Less Government/More Freedom

When I read posts of many here and on other boards, I can't help but notice that most people seem to desire less government and more freedom. Why then is the Libertarian Party not more popular? What are your theories?

There is no BIG money behind this party. It needs infusion of Bill Gate's fortune and it would catch the grass afire!

My theory is that most people don't know one ideological theory from another and the very word "Libertarian" conjurs up negative images. Plus, it doesn't have an animal backing it--no ass, no elephant, nothing.
And, the government we have in place would do everything it can to keep those negative connotations alive and vibrant while promoting their own agenda.

LopingAlong wrote: Plus, it doesn't have an animal backing it--no ass, no elephant, nothing.

lol You might be on to something there.

I just think it's a shame. The ideals offer viable solutions for many of our current problems and are more in line with my thinking. Do you think in our lifetime there would ever be a Libertarian President? I think anything can happen. One person offered the suggestion to me that the Libertarian Party is not popular because most of our country is made up of followers, Libertarians think for themselves.

I'd go along with that! If there were fewer followers, we'd have shed that two party system a long time ago. I think that the Libertarian POV is a good one and I think a Lib President will only happen after we have 1) a white woman President and 2) a black woman President. In that order.

I like the libertarian ideals, the only problem is that most of the libertarian candidates I've heard of sound like they're way off in lala land and don't have a firm grasp on reality. As with the major parties, if you get too far off center, it's a tough row to hoe.

I agree with most of the points already made above, a lot of people like the principles but are afraid of moving too far from the comfort zone of the status quo. Freedom from gov't requires responsibility and self sufficiency. I doubt many could really survive in our nanny state world we are used to.

Stossel has a good program on Fox on weekends on this party..... I know, who really watches that wing nut channel, jeez? What was I thinking?

Another problem is that small 3rd parties tend to weaken the others and have unintended outcomes, like Perot and Nader.

I'm a registered Libertarian... I even get their newsletters

The libertarian party can be approached either from the left or the right. I know some lefties that claim to be libertarian and also conservatives.

From the left - it appeals to those who place a higher value on the traditional liberal social issues, freedom, less government interference on issues like abortion, drug laws, wars etc. It requires the liberal to let go of the modern left's obsession with big government, and using government as the means to resolve every possible issue.

From the right - it appeals to conservatives on matters fiscal, and the notion that less government means more freedom, opportunity and choice, free markets. The right must also value the individual's rights above the state's right on issues like abortion. One may object to it on a religious basis, but has to recognize that the state should not be involved in a matter of personal freedom.

I have advocated for libertarians since the day that daddy bush broke his promise of "read my lips - no new taxes" - and then turned around and stabbed us in the back with a tax increase.

I think that the tea party's core value of returning to a government that is consistent with the ideals of the founding fathers and limiting it's function to that described in the constitution is also a value that the libertarians have been talking about.

There is much common ground to be found in the Libertarian party for both the left and the right. If we can all just agree that government on all levels at this time has become overreaching and a pure burden on our liberty. It is dragging down the economy with it's overbloated size.

The corruption and lobbying and game playing that goes on now that almost all of us agree is out of control can be stopped - simply by reducing the scope of government.

If we all want to reduce the influence that large corporate and special intrests have in our lifes, the best way is to remove government from our lives.
And that means cutting off the money to government.

Even if Libertarians were to start gaining seats - it would be a decade before their influence affects real change. It takes a long time to turn a big ship around, but we might as well get started.

Libertarians get bad mouthed by both parties - because they are a threat to the status quo. I hear both the left and right say thing like "if you vote Libertarian - you'r just throwing your vote away" - but think about it - if we don't vote libertarian, we will never get one elected!

I'm a registered Republican that voted for Ralph Nader in the 2000 election. I don't just
vote for my respected political party - I vote for the candidate. I admit, I knew Nader
wouldn't win the election - but I wanted my voice heard that I desired a CHANGE.
I thought about it for such a long time in the voting booth before I actually
punched the card - but I didn't feel completely comfortable with either Gore or Bush.
I was so sick of both parties and their endless squabbling and false promises that
the Green Party and Nader was more in tune with what I wanted politically.

BearMtnHIB is absolutely right - I had sooooo many Gore supporters giving me
a TON of grief for "wasting" my vote and in an indirect way helping Bush into office.
It didn't help we had that whole "hanging chad" fiasco in Fla to boot.