Jumpin said:
It's not obvious?
Plus I read what Americans think libertarianism is all the time, especially that Ron Paul guy from a few years ago. It is neo-liberalism, not libertarianism. A good example is American libertarians seem to be very anti-estate tax, which is one of the core issues that actual libertarians fought to have implemented in the first place.
And yes, my post addresses your topic perfectly. The US electoral system is not set up to accomodate multiple parties very well. If for example, Democrats had 52% of the vote, and Republicans 48, if 5% of the Democrats decide to vote for a third party to stop Republicans instead, then you have Democrats at 47% and Republicans winning at 48%. Those 5% votes are as valuable as if they were thrown in the garbage. Only the two leading parties matter, there's no room for a third to do anything other than to make a minority party win a majority government. The only way third parties can reasonably integrate is if they have regional dominance; For example, the Texas party, and maybe Texas and the surrounding Texas-like states overwhelmingly support them, then they could win some territory and have a meaningful impact. Otherwise they're just garbage cans for votes. The US needs to have a real electoral system if they want multiple parties to matter. |
.jpg/220px-Ron_Paul_(7004532790).jpg)
Again, you don't know what a redneck is. They were poor white rural farmers and/or coal miner's who mostly voted for syndicalist groups and unions. It wasn't until the 1960's that rednecks started to vote Republican, and that was mostly because the Republicans at the time abandoned (classical) liberalism. Rednecks don't like economic liberalism, nor do they like libertarianism in general. The Tea Party movement is not a libertarian movement, even if it started tangentially so. Like I said, libertarianism in the U.S started from urban Jews who learned economics and natural rights theory. By the way, I can post pictures of redneck Democrats just as easily. In fact here was one. He also happened to be a KKK member.
Redneck
"The term characterized farmers having a red neck caused by sunburn from hours working in the fields. A citation from 1893 provides a definition as "poorer inhabitants of the rural districts...men who work in the field, as a matter of course, generally have their skin stained red and burnt by the sun, and especially is this true of the back of their necks".
By 1900, "rednecks" was in common use to designate the political factions inside the Democratic Party comprising poor white farmers in the South. The same group was also often called the "wool hat boys" (for they opposed the rich men, who wore expensive silk hats). A newspaper notice in Mississippi in August 1891 called on rednecks to rally at the polls at the upcoming primary election"
Also, you failed to prove that the etymology of the word "libertarianism" can't include liberals. I already showed you the etymology pertained to any "person advocating liberty in thought and conduct" which would include liberals, obviously.
Again, you failed to address my points. You just keep making assertions without any substantiation nor context to what I said, like " Those 5% votes are as valuable as if they were thrown in the garbage. " You can't just make assertions without substantiating them.
