I'm saying you need a better vision of success. GOP-libertarian fusionism has been a protracted failure that has tarred the ideology with racism, conspiracy-mongering, and an image of being a Koch-controlled front for the GOP. Left-libertarian fusionism is ideologically sound, but politically hopeless. A third party approach would run into nearly insurmountable structural obstacles.

So electing libertarian candidates is out. Very unfortunate. However, it's a very narrow definition of political success that requires electing candidates who believe everything that you do. Libertarianish economics helped kill ultrahigh marginal tax rates, politically-encouraged inflation, protectionism, and the draft. Most libertarians believe that the voters as a whole are ignorant, xenophobic and greedy. How can you build an honest political strategy that captures a big share of those people? Better to stick to genuine principles and hope to pull off some wins when no one's looking.

So, 5-10% of the Republican party (assuming 100% of the war detractors were libertarian and not, you know, opposed based on religious reasons or anything else) is a decent sized portion of the base?

I can see why instead of citing any evidence you went with, "trust me, don't bother looking for any facts."

Or libertarians can support whoever they think will cause the collapse of western civilization more quickly, so that a libertarian paradise can arise, phoenix-like, from the ashes of America.

We have several threads full of liberals slinging hot fire at Obama over drones.

butthurt R response - They already did by voting for Larry Johnston and handing Obamao the keys to another 4 years in the white house!

For me it's not that I don't care it's that

1- I'm willing to admit there may be some factors at play that we'll never, and probably shouldn't be aware of that make those kinds of "in the interest of national security" decision less black and white than some thing.

2- There's no way that the Republicans are any better. It's a thing I wish our country wouldn't do, and maybe it should make me LirvA style outraged about it, but I don't get down much for pointless outrage. I'm selfish enough that I'm not about to leave my comfortable life and move to Sweden or something like that.

This cannot, cannot be overstated. People are laughing at Mitt Romney and Karl Rove for squandering alllll that donor money without winning any elections, but Ron Paul has been doing that **** for DECADES.

This was the best election cycle for libertarian causes in decades and Ron Paul pretty much sat it out. We kept hearing from some forum posters that Ron Paul couldn't be a racist because he opposed the drug war. He's a force for liberty, they said, even if he can't win because he's a knuckle-dragging racist piece of ****, personally he got the IDEA of LIBERTY out there in public. So they had to support him.

Well, I'm looking at the list of endorsements for Amendment 64. I see Gary Johnson. I don't see Ronald Paul.

Now I'm perusing some of the more prominent Pro-Ron Paul PAC's expenditures. I see that Endorse Liberty dropped a few grand electing the purebreed wingnut Ted Cruz to Senate. I'm not seeing a ****ing dime spent to legalize pot.

I'd say 5-10%, yes. And if 5% of the Republican base jumps ship for the other side, that's a huge swing in elections.

Mind you, it's not going to happen, but if it did...

Most libertarian leaning people simply ignore politics altogether though. It would be interesting to see what could happen if something could actually galvanize them.

i think its better if libertarians stay away from politics, forever. accept the fact that you can't shrink the size of government, accept the fact that trying to grab power over the guns and the coercion of the state is not conducive to a more free society.

Yes, did you?

There clearly is no value in being subtle, so I'll just explain it. My point was that OP's idea is contradictory to the fundamental idea of libertarianism. His suggestion is analogous to pundits who argue that the GOP needs to move more to the center to appeal to a broader group of voters.

The difference between the two scenarios, and why this won't work for libertarians, is that people who identify as libertarians are more loyal to their principles. Whereas GOP voters will entertain the idea of voting for a moderate candidate just to avoid having a Democrat in office, libertarian voters will not do that.

I agree with this.

When you consider how much money Liberts can raise in a short period of time with their internet money bomb campaigns it's pretty obvious they'd make more of a tangible difference to society by selecting a single issue at a time and just throwing their full force and fundraising behind it.

Rather than raising a bunch of cash for a guy to be an also-ran in the Rep primaries while living out an On the Road 2.0 for 6 months from state to state burning that cash just cause he can.

Getting a big surge for weed referendums or getting loud and belligerent about various wars does more for building the brand than watching RP stumble and stammer during debates trying to get the message out about a gold standard

You can have school choice exclusively within a public school system. I believe Sweden does something like this. I'm willing to concede a public system where there are more choices for parents and kids aren't trapped into schools by geography. Things like charter schools are excellent options for these kinds of situations. The governments can control these things if you want (we can open it up to private competition that gets approved by government at a later date), and the money follows the kids. That would result an a huge improvement in schools without even leaving the world of public schools. These programs are already enormously popular in poor areas. They are limited by lotteries and a lucky few get to escape. The rest are stuck. I want to give more kids to have the opportunities that some already have today. The only group this will be unpopular with is the teachers unions.

And then voting for the lesser of two evils.

Yeah they sure have been loud and vocal irl!

I think the LP should go all out on gun control.

The NRA membership is a fantastic platform to build on, since the Democrats will not say "We support unconditional lawful concealed carry and "Constitutional Carry" amendments and I'd assume a large percentage of NRA members probably don't care about a woman's natural defense to rape (most believe a woman's natural defense to rape is a loaded .357) or making sure gays can't marry.

I think education reform is also excellent.

I think the LP should make drug legalization as a back burner issue as, like it or not, people view it as crazy.

I'd like the LP in general to accept a position both the Dems and Republicans accepted years ago, which is winning elections >>>>>>> being right.

The mentality of smugly being a correct outcast must go and must be replaced with an acceptance of being popular and slightly misleading.

The left ignoring drones & NDAA is my major gripe with the left. However, as much as I lean libertarian in some areas, I kind of place them along side the right. Pretty much every ****ing thing I see any of them post on FB or anywhere for that matter is false and made up bull****. Instead of resorting to made up quotes, misusing the term socialism in every argument, and posting false facts from illegitimate news sites among other things I wish they would just argue in the real world.

Also, Ron Paul supports gay marriage round 35. In b4 a video of him pandering at a rally or debate.

There are some smart libertarians here but in the real world what I usually see is:

Grunching a lot, but isnt a libertarian who cares about gay rights, immigration reform, education, weed etc but looks the other way on most fiscal reform just another word for a liberal?

Btw, back when the tea party was a thing but before it was a thing that was clearly just the Koch controlled wingnut wing of the Republican party I proposed this idea to tea partier and mod who later robbed a few people and ran away - why is the tea party (aka the libertarians) going after one party anyway? If you only try and change one party you will eventually just be absorbed into the machinery, so go after both parties at once in a loosely linked group which doesnt care about which "side" wins so long as the movement is towards them.

So when they were taking over Rep primaries in the 2010 midterms to comedic effect they should be taking over the Dem primaries too. Put up the most libertarian person you can think can win in both primaries and if one or both get through you stand a great chance of winning the race. So on the Rep side you will only get movement on the fiscal issues (outside of specific areas), but the Dem side will give you movement on the social issues and some degree on the fiscal issues such as defence spending.

It is clear the tea party model is the way forward. I mean for all its failures have you seen the state of US politics, especially on the right, since they became a "thing". The tea party is like a club of crazies who have infected an entire section of politics who have to be equally crazy or else they know they will face primary challenges from crazies who will take their seat. The libertarians can learn a lot from this, just replace crazy candidates with libertarians and crazy voters with young voters. Once you reach critical mass you gain minority majority control and can then affect the actual presidential race even if not successfully. Just look at all the crazy **** Romney had to say to jump through those hoops in the primary.

I've often thought the LP should create another party to attract all these kooky types away, possibly the "Noory" Party.

The Republican party should be that filter for them. DUCY?

The way people lie about Ron Paul's positions after being walked through them bothers me a lot. I have friends who I have explained these things to who I find telling actual gay friends of ours that Ron Paul never tried to enact the acts he did to protect marriage between a man and woman. When called on it, just like his racism, the excuse is that he has now evolved. GMAFB.

rant over

i hearby suggest that we change the meaning of "gmafb" to "give me a ****ing burrito" because retroactively applying it to all previous posts would possible make hilarity ensue.

<----eating a burrito!

This is another issue.

Ron Paul IS NOT the great savior of the LP, he's an absolutely dead candidate who not only stands against LP beliefs, but is a cancer to the party, providing a ton of unneeded ammunition for other parties.

Nothing would please me more than to reach a broad consensus response whenever RP is brought up of "Excuse me, RP is a Republican, his views do not represent the LP."

Someone is going to give me **** about Obama evolving on gay marriage too.


I agree RP is Republican though.