/townhall/ - Townhall

I'm not opposed to it, depending.  I always feel like the "wasted vote" narrative doesn't have a lot of backing.  I'm sure Mehmet would've loved to have Erik's voters here, but there's no reason to believe that Erik's voters wanted what Mehmet was going to do.  In fact, forcing the choice, some of them may have voted Democrat, or simply not voted because the options otherwise all lead to equally bad outcomes.

And, indeed, a great many people don't vote at all, having completely given up on the system.  Maybe they live in a place where the race isn't particularly close.  Maybe they've watched control bounce back and forth only to see no significant change to the situation.  Maybe they think the voting is rigged anyway and no one has any agency in it.

And for all the importance we've attempted to place on voting, realistically, the two million people who voted for Mehmet here did waste their vote.  The outcome would not have been different if all two million had stayed home.

So with all of that in mind, do I vote third party?  Yeah, sometimes.  Why wouldn't I?

The favorite excuse of bad candidates who feel like they deserved an automatic win because of the letter in brackets after their name.

No, it's generally a waste of time in a first-past-the-post electoral system that so inevitably leads to two party systems. There just isn't a way in the system to be a third party candidate without effectively helping out the first and second most popular candidates.

I always end up voting defensively anyway.

America should have a functional multiparty system. Ideally, there would be five. Socialist Party. Fascist Party. Conservative Party. Centrist Party. And Progressive Party.

I don't have much clue as to how to get to that ideal from the dystopian hell of modern America, though.

In the meantime, voting third party is a matter of ethics. I think it can make sense. But then good people will disagree.

>>11606
I suppose it's a given when run by committee, but I can't help but notice those are all statist parties.

I'd rather not be under such a thumb. But that's due to preferring freedom to democracy, to begin with, perhaps.

>>11610
American libertarians tend to be either aligned with fascists or with conservatives (or both) due to a great many shared beliefs, so I don't think a Libertarian Party in the U.S. is viable. There's no reason to have one. There just isn't.

An Anarchist Party that's consistent would be a contradiction in terms.

I suppose the Centrist Party could possibly become the home of those with leanings opposed to all statism in an intellectually consistent way, as opposed to the libertarian Americans who want a government to cut corporate taxes and legalize mass pollution while banning gay marriage and firing transgender people from state jobs.

As for 'freedom' versus 'democracy', the questions are first whether or not one allows for the 'wrong people' to have the freedoms of the 'right people' and second will freedom be defined as the ability of the 'right people' to harm the 'wrong people' in a way that takes away the latter's liberties. 'Error has no rights' or so it has been said in holy scripture. Is this true? Maybe. Maybe not. I'd say not, but people disagree.

>>11612
>American libertarians tend to be either aligned with fascists or with conservatives
I don't know where you got this absurd notion, but that is painfully, flatly, rather blatantly, and well beyond objectively false.
Fascism is quite obviously a statist philosophy.
Literally, the core belief is that everything must be within the state, nothing outside it. That the citizens serve the state, not the other way around.
Fascism is about as far from libertarianism as you could ever possibly get. Literally on opposite ends of the political compass, as it happens.

As to conservatism; that depends heavily on where and what you're talking about.
German conservatives don't give a damn about freedom, for example. That state has no tradition of it.
It only practically speaking applies in the US, where we have a long tradition enshrined in our constitution of independent libertarianesque values.
And even then, as said, it depends much on what you speak of as again, many libertarians would find, for instance, content policing or the drug war or the excess spending to 'aligned' nations abhorrent.
To be fair, that last one's really more a general issue with any political party these days, and might be more an establishment issue. But still. The principles blatantly do not align.

>so I don't think a Libertarian Party in the U.S. is viable.
Isn't the libertarians party one of if not the largest third party voter block in the United States?
Pretty sure it's got the most chance, of any, given that.
Certainly, it's far, far more viable than a 'fascist' party would be.

>the questions are first whether or not one allows for the 'wrong people' to have the freedoms of the 'right people'
If it doesn't apply to everyone it isn't a right.
There is no 'right people', no 'wrong people'.
Rights are rights.
This is the point of principle. Utilitarianism would have billions massacred or enslaved for convenience, claiming a 'greater good'.
Principle would stand with flat refusal, regardless of the consequence.

>>11615
That libertarians, conservatives, and fascists share core beliefs in America is a fact akin to how two plus two equals four, so I'd rather not belabor that point.

As for principles, you seem to be forgetting that others have strong principles too. The proud libertarian who voted for Donald Trump twice and fiercely argues that gay marriage and drag shows must be banned is doing so out of moral conviction. They are acting out of liberty. It's the liberty of the religious person to avoid seeing them and their family overcome by sin. They're acting in what they see as self-defense and genuinely call what they want freedom.

Who are you to say that the right of one to, say, get married is a fundamental liberty? Maybe it isn't. Maybe people who ethically aren't as good as others deserve different treatment because they haven't earned it. Earned the liberty. It goes on. Maybe the right to not be sinned against is a right.

I believe that these people are morons, frankly, but it's dishonest to pretend that they're not libertarians acting out of liberty based principles in their heads.

>>11618
Libertarians, a blatantly anti- authority movement, and fascism, a well established big government ideology, are so blatantly beyond opposites its not even comparable to  a simple math problem in its absurdity.
It's more akin to saying 2 + ocean breezes = asparagus.

Plainly put, wherever you got this idea, it's wrong with the most coursery glance to their respective ideologies.


>The proud libertarian who voted for Donald Trump twice and fiercely argues that gay marriage and drag shows must be banned is doing so out of moral conviction
You insist others have principles, and then show someone without principles.

I get the distinct impression you don't actually know what a principle is.
Perhaps that is why you presume authoritarianism and individualism are somehow aligned with one another.

>It's the liberty of the religious person to avoid seeing them and their family overcome by sin.
There is no right to not see what you go out to see in public.
I've never until now seen anyone suggest such an absurd thing.

I certainly have not seen it argued by the many, many libertarians I've encountered.

>Who are you to say that the right of one to, say, get married is a fundamental liberty?
It's not about who you are, it's about logic.
If it's a right, every incell throughout the globe is entitled a partner.
But obviously that's an absurd notion.

As for my own stance, the state should not be in the business of what is ultimately a cultural and religious binding.
The legal analysis for marriage in its entirety ought be dashed.
It's none of the state's business who I partner with, or what I call them.
Whether "master", "wife", or simply "You", I fail to see why the state dictates it at all.

>Maybe people who ethically aren't as good as others deserve different treatment because they haven't earned it.
Genocides have been done with similar arguments.
It's easy to kill people when you presume they don't deserve your mercy.

Who dictates it, besides?
Who says who is good and who is bad?
Do we use the Arabic standards? The Chinese? Perhaps the standards of ancient Scandinavia?

'Deserve' is a poor metric at the best of times. Good and bad, as a whole determination of someone's entire life, even more so.
Actions are easier to quantify. But how many starving children fed outweighs how many murdered travelers?
Judging as that is messy at best.

>but it's dishonest to pretend that they're not libertarians acting out of liberty based principles in their heads.
If we're making up principles, sure.

But I'm not inclined to simply accept nonsense principles presented by someone who has made them up to depict libertarians and fascists as equivalent, besides.

>>11620
I can't even begin to understand why you're being like this.

Libertarians exist without your principles and with their own, different principles. People of other ideologies exists that are likewise as such.

Feel free to condemn them, and I agree that they're morons often, but their ethical standards are identical to yours. They're people with principles. Values. Morals. They equally support liberty and freedom as you do. Just in a different way.

Please stop pretending that advocating for liberty makes you somehow automatically in the right. Everything from war, theft, kidnapping, murder, rape, slavery, and even genocide has been justified in the name of spreading liberty. If you're actively campaigning in support of somebody who wishes to directly harm me, it doesn't make that much of a difference to me if it's motivated by your hatred of me personally or your passionate defense of the attacker's freedom to do as he wishes. Be reasonable.

Libertarianism is not against authority. And it is not for individualism. Libertarians are fine with big institutions trampling over people as long as they're claimed as not a part of the state. And even statism is often fine. Hence the literal millions and millions of Trump libertarians.

>>11621
>I can't even begin to understand why you're being like this
Likewise. You're claiming ideologies that are antithetical to one another are somehow aligned.
It's beyond absurd. Frankly, I'd have assumed it's malicious, were it not for your incredulity.

If we can agree that communists want a trade system where select few amass wealth by trading for it from workers, nazis want to establish a Jewish oligarchy, and Christians believe there is no God, then fine.
I feel like terms would become largely meaningless, but if that's the route you'd like to go to claim ideological opposites are buddy buddy, at least it's a consistent framework I can step off from.

>Please stop pretending that advocating for liberty makes you somehow automatically in the right.
I didn't.
Don't put words in my mouth.
It's very rude.

>Everything from war, theft, kidnapping, murder, rape, slavery, and even genocide has been justified in the name of spreading liberty.
Sure.
Because there are many without principles, who will endeavor through evil acts to reach a utopia.
I am aware of this.

>If you're actively campaigning in support of somebody who wishes to directly harm me, it doesn't make that much of a difference to me if it's motivated by your hatred of me personally or your passionate defense of the attacker's freedom to do as he wishes.
Where has such ever been stated?

I'm afraid you're starting to argue with ghosts.

>>11622
You still don't seem mentally able to understand that people who support liberty and have the principles of liberty deep in their hearts have committed acts of war, slavery, torture, genocide, and so on.

You keep pretending this quasi 'No True Scotsman' fallacy is true in which you personally as a singular human being have the correct understanding of freedom and everybody else, including your fellow libertarians by the millions, are lunatics without principles.

I'm not sure if this is naivety, narcissism, ideological blindless, or what, but it frankly is coming across as rather annoying to me.

Out in the real-world as we speak, proud libertarians are working to ban gay marriage and otherwise spread statism in the name of liberty. And many are also working to reduce some people's freedoms in the name of broader liberty by expanding the rights of powerful non-state actors to harm the weaker and take away their humanity, such as libertarians working to end antidiscrimination rules in housing, healthcare, food services, and so on as well as working to end sexual harassment rules in the workplace (to name two of countless examples).

Libertarians generally do not oppose authority and support individualism. That's an outright lie. Libertarians generally believe that corporations, organized religions, media agencies, and other large actors perceived as being outside the state should be allowed the freedom to operate widely without regard for those stepped on. This is partly why millions of libertarians happily voted for Trump.

Those principles are abhorrent to me as a centrist reformist who believes in liberal democracy under the objective rule of law, this growing out of me being a believer in Kantian type moral idealism about humanity and human rights. But those are my principles. Other people have other principles. I'm a rational adult who's experienced in the world, so I recognize the even playing field. Some people would let their neighbors burn if it meant defending their own personal liberty. Some would do so for the best interests of Christ. Some for the purity of their race or ethnicity. They're all moral codes that have intellectual arguments behind them.

>>11623
You realize you hadn't claimed just a tiny fraction of particularly stupid and irrational individuals, but rather, libertarians as a whole and what they "tend" to be, right?

>You keep pretending this quasi 'No True Scotsman' fallacy is true in which you personally as a singular human being have the correct understanding of freedom and everybody else, including your fellow libertarians by the millions, are lunatics without principles.
Hardly.
But I will say I do not trust the made up pronouncements of someone who believes an anti-authoritarian movement is equivalent to a totalitarian one.

Pardon me if I think you're a really shitty gauge for what libertarians hold as principles.

>I'm not sure if this is naivety, narcissism, ideological blindless, or what, but it frankly is coming across as rather annoying to me.
And what I find exceptionally annoying is the presentation of claimed ideological positions and principles without a single iota of evidence, with what appears to be the sole goal of demonizing your opposition.

Plainly put, it's dishonest.
Especially when you insist anyone who doesn't believe your absurd rhetoric pulled out your rear end is "narcissistic".

>Out in the real-world as we speak, proud libertarians are working to ban gay marriage and otherwise spread statism in the name of liberty.
Point it out, and let's see the arguments, then.
You've not done so, you've only insisted it's true.

I could insist I've seen leprechauns. They've offered me immense piles of gold, if I can turn a fish into a tea kettle.
It's how I pay for my internet.

>Libertarians generally do not oppose authority and support individualism. That's an outright lie.
And communists generally don't oppose capitalism, Christians generally don't believe in God, and Nazis don't generally hate the Jews.
Anyone who says otherwise, clearly, must be a liar, because someone on the internet has made a claim unsourced and unconfirmed by any tangible evidence that they believe otherwise.

Do you even realize how useless this rhetoric is?
You've completely erased any practical potential for dialogue, because you've decided not only are you the final arbiter of truth in the world, but also you outright ignore the principles that define these items.

>They're all moral codes that have intellectual arguments behind them.
Sure. But only one of us is actively ignoring them in favor of fitting such things in their own little bubble.

You claim rationality and belittle others with a sharp holier-than-thou attitude. You claim anyone who doesn't blindly accept whatever you claim is true, regardless of evidence and logic, is "narcisistic", "naive", or in an ideological bubble.
It's really not a healthy mindset to have.

Frankly, it strikes me as an extremely cheap way to depict anyone you disagree with as Nazis.

And before you object; Remember that you insisted to the start that Libertarians are so aligned with authoritarian beliefs, there's not even a reason to have them as a third party from the Nazis or Conservatives, despite the objective observable reality that they're one of the largest in the United States at this very moment.

What, if not a cheap tool to dismiss your enemies, could possibly be your goal otherwise, in ignoring abject, observable, objective reality?

>>11624
Given you're apparently not mentally capable of understanding reality outside of your ideological bubble, I suppose trying to talk to you in the first place was a serious mistake.

Jokes on me, I guess.

You keep screaming that the sky is green and that the Earth is flat as well as the rest solely because your ideology tells you to be like this, and I'm not surprised, but it's depressing how half of America is like this still.

Meanwhile, in the real-world libertarians are working to reduce personal freedom in the name of liberty for powerful institutions to be free to oppress the weak, and I will fight them. Libertarians along with their allies may of given us four years of Donald Trump before, and almost ended democracy entirely with him installed as a dictator. They won't win again. Libertarians may fight for billions to be enslaved or massacred in the name of the liberty of the powerful over the powerless, but they will lose. Morality is against them.

Feel free to have the last word and insist again that up is down, left is right, and so on.

>>11625
The irony here is it isn't even my fucking ideology.
But of course, you presume it must be, because it's convenient to your narrative.
You're so clouded by your deluded hatred you presume anyone who dares disagree with you must belong to your enemy.

You really need to learn to actually engage with what others are saying, rather than these made up suppositions in your head.
You'd probably end up a happier person, instead of this throughly sad, paranoid and fearful soul who looks to so many with scorn.

I wonder what position Rand Paul still has in regards to libertarianism.

In regards to the political discourse of late, he does seem from a cursory glance to lean heavily into the MAGA crowd.

Maybe he's fallen from grace in the last few years, though.

>>11627
Rand is a politician and made clear he'd sell ideals for convenience and efficacy.
It's why I didn't vote for him.
He is not his father.

I always vote strategically so I don't think I'd ever vote for the spoiler candidate if I were in the US, unless it were as a protest vote. Except I guess if I lived in an IRV state like Alaska. Then sure, my first choice would probably always go to a third party. I don't expect that system to spread over the rest of the States though. The people who have the power to change the voting system away from first-past-the-post are the very same people who benefit from keeping it in place. And by that I don't mean The Bad Party (whichever you think that is), but both of the big ones.