015 - 1:42pm
 
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes. - Antigone - Apr 26, 2015 - 12:46pm
 
• • •  BACON • • •  - DaveInVA - Apr 26, 2015 - 10:27am
 
OUR CATS!! - 2cats - Apr 26, 2015 - 10:21am
 
Show us your NEW _______________!!!! - Antigone - Apr 26, 2015 - 9:20am
 
How's the weather? - triskele - Apr 26, 2015 - 7:57am
 
Post Your Rainbow Pictures - Alexandra - Apr 25, 2015 - 8:57pm
 
Cloud Gazing (Photos You've Taken) - Alexandra - Apr 25, 2015 - 8:56pm
 
Waste Time At Work - ScottFromWyoming - Apr 25, 2015 - 8:50pm
 
Out the window - Alexandra - Apr 25, 2015 - 8:50pm
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - ScottFromWyoming - Apr 25, 2015 - 8:49pm
 
Things You Thought Today - bokey - Apr 25, 2015 - 7:49pm
 
Dialing 1-800-Manbird - Manbird - Apr 25, 2015 - 7:10pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - Antigone - Apr 25, 2015 - 6:28pm
 
Outstanding Covers - oldviolin - Apr 25, 2015 - 5:31pm
 
Radio Paradise Comments - Coaxial - Apr 25, 2015 - 4:08pm
 
Beer - oldviolin - Apr 25, 2015 - 3:45pm
 
Unusual News - Coaxial - Apr 25, 2015 - 1:17pm
 
Breaking News - ScottFromWyoming - Apr 25, 2015 - 9:54am
 
Summer Concerts - vinylbob - Apr 25, 2015 - 9:20am
 
Nepal - miamizsun - Apr 25, 2015 - 8:48am
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - Red_Dragon - Apr 25, 2015 - 8:39am
 
Classical Music - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Apr 24, 2015 - 10:42pm
 
Speaking of Logos... - islander - Apr 24, 2015 - 10:20pm
 
Make triskele smile - BlueHeronDruid - Apr 24, 2015 - 8:24pm
 
Celebrity Deaths - ScottFromWyoming - Apr 24, 2015 - 7:33pm
 
The Moon - oldviolin - Apr 24, 2015 - 3:58pm
 
HALF A WORLD - oldviolin - Apr 24, 2015 - 3:45pm
 
Lyrics That Remind You of Someone - Sean-E-Sean - Apr 24, 2015 - 2:25pm
 
Water Wars - oldviolin - Apr 24, 2015 - 12:40pm
 
The Image Post - oldviolin - Apr 24, 2015 - 12:06pm
 
What are you doing RIGHT NOW? - oldviolin - Apr 24, 2015 - 11:43am
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - Proclivities - Apr 24, 2015 - 11:40am
 
How much is your monthly cellphone bill? - miamizsun - Apr 24, 2015 - 9:15am
 
Make Lily34 Laugh - Coaxial - Apr 24, 2015 - 8:12am
 
Great guitar faces - oldviolin - Apr 24, 2015 - 8:03am
 
Epic Facebook Statuses - oldviolin - Apr 24, 2015 - 7:52am
 
Candidate Hillary Clinton - oldviolin - Apr 24, 2015 - 7:47am
 
RP Daily Trivia Challenge - ScottFromWyoming - Apr 24, 2015 - 7:16am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - Beaker - Apr 24, 2015 - 7:05am
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - sirdroseph - Apr 24, 2015 - 6:40am
 
~*Funny Cats*~ - 2cats - Apr 24, 2015 - 6:19am
 
MIXES - miamizsun - Apr 24, 2015 - 5:58am
 
Music Videos - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Apr 23, 2015 - 11:48pm
 
Celebrity Face Recognition - Coaxial - Apr 23, 2015 - 9:05pm
 
Live Music - RichardPrins - Apr 23, 2015 - 6:09pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - RichardPrins - Apr 23, 2015 - 5:51pm
 
Tech & Science - RichardPrins - Apr 23, 2015 - 5:08pm
 
Things that make you go Hmmmm..... - DaveInVA - Apr 23, 2015 - 4:06pm
 
volcano! - Antigone - Apr 23, 2015 - 3:33pm
 
Wikipedia News - miamizsun - Apr 23, 2015 - 3:24pm
 
Military Matters - RichardPrins - Apr 23, 2015 - 2:58pm
 
What songs make you cry... - VV - Apr 23, 2015 - 2:26pm
 
Israel - RichardPrins - Apr 23, 2015 - 2:12pm
 
2016 Elections - RichardPrins - Apr 23, 2015 - 11:37am
 
Thimerosal Vaccines linked to neurological disorders - aflanigan - Apr 23, 2015 - 11:31am
 
To ROKU or not to ROKU... - bokey - Apr 23, 2015 - 11:29am
 
The Best Commercials - Proclivities - Apr 23, 2015 - 11:19am
 
Speaking of LEGOS - Proclivities - Apr 23, 2015 - 11:04am
 
More cuteness - MsJudi - Apr 23, 2015 - 10:09am
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - lily34 - Apr 23, 2015 - 6:26am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Apr 23, 2015 - 5:53am
 
(a public service of RP)
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Ask the Libertarian Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 135, 136, 137  Next
Post to this Topic
sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Apr 10, 2015 - 11:20am

 RichardPrins wrote:
Note to Media
Stop Calling Rand Paul a Libertarian

Seems more interested in pandering to Teabaggers & war-lovin' theocrats.

 

Yep, that's how I sees it too.{#Yes}
RichardPrins

RichardPrins Avatar



Posted: Apr 10, 2015 - 11:09am

Note to Media
Stop Calling Rand Paul a Libertarian

Seems more interested in pandering to Teabaggers & war-lovin' theocrats (as I pointed out elsewhere).
sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Apr 10, 2015 - 10:36am

 Lazy8 wrote:

Why It's So Hard to Like Rand Paul

 

The 2016 presidential candidate's commitment to libertarian political philosophy only goes as far as his chosen views allow.

Rand Paul is the Republican son of a longtime Republican House member, but let it never be said that he is not open-minded. In 2013, he confided to Sean Hannity, "I've been kind of disappointed, because honestly there were certain aspects of President Obama that I wanted to like."

I know how he feels. That's how I feel about Rand Paul.

My old friend David Boaz, author of the excellent new book The Libertarian Mind, told NPR that Paul is "the most libertarian major presidential candidate that I can remember seeing." I'm a more moderate libertarian than Boaz—or a squishier one—but my general framework is the same. I have a strong preference for free markets, civil liberties, personal autonomy, limited government and a foreign policy of restraint.

I've voted for several Libertarian presidential candidates. The biggest single influence on my policy views is Milton Friedman. I absorbed Friedrich Hayek and Ayn Rand in college. My columns appear regularly on the website of Reason, the nation's premier libertarian publication.

So I should not be a tough sell for Paul. He sounds pretty libertarian when he says, in reference to the National Security Agency, "the phone records of law-abiding citizens are none of their damn business." He shows a refreshing open-mindedness on criminal justice by envisioning an America where "any law that disproportionately incarcerates people of color is repealed."

He stands out from most Republicans in not making U.S. military intervention the default option. He accuses 2008 presidential nominee John McCain of wanting "15 wars more." He dared to tell a Faith and Freedom Coalition audience, "I can recall no utterance of Jesus in favor of war or any acts of aggression."

But Paul sometimes sounds anything but libertarian. He rejects same-sex marriage, which he attributes to a "moral crisis." He denounced the DREAM Act, which offered citizenship to some young foreigners brought here without authorization as children, as "the Washington elitists' roundabout way of giving amnesty to illegal immigrant students." And sometimes he pushes his libertarian principles too far, as when he took issue with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.



 

I won't vote for him, starting to sound more like Dick Cheney or Hillary Clinton to me lately.{#Snooty} I think his only values are to be elected President just like the rest of em.
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 10, 2015 - 10:14am

Why It's So Hard to Like Rand Paul

 

The 2016 presidential candidate's commitment to libertarian political philosophy only goes as far as his chosen views allow.

Rand Paul is the Republican son of a longtime Republican House member, but let it never be said that he is not open-minded. In 2013, he confided to Sean Hannity, "I've been kind of disappointed, because honestly there were certain aspects of President Obama that I wanted to like."

I know how he feels. That's how I feel about Rand Paul.

My old friend David Boaz, author of the excellent new book The Libertarian Mind, told NPR that Paul is "the most libertarian major presidential candidate that I can remember seeing." I'm a more moderate libertarian than Boaz—or a squishier one—but my general framework is the same. I have a strong preference for free markets, civil liberties, personal autonomy, limited government and a foreign policy of restraint.

I've voted for several Libertarian presidential candidates. The biggest single influence on my policy views is Milton Friedman. I absorbed Friedrich Hayek and Ayn Rand in college. My columns appear regularly on the website of Reason, the nation's premier libertarian publication.

So I should not be a tough sell for Paul. He sounds pretty libertarian when he says, in reference to the National Security Agency, "the phone records of law-abiding citizens are none of their damn business." He shows a refreshing open-mindedness on criminal justice by envisioning an America where "any law that disproportionately incarcerates people of color is repealed."

He stands out from most Republicans in not making U.S. military intervention the default option. He accuses 2008 presidential nominee John McCain of wanting "15 wars more." He dared to tell a Faith and Freedom Coalition audience, "I can recall no utterance of Jesus in favor of war or any acts of aggression."

But Paul sometimes sounds anything but libertarian. He rejects same-sex marriage, which he attributes to a "moral crisis." He denounced the DREAM Act, which offered citizenship to some young foreigners brought here without authorization as children, as "the Washington elitists' roundabout way of giving amnesty to illegal immigrant students." And sometimes he pushes his libertarian principles too far, as when he took issue with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.


sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Mar 4, 2015 - 8:44am


sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Mar 3, 2015 - 7:00am

 kurtster wrote:

I have no problem with any one reaching out to be helpful, but I have a big problem with the headline and the article.

The text of the article reads ...  The protesters resembled ‘Tea Party’ groups , yet the headline asserts that those who resembled actually were in fact, bigoted Tea Party members.  I did a lot of clicking and checking before posting and dug into the author's background and associations.  He is well intentioned, yet does a disservice to people who have a common ground to the libertarian cause by lumping these whacko's with the more moderate mainstream Tea Partiers.  Its just like lumping the Westboro Baptist church with all Christians.

 

Yes you are right about that, I was looking at it solely from the Libertarian perspective but yea they do seem to throw that "tea party" label around pretty loosely.  Maybe it has to do more with being Oklahoman than being tea party. {#Wink}
kurtster
ignore the kitteh behind the kurtain
kurtster Avatar

Location: counting flowers on the wall ...
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Mar 3, 2015 - 6:56am

 sirdroseph wrote:
Don't believe the hype y'all:
Oklahoma Libertarians Form Human Chain to Protect Muslims From Bigoted Tea Partiers

“Oklahoma is a perfect example of the growing alliance between Muslims and libertarians across the country. While it gets very little media attention, libertarians groups have worked to court Muslims, and counter anti Islam animosity for the last 5 years. Sadly, the national Muslim community is given no news of this by the national organizations. the efforts of CAIR-OK to break with the national heads, and accept support and assistance from all groups, not just democrats, shows that when this type of reasoning is applied, cohesion, rather than further division is the result”

 
I have no problem with any one reaching out to be helpful, but I have a big problem with the headline and the article.

The text of the article reads ...  The protesters resembled ‘Tea Party’ groups , yet the headline asserts that those who resembled actually were in fact, bigoted Tea Party members.  I did a lot of clicking and checking before posting and dug into the author's background and associations.  He is well intentioned, yet does a disservice to people who have a common ground to the libertarian cause by lumping these whacko's with the more moderate mainstream Tea Partiers.  Its just like lumping the Westboro Baptist church with all Christians.
sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Mar 3, 2015 - 4:22am

Don't believe the hype y'all:
Oklahoma Libertarians Form Human Chain to Protect Muslims From Bigoted Tea Partiers

“Oklahoma is a perfect example of the growing alliance between Muslims and libertarians across the country. While it gets very little media attention, libertarians groups have worked to court Muslims, and counter anti Islam animosity for the last 5 years. Sadly, the national Muslim community is given no news of this by the national organizations. the efforts of CAIR-OK to break with the national heads, and accept support and assistance from all groups, not just democrats, shows that when this type of reasoning is applied, cohesion, rather than further division is the result”
sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Feb 21, 2015 - 4:04am

 miamizsun wrote:
before a few hundred years ago governments/states/fiefdoms tended not to like liberty

they were ruled by tribal leaders, kings, pharaohs, etc.

and they were based on conquest and military power

there were some agitating liberal bastards that had notions of thinking for themselves, personal freedoms/liberty, using science to find out how the world worked and other strange ideas

these agitating liberal bastards also began to advocate for society based on merit not status, markets not mercantilism, constitutional governments not monarchy and religious freedom, etc.

and eventually they won them all to some great extent (80-90 percent)

we call them human rights, we also call these ALBs "Classical Liberals" or libertarians

are there any governments that follow mises, rothbard, etc. to the letter?

no, but there aren't any that follow marx or marcuse exactly either

but are there governments and societies based on the "broad principles" of the those early liberals?

fortunately yes and there more and more going in that direction

libertarians or those liberty minded may seem radical to those who are complacent or satisfied with the world around them

me? i'm one of those ALBs working on that last 10-20%

 


I am with you and your LSD cadence prose!{#Mrgreen}{#Cheers}
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 2:17pm

 aflanigan wrote:
OK, Mr. Snarky, I'll try to not be delicate and use qualifying statements like "I got the impression" and "it seems" and "I thought" and just flat out say "you're being inconsistent".

It's not a question of pandering, but of asking the question, if our movement mostly attracts financially secure white males, maybe our beliefs and princicples aren't all that universally appealing? Or perhaps are presented in a manner which includes implicit messages that exclude various other groups?  

before a few hundred years ago governments/states/fiefdoms tended not to like liberty

they were ruled by tribal leaders, kings, pharaohs, etc.

and they were based on conquest and military power

there were some agitating liberal bastards that had notions of thinking for themselves, personal freedoms/liberty, using science to find out how the world worked and other strange ideas

these agitating liberal bastards also began to advocate for society based on merit not status, markets not mercantilism, constitutional governments not monarchy and religious freedom, etc.

and eventually they won them all to some great extent (80-90 percent)

we call them human rights, we also call these ALBs "Classical Liberals" or libertarians

are there any governments that follow mises, rothbard, etc. to the letter?

no, but there aren't any that follow marx or marcuse exactly either

but are there governments and societies based on the "broad principles" of the those early liberals?

fortunately yes and there more and more going in that direction

libertarians or those liberty minded may seem radical to those who are complacent or satisfied with the world around them

me? i'm one of those ALBs working on that last 10-20%


aflanigan
Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity
aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aquarius
Chinese Yr: Rat


Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 2:15pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
 
We argue endlessly 
We do?? I always thought we stopped every Friday at 5 when the whistle blows.

 
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 1:57pm

 aflanigan wrote:
OK, Mr. Snarky, I'll try to not be delicate and use qualifying statements like "I got the impression" and "it seems" and "I thought" and just flat out say "you're being inconsistent".

It's not a question of pandering, but of asking the question, if our movement mostly attracts financially secure white males, maybe our beliefs and princicples aren't all that universally appealing? Or perhaps are presented in a manner which includes implicit messages that exclude various other groups?

I appreciate your concern for our ability to market our ideas, really I do. I'm touched.

We argue endlessly about the most effective way to present our ideas, but the ideas themselves aren't on the table. If they aren't accepted then we haven't necessarily failed. The ideas are more important than power; perhaps they can inspire some wiser future.
Lazy8
human
Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 1:43pm

 islander wrote:
But no party really 'hates America'. They may dislike the methods others use to craft their vision of it, but I don't buy that anyone 'wants to destroy the country'.  Even the most diehard in the libertarian camp want some government (some one has to mind the borders while we nap). 

As you point out, they are all pandering to a target audience. The two established parties have such a lock on the system that even people who are widely recognized as outsiders feel like it is more effective to try and co-opt a party from inside than to try and strike out on their own. 

I think a large part of this problem is a fear of the other. So most people feel comfortable with a party they are unhappy with because they are afraid of the other party getting control. But what confuses me is that we have repeatedly shown that we can have changes of control and still effectively be a very powerful (and diverse) nation. We have our issues, but so does everyone else. Obama did not bring about the end times, Bush 2 didn't destroy all our credibility, Clinton didn't cause us to devolve into a nation of hedonists, Bush 1 didn't let the CIA loose inside the borders... It's not the end if the other side wins. It won't be the end if a 3rd party makes it either - just ask the Whigs... 

Back to the topic:  The libertarians are going to evolve. So are the dems and republicans. The real question is how do they pick up enough market share (steal enough attention from the target audience inside the other parties) to gain relevance. Yes - they do need to gain relevance eventually (probably soon). 1% showings are not going to sustain a movement.

Influence doesn't necessarily mean winning elections. It can mean causing someone else to lose one.

A few percentage points can be all the difference it takes. The unprincipled power-hungry demagogs nearest to your position will want to co-opt that few per cent and may throw your movement a few platform bones to get it. This, for instance, is the 1896 Socialist Labor Party Platform. There are 21 planks ("demands") in it, they got about half of them enacted into law. But they never won any national elections. They held a few positions as mayors and such, but their influence as spoilers was enough to get the Progressive movement (first in the Republican party, led by Teddy Roosevelt, then among the Democrats) to adopt their positions.

In the 2012 Montana senate election a Libertarian took 6.5% of the vote, and neither incumbent party candidate won a majority. That 6.5% was more than the margin of victory. That stung the losing side (Republican) badly enough that they first tried to lash out against third parties, and when that failed they have since taken a more-conciliatory tone. They may have to lose a few more close elections before the lesson sinks in, but they are in the business of winning elections. If they won't take an opportunity their competitors will.

Look at how Obama co-opted the Green movement. He was able to prevent a significant leftish third party challenge in both his elections; ask Al Gore if that matters.

What are your goals? Do you want your ideas to win, or your candidates? I'll take the ideas any time.
RichardPrins

RichardPrins Avatar



Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 1:34pm

 islander wrote:
If I were a betting man I'd say it was safe to say we'll be able to re-use a presidential name plaque next go 'round.
 
Likely. Either way. Many people like re-runs (Dynasty?) and the familiar. {#Wink}
Proclivities
Nothing is fool-proof to a moderately proficient fool.
Proclivities Avatar

Location: Paris of the Piedmont
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aries
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 1:29pm

 islander wrote:

If I were a betting man I'd say it was safe to say we'll be able to re-use a presidential name plaque next go 'round. 

 
I guess it could be worse - it could be "Buchanan".
islander
Dog is my copilot
islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Scorpio
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 1:25pm

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

Prognosticating already?

 
If I were a betting man I'd say it was safe to say we'll be able to re-use a presidential name plaque next go 'round. 
aflanigan
Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity
aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aquarius
Chinese Yr: Rat


Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 1:09pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
aflanigan wrote:
But I thought Libertariangirl (and you) believe in the big tent theory, and don't want to arbitrarily exclude different flavors in pursuit of purity?
Your apparent discomfort with the idea that libertarians should seek to have a broad cross section of the populace represented in their ranks is puzzling. After all, if the L party (or the l party) is the party of ideas, these ideas would presumably have appeal that was independent of sexual orientation, skin color, etc. So you would expect the demographics of libertarianism to generally reflect the demographics of the US if the movement truly does welcome all who embrace its ideals.

Don't confuse what you thought about any particular libertarian with...well, anything, really.

There is no theory to the idea of a Big Tent, that's a concept of political tactics, not philosophy. It means accepting minor differences from doctrine in order to swell the ranks. Minor being the key word, and for the incumbent parties a somewhat meaningless one.

I get tired of this rather juvenile "why do you hate America" twist to these arguments, but since I seem to have failed to get this point across I'll try again, more directly.

I can't control who is attracted to libertarian ideas, and I can't change them to attract any particular demographic. They aren't crafted to appeal to any particular race or gender, they are crafted to appeal to people who want more liberty. If a diverse crowd shows up, fine—but that's not the point. If it becomes the point then we've lost focus on what we care about.

As I pointed out earlier, other movements have pandered (sadly rather effectively) to target audiences. I don't want to change the ideas to match the minds in the audience, I want to change the minds in the audience to match the ideas. This takes time. The idea of liberty has been described in large part by its enemies, and we need to overcome that impression before we can make our own. We're playing catch-up.

But when we finally do get people's attention what are we going to tell them? "Vote for us, we'll favor your demographic" when really we want an end to demographic favoritism altogether? If we pander then our opposition to pandering means nothing.

 

OK, Mr. Snarky, I'll try to not be delicate and use qualifying statements like "I got the impression" and "it seems" and "I thought" and just flat out say "you're being inconsistent".

It's not a question of pandering, but of asking the question, if our movement mostly attracts financially secure white males, maybe our beliefs and princicples aren't all that universally appealing? Or perhaps are presented in a manner which includes implicit messages that exclude various other groups? 
ScottFromWyoming
Psycho. Poodle
ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Pisces
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 1:05pm

 islander wrote:

Well, she will eventually be an ex-president. 

 
Prognosticating already?
islander
Dog is my copilot
islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Scorpio
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 12:55pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
islander wrote:
She Values the title of first woman president. It's injust that she has had to wait 8 years for it. It is her right to carry that title, it is wrong for you to oppose her.

I think I got all the keywords in there.

She appeals to the "power-hungry psychopath" community as well.

 
Well, she will eventually be an ex-president. 


islander
Dog is my copilot
islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Scorpio
Chinese Yr: Cock


Posted: Feb 20, 2015 - 12:54pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
aflanigan wrote:
But I thought Libertariangirl (and you) believe in the big tent theory, and don't want to arbitrarily exclude different flavors in pursuit of purity?
Your apparent discomfort with the idea that libertarians should seek to have a broad cross section of the populace represented in their ranks is puzzling. After all, if the L party (or the l party) is the party of ideas, these ideas would presumably have appeal that was independent of sexual orientation, skin color, etc. So you would expect the demographics of libertarianism to generally reflect the demographics of the US if the movement truly does welcome all who embrace its ideals.

Don't confuse what you thought about any particular libertarian with...well, anything, really.

There is no theory to the idea of a Big Tent, that's a concept of political tactics, not philosophy. It means accepting minor differences from doctrine in order to swell the ranks. Minor being the key word, and for the incumbent parties a somewhat meaningless one.

I get tired of this rather juvenile "why do you hate America" twist to these arguments, but since I seem to have failed to get this point across I'll try again, more directly.

I can't control who is attracted to libertarian ideas, and I can't change them to attract any particular demographic. They aren't crafted to appeal to any particular race or gender, they are crafted to appeal to people who want more liberty. If a diverse crowd shows up, fine—but that's not the point. If it becomes the point then we've lost focus on what we care about.

As I pointed out earlier, other movements have pandered (sadly rather effectively) to target audiences. I don't want to change the ideas to match the minds in the audience, I want to change the minds in the audience to match the ideas. This takes time. The idea of liberty has been described in large part by its enemies, and we need to overcome that impression before we can make our own. We're playing catch-up.

But when we finally do get people's attention what are we going to tell them? "Vote for us, we'll favor your demographic" when really we want an end to demographic favoritism altogether? If we pander then our opposition to pandering means nothing.

 
But no party really 'hates America'. They may dislike the methods others use to craft their vision of it, but I don't buy that anyone 'wants to destroy the country'.  Even the most diehard in the libertarian camp want some government (some one has to mind the borders while we nap). 

As you point out, they are all pandering to a target audience. The two established parties have such a lock on the system that even people who are widely recognized as outsiders feel like it is more effective to try and co-opt a party from inside than to try and strike out on their own. 

I think a large part of this problem is a fear of the other. So most people feel comfortable with a party they are unhappy with because they are afraid of the other party getting control. But what confuses me is that we have repeatedly shown that we can have changes of control and still effectively be a very powerful (and diverse) nation. We have our issues, but so does everyone else. Obama did not bring about the end times, Bush 2 didn't destroy all our credibility, Clinton didn't cause us to devolve into a nation of hedonists, Bush 1 didn't let the CIA loose inside the borders... It's not the end if the other side wins. It won't be the end if a 3rd party makes it either - just ask the Whigs... 

Back to the topic:  The libertarians are going to evolve. So are the dems and republicans. The real question is how do they pick up enough market share (steal enough attention from the target audience inside the other parties) to gain relevance. Yes - they do need to gain relevance eventually (probably soon). 1% showings are not going to sustain a movement.


Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 135, 136, 137  Next