Regarding Don's post on bison:
The points made here are debatable, but Kuwi has that covered. I will just say that privatization of wildlife is not in line with "socially liberal" politics.
Michael Wolfe said:
If you could hand over at least some of the Sumatran rainforest to Greenpeace, would you do it?
That's the thing. With privatization of the type and scale libertarians are calling for, I - nor you, nor any agency with any interest in the well-being of tigers - don't get to decide who owns what part of that Sumatran rainforest. Money decides. Maybe Greenpeace *would* end up with a cut. Maybe loggers and such would end up with a bigger cut. Maybe a nice little cut would go to those who see big money in big game hunting, or the sale of tiger fur rugs. Does it seem like a sound plan to me?
Hell no. Two things I've noticed about libertarianism:
1) Those who espouse it like to suppose everything will work out the way they think it should; they tend not to even acknowledge the ways in which it could go horribly, horribly wrong and
2) it is very much akin to "free-market conservatism" taken to extremes that not even most die-hard conservatives have the stomach for.
Robjvargas said:
Big IF to what I'm about to say: IF we agree that neither of the two major parties is at all interested in the plight of the common man, that each is only playing to their own particular special interests...
Why not take up the cause of a third party and help it adapt when and where we disagree?
I tend to vote Libertarian for exactly that reason. I think they are far closer to the kind of government that I want, though I, too, would oppose some of their planks.
First, I don't assume that neither party has any interest in their country or in their fellow man. It's become very fashionable to be that cynical, I know, and by not, I open myself up to claims of "sheeplehood" but no, I don't buy in.
Nor do I buy that the libertarian party is somehow different or more altruistic than the other two. Nor do I see it adapting in a positive way; the reason Don distinguishes between "big L and little l" libertarianism is because even as stalwart a champion for libertarianism as he has been, he feels the political party (L) is moving away from the ideals (l). So much so that, when faced with the official libertarian party platform, he - and others here - will say that that's not the libertarianism they are talking about. They will say that was not what it was meant to be. Rather than adapting to a become a new, original option, the libertarian party is becoming one that competes in the Republican primaries and is seen to "cost" primarily Republican votes. It is becoming the new voice of free-market capitalism taken to the extreme - although, on that point, I think big L's and little l's are in agreement.
Robeaie said:
A "conservative" point of view becomes a "liberal" one almost overnight (and vice-versa), solely because a politician in power switched their point of view.
If a conservative was for gay rights and the legalization of marijuana as well as abortion rights, immigration rights - and VERY IMPORTANTLY - supportive of our social safety net, interested in regulations on pollution and in conservation,
and not determined to push religion into politics, then I would be really happy to vote for them. (But note: here I mean supportive as the liberals are, not supportive as in letting the free market or local governments decide as the libertarians usually are. There IS a difference.)
How long has it been since there was a conservative who pushed that social agenda? And how long will it be? And when they are... do you have any doubt that they will be considered "socially liberal?" There are some issues that are quite fluid. The ones that matter to me right now have not been fluid within my voting lifetime, if not my entire lifetime.
Libertarians--in general--enjoy an advantage over run-of-the-mill conservatives and liberals insofar as they (the libertarians) have an element of consistency not present among the other two groups.
'Course, it's this same element of consistency that causes libertarians problems. They're automatically--to some--intractable ideologues. And they are given to eating their own, to declaring who is and who is not a "real" libertarian with far more gusto than can be found--usually--in other political groupings.
If by consistency you mean each member picks a hard-line stance and sticks to it, I think most conservatives are just as consistent. If by consistency you mean that people know what "libertarian" stands for and have a set view of what that means, your last sentence goes against that pretty much outright.
When each libertarian candidate claims to be the "real" one, and the party platform is disliked by a good deal of those who vote (L), and yet they do so because of their own idealogical views of what that (L) should represent, the party is about as nebulous as parties can get.