Vote Libertarian OR Socialist

doppelgänger;2321042 said:

Then the party affiliation doesn't matter one lick. "Down with big government" is an empty slogan.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

doppelgänger;2321042 said:

Without reforming a political process that is determined by the ability of elected officials to accumulate campaign finances and obtain media access, our pockets will continue to be picked - and not (for the most part) by the "needy".

Click to expand...

Exactly. I read a piece yesterday on how much the Dems and Republicans are planning on spending on the Presidential race in 2012 and just shivered. Upwards to a billion dollars? That is insane.

doppelgänger;2321042 said:

Thanks. It's been a very busy couple of years.

Click to expand...

Always good to see you around, my friend. :yes:

Personally, in regards to the OP, I cannot imagine anyone who has lived under a socialist government wanting to return them to power. Not that the alternatives are great, but they are, imo, better. Libertarian? Seriously?

YmirGF said:

Personally, in regards to the OP, I cannot imagine anyone who has lived under a socialist government wanting to return them to power. Not that the alternatives are great, but they are, imo, better. Libertarian? Seriously?

Click to expand...

Most things only work in a socially beneficial, economically stable, and sustainable way when the market is allowed to act subject to the collective interest of the working class acting as a check on its excesses. The balance between those who earn a living by their labor, and those who manipulate capital is neither purely "socialism" nor "capitalism," but it is necessary if one ultimately wants to avoid economic collapse, political instability and violent revolution.

doppelgänger;2321042 said:

Then the party affiliation doesn't matter one lick. "Down with big government" is an empty slogan. Without reforming a political process that is determined by the ability of elected officials to accumulate campaign finances and obtain media access, our pockets will continue to be picked - and not (for the most part) by the "needy".

Thanks. It's been a very busy couple of years.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you.

I can dream my silly dreams and hate big government all I want though...

YmirGF said:

Agreed.

Exactly. I read a piece yesterday on how much the Dems and Republicans are planning on spending on the Presidential race in 2012 and just shivered. Upwards to a billion dollars? That is insane.

Click to expand...

And in the case of the two supposedly competing parties, much of it comes from the same sources. The order is different, but the major sources of soft money for both Democrats and Republicans are essentially the same these days.

doppelgänger;2321042 said:

"Down with big government" is an empty slogan.

Click to expand...

All slogans are empty, but I happen to agree with the goal behind this one.
But the epitome of vapid was "Hope & Change".

If I ever run for office....or from unruly mobs.....my slogan is, "A flitch of bacon in every skillet!".

Why does it matter? Until we kick the outside influences out nothing can change. Businesses and special interest groups own the government not the people.

Primordial Annihilator said:

Socialism works for us Europeans....to greater and lesser degrees.

Can't see why it wont work for americans.

Click to expand...

Really?

BBC News - UK economy 'faces crisis' warns former IMF economist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he51eQBYrNM


http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1019/p04s01-woeu.html

Primordial Annihilator said:

Socialism works for us Europeans....to greater and lesser degrees.

Can't see why it wont work for americans.

Click to expand...

Ever been to the DMV?

dallas1125 said:

Ever been to the DMV?

Click to expand...

I was there today.

Stood in line for two and half hours in order to renew my license which took 3 minutes. :fight:

Tarheeler said:

I was there today.

Stood in line for two and half hours in order to renew my license which took 3 minutes. :fight:

Click to expand...

Now imagine health care like that....

Reverend Rick said:

Really?

BBC News - UK economy 'faces crisis' warns former IMF economist

[youtube]he51eQBYrNM[/youtube]
YouTube - Students Riot and Protest in London Over Tripling of Tuition Fees


British healthcare in crisis despite massive investment / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

Click to expand...

Of course everything fluctuates...and our economic crisis is not down to socialism its down to thieving american banks and the fractional banking system.

Primordial Annihilator said:

Of course everything fluctuates...and our economic crisis is not down to socialism its down to thieving american banks and the fractional banking system.

Click to expand...

It goes a lot deeper than that. There is also the flawed economic theory that has formed around globalization. Free trade is nothing without equal and fair trade.

Corrupt parties are a symptom of a broken system, not the cause, in my opinion. There's already enough inter-party bickering and witch hunting in the major Libertarian and Socialist Parties that I'd only foresee a different type of corruption. The Libertarian Party, for example, basically isolated its strong left-libertarian base in the 1980s and adopted a more "states rights" oriented mantra whereas the Socialist Party USA constantly has to cope with a war between professed "reformists" and "revolutionaries."

GeneCosta said:

There's already enough inter-party bickering and witch hunting in the major Libertarian and Socialist Parties that I'd only foresee a different type of corruption. The Libertarian Party, for example, basically isolated its strong left-libertarian base in the 1980s and adopted a more "states rights" oriented mantra...

Click to expand...

Your calling it a "mantra", sounds rather dismissive. We support Constitutional liberties, & this means observing
the legal limitations on the powers of the federal government. It is not some idle chant.....like "Hope & Change".
Moreover, your recollection of the 1980s differs from mine. I recall no noticeable change in support for originalist
interpretation of the Constitution.

Revoltingest said:

Your calling it a "mantra", sounds rather dismissive. We support Constitutional liberties, & this means observing
the legal limitations on the powers of the federal government. It is not some idle chant.....like "Hope & Change".
Moreover, your recollection of the 1980s differs from mine. I recall no noticeable change in support for originalist
interpretation of the Constitution.

Click to expand...

Little "l" libertarianism is a diverse classification of anti-authoritarian attitudes ranging from Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism to Ron Paul's populist constitutionalism to the left-libertarianism of Emma Goldman. In 1980 the Libertarian Party ran its most successful candidate of all time, Ed Clark, who was a centralist libertarian. His supporters walked out of the '83 convention after Koch, Rothbard, and many others derided left-libertarians until Bergland won, effectively creating a party comprised of pro-life paleoconservatives.

Being a libertarian does not necessarily imply that one supports the constitution or even states' rights. The very fact Americans now associate the term "libertarian" with conservative economics when it originally identified libertarian socialism is just further proof that third parties practice the purge, destroy, and corrupt tactic just like the Big Two.

GeneCosta said:

Little "l" libertarianism is a diverse classification of anti-authoritarian attitudes ranging from Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism to Ron Paul's populist constitutionalism to the left-libertarianism of Emma Goldman. In 1980 the Libertarian Party ran its most successful candidate of all time, Ed Clark, who was a centralist libertarian. His supporters walked out of the '83 convention after Koch, Rothbard, and many others derided left-libertarians until Bergland won, effectively creating a party comprised of pro-life paleoconservatives.

Being a libertarian does not necessarily imply that one supports the constitution or even states' rights. The very fact Americans now associate the term "libertarian" with conservative economics when it originally identified libertarian socialism is just further proof that third parties practice the purge, destroy, and corrupt tactic just like the Big Two.

Click to expand...

I've been a Libertarian Party member since the 1970s, & recall it differently. "Libertarian socialism" is seen as oxymoronic by every Libertarian I know.
We cannot have socialism without an economically authoritarian government to impose it upon us all. This would entirely go against our notion of liberty.
That you would call us "paleoconservative" shows that you don't really accept what we're all about. If you want social liberty & economic authoritarianism,
then a socialist party would be a better home....they do liberty half-way.

To understand my take on libertarianism let me take you down the path that led to it...

When I joined the LP a few years ago, one of the first things I did was sign something called the non-aggression pledge. This basically says that you don't endorse and will not use force to further your political objectives. While the reasons behind having to sign this to join the party are debated, my ultimate understanding of it was a sea change for me. Upon reading up more about this, I came to realize it didn't mean what I originally understood it to mean.

Basically, the non-aggression pledge alludes to the principles laid out in
The Philosophy of Liberty
[youtube]8z1buym2xUM[/youtube]


In a nutshell, it says that you are not supposed to initiate force on others even in the form of government because it is unethical to do so. Since government is nothing without force, what it's really saying is, there should be NO government. Most people I know in the LP will deny this and I don't think many who are taken seriously in the LP advocate no government, and even those who do wouldn't want to foist this change all at once.

So, that got me to thinking. I decided that there was also no such thing as no government. You might be able to create a system of no government in a localized area for a short period of time, but sooner or later, probably sooner, government would arise and it might not be as benevolent as the one you just got rid of.

Given that, I came to the conclusion that government is literally a necessary evil, but since it can't be eradicated, the least we should do is to try to MINIMIZE it. At that point I coined a term for myself... I'm a minarcho-capitalist. I am such because I believe two things... pure anarchy is a fiction and large government is abhorrent.

Changing gears a tad, while at the Denver LP convention in 08 I picked up a copy of The Probability Broach by L. Neil Smith. It portrayed an alternate reality wherein citizens maintained their own right to vote in the legislative body (no elected officials existed) and could proxy that right to anybody they chose. I absolutely love this idea even though I want democracy tempered in such a way that it doesn't become two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

KnightOwl said:

In a nutshell, it says that you are not supposed to initiate force on others even in the form of government because it is unethical to do so. Since government is nothing without force, what it's really saying is, there should be NO government. Most people I know in the LP will deny this.....

Click to expand...

.....because we don't believe it. Perhaps there is some loony Libertarian out there who is strange even by our
standards, but we believe in minimal government. It should be just enuf to preserve the country & our liberties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

Revoltingest said:

.....because we don't believe it. Perhaps there is some loony Libertarian out there who is strange even by our
standards, but we believe in minimal government. It should be just enuf to preserve the country & our liberties.
Minarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

There are such loony Libertarians out there who do believe it. I've met 'em. They are by no stretch of the imagination the majority. I'm not trying to posit that this is in any way shape or form what the LP believes in collectively. However some members' idea of minimal government is closer to pure anarchy and some members' idea of minimal government means something that doesn't look too different than what we have now.

Why is this? Because we're not robots and thinking people can come to different conclusions but having a general similarity in our viewpoints allows us to come together for one thing... LESS GOVERNMENT.

btw, I know what minarchy is which is why I call myself a minarcho-capitalist.

The pledge however, if taken seriously prescribes pure anarchy and should be done away with IMO.

Libertarianism has its roots in social libertarianism (anarchism). Its just that in America, people falsely associate libertarianism with capitalism, when libertarianism has traditionally been a socialist/anarchist construct.