Is it a money issue? I feel like their party could be the voice for a large print of Americans. Particularly many young, educated people. I feel like most people my age (32-33) simply think they have to identify as Red or Blue and have to follow the line to a tee. This is what's lost on our country these days. So many people blindly support these candidates and can't look to proper viable alternatives. I tend to agree with more of their principles than either of the two main parties...
Because of the “freedom caucus” which was funded by the Koch’s and other billionaire groups. Most people who understand who they are realize they are full of sh$t. They don’t care about the debt, or liberty on issues like women’s rights or other human rights. It’s about using your power to serve billionaire interests. I think a principled group of libertarians like 2020 Justin Amash would be pretty popular but the issue is true libertarians in a real election would just pull votes from Democrats.
Why isn't party of random kooks pushing dubious ideas that are especially ill-timed for the present historical moment more popular? Not sure. Could be that the Republicans stole to their market share with the libertarian Pandemic response. Maybe a better question is why are they even as popular as they are? The Greens or Socialist are more relevant ideologically to contemporary issues
Ron Paul positives - Legalize all drugs, eliminate nearly all taxes = cool! Ron Paul negatives - eliminate nearly all social programs, including all public schools, all public healthcare, social security etc = oh not cool
Not a good year for American "libertarian ism". The libertarian philosophy of everyone out for only himself is only great to a certain extent for rich people. It leads to extreme inequality. Under their philosophy taxes are theft and government is evil. They hate democratic government because the 99% want government and heavily regulated markets so that they can benefit from more of the wealth that they also create. However, with the corona virus, even if you are wealthy, you can still be infected by the folks who are essential workers who allow you to be safe in isolation . Their libertarian ideology leads to the lowest wages possible and hatred of government even when it could effectively intervene to help essential workers to afford masks, testing and contact testing. Their stupid ideology promotes "freedom" to not wear masks or maintain social distancing. Then you have a rich society that fails in comparison to all other comparatively wealthy countries to contain the corona virus.
So during a crisis the government does nothing and you have the great depression and everyone loses jobs. What country is a good example of Libertarianism actually working?
I'm very pro-libertarianism on the vast majority (not all) of social issues, many Americans are, or wish they were. It's the thing to be. Live and let live on religion, drug use, sexuality, culture differences etc. Economically is a very different story, pure libertarianism economically is pretty much anarcho-capitalism which I am strongly against. Social Democracy is a much more egalitarian, ethical, humane system that does the best job providing a high quality of life for the working class and poor, does a much better job on environmental issues.
Respecting freedoms is great. Abdicating government regulation for stock prices is not. The latter has been a platform for cons to drain the life out of our economy and replace it with gross inequality to parasitic levels
Because they ... lack money... consistent ideological foundations... and get any decent ideas picked off by dominant parties. Libertarian views don't fall in line with each other well enough, so they can't even find unity when there is a candidate. Plus now big money, by their standards, is hitting them, and corrupting their campaign. IE **** brothers.
Because we're a two party country and there just isn't enough money being allocated to the Libertarian Party to make it a viable alternative nationally. I believe they've won some local races and maybe some state races, but never won a House seat, a Senate seat, and 2016 was their highest vote percentage ever (by a lot - 3.29% of the vote...previous high was 1.06% of the vote in 1980). The other problem is that most people aren't socially and economically libertarian. Most people usually want government intervention either socially or economically and the Libertarian party wants no government intervention in anything. Other problem is that a lot of people that don't want government intervention in anything...also don't really want to vote...as that's a government process.
Social safety net (e.g SSC) is very popular. pK-12 for all education is very popular. National defense is very popular. Health care is very popular. These are some things that libertarian party wants to kill off or extremely limit. While I'm attracted to the libertarian philosophy of limited state intervention and self determination, I do not agree with known libertarian politicians in the US (advocating close to zero state intervention). If there was a more sensible libertarian movement and candidates, it might get more support. And then, they might be called a moderate Dem or a Rep.
Because Democrats and Republicans makes the rules! WTF? The presidential debates have Democrats, Republicans, and no on else. When's the last time you saw a different party allowed in major presidential debate? Then, within the parties, ask yourself what ever happened to Sanders two times, etc. How about some campaign finance reform laws? Oh, Democrats and Republicans in Congress will never do that in a million years. The blue team and red team have a monopoly on power, Dude. Come on now.
