Totally agree with OP. I came to the conclusion myself and voted Obama. I'm basically weighing the fact the Democrats stand for more civil liberties on several issues and they will actually act upon them; Republicans are against civil liberties on several issues and will absolutely act to curtail them.

The economic side is basically just a rhetoric war. I agree more with what republicans say, but when it comes to actions they are basically equivalent.

Libertarians need to align themselves with and/or challenge Democrats from the left on:

- Gay Marriage
- Reproductive Rights
- Immigration
- Drug Legalization
- Military Spending
- Death Penalty
- Mandatory Sentencing
- Separation of church and state issues
- Unnecessary state licensing of specialty businesses
etc

With regard to economic issues, I wouldn't think of what we're doing as giving up; we're getting pragmatic. The goal shouldn't be trying to libertarianize democrats, but to give robust counter-proposals to their often cumbersome ideas.

- MMGW should be affirmed by libertarians. A flat-rate carbon tax with dividend should be offered up as a more libertarian-friendly alternative to a cap-and-trade monstrosity. Republicans ought to be doing this, but they're still stuck in a world where dinosaurs were installed in the ground to test their faith.
- Solidly stand behind a repeal of terrible policies like the Jones Act regulations on domestic shipping, which also damage the environment as well as unnecessarily meddle in the economy.
- Firmly tell the democrats to cool it on their nonsensical provocations abroad regarding free trade. The "Buy American" clauses in the stimulus bill should have been a nonstarter for libertarians.

If libertarians conditionally supported democratic ideas they would have an opportunity to effect some substantial positive change. Instead, we're completely irrelevant, and a mockery.

The left could also do well by recognizing libertarians as an untapped voter segment and tweak their policies to pick up more libertarian votes. Of course, given demographic trends, they aren't really in huge need of votes lately anyways.

Cool.....they are both neocons when it comes down to it. Look at their war voting record.

I think they need to focus on popular issues much heavier though.

Of course it can't be broadcast, but the people running LP campaigns as well as LP politicians must grasp and cling tightly to the realization that the average US voter is an uninformed dumbass who must be spoonfed short soundbites.

Libertarians must also ostracize and oust the nuts.

Jill Stein and Gary Johnson debated on youtube, because both were shut out of the debates.

I think it would be wise for all 3rd party members to recognize the power social media has. I would imagine if Libertarian and Green party members were to regularly hold Youtube events their messages would be heard by more ears.

Issues are a good way to go. The biggest issue I see that has the potential for popular support is educational reforms and school choice. That just has a huge untapped potential, especially since it greatly affects the poor. It's something they support greatly, but the politicians they support do not support it.

Legalizing drugs is something that can be incrementally applied (medical first, then recreational, then more widespread legalization). The approach now of getting it approved in certain areas, letting people get warmed up to it, then realizing the sky isn't going to fall will work.

Anti-war is going to be a harder sell in the US. So much politics is based no fear. But you have two different angles to go here. The right can tackle it as a spending issue, the left can tackle it as a moral issue.

Actually the libertarian view on gay marriage is clear. Ron Paul believes marriage should be defined by the two individuals involved and that the States stay out of it.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2012-05-09/ro...ates-business/

Also, Ron Paul's competitive currency bill has nothing to do with going on a Gold standard. He may believe going on a gold standard would be fine, but he see's it as unrealistic and does not advocate a gold standard

wut

I don't think this is really a feasible thing to do (either one). I don't see any kind of serious right- or left-libertarianism emerging in this country. I think libertarians just need to accept that they don't have a political organization or home where they can feel truly comfortable.

EDIT: It's a little depressing how many libertarians have been coopted by crazy racist con-man Ron Paul for the meager reward of being part of a movement that's 2% of the population rather than .2%.

Don't confuse the Libertarian Party vote with the libertarian vote. The libertarian vote makes up a decent sized portion of the Republican base.

Cite? I don't see it tbh.

I believe Ron Paul has modified and clarified his stance on a fixed ratio of gold to the dollar (or a purely gold standard). Here is a link to our economics forum, a thread titled, "Ron Paul Getting It," where Paul is telling Napalitano that a fixed exchange rate will not work.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/11.../#post30093359

At any rate, gold standard or not, any libertarian, just like any Scotsman, who doesn't rally behind gay marriage, more open boarders, etc, is likely a nit-witted Republican pretending to be a libertarian.

I'm not confusing the two. I look at the people who voted for Ron Paul in the primaries and just don't see that as big enough to move the Republican Party that much, especially when you consider his coalition consists of libertarian whackjobs plus some non-libertarian whackjobs.

The importance of this point should not be understated. Becoming a real political force means being willing to have a united, concrete set of stances; it means being willing to build effective political rhetoric and raise money; it means making personal sacrifices to serve larger social ends. And right now, libertarians face two very serious obstacles to positioning themselves to achieve these real-world political gains. One is that libertarians, as people, seem to be kind of complacent and disorganized. The other is Ron Paul. Indeed, the saddest thing for me about Gary Johnson's campaign was watching him stand up and pander to Ron Paul supporters at "Paul Fest" (which is apparently a thing), despite being in every meaningful way a smarter, saner, more intellectually respectable candidate than Paul.

A thousand times yes. To go a bit deeper on the U.S. Libertarian Party itself, it's worth noting that, at present, the Party is dependent on these people for votes, and deliberately obscures its stances on social issues in an effort to appeal to them. Rather than coming out and saying "we are the party who will end the drug war, stop drone strikes, repeal the Patriot Act, protect abortion rights, liberalize immigration, and legalize gay marriage," the Libertarian Party hides behind goofy states-rights stances on many of these issues, which stances sound suspiciously like traditional right-wing-populist rhetoric to most thinking liberals. This is not an accident; the Party is basically forced to pander on these points to get even the small percentages it manages to get. Moreover, the gold-standard conspiracy theorists' presence at the Party's base is in and of itself a pretty big obstacle for "normal" people who might consider supporting a Libertarian candidate. I know I cringed.

But to bring about the sort of sea change that would be necessary to get them out, the Party would have to oust significant portions of its current leadership (and I am talking specifically about Ron Paul, as well as its official head, tax-protesting idiot Carla Howell) and restyle itself as a left-wing alternative to the Democrats, which would involve a big, national media campaign to revamp the Party's image. They could do this, it's not impossible, and it doesn't even mean giving up on some amount of fiscal conservatism as part of the platform; the problem is that, until you guys are willing to abandon the "End the Fed" droolers, no one is going to make them do this.

Then open your eyes IMO. When the support for Bush invading Iraq was at an all time high, it was only supported by 95% of Republicans, not 100%. (and 65% Democrats) Guess who that 5% is? And half the libertarian Republicans were probably duped into supporting the war at the time at that.

What do you think happens if everyone who voted Ron Paul stops voting Republican at all and votes Democrat instead?

The end of the world.

No measurable difference.

My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.

I don't think you can lump in gay/women's rights with the drones/civil liberties (I mean they're all that, but you know what I'm saying) part.

Just very different issues, with very different motivating factors at play.

I think you're vastly underestimating popular support for the public schools (not to mentioning ignoring some serious problems for the poorest communities) if you think school choice is going to be popular with the electorate right now.

This post really irks me, and it bothers me that it irks me, since I think you're generally a pretty smart person, but aren't you essentially saying that you think the best political strategy for libertarians is to consign themselves to defeat? That seems like a silly thing to say, even if you think it's likely to happen.

Uh... that's him saying that a fixed exchange rate assuming a gold standard would not work. We already know that he doesn't believe that exchange rate has to be fixed; the problem is the superstitious belief that fiat currency is tantamount to fraud.

Sounds an awful lot like Ron Paul.

I feel a bit guilty....I've never put a seconds thought into taking you seriously.

Would it sound like a silly thing to say if it was said to a fringe political ideology that you did not share?

Yes?

Oh if we are talking 5 percent I can see it.

yep. liberals don't care about the latter when a Democrat is in charge.