From the “Libertarians-sure-know-how-to-party” Department
I hold to Libertarian ideals, I do!
Libertarians favor rolling back the size and cost of government, and eliminating laws that stifle the economy and control people’s personal choices.
- [Editor's Note: This is just a picture I found of the test results, the result above does not necessarily represent the political views of this writer.]
See, I believe that.
So why am I a Republican instead? Well, I learned many years ago that most of the party leaders in the Libertarian Party are a bunch of freaky-crazy-wacked-out-anarchist nutjobs.
So I knew what The Libercontrarian knew well before 9/11.
Changing Parties
I’m a party-free kind of guy right now. I was a Libertarian, but have officially changed my party affiliation from that tribe of loser-savants to (I) for Independent. The Losertarian Party lost me when they suggested in the most recent issue of the Losertarian Paper that the United States Government engineered 9/11, that the buildings were control-detonated, and that unwieldy, bloated bueracracy somehow managed to gain enough competence to fake out the entire population of the world, who watched every second of it on TV.
I met my first Libertarian in college, back in Pennsylvania. I had been a registered Republican for some time. Bill Clinton was President, and I was a disgruntled science major.
He gave me the test (Which is heavily weighted to allign you with their party views) and saw, I scored on the border of Conservative Republican and Libertarian. So this guy (Who was running for State Representavite, I think) was trying to get me to join the party.
I wasn’t as politically minded, back then, so I didn’t know about the major issues, but we got to talking about the Legalization of Drugs (something I don’t support) and the Abolition of the Income Tax (Something I support, but not in the method this guy described – his way would have incurred way too much chaos for my taste.); but slowly I learned that this guy was against pretty much most Federal, State, and Local laws. And was full of conspiracy theories; theories like the Government was behind the Oklahoma City bombing; which of course was false. (It was at this point in my life, I learned about the Conspiracy buzzwords of “Majestik 12″, “Committee on Foreign Relations”, “The Trilatteral Commission”, “Knights Templar”, and “New World Order”.)
Needless to say, the Libertarian freaked me out. But I thought, okay, it was just one guy, right? No, met several Libertarians at University, when I moved to Arizona, and they were on equal level of freak as this guy in Pennsylvania. So I made the assumption that the Libertarian Party was a political magnet for these guys, which I did not want to be a part of.
David J, of Resurection Song says this:
I’ve come to believe that none of the political parties are principled, but that their members most certainly can be. In the same way that a self-proclaimed Christian might also be a liar, a cheat, and an all around jerk, a person’s membership in the Republican (or Democrat or Green or Libertarian) party carries no guaranty of upstanding personal values.
Where does that leave me as a voter? Trying to make the best, most informed, and most ethically consistent choices that I can. It means voting for people that I think will take our national security, economic dangers, and personal freedoms seriously. It means that in recognizing that our elected leaders (and party leaders) don’t always act in a principled or intelligent fashion, I might have to do my part to pick up the slack.
Just kidding. Sort of.
Personally, I think there is a revolution, of sorts in all the parties [Republican, Democrat, and Libertarian]. The usual Party Noise isn’t cutting it for most peope, and large majorities in each party are becoming disillusioned with the individual Party Establishment.
The Democratic Party leaders are now becoming Fringe Leftists (while the party members are not)
The Republican Party is becoming the draconian establishment they were fighting in the 1980s and 1990s. Now they are in power, they are not reforming fast enough, and playing it safe.
I’m thinking a new “Conservative” party is in order.
April 9, 2006 at 7:06 PM |
Do you want to use the word “Conservative” for your new party?
What would this new party stand for?
Would it be for change or would it hold itself to past standards?
What would be its appeal and mission?
Would it be conservative in some areas (i.e. economic) and liberal in others (i.e. social)?
Would it hold to any religious ideals?
Would it appeal to all or particular social-economic classes and religions?
Would candidates of this new party need to meet particular criteria (i.e. litmus test)?
Could your party back candidates of other parties and could members of your party be registered to another party?
Given answers to the above, where do you see this new party being born; in other words, where would it have the greatest appeal?
April 9, 2006 at 9:19 PM |
And most importantly… would there be free booze at your conventions?
The libertarian ideal, like most ideals, sounds nice. Everyone basically does their thing so long as they don’t screw with anyone else. I like that. But the real world is full of freaks that make this ideal impossible (like most ideals).
April 10, 2006 at 6:33 AM |
I guess my frustration comes from the status-quo. I voted for Republican’s to battle, change, and reform the status quo, and they end up becoming part of the establishment that they campaigned against. They are not reducing the size of government, they are increasing it.
Social Security wasn’t fixed.
Immigration is still a problem.
And there is an endless litany of things that havn’t been done (In my opinion)
I just want a political party that I agree with, and do what they say.
April 10, 2006 at 8:40 AM |
By the way, what is the difference (if any) betwee a Moderate and a Centrist?
April 10, 2006 at 8:53 AM |
Well, the dictionary says that Moderate and Centrist are synonymous.
April 10, 2006 at 9:57 AM |
I don’t understand your graph. What is the “%” representing?
April 10, 2006 at 11:46 AM |
Its not my graph, but I’ve seen this mapping before.
Its your Econominc/Social Scores,
Based on the answers to the questions on the Libertarian Test, it scores you on how little government you want.
So the less government you want, the higher your score for that category.
April 10, 2006 at 12:59 PM |
So “100%” is no government… ok. I was reading it backwards.
April 10, 2006 at 1:28 PM |
Yeah, the last time I took the test, I was 80% Economic, and 50% Social. Which put me right on the line between Libertarian, Conservative and Moderate.
Here is one such Quiz online.
April 12, 2006 at 3:39 PM |
Here’s one for your party if it’s not already taken.
Neoliberalism:
First, you would get all of Kerry’s supporters on board because of the inclusion of the word liberal.
Second, you would get the Reagan supporters on board when they saw the definition.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
In its dominant international use, neoliberalism refers to a political-economic philosophy that de-emphasizes or rejects government intervention in the domestic economy. It focuses on free-market methods, fewer restrictions on business operations, and property rights. In foreign policy, neoliberalism favors the opening of foreign markets by political means, using economic pressure, diplomacy, and/or military intervention. Opening of markets refers to free trade and an international division of labor. Neoliberalism generally favors multilateral political pressure through international organizations or treaty devices such as the WTO and World Bank. It promotes reducing the role of national governments to a minimum. Neoliberalism favors laissez-faire over direct government intervention (such as Keynesianism), and measures success in overall economic gain. To improve corporate efficiency, it strives to reject or mitigate labor policies such as minimum wage, and collective bargaining rights.
It opposes socialism, protectionism and environmentalism. Neoliberalism is often at odds with fair trade and other movements that argue that labor rights and social justice should have a greater priority in international relations and economics.
Even though the above describes Reagan, he was not labeled neoliberalism because the US definition has been distorted by the environmentalists and revenue sharing believers.
April 13, 2006 at 2:55 AM |
[...] During one of my visits to the Two-Headed Monster, Jeremy was discussing is political preference, and I found the discuss very interesting. I would encourage you to check it out, as it gives some clear descriptions on what different political parties stand for. [...]
April 13, 2006 at 6:07 AM |
[...] It is frustrating, to say the least. Like I hinted over at Two-Headed-Monster, the Republican Revolution seemed to fizzle as soon as they re-captured to the White House. And all the talk of reform, and turning back the clock on all the Congressional Corruption just died. It was as if removing Democrats from power was enough. [...]
April 26, 2006 at 3:28 AM |
[...] Why Jeremy is not a Libertarian [...]
October 26, 2007 at 2:55 PM |
[...] As I was reading over this VodkaPundit Essay, I was reminded of two things I wrote earlier. One, How Little Jeremy became a Republican, and a Two Headed Monster essay, Why Jeremy is Not a Libertarian. [...]
April 14, 2009 at 12:52 PM |
Hey, cool tips. I’ll buy a glass of beer to that man from that chat who told me to visit your blog :)
[Spamvertizement link removed - ed.]
April 14, 2009 at 2:32 PM |
The guy’s name is “Jeremy G.” and he’s at Thunder Canyon Brewery, his Mug Number is 41