Why do you have to stamp on my hopes and dreams that we can free ourselves from this asinine 2-party system.
Neither Ayn Rand nor L. Ron Hubbard were libertarians, so I'm unsure what your point is?
Could you explain how Rand only appeals to the easily confused? Is it because they eschew the mixed-economy dogma her opponents so often profess? Have you read any of Rand's novels? Unfortunately most people are so opposed to their inchoate ideas of Rand prior to actually reading anything by her that when they do, it is with the express intent of being able to cast it off as vacuously as "sub-par sci-fi" afterwards.
As pointed out above, Rand is, in a very definite sense, not a libertarian, not even remotely. I can point you to some interviews with Rand where she criticises the libertarian movement quite strongly if you would like to see them.
this is what I was looking for
Kennedy got elected, he wanted to bring troops home from vietnam, weaken the federal reserve, very similar to Ron Paul! If American voters woke up, there is every chance he will get elected!
There isn't a chance he get's the republican party nomination. He just isn't insane enough or corrupt enough.
He doesn't seem to mind letting states tell people what to do though.
I never bought into the whole conservative/libertarian philosophy of 'not telling people what to do,' most of the time it just masks 'telling people to do what we want them to instead of what them liberals want.'
From the point of view of an individual I don't see how being limited in their freedoms by the state is any better or more desirable than being limited in their freedoms by the nation.
Ron or Rand have zero chance of even being nominated. Ron seems to actually believe what he says so I respect him for that. Rand is a shill for sale.
The nomination debates would be entertaining though.
Conservatism and Libertarianism are not equatable. You can have personally conservative views but believe it is inappropriate to impose those views on others (Making you a political libertarian) or you can have conservative views and believe it is appropriate to impose those views on others (Making you a conservative)
I don't get your second paragraph at all, it doesn't make much sense. Are you talking about state freedoms and federal restrictions? The second paragraph isn't logical at all.
I understand the theory of what the difference is, but thanks for explaining it anyway. What I'm trying to say is that in practice, libertarianism in American politics seems to be primarily used by people to push conservative ideology, but it racism (we should be free to not allow blacks into our restaurants/shops) or abortion/gay rights etc.
As above. If a STATE decides it's okay to discriminate against black people, but Federal law says it cannot do so, by saying that states should be free to do whatever they want and make their own laws, your still not really mandating for individual freedom. The state is still imposing its values on the individuals in that state, but this is somehow more acceptable than such decisions being taken collectively by the nation. Even though the state is just action like a mini-nation in that instance.
I wouldn't agree that Libertarianism is used to puch racist views but I do believe that Libertarians are often more concerned with low taxes and the free market, than with being socially liberal, this being displayed by the greater links between Libertarians and Republicans than with Democrats.
the main reason he wont get the nomination is that hes far too isolationist , republicans subscribe to the notion that american intervention overseas is both good for america and the world , paul doesnt believe its good for either
Which is totally ironic because conservatives are the first ones to say "what would our founding fathers do?" when it suits them
Democrats tend to be free-speech hating "liberals" (That word has been bastardized so much it means the opposite of what it meant 100 years ago) rather than truly about personal freedom.