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

RadicalModerate said:

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

Click to expand...

That is attributable to the type of government, not the size of the government. The US government has dwarfed the size of the government in Sierra Leone for most of our history, yet do not have a dictatorship that uses slave labor.

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

Click to expand...

How do you figure that?

Somalia has most of what Libertarians say they want - small government, lax regulation, freedom of gun ownership, and very low tax rates.

RadicalModerate said:

You can't overthrow a private organization. Government are usually responsible to the people, and if they mess up, they go down. Private corporations are only responsible to their shareholders. Try overthrowing a corporation sometime. Tell me how many seconds before the police come and stop you?

Click to expand...

Try overthrowing a country sometime. Tell me how many seconds before the police come and stop you?

Catawba said:

That is attributable to the type of government, not the size of the government. The US government has dwarfed the size of the government in Sierra Leone for most of our history, yet do not have a dictatorship that uses slave labor.



How do you figure that?

Somalia has most of what Libertarians say they want - small government, lax regulation, freedom of gun ownership, and very low tax rates.

Click to expand...

Somalia is a third-world nation that was ruled by a Stalinist dictatorship until twenty years ago. An anarchic United States or Holland or Japan would probably not be a replicate of conditions in anarchic Somalia, for hopefully obvious reasons.

Keep in mind the word "Libertarian" has been co-oped by the far right.

Does anyone even know what it means anymore?

hazlnut said:

Keep in mind the word "Libertarian" has been co-oped by the far right.

Does anyone even know what it means anymore?

Click to expand...

If you mean what I think you mean by "far right", I would argue that libertarianism (as I understand it) was never co-opted in the first place because it's inherently a "far-right" ideology.

But then, I know many left-libertarians I respect would disagree with me.

Black_Zawisza said:

Somalia is a third-world nation that was ruled by a Stalinist dictatorship until twenty years ago.

Click to expand...

But they have no central government now, little regulation, freedom of gun ownership, very low tax rates, and no health insurance mandate.


What country do you prefer that has a more Libertarian-like government than Somalia?

Catawba said:

But they have no central government now, little regulation, freedom of gun ownership, very low tax rates, and no health insurance mandate.


What country do you prefer that has a more Libertarian-like government than Somalia?

Click to expand...

My point is that anarchic Somalia would be a very different place if not for Italian and Russian imperialism, and it's sub-Saharan location. Somalia owes its poor living conditions to those things more than anything else, IMO.

Catawba said:

But they have no central government now, little regulation, freedom of gun ownership, very low tax rates, and no health insurance mandate.


What country do you prefer that has a more Libertarian-like government than Somalia?

Click to expand...

That's anarchy, not libertarianism. What people tend to forget is that most libertarians are for a very strong judicial system. Besides, with something like somalia, you can't polish a turd. I challenge you to bring any system to that hell hole and show me your progress.

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...

Other: Rebuild their image, and distance themselves as far away from the extremists as possible.

Wiggen said:

But your zany political philosophy is so eminently insultable, how can we be blamed?

Click to expand...

That's definitely true.
If your among the most partisan individuals, where you either, don't have the brain power to understand or you purposefully distort it for your own political gain.

Catawba said:

But they have no central government now, little regulation, freedom of gun ownership, very low tax rates, and no health insurance mandate.


What country do you prefer that has a more Libertarian-like government than Somalia?

Click to expand...

Hong Kong.

Somalia is not "libertarian like."
It's what ignorant people say, when they try to mock and ridicule my belief system.

Redress said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree to an extent.
The childish libertarians, tard it up for the rest of us.
But the same can be said for Conservatives and Liberals.

And they still get elected.

Redress said:

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.

Click to expand...

True enough.
But not all libertarians believe in total unregulated markets, which is a common but fallacious criticism.

Redress said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree with this too.
Ron Paul needs to let go of the gold crap and beating up on the fed.
The fed has probably been the one institution that has kept the idiot politicians from royally screwing everything up.

Then again, when anyone goes into deep policy analysis, people tune out.
That's why idiotic campaign slogans and promises are bandied about.

Redress said:

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.

Click to expand...

I disagree with this part for 2 reasons.

The two parties control the most visual political race, Presidential.
They control access to the debates, which can legitimize a candidate.

People are rationally ignorant.
Voters don't really research issues.
This is commonly known, which is were "the people are stupid" comes from.

Harry Guerrilla said:

I agree to an extent.
The childish libertarians, tard it up for the rest of us.
But the same can be said for Conservatives and Liberals.

And they still get elected.

Click to expand...

They already have a base, and platforms that more readily fit into most people's idiologies. SOmething the LP lacks.

True enough.
But not all libertarians believe in total unregulated markets, which is a common but fallacious criticism.

Click to expand...

I maybe should have been a bit more clear. I was not talking total unregulated markets, but significantly mroe unregulated, which is part of the LP platform.

I disagree with this part for 2 reasons.

The two parties control the most visual political race, Presidential.
They control access to the debates, which can legitimize a candidate.

People are rationally ignorant.
Voters don't really research issues.
This is commonly known, which is were "the people are stupid" comes from.

Click to expand...

Which is still blaming others for "faults" in the LP. The problem is not the two parties. If a third party can come along with a platform that will get significant votes, and messengers who can interest people, the potential is there. Remember a guy names Ross Perot? If the LP wants more media coverage, it needs to attract people. If the LP wants to be credible in big elections, it needs to attract people. If the LP wants to move forward, they need to attract people. It is not the media and the two parties that is the reason why LP membership is relatively tiny. If the LP wants to move forward, the first thing it needs to do is stop blaming every one else and stop playing the victim.

Redress said:

They already have a base, and platforms that more readily fit into most people's idiologies. SOmething the LP lacks.

Click to expand...

LP has a base, it's just not big.
Still though, the idiots in all camps, don't make the camps defunct by default.

Redress said:

I maybe should have been a bit more clear. I was not talking total unregulated markets, but significantly mroe unregulated, which is part of the LP platform.

Click to expand...

"Unregulated" is non specific.
A hell of a lot of libertarians are policy wonks, where they want regulations, that take account of the unforeseen consequences.
Something that isn't well understood.

To always characterize it as "unregulated" isn't right.

Redress said:

Which is still blaming others for "faults" in the LP. The problem is not the two parties. If a third party can come along with a platform that will get significant votes, and messengers who can interest people, the potential is there. Remember a guy names Ross Perot? If the LP wants more media coverage, it needs to attract people. If the LP wants to be credible in big elections, it needs to attract people. If the LP wants to move forward, they need to attract people. It is not the media and the two parties that is the reason why LP membership is relatively tiny. If the LP wants to move forward, the first thing it needs to do is stop blaming every one else and stop playing the victim.

Click to expand...

Sometimes, someone else is at fault.
I've already agreed that the LP had it's own short comings.

Do you even know the story of Ross Perot and the issue behind the debates.
He won 18% of the popular vote, during his first race and was allowed to debate.

The second time, they wouldn't allow him to debate.
Who was at fault, when he had a significant amount of American support, yet wasn't allowed to debate?
Was he just a phony victim?

Harry Guerrilla said:

LP has a base, it's just not big.
Still though, the idiots in all camps, don't make the camps defunct by default.

Click to expand...

LP has a base about 2 % the size of eitehr of the big two parties. That is not significant.

"Unregulated" is non specific.
A hell of a lot of libertarians are policy wonks, where they want regulations, that take account of the unforeseen consequences.
Something that isn't well understood.

To always characterize it as "unregulated" isn't right.

Click to expand...

Since we are going to play these little semantic games, let's just go with "less regulated". Those who tend to favor fewer regulations also as a general rule tend to be those more conservative on social issues. See the problem now?

And the LP party has as many people who just want to be able to get high legally as they have "policy wonks". In fact, every party has policy wonks. It's little arrogant bits like that comment that make peopel not like the LP.

Sometimes, someone else is at fault.
I've already agreed that the LP had it's own short comings.

Do you even know the story of Ross Perot and the issue behind the debates.
He won 18% of the popular vote, during his first race and was allowed to debate.

The second time, they wouldn't allow him to debate.
Who was at fault, when he had a significant amount of American support, yet wasn't allowed to debate?
Was he just a phony victim?

Click to expand...

And you miss the point. If you keep playing the victim, you will never, ever, have significant support. if you work towards appealing to people and getting a message out that people are interested in hearing, then you have a chance. Of course to do that you have to change what the LP is, or you need people to change their beliefs significantly(which ain't happening fast, but is happening).

Redress said:

LP has a base about 2 % the size of eitehr of the big two parties. That is not significant.

Click to expand...

That does not legitimize exclusion from the political process.
At least in terms of access to debates.

Redress said:

Since we are going to play these little semantic games, let's just go with "less regulated". Those who tend to favor fewer regulations also as a general rule tend to be those more conservative on social issues. See the problem now?

And the LP party has as many people who just want to be able to get high legally as they have "policy wonks". In fact, every party has policy wonks. It's little arrogant bits like that comment that make peopel not like the LP.

Click to expand...

It's not semantic games, it's you really aren't understanding what the intent is.
Reducing current regulations and replacing them, with effective and balanced regulations, that limit (previously) unforeseen externatilies, is quite a far cry from generalized "less regulations."

I've never said that the other parties don't have people purely interested in technical policy.
It's just that when you have larger party membership, you get more people who are interested in the politics for superficial reasons, rather than the technical.

Redress said:

And you miss the point. If you keep playing the victim, you will never, ever, have significant support. if you work towards appealing to people and getting a message out that people are interested in hearing, then you have a chance. Of course to do that you have to change what the LP is, or you need people to change their beliefs significantly(which ain't happening fast, but is happening).

Click to expand...

You've already made your mind up on this.
We're all playing the victim.

Is the democratic process helped or hindered by carefully choreographer presidential debates, where the candidates are thrown softball questions and any potential competitor is excluded from the process, except the incumbent parties?

This is usually illegal, in the market, so much so that the justice department will go after businesses, who purposefully act using "anti competitive" means to exclude competitors.

Redress said:

Since we are going to play these little semantic games, let's just go with "less regulated". Those who tend to favor fewer regulations also as a general rule tend to be those more conservative on social issues. See the problem now?

And the LP party has as many people who just want to be able to get high legally as they have "policy wonks". In fact, every party has policy wonks. It's little arrogant bits like that comment that make peopel not like the LP.

Click to expand...

What arrogant bits? On some level there are a few people who lash out against libertarinaism the was many anti-intellectuals lash out against university professors. It's not based in sound argument, but rather some perception that these educated people are all snide and condescending and can't really know anything "useful" and haven't done anything "useful", blah blah blah.

For instance your argument about libertarian policy on regulation of market. There is a wide variety of ideals within the LP on that, but not all are ones of lax regulation. Many, including myself, call for proper regulation which means reinstalling some forgotten regulations while trying to eliminate the ones which hurt the free market. There are good regulation and bad regulation and currently we're maxing the bad. Just because we do strive to get rid of some regulation doesn't mean that we're looking to get rid of ALL regulation, or that we are ignoring PROPER regulation.

Harry Guerrilla said:

That does not legitimize exclusion from the political process.
At least in terms of access to debates.

Click to expand...

Access to debates, which are funded privately, is not guaranteed. However, get enough support and guess what will happen...

It's not semantic games, it's you really aren't understanding what the intent is.
Reducing current regulations and replacing them, with effective and balanced regulations, that limit (previously) unforeseen externatilies, is quite a far cry from generalized "less regulations."

Click to expand...

From the Libertarian Party Platform(Platform | Libertarian Party)

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic
success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each
person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of
government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a
legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute
wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

Click to expand...

I've never said that the other parties don't have people purely interested in technical policy.
It's just that when you have larger party membership, you get more people who are interested in the politics for superficial reasons, rather than the technical.

Click to expand...

And what I am saying is that comes off as arrogant(because it is) and is not accurate.

You've already made your mind up on this.
We're all playing the victim.

Is the democratic process helped or hindered by carefully choreographer presidential debates, where the candidates are thrown softball questions and any potential competitor is excluded from the process, except the incumbent parties?

This is usually illegal, in the market, so much so that the justice department will go after businesses, who purposefully act using "anti competitive" means to exclude competitors.

Click to expand...

If you do not see the problem with this type of whining, you are never going to get it. This is a big reason why the LP is not a significant force in politics, who wants to hang out with arrogant, drugged up whiners? And that is the image of the LP. If you want to get anywhere, you have to get the support to get on the privately funded(funny, free market, until it suits you to deny the rights of private organizations) debates to be forced to give your guy debate time. But when your guy is getting 1 % of the vote, it would be stupid and a disservice to voters to put your guy in the debates. The problem is not the process, it is that you guys are spending your time complaining and not getting the support you need.

Ikari said:

What arrogant bits? On some level there are a few people who lash out against libertarinaism the was many anti-intellectuals lash out against university professors. It's not based in sound argument, but rather some perception that these educated people are all snide and condescending and can't really know anything "useful" and haven't done anything "useful", blah blah blah.

For instance your argument about libertarian policy on regulation of market. There is a wide variety of ideals within the LP on that, but not all are ones of lax regulation. Many, including myself, call for proper regulation which means reinstalling some forgotten regulations while trying to eliminate the ones which hurt the free market. There are good regulation and bad regulation and currently we're maxing the bad. Just because we do strive to get rid of some regulation doesn't mean that we're looking to get rid of ALL regulation, or that we are ignoring PROPER regulation.

Click to expand...

The LP has a party platform. That party platform calls for a great deal of deregulation.

Henrin said:

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.

Click to expand...

Very interesting, however poorly stated,IMO....
The "conservatives" constantly harp on their idea that only business "creates" jobs, but here, its obvious that government does and that government really speeds things up..
At least, this is my take on what Henrin has to say.....my rather convoluted attempt..
Also, IMO, libertarianism works not....maybe it would work in a "perfect" world.

Redress said:

The LP has a party platform. That party platform calls for a great deal of deregulation.

Click to expand...

There are certainly removal of regulations, as I said there's lots of bad regulations. It doesn't mean ALL regulations. It doesn't mean that we don't make different ones to regulate properly either.

Ikari said:

There are certainly removal of regulations, as I said there's lots of bad regulations. It doesn't mean ALL regulations. It doesn't mean that we don't make different ones to regulate properly either.

Click to expand...

I have not claimed(though I did express it poorly) that the LP called for an end of regulations. They do call for significantly fewer regulations no matter how you try and spin it.

Redress said:

I have not claimed(though I did express it poorly) that the LP called for an end of regulations. They do call for significantly fewer regulations no matter how you try and spin it.

Click to expand...

They do since the larger number of regulations are bad. They are either harmful to free market practices and small businesses or have no enforcement capabilities. So of course you're going to get rid of bad regulation. Why would one want to keep bad regulation?

Ikari said:

They do since the larger number of regulations are bad. They are either harmful to free market practices and small businesses or have no enforcement capabilities. So of course you're going to get rid of bad regulation. Why would one want to keep bad regulation?

Click to expand...

The argument would be over how many and which are bad, and how many and what new ones to implement. Now let's look at the original point I was making. LP tends to favor less regulation, fewer safety nets free market economics as per their party platform. They also favor abortion rights as per their party platform. This makes it a hard sell to a large segment of the population, who will agree with one of those positions strongly, and disagree with the other strongly. This was my argument. The LP has issues with attracting people, and a big part of that is that the LP llatform and position on issues. In fact, I do not see the LP getting significantly larger with its current platform unless the general public changes their views significantly.

Since I can't seem to fully get where yo'ure going with the thread I'll do short term and long term. Unfortunately, they're at a bad spot...

Short Term, there's little hope that's realistic of the Libertarian Party actually managing to affect change in and of themselves as an actual party.Their best hope is getting enough ground roots support to force the Republican and Democratic nominee's to have to take up some of their issues in hopes to win over a few votes. However, short of Ron Paul abandoning the principle foundation that makes up Ron Paul and actually running 3rd party, I don't see them managing to get the support nationally needed to be relevant. Their best way to "affect change" would basically be to cost the Republican's votes in hopes of sending a "message" to the GOP.

Long term, it's a difficult road to hoe. In part because you have a third party whose fiscal/governmental views clash with one party and whose social views clash with another party. Two parties that, imho, have reached prominence largely because the population...through natural reasons or indocrination...has largely split along those lines. So you have to siphon off voters from both camps, but you have to somehow siphon off voters who aren't turned off by one side of your platform which is the issue. I think the number of socially liberal/fiscally conservative individuals out there are in general smaller in numbers then your across the board conservative/liberals. Additionally, if they're slightly less than a failure in the short term and actually affect elections by taking votes away from Republicans there's a good chance that rather then sending a message that the GOP needs to be more libertarian that it will actually make potential converts upset and less likely to jump. The Libertarian Party's best hope long term is for the GOP to crumble electorally for a decade or two, both Federally and on a state level, to the point where a drastic change seems to be the only real option and co-opting that base may be possible.