Bottom line is that i didn't take you serious. However, if you feel the need to question me on something, by all means, go for it. Iron Sharpeneth Iron, & c.I'll have to go back to using smilies if that post was taken for serious.
I'm considering joining the Libertarian Party. I agree with the LP for the most part, but areas where I differ from the platform are: abortion (I'm pro-life), fiscal stance (I'm a Georgist and support a Land Value Tax), and I also oppose a non-interventionist foreign policy, but wouldn't call myself a neolibertarian, either.
I wonder what's a better fit for me, the LP or the Reform Party.
By far the LP. I have known Georgists in there. I doubt that you'll feel like a good fit in the Reform Party.
eudaimonia,
Mark
A little "Monday morning quarterbacking".I'm probably going to vote for Gary Johnson because Billary and the Hairpiece are two sides of the same coin.
It seems that Gary Johnson, while getting a record percentage of the vote was not the guy we wanted representing LIBERTARIAN issues...he seemed more interested in promoting his pot growing business than being a Libertarian.
We disagree Mark. i think that Johnson did better than any other previous Libertarian candidate (including his own 2012 run) because of the unique political situation of 2016.I thought that he did great. He wasn't "promoting" his cannabis products business (he was asked about this repeatedly!), though he didn't hide or express shame about that either.
Let's face it...he beat any previous LP record by at least three times. All of this armchair quarterbacking is meaningless in the face of that. Many libertarians seem to think that if only they were the campaign manager, they would have done better. It is nothing more than conceit.
What Gary Johnson had shown in his actual performance is that it is possible for a Libertarian candidate to appeal to the middle and get results, instead of making a hard right turn (Austin Peterson's strategy). This is valuable information for the future, because appealing to the right could flood the party with the alt-right and social conservatives, and that would be a disaster.
eudaimonia,
Mark
What about him did you view as not right. I'd agree with your statements, just wondering the details. What did you think of McMillian?As a member of the party for 30 years now...back when being a Libertarian actually meant something, i can tell you that we're going to take a long hard look at the direction of the party.
Personally, I deplore the negativity implicit in the idea of no rule. All men are ruled by some one or some thing. The implication of no rule is that men are released from all control, all restraint, even all morality, purpose, or responsibility. Such is not desirable. Nor is it possible. As Rose Wilder Lane says in The Discovery of Freedom, All energy operates under control. Whether it be the energy of an electron, a hurricane, or a man, energy is controlled.
[...]
The prefix, auto, means self. Archy, as we know, means rule or ruling. Autarchy then means self-rule, or the act of self-ruling.
Since I favor total self-control--absolute government of the individual over himself--I believe autarchy more accurately describes, in a positive fashion, the kind of situation I consider most desirable. Some dictionaries define autarchy as a kind of tyranny or despotism, but of necessity it is limited to self-application. Thus, an autarchist may very well be a tyrant over himself, or he might appear tyrannical by refusing to admit others into the sacred precincts of his own mind, person, or property. But if it is tyranny to reject the sycophant, the panhandler, and the central planner, then this kind of tyranny is not reprehensible, to my view.
I don't know what the answer is about healthcare, pure capitalism is unrealistic unless there is a dramatic decrease in pricing, but single payer is not feasible in a country with as high a population as the USA and tends to be less open to experimental and alternative medicine, which I believe that all people should have the right to seek out. My biggest issue with Trump's plan is the blatant eugenicism which would drastically increase costs specifically for those with chronic and pre-existing conditions, morally I simply can't get behind this and as I am in that group it puts me in danger as well along with several people I love.
How do you feel about business owners turning away customers or refusing to serve customers that go against their religious beliefs, like making a wedding cake for a same sex couple?
Do you think the owner should also be able to turn away people of different religions and races as well?