"But here's why I don't get that libertarians often vote with Republicans. Republicans AREN'T small government;"Jinx 2 said:I'm sure you're right. I had a Baylor friend who was a serious libertarian, and he and I drove to A&M to hear Ed Clarke speak when he was running for president. That's my last real substantive exposure to a serious Libertarian candidate.quash said:Those libertarians who have voted Republican in the past are not going to vote Democratic over spending. A dozen other issues maybe, but that's frying pan to fire stuff right there.Jinx 2 said:quash said:
There are some as think removing Trump would restore the GOP.
Then there are libertarians. My hope is that the GOP's shameless deficit spending combined with its attacks on civil liberties will shift more libertarian votes to Democrats,
But here's why I don't get that libertarians often vote with Republicans. Republicans AREN'T small government; they just have different priorities for government spending: defense, "nation building wars" (although the spectacular failure of Iraq has killed that for a whle), walls (which require a LOT of eminent domain, which seems about as anti-libertarian an action as there is), voting restrictions that block voters they don't think will vote for Republicans, educational restrictions on info they don't like (about slavery and sex ed and cliimate science these days), opposition to civil rights for gays, opposition to legailization of marijuana / reducing the criminal consequences of selling or buying drugs (in theory "victimless crimes" since people make a choice to use drugs, although some addiction experts would argue about the term "choice"), etc.
One of my biggest problems with Republicans is that their position on healthcare has precluded any serious discussions of real solutions.
Medicare works pretty well, which is why it has bipartisan support, even from Republican politicians who know they would lose and lose big if they tried (harder than they already are) to kill it.
Medicare's last significant expansion occurred under a REPUBLICAN administration (with the help of a lot of lobbying from big Pharma). There, GOP politicians got a twofer--gave people a benefit they needed (better access to prescription drugs) and also accommodating corporate interests bigtime (the U.S. doesn't negotiate on price).
So I'm trying to figure out why anyone thinks the GOP is the "small government" party.
Especially when one of the platforms they HAVE to stick with, because you can see how many people's support for the GOP is based on this single issue, is the strict regulation of a woman's uterus the instant an egg is fertilized. Are most libertarians male? That's kind of a laugh line, but this is a serous question. How much worse can a regulation be when it's literally up your ___?
Agree that too many Republicans AREN'T small government. But at least some of us are and I'm guessing I'd be very hard pressed to find much support for limited government from you and yours. No real alternative that I can see based on this issue.
"One of my biggest problems with Republicans is that their position on healthcare has precluded any serious discussions of real solutions."
I don't think either party is willing to have a serious discussion about the actual existential threat represented by unfundable mandates. The root cause is a combination of unfettered demand decoupled from any market forces. Health care must be made to cost less for every good or service. Just sweeping everyone into the same "Medicare for all" pot doesn't do anything to make the total expenditure less. As currently structured, health care delivery is a giant shell game/ponzi scheme with its burden merely being shifted around. The burden must be diminished. Few Rs are willing to go there, but even fewer Ds will address this fundamental truth. As an aside, my almost 90 year-old father was been receiving treatment for lymphoma for almost 4 years now. Thanks to his military and government employment, his out of pocket costs for countless radiation and ongoing chemo treatments and medications have been next to nothing. He was able to retire at 58. Had bypass surgery 3 times in his 60s that cost him almost nothing. Wouldn't surprise me to learn that his total health care costs since retirement even in real dollar terms have exceeded his entire lifetime's earnings. No way this sort of thing is remotely sustainable without serious reductions in compensation to providers.
Think it should be fairly easy to grasp that some of us believe abortion = murder even if you don't agree. Just guessing here, but pretty sure you don't condone murder so shouldn't be that difficult or that much of a stretch to understand under what circumstances even those of us with libertarian leanings are ok with laws regulating behavior.
FWIW, I'm ok with legalizing marijuana and probably most other recreational drugs.
