27 thoughts on “I Also Respectfully Disagree”

  1. Democrats tend to differ with libertarians on economic liberties whereas Republicans tend to differ on civil liberties. I don’t see any fundamental reason to prefer a Republican to a Democrat. For me it would depend on the candidate.

  3. “Democrats tend to differ with libertarians on economic liberties whereas Republicans tend to differ on civil liberties. I don’t see any fundamental reason to prefer a Republican to a Democrat. For me it would depend on the candidate.”
    Depends on what civil liberties. For example democrats are more for gun control then republicans.

    Also the republicans have some libertarians in their ranks.

  4. “I don’t see any fundamental reason to prefer a Republican to a Democrat. For me it would depend on the candidate.”

    I have had many Democrats reach into my pockets in my life, some even tried to get into my Gun Safe.

    I have never had a Republican make it to my bedroom unless I first invited her in.

    One set of issues does not equal the other.

  6. All depends on the candidate and where you live, I think. I’d generally prefer a Blue Dog Democrat to a Bible thumping Republican or a “Rockefeller Republican” to a union / environmental activist Democrat. Not that any of these represent the mainstream of their party.

  7. Yes, it depends on the candidate. But nearly all candidates toe the party line once they’re in office. It’s the rare bird that can survive outside the flock.

  8. The constitution is far more robust in protecting civil liberties. It provides almost no (useful) protections on economic liberties – its even been amended to make it worse. If you care about both equally, then there is only one way to vote – for the party that will get stopped by the courts.

  9. “I don’t see any fundamental reason to prefer a Republican to a Democrat. For me it would depend on the candidate.”

    Voting for any Democrat gives the likes of Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid, or the President power. Granted the Republicans are no bargain but I have long been disabused of the idea that I should vote for the best man. I have reached the conclusion that voting for anyone but a Republican, regardless of affiliation, is the same as voting Democratic.

    I am not saying that I will never vote for a Democrat again but I suspect I will not live that long.

  11. And yet again i fail to understand why do have the two-party system ?

    The “two-party system” is due to “emergent order” in a complex system. It’s not in the “intelligent design” of the Constitution, but has become an integral part due to “evolutionary” processes.

    Those who don’t like this, who want to impose some sort of “progressive” pseudo-parliamentary system on us, are the political equivalent of Creationists who reject Darwinian evolution.

    As for supporting Democrats and “civil liberties”– other than abortion, is there any aspect of our lives in which the Progressive Left does not see Big Government as a solution, solutions which usually include prohibitions and coercions? Even when they are in a position to do something about things like the so-called “War on Drugs”, they’ve taken a pass and supported the status quo. The goal for Libertarians and libertarians (the two aren’t always the same) should be to keep pushing the GOP to support smaller, less obtrusive gov’t, and due to evolutionary factors, that smaller gov’t will be less able to impose upon us such Big Government stupidities like banning incandescent light bulbs or creating a nationalized medical monopoly.

  12. The 2 party system emerges from Plurality voting, where a vote cast for other than a leading candidate is of little consequence.

  13. In Georgia, where plurality voting doesn’t apply in single-winner races — if there’s no majority winner there’s a runoff three weeks later — we have tended to have one-party dominance.

    I don’t think it’s the system’s fault, at least not here. Here, I think it’s just that nobody wants to be known for belonging, “bless his heart,” to the <whisper> wrong </whisper> party.

  14. I’d support a Democrat who is so transparently incompetant, fool hardly, corrupt, arrogant and inflexible that he would assure a set back for the entire progresssive/enviro-nazi nexus. It would be ideal if he/she/it were President during a national downturn such that the pain would be palpable for the entire country.

  15. As a pretty radical libertarian, I’ve voted for some Dems in local elections, particularly on matters of criminal law reform, or for their support against CA’s annual “tough on crime” props that ultimately only seem to expand CA’s prison-industrial complex.

    In general, though, I simply find myself abstaining more and more.

    On matters like the drug war, regular war, prison reform, corporate welfare/subsidies, welfare reform, tax reform, space policy, infrastructure spending, and on on, the gap between my beliefs and the platforms of the major parties — especially at the national level — is irreconcilable.

  16. I voted for a California Democrat for a state position in the last election (she actually showed some signs of intelligence on some of her positions); outside of her it was straight Rs and pretty much straight Nos.

  17. I’m going toward the said that says, voting in ANOTHER Democrat, regardless of what they ran ‘on’, is just another vote for Nancy, Harry and Barry. The only way to clear out the current power crowd is a two fold process.

    Don’t vote for incumbents. (unless they’re out loud condemning the current state of affairs, and they’ve voted against it in the past)

    Set term limits for ALL federal elected officials!

    I’ll go so far as to say, 12 years and out, EVEN for POTUS. And not 12 years in the House, 12 years in the Senate and 12 years as POTUS…12 total in whatever office. And you can stay in elected offices at the fed level a TOTAL of 18 years if you move up! I can’t help but think a few YOUNGER guys running would or could mean breaking the back of the current leftist DNC and gutless RNC.

    Gutless vs Ruthless always puts the populous in the role of slaves.

  18. …make that, SIDE that says…

    (it’s too early on Sunday for serious typing, I’m more in a dirty limerick state of mind)

    (The once was a Great Dane, named Weenus…)

  19. I should add that I’m decent acquaintances with Will and he’s one of the most fair-minded, open-minded bloggers/wonks you’ll find. He’s respectful, self-critical, and quite funny, too.

  20. Ah, Nathan, tricky. “I just wish we would do what Washington wanted and do away with political parties.”. We is plural, yes? So you want a group of people to work together to achieve a political goal, the end of political parties. Insofar as political parties are groups of people working together to achieve political goals, this would seem to be a Red Queens Race……

  21. Not voting at all is better than voting for someone who doesn’t share your principles, so how is it any worse to vote for someone who *does* support your principles even if you expect they have no chance of winning.

    Libertarians who vote for democrats or republicans get the government they deserve.

  22. Trent,

    It is like this:

    You can vote for the democrat that supports one of your principals and can win.

    You can vote for th erepublicans that supports seven of your principals or can win.

    Or you can vote for the libertarian who supports all ten of your positions and doesn’t have a snowballs chance in hell of winning.

    Logic dictates you vote republican.

  23. After reading the latest Reason On Line, I don’t see why a “Libertarian” can’t vote for a Democrat. According to Reason, it’s the essence of capitalism to ignore “arbitrary political boundaries [i.e. borders],” and the science IS in on global warming (it’s caused by humans).

    “Libertarianism” has always been a hodge-podge of conflicting (and largely contradictory) political and philosophical ideas. I wish there was a consistent alternative to conservatism…Libertarianism certainly isn’t it.

  24. M, that sounds like a variant of the fallacy of the unseen. What positions does the democrat or the republican support which you *don’t* support? What are they going to do which you *disagree* with? If you had to pick between the lesser or two evils, shouldn’t that be how you pick? In that respect they’re all sons of bitches so why would you vote for either? As I said, not voting at all is better, so you might as well vote for the candidate who is going to do the least that you disagree with, regardless of whether you think they are going to win. If everyone did that, the chance of winning would be *changed*.

  25. The two party system was intentionally rigged with the election laws in order to establish a greater level of civil stability. The more choices there are in an election, the higher a percentage the winner has to earn to achieve a stable outcome. A 2 party election needs a mere 51% majority to win a stable outcome, while a 3 choice election requires the winner to take a 57% majority for the public to accept it as a stable outcome. ‘n’ choices in a vote requires a 67% majority for a stable outcome, which is where the concept of the supermajority vote came from, it was arrived at in the middle ages by some mathematical monks who convinced the Vatican that mandating a supermajority vote in papal elections would end the problem of pope/antipope schizms.

  26. MofK,
    THe science is most definitely NOT in on global warming, as any real scientist can tell you. Only idealistic tree hugging demagogs insist that there is such a thing as “scientific consensus”.

  27. I think there’s a scientific consensus on global warming.. it’s that it will have no significant effect on human activities over the next 100 years. Even the IPCC agrees. Oh, that’s not very useful information to base a political program on is it?

Comments are closed.