[quote]H factor wrote:
We are at a very polarized moment in American history. Compromise has been and always will be necessary for solving tough issues. Compromise was necessary to form our government after all. But you have a left and a right that hates each other right now. Hell look at the Republicans flipping out over Chris Christie for saying anything positive about the President. The Democrats have branded Republicans as the party of no. Our airwaves and internets are flooded with the cheerleaders for both sides talking about how wrong the other team is and how right they are. It’s why the need for another voice is so important. And why both parties fight tooth and nail against it. [/quote]
First of all I don’t think most republicans would be “flipping out” as you say over the Christie remarks if it were done differently. Christie’s comments came a week or so before the election and were very self serving. If he had given Obama a simple one sentence compliment and left it at that and then reiterated his support for Mitt Romney nothing would have been said. After all he is the Governor of a state that was, and is, in need of federal help. But what Christie did was well over the top and also very obvious. In doing what he did he proved himself to be just another pandering politician.
Secondly, I am not against a third party. and in fact would support it. I agree with you that the time is probably right for such a thing to occur. But, obviously I wouldn’t be for any libertarian nonsense. It doesn’t work and never has anywhere in the history of the world. It is a bunch of patched together ideas based on a good concept, freedom, but with a potential execution of complete failure.
Can you point out where libertarianism has failed with specific examples? Far as I can tell we have moved away from libertarianism as the country has progressed. The libertarianism I champion is not anarchy, but of limited government. Government where necessary in the most limited form possible. It’s the type of government Republicans like to talk about, but quickly dismiss as they want to play world police, expand medicare, bail out companies, and legislate morality through laws which repress those who don’t believe as they do. It’s the type of government Democrats like on social issues, but want to be able to spend, spend, spend with no limits and interfere in the market place as much as possible.
I’d like to see specific examples of a large populace that has never worked in the history of the world based on Hayek principles. As far as I know one doesn’t exist. I’m not a Rothbard. I’m not an ACist. Please don’t trot out the tired Somalia line that so many liberals use as evidence against limited government. It isn’t what MOST of us are talking about. It doesn’t represent what we think society would work best as.
Again, as best I can tell the country largely started like this and has moved away from it ever since as the government has reached more and more into our lives. I believe this has been largely negative, with some exceptions where government may have needed to play a bigger role. You support this reaching into our lives on the specific stuff you don’t like. I also support the government, but in a much more limited role than both parties give lip service to.