• 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!

How to improve the Libertarian party?

whateverdude said:
You think it'd be better if the roads were ran by the private sector?
They'd make you pay every time your tires touch the road. There'd be a toll booth every 2 miles.
Plus, roads require maintenance. Often times new roads must be built.

Now, I do believe drivers licenses should be free. But I definitely think we need them
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about private sector built roads.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Well, if those things already belong to the person taking them, that wouldn't be theft, would it?
Click to expand...

What? The government doesn't own your salary.
 
How to fix the Libertarian Party?

There are 23 types of libertarian philosophy out there.

If the believers can't agree, why should the 97% of America that looks at askance at them.
 
azgreg said:
Dump Johnson. If there were ever a chance for 3rd parties to make hay it was this election and Johnson **** the sheets.
Click to expand...

As a member of a third party, no third party is going to make a dent against the two major parties unless they have more than three million dollars to spend. Three million is the amount of money Johnson had to spend on this presidential election. Heck, that congressional candidate Ossoff vying for the 6th congressional district just spent 8 million on his bide to win a house seat. All that got him was a runoff. The fact is with corporations, Wall Street Firms, lobbyist, special interests, mega, huge money donors giving the two major parties millions, tens of millions of dollars, no third party no matter what they believe is going anywhere.

Most Americans didn't have the faintest idea who Johnson was, no name recognition, no money, no media, no debate, no political ads, no nothing. How can any third party candidate, the three million Johnson spent was the most money any third party candidate spent. But that is three million up against 1.4 billion Hillary Clinton spent, 957.6 million Trump spent. Johnson was outspent 2.357 billion to three million.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/

Whether it is the Libertarians, the Green Party, Castle's Constitutional Party, my Reform Party, none of them are going anywhere or will be able to challenge the two major parties significantly unless they can raise an abundance of money. Third parties don't have the millions upon million reaped upon them by corporations, Wall Street, Lobbyists, Special Interests etc. They get zero dollars from them.

No one knows if the Libertarian message would catch on or not. No one has ever heard it.
 
Perotista said:
As a member of a third party, no third party is going to make a dent against the two major parties unless they have more than three million dollars to spend. Three million is the amount of money Johnson had to spend on this presidential election. Heck, that congressional candidate Ossoff vying for the 6th congressional district just spent 8 million on his bide to win a house seat. All that got him was a runoff. The fact is with corporations, Wall Street Firms, lobbyist, special interests, mega, huge money donors giving the two major parties millions, tens of millions of dollars, no third party no matter what they believe is going anywhere.

Most Americans didn't have the faintest idea who Johnson was, no name recognition, no money, no media, no debate, no political ads, no nothing. How can any third party candidate, the three million Johnson spent was the most money any third party candidate spent. But that is three million up against 1.4 billion Hillary Clinton spent, 957.6 million Trump spent. Johnson was outspent 2.357 billion to three million.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/

Whether it is the Libertarians, the Green Party, Castle's Constitutional Party, my Reform Party, none of them are going anywhere or will be able to challenge the two major parties significantly unless they can raise an abundance of money. Third parties don't have the millions upon million reaped upon them by corporations, Wall Street, Lobbyists, Special Interests etc. They get zero dollars from them.

No one knows if the Libertarian message would catch on or not. No one has ever heard it.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you here. My only (small) point here was this was the best opportunity for a third party to do anything. I was sure Johnson would get past that ridiculous threshold to get into the debates then who knows.
 
Perotista said:
As a member of a third party, no third party is going to make a dent against the two major parties unless they have more than three million dollars to spend. Three million is the amount of money Johnson had to spend on this presidential election. Heck, that congressional candidate Ossoff vying for the 6th congressional district just spent 8 million on his bide to win a house seat. All that got him was a runoff. The fact is with corporations, Wall Street Firms, lobbyist, special interests, mega, huge money donors giving the two major parties millions, tens of millions of dollars, no third party no matter what they believe is going anywhere.

Most Americans didn't have the faintest idea who Johnson was, no name recognition, no money, no media, no debate, no political ads, no nothing. How can any third party candidate, the three million Johnson spent was the most money any third party candidate spent. But that is three million up against 1.4 billion Hillary Clinton spent, 957.6 million Trump spent. Johnson was outspent 2.357 billion to three million.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/

Whether it is the Libertarians, the Green Party, Castle's Constitutional Party, my Reform Party, none of them are going anywhere or will be able to challenge the two major parties significantly unless they can raise an abundance of money. Third parties don't have the millions upon million reaped upon them by corporations, Wall Street, Lobbyists, Special Interests etc. They get zero dollars from them.

No one knows if the Libertarian message would catch on or not. No one has ever heard it.
Click to expand...

But in order for that to happen, they need something to create enough ideological unity to incentivize people to fund these organizations. And if you ask me, the only thing that could do that is a nationalist/populist movement.
And I think the libertarians, have pretty much no chance, as they hold very unnationalist views.
Donald Trump wasn't a third party candidate, but his win was very unprecedented none the less. I doubt that without grassroots nationalist sentiment, he would have ralleyed enough support.
And in France, Le Pen may have lost, but she set a new highmark for the national front.

I think if the Libertarian message was gonna catch on, they'd be recieving more money by now. What they need is to tap into something gutteral. And that might be one of their problems. They need a speaker like Donald Trump.
There's a hotbed of anti-left, anti-authoritarian, anti-refugee, anti-globalist, and anti-internationalist sentiment overlapping that any party needs to try and tap into

When I would see Trump on TV, I'd be like, "Yeaa!!!! **** the globalist and the muslims. Send them back to mexico and Syria. Oh ****... the wall just got 10 feet higher!!!"
Americans are stupid.
We need **** like that to get us to vote
 
Carjosse said:
So in other words make the Libertarians even fringe than they already are.
Click to expand...
Actually, he's speaking of moderating the Libertarians, particularly in social responsibility, which I think is a great idea! I'd look closer at them, if they backed single-payer healthcare. Doesn't look like that'll ever happen.
 
Henrin said:
What? The government doesn't own your salary.
Click to expand...

I agree--society owns it. And yours too. And everyone else's. Our society has an odd way of distributing the wealth it owns in the first place, so we use government to clean up on the back end, so to speak.
 
Chomsky said:
Actually, he's speaking of moderating the Libertarians, particularly in social responsibility, which I think is a great idea! I'd look closer at them, if they backed single-payer healthcare. Doesn't look like that'll ever happen.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that...
I'm thinking more along the lines of the Swiss system, which has public and private interaction. Private sector healthcare is actually very big and very successful in Switzerland.
To be honest, I don't trust the US government with our healthcare system.

However, I do think they could subsidize a lot of it and in the end, you'll get better costs on both ends
 
ashurbanipal said:
I agree--society owns it. And yours too. And everyone else's. Our society has an odd way of distributing the wealth it owns in the first place, so we use government to clean up on the back end, so to speak.
Click to expand...

What? No, the person that earned the money owns it.
 
Henrin said:
What? No, the person that earned the money owns it.
Click to expand...

No person earns money on their own. Society is always necessary, and usually sufficient, for the production of wealth and the earning of money. Don't believe it? Walk naked into the woods and try earning some money.
 
ashurbanipal said:
No person earns money on their own. Society is always necessary, and usually sufficient, for the production of wealth and the earning of money. Don't believe it? Walk naked into the woods and try earning some money.
Click to expand...

:roll: I don't have time for this socialist crap. Bye.
 
azgreg said:
You put 10 libertarians together in a room and they won't agree on what color the walls are much less what direction the party should go.
Click to expand...
A very long time ago, measured in decades rather than years, I was a cradle Dem who got the Libertarian bug so typical of naive young college-age guys who want nobody's help, and think they shouldn't have to help anyone back. So they somewhat selfishly (in my opinion) want to be Libertarian.

I had done Dem street-level precinct work since I was a young kid, and was reasonably good at it. So I called up the guy that ran my city's Libertarian Party to discuss the possibility of helping them out. We later participated in a multiple-line speaker-phone conversation that included several of his people. OMFG! It was hopeless! They had all these great ideas, but they were hopeless! They had no organization, no structure, no street crews, and seemingly no idea on the nuts and bolts mechanics of working for votes on the street. They almost seemed to think their good ideas alone would be enough. And that the people would love them!

Well, that was my only serious contact with the Libertarian Party staff, and I never considered them again. In their defense, this was a long time ago so they were not as popular or in the national conscious. By now, I would assume they're more organized. But back then in my Democratic Part stronghold city, they were quite the experience!
 
Henrin said:
I don't have time for this socialist crap. Bye.
Click to expand...

No, what you don't have is an adequate reply, because your position is incorrect.
 
ashurbanipal said:
No, what you don't have is an adequate reply, because your position is incorrect.
Click to expand...

No, I don't feel like dealing with the "everyone owns everything" bull**** that socialists crap out. Just because you're involved in trade or benefit from others labor in society does not mean they have claim to the fruits of your labor. Your idea is complete gibberish crapped out for no other reason than to rationalize assuming control of something that you were not even slightly involved in earning, period. I have no patience for it and frankly no one should.
 
This thread exists to tempt me to getting into trouble....
 
MrPeanut said:
Did you see the other options? The Libertarian debates were insane. They literally argued about whether or not driver's licenses should exist or if they support the Civil Rights Act. Johnson was far and away the most credible option for them.
Click to expand...

If I've already paid taxes on my car, why do I have to keep paying them every time I am forced to get a tag renewal?
 
Henrin said:
No, I don't feel like dealing with the "everyone owns everything" bull**** that socialists crap out. Just because you're involved in trade or benefit from others labor in society does not mean they have claim to the fruits of your labor. Your idea is complete gibberish crapped out for no other reason than to rationalize assuming control of something that you were not even slightly involved in earning, period. I have no patience for it and frankly no one should.
Click to expand...

Those are all just assertions, with one exception handled below. I posted an argument. If you cannot respond to the argument, your position is probably incorrect.

Now this:

Henrin said:
Just because you're involved in trade or benefit from others labor in society does not mean they have claim to the fruits of your labor.
Click to expand...

Is at least a piece of reasoning, and it may even be correct. However, it is irrelevant. There are no fruits of your labor, particularly or exclusively. Or anyone else's in the contemporary world, for reasons already stated.
 
We ran a country without taxes up until the 20's. We could do it again.

The answer to helping the LP is not making them more like the current parties....that's just a way to lose what base you have.

The best way imo to help the LP is to have a platform of eliminating taxes. Especially things we are double taxed on, like license plates and driver's license, and stand up for the things in our platform that really piss people off like imminent domain.
 
ashurbanipal said:
Those are all just assertions, with one exception handled below. I posted an argument. If you cannot respond to the argument, your position is probably incorrect.

Now this:



Is at least a piece of reasoning, and it may even be correct. However, it is irrelevant. There are no fruits of your labor, exclusively. Or anyone else's in the contemporary world, for reasons already stated.
Click to expand...

Well, it's good to know that Trump is your fault.

How is an actors ability the result of society?

How is a chef's ability the result of society?

It isn't, society did NOTHING to help either to get where they are.
 
DashingAmerican said:
Well, it's good to know that Trump is your fault.
Click to expand...

Trump is not my fault. Why in the world would you think that?

DashingAmerican said:
How is an actors ability the result of society?
Click to expand...

Practically everything a person is, is caused by society. You learn how to read from others, and what you read is almost always written by others. You learn how to do math from others, and employ theorems and techniques discovered by others. If you're an artist, the stock of your imagination comes from observing the materials produced by culture. An actor studies others to understand how to portray emotion, and of course that actor is taught to do that by others. Your contribution, whatever that might be and whoever you are, is minuscule by comparison.

And so on. Same general notions for the chef, or for anyone else. What you, or anyone, even a great genius like Einstein or Frege or Neruda, are, is the result of society.

DashingAmerican said:
It isn't, society did NOTHING to help either to get where they are.
Click to expand...

False. Obviously false.
 
Political parties are corrupt and counterproductive. They need to go. It seems like a weak one like the libertarian party would be an easy one to make go.
 
azgreg said:
I don't disagree with you here. My only (small) point here was this was the best opportunity for a third party to do anything. I was sure Johnson would get past that ridiculous threshold to get into the debates then who knows.
Click to expand...

There will be no more third party candidates, ever in the presidential debates. The League of Woman's Voters who have had the debates since their inception had them taken away from them. The reason was the League of Woman's Voters had the gull to allow Ross Perot in them. Hence the formation of the so called bipartisan debate commission and the two major parties yanking the debates away from the League. That gave the two major parties complete control.

The propaganda the two major parties espouse to potential third party voters that to vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote changes a lot of potential third party voters minds. They buy into it. Instead of voting for the candidate they want, they don't. They hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils, the least worst of the two major party candidates.

If I remember right, at his height, Johnson was polling almost 10% and Stein close to 4%. Together they came close to that 15% mark. Historically, third party candidates have always fallen from whatever high they had over the last two months of the campaign to about a third of that high. That is exactly what happened this time around. It was a case of, I like Johnson or Stein, I hate Trump and Clinton, yet Johnson and or Stein can't win, so I vote for my least despised major party candidate. That happens almost every election cycle.

Personally, I think the first presidential debate should consist of all presidential candidate on enough state ballots that can achieve 270 electoral votes. 270 is enough to win the election. I would up it to 400 for the second presidential debate with 538 for the third. Last year, this would have meant that Trump 538, Clinton 538, Johnson 538 and Stein 480, all would have been in the first two presidential debates. Stein would have been left out of the third. It is almost an impossibility to achieve 15% in the polls without national exposure, no money, no media, no nothing as no one knows who the heck you are. Most Americans never heard of Johnson and Stein. Exposure in the debates would mean more money and a better chance.

But the two major parties don't want competition and abhor the very idea of a viable third party. They love their monopoly and will do anything to keep it.
 
whateverdude said:
But in order for that to happen, they need something to create enough ideological unity to incentivize people to fund these organizations. And if you ask me, the only thing that could do that is a nationalist/populist movement.
And I think the libertarians, have pretty much no chance, as they hold very unnationalist views.
Donald Trump wasn't a third party candidate, but his win was very unprecedented none the less. I doubt that without grassroots nationalist sentiment, he would have ralleyed enough support.
And in France, Le Pen may have lost, but she set a new highmark for the national front.

I think if the Libertarian message was gonna catch on, they'd be recieving more money by now. What they need is to tap into something gutteral. And that might be one of their problems. They need a speaker like Donald Trump.
There's a hotbed of anti-left, anti-authoritarian, anti-refugee, anti-globalist, and anti-internationalist sentiment overlapping that any party needs to try and tap into

When I would see Trump on TV, I'd be like, "Yeaa!!!! **** the globalist and the muslims. Send them back to mexico and Syria. Oh ****... the wall just got 10 feet higher!!!"
Americans are stupid.
We need **** like that to get us to vote
Click to expand...

Third party's candidates can believe and say anything they want. They can spout exactly what you stated, but it would do no good because they can't get heard. The U.S. isn't France, France has a long history of multi party elections. They always had multi parties. Here in the good old USA, it has always been for the most part, two parties. We have an embedded two party system. We have two major parties, France has who knows how many parties which forms coalitions. There are five major coalitions. Huge difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom