John Stossel (Fox News Network) is hosting the Libertarian Party's presidential debates on 4/1 and 4/8. For the first time in my life, I am going to watch a libertarian debate.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstos ... /page/full
According to Stossel (who is is self a Libertarian, so take this info with that in mind) both republican and democrat front runners have such high negativity ratings that the libertarian party is polling at 11% now. I don't know if it can possibly go higher or not. Stossel thinks it can. But, in my mind, what this election boils down to more than any other in perhaps a century, is a contest between people who want a fully realized socialist paradise on one side, and people who want small government with a penchant for protecting individual liberty on the other side.
If you see it in that light, then it is not hard to see that the Republican Party has
utterly failed in the latter, and has even at times colluded in the former. The party leadership have failed to uphold the party's principles, and the contest
within the party has been a contest between the pragmatists (another word for people who like big government and lots of power in the hands of a few) and the principalists - those people who ask, "when do we stop caving in to the left and begin standing up for and defending our principles?"
Quoting the above article:
Johnson has a track record. The governor cut red tape and the number of government workers in New Mexico. He vetoed 750 bills and used a line-item veto to cut thousands of other items. He lowered New Mexico's taxes and balanced the budget while remaining popular with voters. Running as a Republican, he was elected to a second term in that Democratic state.
Now, as a Libertarian presidential candidate, he warns "the idea that we can somehow balance the federal budget without cutting military spending and reforming entitlements is fantasy."
John McAfee calls government "corrupt" and "technologically illiterate." He says he'll push a policy of "privacy, freedom and technology."
McAfee says, "Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make." He's had a few brushes with the law himself, including an arrest for driving under the influence, so he knows what it's like to be in the government's crosshairs.
Like economist Milton Friedman, he says that we can't have open borders and a big welfare state -- so McAfee says get rid of the welfare state and open the borders, so long as immigrants submit to being documented.
He wants to reduce government's domestic role to policing disputes and otherwise let people engage in trade, including drug sales. He says our military role overseas should be reduced so that we interfere less in the affairs of other nations.
Austin Petersen, like many libertarians, describes himself as "fiscally conservative and socially tolerant." He proposes a 1 percent spending reduction in all government programs and a simple flat tax, and he would let young people opt out of Social Security.
Like Johnson and McAfee, he wants to reduce immigration bureaucracy, the drug war and military interventions. Unlike some Libertarians, Petersen says he is pro-life.
You might be surprised to hear that there is division among Libertarians on issues like abortion. This Friday and next you can watch how these candidates handle the differences.
My view is that, so long as the Republican Party is doing what the left wants (per this thread's title), then isn't it worth taking at look, at and at least
listening to, what the Libertarian candidates have to say? Then, vote your conscience......but at least your conscience will be informed. As a proud independent Liberative Conservatarian, that is what
I am going to do.
(....EDITED TO FIX A TYPO....)
It seems to come down to that pretty often in the national elections.