Libertarians claim victory in elections

Wow! Sense prevails in the US?
Libertarians were elected in Iowa, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, North Carolina and Pennsylvania—54 percent of the states in which Libertarians ran. Libertarians in Michigan won four of the five known races in that state where Libertarians were involved—a stunning 80 percent rate of victory.
The one immediate explanation I can think of is that the sensible people who used to vote Republican because of their position on economics might have become disgusted by that party because it has obviously forfeited those leanings, and now are voting their true position - libertarian - instead.

The real liberals are those who advocate liberty not just in the social sphere, as the Democrats, but also in the economy. The economic kind of liberty used to be represented by the Republicans; but there used to be no way to vote for both. If the trend of Libertarians picking up pace continues, that could be a harbinger of good times to come in the States. At least - one may hope.

Meanwhile, the campaign of the somewhat-libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul seems to be doing well at this stage. I don't agree with him on everything, but the things we do agree on are so important that I cannot not endorse his bid. Vote Ron Paul in 2008. He seems the only reasonably sane candidate. Even one such candidate is more than can be said for most elections.

Comments

verbatim said…
This dude is sometimes more conservative than priests in Vatican. As you stated, real liberals also advocates liberty in social sphere ... he is far away from that on some chapters. I am always for pro-choice (state has no right to interfere with my decisions unless it can be proved my decisions hurt someone else - moral views don't count).

He would probably jail topless lady from a beach for life.

Although his economic programm is quite good and I support most of it.
denis bider said…
I disagree with Ron Paul's views on abortion too, but I get the impression that he is a principled man. As such, I get the impression that his plan is not to ram his views down everyone's throats using the power of the federal government, but rather to shrink the influence and bureaucratic power of the federal government, which is an extremely important goal.

He is said to be against the "war on drugs", for example. I don't believe that this is because he condones doing drugs, but because he feels it's none of the federal government's business to intrude into its citizens' lives in this way.

I think this is extremely important. The president's views on personal liberty matter only if he's going to cause the federal government to violate those liberties. If his plan is to reduce the influence of the federal government and let such issues be decided by the states, then his personal views on topless ladies are not important.

Or in other words, I'd rather have a socially conservative Ron Paul decrease the power of the federal government and give more power to the states, than have a socially "liberal" Hillary Clinton increase the power of the federal government, causing yet more opportunity for future abuse.

Popular posts from this blog

"Unreachable" beauty standards

When monospace fonts aren't: The Unicode character width nightmare

Is the internet ready for DMARC with p=reject?