• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What does Libertarian Party need to happen for them to move forward...

What does Libertarian Party need to happen for them to move forward..

  • Develop a base? (i.e.: local, state, Congress, etc.)

    Votes: 12 48.0%

  • Elect a President without a base?

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Be included in Presidential debates?

    Votes: 10 40.0%

  • Carry 10%+ of the Presidental popular vote?

    Votes: 4 16.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 14 56.0%
  • Total voters
    25
  • Poll closed .
lizzie said:
Get rid of lobbying, special interest groups, and subsidization of industries/business.
Click to expand...

Companies are citizens. They have the same right as you to petition the government and buy political ads. Seems that most of the mainstream libertarians support this principle.
 
RadicalModerate said:
Cop out. You know that never works. Comcast sucks, everyone in CO hates them and yet they're the number 1 cable provider in the state. The entire US of A hates BP, guess who's still here? Huge businesses don't fail because people don't like them or are opposed to what they're doing. They fail because they aren't making enough profit or the government shuts them down.

This is a frustrating sticking point to me with mainstream libertarians; the insistence on easy explanations for complex things.
Click to expand...

It's not a cop out. If there is no demand for their product, they will not survive, unless they are getting subsidized from somewhere.
 
Nick2253 said:
This is blatant misstatement of Libertarianism. You are assuming that government can do no harm, which is false. Libertarianism is about improving the nation, because they are about doing away with the harmful government.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You want to be elected to government because you don't believe in government. Why should the American people elect you to anything?
 
VanceMack said:
Of course you thought that. Luckily there are SOME reasonable, intelligent people...even liberals...who are smart enough to see the federal government, the dems and the republicans for the dismal failures that they are. Unfortunately, there are far too many people like you on both the left and right looking for bigger shovels with which to bury your grandchildren.
Click to expand...

Wow! Hyperbole much?
 
lizzie said:
It's not a cop out. If there is no demand for their product, they will not survive, unless they are getting subsidized from somewhere.
Click to expand...

You do realize large companies diversify? They have money coming from other companies they own. I'm saying it would be impossible to shrink demand to bankrupt a corporation doing things that are harmful. Do you really think the other companies, who buy their necessary products from that corporation, would go along with the boycott at the expense of their own profitability?

You're living in a dream world. Just because something is theoretically possible doesn't make it possible in the real world, Joise.
 
lizzie said:
It's not a cop out. If there is no demand for their product, they will not survive, unless they are getting subsidized from somewhere.
Click to expand...

Or that they have a monopoly because there is no government regulation to prevent it.

BTW, how's that small government thing working out for the people of Somalia?
 
Last edited:
lizzie said:
It's not a cop out. If there is no demand for their product, they will not survive, unless they are getting subsidized from somewhere.
Click to expand...
It's a great paper theory, but real life doesn't always work that way.

Under a true free market, monopolies would eventually form in many major industries. If not nationally, at least regionally. If you live in the upper midwest, and Oil Company A comes in and buys all of the gas stations stations one at a time, eventually people are left with no choice, yet they still have to buy gas, even if nobody likes Oil Company A.

At that point saying the market will decide is nothing more than a hollow talking point. It means nothing. Opening a gas station or forming an oil company is so cost-prohibitive that it is a moronic suggestion for the average person.
 
RadicalModerate said:
You do realize large companies diversify? They have money coming from other companies they own. I'm saying it would be impossible to shrink demand to bankrupt a corporation doing things that are harmful. Do you really think the other companies, who buy their necessary products from that corporation, would go along with the boycott at the expense of their own profitability?

You're living in a dream world. Just because something is theoretically possible doesn't make it possible in the real world, Joise.
Click to expand...

I agree insofar as the ideals of a perfect free market are unrealistic. For example, there will always be an information asymmetry. And power structures, due to people depending on certain goods for mere survival, make the idealistic libertarian approach unrealistic too. (I.e. you can't expect a bunch of starving people to boycott a bread selling company because of its bad practizes.)

Free markets shift the power to those enjoying the benefit of possession. The "have-nots" are underrepresented in such a system. They have "nothing to lose except their chains". And sooner or later, they'll realize that.

I don't say that because I agree with Marxism. I just think it's realistic.
 
Wiggen said:
Exactly. You want to be elected to government because you don't believe in government. Why should the American people elect you to anything?
Click to expand...

Not all government is bad. Libertarianism depends on government to help secure rights and liberties. Like all political parties, there are certain functions that are determined to be beneficial, and those that aren't. The Libertarian view favors less government.
 
German guy said:
I agree insofar as the ideals of a perfect free market are unrealistic. For example, there will always be an information asymmetry. And power structures, due to people depending on certain goods for mere survival, make the idealistic libertarian approach unrealistic too. (I.e. you can't expect a bunch of starving people to boycott a bread selling company because of its bad practizes.)

Free markets shift the power to those enjoying the benefit of possession. The "have-nots" are underrepresented in such a system. They have "nothing to lose except their chains". And sooner or later, they'll realize that.

I don't say that because I agree with Marxism. I just think it's realistic.
Click to expand...

In my view, at their best, markets represent a truly level playing field. Everyone's money is green, whether your getting it or taking it. The marketplace is an effective self-regulating system that is driven to the mathematical equilibrium. Caveats to this; the more constants, the better it works. The larger and more complex it becomes, the equilibrium (ie, the most efficient allocation of resources) becomes hard to find because of the constant movement from other factors. So by extension, the smaller the market, the freer it should be. Also, markets can and do fail in numerous situations. Pollution for one, the tragedy of the commons. Market failures often do require some government intervention, but that fact does not prerequisite a need for industry killing environmental laws. Using specific economic models and knowledge, you would probably conclude that attaching a cost to pollution is market based way to solve it (a market-based solution).

A 21st century free-market economy requires effective and competent government. That's a fact that the libertarian movement better come to grips with if they want a popsicle's chance of being a legit political voice in America. Libertarians should be the voice of reason, wanting hard data and numbers from economists as to the truly best way to be a free-market economy with a role in future. They seem to be getting in their own way in some respects.
 
Last edited:
radcen said:
It's a great paper theory, but real life doesn't always work that way.

Under a true free market, monopolies would eventually form in many major industries. If not nationally, at least regionally. If you live in the upper midwest, and Oil Company A comes in and buys all of the gas stations stations one at a time, eventually people are left with no choice, yet they still have to buy gas, even if nobody likes Oil Company A.

At that point saying the market will decide is nothing more than a hollow talking point. It means nothing. Opening a gas station or forming an oil company is so cost-prohibitive that it is a moronic suggestion for the average person.
Click to expand...

Oil is a bad example. Oil is and more importantly has been assisted by the government in many ways for a long time and would of never gotten the power structure it has without it.
 
lizzie said:
That would be nice, but unfortunately, there's a mindset in this country that there are only two choices. All or nothing. Black or white. You're either for us, or against us. Very few people are willing to live and let live. In this country, politics has become a religion of sorts.
Click to expand...
Yes, and with the great majority in this country not really wanting to practice either religion but compelled to "believe" one way or the other or go to political-insignificance hell.
 
Henrin said:
Oil is a bad example. Oil is and more importantly has been assisted by the government in many ways for a long time and would of never gotten the power structure it has without it.
Click to expand...

Well, it's a good example of the restrictive cost argument.

You sure that oil wouldn't be the dominant fuel if not for government-funded monopolization? I can't really buy that...
 
VanceMack said:
Drop ANY mention of legalizing drugs. Focus on states rights, roles, and responsibilities. Promote return to constitutional form of government. Adopt intelligent and reasonable foreign policy stands. Oh...and it would help to CONTINUALLY point out the 16 trillion dollar debt and annual deficits that the two primary parties have saddled the country with and their completely inept manner.
Click to expand...

Legalizing drugs is the most realistic part of their platform. And it will also get them the youth vote.
 
RadicalModerate said:
Well, it's a good example of the restrictive cost argument.

You sure that oil wouldn't be the dominant fuel if not for government-funded monopolization? I can't really buy that...
Click to expand...

Lets say the government never assisted in the parts around it, cars(subsidies dating back to the Model T) never paved roads,never assisted in the creation of oil based products, and never assisted many of the large oil companies to get off the ground. What do you think would of happened? Most likely it would still occur that oil would be mined but the usefulness of it would of never gotten to the same output and the demand would of never taken hold at anywhere near the same level. I don't know if it would still be monopoly but I do know the pull on people would be far less important than it is.
 
Last edited:
samsmart said:
Legalizing drugs is the most realistic part of their platform. And it will also get them the youth vote.
Click to expand...

If that's the most realistic, they're even more pathetic than I thought.
 
Cephus said:
If that's the most realistic, they're even more pathetic than I thought.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it probably is the most realistic, because most people can't imagine living without the heavy hand of government shoving them along, and promising to take care of them in their infirmity. We've essentially replaced the family with Uncle Sam.
 
radcen said:
What does Libertarian Party (party, not individuals) need to happen for them to move forward in their agenda and helping the country?
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what happens.

From what I'm learning from the other libertarian-natured thread currently in play, there simply aren't enough people in America that can identify with the libertarian ideology for there to ever be enough Libertarian Party members to have a sufficiently powerful effect.

This is especially true gender-wise, as libertarianism does appear to show a significant gender preference by males and rejection by females. Libertarianism's social freedom emphasis is opposed by conservative women, and libertarianism's economic freedom is opposed by liberal women. Considering that there are still a significant number of men who are either socially and economically liberal or socially and economically conservative, they're not likely to switch over to libertarianism.

And if the Libertarian party made all the platform changes suggested by a number of posters in this thread, it would simply cease to be the "Libertarian" Party.

As a power player, I really think the Libertarian Party won't get any stronger.

That probably accounts for why so many libertarians glommbed on to the right of the Republican conservative wing in 2010, their success accounted for partly because of the Republican name that drew those Republicans who were not philosophical libertarians into voting for them and partly because of the Dems' inability to solve the economic crisis.

Though most Americans don't calibrate politically at either wing, the great majority residing at or near the center of the political spectrum, most of them are still registered Dem or Repub where at least they don't experiencing being politically insignificant, and they aren't likely to switch over to a party that's not likely to ever be a player unless they have a sudden attack of either uncontrolled idealism or party self-hatred (the Perot's in 1992 and the Greens in 2000).

In addition, libertarianism's nature, of being left-wing on social issues and right-wing on economic issues, still makes it wingish, and the great majority who are at or near the center of the political spectrum are there because they simply are't drawn to wing philosophy.

I think the Libertarian Party is done.

Only a new centrist party has any chance of taking the great majority at the center and "splitting the uprights", so to speak, in a divide and conquering of the liberal Dems and conservative Repubs. If you are more interested in power than ideology, that's the route to take.
 
Unfortunately, it probably is the most realistic, because most people can't imagine living without the heavy hand of government shoving them along, and promising to take care of them in their infirmity. We've essentially replaced the family with Uncle Sam.
Click to expand...

Costs across the board have skyrocketed while real wages have remained stagnant for the past 40 years. The increasing utilization of social welfare programs is an effect of this, not a cause. To call for anything less than a complete restructuring of these programs to respond to this problem and deal with the growing number of people that require these programs is absurd.
 
RadicalModerate said:
Well, by that argument; how's that big government thing working out for the people of Sierra Leone?

Apples to oranges, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

What are the problems attributable to the size of the government in Sierra Leone?
 
Catawba said:
What are the problems attributable to the size of the government in Sierra Leone?
Click to expand...

Well, it's been a dictatorship that uses slave labor. That's a pretty intrusive state.

Somalia is not equatable to libertarian small government as Sierra Leone is not equatable to a "big government" scenario.

I'm trying to say your comparison wasn't accurate.
 
The only way the libertarian party will become any kind of force in US policy is if they change their platform and how they present themselves.

The Libertarian platform is not something that people are going to adopt in numbers nearly as highly as democratic or republican platforms. It goes too far in too many places to be popular. Without popular support, the Libertarian party is dead in the water. The other thing it does is cross common ideological lines. Pro-abortion rights and pro-laissez-faire economics means there is something for every one to hate.

Presentation is probably the biggest thing however. Lets look at Ron Paul, the most recognizable person associated with the Libertarians. What are the two biggest issues associated with him? Auditing the fed and a gold type standard for currency. Almost no one cares about those issues. Paul starts droning on about the usual crap he talks about and people tune out in droves. If people do not think the LP cares about the same things they do, they are not going to support it.

Without those fundamental changes, which would admittedly make it not the LP, then they are never going to be anything more than a fringe group. And that is not the fault of the two big parties, it is not the fault of the media, it is not because people are stupid, it is because the LP simply does not represent the values and issues of many people. It is their own fault.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom