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

RadicalModerate · May 9, 2012

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

...and yet, some of the harshest and most authoritarian governments have been done away with by people. Not so corporations,

RadicalModerate · May 9, 2012

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?

Their conditions have not been chosen. Their current political/economical situation are the product of civil war and dictatorship, not democratic political choices. Somalians have not had a voice in how their nation is run in some time.

RadicalModerate · May 9, 2012

Black_Zawisza said:
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.

To my knowledge, far-right politics are usually associated with racial or cultural identity. Unless Libertarianism has some sort of preoccupation with social cliques I'm unaware of.

I don't think I'd call Libertarianism "far-right".

RabidAlpaca · May 9, 2012

RadicalModerate said:
...and yet, some of the harshest and most authoritarian governments have been done away with by people. Not so corporations,

You know, I think your right, I don't think companies who offered faulty products or crappy service have ever failed by being rejected by the customer. </sarcasm>

Take however many nations which have had revolutions, and multiply that by a thousand, and you probably still have a number substantially lower than the number of companies that have fallen to the wayside due to lack of adaptation to their consumer base.

radcen · May 9, 2012

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?

It doesn't help that when many libertarians state their desire for less regulation, the most vociferous of them will come off as wanting an almost anarchic-like world where there is no regulation, and will only concede to some remaining regulation when pressed. And you have to press pretty hard to get the concession. Another example of bad presentation that does not serve the Libertarian Party or libertarianism well image-wise, as has been mentioned.

RadicalModerate said:
To my knowledge, far-right politics are usually associated with racial or cultural identity. Unless Libertarianism has some sort of preoccupation with social cliques I'm unaware of.

I don't think I'd call Libertarianism "far-right".

I'm tempted to call libertarianism "far right". If only because, when push comes to shove and they have to choose between a left ideal or a right ideal, the right ideal seems to win out almost every single time. IOW: They'll compromise on something like abortion (if they have to), but by God don't you dare "steal" my money in the form of taxation.

Harry Guerrilla · May 9, 2012

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

Yes but the elections are public and the way the parties act, would be illegal in other circumstances.
Get enough support?
That's a joke.

Ross Perot was denied access (the second time) and he had, "enough support."
Third parties aren't allowed because the 2 main parties do not want the competition.

Redress said:
From the Libertarian Party Platform(Platform | Libertarian Party)

Nothing in that quote means, "unregulated."

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

Which is more likely to have the bandwagon effect?
A small, not very well known party, which doesn't have the funds to advertise nationwide and is generally supported in a grass roots manner or a a party with implicit government subsidy, that is very well known and has the funds to advertise on every major tv, radio and internet source in America?

It's not arrogant, it's a statement of fact.
The major parties are more likely to have superficial members, because they already have a large base.
That doesn't even take into account that many voters are already superficial voters.

Redress said:
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.

I've given you evidence, that it isn't whining.
The fact that Ross Perot, "had enough support" (your standard, not mine) but was denied access, gives credence, that political shenanigans has more to do with the presidential election system, than "whining" and "playing the victim."

I do not believe in private control of the public system of elections.
They have a cartel on the presidential debates.
It's not free market.

If our people are so stupid and worthless, allowing us access to the debates, would be of no consequence.
I mean, being stupid and all, our rear ends would surely be whooped. :roll:

RadicalModerate · May 9, 2012

RabidAlpaca said:
You know, I think your right, I don't think companies who offered faulty products or crappy service have ever failed by being rejected by the customer. </sarcasm>

Take however many nations which have had revolutions, and multiply that by a thousand, and you probably still have a number substantially lower than the number of companies that have fallen to the wayside due to lack of adaptation to their consumer base.

We're not talking about crappy companies providing crappy services. We're talking about holding private companies liable for negative behavior not directly related to their products. If Sorny makes cheap knock off TVs that explode when your turn the channel, yes, that company will fail because of their shoddy products.

We're not talking about providing good services directly to customers. We're talking about holding a private company accountable for their indirect costs to society. If a company pollutes and you live in a Libertarian utopia, what resources to have to stop the pollution? Take United Carbide Limited in Bhopal. Their pollution disaster in 1984 killed almost 4,000 people. The community had almost zero means to hold UCL responsible, and any action they did take was crushed by the corporation's vast resources. India at the time had very little government infrastructure to respond to and investigate the disaster, let alone hold the company responsible This is a worst case example of when private power can overrun the people of a given nation.

Nick2253 · May 9, 2012

RadicalModerate said:
We're not talking about crappy companies providing crappy services. We're talking about holding private companies liable for negative behavior not directly related to their products. If Sorny makes cheap knock off TVs that explode when your turn the channel, yes, that company will fail because of their shoddy products.

We're not talking about providing good services directly to customers. We're talking about holding a private company accountable for their indirect costs to society. If a company pollutes and you live in a Libertarian utopia, what resources to have to stop the pollution? Take United Carbide Limited in Bhopal. Their pollution disaster in 1984 killed almost 4,000 people. The community had almost zero means to hold UCL responsible, and any action they did take was crushed by the corporation's vast resources. India at the time had very little government infrastructure to respond to and investigate the disaster, let alone hold the company responsible This is a worst case example of when private power can overrun the people of a given nation.

Look at BP and Apple. Both companies are facing significant boycotts because of their environment and labor practices, respectively. Almost all Tuna Cans are labeled with "Dolphin Safe" because those companies have now adopted dolphin safe fishing practices due to backlash from consumers.

People have and will hold corporations responsible for externalities.

RadicalModerate · May 9, 2012

Nick2253 said:
Look at BP and Apple. Both companies are facing significant boycotts because of their environment and labor practices, respectively. Almost all Tuna Cans are labeled with "Dolphin Safe" because those companies have now adopted dolphin safe fishing practices due to backlash from consumers.

People have and will hold corporations responsible for externalities.

This question is can you shut down an unpopular company doing damaging things. Lizzie argues that thee is no need for regulation because if people don't like how a company operates, maybe it pollutes a great deal or makes unsafe products, simply by shrinking their demand they can shut down the company. That is complete nonsense and it seems everyone here with some reasoning abilities knows it.

To answer your points, "dolphin safe" labels are a joke and that's pretty well known. Lots of dolphins are still caught by fishing nets. Not much of change, is it? Second, Apple and BP are facing boycotts; so what? I'd bet Apple responds to public pressure, but if you can show me any actual, measurable difference in practices by BP from public outrage, I'd love to see it. They don't need to. What kind of actual financial impact do you think a thousand people boycotting BP will do? Ten thousand? A million? I'm trying to find a number that might be the point where it starts to make BP taker notice. I'm sure it's more than a few million. BP has so much income coming in from so many different sources, they are completely insulated from outside pressure.

To think that replacing government regulation with boycotts and public pressure is the best choice...man, what are some people smoking?

Companies are not liable to the public. Government, at least in principle, is.

Nick2253 · May 9, 2012

RadicalModerate said:
This question is can you shut down an unpopular company doing damaging things. Lizzie argues that thee is no need for regulation because if people don't like how a company operates, maybe it pollutes a great deal or makes unsafe products, simply by shrinking their demand they can shut down the company. That is complete nonsense and it seems everyone here with some reasoning abilities knows it.

To answer your points, "dolphin safe" labels are a joke and that's pretty well known. Lots of dolphins are still caught by fishing nets. Not much of change, is it? Second, Apple and BP are facing boycotts; so what? I'd bet Apple responds to public pressure, but if you can show me any actual, measurable difference in practices by BP from public outrage, I'd love to see it. They don't need to. What kind of actual financial impact do you think a thousand people boycotting BP will do? Ten thousand? A million? I'm trying to find a number that might be the point where it starts to make BP taker notice. I'm sure it's more than a few million. BP has so much income coming in from so many different sources, they are completely insulated from outside pressure.

To think that replacing government regulation with boycotts and public pressure is the best choice...man, what are some people smoking?

Companies are not liable to the public. Government, at least in principle, is.

Look at Apple. They have actively targeted Foxconn and so far changed the labor practices at their facility in China.

"Dolphin safe" labels are not "a joke." NOAA (NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Conserving & Restoring Natural Resources) has verified the effectiveness of these labels. In the fishing industry alone you see organizations like the Marine Stewardship Council (Marine Stewardship Council - home — MSC) who provide labeling to businesses and restaurants that meet certain sustainability standards, which has changed shopping habits for many consumers.

In the middle of the BP oil spill, BP was donating money to Fish and Wildlife charities precisely because they were worried about their image.

Businesses, unlike governments, don't have an army to force consumers to continue to consume their products, and so they evolve to provide better products and services. Governments have a tendency of not evolving, which is why you see bloody revolutions occur. Companies are just as liable to the public, but they don't drag their feet until they go out of business, because, well, that's just not good business.

Catawba · May 10, 2012

RabidAlpaca said:
That's anarchy, not libertarianism.

What's the difference?

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.

If you eliminate the social safety net as Libertarians propose, you will have anarchy.

I challenge you to show me any 1st world nation that follows the platform of the LP.

Catawba · May 10, 2012

Harry Guerrilla said:
Hong Kong.

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

"The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, commonly the Hong Kong Government, is led by the Chief Executive as Head of the Government, who is also the head of the Hong Kong SAR. The affairs of the Government are decided by secretaries, who are appointed by the Chief Executive and endorsed by the Central People's Government in Beijing."

Government of Hong Kong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nick2253 · May 10, 2012

Catawba said:
What's the difference?

Seriously? If you can't understand the difference, then why troll this thread? Wikipedia has great articles on the two political philosophies. Please read them.

If you eliminate the social safety net as Libertarians propose, you will have anarchy.

What? That's not an argument, that's a false assertion. We didn't have a safety net before FDR, and the US sure as hell wasn't an anarchist country.

I challenge you to show me any 1st world nation that follows the platform of the LP.

Hong Kong is pretty damn close.

Nick2253 · May 10, 2012

Catawba said:
"The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, commonly the Hong Kong Government, is led by the Chief Executive as Head of the Government, who is also the head of the Hong Kong SAR. The affairs of the Government are decided by secretaries, who are appointed by the Chief Executive and endorsed by the Central People's Government in Beijing."

Government of Hong Kong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What's your point? Simply because the government's official name has the "People's Republic of China" in it it's not libertarian? Economically, HK follows a system very similar to the LP's platform. Socially, HK is more restrictive in some ways.

Catawba · May 10, 2012

Nick2253 said:
We didn't have a safety net before FDR, and the US sure as hell wasn't an anarchist country.

We were predominantly an agrarian society then. We are no longer, and you would have rioting in the streets with millions without jobs or alternate source of survival.

Hong Kong is pretty damn close.

I must have missed the part of the Libertarian platform about becoming an arm of China.

Catawba · May 10, 2012

Nick2253 said:
What's your point? Simply because the government's official name has the "People's Republic of China" in it it's not libertarian? Economically, HK follows a system very similar to the LP's platform. Socially, HK is more restrictive in some ways.

Libertarians agree that all their leaders must be endorsed by China??

Nick2253 · May 10, 2012

Catawba said:
We were predominantly an agrarian society then. We are no longer, and you would have rioting in the streets with millions without jobs or alternate source of survival.

How would phasing out social security leave millions without jobs or alternate sources of survival??

This is ludicrous. You obviously have nothing more than an armchair understanding of the LP or the Libertarian Platform. Reducing regulations does not mean cutting all regulations. Privatizing entitlements does not mean pulling the plug on grandma's SS checks. Reducing the size of government does not mean anarchy.

Catawba said:
Libertarians agree that all their leaders must be endorsed by China??

That's one hell of a straw man and you know it. You've been arguing throughout this thread that the policies promoted by the LP aren't viable because no country uses them (well, other than your other straw man of Somalia). Well, HK, among others, does. The fact that HK is part of the PRC is irrelevant, especially since the PRC has almost no direct control over the government of HK. For all intents and purposes, HK is its own country.

Furthermore, just because HK uses some libertarian principles in its governance, does not mean that HK is 100% libertarian, nor does it mean that the LP wants to be exactly like HK. You asked for an example, and you have one. The fact is, no 1st world country is 100% libertarian. But that, too, is a straw man, since no two 1st world countries use exactly the same form of governance. In fact, if you look at the Dem's platform, you'd actually be looking at a platform that no other country in the world uses exactly.

Catawba · May 10, 2012

Nick2253 said:
How would phasing out social security leave millions without jobs or alternate sources of survival??

Eliminating SS/medicare/medicaid/welfare/unemployment insurance will cause the millions that already do not have jobs due to trickle down economy and deregulation, to have no where to turn but crime for survival. The CBO estimates that Ryan's plan for privatizing Medicare alone would cost seniors $6,000 a year more in out of pocket costs.

The fact that HK is part of the PRC is irrelevant, especially since the PRC has almost no direct control over the government of HK.

HK's leaders must be endorsed by China and they enjoy the protection of China.

Nick2253 · May 10, 2012

Catawba said:
Eliminating SS/medicare/medicaid/welfare/unemployment insurance will cause the millions that already do not have jobs due to trickle down economy and deregulation, to have no where to turn but crime for survival. The CBO estimates that Ryan's plan for privatizing Medicare alone would cost seniors $6,000 a year more in out of pocket costs.

People would have no where to turn but crime!? Your assertions are baseless. And again, "phasing out" =/= "cold-turkey elimination." Look at the way Chile handled the privatization of their social safety nets. Furthermore, the Ryan plan is not very Libertarian, any way you slice it. So don't conflate the two.

HK's leaders must be endorsed by China and they enjoy the protection of China.

A fact that no one disputes. So what? That has absolutely nothing to do with why it was brought up in the first place.

Catawba · May 10, 2012

Nick2253 said:
People would have no where to turn but crime!? Your assertions are baseless. And again, "phasing out" =/= "cold-turkey elimination." Look at the way Chile handled the privatization of their social safety nets. Furthermore, the Ryan plan is not very Libertarian, any way you slice it. So don't conflate the two.

Ryan's plan does what the Libertarian platform calls for.

"We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system."
Platform | Libertarian Party

And Chile "has a high economic inequality".
Chile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A fact that no one disputes.

..................

Harry Guerrilla · May 10, 2012

Catawba said:
Libertarians agree that all their leaders must be endorsed by China??

Honk Kong was under control of the UK until 1997.
Of course, you totally didn't even read anything else about it and it makes your comments look entirely ridiculous.

Wiki said:
Under the principle of "one country, two systems", Hong Kong has a different political system from mainland China.[SUP][20][/SUP] Hong Kong's independent judiciaryfunctions under the common law framework.[SUP][21][/SUP][SUP][22][/SUP] Hong Kong Basic Law, its constitutional document, stipulates that Hong Kong shall have a "high degree of autonomy" in all matters except foreign relations and military defence, governs its political system.[SUP][23][/SUP][SUP][24][/SUP] Although it has a burgeoning multi-party system, a small-circle electorate[SUP][clarification needed][/SUP] controls half of its legislature. The Chief Executive of Hong Kong, the head of government, is selected by a Selection Committee / Election Committee with 400 to 1200 members, during the first 20 years.[SUP][25][/SUP] [SUP][26][/SUP][SUP][27][/SUP] [SUP][28][/SUP]

Hong Kong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harry Guerrilla · May 10, 2012

Nick2253 said:
People would have no where to turn but crime!? Your assertions are baseless. And again, "phasing out" =/= "cold-turkey elimination." Look at the way Chile handled the privatization of their social safety nets. Furthermore, the Ryan plan is not very Libertarian, any way you slice it. So don't conflate the two.

A fact that no one disputes. So what? That has absolutely nothing to do with why it was brought up in the first place.

Debating with this guy is entirely pointless.
The ample amounts of straw men, misleading quoting and totally taking things out of context is the mo of his posts.

Catawba · May 10, 2012

Harry Guerrilla said:
Honk Kong was under control of the UK until 1997.
Of course, you totally didn't even read anything else about it and it makes your comments look entirely ridiculous.

Hong Kong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"1997: Hong Kong handed over to Chinese control
Hong Kong has been handed back to the Chinese authorities - ending more than 150 years of British control."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/1/newsid_2656000/2656973.stm

Just as long as your country is controlled by another, that's what makes Libertarianism work?

Catawba · May 10, 2012

Harry Guerrilla said:
Debating with this guy is entirely pointless.
The ample amounts of straw men, misleading quoting and totally taking things out of context is the mo of his posts.

Debating the poster and not the subject appears to be your "mo".

Harry Guerrilla · May 10, 2012

Catawba said:
"1997: Hong Kong handed over to Chinese control
Hong Kong has been handed back to the Chinese authorities - ending more than 150 years of British control."

Just as long as your country is controlled by another, that's what makes Libertarianism work?

Right, are you going to totally ignore the entire rest of the article in relation to the internal operations of Hong Kong or are you going to still, continue on this rant?
When you apply such a childish, superficial understanding of the workings of Hong Kong, you do in fact, come to the conclusion that your posts have made.

Keeping on trucking. :sun

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.)

Elect a President without a base?

Be included in Presidential debates?

Carry 10%+ of the Presidental popular vote?

Other

Engineer

Phonetic Mnemonic ©

Active member

Active member

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Active member

Active member

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Active member

Disappointed Evolutionist

Active member

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist

Disappointed Evolutionist