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.
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!
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’.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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%.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
—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…
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.
—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?