Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Cobrawine66 t1_ivok5y6 wrote

Libertarians are Republicans.

69

Linux-Is-Best OP t1_ivol15r wrote

Libertarians are conservatives on steroids. The fact that they've been growing in popularity in the past has been scary. It's good to see a more progressive alternative gain some ground.

20

spitfish t1_ivoolnl wrote

This is a good time to remind everyone of what happened when Libertarians took over Grafton, NH.

28

The-Shattering-Light t1_ivpwdk8 wrote

Yeah Libertarianism is an adolescent fantasy that has never succeeded in running a stable and secure society

3

BrockVegas t1_ivoscm0 wrote

From my experience, Libertarians are just republicans who don't have the stones to just admit it in current company.

8

[deleted] t1_ivpeddm wrote

[deleted]

4

BrockVegas t1_ivpezu1 wrote

I just can' t swallow the Laissez-faire take on society that libertarians have. It denies objective reality in favor of warm platitudes.

7

SLEEyawnPY t1_ivr5ojc wrote

Right-libertarians have largely made their peace with the idea of a highly authoritarian state. You can have a high degree of economic freedom in a police state, see e.g. Pinochet's Chile. And individual freedoms are a far distant afterthought in their pantheon compared to where property owning & private property rights fall.

That is to say the right-libertarian MO tends to be "To make an omelette you have to break a few eggs", or to have a large degree of economic freedom you still need to have a small and efficient night watchman-type state, whose primary job is (efficiently) performing a disappearing act on undesirables who think right-libertarianism isn't the best way to run things.

>It denies objective reality in favor of warm platitudes.

The last word I would use to describe the right-libertarians I've known is "warm", unless "Kill 'em all, and let God sort them out" qualifies as a "warm platitude."

1

jgghn t1_ivoq2vx wrote

Not always. But will agree that ever since the Tea Party the term has been coopted quite a bit. Like when you see a "Libertarian" talking about a strong military and wanting anti-abortion laws.

Just like anarchism there's a spectrum, and participants range from quite left to quite right.

2

MoreGuitarPlease t1_ivornzk wrote

I agree with you. It’s too bad that hate has taken over.

As a vet, and an older white guy, I won’t even display my flag anymore. It’s a mark of the facist party now. I can’t beat to be associated with that.

Don’t tread on me is also great in spirit, but if I see that flag now, I know exactly what that person really means that it’s ok for him to tread on whatever he wants.

3

jgghn t1_ivourw7 wrote

Exactly. I used to identify as a small-l libertarian and was registered as a capital-L Libertarian. Then I described myself as a "left leaning Libertarian". Then just "left leaning", and now "liberal".

Some of that was because I matured out of the Ayn Rand teenage mentality circle jerk, but most of it was the shifting of the Overton Window in our society & how that term has changed. I still hold opinions that'd make a Progressive cringe and vice versa, but more often than not we'll agree on the same What even if we don't agree on the Why.

4

foxhagen t1_ivpkvya wrote

"Democracy In Chains" by Nancy McLean is alllll about the Libertarians. Really good book. And those people can get fucked.

2

Simon_Jester88 t1_ivp5l5k wrote

Didn't used to be. Used to be socially liberal people wary of government spending. Recently the whackos have completely taken over. They were always there they've just gotten louder and taken over leadership roles.

16

RealtorInMA t1_ivpwxhw wrote

My opinion, this "socially liberal" position was only ever a red herring. Like, oh I want all people to thrive, but I also want to withhold resources from those who most need them.

10

Simon_Jester88 t1_ivpy8w3 wrote

I'd call the resources part much more of a fiscal issue.

Wasn't that long ago that even some Democrats didn't fully support gay marriage. Used to be only Libertarians fully advocating for it.

Really don't get your use of "red herring" in this context.

−1

RealtorInMA t1_ivpyssv wrote

Red herring because I think this framing is deliberately misleading. Trying to get good person brownie points without doing anything good. "I don't hate poor people, but I'm also happy to watch them die for a tiny tax break."

3

Simon_Jester88 t1_ivq29yx wrote

Think you're kinda painting them as cartoon villains. A lot of Libertarians are just wary of government spending programs. Look at how much PPP was abused by corporations. Look at how many false unemployment claims were made during all of COVID. Our solution for fixing the T has been "throw more money at it with little oversight" and look how that's going.

Still don't know what you're talking about as misleading. William Weld was advocating for gay marriage while the likes of Clinton and Obama were to afraid to take a position on it. Democrats (some, not all, it's a big party) seem to only take up social issues such as drug reform and LGBT issues when its convenient for them.

I don't see a problem with being skeptical of where and to what degree the government should be involved in your life. It's the nuts who worship guns and think that things like roads should be ran by corporations though that have kinda turned me off of the party.

5

RealtorInMA t1_ivq4dpi wrote

Yeah and you won't find me cheering for those types of democrats either. More of that party's electeds are trash than not, but there's not a party with a lower trash ratio, so I'm registered Dem. Doesn't mean I think it's a good party, just think the others are worse. I absolutely agree that we all need to scrutinize government spending, but there is a huge difference in approaching problems from a standpoint of, how can we improve the outcomes from government spending versus, how can we end government spending. Edit to add: also there has been a very clear libertarian to fascist pipeline in place for at least the last decade (most well known example is crying nazi Christopher Cantwell, but it's a common trend), so I think there's a case to be made that "social liberalism" isn't as crucial a component of the movement as they paint it as.

3

Simon_Jester88 t1_ivq4s1t wrote

Well put

3

RealtorInMA t1_ivq515d wrote

TY and apologies for adding an edit you may not agree with as you were complimenting the rest of my post. =)

1

Simon_Jester88 t1_ivq5xgn wrote

No worries, you're right on point. The amount of alt-right/Libertarian muddling that has been going on is both confusing and concerning.

4

binocular_gems t1_ivpuccu wrote

The Republican party has moved so far into wacko territory, that if you're identifying as a libertarian you have to really be nuts beyond the pale.

"The GOP is TOO mainstream for me!"

3

joeltb t1_ivok26t wrote

Out voting Librarians, What‽

27

Linux-Is-Best OP t1_ivokshr wrote

OMG. Autocorrect. lol

Libertarians.

I have fixed the OP

8

ThirdHandTyping t1_ivr05tb wrote

It's a tense rivalry, but it looks like the librarians are still struggling to seize ultimate power.

4

FaustusRedux t1_ivpp09h wrote

Although I spent some time with the Green Party (immediately post-Nader; I was young and impressionable, okay?), and I personally wish we had more than 2 viable options year after year, I think that energy is better used trying to get something like ranked choice voting up and running so that third party candidates aren't just spoilers.

18

jmfranklin515 t1_ivq0mun wrote

If MA adopted ranked choice voting, we could vote third party without the risk of aiding a party we strongly oppose. Maybe that needs to be a ballot question in the near future. Pretty sure they tried that a while ago and it got voted down for some reason…

12

PinPlastic9980 t1_ivrnbvs wrote

barely got voted down we should just run it again.

4

Remnantghoul t1_ivsv712 wrote

Can't for 4 more years I believe.

1

PinPlastic9980 t1_ivt440w wrote

change it to only impact a single office and you can run it again immediately. which would also likely make it easier to sell to the public and get them use to the idea.

1

Unique-Public-8594 t1_ivok5ju wrote

Those Librarians. Will they ever win?

8

leilahamaya t1_ivpiuxq wrote

obviously a typo, and a joke, but in all seriousness, not the worst idea i have ever heard, lets hand the government over to librarians. =) Green librarians, even, that might have far better results than ever, in some weird twist.

anyway, i sometimes vote for green, independent or "other" -- i feel like in massachusetts i can do so because its so obvious before hand the blue will win the day almost always. so its less - giving a vote to the other guy - or throw the vote away for someone who has no chance of winning, but whoever i think is best.

i guess i mean that because massachusetts is deeply blue, i can vote green or other party, just to voice that there are many who want viable third party options, and other options. and not give a vote to the other guy, since the dem is such a shoe in.

2

Unique-Public-8594 t1_ivple4z wrote

I get your point. In Mass it’s safe to vote 3rd party without ending up inadvertently handing a win to a Q-Anon type. But other places, voting green just doesn’t take as many votes from the right.

2

leilahamaya t1_ivpm99a wrote

every state i have ever lived have been deeply blue. idk if many independents are like this but often for me it isnt between the dem and the green / other party/independent -- its between NO ONE and abstaining from voting, and the green/independent/other party.

so basically i am kinda a neutral on most elections, where i dont like either party. then again it does often come down to the dem and other third party, but because i live in these deep blue states, i know the dem will win and can voice that we want a third party, even knowing my person wont win.

1

Unique-Public-8594 t1_ivpmn65 wrote

Right. I just think there is some truth to the idea that Nader cost Gore the election.

2

leilahamaya t1_ivpo1qq wrote

oooo that one. i was in the camp wrongly blamed for bush, having for voted for Winona LaDuke and that guy she ran with !

but again, voting in deep blue states, it really didnt matter one bit in actuality that gore lost my vote. the state wouldve gone to gore, even though i really disliked him and could not bring myself to vote for him. what a mess. but there was a big misconception there for those of us in deep blue states. i can see how that couldve been a factor in that mess, but idk. it couldve been more independents choosing between no one and nadar, not gore and nadar --or rather winona laduke -- even though it may have been a strange choice for him to have her as running mate, in all truthfullness i voted for her not him. he wasnt bad either, but that is why i voted AT ALL in that particular election.

so my choice in that one was actually LaDuke or NO ONE.

2

leilahamaya t1_ivpoge9 wrote

i would actually love if they put that on all ballots -- no one -- or worded better. where you are specifically voting against BOTH PEOPLE. so not just abstain, but you want to register a negative vote for both parties. and then to see if actually there would be some elections where no one actually won over both choices.

1

BrockVegas t1_ivoskia wrote

TIL: After 2016... There are people who still think that Green is a real party.

Stein sat at that table with Putin.. just like Michael Flynn did.

7

sihtydaernacuoytihsy t1_ivpdd1w wrote

No dispute. But sad, because Howie Hawkins, the Green party candidate in 2020, was a decent guy. (Nowhere near qualified, mind you, but as an unqualified outsider, he'd have done a better job representing the interests of the WWC than Donald Trump.)

3

BrockVegas t1_ivpeabc wrote

Putting up unqualified candidates seems to be what the Green party is all about, which is really fucking weird for a state like Massachusetts where one would assume there to be more qualified individuals that align.

Spoiler candidates are spoiler candidates I guess...

1

sihtydaernacuoytihsy t1_ivpjzy6 wrote

I'm not in the Green party, nevermind in charge of it, but I'd probably work on running for city council in Chelsea, P'town, and Somerville (or other dark-blue districts). Reassuring voters they're competent and sane has to be the first step to winning a mayoral or state-wide race.

3

TKInstinct t1_ivpgg7b wrote

Amazing that someone like Putin would have given the time of day to Jill Stein.

1

PakkyT t1_ivokgcz wrote

Damn those libraries and their Dewey Decimal system to swing the vote.

6

TheGreatBelow023 t1_ivr64jq wrote

The Massachusetts Workers Party did pretty great for its first time getting over 50,000 votes for an openly socialist, anti-capitalist party.

6

Awuxy t1_ivpxjan wrote

More political parties are need in mass and nationwide. We need an injection of some new ideas into our politics instead of the same red vs blue shit we have every single damn year

3

dpineo t1_ivqc8hn wrote

I'm a simple man... I see third party, I vote third party.

2

BigE1263 t1_ivqv4aa wrote

Doesn’t beat the workers party.

2

Proof-Variation7005 t1_ivoogf6 wrote

3% of what exactly? The governor's race didn't even have a green party candidate on the ballot and that was the only statewide race?

0

Linux-Is-Best OP t1_ivoonog wrote

There were other offices than just governor, statewide. Do you even read what you're voting for?

4

Proof-Variation7005 t1_ivozw1w wrote

You're right, I didn't mention AG/Auditor/Treasurer too. Those are statewide. None of em had a green party candidate.

​

So, I guess now,, I'll ask with the same level of politeness you're showing me: What the fuck are you even talking about?

−9

jbclamence56 t1_ivpdkxi wrote

Both Secretary of State and Auditor had Green-Rainbow party candidates.

https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_state_executive_official_elections,_2022

6

Proof-Variation7005 t1_ivpgy0a wrote

Ok, I see now. I don't get why you couldn't just say that in the first place.

I voted 3 weeks ago. Even when I went to look and see if I just forgot the green party candidate, the New York Times listed no affiliation for those 2 candidates. Since neither of them got 3% anyway, that's why I asked what you were talking about.

−2

sizzlechest78 t1_ivrlm5v wrote

51 people In my town if +/- 8000 voted for the Workers Party candidate.

0

Caduceus1515 t1_ivoz6u2 wrote

Green Party and Libertarian is where Dems and Repubs go when they don't like their candidate but can't bring themselves to cross idealogical lines... But dilute their own vote to allow the other side to win...

−8

Mregan508 t1_ivpj92c wrote

Why do I have to be a Dem or Repub? Neither party perfectly aligns with my beliefs and opinions.

5

Caduceus1515 t1_ivpkfag wrote

Didn't say you did... But referring to those that are.

There is also the option of a non vote... But that is worse. If you at least vote for a third party, there is the possibility no candidate will get 50% and force a runoff (depending on the rules), whereas a non vote doesn't dilute the percentages.

−1