Libertarian National Convention thread

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From what I've read it just seems like a lot of the people there have a huge independent, special-snowflake streak and value that more than putting together a viable ticket.  Poor Bill Weld may be sacrificed to satiate the Libertarian ego.  They can nominate Reddit-debate-thread-robot Austin Peterson and, I don't even know, some guy who owns a Wendys in Harlem and writes posts on internet forums about libertarianism, and go back to fighting with the Green Party and the Constitution Party for third place.

Also, libertarian ideas are stupid, for the record.

All libertarian ideas? Even the ones that mesh with either half of the red/blue sides?  Or do you just mean the extreme ideas like very small government, no taxation, gold standard, etc? 

The extreme ideas.  But also the general underlying philosophy that those extreme ideas are a natural extension of.  A well-functioning central government is key to making a society greater than the sum of its parts.  Whether we have such a government or not can be debated but to say that the ideal is to not have one is ludicrous.

I'm fine with a central government or a confederation if you will, of regional/local governments.  But, I don't think humanity is at the point where we can do without government.  Though I stand as a libertarian in the hope that government shrinks and individual rights are bolstered.

[Leinad]

From what I've read it just seems like a lot of the people there have a huge independent, special-snowflake streak and value that more than putting together a viable ticket.

No, it's people who believe their views are correct (and we all do) and want the party that represents those views to nominate the people who most agree with those views.

Now, I agree with the premise that the party needs to think pragmatically, and ally with pseudo-libertarians, to ever really move the needle in our direction, but I think you're confused as to what "special-snowflake" is. That would be those on the left who think the government should provide everything from them (that government should be god), or those on the right who think the government should impose their views on everyone (that god should be government).

More tokens added before they were 100% finalized, here is the final tally, Feldman makes the debate:

Johnson 226
Petersen 106
Perry 105
McAfee 97
Feldman 89
McCormick 45
Shannon 23
Vermin Supreme 20
Zeman 8
Sterling 5
Robinson 5
Reid 4
Donaghe 3
Griffis 1
Dearn 1
Smith 1

That's a good debate, although I'm alarmed that 5 delegates wanted Shawna "I think 'libertarian' means 'conservative with no resume to run as a Republican'" Sterling in there.

Feldman has some interesting ideas that I think should be further developed by libertarian thinkers (diminishing the influence of money in politics, making the party more racially diverse, "balance and credit," etc.), Petersen represents the pro-life wing of the party (I really want to see pro-life libertarianism hit the mainstream, instead of being the weird outcast of both movements), Perry represents the purist wing, and McAfee is actually very knowledgeable about libertarianism.

Oh, and Johnson is literally the most qualified person running, regardless of party. Two-term governor of a purple border state with business experience.

[This account no longer in use.]

New Mexico isn't a purple state.

[ElectionsGuy]

Really hope Johnson makes it out, and it looks like he will.

New Mexico isn't a purple state.

It was when he was governor.

[LLR]

Vermin Supreme 20

WE DID IT!!!!

[LLR]

Of the three candidates, who would take the more from which major party side.  I think the CW is something like this:

1. Johnson: 50/50ish, probably more from Clinton with Weld on his ticket, probably more from Trump with Petersen on his ticket.

2. Petersen: Clearly Trump, he's pro-life, so he's a perfect vehicle for NeverTrump protest R's.

3. McAfee: Probably Trump going by biography/personal affinities, but who really knows what he would do or what he would even campaign on?

William Weld (R-MA)

[sparkey]

Vermin Supreme 20

WE DID IT!!!!

What was the goal? He needed 30 to be a candidate on the balloting.

[Virginiá]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From what I've read it just seems like a lot of the people there have a huge independent, special-snowflake streak and value that more than putting together a viable ticket.  Poor Bill Weld may be sacrificed to satiate the Libertarian ego.  They can nominate Reddit-debate-thread-robot Austin Peterson and, I don't even know, some guy who owns a Wendys in Harlem and writes posts on internet forums about libertarianism, and go back to fighting with the Green Party and the Constitution Party for third place.

Also, libertarian ideas are stupid, for the record.

Seriously. Now is not the time for ideological purity. Quite a lot of Libertarian ideas are already more or less unacceptable to the public in practice, if not in theory as well. If they ever want to have a chance at becoming real players even at the state level, they need to strike a compromise between Libertarian principles and concerns of electability. Or, they can be as pure as they wish and win zero elections. I'm sure there are a lot of smart people there - How can they not understand this?

[dax00]

Seriously. Now is not the time for ideological purity. Quite a lot of Libertarian ideas are already more or less unacceptable to the public in practice, if not in theory as well. If they ever want to have a chance at becoming real players even at the state level, they need to strike a compromise between Libertarian principles and concerns of electability. Or, they can be as pure as they wish and win zero elections. I'm sure there are a lot of smart people there - How can they not understand this?

You're nothing without principles. It's not worth sacrificing them to win elections. I don't think you'd necessarily need to sacrifice them to win elections.

[sparkey]

Debate is on: http://www.c-span.org/video/?409916-1/libertarian-party-holds-presidential-debate&live

[This account no longer in use.]

Seriously. Now is not the time for ideological purity. Quite a lot of Libertarian ideas are already more or less unacceptable to the public in practice, if not in theory as well. If they ever want to have a chance at becoming real players even at the state level, they need to strike a compromise between Libertarian principles and concerns of electability. Or, they can be as pure as they wish and win zero elections. I'm sure there are a lot of smart people there - How can they not understand this?

You're nothing without principles. It's not worth sacrificing them to win elections. I don't think you'd necessarily need to sacrifice them to win elections.

You shouldn't be talking about principles when your political matrix scores are at (0, -6) and you're supporting Trump.

[Virginiá]

Seriously. Now is not the time for ideological purity. Quite a lot of Libertarian ideas are already more or less unacceptable to the public in practice, if not in theory as well. If they ever want to have a chance at becoming real players even at the state level, they need to strike a compromise between Libertarian principles and concerns of electability. Or, they can be as pure as they wish and win zero elections. I'm sure there are a lot of smart people there - How can they not understand this?

You're nothing without principles. It's not worth sacrificing them to win elections. I don't think you'd necessarily need to sacrifice them to win elections.

Sure, but unfortunately operating without compromise does not work in government, where many people with opposing views come together to try and do what is best for their country. Trying to adhere to rigid ideological principles gets nothing but gridlock, as we all know. For a tiny party like the LP, it means continuing to make little-to-no progress outside of a few state races here and there.

They need to know when to pick their battles. Electability shouldn't be the only concern, but for LP members, it should be a more significant concern than it is for Dems/Reps, given the current standing of the LP. That's all I am saying.

[sparkey]

Wow, McAfee LOVES Austin Petersen. I've never seen a more heartfelt brohug ever.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I understand and somewhat agree with the big-tent talk in here (and I'd be thankful for the Libertarians making the tent big enough to include this conservative), but understand that when you get a critical mass of people in your "tent" who don't believe in your ideals, they can take over your party and change the platform to what they want, and then you're back to square 1 with no way of advancing your ideals again.

Anyway, I like Petersen and Johnson. Neither is the purest libertarian, but at least Johnson has held elected office before and Petersen has good speaking talent and seems quite articulate, and neither is a felon or wants to abolish the federal government. I'd probably vote for either of those.

[sparkey]

McAfee and Perry are doing well so far. Petersen has some uncharacteristic nerves and hasn't found his groove yet.

[LLR]

Objectively,

Perry seems insane and hasn't brushed his teeth or cut his hair in my lifetime.
Feldman is a goofy uncle-type, not a president
Johnson is so boring
McAfee has committed murder and seems like it
Peterson seems like a 15-year-old giving himself a deep voice and pretending to be Marco Rubio

Peterson is the one I hate the least, that being said.

[/]

Love that airhorn.

(Boo Progressives)

[Maxwell]

Objectively,

Perry seems insane and hasn't brushed his teeth or cut his hair in my lifetime.
Feldman is a goofy uncle-type, not a president
Johnson is so boring
McAfee has committed murder and seems like it
Peterson seems like a 15-year-old giving himself a deep voice and pretending to be Marco Rubio

Peterson is the one I hate the least, that being said.

See: Petersen's the one I hate the most because of his Marco Rubio Impression. The one I hate the least is McAfee, who seems to be running for the Libertarian nomination just because.

[sparkey]

Petersen is getting in his (Marco Rubio) groove finally. Johnson is actually doing pretty well for once. I have no idea who is going to win this yet.

[dax00]

You shouldn't be talking about principles when your political matrix scores are at (0, -6) and you're supporting Trump.

^Partial straw man - PM score relevant how?

I don't support Trump on the basis of his speech or the content of his character, rather for that which the product of his character and what his presidency would symbolize in respect to the potential mobilization of the masses against the tyrannical globalist regime.
---------
I'm finding Petersen the most likable in this debate (although he's clearly way more rehearsed). Who would I most likely vote for? DW Perry.

[LLR]

against the tyrannical

Says the Trump supporter.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

My aunt just walked by the TV and asked if Perry was on meth.

[LLR]

Lol Perry just committed a felony.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Lol Perry just committed a felony.

?

[LLR]

Lol Perry just committed a felony.

?

He ripped up a dollar bill on stage