From the King Of Blogging, Sean Conners. Various articles and op/ed's on just about anything from A to Z. Politics, religion, entertainment and whatever else seems interesting at the moment. Members and non-members alike are welcomed to participate in th
America's Largest 3rd Party, And Most Misunderstood Party
Published on November 1, 2006 By Sean Conners aka SConn1 In US Domestic
Back in the 90's, I found myself disgruntled in the political world. I had registered Republican when I turned 18 in 1985, but over the years it seemed that neither of the 2 parties adequately represented my views. There were things I liked on both sides, but just as much I didn't like. this wasn't all policy based. Both parties had people I liked, and people I didn't. Both parties had members do things I approved of, and just as many who had broken my trust.

Furthermore, both parties just seemed too big for their own britches. Both parties seemed to be more about power and control than looking out for me and my neighbors. I started to consider other options.

I looked at the Greens. They were really enviromentally concious, which I liked, but were just too "left" for me on way too many things. Nice people, and they probably wouldn't be so militant about the environment if people heeded their wise advice more often, but I thought most of em were a little too "conspiracy minded" to be taken too seriously on other issues that mattered to me.

I looked at the new Reform party started by guys like Ross Perot. I liked the idea of some government reform, but they were a little too "right wing authoritarian" for me and a little too eager to kick everyone's ass who disagreed with em for me to join up.

I considered no party affiliation at all, and almost went there, until I looked at the Libertarians a little deeper.

My 1st reaction to the party name was that they were some fruit loops who were anarchists in sheep's clothing. But then I looked further. And in the end, I signed up. Not because I agreed with them on every single thing. But most of their theories held water, at least in broad strokes in my mind. I sitill don't agree with them all the time, and sometimes think they are poor at getting their message out. But to this day, i've never regretted my party choice.

What is a Libertarian? What do they believe? Well, not everyone in any party believes everything on the platform. But their platform is basically about freedom and liberty for everyone. Nice thoughts, huh? But what do they really believe? Maybe this will help explain...

From the Libertarian National Comitee website...

Frequently asked questions about the Libertarian Party



What is a Libertarian?



Libertarians believe that you have the right to live your life as you wish, without the government interfering -- as long as you don’t violate the rights of others. Politically, this means Libertarians favor rolling back the size and cost of government, and eliminating laws that stifle the economy and control people’s personal choices.



Are Libertarians liberal or conservative?



Libertarians are neither. Unlike liberals or conservatives, Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. For example, Libertarians agree with conservatives about freedom in economic matters, so we're in favor of lowering taxes, slashing bureaucratic regulation of business, and charitable -- rather than government -- welfare. But Libertarians also agree with liberals on personal tolerance, so we're in favor of people’s right to choose their own personal habits and lifestyles.



In a sense, Libertarians “borrow” from both sides to come up with a logical and consistent whole -- but without the exceptions and broken promises of Republican and Democratic politicians. That's why we call ourselves the Party of Principle.



How large is the Libertarian Party?



By almost every objective measure, the Libertarian Party is the third-largest political party in America. We’re active in all 50 states and have more than 200,000 registered voters, which is more than all other third parties combined.



What kind of offices do Libertarians hold?



Around the USA there are Libertarian mayors, county executives, county council members and even a Libertarian sheriff! Libertarians also serve on school boards and in hundreds of local offices. In 2004 our candidates for U.S. earned over 1 million votes for the third time in a row, which is a feat no other third party has achieved.



These elected Libertarians are already hard at work saving you money and protecting your civil liberties. In fact, Libertarians saved Americans over $2.2 billion in 2004 alone.



What kind of people join the Libertarian Party?



People like you. People who used to be Republicans, Democrats, and independents – from all walks of life. They joined us because they realize that we’re the only political party working for their personal and economic liberty.



Another question we sometimes hear: Is political extremist Lyndon LaRouche in the Libertarian Party? No. LaRouche has never been associated in any way with us. He runs for office as a Democrat.



How can I join the party?



Ask yourself: Is government too big or too small? Are taxes too high or too low? Does the government regulate my business too much or too little? Does the government control my personal life too much or not enough? If you agree, like most Americans, that government is too large, too expensive, and meddles too much, the Libertarian Party is for you!



Now it’s time to take action. Join the Libertarian Party today – and become part of the new choice in American politics!


I couldn't have said it any better myself. I guess that's why I copy/paste'd it, lol. If you want to learn more, check the link below.



Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Nov 02, 2006
I never said what was core to you. You're ranting post after post and I'm trying to figure out who you are arguing with. I was pointing out what the fundamental, core issues that define libertarianism are, and that your stated beliefs don't sync with them. You don't get to define Libertarianism, do you? Their platform defines them.

That's the point of this article, right? Telling people what Libertarianism is about... when in reality you really didn't say much about Libertarianism. Why is it pertinent? You, yourself make it so when you indignantly thrash people for mistaking you for a Democrat.

You can feign shock and say "I'm a Libertarian" when they make note of your marginalized ideals, but it's like a cow declaring it is a horse. It's convenient in a discussion, but it's really meaningless when you've defined yourself otherwise with every other argument..

If it makes you feel better to be on the "outside" of the issue, and it makes you feel less partisan to call yourself a Libertarian, fine. Call yourself whatever you like. Anyone can look at your arguments and your blog and see that you are in fact very partisan, though.
on Nov 02, 2006
you are in fact very partisan,


no i'm not. but you are entitled to your opinion.

run along now...
on Nov 02, 2006
"run along now..."


lol... 'nuff said.

I can't tell you what you believe, but you state your politics loud and clear around here in no uncertain terms. When you try to define yourself as something completely different than the ideals you portray, well, you should expect people to point it out. Especially when you try and educate people about what Libertarianism is.
on Nov 02, 2006

i believe in the principle, if you can help someone who is helpless, do what christ would do (imho) and help them.

Why, then, if Christ expected the governments to be responsible for caring for the poor and needy, did He not head to Rome and argue before the Senate there? Becuase it is the responsibility of INDIVIDUALS, not of their government.

on Nov 02, 2006
To sit back and expect the government to be the basis of our charity services just shows laziness.
on Nov 02, 2006
Gideon: Am I wrong to question this? I mean, I keep getting the 'big tent' speech from SConn1, but in reality does the Libertarian party really want to define itself as an ala carte menu for the disgruntled in other parties?

Am I wrong to say that the foundation ideal is what spawns the platform? In other words that drug decriminalization, abortion, gay marriage, ending taxation, etc., aren't individual issues as much as they are different ways the overall ethic is applied? I mean, you can believe in drug legalization, and not be Libertarian about it, right?

The idea here seems to be that the Libertarian party is a buffet. To me it is a themed, multi-course meal. I don't see how SConn1 can agree with part of the platform, when in reality it is the execution of the ethos that gives RISE to the platform. It isn't like the party can take one and not the other, since they all rise from the Libertarian ideal.
on Nov 02, 2006
Gideon: Am I wrong to question this? I mean, I keep getting the 'big tent' speech from SConn1, but in reality does the Libertarian party really want to define itself as an ala carte menu for the disgruntled in other parties?

Am I wrong to say that the foundation ideal is what spawns the platform? In other words that drug decriminalization, abortion, gay marriage, ending taxation, etc., aren't individual issues as much as they are different ways the overall ethic is applied? I mean, you can believe in drug legalization, and not be Libertarian about it, right?


Not at all wrong, Baker. I don't see the LP as a "smorgasboard", either. While I disagree with some platform issues, I am no different than Republicans or Democrats who selectively disagree with their national party positions (ie, prolife Dems, pro gun control Republicans). But to say you favor a smaller government and argue for two of the biggest boondoggle programs (national health care, social security) is oxymoronic bordering on the absurd.

In my opinion, you're right on the money here. But Sean and I both pay our party dues, so who's to say who's right on this one? I certainly wouldn't vote to "kick him out" even with such a fundamental disagreement, but his view is nowhere NEAR mine on this.
on Nov 02, 2006
But to say you favor a smaller government and argue for two of the biggest boondoggle programs (national health care, social security) is oxymoronic bordering on the absurd.


a lot of my libertarian views are about personal freedom. i am not as trusting as some when it comes to corporations. as far as SS goes, no, it's not the most efficient system in the world, but it has provided a great service to americans for over 60 years now. i haven't seen a privatization plan i like, so i default to a system that has a history, and in my opinion, a good one. i think we are better off with ss than without it. we can debate it's future of course, and i am more than open to new and better ideas, but until i see one, i 'll go with this one, by default.

on healthcare, that's where my religious view trumps my political one. i believe in helping the helpless. yes, some libertarians draw the line in a different place than i where goverment services and function of goverment are concerned, and that's fine. if a day comes where universal healthcare isn't necessary, in my view, i would certainly consider it. but our system now which leaves 48 million americans, many of whom are children, uninsured is amoral in my view.

skewing me as being "all for" these things is misarachterizing my view. and frankly, i can't even express my views fully in this limited forum. i've cultivated my views out of almost 40 years of study and life experience, explaining all that in a couple of soundbytes is impossible.

i said before, some of my positions are REAL WORLD positions, not theoretical. many of the libertarian platforms are more theory and will probably never see the light of day. i was always taught to "work with what ya got."

I don't see the LP as a "smorgasboard


well, according to the national committee website...

In a sense, Libertarians “borrow” from both sides

but i am called absurd and oxymoronic. abortion is a major plank for both parties...but...

is rudy absurd for being a republican and pro choice?

is bob casey absurd for being a pro life democrat?

most people would say no, and point out their big tent theory. why am i being singled out as absurd then?

this is just personal guys. especially for you baker.



on Nov 02, 2006
To me it comes down to whether or not the word "Libertarian" actually stands for a particular philosophy, or if it is just like the sign above the door of a pub full of people who don't fit in elsewhere.

The real difference here is when I go to the Libertarian site, I get descriptions of how the Libertarian ideal is applied to these issues. When SConn1 talks about Libertarianism, it's like he's talking about the Un-party. Not a Dem? Hate Republicans? Come be a Libertarian!!!

That doesn't work in religion, and it doesn't work in politics. Just because I don't want to be a catholic and I don't want to be a protestant doesn't mean I fit in any better with Islam. I don't think SConn1 could really stomach the worldview he's supporting.

Nor could I, and that's why I can't be a Libertarian. That's why it is kind of annoying to see someone who obviously has MORE of a problem with Libertarianism than I do claiming to support them. If you look at the party platform he made for himself, it's nothing close.
on Nov 02, 2006
.. also support social security and some other goverment programs. that is because they are designed to help the least amongst us. my religious beliefs trump my political beliefs there.i believe in the principle, if you can help someone who is helpless, do what christ would do (imho) and help them.


Why, then, if Christ expected the governments to be responsible for caring for the poor and needy, did He not head to Rome and argue before the Senate there? Becuase it is the responsibility of INDIVIDUALS, not of their government.


To sit back and expect the government to be the basis of our charity services just shows laziness.


Re the last quote, I would have said modern day Liberalism, but lazy works as well.

I always get a kick out the people who try to justify Government run and mandated charity (also known as welfare) by insisting that 'it's what Jesus would do'.

I get this ridiculous image of Jesus going before Pontius Pilate arguing for money to be taken from the rich to help the poor. 'I would do it myself, Pontius, but it really should be handled by the Government, besides I'm a little too busy what with planning this get together for all the disciples'.
on Nov 02, 2006
Sean, the bottom line is "would you give up your favorite federal programs to never have to pay income taxes again". ;~D
on Nov 02, 2006
The minor issues [Sean Conners] cite


I personally never new that taxation, abortion, Iraq, and religion were minor issues. I must have missed the memo.
on Nov 02, 2006
I personally never new that taxation, abortion, Iraq, and religion were minor issues


where did i say all those were minor issues? i said taxes have never been a big issue with me, but i didn't say anythign about iraq, religion or abortion being minor issues.

show me where i did TOV
on Nov 02, 2006
Sean, the bottom line is "would you give up your favorite federal programs to never have to pay income taxes again". ;~D


well ted, i don't think i would jump off the cliff on that issue. just as some think leaving iraq would create a disaster, abandoning all the federal assistance at once in my mind, would do the same. not only in the people it would instantly impact from a help standpoint, but literally 100's of thousands of jobs would be eliminated at once.

do i like giving hard earned money for someone else's benefit to the goverment? not really. but if it helps someone, that does make it better. sometimes goverment programs are a waste and help no one. sometimes, like ss, they have helped millions. i'm not so greedy or cold that i can willingly turn my back. and business has yet to provide adequate alternatives. are there other people outside the goverment who can provide certain services? maybe, but i haven't seen a model that i like.

one sidenote on ss. people focus on retirement benefits. they forget that social security provides many services that have nothing to do with retirement.

i believe we should work towards a "more perfect union" and reduce and eliminate taxes as we can. but i am not for throwing the poor out on their ass. i am not for turning my back on someone in need. perhaps someday we can create systems and people will be good and honest enough to do things instead of a goverment tax system, but today, we are nowhere near ready for that.

but in a perfect world, with no one suffering, sure, we would not need the systems or the taxes.

i hope that answers your question
on Nov 03, 2006
"i believe we should work towards a "more perfect union" and reduce and eliminate taxes as we can. but i am not for throwing the poor out on their ass. i am not for turning my back on someone in need. perhaps someday we can create systems and people will be good and honest enough to do things instead of a goverment tax system, but today, we are nowhere near ready for that."


So, charity exacted through oppression? How much more prosperity there might be in the US if the government didn't steal and waste hundreds of billions of our dollars every year. How much more if people didn't subliminally believe the poor were being taken care of, when obviously they aren't.

An oppressive government BY ITS VERY NATURE can't be trusted, because exacting money from people at gunpoint corrupts irrevocably.

It's like someone saying they don't believe in Jesus and claiming to be Catholic. What you are differing with is the prime tenet of Libertarianism. You may believe in confession, and you may believe in God, but if you don't believe in Jesus, you can't really be Catholic.

If you believe in government control of our excess for the "good" of the poor, then you aren't Libertarian. Period. You may feel more comfortable voting for them, but you can't claim to label yourself with their ethos and still be honest.
3 Pages1 2 3