So when is the "Libertarian year"

[thomez]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Why a new name? Just run as an independent who has libertarian principles...you don't even need to give them a label. Just talk about the issues consistent with a libertarian philosophy. It doesn't make sense to run as a "libertarian" and then claim the Libertarian Party doesn't represent you. If you have a label after your name in an election, it refers to your political party, and the only political party with the word "libertarian" in it is the Libertarian Party. And if you insist on a label, just run as a reform Republican who wants to return to real conservative principles, because reasonable libertarians are really just old school Republicans, right?

independant can mean all sorts of things, I just think it would be better if little l libertarians had some kind of party name that they could be described as

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by thomez

greed is natural, corruption is criminal

I don't know how else to answer that

greed is a sin,,,

[thomez]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

greed is a sin,,,

if you'd like to call it a natural sin, be my guest

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by thomez

independant can mean all sorts of things, I just think it would be better if little l libertarians had some kind of party name that they could be described as

There already is a label. They're called Republicans. Yeah, I know not every Republican is a libertarian, but not every Democrat is a socialist either. The point is that since when does every little subset of a political party get its own label? And as a practical matter, wouldn't libertarians get more accomplished if they just invaded the Republican party anyway?

[KatKanPlay]

Originally Posted by thomez

if you'd like to call it a natural sin, be my guest

So libertarians see no reason to check greed because its natural?

[thomez]

Republicans are not libertarians. I am far from a Republican.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

So libertarians see no reason to check greed because its natural?

I certainly don't plan on "checking" greed because it is a sin

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by thomez

Republicans are not libertarians. I am far from a Republican.

I don't get it. I can understand how lp.org libertarians are far from Republicans, but you call them extremists. Therefore, I'm assuming you're basically a small-government conservative in the true sense of the word. Isn't a watered down Libertarian just a small-government Republican, of the type Republicans presently lamenting they've lost touch with?

[thomez]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

I don't get it. I can understand how lp.org libertarians are far from Republicans, but you call them extremists. Therefore, I'm assuming you're basically a small-government conservative in the true sense of the word. Isn't a watered down Libertarian just an old school Republican, i.e., a conservative, of the type they're presently lamenting they've lost touch with?

somewhat, but basically a libertarian is a classical liberal

Republicans have abandoned that by such a great measure, that I don't think their name could ever recover to bring it back to a libertarian message

they need a new name, a new start

[motivez]

Originally Posted by thomez

Every founder was a libertarian. MOST libertarian "ideals" would work fine today, if not to "libertarian perfection", they would benefit from a much more libertarian viewpoint. No "perfect world" is required for libertarian ideals to function effectively. That's simply hogwash, no matter how many times you'd like to say it.

I'm not talking about basic stuff like fiscal responsibility and smaller government, I'm talking about the idea that the free market is going to take care of everything and it'll all be fine and dandy and the people will be better for it.

The free market is great for many things, but stuff like roads, police, firemen, protection of the environment [ especially from companies ], oversight of drugs, etc.. should not be left to a private organization with a profit motive. When it comes to stuff that's broader than buyers and sellers and whatnot, it needs to be supplemented with something.

It doesn't make any sense from a public safety standpoint. The government isn't perfect, but in the general sense, I'd trust an elected official before I trust someone with a lot of money and shares in a company.

You can't rely on companies the same way you can't rely on the government, corruption, inefficiency will exist in both, but at least there's an election every 2 years that I have a say in.. unless I marry Bill Gates' daughter, I can't touch someone like Ken Lay because I can't buy enough shares to have enough of a say.

So I could start some organization to buy enough shares to have a say, eh? Yeah, that'd be great if people cared enough to do something about it.. but they don't.

All "pure" systems are doomed to fail because they require unrealistic conditions to exist in order to succeed. Ruthless capitalism is not so high and mighty that it'd wind up better than what communism did.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by KatKanPlay

So libertarians see no reason to check greed because its natural?

Greed is natural, and that very innate desire for self allows for predictions for masses of people. Not that the selfless people don't get factored in, they do, but as a base case, you say that people are naturally greedy. This allows you to come to the conclusion that if you distribute wealth, you take away the reason naturally successful people push for success: money. ie. distributing wealth causes a slowing of the economy because people who WOULD be striving for success and driving the economy with innovation or whatever else just do what they have to in order to maximize money and minimize time spent making that money.

Communism exemplifies this pretty well. Of course, authoritarian practices can force the citizens into submission, but no one wants to live like that. And just because China has been able to hold on to that style of gov't for so long certainly doesn't make it right. Far more times than not, the people rebel against those gov'ts.

But I don't think you're promoting communism... however, The Road to Serfdom really does explain well how socialist tendancies are a very slippery slope with the ultimate end being authoritarianism.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by motivez

I'm not talking about basic stuff like fiscal responsibility and smaller government, I'm talking about the idea that the free market is going to take care of everything and it'll all be fine and dandy and the people will be better for it.

The free market is great for many things, but stuff like roads, police, firemen, protection of the environment [ especially from companies ], oversight of drugs, etc.. should not be left to a private organization with a profit motive. When it comes to stuff that's broader than buyers and sellers and whatnot, it needs to be supplemented with something.

It doesn't make any sense from a public safety standpoint. The government isn't perfect, but in the general sense, I'd trust an elected official before I trust someone with a lot of money and shares in a company.

You can't rely on companies the same way you can't rely on the government, corruption, inefficiency will exist in both, but at least there's an election every 2 years that I have a say in.. unless I marry Bill Gates' daughter, I can't touch someone like Ken Lay because I can't buy enough shares to have enough of a say.

So I could start some organization to buy enough shares to have a say, eh? Yeah, that'd be great if people cared enough to do something about it.. but they don't.

All "pure" systems are doomed to fail because they require unrealistic conditions to exist in order to succeed. Ruthless capitalism is not so high and mighty that it'd wind up better than what communism did.

I still don't know why you insist on using anarcho-capitalism as your straw man

[Ardentfrost]

To the OP:

You need to stop calling out Libertarians in this way (eg. "if libertarianism is so great, how come YOU don't run congress like my party")... do you do it because they're the largest third party or what? I don't see you doing this shit to the Green Party or the Communist Party or any of the other 1932013590810491 third parties.

Largest 3rd party != political power. No one thinks libertarians are where they need to be (even ideologically officially). Libertarianism is growing in popularity, despite all the socialists getting voted in (which you pointed out). I'm not going to say that one day libertarianism is going to be a political contender because who knows what will happen, but your berrating doesn't make me like my ideals any less.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I still don't know why you insist on using anarcho-capitalism as your straw man

It's not a straw man at all.

I'm not using anarcho-capitalism, I'm using the Libertarian ideals that are thrown out there, not only by people on this board, but from what I've seen in various news stories and on their website.

True libertarianism must be supplemented with something else in order to ever have a chance at succeeding, that's just the truth. The same goes for *every other system* in the world. Show me one country in the world who's government adheres to a strict political/economical philosophy and doesn't supplement it with anything else that has a high quality of life for its people

As far as 'anarcho capitalism', it'll never work. I believe one example was some country in Africa where they had the warlords private army running around fucking everyone up.. no one wants to live in that.

[Ardentfrost]

I've never heard a libertarian promote privitized police or military or some of the other things you mentioned (unless they're really an anarcho-capitalist)

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

To the OP:

You need to stop calling out Libertarians in this way (eg. "if libertarianism is so great, how come YOU don't run congress like my party")... do you do it because they're the largest third party or what? I don't see you doing this shit to the Green Party or the Communist Party or any of the other 1932013590810491 third parties.

Largest 3rd party != political power. No one thinks libertarians are where they need to be (even ideologically officially). Libertarianism is growing in popularity, despite all the socialists getting voted in (which you pointed out). I'm not going to say that one day libertarianism is going to be a political contender because who knows what will happen, but your berrating doesn't make me like my ideals any less.

It's one thing to be like "oh you don't get half the seats in the Senate" thats not productive

But it's pretty interesting that all libertarians couldn't find one libertarian better than republicans and democrats, and help him win like even a state senator in some state like Idaho where airwave time is cheap and it would only take a small amount to get a libertarian into even a state-wide office...but personally I think they should target JUST ONE congressional seat and take it, thats a start

that they can't do that one simple thing...again I don't know how you call libertarians a political movement, its more like a philosophy, which makes me think, maybe we could have a philosophical forum where theocons, libertarians, marxists, constitutional party members, transcental meditation party, etc where people trying to make a philosophical point, rather than actually accomplish anything politically, can discuss their views

This forum would be restricted to people who are actually involved in a political movement...just a thought

[Ardentfrost]

4 days with the majority and you're already calling to squeeze out the voice of 3rd parties?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

4 days with the majority and you're already calling to squeeze out the voice of 3rd parties?

I just thought it's going to be quite annoying to be talking to 6Speed about the conservative viewpoint on a new situation with say how conservatives would be thinking about medicaid reform, and do I really have to scroll down through how the transcentalist thinks we should medidate on the problem, the marxist thinks that reform won't work until the state runs every program and the people rise up, the constitutionalists believe we need to return to our biblical roots on the matter, and then the libertarians come in talking about how the free market would solve the problem

I mean, do I really have to sit through and read and respond to those dozens of posts from all walks of life...wouldn't it be better if we just discussed the pros and cons of the argument for acceptance from the Democrats and the argument for rejection from the Republicans

[lew]

Originally Posted by motivez

It's not a straw man at all.

I'm not using anarcho-capitalism, I'm using the Libertarian ideals that are thrown out there, not only by people on this board, but from what I've seen in various news stories and on their website.

True libertarianism must be supplemented with something else in order to ever have a chance at succeeding, that's just the truth. The same goes for *every other system* in the world. Show me one country in the world who's government adheres to a strict political/economical philosophy and doesn't supplement it with anything else that has a high quality of life for its people

As far as 'anarcho capitalism', it'll never work. I believe one example was some country in Africa where they had the warlords private army running around fucking everyone up.. no one wants to live in that.

Somalia was about the closest thing to anarcho-capitalism that was observable today, and even it was far from it. But if you looked at it from the time the government collapsed till now, it was leaps and bounds ahead of other African countries in education, security, technology, etc all because of their free market. It actually was quite a success story.

The problem with Somalia, and what makes it not anarcho-capitalist, is that it had MUCH involvement from many governments, including our own. But again, if you look at it closely, you will see that the country was racing ahead of it's neighbors precisely because of it's completely free market.