It happened in the Arizona debate last night for the US Senate. There was a libertarian guy participating—a good reason not to bother watching. Yeah, I know he’s not going to come close to winning, but these crazies can play a spoiler role. They rarely take many votes away from Dems, since the libertarian ideology is basically so congenial to liberals—philosophically, they’re basically identical. However, there are people wierdos who otherwise might vote for conservative candidates who get pulled away by libertarian candidates.
First things first, I admit to having cast the occasional protest vote for Libertarians, when the Republican is a known squish, and as is mostly true in Texas, the Demonicrat candidate, if there even is one, has no realistic chance of winning. Too many Judicial offices in Texas have really bad Republicans ensconced, for example the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, who have enabled the Soros DA's to have the sole power to (NOT!) prosecute election law violations. They recently ruled 8-1 that long standing state law empowering the Texas AG to prosecute election law violations is unconstitutional! The at best semi corrupt practice in this state is when a judicial office holder leaves office he leaves well before the term expires, this allows the Governor to appoint a replacement, who almost never has a primary opponent.
The age of consent situation in our nation is and has been scizophrenic. One must be 18, the legal age of majority, to make binding contracts, vote, purchase rifles, shotguns ammo for same, etc. etc. But 21 to buy alcohol and pistols. In my parents day 21 was the age of majority . . . except if one was married one could enter into a lawful binding contract, my parents were 19 & 20 when they got married, no parental consent required. One grandmother was married at age 15, had her first child at 16, this was in 1918, divorced and married my grandfather, who was 5 years younger than she, a century ago! Two of my great grandparents married shortly after she left school, he had been her teacher. Scandalous ?
He's just too into irrelevant theory. He is saying people should make their own decisions about their bodies, which I think we ought to agree on after Covid mandates, but then imagining someone saying "oh yeah, what about children" - a valid point. So then he is thinking that there can be a democratic decision on the age boundary between and adult, who can make these kinds of decisions, and a child, who can't. Which of course is true (how else could the boundary be decided?), and he isn't saying whether he thinks that should be 14, 18, 21, or 30.
The problem is that this really doesn't matter in terms of the present moment, but it does appeal to some, perhaps overly theoretical, voters - who really ought to focus on more important issues.
I have fewer issues with "libertarians" than with libertines. Unfortunately, the distinction is hardly a crisp one.
I don't think Mark's being fair to say that they have no philosophical differences with "liberals"... although some would call themselves "classical liberals", but that has more to do with how meanings of words have shifted over the centuries.
Communism sucks, and its proponents and apologists are worthy targets, and depressingly plentiful. However, economic freedom construed as unregulated and unchecked corporate power isn't exactly a platform I can get behind either.
I wouldn't worry too hard about the Libertarian Party spoiling elections. They've been on the wane for decades, and now poll slightly north of the Constitution Party, off in the weeds in right field. Ron Paul may have been their last champion. I'd rather have a little-"l" libertarian in office voting the Republican Party line than a "socially conservative" Democrat (if such a critter still exists). Indeed, I'd rather have one of these punks sitting in an R seat than a crusty incumbent GOPe hypocrite.
First things first, I admit to having cast the occasional protest vote for Libertarians, when the Republican is a known squish, and as is mostly true in Texas, the Demonicrat candidate, if there even is one, has no realistic chance of winning. Too many Judicial offices in Texas have really bad Republicans ensconced, for example the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, who have enabled the Soros DA's to have the sole power to (NOT!) prosecute election law violations. They recently ruled 8-1 that long standing state law empowering the Texas AG to prosecute election law violations is unconstitutional! The at best semi corrupt practice in this state is when a judicial office holder leaves office he leaves well before the term expires, this allows the Governor to appoint a replacement, who almost never has a primary opponent.
The age of consent situation in our nation is and has been scizophrenic. One must be 18, the legal age of majority, to make binding contracts, vote, purchase rifles, shotguns ammo for same, etc. etc. But 21 to buy alcohol and pistols. In my parents day 21 was the age of majority . . . except if one was married one could enter into a lawful binding contract, my parents were 19 & 20 when they got married, no parental consent required. One grandmother was married at age 15, had her first child at 16, this was in 1918, divorced and married my grandfather, who was 5 years younger than she, a century ago! Two of my great grandparents married shortly after she left school, he had been her teacher. Scandalous ?
He's just too into irrelevant theory. He is saying people should make their own decisions about their bodies, which I think we ought to agree on after Covid mandates, but then imagining someone saying "oh yeah, what about children" - a valid point. So then he is thinking that there can be a democratic decision on the age boundary between and adult, who can make these kinds of decisions, and a child, who can't. Which of course is true (how else could the boundary be decided?), and he isn't saying whether he thinks that should be 14, 18, 21, or 30.
The problem is that this really doesn't matter in terms of the present moment, but it does appeal to some, perhaps overly theoretical, voters - who really ought to focus on more important issues.
I have fewer issues with "libertarians" than with libertines. Unfortunately, the distinction is hardly a crisp one.
I don't think Mark's being fair to say that they have no philosophical differences with "liberals"... although some would call themselves "classical liberals", but that has more to do with how meanings of words have shifted over the centuries.
Communism sucks, and its proponents and apologists are worthy targets, and depressingly plentiful. However, economic freedom construed as unregulated and unchecked corporate power isn't exactly a platform I can get behind either.
I wouldn't worry too hard about the Libertarian Party spoiling elections. They've been on the wane for decades, and now poll slightly north of the Constitution Party, off in the weeds in right field. Ron Paul may have been their last champion. I'd rather have a little-"l" libertarian in office voting the Republican Party line than a "socially conservative" Democrat (if such a critter still exists). Indeed, I'd rather have one of these punks sitting in an R seat than a crusty incumbent GOPe hypocrite.