The Libertarian party canidate for Wisconsin govenor who claim this election they were going to "shock the world" unfourtunatly failed misserably, gaining only ten percent of the vote.

Whats most annoying is that that number could probably have been increased if the libertarian party canidate (Ed Thompson) had run at least one small 30 second tv commercial saying he was the candiate not involved in a huge scandle. If only they would at least try to campain a little. I mean, when the republican incumbant was being torn apart for using 9000 dollars of government money and state planes to go on vacation to vermont(or some other state like that) and the democratic chalanger was being ripped at for bribing elderly and mental patients(how is that spelled?) to vote for him, it shouldn't have been so hard.

But no, of course almost 90 precent vote for the republican and democratic canidates instead. Damn, stupid voters. Stupid fucking republocrats. Argh! I'm so annoyed at this.

oh and I almost forgot, What really bothers me is that in smaller elections just in milwaukee libertarian party canidates lost by extremely large margins in several elections where the only oposition was either a democrat or republican involved in the earlier scandal where they voted to give themselves 1 million dollar pentions when they retire out of government funds. In those elections the libertarians also failed to get 20% or even in some cases 10% of the vote. What the hell is wrong with people in the backwards ass state?

People in this country think that their only 2 choices are republican and democrat. The best example of this is that during the bush-gore campaign, the gore camp aired several commercials saying "a vote for nader is a vote for bush." people actually believed that shit.
Americans suck.
There is no democracy here.

Homer

quote:

---

Originally posted by Askr:
The Libertarian party canidate for Wisconsin govenor who claim this election they were going to "shock the world" unfourtunatly failed misserably, gaining only ten percent of the vote.

---

I for one am shocked. I am shocked that they got 10% of the vote. Why, even Ross Perot did better than that.

Nox

Yeah, for a third party, 10% is a huge victory. This is a good sign for all libretarians who are looking for a ray of hope.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:
I for one am shocked. I am shocked that they got 10% of the vote. Why, even Ross Perot did better than that.

Nox

---

You know, until that comment, I had respect for you nox, but now I know that you are as ignorant and full of yourself as those "!!!!!!NOX IS THE ENEMY!!!!!!" asses keep telling everyone.
Why don't you go over to wisconsin and try to get 10% of the gubenatorial vote?
The libertarian party had a victory in wisconsin. It will only get better from here. The liberty of the american people is not far off.

Homer

Usually the definition of "victory" means winning, not finishing a distant third.

I can't understand how you can admire state Communism and American Libertarianism, which are almost diametrically opposed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HomerJay603:
You know, until that comment, I had respect for you nox, but now I know that you are as ignorant and full of yourself as those "!!!!!!NOX IS THE ENEMY!!!!!!" asses keep telling everyone.

---

I still have respect for your opinions (I have never met you so I cannot comment further).

The last time I looked, the word ignorant meant uneducated. I can assure you that I am educated.

As far as "full of yourself"...that is most kind of you to say that. Normally I am accused of being full of something else.

"!!!!!!NOX IS THE ENEMY!!!!!!" asses- Now here we really agree.

Nox

Libertarians are never going to get widespread support as long as they support open borders.

Even if they did miraculously get voted in power, they would quickly be destroyed in the next term as all the immigrants they allowed in vote Democrat.

Modern Libertarian slices it's own neck.

First, 10% is a whole shit load. Here, we got 2% for our libertarian governor candidate.

Second, Libertarians do not necessarily support open borders. Most libertarians believe in the rule of law and would not allow illegals to vote or be here illegally.

[This message has been edited by buttthrax (edited 11-10-2002).]

I've read the Libertarian platform. They oppose restrictions on immigration. As long as they do this, they'll find no mass support. Most people want a slow-down or moratorium on immigration and for illegals to be deported. There are many people on the right who have sympathy for the anti-state position of the Libertarians, but are turned off by the cultural marxism and extreme pro-immigrant stance.

I consider myself to be a libretarian, and I am having a hard time understanding how open or closed borders are a significant platform of the party. To me, it seems to be an issue that could swing either way and is largely up to the discretion of the candidate who is running for election.

Never mind freeing people.
Free capital!
Its far more important.

Open borders is an issue that would never be campaigned on, and is such a thing that if they could get more suport, they would take out. Eventually, they will see that open borders is BS.

Homer

So Nox, you are telling me if I could get 10% of the Totse political board to post !!!!NOX IS THE ENEMY!!!! at the bottom of their posts I would have a major victory??? I think that would be rather amusing.

However Nox, you seem to be listening. The pointless flaming is down, which makes totse a better place for all. I hope you will continue to restrain yourself from flaming 12 year olds for forgetting a comma.

To get back on topic, I would like it if fellow libretarians or other knowlegable people could explain to me how open borders is part of the libretarain party platform.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsaxton14:
However Nox, you seem to be listening. The pointless flaming is down, which makes totse a better place for all. I hope you will continue to restrain yourself from flaming 12 year olds for forgetting a comma.

---

fuck your a dickhead

if nox isnt going to do it, i may as well

quote:

---

Originally posted by jsaxton14:
I hope you will continue to restrain yourself from flaming 12 year olds for forgetting a comma.

---

Sorry, this I will not do. And for the record, I have NEVER flamed for forgetting a comma...that is a typo. I do, however, abhor incorrect English grammar, punctuation, spelling, and usage and will continue (to use your word) "flame" morons who persist.

Other than that, thank you for your polite post.

Nox

First of all I fail to see how people don't realize that the libertarian border stance doesn't matter in such small elections and under the system of the united states doesn't really matter in larger elections either. Two or three liberbertarians voted in here and there aren't going to be able to declare US borders open to the world no matter what the position thier voted into.

And second, in light of my first comment, I fail to see(and this was the point of this thread) how the libertarian party canidate, and brother of the states apparently much beloved former govenor, regardless of border stance failed to get a better showing in the poles when the major party canidates were both involved in large mismanagement and corruption scandles. Maybe if he had campained anywhere outside of his hometown out in the sticks... but thats seems to be a problem with most third party canidates...

quote:

---

Two or three liberbertarians voted in here and there aren't going to be able to declare US borders open to the world no matter what the position thier voted into.

---

No, but people generally want someone voted in that will fight for a basic platform they agree with. People who are strong on the second amendment won't be voting in a party which agrees with gun-control, nor will someone who thinks the first amendment is important feel comfortable voting in someone who agrees with the legislation of hate speech laws. Likewise, someone who is outraged by the status of immigration in the country will be turned off by an extreme pro-immigration party. There are a lot of right-wingers who basically agree with a lot of what the Libertarians say, then look at their immigration stance and think "shit, these guys are fucking nuts!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
There are a lot of right-wingers who basically agree with a lot of what the Libertarians say, then look at their immigration stance and think "shit, these guys are fucking nuts!"

---

And yet the republican incumbant canidate who turn a balanced state budget into a multi-billion dollar deficit while spending thousands of dollars in state funds to take state planes to fly 40 miles from one town to another during his term and to take his family out to the east coast on state planes and pay for thier vacation wasn't considered "nuts".

There is no either/or between Libertarians and Republicans. There is the America First party, Reform party, Independent, and Constitution party. What the libertarians are good for is putting a little heat on the Republicans for betraying their "small government" values. Unfortunately, Libertarians agree with the neoconservatives on one very important issue which is frustrating GOP (or ex-GOP) voters - immigration.

Now, would a small-government traditional conservative who is disillusioned with the current Republican party because of the neoconservative hijack be very enthusiastic about voting in a party which is even more open borders than the NeoGOP? Not really.

If the Libertarians want to get mass support, they'll need to go back towards old-style Libertarianism, which was not open borders immigration. Old-style Libertarians knew that liberty can only be maintained by preserving the culture which respects it, not by flooding the nation with impovershed immigrants to turn it into a third world chaos which will lead to an even bigger state to deal with the problems mass immigration causes.

Actual quotes from Libertarian Party platform:
(http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_print.html)

"We oppose laws infringing on children's rights to work or learn, such as child labor laws [!] and compulsory education laws."

"We recognize the right to political secession. This includes the right to secession by political entities, private groups, or individuals."

"[We] support the eventual repeal of all taxation... all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately."

"We support the development of an objective legal system defining property rights to air and water."

This is so ridiculous -- partcularly the privatize-the-air bit -- that I'm shocked that the Wisconsin Libertarians managed to take any more than 5%. Of course, they didn't go right out and say, "We think someone should own the atmosphere!". Rather they cloak it in vague statements of "liberty" and "freedom".

The property rights of air has its roots in the tragedy of the commons. Since no one owns the air, people are free to polute it as much as they want. This is the tragedy of the commons, collective ownership of a resource or location often leads to an overuse or destruction of that resource or place. A current system of polution credits already exists, but I think that they want to develop something further. It is also not uncommon to own water rights. The biggest idea behind all of this, is that if nobody owns it, nobody gives a damn about it and it ends up getting defiled by everyone else because since no one is entitled to use it and its future use is not guranteed, people over use the "commons."

Alright.

The Libertarian platform is idealistic in some ways. Yes, open borders would be nice if everyone played nicely, but that will never happen.

I am a Libertarian and I do not support the party's take on immigration, espcially during such a unique war-time.

Owning air? How the fuck? Who really gives a damn about the air? The government sure as hell doesn't own the air, so how could you buy it?

"We recognize the right to political secession. This includes the right to secession by political entities, private groups, or individuals."

---Yes, the problem here? None. A bit idealistic, but I have already done this one myself. Quote from my website [ http://buttthrax.tripod.com ], "Buttthrax has declared itself an independent nation. Yea, so fuck off."

"[We] support the eventual repeal of all taxation... all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately."

-Sure, why not. Screw big government.

"We support the development of an objective legal system defining property rights to air and water."

-Ok, I dont agree with this one. However, how can you "privatize-the-air", something government, nor anybody, owns.


I am a Libertarian. I am pro-business. If you repeal regulations on starting a business, then everybody could do it. Libertarianism would likely allow the creation of more small businesses and end the domination of big business.

Another thing. If you put a lot more armed citizens on the street, would it reduce the need of more police? Armed citizens would serve for non-intrusive enforcement of basic necessary laws. Police are ALWAYS intrusive.