How many college libertarians from NC State have become Republicans yet?

Lets keep track, as a social experiment.

I would also put Socialist to Conservative, but NC State was too dude/redneck/bro heavy for that. That's a Chapel Hill thing.

[Edited on September 23, 2013 at 5:10 PM. Reason : Eventually, everyone is a Fiscal Conservative]

9/23/2013 5:02:12 PM

No one actually claims the label "fiscal liberal". You're supposed to claim to be a staunch fiscal conservative, but when push comes to shove you never vote to cut anything because it isn't politically viable. Everyone pretends to be a good steward of tax dollars, but no one in power actually gives a shit because it isn't their money.

When I was still at NCSU I was a libertarian disgusted with the GOP, but I still believed that the libertarian-wing of the GOP was the only hope for the United States political system.

Now, I don't think that electoral politics will itself lead to any kind of cultural revitalization in the United States, which I believe is necessary. I see the U.S. entering a long period of gradual decay, not unlike the Roman empire around in the decades leading up to 400 AD or so. Crumbling infrastructure, a fraudulent system of commerce, and unmanageable foreign affairs. There are obviously major differences, but I see parallels and a similar trend. I have no expectation or hope that the political system will reform itself. All of the right incentives are gone and the wrong incentives are present; there's no reason to believe that the political system will undergo the meaningful changes needed to return to sanity.

Being a Republican 10 years ago was sort of permitted. These days, identifying as "Republican" basically means castrating yourself in most young, intellectual social circles outside of NASCAR races and country clubs.

[Edited on September 23, 2013 at 5:49 PM. Reason : ]

9/23/2013 5:47:55 PM

^ because Republican candidates get the majority of their votes from the uneducated bible thumpers in the south and texas. It makes sense that the intellectual crowd would chuckle. Most of them don't care that gods hates the gays. They believe in the practical and logistic nature of scientific reasoning that is being sullied by opportunistic politicians.

[Edited on September 23, 2013 at 6:14 PM. Reason : edit]

9/23/2013 6:13:54 PM

More often than not I score as a libertarian on political party quizzes. But since neither party is substantively different on doling out the dollars, they just have different favorite patrons, I end up making a lot of my choices on the social side where there are massive differences.

That said, this year's NC legislative session with some of the bills the General Assembly and Governor got into (& with appointing Art Pope as the state's budget director), I think made the gap between political philosophies a little wider.

9/23/2013 8:02:49 PM

^^This is why I long thought the more natural home among the two major parties for hardcore libertarian types like I used to be was the Democratic Party

like even when I was in college there was no way I'd vote for Dubya

9/23/2013 9:51:40 PM

It's a lot easier to ignore social laws than it is to ignore financial laws. It's pretty easy to live your chosen lifestyle in even the most conservative community if you have some discretion. I think that's why more people with libertarian leanings vote Republican than Democrat.

9/23/2013 10:04:48 PM

Quote :

"It's pretty easy to live your chosen lifestyle in even the most conservative community if you have some discretion."

whole lotta wrong in that one sentence

9/23/2013 10:12:17 PM

Really? Think about how little you know about your neighbors. Huge swaths of the population smoke pot, it's still pretty easy to keep your sexual orientation under wraps if you choose, etc.

9/23/2013 10:21:19 PM

one of those things happens to be a choice

the other is not

kind of big difference

9/23/2013 10:27:20 PM

Yes, very true. Still, point being that it's a lot easier to circumvent the government that attempts to stick it's nose into your bedroom than it is the one that reaches into your pocket.

9/23/2013 10:30:14 PM

[Edited on September 23, 2013 at 10:38 PM. Reason : nevermind]

9/23/2013 10:36:28 PM

I am a liberal who in the past year has become a full-on libertarian. Make of it what you will.

9/24/2013 8:17:02 AM

Quote :

"No one actually claims the label "fiscal liberal""

depending on what they mean by it, I'd probably claim it

9/24/2013 8:32:51 AM

let your ideas speak for themselves. what benefit do you gain by telling people what ideology you fall under?

[Edited on September 24, 2013 at 8:48 AM. Reason : .]

9/24/2013 8:47:16 AM

Quote :

"^^This is why I long thought the more natural home among the two major parties for hardcore libertarian types like I used to be was the Democratic Party"

I started leaning in this direction around 2008.

Never again.

9/24/2013 8:59:20 AM

Quote :

"let your ideas speak for themselves. what benefit do you gain by telling people what ideology you fall under?"

Yeah, that's an approach I used to be militant about. I despised the two main labels, which came to be used as insults (nouns instead of adjectives) by the "other side."

But the plain fact is that when you vote, you are forced into choosing a single platform, and you don't get to pick and choose on the issues (unless somehow your dream candidate comes along and gains clout).

I rarely talk politics with anyone but my wife. But when I do, I do not claim to be under a label. I only did so in this thread because its title and OP intrigued me, and I wanted to add a data point using the same vernacular.

[Edited on September 24, 2013 at 9:09 AM. Reason : ]

9/24/2013 9:08:55 AM

Quote :

"But the plain fact is that when you vote, you are forced into choosing a single platform, and you don't get to pick and choose on the issues (unless somehow your dream candidate comes along and gains clout)."

It's okay to admit that you think the vote options you're given are insufficient and undemocratic. In fact, people need to say this in order for things to ever change. Ultimately, just saying it isn't sufficient, it has to be demanded.

Let's say that a vote is held, and it's in a referendum format. So the citizens fill in the box to "do X" or "not do X", and it comes out with a simple majority to not do it, and then the politicians do it anyway.

What's the proper response to that? Ideally, it's through the media. Sometimes government leaders are pulling the strings in the media too.

The last thing you should do is resign yourself to defeat and walk around saying "well I guess I live in a Democracy".

9/24/2013 9:21:09 AM

we shouldn't be able to vote directly on everything, direct democracy is a bad idea.

[Edited on September 24, 2013 at 9:48 AM. Reason : terrible terrible bad idea]

9/24/2013 9:48:06 AM

The last time I voted for a Republican Presidential candidate (in a general election, not a primary) was 2000. I have never voted Democrat for President or any other significant office. I've voted Libertarian once. It's about the same story for other federal races and most state races. Mostly I just leave the shit blank or write-in "no confidence" if there's a space for write-ins.

So far, I always make it to the poll (although I came very close to not going last time. I'm not going to stand in line to cast a mostly blank ballot with just a few races actually marked.) Everyone is all like "You HAVE to vote! You can't complain if you don't, and nothing will get better if you don't." That's bullshit...it's not going to get better if I vote, either, and I will damn well complain about it and my complaints will be 100% valid.

[Edited on September 24, 2013 at 9:51 AM. Reason : ^ yep. what we need is a whole shitload of voter disenfranchisement, haha]

[Edited on September 24, 2013 at 9:53 AM. Reason : everyone should be able to vote, but it should be a little tougher. weed out the casual, uninformed]

9/24/2013 9:51:10 AM

Our politicians have not improved upon the will of the voters.

That fact that our policy is misaligned with the popular will is a simple truth. Every time, though, I'm amazed that people still argue that the will of our politicians is better than the will of our population.

Adding campaign donations and conflict of interests makes the outcomes better? Really?

9/24/2013 9:55:48 AM

Quote :

"Every time, though, I'm amazed that people still argue that the will of our politicians is better than the will of our population."

why? look at any country that is run by populist policies, it doesn't work.

9/24/2013 10:16:17 AM

I guarantee whatever country you're thinking of right now (dtownral) isn't populist.

...and that's because you're stupid.

9/24/2013 10:26:24 AM

Nope, I'm right

9/24/2013 10:29:35 AM

Give it a try.

9/24/2013 10:31:25 AM

show me where its worked

9/24/2013 10:40:03 AM

Give it a try, come on.

Name a populist country/government; it's a very simple question and you're only backpedaling by asking me a question in return (like a 3rd grader).

Do it.

9/24/2013 10:44:18 AM

see, you can't

9/24/2013 11:00:57 AM

Lol, 3rd grader.

All you had to do was put your finger on a map.

9/24/2013 11:03:34 AM

my finger is on a map, i win

9/24/2013 11:06:37 AM

What country are you pointing to?

9/24/2013 11:11:16 AM

pretty much any south american country at various points in history, many Caribbean nations at points on history, italy in the 90's, etc...

populism doesn't work because what people want isn't always sustainable, its one of the problems a lot of developing countries have a hard time with (aristide in haiti comes to mind)

9/24/2013 11:24:04 AM

Wrong.

South America, lol. Predictable.

People like you also think the USSR was Communist. It's really pathetic.

You're derping it up in like 6 threads today though, so not really surprising. Continue with your diligent Wikipedia research!

9/24/2013 12:02:15 PM

Sweden! Say Sweden.

9/24/2013 12:15:31 PM

sweden is a good example too. populism, specifically the populist right, has allowed xenophobia to explode in sweden.

9/24/2013 12:27:22 PM

Quote :

"Our politicians have not improved upon the will of the voters. That fact that our policy is misaligned with the popular will is a simple truth. Every time, though, I'm amazed that people still argue that the will of our politicians is better than the will of our population. Adding campaign donations and conflict of interests makes the outcomes better? Really?"

Right. Many people hold this opinion, and yet they still believe that electoral politics are the one true path to salvation.

I totally understand that perspective. Since so much power has been ceded to the collective (which, as we've discussed, is not actually the collective but a small group under the guise of "the collective"), we're faced with the task of the disarming the government, i.e. "getting the money out of politics" and other wishlist items.

Problem is, some people want to rearm the government with the same weapons once "reform" is successful, except this time the people running things will have good intentions and good policy. Why in the world would that be the case? Wouldn't something have to fundamentally change?

9/24/2013 12:53:13 PM

what is your other option to electoral politics and why do you think it would work?

[Edited on September 24, 2013 at 1:05 PM. Reason : meant your, not the]

9/24/2013 12:56:18 PM

The "solution" depends on what the problem is. That's kind of my point. When all you've got is a hammer (government), every problem looks like a nail.

9/24/2013 1:29:19 PM

so based on your opinion of the problem, what is the solution? what is your alternate to electoral politics?

9/24/2013 1:34:14 PM

no offense, but d357r0y3r usually has a tough time talking specifics. all his ideas seem to be very idealistic and vague, but not very practical or real-world based.

9/24/2013 1:40:30 PM

I think his stance should be very clear by now...no government at all.

9/24/2013 1:50:55 PM

yeah, so i'm curious how that increases the voice of someone without money/capital/power

9/24/2013 1:53:42 PM

Quote :

"so based on your opinion of the problem, what is the solution? what is your alternate to electoral politics?"

There isn't one problem in the world. There are virtually infinite problems and solutions. We'd to have several different discussions to cover just the common problems, but the solution for me never involves force, as that would require me to say that I want force used against me, which is a logical impossibility.

The broad answer is that solutions require direct action. Filling out a ballot doesn't address any problem directly. Voting is a least 3 steps removed from any actual enforcement or direct action. Here are the things that I think people can impact directly and are the most important for progress in a general sense:

1) Non-violent parenting - this is absolutely vital for healthy development of a society. Nothing creates a sociopath like abusive or absentee parents
2) Community involvement - if you think that some good or service should be accessible to the public, then join with others that feel the same and make it happen. No voting, bureaucracy, or administrative overhead necessary, just people helping people in its purest form
3) Add value to the community
4) Non-enforcement of unjust laws - most bad laws aren't repealed, they're made obsolete when law enforcement broadly ignore them

Quote :

"yeah, so i'm curious how that increases the voice of someone without money/capital/power"

That presumes that people without money/capital/power have any voice today. That was the parent comment for this discussion: that the government doesn't represent the people in any meaningful way. If that is true (you may disagree), then voting doesn't do what we're told it should do.

[Edited on September 24, 2013 at 2:34 PM. Reason : ]

9/24/2013 2:31:24 PM

You can't have citizens vote on everything obviously, but we also limit the types of things Congress itself can pass.

If we agree that the breadth of resolutions that can be passed by a majority vote should be limited, then that's what a constitution is for.

9/24/2013 4:51:09 PM

^^ The Congress represents some people in a pretty meaningful way, particularly wealthy people. This can be observed by the over-representation of old, white, rich men in Congress. You have to be insane to believe that limiting the amount of influence that secret, private money has on elections wouldn't at least produce some favorable outcomes. If politicians are not representative of their constituents, there has to be a reason and the financing of elections is a pretty obvious one.

9/24/2013 9:34:52 PM

I've gone further to the left as I've gotten older and more removed from college, which should come as a surprise to nobody who reads this board often.

9/24/2013 9:37:45 PM

same, but i don't attribute it to being more removed from college.

9/24/2013 10:27:46 PM

well obviously most libertarians will wake up one day and realize how full of shit they are. but there are the hard core ones that stick with it for the lulz

9/24/2013 10:30:20 PM

Eh, I think that depends. There are some real wingnut libertarians, and I'd like to think that some of them will eventually board the reality train.

...but then there are a whole SHITLOAD of what I'd broadly call libertarians who are still relatively pragmatic, and I don't know that they are likely to "wake up one day" and decide that they are "full of shit."

9/24/2013 10:49:09 PM

Libertarianism is a farce, no sane person wants society to be ruled by the mob.

Libertarians, whether they realize it or not, want to consolidate power to people who can seize it by social engineering, outside the accountability structure of a typical representative government with checks and balances.

It's not government libertarians dislike, government is an inevitable consequence of human society. It's the fact that governments, when ACTUALLY left to the people, can behave in irrational ways, and the solution, they feel, is to let unaccountable factions battle it out, under the fantasy that the individual libertarian would be a member of the best ruling faction.

9/25/2013 12:00:15 AM

Ok, first of all, you're acting like libertarians are a homogenous group, all of whom want the government cut to the point of being crippled and effectively useless. Only an inconsequential few advocate that. A sensible libertarian doesn't want mob rule; that's no better than what we have now. Government should, in fact, be wielded for the purpose of of preserving liberties.

also, the "individual libertarian" as a member of the best "ruling faction?" That just seems nonsensical. Libertarians are preoccupied with rights of the individual, not the collective, and other than preventing people from fucking others over, are by definition not especially interested in "ruling."

[Edited on September 25, 2013 at 12:41 AM. Reason : ]

9/25/2013 12:39:38 AM