The Election Fraud Thread

Quote: missedhervee

I always vote Libertarian; to me it means "As little government intrusion as possible, and leave me the hell alone to do whatever I want so long as I don't hurt people doing it."

I have not noticed this in your posts or positions before.

Quote: kenarman

You youngsters just don't know your history.

"If you consider these two definitions, it is obviously very possible to be both libertarian and socialist. In fact for many years the two terms were more or less synonymous, describing the behavioral and economic aspects of the same movement. The libertarians, socialists, and anarchists of the 19th century wanted to abolish the government, overthrow the aristocracy, take the farms and factories away from absentee landlords, and have farmers and factory workers manage themselves." Quote is from Quora.

Quotes don't mean jack to me
I lived with a libertarian
Possible to be libertarian and socialist????????
Absurd
They are on opposite sides

Quote: JimRockford

I dispute the claim that the Libertarian Party tries to win elections.

We won a handful of city level seats in the recent election cycle, and I think even one or two state Congress seats. It was a really good cycle for us.

Quote: missedhervee

I always vote Libertarian; to me it means "As little government intrusion as possible, and leave me the hell alone to do whatever I want so long as I don't hurt people doing it."

+100

Quote: kenarman

You youngsters just don't know your history.

"If you consider these two definitions, it is obviously very possible to be both libertarian and socialist. In fact for many years the two terms were more or less synonymous, describing the behavioral and economic aspects of the same movement. The libertarians, socialists, and anarchists of the 19th century wanted to abolish the government, overthrow the aristocracy, take the farms and factories away from absentee landlords, and have farmers and factory workers manage themselves." Quote is from Quora.

What year are we in right now? If this is 1855, I think I'm going to need to change parties. Democrats were also pro-slavery throughout most of their existence, if not all, in the 19th century.

Quote: terapined

Quotes don't mean jack to me
I lived with a libertarian
Possible to be libertarian and socialist????????
Absurd
They are on opposite sides

One would think so, but we have some who identify as Libertarian Socialists and who would want to abolish the concept of private property. They're very much in the minority, of course, as much as a minority viewpoint can be in the minority of a minority party...and they should probably go bother a different party...but they are there and we will take them for the numbers.

They were mostly disaffected Democrats crying, once again, because Bernie Sanders did not win the Democratic Nomination. I have no idea what that has to do with us, but we're not really big enough (as a party) to be turning people away---even if them identifying with us makes no sense.

Kenarman,

Also, you equated Libertarianism to Anarchy as it relates me, personally, in the present day. Is it really that hard just to admit that you swung and missed on one?

Oh no, the portland riots were actually caused by the FBI. (sarcasm) (didn't someone claim that here about Jan 6)

Quote:

The F.B.I. set up extensive surveillance operations inside Portland’s protest movement, according to documents obtained by The New York Times and current and former federal officials, with agents standing shoulder to shoulder with activists, tailing vandalism suspects to guide the local police toward arrests and furtively videotaping inside one of the country’s most active domestic protest movements.

Quote:

There has been no evidence so far that the bureau used similar surveillance teams on right-wing demonstrators during the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, despite potential threats of violence against the heart of federal government — though the F.B.I. did have an informant in the crowd that day.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-f-b-i-deployed-surveillance-teams-inside-portland-protests/ar-AAS36MA?ocid=msedgntp

Quote: Mission146

Kenarman,

Also, you equated Libertarianism to Anarchy as it relates me, personally, in the present day. Is it really that hard just to admit that you swung and missed on one?

How I think you have defined your position is that you want no or very little government intervention in your life. The logical extension of this is no rules so no need of government. If that is not where you want to get to then you are the same as everyone else. You just want to be King and be the one making the rules.

Quote: kenarman

How I think you have defined your position is that you want no or very little government intervention in your life. The logical extension of this is no rules so no need of government. If that is not where you want to get to then you are the same as everyone else. You just want to be King and be the on making the rules.

You have to have more than zero rules, or you don't have a country. Not being allowed to wantonly kill people is a pretty good rule, wouldn't you say?

While the Declaration of Independence is not a formal Governing document (unlike the Constitution) it is a good starting point if you want to understand Libertarianism, at least, such that I would define the thought process.

You begin with, "...Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...," right?

Okay, so life is an easy one. You may not murder your fellow citizens, so we have to have police forces in place (a function of Government) to ensure that people are hopefully not doing that and that those who do are prevented from perhaps doing the same to others.

Liberty refers to personal liberty, which is the right to make your own decisions about your life. Fundamentally, the Libertarian Party is concerned with concepts such as free association (personal, political, religious and business) as well as people living their own lives, and allowing others to do the same, in a way that does not aggress against other people or do anything to impinge upon their rights.

The pursuit of happiness also informs our social positions. People should be allowed to do what makes them happy as long as it is legally defensible and people should not (and the Government especially shouldn't) have laws by which people may not pursue what makes them happy, again, provided they are not impinging upon the rights of others.

The Federal Government is also necessary for the protection of American citizens because it is by and through the Federal Government that we may have an organized national defense.

Dare I say that most Libertarians would prefer, in terms of military, as isolated of military policies as we can possibly get (you handle your countries and we will handle ours); it remains necessary to be prepared to defend ourselves in the event that we, or the holdings that belong to us, are ever attacked.

The Federal Government is necessary for the regulation of Interstate Commerce and Transportation because those are things that exist for the furtherance and benefit of the entire country. Interstate commerce is necessary so that, in their economic dealings, the states are playing by the same set of rules as one another. The simplest example of this is that an individual state may not levy tariffs on imports or exports from one state and not others...in fact, the individual states don't even look at themselves as importing and exporting from others, at this point, so we have free trade in this country.

It is also important that business dealings, as well as dealings between individuals and businesses be regulated to the extent that everyone is keeping their end of the contract, or bargain. With that, you have to have contract laws and the Federal Government must be able to resolve Interstate breaches of contract, because if not, the lawsuit being brought within an individual state would be more likely to favor the party (whether business or person) that is actually from that state.

In short, the Federal Government should mainly be concerned with national defense, a system of national transportation and to regulate dealings within the individual states. As Libertarians, we do not believe that the Federal Government should have many concerns outside of these things and, pursuant to the Tenth Amendment, the better part of these things would be left for individual states, and lesser jurisdictions, to handle.

When you get down to the level of states and individual jurisdictions, once again, Libertarians would not want to see these lesser Government levels abolished, we would just prefer to limit the scope of what the states can do (which would be addressed in State Constitutions) and then whatever is left would get passed on to the lower jurisdictions, such as cities and counties.

Things can get a bit dicey when you ask different Libertarians what they think should be the purview of state law and what needs to go to jurisdictions even lower than that...but, when it comes to state laws, I think that is where I personally get into a more traditional and common view of politics.

For example, I seek to restrict the power and how far-reaching the Federal Government is, so you would consider me extremely fiscally conservative on the Federal level of things---but that's mainly just because I don't think the Feds should do much in that regard. When you get down to the level of an individual state, I become either a fiscal moderate, or perhaps ever-so-slightly fiscally Liberal. I'm always extremely Liberal on social issues, or was, before the whole reparations, cancel culture, critical race and other stuff. I'm extremely Liberal when it comes to material social rights and freedoms, I'll put it that way.

The way it is looking, the Federal Government has virtually all of the power and it will get to the point, especially if The Left gets its way, that the states are all managed the same way in virtually all material aspects of Governance. That's the main thing that I don't want. Fiscal policies that would benefit states where the better part of the state's economy is urban will NOT benefit those areas with a rural economy. They're not playing the same game and certainly not with the same numbers---Cost of Living Index can tell you that much.

In terms of policy, all of the states should look very different because they all ARE very different and have their own micro-economies, their own social standards and their own modes of living. For all of the crying that the Far Left does about diversity, it sure seems that they want to use their Economic policies to get rid of the diversity that different states have from one another.

Don't like your state's personal income tax rate? Move to Florida. Want to establish a corporation in a less restrictive environment? Do it in Delaware. That sort of thing.

The states being different from one another fosters freedom, part of which is the freedom of movement. If you don't like the way your state is Governed and don't feel as if you benefit from the fiscal policies, then just go move to a different state.

Anyway, sorry if that was long, but that's about as basic as I can make my viewpoint. It's not even all that great of a summary, but it'll do since you think I'm an Anarchist anyway. I'm probably the first Anarchist to ever call for summary executions on the grounds of treason, I'll tell you that.