Libertarian Vs. Tea Party

[NullSyndrome]

(A) Libertarians
(B) Non-libertarians for less taxes & less spending.
(A+B) Tea Party

Do Tea Party people support the legalization of or decriminalization of drugs, gay/lesbian equality, free and open borders, and the right of women to choose an abortion? All are parts of the official Libertarian Party platform. I am just not seeing that from the Tea Party at all.

The word "Libertarian" has been stolen by the Glenn Beck types in reference to economic issues, while totally ignoring Libertarian ideas on social issues.

 

[Joe Williams]

Seems to me that the biggest difference is that the "Tea Party" has been successful in a national election.

 

[NullSyndrome]

By the libertarian logic, God is freaking bipolar.

The Libertarian Party has no stance on religion at all, as it should be. You are basing that statement on the opinion of the individual that made the video, not Libertariansim per se.

So my question to the libertarian men, do you pee sitting down?

No, unless I have to take a number 2 as well.

 

[rambone]

Do Tea Party people support the legalization of or decriminalization of drugs, gay/lesbian equality, free and open borders, and the right of women to choose an abortion? All are parts of the official Libertarian Party platform. I am just not seeing that from the Tea Party at all.

The word "Libertarian" has been stolen by the Glenn Beck types in reference to economic issues, while totally ignoring Libertarian ideas on social issues.

"Tea Party People" is so broad that there is no definitive answer. Some do, some don't. As I said before, Tea Parties are supposed to focus on out-of-control spending & lowering taxes. Outside of that, there is no agenda, because it is outside the scope of what the group is for. If you see a group calling themselves "Tea party people" who are concerning themselves with gay marriage and other social issues, you have located a group who is willing to abuse the group for their own personal agenda. There are 1000's of groups around the nation so there are bound to be some who have taken this divergent path.

Real Tea Parties refuse to endorse and campaign for candidates also. This lends itself to corruption and breaks up the cohesiveness of the group. We are not PAC's. The idea is to motivate and educate people, not cheerlead any particular candidate. The best we can do is make all the candidates' positions known.

Seems to me that the biggest difference is that the "Tea Party" has been successful in a national election.

I guess libertarians should pat themselves on the back for kicking off the Tea Party movement back in '07.

 

[groovatron]

snip

Tea Parties are supposed to focus on out-of-control spending & lowering taxes. Outside of that, there is no agenda.

So......they're libertarians then

A true libertarians agenda, is to abolish the anti-freedom agendas that are already in place. If you don't do that first....... YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO RIGHTFULLY FOCUS ON CONTROLLED SPENDING AND LOWERING TAXES.

 

[rambone]

A true libertarians agenda, is to abolish the anti-freedom agendas that are already in place. If you don't do that first....... YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO RIGHTFULLY FOCUS ON CONTROLLED SPENDING AND LOWERING TAXES.

I agree with this.

So......they're libertarians then

I don't think the demographics of the tea parties are all that much different from this website. And you can see how we get along on various social topics. [We've got a thread going on where people think that putting up government work camps is a good idea so that government can force people to do compulsory manual labor (!)] What I mean is, there are vast differences in INGO's opinions about government power.

Regardless, most of us can agree that we need to spend less. And that is the focus of the Tea Parties. If TP's took on every libertarian cause we would lose members. However, it is a chance to expose people to libertarian ideas without making it the official group agenda.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

The key points still stand though... They claim to be for limited government, but their "limits" aren't very limiting.

So riddle me this. Here are just 5 questions (with some sub-parts). Answer these with a degree of specificity to convince us that drugs are OK and there is no societal impact by their legalization.

1 Geographic areas that have high per capita drug use have much higher crime rates than geographic areas with lower per capita drug use. If drugs are legalized how do we prevent the spread of crime associated with increased drug use? If we are unable to stem the crime who is to pay for the increased police presence in areas where police are not typically needed now?

2. Children of drug users are more likely to required state services. If we legalize drugs will the number of children in need of services go up? Who and how do we pay for these additional services (this is not a do it for the children argument - that's not what I'm saying at all).

3. How will health insurance programs be affected by legalization of drugs?

4. What drugs should be legalized? Who should manufacture them? Under what state or federal license? Who will ensure their safety? How will quality be maintained and assured?

5. How will they be distributed? How will they be taxed?

It was about 50/50 IMO. Still thought it worth sharing.

Next time overcome the urge. Just kidding, settle down. I think it made the libertarian look a little stupid, especially the drug thing.

I agree.......however, I see it as no different then the norm majority on this board. It just happens to be on the minorities side. Many of us have been putting up with the same type of propoganda for along time. It's nice to see it come from a different side. It's no suprise to me that most will disagree with it's intent. That's because most of the members on this board are right-wing republicans.........the NEW kind. Is the video one sided?......sure. But it also makes some good points, as extreme as they may be portrayed.

I would love to hear those who find the content of this vid ridiculous actually combating the little guys animated opinion. That's where we may learn something.......because like it or not, many libertarians feel this way about the face of the modern republican.

FTR, I voted for 3 libertarians and the rest republican/tea party this past election. I would have loved to vote straight ticket libertarian, but this one was just too important.

With the exception of a couple extreme positions I could easily find myself siding with Libertarians. The problem I have is that as this video demonstrates Libertarians are smarny, snoby, elitist, absolutist, and can't be reasoned with. Just like Progressives. I find myself agreeing with many of them most of the time on this board. But a single debatable position and you're labeled a statist because you are willing to assume a reasonable position. Or at least listen to one. That's idiotic, and marginalizes the Libertarian. Zealots are zealots, regardless of the cause.

 

[88GT]

I'm not even going to debate this further. When we will as a nation stop all this BS biased media brain washing crap? This is very slanted against the tea parties. Can't we just say this is what X stands for without unfairly trying to portray Y, Z etc in a slanted hazy light that supports X's view that everyone else is wrong? This is exactly what the popular mass media does now. It's crap and a cheap way to make a point.

Tea Party members are a heck of a lot easier to narrow down than "conservative" though. And it's precisely because of this that the Libertarians take aim and try to demonize a rather substantial number of people who probably agree on more issues than they disagree with.

I agree.......however, I see it as no different then the norm majority on this board.

That's funny because I don't find that there's much of a majority either way. I think there's a fairly even split between the Constitutionally-minded conservatives and the Libertarians, with small extremes and fringes popping in occasionally. (No judgments implied.)

It just happens to be on the minorities side. Many of us have been putting up with the same type of propoganda for along time. It's nice to see it come from a different side. It's no suprise to me that most will disagree with it's intent. That's because most of the members on this board are right-wing republicans.........the NEW kind. Is the video one sided?......sure. But it also makes some good points, as extreme as they may be portrayed.

I'd like to see you prove it. (After you define it.)

I would love to hear those who find the content of this vid ridiculous actually combating the little guys animated opinion. That's where we may learn something.......because like it or not, many libertarians feel this way about the face of the modern republican.

Here's a thought: try to avoid thinking that everyone who disagrees with you is a "modern Republican." You know how Libertarians get irritated at the accusations that being against drug regulations is the equivalent of being for drug use? Well that's kinda how those who of us who self-label as conservative and vote Republican feel about the constant trashing of our ideals.


The fact of the matter, gentleman, is that the Republican Party is still the right-of-center party that gets the votes. Which means it's the right-of-center party that has the chance of winning.* And, like it or not, we are a two-party system. Probably will be for quite a while. There is no denying the left-ward movement of the GOP as a whole. But that doesn't mean that everyone who runs under the Republican banner falls into the RINO group. You Libs who like to trash us in order to make the Libertarian Party look better would do well to realize that. I'm betting that there are a good portion of us who would love to vote for the libertarian candidate. But the Libertarian candidate, in today's political reality, is a risk too great for some of us to take. For the life of me I cannot understand why the Libertarian Party continues to eschew the one vehicle that could provide it with real success.


* For the sake of discussion, and based on REALITY, American politics is assumed to operate on a single axis standard. You can argue all you want that there are multiple axes, but when the voter hits the booth, I can pretty much guarantee that he operating in a binary mode of "right" vs. "left."

 

[88GT]

If TP's took on every libertarian cause we would lose members. However, it is a chance to expose people to libertarian ideas without making it the official group agenda.

Why don't libertarians take the same approach to the Republican Party? If Tea Party movements are a great way to open eyes, why wouldn't a libertarian candidate running as a Republican be just as good?

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Seems to me that the biggest difference is that the "Tea Party" has been successful in a national election.

After more exposure to the Liberterian agenda/policies, I cant say it's surprising... Alienate the liberals who would support you with "Less govt" and then pee on the Conservatives with all the social liberal issues...

The Libertarian Party has no stance on religion at all, as it should be. You are basing that statement on the opinion of the individual that made the video, not Libertariansim per se.



No, unless I have to take a number 2 as well.

I just found the whole "Same God" opinion abit ridiculous. The individual definitely did alot to hurt his ideology.

The video was educational to say the least, in how these neo-liberals view the Tea Party, and American social issues.

 

[dross]

So riddle me this. Here are just 5 questions (with some sub-parts). Answer these with a degree of specificity to convince us that drugs are OK and there is no societal impact by their legalization.

Your question reveals your premise, and you and I don't share premeses. I assume there will be some negative impact on society if drugs are legalized.

First, I evaluate everything according to certain principles. Not all of those have to do with whether I think the overall impact will be negative or positive. Sometimes, like in this instance, there is a higher moral principle involved. The moral principle here is that I should be able to ingest whatever I want into my own body. I shouldn't have to check with the government to see which dangerous drugs have been government approved, and which have not.

Second, I look at actual impact, good and bad. With most things, there is a negative and a positive impact. Some things will be better if drugs are legalized. Some things would be worse. Again, this consideration is secondary to the first consideration, the principle.

1 Geographic areas that have high per capita drug use have much higher crime rates than geographic areas with lower per capita drug use. If drugs are legalized how do we prevent the spread of crime associated with increased drug use? If we are unable to stem the crime who is to pay for the increased police presence in areas where police are not typically needed now?

Wherever it has occurred, including in this country with the repeal of Prohibition, legalizing drugs has not led to more crime, but to less.

2. Children of drug users are more likely to required state services. If we legalize drugs will the number of children in need of services go up? Who and how do we pay for these additional services (this is not a do it for the children argument - that's not what I'm saying at all).

This is a tricky argument. We shouldn't, IMO, being paying for other people's poor choices. I think the private sector could take care of children's charity needs, were it given a chance, but even if you assume a higher cost because some people will default on their parental responsibilities, you'd have to prove to me first that they aren't the same people who already default those responsibilities. You assume that's an automatic. I don't. Even if it does happen, I'd rather deal with those responsibilities when it happens, rather than violate a principle based on what someone imagines might happen.

3. How will health insurance programs be affected by legalization of drugs?

In my opinion, not relevant. How is health insurance affected by fast food? By motorcycle riding? By skiing? By use of drugs already legal? By trampolines?

Health insurance is to pay for injuries due to among other reasons, a variety of people's individual choices. Not a good enough reason to use coercion to dictate my personal choices.

4. What drugs should be legalized? Who should manufacture them? Under what state or federal license? Who will ensure their safety? How will quality be maintained and assured?

I don't really care. People should be able to take the risks they are willing to take in order to achieve the ends they personally want to achieve. I assume a structure would arise to deal with these problems. I just don't want it to be the government.

5. How will they be distributed? How will they be taxed?

I'm not for taxing much of anything, but I assume like many other things are taxed. Distribution will be taken care of by the market.

Let's go back to premeses. All of the above are the case right now. Drugs are already being used extensively all over our country, so therefore everything you outline above is already happening.

To determine what migh happen after legalization, we only have to look at the times in history when it has happened. Then, after it happens, we have to look at the unforseen consequences that accompany every action.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

DISCLAIMER: Since SemperFiUSMC appears to be a 20 year veteran D.A.R.E. officer, well-studied under such mentors as Mr. Mackey from South Park, I feel it necessary to state that, while I am adamantly against the war on drugs, I have never used them myself. I've never even used tobacco...even once. I was a boring child...

So riddle me this. Here are just 5 questions (with some sub-parts). Answer these with a degree of specificity to convince us that drugs are OK and there is no societal impact by their legalization.

1 Geographic areas that have high per capita drug use have much higher crime rates than geographic areas with lower per capita drug use. If drugs are legalized how do we prevent the spread of crime associated with increased drug use? If we are unable to stem the crime who is to pay for the increased police presence in areas where police are not typically needed now?

The crime isn't associated with drug *use*. It is associated with black market drug-dealing. Alcohol use *directly* causes more crime than banned substance use.

2. Children of [drug users, alcoholics, low-IQ parents, members of inner-city culture, high school dropouts, etc.] are more likely to required state services. If we legalize drugs will the number of children in need of services go up? Who and how do we pay for these additional services (this is not a do it for the children argument - that's not what I'm saying at all).

FTFY. Do not assume that I would wish drugs to be unprohibited without also doing away with welfare as well. Children will suffer the sins of their parents, regardless which prohibitions or wealth-redistribution schemes we put into place.

3. How will health insurance programs be affected by legalization of drugs?

How is health insurance affected by alcohol & tobacco? Those have worse affects than most drugs people would choose to do upon removal of substance prohibition.

4. What drugs should be legalized? Who should manufacture them? Under what state or federal license? Who will ensure their safety? How will quality be maintained and assured?

No drugs should be legalized. Instead, no drugs should be illegal. If it is a synthetic chemical compound intended for human consumption, I guess the FDA would regulate it...but the FDA should be dissolved in keeping with limited government.

5. How will they be distributed? How will they be taxed?

I guess they'd be distributed like any other consumer good. There is no reason to apply a tax to them beyond standard sales taxes. Drugs aren't suitcase nukes... If someone wants them they currently get them. If the prohibition is dissolved, then why do you think they would or should be any less capable of acquiring them?

Next time overcome the urge. Just kidding, settle down. I think it made the libertarian look a little stupid, especially the drug thing.

Only stupid in your eyes. There is no good argument, in a free land, for prohibiting a free citizen from growing, buying, selling, or using any substance which does no ill harm to another human being.

With the exception of a couple extreme positions I could easily find myself siding with Libertarians. The problem I have is that as this video demonstrates Libertarians are smarny, snoby, elitist, absolutist, and can't be reasoned with. Just like Progressives. I find myself agreeing with many of them most of the time on this board. But a single debatable position and you're labeled a statist because you are willing to assume a reasonable position. Or at least listen to one. That's idiotic, and marginalizes the Libertarian. Zealots are zealots, regardless of the cause.

If you call ending a prohibition on substances which only harm the user, "extreme", then you're far from siding with libertarians on much. It doesn't get more big-government than outlawing a wild-growing plant & filling up our prisons with violators. Your definition of "reasonable" is likely closer to the meaning of "traditional", but only from the point-of-view of your particular experience. As far as being a zealot goes..."drugs are bad, mmkay?" is much closer to zealotry than promoting ALL freedoms consistently.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Your question reveals your premise, and you and I don't share premeses. I assume there will be some negative impact on society if drugs are legalized.

First, I evaluate everything according to certain principles. Not all of those have to do with whether I think the overall impact will be negative or positive. Sometimes, like in this instance, there is a higher moral principle involved. The moral principle here is that I should be able to ingest whatever I want into my own body. I shouldn't have to check with the government to see which dangerous drugs have been government approved, and which have not.

Second, I look at actual impact, good and bad. With most things, there is a negative and a positive impact. Some things will be better if drugs are legalized. Some things would be worse. Again, this consideration is secondary to the first consideration, the principle.



Wherever it has occurred, including in this country with the repeal of Prohibition, legalizing drugs has not led to more crime, but to less.



This is a tricky argument. We shouldn't, IMO, being paying for other people's poor choices. I think the private sector could take care of children's charity needs, were it given a chance, but even if you assume a higher cost because some people will default on their parental responsibilities, you'd have to prove to me first that they aren't the same people who already default those responsibilities. You assume that's an automatic. I don't. Even if it does happen, I'd rather deal with those responsibilities when it happens, rather than violate a principle based on what someone imagines might happen.



In my opinion, not relevant. How is health insurance affected by fast food? By motorcycle riding? By skiing? By use of drugs already legal? By trampolines?

Health insurance is to pay for injuries due to among other reasons, a variety of people's individual choices. Not a good enough reason to use coercion to dictate my personal choices.



I don't really care. People should be able to take the risks they are willing to take in order to achieve the ends they personally want to achieve. I assume a structure would arise to deal with these problems. I just don't want it to be the government.



I'm not for taxing much of anything, but I assume like many other things are taxed. Distribution will be taken care of by the market.

Let's go back to premeses. All of the above are the case right now. Drugs are already being used extensively all over our country, so therefore everything you outline above is already happening.

To determine what migh happen after legalization, we only have to look at the times in history when it has happened. Then, after it happens, we have to look at the unforseen consequences that accompany every action.

My premise is this. Drugs are illegal. Someone at some time decided it should be that way. It wasn't me. It wasn't anyone I know. I accept that reality exists, namely the government controls drugs. I am not taking a position on the decisions and circumstances that lead to that reality.

I agree generally with the principle that you should be able to injest what you want. I consider an overriding principle, however. Does your behavior negatively impact those around you? If so, the decision is not so clear.

The fact is that no one except a vocal minority that no one can hear believes drugs should be legalized. I take that at face value. Maybe I shouldn't, but I do. As I have said, I could be convinced that some drugs should be legalized but it would take research and studies showing that the negative impact to society is lessened or neutral. Not I think this, or think that. Solid fact-based information. Not foot stomping, name calling, or quotes from WWJD (What Would Jefferson Do). But honest, unbiased research.

It's a matter of changing a long standing, established, and accepted public policy that has ramifications and unintended consequences. I welcome a debate based on information, not rhetoric. That seems like a reasonable approach to me.

Now is the part where someone flames me for wanting to debate their personal choices. Carry on.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Semper...it doesn't matter what "facts" surround a substance...unless it's like the toxin from Resident Evil, the substance is not to blame for the negative actions of a person. It is, instead, the fault of those people who ingest the substance & then cause harm to others. If you wish to argue that the substance IS to blame, then are you for or against reinstatement of an alcohol prohibition?

I'm not sure what sort of information we could give you which would convince you that drugs =/= violence. Perhaps you could do some reading about Portugal?

Ultimately, if someone is going to be a bad citizen or a bad parent, they'll do so regardless which substances are legal or illegal. The current situation is so perverse that otherwise great parents are getting tossed in jail for possession of harmless substances. Prohibition is unjust.

I'm headin' to bed, I'll catch up with this thread tomorrow.

 

[antsi]

Now is the part where someone flames me for wanting to debate their personal choices.

They're not my personal choices. I don't do drugs, including alcohol, tobacco, or even caffiene.

If you're going to hang your hat on "negative impact on society," you're going to have to criminalize alcohol consumption, too. Alcoholism has a brutal impact on families and society.

It's not at all clear to me that legalization would increase use. It sure wouldn't make me suddenly want to start doing drugs. Neither does the current illegalization seem to reduce access. People seem to be able to get any kind of drugs they want, pretty much everywhere.

Compared to the obvious downsides of keeping them illegal - in particular the massive amount of money it funnels into criminal enterprises, plus the corrupting influence on our legal system, and the corrosion of constitutional rights in the name of the "war on drugs" - I don't see what we're getting out of this.

 

[NordicHeathenVinlander]

Can someone explain why drug use in Europe doesnt have the negative social impacts it does in America, South of the border and other "nations"?


Perhaps its not the drug, but the user.

 

[TiminMishawaka]

The original Boston Tea Party was over taxation, and I think "tea parties" at large would do well to stick with that message.

The Tea Parties DID well.

 

[rambone]

Why don't libertarians take the same approach to the Republican Party? If Tea Party movements are a great way to open eyes, why wouldn't a libertarian candidate running as a Republican be just as good?

I'm sure some libertarians do try to get into the Republican party. I'm also sure that these candidates rarely get any help from the party getting elected, and probably have to fight the party establishment itself just to enter the party.

I think that liberty-minded candidates should run in all 3 parties. Wouldn't it be careful if all candidates on the ballot actually followed the constitution and didn't plan on growing government?

The Tea Parties DID well.

The video seems to imply some of them are straying from that message I mentioned. I hope that is not the case. All I can do is keep my group focused.

 

[dross]

My premise is this. Drugs are illegal. Someone at some time decided it should be that way. It wasn't me. It wasn't anyone I know. I accept that reality exists, namely the government controls drugs. I am not taking a position on the decisions and circumstances that lead to that reality.

I am taking such a position. When people make light of the libertarian view of drugs, they are missing the entire point. I don't do drugs, bourbon excepting, so I have no dog in the fight as to personal choices. But to me, the fact that "someone at some time decided" that my double bourbon on the rocks was legal, but somene else's joint wasn't is arbitrary and unfair. I don't want the government making such decisions.

I agree generally with the principle that you should be able to injest what you want. I consider an overriding principle, however. Does your behavior negatively impact those around you? If so, the decision is not so clear..

This argument doesn't hold water unless you just choose to apply it to drugs and ignore it as applied to lots of other things which are legal. Do you want fast food regulated, as do some, because if you clog your heart and die it will affect your family? Should motorcycling be outlawed because of its negative impact? And most obvious, why is alcohol illegal? You can't make that argument when you want to then ignore it when its inconvenient to your point.

The fact is that no one except a vocal minority that no one can hear believes drugs should be legalized. I take that at face value. Maybe I shouldn't, but I do...

You absolutely shouldn't. Why should the popularity or lack of it dictate what I can do that is no one else's business? Alcohol is a dangerous drug, but no one is calling for it to be made legal, so therefore it must be less dangerous than pot which is only being supported by a vocal minority? Would you apply that test to guns?

As I have said, I could be convinced that some drugs should be legalized but it would take research and studies showing that the negative impact to society is lessened or neutral. Not I think this, or think that. Solid fact-based information. Not foot stomping, name calling, or quotes from WWJD (What Would Jefferson Do). But honest, unbiased research....

Are you willing to apply that test to everything?

It's a matter of changing a long standing, established, and accepted public policy that has ramifications and unintended consequences. I welcome a debate based on information, not rhetoric. That seems like a reasonable approach to me.

Now is the part where someone flames me for wanting to debate their personal choices. Carry on.

It must be debated philosophically, because you've already conceded the information/harm/benefit argument unless you are advocating making alcohol illegal, which is certainly more harmful than marijuana.

 

[photoshooter]

on the drug issue:

So riddle me this. Here are just 5 questions (with some sub-parts). Answer these with a degree of specificity to convince us that drugs are OK and there is no societal impact by their legalization.

1 Geographic areas that have high per capita drug use have much higher crime rates than geographic areas with lower per capita drug use. If drugs are legalized how do we prevent the spread of crime associated with increased drug use? If we are unable to stem the crime who is to pay for the increased police presence in areas where police are not typically needed now?

Riddle me this:

1. What is the chapter and verse of the Constitution that allows the federal govt to set laws such as this? There is an answer - but it's steeped in controversy. One of those - where do you draw line? clauses that the progressives also keep using to screw us.

2. (this one I don't know, so I thought I'd ask - it's the journalism training, asking pesky questions): Higher per capita crime. What crimes are included in that? Vandalism, burglary, possession?

Also, how much of the crime is directly related to drug market?
Are some of the crimes directly related to getting enough cash to purchase the next hit?
How much of the crime is directly related to the gangs controlling the supply?

There are a lot of What Ifs in the war on drugs.