Other racists. You know, like the ones who contributed in droves to the legal fund for Zimmerman, the fake pizza restaurant "crisis," and the Kim Davis idiocy. And, for the most part, this is true. However, you're not allowed to treat people differently based on prejudice or discrimination. If you hang out a shingle to do business with "the public," part of your obligation is to serve everyone, not just whites, heterosexuals, or Christians. If you want to serve only those people, you can form a private club, you just can't do business in public. Not many of those these days. #alllivesmatter Yes, it is dumb, but there are still people who would do so if they were allowed, which is the reason it isn't allowed.
You're welcome to your beliefs, you won't be prosecuted for those. If you exhibit illegal behavior, that will be a different story.
At the town level? Ya, it's 100% viable. At the corporation level, explicit racism would be difficult, but definitely at the small town level, it would be viable. Those small town businesses would also have flocks of supporters who travel interstate just to show their support and add even more revenue. I remember a shooting range (forgot which state) on their facebook page stated that they will no longer serve Muslims, and they received overwhelming support and the range received customers from all over the country.
Mainstream whites are used to residential, academic and especially professional settings without any non-whites; that's the only outward indicator of a discriminatory policy and not something whites will consciously boycott at the cost of convenience or familiarity.
Seconded. Their bat**** crazy economic policies would ultimately nullify any personal freedoms espoused by their social policies. Do you really think unfettered corporate control will respect your personal freedoms?
The Libertarian party is a mess, but Libertarian ideals are the most solid IMO. Republicans have to deal with what I call the "religious left" that wants to strip liberty from the people in order to enforce their morality on others and the Democrats as a whole want to force their morality on others stripping liberty from the citizens while crippling the economy with brain dead policies. The best of both worlds are the Libertarians. They aren't trying to cripple the economy with burdensome taxes and extreme regulations and they aren't trying to tell you who you can marry or what you can do in the privacy of your home. Basically no Obamacare, no Patriot Act.
libertarians believe people should be free to do what they want, even (especially) things they don't personally approve of Most people aren't libertarian because they want the government to outlaw/tax behavior they don't like. And there's alot of things they don't like. if I try to sell you snake oil, most people want the government to stop me, even if the buyer and seller enter into the arrangement voluntarily, with no one else involved if I'm willing to pay you 10 cents an hour for a job, and you are willing to accept that level of pay, most people want the government to stop that exchange from happening, even though both parties enter into the arrangement voluntarily, with no one else involved if you are a skeptic of mandates/prohibitions (or their close cousins, subsidies/taxes), you might be a libertarian
Just name one successful Libertarian country(not some village) in history that lasted for more than a few years, that's all you need to know about the Libertarian party. It does not work the same way communism does not work, sounds good on paper and in theory but does not stand up to practical tests.
Extreme libtertarianism doesn't work, but libertarianism is the basis of what THIS country was founded on.
Yes, you will never have the current armed force in the US, the highway system, the best higher education system in the world, the most advanced space agency, the SS, the Medicare or the internet if Libertarians were in charge of this country. That's why there is not a single great power in the history that have been build around Libertarianism. Somalia is the best example of Libertanism in existence.
I disagree, you'd have most of those things, they'd just be financed differently. You thinking otherwise is telling though.
How do you think these projects will get done by a Libertarian government. Make all the roads a toll? Do not build in the places where people are poor?
The notion that a libertarian government Would have no public depending is laughable. It shows you simply don't get it.
The same could be said of both the Democratic and Republican parties. The difference with the Libertarian party is I actually agree with some of what they believe on both the social and economic sides and it would at least be a vote against what I believe to be a failed two party election cycle.
For me, the Libertarian Party appeals because I am very nearly a one-issue voter. In my opinion, the greatest civil rights cause of our time is the drug war. While I am happy that homosexuals are now allowed to marry throughout the country, the drug war negatively impacts more people and more parts of our society than any American policy since alcohol prohibition was repealed. The Libertarian economic platform is entirely too lassaiz-faire, in my opinion, but they are the only party on the ballot in all 50 states that would do away with drug prohibition in its entirety. They would also reduce government, which I believe should be done in a great many areas, but would be tempered by the fact that the Democrats and Republicans would still run Congress unless something completely unforeseen were to happen.
It's very ironic the same type of connies who are so angry and frothing at regulatory capture are generally also proponents for quasi-Libertarianism, whose natural end state trends towards the pareto power law. Much of this stems from very slick marketing from certain reason able billionaires and radio listeners willing and able to allow whatever they hear distort their albeit conflicting realities.
