2 Party oligharchy?

PaulWallLibertarian42

PaulWallLibertarian42

TNPer
Why is the Republican Party afraid of Libertarians?

^^^^ A Youtube video on the report.

This is an issue that hits close to home for me this is going on in my own state. Im not sure how other countries are if they just have 2 major parties or how they feel about 3rd or more parties involved in the political process. But here we have the Conservative Republican Party and the progressive Liberal Democratic party well there is a schism in the Republican Party between the RINO (Republican in Name Only) neo-conservative big government, bail out ect. Basicly no distinction between the 2 major parties at the top except in rhetoric and speeches.

And then there are those in the Republican party like me who are tea party/libertarian leaning who wants the republicans to embrace thier roots small government constiutional balanced budgets let the people decide how they want to live thier life not the government.

Well the RINOs in the Ohio Republican party are scared of the Libertarian Candidate for Governor and afraid the current GOP gov may give up ground to them. I guess the Republicans are scared that people may realize the Libertarian party is more conservative and republican (small govt constitutional pro civil liberties balanced budgets fiscal conservative anti bailout) then the RINOs of the Republican Party.

http://benswann.com/video-why-is-the-republican-party-in-ohio-so-afraid-of-libertarians/

Anyone else have problems in your country with the major parties running everything and stopping earnest policy debate and the people from choosing any party other than the top parties in thier country?
 
The answer is simple - over the past two hundred years a nice cozy system of governance has developed in which all parties concerned had displayed a total disregard for the Constitution as a general rule. To allow anyone to come along and say, "gee, you know, we really need to follow the Constitution for a change" would upset the apple cart and disrupt the not so smooth operation of a governmental system that has become corrupt and is crumbling under its own weight.

Congress passes bad laws that are unconstitutional and the courts cave in with a total disregard for the Constitution and principles of law, and when those laws fail, it never crosses their minds to simply abolish bad laws - and instead, they 'mend' those bad laws and then don't enforce them, and then pass more laws that are bad, unenforcible and downright unconstitutional.

And when people come along that want to enforce the Constitution, the establishment goes bananas because it cuts into their spineless power-mongering and perpetual toady-ism.

The Republicans go out of their way to compromise on their principles and if you are willing to compromise on your principles it is as good as having no principles at all. There is nothing Conservative about the top-dogs in the Republican Party, and as a result, when their more logical, rational and objective base that actually thinks (like Libertarian, Tea Partiers and Objectivist thinkers) stand up and point out what's wrong, the RINOs like John 'Loney Toones' McCain and Linsey Graham-nesty have a senior moment and soil their adult diapers.

The Republican Party needs more people like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz who have the cajones to stand up against the spineless establishment.

The way to deal with RINOs is to beat them over the head with a copy of "Atlas Shrugged" and tell them to get with reality. :w00t:
 
Ron paul in 2012 helped to wake me up. I switched to Rep in my states primary to vote for him. Then when the RINOs got the media to marginalize him and romney got the nod..i voted Gary Johnson in the General. Im still registered rep. But that is so I can attend the local GOP functions and stir the bees nest of the establishment. They say they want younger peoples opinions..but seems they want younger people who agree with them..when i give em my libertarian view they let it go out one ear and out the other. Last sept. When i first went and asked a guy from our House Reps campaign why Brad Wenstrup did not support Justin Amash's proposal to strip the NSA funding over spying on citizens they looked at me dumbfounded like oh crap someone reads the vote count?

I am unsure where I allign. I feel somewhere on the spectrum between libertarian and Rand Paul Mike Lee Ted Cruz Justin Amash tea party constitutional non-RINO republican. A ron paul republican
 
It's a dominant-party state: we have a 'democracy' with different parties, but one party ran (and still runs) the things for the longest time. Go google it up.
 
One of the interesting things that is often overlooked is the US is a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. The US is also not a "Democratic Republic".

The Founding Fathers were smart enough to create a Republic because they realized that a Democracy is like two wolves and a sheep voting on who to have for dinner. :P

Hence, a 'Democracy' or 'Republic' doesn't imply by any means 'Freedom' or 'Civil Liberties' unless it's Constitution guarantees that all rights are inherent in and emanate from the individual an not the state. Unfortunately, a lot of people have forgotten this point.

I am nominally a 'Republican', but tend more towards an Ayn Rand style Objectivist Libertarian. Like Ayn Rand, I do not reject objective government governed by objective laws or objective taxation. I also support separation of State and Economics.
 
Oh, indeed. They have a facebook page "The Australian Tea Party". Half of the day they post about Australian matters and the other half they post about US matters.
 
Well the country I come from (Canary Islands) has in fact a three party oligarchy:

Two of those parties are Spanish parties and obviously defend the interests of Spain (the colonial power) one is moderate leftist (socialists) the other one moderate right-wing. They take turns to join the third party in government, this third party has been the head of the "Autonomous" (colonial) government for almost 25 years in a row and is said to be (Canarian) nationalist, but it's in fact a sold-out opportunistic tissue of lies.

The country I live in (England, but I'll talk about the whole UK because England is the only constituent country without a parliament of its own) has a healthier democracy, even with the Tories in charge. I find the labour party more appealing but remembering Tony Blair is enough to step back and not support either side. I guess I sympathise with them greens.
 
Did anyone watch the youtube video? This is what is going on in my state. Of all the registered voters only half identify with the major parties (republican, democrat) the other 50% of ohio voters are independents (not affiliated) or affiliated with minor parties like the Libertarian Party of Ohio. The Republicans have an incumbent governor who is somewhat unpopular due to Senate Bill 5. (Attempt to curb unions in Ohio) and they are afraid that the Libertarian candidate might take 1-10% of the vote. (People are getting fed up with both major parties) and so the Republican party that only has a 25% of the registered voters (for sake of argument) is pulling out all stops to try and tell the other 50% who to vote for and is trying a conserted effort to block the Libertarian Candidate off the primary.

Personally I am for Open-Primaries you should not have to join a political party is order to vote (unaffiliated independents can vote in the general elections ..should be able to in primaries as well)

According to endpartisanship.org
In 2012 taxpayers paid over $100 million for party conventions and over $400 million to fund private partisan primary elections.1
You pay for partisan primaries even if you aren't allowed to vote in them.2
Click to expand...
 
Romanoffia:
Oh, indeed. They have a facebook page "The Australian Tea Party". Half of the day they post about Australian matters and the other half they post about US matters.
Click to expand...
Basically we sit around all day drinking tea and complaining about the boat people and the republicans.
 
I pay little attention to what happens in the former colonies.

I would, however, point out that all America's problems started around 1776. Coincidence? I think not.

I do, however, like the quote that the Libertarians are the Pontius Pilate of politics - endlessly washing their hands of responsibility.
 
In my Country, there is only 1 party.
But luckily all of its members and especially its leader are morally incorruptible and are always looking out for the best interests of the citizens.
 
I'll tell you what's wrong with all political parties, Republican, Democrat, et al: they all buy into the same collectivist crap that expects everyone to sacrifice themselves for 'the common good'.

I ascribe to this theory of 'Altruism':

What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.” (Ayn Rand)
Click to expand...

When it comes to political parties:

It is your mind that they want you to surrender—all those who preach the creed of sacrifice, whatever their tags or their motives, whether they demand it for the sake of your soul or of your body, whether they promise you another life in heaven or a full stomach on this earth. Those who start by saying: “It is selfish to pursue your own wishes, you must sacrifice them to the wishes of others”—end up by saying: “It is selfish to uphold your convictions, you must sacrifice them to the convictions of others.” (Ayn Rand, again)
Click to expand...

The problem I have with all political parties as they stand now, is that they all want you to surrender your free will and cease thinking as an individual, join the 'collective mind' and do as you're told. They all try to stamp out individual initiative and subjugate everyone by turning Altruism (self sacrifice for the sake of others) in to a moral code and an ethic.

Even though altruism declares that “it is more blessed to give than to receive,” it does not work that way in practice. The givers are never blessed; the more they give, the more is demanded of them; complaints, reproaches and insults are the only response they get for practicing altruism’s virtues (or for their actual virtues). Altruism cannot permit a recognition of virtue; it cannot permit self-esteem or moral innocence. Guilt is altruism’s stock in trade, and the inducing of guilt is its only means of self-perpetuation. If the giver is not kept under a torrent of degrading, demeaning accusations, he might take a look around and put an end to the self-sacrificing. Altruists are concerned only with those who suffer—not with those who provide relief from suffering, not even enough to care whether they are able to survive. When no actual suffering can be found, the altruists are compelled to invent or manufacture it.
Click to expand...

And that is your lesson on Objectivism for today. :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top