Libertarians who do you support for President?

[Murica!]

The fyck is a right communist?

Max Shachtman, or there's always that Carlist-Maoist party in Spain.

Shachtman doesn't really count as he simply became a social democrat rather than creating some sort of "right-communist" ideology. I'm also not familiar with the "Carlist-Maoist" party, which one would that be?

[Inmate Trump]

I consider myself libertarian. But this election is different. If Trump is the nominee, then I'll vote for the Democrat, be it Hillary or Bernie.

[Ljube]

I consider myself libertarian. But this election is different. If Trump is the nominee, then I'll vote for the Democrat, be it Hillary or Bernie.

What do you find objectionable about TRUMP?

[Leinad]

Take three guesses, the first two don't count.

I'm supporting Rand until he either wins or (MUCH more likely, I hate to say) drops out. At that point I'll almost definitely support the Libertarian Party nominee, and I think that should be Gary Johnson.

Also, holy crap, lefty anarchists are NOT "true libertarians." How the fudge can you have liberty without property rights? You can't smoke weed if the Party takes it away, guys. Liberty is nothing without economic liberty--like it or not, if you take away the right to economic liberty everything else will follow. That's just how it works. A government, or any centralized source of power, can NOT have anything near full control over wealth/property without infringing on our other rights.

One last thing: real libertarians--hell, even pseudo-libertarians--do NOT support Donald J. Trump, the candidate Ron Paul called "almost the opposite of a libertarian." Trump is ridiculously un-libertarian.

Almost all of the Trump votes in this poll are troll votes. We all know that.

[Ljube]

Take three guesses, the first two don't count.

I'm supporting Rand until he either wins or (MUCH more likely, I hate to say) drops out. At that point I'll almost definitely support the Libertarian Party nominee, and I think that should be Gary Johnson.

Also, holy crap, lefty anarchists are NOT "true libertarians." How the fudge can you have liberty without property rights? You can't smoke weed if the Party takes it away, guys. Liberty is nothing without economic liberty--like it or not, if you take away the right to economic liberty everything else will follow. That's just how it works. A government, or any centralized source of power, can NOT have anything near full control over wealth/property without infringing on our other rights.

One last thing: real libertarians--hell, even pseudo-libertarians--do NOT support Donald J. Trump, the candidate Ron Paul called "almost the opposite of a libertarian." Trump is ridiculously un-libertarian.

Almost all of the Trump votes in this poll are troll votes. We all know that.

Left anarchists are not libertarians. I agree with that.

But can you please explain why TRUMP is un-libertarian?
Also, please compare him with the Democratic candidates (Clinton and Sanders) and Bloomberg.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I'm actually supporting Rubio but would have supported Rand if I thought he was viable. I also like Ted Cruz.

If Trump gets nominated, I'm voting Gary Johnson. There is nothing libertarian about Donald Trump.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

I'm actually supporting Rubio but would have supported Rand if I thought he was viable. I also like Ted Cruz.

If Trump gets nominated, I'm voting Gary Johnson. There is nothing libertarian about Donald Trump.

THIS

[Murica!]

Also, holy crap, lefty anarchists are NOT "true libertarians." How the fudge can you have liberty without property rights? You can't smoke weed if the Party takes it away, guys. Liberty is nothing without economic liberty--like it or not, if you take away the right to economic liberty everything else will follow. That's just how it works. A government, or any centralized source of power, can NOT have anything near full control over wealth/property without infringing on our other rights.

Yes which is why most libertarians support the worker ownership of the means of production and the abolishment of illegitimate hierarchy.

[Inmate Trump]

I consider myself libertarian. But this election is different. If Trump is the nominee, then I'll vote for the Democrat, be it Hillary or Bernie.

What do you find objectionable about TRUMP?

I hate to do this, because it annoys me when people try to put this extreme label on American politicians when there is no evidence to support it.....but he is just a little too close to Hitler. In fact, he is the most Hitler-esque person this country has come to electing to its highest office. He's an authoritarian, and there really is no argument you can make to convince me otherwise. The facts are all there.

He's a racist. He has no respect for women or minorities, whatsoever. Forcing a group of people to wear badges and/or register into a database purely based on their race or religion--yea, I can't go along with that no matter what. Furthermore, going into their mosques to accomplish this? The government has no business being there; it's a clear violation of the separation of church and state.

Government surveillance is (or should be) a big issue for libertarians and this man will increase it.

He's too insulting. Can you imagine this guy trying to be diplomatic with other world leaders? I get it, campaigns often run negative. But he takes it to a whole other level. His supporters all say they like him "cuz he speaks his mind" but that's total bs. If I say they're an ignorant, uneducated redneck does that make it okay, since I'm only speaking my mind?

He incites hatred. There's a video of a Trump rally of a Muslim women simply standing...not saying a word...just standing there...in a silent protest, and look at the way his crowd of supporters react to her. It's gross. He brings out the worst in people, and it's a very scary sight.

I've never voted for a Democrat for president, but 2016 will be the first election that I do. I don't want to see my country fall back. Say what you will about Hillary, but she at least cares about the country. She won't totally destroy everything that makes this nation great. Trump only cares about himself; he'll sacrifice principles if it benefits him. How this is not apparent to anyone, I don't know.

[Ljube]

I consider myself libertarian. But this election is different. If Trump is the nominee, then I'll vote for the Democrat, be it Hillary or Bernie.

What do you find objectionable about TRUMP?

I hate to do this, because it annoys me when people try to put this extreme label on American politicians when there is no evidence to support it.....but he is just a little too close to Hitler. In fact, he is the most Hitler-esque person this country has come to electing to its highest office. He's an authoritarian, and there really is no argument you can make to convince me otherwise. The facts are all there.

He's a racist. He has no respect for women or minorities, whatsoever. Forcing a group of people to wear badges and/or register into a database purely based on their race or religion--yea, I can't go along with that no matter what. Furthermore, going into their mosques to accomplish this? The government has no business being there; it's a clear violation of the separation of church and state.

Government surveillance is (or should be) a big issue for libertarians and this man will increase it.

He's too insulting. Can you imagine this guy trying to be diplomatic with other world leaders? I get it, campaigns often run negative. But he takes it to a whole other level. His supporters all say they like him "cuz he speaks his mind" but that's total bs. If I say they're an ignorant, uneducated redneck does that make it okay, since I'm only speaking my mind?

He incites hatred. There's a video of a Trump rally of a Muslim women simply standing...not saying a word...just standing there...in a silent protest, and look at the way his crowd of supporters react to her. It's gross. He brings out the worst in people, and it's a very scary sight.

I've never voted for a Democrat for president, but 2016 will be the first election that I do. I don't want to see my country fall back. Say what you will about Hillary, but she at least cares about the country. She won't totally destroy everything that makes this nation great. Trump only cares about himself; he'll sacrifice principles if it benefits him. How this is not apparent to anyone, I don't know.

Strange you would go to such lengths to explain what you dislike about TRUMP. In fact, you and I and everybody on this forum know there is no way TRUMP would ever do any of that.

TRUMP is a social LIBERAL from New York. He hasn't evolved. He's not a racist. He is no Hitler.
He has just decided to win the GOP nomination by tapping into previously ignored bigoted part of the population. These people never vote. TRUMP is going to get them out in force. It’s all his act. His ploy to get those votes.

Since I find it difficult to believe you think any of TRUMP's antics are for real, my only conclusion is that you are one of those Type Beta characters who hate TRUMP's tactics and discourse, or are offended by it.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Paul
Trump
Rubio

In that order.

As for Shadows personal attacks on me, I am not a purist by any stretch politically. He consistently states he is not a libertarian and acts like it. It doesn't even take much to be a libertarian. Oh and by the way, Rand is far more libertarian than Johnson

Supporting abortion bans isn't libertarian, and I NEVER said I wasn't that is hilarious nonsense there... I say I am not active or a part of it socially because of how stupid many of them act, I never said I am not outright. You can at least understand that simple statement right?

It

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Calls me a purist but cannot understand the libertarian pro-life standpoint. Next you will say you cannot be a libertarian without being an anarchist. Ok buddy

There shouldn't ever be a ban on abortion, that choice is between the mother and the doctor. There shouldn't be funding for it either. Rand has called for government legislation to end abortion and DOES support outright banning abortion after Roe v Wade is overturned (which won't happen). IF a government must make a decision it must be a state and local issue.

You really are quick to attack me though aren't ya?

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

You can continuously justify this argument but the fact that still remains is you are being a purist by saying you cannot be libertarian and still be anti-abortion. As if they are not compatible. I'm not even attacking you. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy by consistently calling me a purist on this forum. Yes, I am without a doubt the most libertarian member here. That does not make me a purist by any stretch.

I never said being anti-abortion is incompatible with libertarianism but apparently you can't grasp that without attacking me as you so constantly do. I said supporting BANS on it go against it, provide me a logical argument why it doesn't?

And yes I point out how you pretty much in EVERY thread call me out as "pseudo" libertarian or what ever term of the day you like to throw at me, sorry pal, I have different views than you on issues.

[Asian Nazi]

I have met many more hardcore libertarians than DeadPrez irl, people who consider the Pauls to be theocratic neocons and the Libertarian Party too mainstream.  Obviously most of these people are not interested in electoral politics so they are unlikely to post here.  DeadPrez only looks like a purist because most of the lolbertarians here are frauds.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

You can continuously justify this argument but the fact that still remains is you are being a purist by saying you cannot be libertarian and still be anti-abortion. As if they are not compatible. I'm not even attacking you. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy by consistently calling me a purist on this forum. Yes, I am without a doubt the most libertarian member here. That does not make me a purist by any stretch.

I never said being anti-abortion is incompatible with libertarianism but apparently you can't grasp that without attacking me as you so constantly do. I said supporting BANS on it go against it, provide me a logical argument why it doesn't?

Because libertarians believe in the non-aggression principle. We believe that individuals have no right to directly harm anyone unless your life at risk. If you believe that humanity stretches into the womb, begins at conception, or however you formulate your pro-life believes, abortion is murder and an act of aggression. Thus, it is legitimately justifiable for a libertarian to be completely in favor of banning abortion if they believe it is an act of aggression. How have you not heard this argument?

Yes I have, and guessed you would make that argument, I don't support it. I believe it's a woman's right to choose simple as that.

I have religious opposition to it, but I believe the woman's right trumps my religious view on it.

I have met many more hardcore libertarians than DeadPrez irl, people who consider the Pauls to be theocratic neocons and the Libertarian Party too mainstream.  Obviously most of these people are not interested in electoral politics so they are unlikely to post here.  DeadPrez only looks like a purist because most of the lolbertarians here are frauds.

What ever you believe...

[Higgs]

You can continuously justify this argument but the fact that still remains is you are being a purist by saying you cannot be libertarian and still be anti-abortion. As if they are not compatible. I'm not even attacking you. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy by consistently calling me a purist on this forum. Yes, I am without a doubt the most libertarian member here. That does not make me a purist by any stretch.

I never said being anti-abortion is incompatible with libertarianism but apparently you can't grasp that without attacking me as you so constantly do. I said supporting BANS on it go against it, provide me a logical argument why it doesn't?

Because libertarians believe in the non-aggression principle. We believe that individuals have no right to directly harm anyone unless your life at risk. If you believe that humanity stretches into the womb, begins at conception, or however you formulate your pro-life believes, abortion is murder and an act of aggression. Thus, it is legitimately justifiable for a libertarian to be completely in favor of banning abortion if they believe it is an act of aggression. How have you not heard this argument?

Yes I have, and guessed you would make that argument, I don't support it. I believe it's a woman's right to choose simple as that.

I have religious opposition to it, but I believe the woman's right trumps my religious view on it.

I have met many more hardcore libertarians than DeadPrez irl, people who consider the Pauls to be theocratic neocons and the Libertarian Party too mainstream.  Obviously most of these people are not interested in electoral politics so they are unlikely to post here.  DeadPrez only looks like a purist because most of the lolbertarians here are frauds.

What ever you believe...

So even though it's murder through the lens of that viewpoint, you still think it should be between a woman and her doctor?

[Ljube]

Both arguments are valid and depend on the definition of when human life starts - at conception, or at birth.

However, forcing a woman to carry a baby for nine months to term is a form of forced servitude, so it could be objected from that position regardless of one's beliefs on when life begins.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

You can continuously justify this argument but the fact that still remains is you are being a purist by saying you cannot be libertarian and still be anti-abortion. As if they are not compatible. I'm not even attacking you. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy by consistently calling me a purist on this forum. Yes, I am without a doubt the most libertarian member here. That does not make me a purist by any stretch.

I never said being anti-abortion is incompatible with libertarianism but apparently you can't grasp that without attacking me as you so constantly do. I said supporting BANS on it go against it, provide me a logical argument why it doesn't?

Because libertarians believe in the non-aggression principle. We believe that individuals have no right to directly harm anyone unless your life at risk. If you believe that humanity stretches into the womb, begins at conception, or however you formulate your pro-life believes, abortion is murder and an act of aggression. Thus, it is legitimately justifiable for a libertarian to be completely in favor of banning abortion if they believe it is an act of aggression. How have you not heard this argument?

Yes I have, and guessed you would make that argument, I don't support it. I believe it's a woman's right to choose simple as that.

I have religious opposition to it, but I believe the woman's right trumps my religious view on it.

I have met many more hardcore libertarians than DeadPrez irl, people who consider the Pauls to be theocratic neocons and the Libertarian Party too mainstream.  Obviously most of these people are not interested in electoral politics so they are unlikely to post here.  DeadPrez only looks like a purist because most of the lolbertarians here are frauds.

What ever you believe...

So even though it's murder through the lens of that viewpoint, you still think it should be between a woman and her doctor?

What business is it of mine to impose my beliefs on what she does? It's a medical issue that should be discussed between her and her doctor.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Can we just drop this? This was not supposed to be an abortion argument. I just wanted to point out his hypocrisy and let everyone know I am not a PURIST. Yes I hold hardcore libertarian beliefs, and am much further to the right than any liberty conservative in congress. I still however understand politics.

Yet you constantly attack me over my supposed non-views.... right