There are also actual libertarians here to argue with. There are no communists. To argue against communists, we'd have to waste a bunch of time explaining their positions just to refute them. I know that would also devolve into arguing (most likely with libertarians here) about what it is communists even believe.
And in the current "culture war" there is only Left or Right, and anything else is distilled down to either that or worthless to any greater point.
Its evil from a liberty and principle point of view to consider things in such a manner, but with our "winner takes all" government system its also the literal only thing that matters. If they aren't on "our side," they are benefiting "our enemies." Period, everything else is just squabbling otherwise.
You can be "right" all day long, but it doesn't matter if you lack any ability to manifest that into the world. And Libertarians matter so little that Trump felt comfortable going to their conference and calling them losers to their faces for it.
I don't actually agree that our form of government is a winner take all system (frankly, Trump won once already and still didn't take all), but more importantly I don't agree that Libertarians can't manifest anything. Where Libertarians are succeeding is in actually getting money, but they don't really do well with political infrastructure as a party, because they aren't the type of people to succeed at doing that.
A Libertarian party is going to have to be far more decentralized and localized, working as a grass-roots mechanism going up. The modern political party structures can't work within it. They have to basically invent a different way of doing business.
Frankly, Trump calling them (us) losers should be entirely appropriate for a Libertarian party. Free speech and all that. It should be a raucous crowd. However, I don't think that Right-Libertarians and Left-Libertarians can actually live together because the Left Libertarian faction will always be too authoritarian for the Right.
Honestly, they should have endorsed him to get a cabinet pick, just to build political infrastructure alone. Frankly, though, I'd bet there probably will be a libertarian pick considering he's already attending the BitCoin summit.
I don't actually agree that our form of government is a winner take all system
If you get 50.1% of the votes the other 49.9% don't matter (or delegates or the specific counting system in play). You just become the elected official and everyone else goes home and gets literally nothing. No pity power, no X amount of seats based on votes. So those who win do take all, only limited by the checks and balances of the office itself (theoretically, we know it doesn't always work).
If you can't get elected into any office, then your ability to wield political power is either dependent on those who can win appointing you into a position or simply bribing with money (sorry "lobbying" is how they prefer to call it). And at that point, you are still working with and giving even more power to a political party at odds with your own, which undermines any principled position you claim to hold.
We are tumbling headfirst into Civil War 2 or The Collapse or a Race War or whichever thing you are most afraid of, very quickly. Slow building up of political infrastructure one position at a time doesn't have the longevity available to matter.
Of course its the alt-right throwing it. They are one of the only people to even register Libertarians as worth acknowledging.
The Left doesn't need to worry about guys who will vote for them half the time anyway.
There are also actual libertarians here to argue with. There are no communists. To argue against communists, we'd have to waste a bunch of time explaining their positions just to refute them. I know that would also devolve into arguing (most likely with libertarians here) about what it is communists even believe.
There are many diverse points of view here, its one of the benefits of being here.
But his opponents always get boiled down to strawmen of the most extremist position possible in order for him to keep his anti-stormfag crusade going.
There's Left Libertarians, and Right Libertarians.
...
Listen, stop being right for a minute, so I can argue a point somewhere here.
And in the current "culture war" there is only Left or Right, and anything else is distilled down to either that or worthless to any greater point.
Its evil from a liberty and principle point of view to consider things in such a manner, but with our "winner takes all" government system its also the literal only thing that matters. If they aren't on "our side," they are benefiting "our enemies." Period, everything else is just squabbling otherwise.
You can be "right" all day long, but it doesn't matter if you lack any ability to manifest that into the world. And Libertarians matter so little that Trump felt comfortable going to their conference and calling them losers to their faces for it.
I don't actually agree that our form of government is a winner take all system (frankly, Trump won once already and still didn't take all), but more importantly I don't agree that Libertarians can't manifest anything. Where Libertarians are succeeding is in actually getting money, but they don't really do well with political infrastructure as a party, because they aren't the type of people to succeed at doing that.
A Libertarian party is going to have to be far more decentralized and localized, working as a grass-roots mechanism going up. The modern political party structures can't work within it. They have to basically invent a different way of doing business.
Frankly, Trump calling them (us) losers should be entirely appropriate for a Libertarian party. Free speech and all that. It should be a raucous crowd. However, I don't think that Right-Libertarians and Left-Libertarians can actually live together because the Left Libertarian faction will always be too authoritarian for the Right.
Honestly, they should have endorsed him to get a cabinet pick, just to build political infrastructure alone. Frankly, though, I'd bet there probably will be a libertarian pick considering he's already attending the BitCoin summit.
If you get 50.1% of the votes the other 49.9% don't matter (or delegates or the specific counting system in play). You just become the elected official and everyone else goes home and gets literally nothing. No pity power, no X amount of seats based on votes. So those who win do take all, only limited by the checks and balances of the office itself (theoretically, we know it doesn't always work).
If you can't get elected into any office, then your ability to wield political power is either dependent on those who can win appointing you into a position or simply bribing with money (sorry "lobbying" is how they prefer to call it). And at that point, you are still working with and giving even more power to a political party at odds with your own, which undermines any principled position you claim to hold.
We are tumbling headfirst into Civil War 2 or The Collapse or a Race War or whichever thing you are most afraid of, very quickly. Slow building up of political infrastructure one position at a time doesn't have the longevity available to matter.