Will Libertarians ever get their foot in the door?

[Cisco]

Ok, I'm not a big follower of politics (hence why I'm starting this thread) but I do try to keep my eyes and ears open as much as possible. This is basically what I see:

Republicans are in favor of big business, they're mostly religious, against abortion.

Democrats are against guns. In favor of the environment. In favor of higher taxes I think (or is that the Republicans? Or is it both?)


They're both against drugs. They're both in favor of big government. They both want to continue making new laws instead of repealing or at least rethinking some of the ridiculous laws in effect right now.


Now Libertarians, on the other hand, seem to be for the people. From what I can tell they believe in a constitutional government of the people, for the people, and by the people. They believe in lower taxes. They believe in the garuntee of all civil rights. They believe in ending the ridiculous war on drugs (I don't do drugs but I'm tired of paying for other people to get in trouble for them.)

So why don't Libertarians get any votes? Is it a lack of money? Do they have a downside I'm not seeing? Is it just a simple lack of awareness? Will things change in the foreseable future?

[Liberal]

Assuming you're talking about the Libertarian Party, there are lots of reasons. These are some of them in my opinion:

• Money — big business does not support the LP because the LP advocates the elimination of corporate welfare
• Image — for whatever reason, LP candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul) have always come across as poofy intellectuals
• Incompetence — they don't know how to run a political party
• Republicrats — the two major parties use their power and money to effectively block out third parties from serious consideration by enacting legislation that makes ballot access difficult and sometimes nearly impossible; they also control the major debates
• Media — the media perpetuate the notion of a two-party system by selective coverage

[MEBuckner]

Well, just to throw it out there, perhaps Libertarians don't get the votes because the voters don't like Libertarian ideas.

No doubt the structural problems cited above do artificially depress Libertarian vote totals and electoral success, but bear in mind this is still a country where a considerable majority of the citizenry is demonstrably in favor of the continued criminalization of marijuana.

[Liberal]

That's entirely possible, Buck. You make a good point. Our inoffensive Noncoercion Principle actually frightens some people, who fear that they might fail if they had to live or die by their own decisions, unable to force others to carry their load.

After all, which is more appealing?

A. I'll take some of Johnny's candy and give it to you.

B. If you want candy, you'll have to get yourself by fair means.

[MEBuckner]

All I'm saying is, don't fall into the fallacy of "If we could only explain it to them properly, they'd agree with us--if they don't agree, our message just must not be gettting out!"

I think many of us know from personal experience how easy it can be to slip into that kind of reasoning ("Gee, if most people around here are Christians, it must be because they were brain-washed or something, or they're just ignorant of all the ways the religion they've been spoon-fed is wrong"). There's probably a nice Latin phrase for this.

[Liberal]

Oh, no argument from me. When I said the idea frightens them, I did not mean because they don't understand, but because they do.

[aahala]

The Libertarian Party can provide a useful purpose as a tiny splinter party, but that's about it.

The Party supports a number of controversial proposals. Many of its ideas has some support and possible merit, but the collection of these ideas in total add up to anarchy and the combinations of one proposal included with others is a mix with virtually no political base.

The people that view the eliminatiion drug laws as desirable are either not interested in or directly opposed to such ideas as the elimination of minimum wage, social security, anti-polution standards or government aid to education.

The anit-income tax folks may support the elimination of subsidies, but are they likely to want no restrictions on abortions or porn?

And what's the support for dropping protection of our borders and unlimited immigration in the light of 9/11?

[Liberal]

Well, that's combined with the elimination of welfare and withdrawal of U.S. armed forces from more than half the nations on earth.

[Riboflavin]

Why doesn't the LP get more votes? Because it's composed of a bunch of whackos who'd rather talk about privitizing the roads than run a real election campaign. Instead of giving people who aren't already diehard libertarians something to vote for, they ramble on about the noncoercion principle and not having various government sources - as we see on this board, one reason people get scared off is that the Libertarians generally won't go into detail on how we move from the current system to what they advocate. Hell, the consequences of hardcore Libertarian views in action tend to scare even the most ardent supporters of the concept - take a look at the thread for an example of how quickly the whole non-initiation of force and absolute property rights concepts go out the door when you look at such a system in practice:Libertaria: Based on Coercion?

If you want Libertarian candidates to win elections, you pretty much need to scrap and redo the LP, because it's not equipped to convince even sympathetic people to vote for it. What they need is a party that runs on a platform of what it will try to do while in office - don't talk about privitizing the roads or other things your reps won't be able to put into action anyway, talk about issues that will actually come up before the body and how you'll vote for them. They also need to run real candidates, not just people who don't object to being placed on a ballot - if your 'candidate' won't turn up on TV to explain their position, and can't be bothered to do voter surveys, you're better off skipping that election. Then they need to shut up the nutjobs - don't let anyone speak for the party who can't make sense; all of the 'well, here's my vague and meandering philosophization of the day' types need to be told to either shut up or stop using the party name. As an aside, that really includes candidates - if your candidate can't articulate clearly what he's going to do when in office, don't run him. Finally, they need to accept responsibility and stop being such whiners - all of this 'ohh, those wascally demopublicans weally wuined us' needs to go, and a focus on 'OK, we did well here, how can we repeat that' and 'OK, we did poorly here, what can we do to fix that' needs to replace it.

Let's look at a concrete example: the Libertarian party in NC managed to put a candidate in almost every spot on the ballot in NC despite rather restrictive ballot access laws in this state. What they did not do, however, was put real candidates into most of those slots. As much as the LP complains about being left out of debates and not being treated as a serious party, maybe they should act the part overall. Sure, they got kind of shut out from the Senate coverage, but what about the lower-level elections? Several news stations asked for local-level Libertarian candidates to go on-air for a short 'here's what I stand for' segment, but were turned down. The various surveys that newspapers and interest groups send out often had a 'no response' for the LP candidate, and occasionally some odball responses (ie "Why are you the best candidate for this position?" "I am not the best candidate for this position."). Like I said, if you can't be bothered to run an actual candidate, don't be suprised if no one votes for you.

[Liberal]

So, basically, you're saying you agree with me?

[hansel]

I think that the Libertarian party in the U.S. has a chicken-and-egg problem: they're not structured, and they don't present themselves, as a serious political party because they've never won anything, and they've never won anything because they don't act like a serious political party.

An instructive example is the Reform party in Canada: for years they were the lunatic right-wing fringe. Then, in one federal election, they took something like 50 seats in a 300 seat House of Commons, and would have been the Official Opposition had the Bloq Quebecois not beat them by one. Suddenly, their more absurd candidates were an embarassment: the ones advocating bring spanking back into schools, and criminalizing homosexuality, and reinstating the draft, and such. They realized that the first thing they had to do to remain a viable party was to excise the extremists who, formerly, were just there to pad the party membership numbers.

It was interesting to see that the Libertarian candidate for governor in Wisconsin got 10% of the vote. Someday, somewhere, a Libertarian candidate is going to win a governorship, or a significant number of seats in a legislative body, and then you'll see a very fast maturing. The radical agenda will be toned down and expressed in more palatable terms (less government interference in people's lives, less foreign intervention, less corporate welfare...). The suits will look nicer, the party organization will start muzzling the cranks.

Whether or not that's a good thing for the Libertarians is a different question.

[aahala]

I share Riboflavin's views.

The "platform" of the party in its entirety, the underlining principle of no government, is bizarre to the public and will usually only attract candidates best described as nut cases.

It's really not possible to raise the quality of its candidates, because the Party concept is so implausible in practice.

[Liberal]

Huh? "The underlining [sic] principle of no government"? Can you point that out in the platform? I didn't think so. But I do agree with you that the concept is implausible for what the two major parties practice — deceit and coercion.

[aahala]

Not only does the Party promise less/no government for preceived problems, being a problem isn't necessarily a requirement for a proposal.

They want to "revise Federal and state laws" so that all candidates will appear on the ballot. ALL candidates? Maybe like each member of your college history class. Is getting on the ballot an issue?

No telling how many candidates appeared on the final New York State ballot for governor, but the cnn website reported the top eight vote getters.

The last of the eight was the Libertarian nominee, receiving 9055 votes out of over 4 million cast. His main platform seems to have been the repeal of all laws restricting the use of marijuana, which may help to explain his self reported date of birth as 1/1/2000.

Number six was from the "Marijuana Reform Party" and received about 22,000 votes. We don't really know who this individual is or how he wanted to govern the state, as he must have felt voters were not entitled to any biographical or political information, but hey, he's the nominee, why not vote for him.

I hate to stick my neck out, but just maybe the problem is not a lack of candidates with this level of popular support on the ballot but perhaps too many.

[Riboflavin]

Originally posted by Libertarian
So, basically, you're saying you agree with me?

Um... no. You mention incompetence as one of five points in an almost glossed over way, 'Image' could be part of what I was talking about but your way of phrasing it doesn't hit on the real problem. Your stance on 'ohh, people are scared because they can't steal anymore' seems pretty hypocritical - why not go to the threadLibertaria: Based on Coercion? and explain whether you agree with the bad results from Libertaria, agree that some coercion by your standards is good, or explain why I'm wrong in calling Libertaria's solution coercive? (I started that thread with you in mind, but managed to start it right before you were off-board for several days, so I presume you never saw it originally).

Lets look at your points:

Money - What would the LP spend money on - I can't see how they're going to put together decent campaign ads when they can't even use the TV appearances they're offered now. And really, complaining about 'we don't have enough money because we stick to our principles' is kind of hypocritical for libertarians; they should be out making money instead of complaining that they don't get handouts. And if the libs can't operate now because corporations don't like them and choose to bankroll someone else, what's going to check corporations from trampling all over people with that money they don't give to the libs when the free-market revolution takes over?

The image problem for the LP is not that their candidates come across as poofy intellectuals, but that their candidates are either intellectuals who'd rather argue about the eventual utopia than about practical solutions today, or uninterested and unqualified 'candidates' who are just there to run a complete slate. It's not a matter of being precieved incorrectly, it's a matter of being precieved in an unflattering but correct light. Browne, for example, made a big deal about how he'd deal with OBL by setting a $100 million bounty on his head instead of launching a military campaign - but didn't explain why a $100 million bounty would work when the current $25 million one didn't.

Incompetence is the one I hit on, and it's the broad bit that is the cause of all LP failings, not some Demopublican conspiracy. One I didn't mention before is that the LP should really make a play in local politics before going after the big boys in national elections - having a few seats on the county commissioners or city council is far more achievable

As far as Demopublicans go, making ballot access difficult didn't stop the LP from being on the ballot in NC (and various other states, I understand). Blaming Demopublicans for the LPs problems is just silly; ballot access may not be easy, but it's certainly not impossible as my ballot last time around shows. I mean, despite all of the whining about how terrible NC's ballot access laws are in various LP mailings, they were able to get more people on the ballot than they had candidates (aside from the 'we need someone to volunteer to run for these slots, you can tell it from the unwillingness of the 'candidates' to engage in even the most basic work in a campaign).

As far as the media (and debates) go, I can't really fault the media for not wasting people's time with a candidate who's got no chance to win. In the big debates, they'd rather spend time on those who stand some chance of winning the race, and when they offer airtime to the LP in lower-level elections, the LP 'candidates' can't be bothered. A bunch of LP candidates wouldn't even fill out those basic (and short, we're talking a page or two of print not a book) surveys that newspapers and various interest groups pass around - if writing a page or two on your position is too hard, it's not really the media that's denying you a voice.

I mean, come on - you've even named yourself after the philosophy/political movement yet when asked 'if we put a Libertarian government in place, what will it do about X' your response seems to universally be 'the previous governement created the problem, so it should solve it, Libertaria won't do anything about it'.

[Riboflavin]

Originally posted by aahala
The "platform" of the party in its entirety, the underlining principle of no government, is bizarre to the public and will usually only attract candidates best described as nut cases.

That's not really the LP's position, but the fact that you think it is illustrates that the LP does a horrible job communicating its position. While Lib argues for an anarcho-capitalist society (which would be 'no government'), the LP advocates keeping the US government but reducing it so that it has a defensive military, a set of laws that only includes 'prevent person A from initiating force against B', a judicial and police force to enforce those laws and settle contract disputes, and not much else. As you've demonstrated, they don't even get this much of a message out clearly (much less a 'OK, that's your goal, how are you going to vote once you're in office?' answer), in a large degree because the party leadership doesn't set rules about who can speak for the party, which leads to the anarchists saying enough that people think that's the LP's message.

They want to "revise Federal and state laws" so that all candidates will appear on the ballot. ALL candidates? Maybe like each member of your college history class. Is getting on the ballot an issue?

Like I said in my message to Lib, it's an oft-repeated complaint by the LP, but doesn't seem to be borne out by what happens in the real world. In NC, where ballot access is pretty difficult and requires some work (I saw numerous messages about it from the LP mailing lists I'm on), the Libs still managed to get people on the ballot who weren't even running a campaign, at least by the standard of 'a person running a real campaign can show up for free TV time and fill out those 1-2 page surveys that get sent out by newspapers and interest groups'.

[minty green]

Libertarian principles sometimes serve as a worthwhile touchstone for actual policy, but libertarianism itself stands no chance in any foreseeable future of becoming a real force in America. We like big government.

[Liberal]

Aahala

I presume you're retracting your lie about the LP platform, then, right?

-----

Riboflavin wrote:

While Lib argues for an anarcho-capitalist society (which would be 'no government')...

No, it wouldn't. That's a lie. What is it with authoritarians? Is it considered essential for their arguments to misrepresent and defraud?

-----

Minty

You hit the nail on the head.

[andymurph64]

Good post Riboflavin

[Riboflavin]

Originally posted by minty green
We like big government. [/b]

Well, actually, there have been a number of surveys that show that virtually everyone wants to cut down the size of the government by eliminating bloated, useless programs. The surveys also show, however, that virtually no one agrees on what constitutes a bloated, useless program, which makes cutting out all of those bloated, useless programs rather difficult in practice. After all, if one guy wants to axe most of the military but keep welfare going strong, and the other guy wants to axe welfare but keep the military going strong, the most likely compromise is to keep both, not to axe both.

And even when you get a significnat consensus that 'program X is a waste of money', the LP is not going to do much to attract those people because it doesn't run with a sensible platform of 'if elected, I will work to reduce or remove programs X, Y, and Z and to repeal laws A and B', but on a platform of 'since I believe in the noncoercion principle, if elected I will try to remove programs A-Z and repeal laws A-Z, even though there's no chance of getting the rest of the legislature to go along with me'. If LP candidates had concrete platforms, people who don't subscribe to the whole shebang could say 'hey, this guy wants to cut X, Y, and Z, and I want to cut X and Y and don't care about Z, I think I'll vote for hem' instead of the situation now where the response is more 'well, he does want to cut X and Y like me, but I don't think A or C should be cut, plus he keeps going on about privitizing the roads'.

[minty green]

So what? If you cut it in half tomorrow, you would still have a big government. That, and a substantial majority of pissed off voters wondering where their favorite programs went.

[Riboflavin]

Originally posted by Libertarian
(To aahala)I presume you're retracting your lie about the LP platform, then, right?

Of course! Anyone who is unclear about what the LP party says is a liar! They're all part of the Demopublican conspiracy to keep 'em down!

(To me) No, it wouldn't. That's a lie. What is it with authoritarians? Is it considered essential for their arguments to misrepresent and defraud?

Well, at least it's better than last time you attempted to debate with me, when you accused me of wanting to murder you (towards the bottom of the first page). What is it with Libertarian? Is it considered essential for his arguments to misrepresent and make wild accusations?

While calling me a fraudulent authoritarian who wants to murder you may get your picture in the dictionary next to 'ad homenium argument', it doesn't really inform anyone of much of anything or progress the debate at all. In the thread where you accused me of murderous intent you called for an end to the nation-state with all polcing functions to be handled by private security firms, each of which would act according to their own laws (or interpretation of the non-coercion principle, which amounts to the same thing) and none of which would claim soverignity over an area (or even pay attention to old land titles). That is most definately not government in the usual sense in which the word is used, and it's perfectly reasonable to call such a situation one with no government.

And really, why do you bother to post to threads on libertarianism when your response to people who disagree with you is to start calling them liars, authoritarians, and murderers and to neglect to address their points? It only reinforces the stereotype of Libertarians as a bunch of whacky nutjobs who would take everyone to Hell in a handbasket if they were in positions of power.

And it's especially silly to accuse other people of being theives and worse for not agreeing with your principles when even you aren't willing to accept the consequences of a fundamental libertarian princple like 'you can do what you want on your own property'.

[Riboflavin]

Originally posted by minty green
So what? If you cut it in half tomorrow, you would still have a big government. That, and a substantial majority of pissed off voters wondering where their favorite programs went.

I forgot to put the smiley in - I think those surveys make it clear that while almost no one actually says 'I think the government should be the size it is or even larger', those same people don't have a consensus on what pieces are 'right-sized' and would much rather have a government that does what they want plus a bit than one that doesn't do what they want. So, while almost no one would say 'I want big government', in practice they prefer a big government to a small one that lacks what they consider important. And like I said, the 'cut everything' tack the LP takes keeps them from cutting anything, precisely because people look at them and say 'hey! they'd cut [favorite program]'.

(I know it's practically unprecedented, but I'm actually agreeing with you).

[aahala]

I don't know what lie. Again, let me state that I view some of the Party's positions(where you can actually determine what they are proposing) one can at least make a plausible case for, but taken as a set of policies, no reasonable person would accept.

Their statewide nominees have generally been frivolous or crackpots and the .5% range of votes they often get reflect that. It's not much beyond what you would expect if we put any name at all on the ballot.

I suspect a large portion of their tiny number of votes come from simple mistake or voters thinking it would be fun to vote for someone they have no idea the identity of.

[Riboflavin]

Originally posted by aahala
I suspect a large portion of their tiny number of votes come from simple mistake or voters thinking it would be fun to vote for someone they have no idea the identity of. [/b]

I'd disagree with that - I don't think most ballots make it easier to vote for the LP than for Dems or Reps. I think the LP gets most of their votes from True Believers (I don't think anyone's asserting that they don't have a base), people who partway agree with them and don't care enough to pick between a D or R (like me in many elections), and None of The Above/protests. Also (just using the NC percentages from theN&O and sampling a few at random) the votes in my state were more like 1.5% federal, 2.5% on state, not the 'barely 1/2 percent' that comes to your mind.

Those are far from election winning numbers, though the libs did get more votes than the D-R split in a lot of races which means they concievably could be spoilers. IMO those numbers are a clear sign that the LP does have some appeal buried in the party and that they could actually do something if they'd actually become a real party. Since my preferences run closer to the libs than to either of the major parties, I'd be really happy to see them become a real force - even just making a palatable 'less government' message (instead of the 'privatize the roads nonsense) would probably net them a lot of votes from people (some of whom aren't voting now) who would use them as a NOTA vote but are scared off by just how radical they are.

[Chumpsky]

Everything stated in the OP is false.

But, as per the question of the thread: I suspect that Libertarianism will never become a political force until we see the complete breakdown of civil society. The Libertarian platform essentially abolishes the social contract. While there are still some remnants of the social contract around, the Libertarian Party will probably remain at the fringes.

One should note here that the term "libertarian" is really inappropriate to describe the Libertarian Party. For over a century libertarianism, at least outside of the U.S., has denoted a type of socialism associated with anarchism. This type of libertarianism actually does seek to put the power in the people, as opposed to the dollar. The Libertarian Party is really a party of extreme corporatism. If they were at all honest (which they aren't) they would call themselves the Corporate Party.

[Chumpsky]

I have a question for the poster named Libertarian, that I think might shed some light on this discussion. The question is this: Why shouldn't I take your property by force?

[Brave Sir Robin]

I do have to agree that the Libertarian party is shooting itself in the foot. I almost always try to vote for the Libertarian candidate, but the most recent election, there was one I couldn't bring myself to vote for. He was stark, raving mad. The party really needs to silence the wackos if they want to attract more moderate voters.

[Fenris]

Originally posted by aahala
Their statewide nominees have generally been frivolous or crackpots and the .5% range of votes they often get reflect that. It's not much beyond what you would expect if we put any name at all on the ballot. .

I can vouch for that. Colorado's LP candidate for Senate was insane. I don't mean "Insane" as in "I disagree with him", I mean "Insane" as in "frothed at the mouth".

He was running around demanding that we have lynch "street trials and summary executions" for government employees, he supported a flag-burning ban ammendment(!), and he thought that anyone who voted for concealed-carry was a "traitor".

And even after that gross violations of the rules/principles of the LP, they still only gave him a slap on the wrist in the form of a letter of censure rather than decertifying him.

The one libertarion talk show host in the city, one of the loudest, most effective pro-libertarin voices in the state urged people to not vote for this bozo.

Granted, Kooks get nominated in EVERY party, but usually the party decertifies them.

I agree with a lot of what Lib said in his post for reasons that the LP doesn't get anywhere, but I'd expand the "Incompetence" comment to "Incompetence, corrupt and grossly stupid" (for the party, not the philosophy).

Fenris

[aahala]

I though it might be interesting to look at the results for Senate and governors races last Tuesday, per the cnn website.

I only looked at races including 4 or more choices, to minimize the purely anti major party vote.

There were 15 such Senate races. The Libertarian Party did not appear in 5 states, but it must not have been that difficult to get on the ballot, the number of candidates ranged from 5 to 9 in those states. Five states the Party was third and five they were beaten by at least one other minor candidate.

There were 16 such Governors races where the Party had a candidate. Seven of these their candidate came in dead last(4 to 8 chocies), four third and the balance lower than third but not last. In Nevada their candidate was not beaten by a minor one, but by the choice "none of these listed". Mr. Thompson of Wisconsin got over 10%, but he wasn't expousing some of the more controversial Libertarian views and appears to the brother of popular former governor Tommie Thompson.

With a few exceptions, the percentage for all these races was less than 3% for the Party and a lot of the time less than 1%.

[Jonathan Chance]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Well, that's combined with the elimination of welfare and withdrawal of U.S. armed forces from more than half the nations on earth.

And this is EXACTLY why we won't ever gain any damn ground. Blanket statements like this show an astonishing politcal naivete.

I've asked this before: would you rather be right (in your eyes) or be effective? Politics is the art of compromise and nothing else. If we want to make gains we must find issues that DO resonate with the voters and establish a record of success.

But saying the above, along with other, similar statements, just serves to drive voters away.

As I said, naivete. I vote Libertarian and it pisses me off when the candidates don't even try to win.

[Netbrian]

I'd like to mention that the Libertarian party actually had a reasonably good showing in Oregon. Tom Cox, their candidate, not only got 5% of the popular vote, he was also fairly well known in Oregon. The local newspaper often included his stance in the debates that the two major candidates had, and did suprisingly well at covering him. Of course, he was also one of the more electable ones, and the two other candidates weren't spectacular.

Of course, I am unsure that them gaining ground here is a good thing.

[DrDeth]

Originally posted by Libertarian
That's entirely possible, Buck. You make a good point. Our inoffensive Noncoercion Principle actually frightens some people, who fear that they might fail if they had to live or die by their own decisions, unable to force others to carry their load.

After all, which is more appealing?

A. I'll take some of Johnny's candy and give it to you.

B. If you want candy, you'll have to get yourself by fair means.

Well, Lib- from your arguements & such it appears to me that in a "Lbertaria" we would be swapping out "coercion" by a benign & somewhat incompetant 'semi-democracy"- for "coercion" by private armies of goons hired by wealthy property owners. I'll take #1.

Or to put it in your simplistic terms above "I can do anything I want with your candy because I own property & have my own private army- and you can't do anything about it - except complain to a toothless central government about my coercion".
Since that is what your "B" really seems to translate to- I'll take A.

But if Libertarianism works in the real world- show me a current nation that is close to being Libertarian.

[ElJeffe]

I think a big reason that the LP is so slow to catch on is a serious dearth of pragmatism, both in ideology and application. I really like a lot of Libertarian ideals. I enjoy being able to vote Libertarian when I can (read: when the candidate isn't a fruitcake).

(Aside: I was reading the candidate profiles for Lieutenant Governor in California, and the Libertarian candidate was sounding pretty darn good. Then he launches into a tirade on the legalization of ferrets, and how evil government goons knocked down his door and stole his ferrets and blah blah blah. Then I noticed his occupation was something like "Ferret Activist". I read up on him, out of curiosity, and he said he believed there was a huge underground ferret coalition that was going to rise up and vote him into office. Uh huh.)

However, most Libertarian candidates that I've noticed seem to have a plan that sounds as if when elected, they're going to, starting tomorrow, legalize all drugs, eliminate the federal income tax, open our borders, privatize all schools, and so on. I'm sorry, but even if these are good ideas, these are not things you can throw out there right now. At best, these are things that would need to approached gradually over a period of many years. For one thing, few of these ideas have much public support. People need to be educated as to why these might be good ideas before they're going to jump on board the Libertarian Love Boat. Secondly, the infrastructure for these ideas just doesn't exist. People have been weaned on many of these programs and plans so long that the nation couldn't handle having all this stuff yanked out from under them immediately.

What I try to look for in candidates is basically Republicans who are practical Libertarians in disguise - people who can get in there and make the baby steps necessary to inch closer to their ideals. I think if Libertarians reorganized into something less revolutionary, they could go a long way towards gaining credibility.


Jeff

[DrDeth]

Originally posted by ElJeffe
).

(Aside: I was reading the candidate profiles for Lieutenant Governor in California, and the Libertarian candidate was sounding pretty darn good. Then he launches into a tirade on the legalization of ferrets, and how evil government goons knocked down his door and stole his ferrets and blah blah blah. Then I noticed his occupation was something like "Ferret Activist". I read up on him, out of curiosity, and he said he believed there was a huge underground ferret coalition that was going to rise up and vote him into office. Uh huh.)


Jeff

Despite my diatribe about any possible "Libertaria", I do like some of their platform planks- and I voted for this guy- partly because of the "ferret issue". They really have "gone into dudes homes & taken their ferrets". However, this should not be the biggest plank in your platform, eh?

And you dudes are correct in that the Libertarian party would do better by starting small.

[ElJeffe]

Despite my diatribe about any possible "Libertaria", I do like some of their platform planks- and I voted for this guy- partly because of the "ferret issue". They really have "gone into dudes homes & taken their ferrets". However, this should not be the biggest plank in your platform, eh?

Yeah, I had no problem with ferrets as an issue. But the fact that it was his defining issue killed any credibility with me he may have had. Like families across California are sitting around the dinner table saying, "You know what we really need to address? This darn ferret problem." The economy is struggling, we had a power "crisis", our governor was (and still is... :P) a corrupt buffoon, and the best he can do is ferrets? Hellooooo... McFly....


Jeff

[Apos]

---Why shouldn't I take your property by force?---

Same reason you shouldn't rape me. I.e. redistribute my tight ass to those who feel they don't have enough tight asses to boink.

---This darn ferret problem---

Well, it's a pretty darn good example of the mentality of most politicians today: ridiculously paternalistic, often built on the most outrageously silly arguments.

I like Steven Landsburg's comment on how New Jersey has outlawed those little clicky things on gas pumps that allow the handle to stay of its own accord. He points out that somewhere, sometime, there must actually have been a lawmaker who got together with his buddies and said "Guy, we've got to do something about those little clicky things..." The thought is almost chilling...

[Cisco]

Originally posted by Chumpsky
Everything stated in the OP is false.

Care to be more specific?

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Cisco
Care to be more specific?

Sure.

Republicans are in favor of big business, they're mostly religious, against abortion.
The Republican Party is the Business Party. On the opposite side of the aisle, you have the Democrats, who are the Big Business Party. Historically, the Democrats have been more favorable to big business. Recall the contest in 2000 to see who could kiss Jesus' ass more, and the fact that Lieberman has a personal servant to wipe his ass on Saturdays. Gore also voted against funding for abortions for poor women as a senator.

Democrats are against guns. In favor of the environment. In favor of higher taxes I think (or is that the Republicans? Or is it both?)
Which Democrats? The Democratic record on the environment is criminal. Recall also that Gore wanted to cut taxes also.

They're both against drugs.
Which drugs? They aren't against the most harmful drugs: tobacco and alcohol. Or perhaps you mean the ludicrously titled "drug war"? Yeah, they are both for that, but that has nothing to do with drug use.

They're both in favor of big government. They both want to continue making new laws instead of repealing or at least rethinking some of the ridiculous laws in effect right now.
OK, so that's true.

Now Libertarians, on the other hand, seem to be for the people. From what I can tell they believe in a constitutional government of the people, for the people, and by the people.
Completely wrong, in every respect. In Libertopia it is "one dollar one vote," as opposed to "one person one vote." Libertarians are for certain kinds of people. Rich ones. They are passionately opposed to democracy.

They believe in lower taxes. They believe in the garuntee of all civil rights. They believe in ending the ridiculous war on drugs (I don't do drugs but I'm tired of paying for other people to get in trouble for them.)
It depends on which rights you are talking about. If you are talking about basic human rights, as set forth for example, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, then no, they do not believe in human rights.

As for the drug war, that is one point I can agree with them on.

[Apos]

---In Libertopia it is "one dollar one vote," as opposed to "one person one vote." Libertarians are for certain kinds of people. Rich ones. They are passionately opposed to democracy.---

Bullcrap. The only aspect of democracy that Libertarians are opposed to is the idea that it is legitimate to rob and constrain other people just as long as it is "democratically" decided upon. If the government can't fuck around in people's lives so easily anymore, or control the market with corporate welfare and regulations, what interest will the rich, as opposed to anyone else, have in it?

---If you are talking about basic human rights, as set forth for example, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, then no, they do not believe in human rights.---

Do we relaly have to explain the concept of "positive" vs. "negative" rights?

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Apos
---In Libertopia it is "one dollar one vote," as opposed to "one person one vote." Libertarians are for certain kinds of people. Rich ones. They are passionately opposed to democracy.---

Bullcrap. The only aspect of democracy that Libertarians are opposed to is the idea that it is legitimate to rob and constrain other people just as long as it is "democratically" decided upon. If the government can't fuck around in people's lives so easily anymore, or control the market with corporate welfare and regulations, what interest will the rich, as opposed to anyone else, have in it?

Wait. You said "bullcrap" and then re-iterated what I said.

You (assuming you are a Libertarian) are opposed to democracy. That is, when it comes to economic matters, matters that relate to the most fundamental aspects of obtaining the necessities of life, then you are opposed to democracy. So, you can chose what kind of candy bar you want to buy, and you will have a wide range of choices, but when it comes to arranging an economy, nooo, can't have the ignorant rabble playing any role there.

---If you are talking about basic human rights, as set forth for example, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, then no, they do not believe in human rights.---

Do we relaly have to explain the concept of "positive" vs. "negative" rights?

As far as I have been able to ascertain, this is a semantic trick used to pretend that you favor human rights, while denying the most fundamental of them.

[Apos]

---You (assuming you are a Libertarian) are opposed to democracy.---

No. I am opposed to people and governments having the power to abuse other people, not against governments being democratically elected. Democracy is the best way to contro political power: another important way is to LIMIT political power to begin with. I want the government to be democratically controlled. I also want it to be less powerful.

---That is, when it comes to economic matters, matters that relate to the most fundamental aspects of obtaining the necessities of life, then you are opposed to democracy.---

You need to make up your mind. First you're complaining about democracy, and then about rights. Well, I've got news for you: when something is a right, that means that it can't be violated even if people "democratically" decide to violate it. What you are accusing me of is being anti-democracy just because I believe that certain things should be protected against: should be rights.

Very well: then you are anti-democracy because you'd probably complain if me and some guys formed a "government" and decided to kill you, or take your car for our use. You might whine about your "rights" but jeez man: we VOTED on it, and we even gave you a chance to vote: how can you oppose the will of our democracy?

--- So, you can chose what kind of candy bar you want to buy, and you will have a wide range of choices, but when it comes to arranging an economy, nooo, can't have the ignorant rabble playing any role there.---

"Arranging" an economy: you make it sound so pleasant! But in reality, there is no such singular thing as an economy that society even has the RIGHT to "arrange." At every level, "arranging" an economy means forcibly taking some people's property from them and putting it to your own ends.

---As far as I have been able to ascertain, this is a semantic trick used to pretend that you favor human rights, while denying the most fundamental of them.---

Well, glad to see you've thought this one through. I guess every political thinker since the idea of "rights" was first developed has been in on this "trick."

+ rights: you _deserve_ to be given this... a right to shelter, to a fly honey, to a racecar, etc.
- rights: you cannot have this done to you: you have a right not to be murdered, raped, your free speech quashed, etc.

What do you see as illegitimate about that distinction?

[SenorBeef]

Originally posted by Chumpsky

As far as I have been able to ascertain, this is a semantic trick used to pretend that you favor human rights, while denying the most fundamental of them.

What fundamental human rights do libertarians seek to deny? It would seem to me that they, by far, have the ideology most suited to protecting rights.

Unless, of course, your idea of "rights" are socialist nonsense that rely fundamentally on enslaving one portion of the population to meet the entitlements of the other. Libertarians believe (as far as I know) that slavery - even incremental slavery - is wron. And in my book, 'rights' such as "right to health care" or "right to a yacht" are fundamentally slavery.

[SenorBeef]

er, "wrong". If I'm going to be obsessive about these things, I should really proof read more thoroughly .

[hawthorne]

SenorBeefAnd in my book, 'rights' such as "right to health care" or "right to a yacht" are fundamentally slavery.

And yet you need the services of a vanity publisher?

[SenorBeef]

I'm not familiar with the term "vanity publisher".

[astorian]

Even IF the Libertarians started fielding intelligent, attractive candidates, rather than the nut jobs they usually offer, they'd be stuck with this problem:

Most people WANT "stuff" from the government. Most people GET "stuff" from the government. And most people LIKE getting "stuff" from the government.

"Stuff" covers a wide range of things, obviously. Some of them seem vital and uncontroversial to most people. Some of them may strike us as frivolous or unnecessary. Some of them may even outrage us. But people want them, and will not vote for anyone who threatens to take that "stuff" away.

A farmer receiving agricultural subsidies is NOT Likely to vote for a Congressional or Senatorial candidate who's pledging to eliminate farm subsidies!

An old lady on Social Security is going to vote early and often against any candidate who pledges to privatize Social Security!

A college student is unlikely to vote for a candidate who's pledging to cut back federal funding of higher education.

Oh sure, if you got to talk to any one of those people one-on-one and explained the Libertarian ideal in full, you might get a nod, a momentary sign of comprehension, even of agreement. But then, you'd have to explain to them in practical, immediate terms why each would be better off NOT receiving the subsidies he/she is now getting. And at that point, you're out of luck.

Moreover, As it now stands, the fight for federal pork barrel is pretty much a zero-sum game. You have 535 people in Congress, each fighting to get pork barrel for his/her state or home district. Most of them were elected precisely BECAUSE they promised to bring home federal dollars for local pet projects.

Now, even if Libertarian Candidate Joseph Schmeaux is a reasonable, intelligent, articulate guy, and even if he makes a VERY persuasive case that the USA as a whole would be better off with smaller government, most voters are likely to reason...

"Schmeaux makes sense. Government SHOULD be smaller. But as a practical matter, it's NOT going to shrink appreciably any time soon. So, what's going to happen if we elect him? HE'LL make a principled choice NOT to fight to bring pork barrel to OUR district. But the OTHER 534 guys in Congress won't be so idealistic. As a Congressman, Schmeaux won't be able to shut down a single spending program. The only thing he CAN do is make certain that our district doesn't get a cut of the spending! The other 534 people in Congress won't hesitate to grab the spending that WE idealistic idiots refuse. So, in the end, electing a lone Libertarian Congressman is both useless and self-destructive. We'd cost OURSELVES federal benefits, but wouldn't save any money at all. Our own best interests lie in electing a Congressman who'll fight tooth and nail to get OUR district a goodly share of the loot."

So, the bind the Libertarians are in is this: they CAN'T and WON'T win local Congressional elections one at a time. It makes no sense for any district to elect a Libertarian unless all the other districts are doing so.

[Netbrian]

Originally posted by SenorBeef
I'm not familiar with the term "vanity publisher".

Basically, a vantity publisher is someone you pay to publish (usually a very small quantity of) a particular book, with no restrictions on quality, and no other services (marketing, selling/shipping to book stores, etc.) They tend to be used either for people that just like seeing their name in print, family histories, or other things that very few people would want, and even fewer would like to buy.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a990101b.html Has some more information.

[Chumpsky]

Originally posted by Apos
---You (assuming you are a Libertarian) are opposed to democracy.---

No. I am opposed to people and governments having the power to abuse other people, not against governments being democratically elected. Democracy is the best way to contro political power: another important way is to LIMIT political power to begin with. I want the government to be democratically controlled. I also want it to be less powerful.

Again, you are not contradicting what I have said. You are opposed to democracy, since you want to limit democracy to certain areas. You are passionately opposed to democracy in the economic sphere.

At least be consistent. If you are going to be against democracy, then defend your anti-democratic stance. Don't pretend to be pro-democracy, and then say that you want to limit democracy.

---That is, when it comes to economic matters, matters that relate to the most fundamental aspects of obtaining the necessities of life, then you are opposed to democracy.---

You need to make up your mind. First you're complaining about democracy, and then about rights. Well, I've got news for you: when something is a right, that means that it can't be violated even if people "democratically" decide to violate it. What you are accusing me of is being anti-democracy just because I believe that certain things should be protected against: should be rights.

I can't make sense of that last sentence. Perhaps you would like to clarify. But, I see no contradiction between rights and democracy.

In fact, rights only exist to the extent that they are a part of the social contract. Neither states nor laws grant rights, the role of the state should be to defend rights that are a part of the social contract. But, rights only become a part of the social contract after years of struggle, they are never granted as a gift. They must be won and defended by popular action. This is true with every right we enjoy. To take one example, the right to free speech has not existed in the U.S. until very recently, despite the right to speek freely technically being part of our system of laws. Still, people were sent to prison for saying the wrong things all the time, and this was upheld by the Supreme Court until the 1950's. It was only popular action and struggle that won the right to free speech. It had to be won against the powerful and the state, who sought to destroy it, and still do.

Very well: then you are anti-democracy because you'd probably complain if me and some guys formed a "government" and decided to kill you, or take your car for our use. You might whine about your "rights" but jeez man: we VOTED on it, and we even gave you a chance to vote: how can you oppose the will of our democracy?

If that is your conception of democracy, then I can understand why you are so passionately opposed to it. In this regard, you share the views of the intellectual culture in general in the U.S., which has always been passionately opposed to democracy. However, your scenario suffers from very serious flaws, not the least of which is that you and your friends do not constitute a legitimate government.

--- So, you can chose what kind of candy bar you want to buy, and you will have a wide range of choices, but when it comes to arranging an economy, nooo, can't have the ignorant rabble playing any role there.---

"Arranging" an economy: you make it sound so pleasant! But in reality, there is no such singular thing as an economy that society even has the RIGHT to "arrange." At every level, "arranging" an economy means forcibly taking some people's property from them and putting it to your own ends.

Why should society not have the right to arrange its economy!!?? Why should we not have the right to decide how we will arrange production and consumption?

Perhaps you should read some writings of the greatest American philosopher, Thomas Dewey. Dewey argued that it is ridiculous to even talk about democracy unless there is democratic control of all aspects of public life, including economic matters. The rather pernicious technocracy that has taken power in the west in the last century has been a triumph over democracy, as it has taken the most fundamental decisions over how we, as a society, arrange our economy, out of the hands of the people, and placed them in the hands of a mostly invisible corporate ruling class.

---As far as I have been able to ascertain, this is a semantic trick used to pretend that you favor human rights, while denying the most fundamental of them.---

Well, glad to see you've thought this one through. I guess every political thinker since the idea of "rights" was first developed has been in on this "trick."

+ rights: you _deserve_ to be given this... a right to shelter, to a fly honey, to a racecar, etc.
- rights: you cannot have this done to you: you have a right not to be murdered, raped, your free speech quashed, etc.

What do you see as illegitimate about that distinction?

With only "negative" rights you do not have the most basic right of all, the right to live. In Libertopia, there is no right to live, only the right to try and get what you can on the market.

The distinction between "negative" and "positive" rights is one that seeks to separate the idea of rights from the very thing that wins and protects rights, namely the social contract. By claiming that only negative rights are legitimate, you eliminate any obligation of Man toward his neighbor, placing each person on an island, divorced of the society he lives in. But, this simply does away with all rights, since if there is no social contract then there will very quickly be no rights at all, and simply a social darwinist nightmare of "every man for himself." It is not the state which creates or protects rights, but people working together, who press for their rights cooperatively. Only in a society with a residue of solidarity, and a culture of mutual aid and support do rights exist.

As Aristotle pointed out, "Man is a social animal." We exist in a social mileau, and both shape and are shaped by this social setting. Freedom exists only to the extent that your neighbors respect your individuality and will fight for your rights.

Humanity took a great step forward with the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. For the first time, the recognition that all people are entitled to certain basic rights was made the highest law of the land, including "negative" rights like the right to live and the right to free speech, and "positive" rights like the right to a "decent standard of living." Despite the rather shameful record of the signatories of the declaration in upholding these rights, the recognition of them as rights was a step forward.