Hey, so… do Democrats get invited to LP conventions?
Yes. Biden didn’t accept, but Trump and RFK Jr. did.
Meanwhile this herd of alleged porcupines isn’t notorious for direct action against overbearing police presence
This isn’t an issue with libertarians, but people generally. Most people are cowards, and libertarians are no different. That said, I’m sure plenty of libertarians have joined protests along with Democrats and independents.
Libertarians at least are pretty consistent in calling for an end to qualified immunity.
Y’all chided ‘get government out of the marriage business’ like that’d solve corporations excluding a man’s husband from healthcare
Ending the government institution of marriage wouldn’t happen without some form of replacement. My proposal here is to replace it with a certain set of contracts, such as joint financial responsibility, joint medical responsibility, etc. Health insurance would no longer be able to use “marriage” as a determining factor for health insurance and would probably use one of those contracts. Doing anything else (i.e. having their own definition) would certainly be considered illegal discrimination, no?
That said, most libertarians support gay marriage since the other option is far less likely to happen and isn’t well defined.
Ron Paul
Ron Paul is about as good as you get with someone running as a Republican. I would personally make a few changes:
instead of a federal law protecting privacy, make it a Constitutional amendment so it applies to the states as well - this would lay the foundation implied by Roe V Wade
less focus on elimination of the income tax
more focus on federal government setting standards (i.e. states must meet X and Y need, states can decide on how)
If the grand philosophy was more of an excuse, for the supermajority of those who identify with it, what would look different?
That’s a loaded question, and I’m not exactly sure what you’re really asking. But generally speaking, if libertarianism was designed to funnel power to the elite, it would be a lot more successful and better funded.
It seems rich people don’t actually want libertarians in power, so they focus their money on the two party system because it’s easier to work with corrupt politicians than idealists.
It seems rich people don’t actually want libertarians in power, so they focus their money on the two party system because it’s easier to work with corrupt politicians than idealists.
That’s 100 percent the answer! It astounds me that Lemmy doesn’t realize that the the people in power, regardless of party, are rich and don’t look out for them. The one thing that both Democrats and Republicans agree on, is that there shouldn’t be third parties! lol
And that’s the “both parties are the same” argument. Yes, they have very different policies so they’re not literally the same, but both oppose real electoral choice. I think that encourages both parties to grow the power of the federal government, because even if it benefits their opponents in the next cycle, they’re all but guaranteed to get that power back afterward. If we had viable third parties, that guarantee isn’t there.
Yes. Biden didn’t accept, but Trump and RFK Jr. did.
This isn’t an issue with libertarians, but people generally. Most people are cowards, and libertarians are no different. That said, I’m sure plenty of libertarians have joined protests along with Democrats and independents.
Libertarians at least are pretty consistent in calling for an end to qualified immunity.
Ending the government institution of marriage wouldn’t happen without some form of replacement. My proposal here is to replace it with a certain set of contracts, such as joint financial responsibility, joint medical responsibility, etc. Health insurance would no longer be able to use “marriage” as a determining factor for health insurance and would probably use one of those contracts. Doing anything else (i.e. having their own definition) would certainly be considered illegal discrimination, no?
That said, most libertarians support gay marriage since the other option is far less likely to happen and isn’t well defined.
Ron Paul is about as good as you get with someone running as a Republican. I would personally make a few changes:
That’s a loaded question, and I’m not exactly sure what you’re really asking. But generally speaking, if libertarianism was designed to funnel power to the elite, it would be a lot more successful and better funded.
It seems rich people don’t actually want libertarians in power, so they focus their money on the two party system because it’s easier to work with corrupt politicians than idealists.
That’s 100 percent the answer! It astounds me that Lemmy doesn’t realize that the the people in power, regardless of party, are rich and don’t look out for them. The one thing that both Democrats and Republicans agree on, is that there shouldn’t be third parties! lol
They don’t wanna lose their power.
And that’s the “both parties are the same” argument. Yes, they have very different policies so they’re not literally the same, but both oppose real electoral choice. I think that encourages both parties to grow the power of the federal government, because even if it benefits their opponents in the next cycle, they’re all but guaranteed to get that power back afterward. If we had viable third parties, that guarantee isn’t there.