Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mama Bear who wrote (4186)	9/21/2000 11:29:25 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

I have stayed out of this debate so far, but let me step in briefly. The point is that a vote for Bush or a vote for Gore is the true wasted vote. At this point in time it is reality that the Libertarians do not have enough of a voting base to swing the election to one side or the other. Andrew Jackson said it best: "One man with courage makes a majority." It just takes time for the country to recognize that. Every political party started with less than a majority. Far less than a majority. If nobody started or supported a political party until it had a legitimate chance to win, there would be no political parties at all. (Hmmm. Let's not get off on how wonderful that would be. We're stuck with the things.) So saying "because we can't win this election it's a wasted vote to vote Libertarian" is really saying "I believe we should only have two party system forever and the Libertarians should never have a chance to elect a President." If that's a person's position, fine, they have every right to believe that. But IMO they don't have the right to claim that they want a Libertarian president at some point down the road but won't vote for a Libertarian candidate until they have a legitimate chance of winning. That's a null proposition. It's the kind of political dishonesty that Libertarians exist to try to put out of business. If the "wasted vote" position prevails, the Libertarian party will NEVER have a chance to become the majority party. There have to be building years to get to the top. No 3rd grader ever won an Olympic race. But does that mean every parent of a 10 year old should say "hey, you can't win the Olympics this year, so it's a waste of time dreaming about it and working toward it. Go sit in front of the TV and forget this training nonsense"? IMO, a vote of principle is NEVER a wasted vote. It may not be a winning vote, but it isn't a wasted vote. It make a statement, and every political movement in the world started with a person or small group of people making a statement.

To: Mama Bear who wrote (4186)	9/21/2000 12:43:25 PM
From: The Street	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13056

All, The Libertarian Party will run candidates in more than HALF of ALL US HOUSE elections this year. THAT IS THE FIRST TIME IN 80 YEARS A THIRD PARTY HAS DONE THAT! 245 LParty candidates in 44 States. I am not "wasting" my vote on Goreinski or Bushquo. If Harry gets THIRD in the election, and with the above 245 candidates, THEN WE ARE ON THE MAP....

To: Mama Bear who wrote (4186)	9/21/2000 12:46:12 PM
From: long-gone	Respond to of 13056

<<I still don't get why everyone seems to think that Libertarians are just Republicrats in drag. >> Never said they were, just now trying ot assure the lesser of evils. a great many of us "Republicans" are not Republicans on any social issue.

To: Mama Bear who wrote (4186)	9/21/2000 4:58:23 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13056

<I still don't get why everyone seems to think that Libertarians are just Republicrats in drag. > Because sheeple have a short attention span, they think in slogans, proverbs and cliches, they think of Libertarian as 'less tax and less government than Republicans' who are 'less tax and less government and for guns, rich people and oil companies'. Typical thinking would be that Libertarians are weird anarchists or something. The political spectrum runs from a great deal of state ownership and control [North Korea being the main example outside primitive and tribal ways of life] to the semi-socialist Democrats who spend half the country's money, to the Republicans who spend half the country's money too but in a slightly different way, to the Libertarians who would spend none of the country's money [working from donations]. So sheeple figure that Libertarians are just more extreme Republicans. They don't see the qualitative difference. So they flock to the polls and vote to be kept in a paddock and fleeced [or worse]. That's my theory anyway, Mqurice New Zealand Libertarianz here: libertarianz.org.nz Read all about it here: libertarianz.org.nz Lindsay Perigo's magazine: freeradical.co.nz

To: Mama Bear who wrote (4186)	9/23/2000 12:40:19 PM
From: Don Lloyd	Respond to of 13056

Barb - [...My voting Libertarian will not change the election unless the results in my state depended on that vote, and that my state is the deciding state in the electoral college. My voting Libertarian can make a difference to the body politic though....] To pursue this a little further, NO voter has EVER determined the outcome of a US Presidential election with his vote and NONE EVER will. (At least it is a lower probability than the sun going nova before the election. Note to WJC - don't try this at home, even if the VP is trailing in the polls) To determine your vote on this basis is like planning your life around winning a $100M lottery payoff. At least in the case of the lottery, there is a chance that you will win the entire pot, whereas if a voter WERE to have his vote decide the winner, the exact same thing applies to roughly half of the voters in his state. Regards, Don