Recently I recieved a PM from someone that thought because I was a life long Democrate that declaring myself a Libertarian on these forums was disingenuise somehow. I am a conservative Democrate who became alienated from my party and defected to Libertarian concepts and canidates.

Question for Debate:

Can a person who in their heart believes in the ideology of the Democratic party still be a Libertarian?

As a follow up question:

What would be the distinct difference between the two parties that defines whether you are one or the other?

World's Smallest Political Quiz

While this quiz may be simplistic, it does help one gain a little perspective about where they fall in the political arena.

If you accept the basic premise of the grid, (all parties can be defined by their views on economic vs social issues), I would submit that the most likely reason for wanting to switch parties is that:

1) you share the same views about personal and social issues as mainstream democrats, in that people should be free to do as they please

2) you differ from mainstream democrats on economic issues, such as government welfare, corporate handouts, taxes, etc.

I come from the opposite end of the grid. I used to consider myself a Republican until, in my view, they started moving into the Centrist area. On economic issues I'm about as libertarian as you can get. On social issues, I'm at about the 80% mark.

In todays climate of what a "conservative" vs "liberal" is- the dem is much better suited to the libertarian cause for several reasons

1) Don't believe in unneccesary laws controlling behavior that only harms, if even harming at all, consenting adults i.e. legalizing drugs or prostitution

2) Somewhat isolationist i.e.- don't want to play the "world cop"

3) Independent views from the party line- this is really telling- whereas the Repubs and "conservatives" basically toe the line no matter what, there is no time that GW and company, or any republican today in office doesn't get a "pass" from a conservative- as long as they have established themselves as a "conservative"- for instance, no Republican would have defended Clinton for the same behavior they are defending GW today- whereas, liberal dems and dems will "eat thier own" when they are not on teh same page ideologically. One example was Bob Packwood- he was a moderate Repub that was being either sexually inappropriate or sexually harrasing women while drunk- however, he passed or supported ALOT of things that are seen as "pro-woman" legislation, and though the womens groups were very hesitant at first to go after such an ally, they ate him alive eventually.

Republicans are just too interested in staying in power and not really interested in thier actual issues to really be libertarian as a group- and also, too interested in controlling others "immoral" behavior.

Goverment programs are one area that the dems definately veer off of the Libertarian platform to a great degree- but so do Repubs- the largest goverment growth is under repub presidents like Reagan and GW.

I think that the libertarian party platform could use some tweaking, but I would rather see them win some seats before we start eating our own too LOL

I think alot of former Dems are going to go to the libertarian party if things continue the way they are going today.

I took the quiz and apparantly it scored be as a left leaning Libertarian. On personal issues I was 80% and on economic issues and on economic issues it was 60%. I guess if the quiz is any indication I am a libertarian after all. I tend to agree with Libertarians on certain issues but its hard for me to accept their postitions entirely. For instance, they support the legalization of drugs, now while I would have no problem with people being legally allowed to smoke weed, crack cocaine is another thing entirely. I'll buy the freedom of speach position without any real qualms about it, even when it extends to flag burnings or neonazis on the statehouse steps. Don't get me wrong, I find those things disgusting but none the less a peacefull protest by abusers of their first amendment rights should be allowed to express themselves.

My biggest problems with Libertarian canidates is that they tend to oversimplify real problems. I had the opportunity to talk to a couple of canidates for city council in one of the satilite communities here in central Indiana. I asked them how their political philosophy fleshed out in real world issues and for an example they talked about trash pickup. They said that it should be left up to individules to take care of their own trash so I asked what we do about those who do not clean up their mess. The answer went in circles and even though I have happily voted for a number of Libertarians it is usually due to not wanting either of the main party canidates to get my vote.

I rarely get excited about Libertarians but I met a gentleman running for school board at a men's breakfast who had some great ideas. It was mostly school textbooks, buerocratic waste and the way school budgets were based on property tax. He stood no chance of being elected and seemed to realize this but it puzzled me why such a bright individule would not be a viable canidate. He said that when he started his campaign the school board had a closed meeting and he had a hard time getting any real support afterwards.

I couldn't agree more- libertarians biggest weakness is thier reliance on bumper sticker solutions- see my thread "are libertarians too utopian"-

I go to every local meeting of the libertarian party- because I want them very much to win, and they need all the support they can get, and I donate my legal maximum to every candidate in my area, and drop a couple more K into the party fund every year.

In the meetings, when we have folks that veer off into thier right wing or left wing moralizing and falling into thier old patterns of "there ought to be a law"- I remind them we need to break from the two party platforms and behaviors of "passing laws is getting the job done" and go to "repealing laws is getting the job done"-

But, at the same time, we need to inject some realism as well.

Ending all business subsidies is foolhardy- because we do not control the subsidies other countries give, and puts our business culture at an immediate disadvantage.

I would love to see the end of all social programs, or rather the NEED to have social programs- but starving masses trying to kill those that have food do not lead to a free society either !

Fat, lazy, contented poeple do not lead to violent revolution, but skinny starving poeple do, and the mobs have no brains- and allow demegogues to control them- so, I would like to see all RICH welfare end first, and have a flat tax.

The two areas I see that I can not agree with the libertarian platform is education and medicine.

Niether lend well to the profit motive, and, in the end, do not provide us with a free society either.

It is much harder for a modern neo-con or social conservative republican to be a libertarian IMO than any other group. They just can't get over the concept that it is not the goverments job to police adult behavior that does not lead to direct harm.

They have a slippery slope mind set that has no basis in reality that they just can't let go of.

Not at all. Government subsidies to business does more harm to the country enacting them than to anyone else. They are squandering resources by fighting market forces. As Milton Friedman said, demanding other countries end their protectionist measures before you will is akin to saying, "I'll stop hitting myself in the head with this hammer, but only if you stop hitting yourself in the head with a hammer first."




If neither work under capitalism, why is it that medicine and good education is more available and of better quality the less the government is involved? Look at education - it tends to go homeschool, parochial, private, magnet, public. The more the government gets involved, the more uneducated and indoctrinated people get pumped out into society.

And look at healthcare. We don't have a free market in healthcare, but relative to Europe and Canada, it's very free. We have some of the best and most available medical care in the world, while in socialized countries there are huge waits for even vital tests and services. We have a smaller version of that here in our Medicaid and Medicare systems, where people find themselves with similar problems.

- Rick

I think a great many of the ideas put forth by libertarians simply sound utopian to many Americans who have become accustomed to complex, expensive solutions put forth by both major parties. To them, the way to fix any problem is to add another section to the U.S. code, appoint an oversight committee, and fund a massive budget to see that it works. For most internal issues, the most effective thing the government can do is to get out of the way. The simplest solution is usually the best, and is (almost) always the cheapest.



My previous comments notwithstanding, I agree, Phaedrus that many candidates focus so hard on the "individual liberties" aspect that they totally miss the "individual responsibilities" aspect. I can appreciate that candidate's perspective on privatization, but only if he has a plan to punish those who infringe on others' rights by not picking up their own trash.



I'm afraid I disagree. Our public education system is atrocious, mostly because it is so top-heavy. I can appreciate the perspective that government needs to sponsor education because it is so vital to a strong economy, but I don't believe the government is doing the best job that can be done. I strongly support moving education back down the governmental ladder, privatizing it completely if possible, but I'll be happy with each downward step that gets taken.

In medicine, you need only compare healthcare in the United States to that in Canada. Canada has had universal healthcare since about 1947. As things stand now, waiting periods in Canada are unbearable long and the quality of care is inferior to that of the U.S. The only benefits that are seen are to the poorest of Canadians. Even the lower middle class suffers.

Several Canadian provinces are pushing for privatization



This is probably why it has taken me so long to finally concede that I'm more libertarian than republican. I very much believe in conservative values, such as traditional marriage, abstinence before marriage, avoidance of drugs, etc. I am opposed to homosexual behavior, am offended by profanity and other vulgar language, and am appalled by the rampant pornography that can be found everywhere. It has taken me awhile to accept that the U.S. government is ineffective in dealing with these issues, nor does it ultimately have the authority granted to it to legislate for or against them.

[updated to fix the syntax of my quotes]