Comparing Liberal, Conservative and Libertarian answers...

[Clarence]

Popularity has a snowball effect. If Libertarians could embrace the argiculture community (individuals and small companies for example), they would be doing the right thing along with gaining many gun supporters.

wasn't sure where to put that thought.

[JJB]

I'll copy a post I wrote earlier that I don't think anyone noticed.

I don't mean to offend anybody, but frankly, the LP is way too extreme. That's why they never even come close to winning. Yeah, I know our two-party system is difficult to offset, but the LP never got close to Ross Perot or George Wallace.

Take a look at some of the LP's best numbers:

1980: 1.06% (Edward Clark)

1988: 0.47% (Ron Paul)

1992: 0.28% (Andre Marrou)

1996: 0.50% (Harry Browne)

2000: 0.36% (Harry Browne)

2004: 0.32% (Michael Badnarik)

(Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections)

[Osborn F Enready]

You do a nice job their JJB of showing the difference in media coverage in elections when 3rd parties are unfairly kept out of national and state level debate, but what about actual public support if media coverage were allowed to be equal by corporate and bi-partisan intrests, who manage and sponsor the debates??

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I wonder if that's really the case, after all, government cuts down on murders,

Are you sure about that?

and small scale murder that is just as common as warfare is just as deadly, and far more chaotic.

If by "deadly" you mean that it results in people dying, then of course. However, small-scale murder does not involve the deaths of millions of innocent bystanders.

I also question your statement that small-scale murder is "just as common" as warfare.

By the way, corporations would go to war if the government didn't stop them.

And your reasoning for this is...?

- Rob

[Gods_Mercenary]

We don't exactly know if government cuts down on murders, we don't really have reliable information, call it a feeling that most people think twice when their lives could be ruined by killing someone.

So everyone who is murdered is guilty? Are many of them not innocent bystanders? We don't have a major state involved war every year, but we have many, many murders each year. Take darfur, a genocide that has no state involvement, just state indifference. Atrocities and unspeakable mass murder are obviously possible without direct involvment by the state. The difference is, that darfur may someday have hope if the countries of the world start helping there, that would never happen without governments.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary We don't exactly know if government cuts down on murders, we don't really have reliable information, call it a feeling that most people think twice when their lives could be ruined by killing someone.

I don't know about you but I don't kill people because it's not the right thing to do to an innocent person. If the only thing stopping you from doing so is the government, I really hope I don't meet you and I won't be inviting you to my home.

Keith

[Gods_Mercenary]

Hmm. which is why I don't actually go within 100 yards of actual people:)

[rmnunez]

3rd parties are unfairly kept out of national and state level debate, but what about actual public support if media coverage were allowed to be equal by corporate and bi-partisan intrests

Osborn, I suppose you think parties other than the Democrats and Republicans are unfairly kept from the debate, but do you think if media coverage of these other parties were required by law and if the government provided funding to offset corporate disinterest -then these parties would be engaged more productively in the political debate?

Isn't there a likelyhood the government could manipulate the situation for its benefit? Suppose the situation were as it was in the last elections, with Republicans in control facing emerging Democrats, so the government releases lots of money for the Liberals with the hope they will make inroads against the Democrat's base and lure voters to their dark horses. Would Bush's re-election score be better or worse if the Liberal candidate got a few more votes?

[Osborn F Enready]

RmNunez said: Osborn, I suppose you think parties other than the Democrats and Republicans are unfairly kept from the debate, but do you think if media coverage of these other parties were required by law and if the government provided funding to offset corporate disinterest -then these parties would be engaged more productively in the political debate? Isn't there a likelyhood the government could manipulate the situation for its benefit? Suppose the situation were as it was in the last elections, with Republicans in control facing emerging Democrats, so the government releases lots of money for the Liberals with the hope they will make inroads against the Democrat's base and lure voters to their dark horses. Would Bush's re-election score be better or worse if the Liberal candidate got a few more votes?

My proposal is fairly simple.

Propose and pass a law that requires all politcal campaigners to debate for all elected seats state and federal, and require the debates to be between all canidates who meet the requirements to get on the ballot for their state or federal requirements, and that if canidates "refused" to debate their opponents, they would not be eligible for office, and removed from the ballot. Also, require the FCC to enforce the law requiring all stations who air the debates (all media covered by the FCC), to show all of the debates from beginning to end with equal time given to each canidate.

Propose and pass a law that allows only individual persons(and dependents), to donate to political campaigns, and simultaneously outlaws any corporate, special intrests, lobbyists or private groups, or any other entity besides a single individual(and dependents) from donating.

Propose and pass a law to OUTLAW lobbying elected officials with anything other than information, expressly forbidding gifts of any kind, or exchanges of goods or services for special political treatment. ( our officials are to be lobbied by the public, when the public feels a new law is needed, or a bad law needs addressed. )

Then, I would address the voting problems with requiring all states (by some date) to initiate an Instant Runoff Voting system, that has verifiable paper ballots that allow you to check your own ballot receipt, with the "countable" ballot as it scrolls through a visible plastic window the voter can see.


That is what I would do.

[rmnunez]

Lobbying firms would never stand for it, the legislators would have strong reason to oppose this as well, would there be caps on individual donations too? Its expensive to build name recognition, you've got to have massive coverage and need a catchy jingle, a persuasive one-liner and a slick advertising campaign. Without good soundbites on whatever the pressing issue may be, a candidate is doomed. All this media coverage costs money, mandating would only make the political coverage we get duller. In Mexico they have government paid programming with an hour of crap from each political party, nobody watches it, its on at about 3 or 5 in the morning.

[Osborn F Enready]

RmNunez said: Lobbying firms would never stand for it,

No shit? Well, perhaps they should sit then.

RmNunez said: the legislators would have strong reason to oppose this as well,

Yes, they would, being that they are 99.5% corrupt from the ground up.... indeed.

RmNunez said: would there be caps on individual donations too?

Why? If individuals have millions to burn, let them burn it, as long as it isn't done as cash for favors.

RmNunez said: Its expensive to build name recognition, you've got to have massive coverage and need a catchy jingle, a persuasive one-liner and a slick advertising campaign.

Thats because of the problems I am addressing, with the fixes above.

RmNunez said: Without good soundbites on whatever the pressing issue may be, a candidate is doomed.

Time would tell, wouldn't it.

RmNunez said: All this media coverage costs money, mandating would only make the political coverage we get duller.

Bummer. Maybe people shouldn't be watching NEWS for entertainment?

RmNunez said: In Mexico they have government paid programming with an hour of crap from each political party, nobody watches it, its on at about 3 or 5 in the morning.

Maybe thats why Mexicans are coming across our border in search of work, and hope for life that Mexicans can't make for themselves?

I have been to San Diego and watched the flocks come across, and I don't buy the BS arguments your government spits up at every opprotunity. Your government is as corrupt as mine friend, and you wear their label on your sleeve.

[rmnunez]

Your government is as corrupt as mine friend, and you wear their label on your sleeve.

Its not "my government" in the first place, but if it were I'd find more integrity in one that recognizes corruption is a problem than one that fails to take any account of this -and I do think there is plenty of corruption north of Mexico's border, just that it isn't on such a pedestrian level.

[Clarence]

...just that it isn't on such a pedestrian level

I'm don't understand what you say here. Could you elaborate please?

Its not "my government" in the first place, but if it were I'd find more integrity in one that recognizes corruption is a problem than one that fails to take any account of this

but mostly, I understand what you're saying even if I don't agree. Maybe you think these guys, who've hijacked our gov't, care about you and your country.

[notworthabean]

I have 6 libertarin and 6 conservtive views and 1 liberal view.

[Gods_Mercenary]

huh, you've been counting us? I thought more people than that replied.

[rmnunez]

Corruption at a more pedestrian level means in smaller amounts and extracted from a larger segment of the population which includes ordinary citizens in commonplace situations. In the US you'd get into more trouble slipping a cop $50 or $500 than you'd be trying to get out of.

[Osborn F Enready]

RMNunez said: Corruption at a more pedestrian level means in smaller amounts and extracted from a larger segment of the population which includes ordinary citizens in commonplace situations. In the US you'd get into more trouble slipping a cop $50 or $500 than you'd be trying to get out of.

You're right. In America people don't waste time buying off individual cops, they buy off judges, political parties and the White House, and then purchase and consolidate the media for total control.

[notworthabean]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary huh, you've been counting us? I thought more people than that replied.

haha no-thats my answers 6 conservtive, 6 libertarin and 1 liberal...

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary We don't exactly know if government cuts down on murders, we don't really have reliable information, call it a feeling that most people think twice when their lives could be ruined by killing someone.

You had earlier claimed that government definitively does cut down on murders. Now you're retracting that claim?

As Keith subtly pointed out, most people do not need murder to be illegal in order to not do it, because they already believe it to be morally wrong. In other words, they would not want to murder someone in the first place. Yet there are those who, unfortunately, do want to murder someone for whatever reason. It is they who decide whether doing so is worth the risk of capture and punishment.

One could argue that everyone has a situation for which they would be able and willing to commit murder. Obviously, however, such situations exist in spite of any laws.

So everyone who is murdered is guilty? Are many of them not innocent bystanders? We don't have a major state involved [in] war every year, but we have many, many murders each year.

I'm sure that, throughout the course of history, far more people have been killed in warfare than have been killed in other forms of murder.

Take darfur, a genocide that has no state involvement, just state indifference. Atrocities and unspeakable mass murder are obviously possible without direct involvment by the state. The difference is, that darfur may someday have hope if the countries of the world start helping there, that would never happen without governments.

I'll have to look into the Darfur situation and get back to you. My knowledge here is very limited at the moment.

- Rob

[Gods_Mercenary]

I presented my opinion that government probably does cut down on murders. If it doesn't then it certainly does try to make sure those that have such tendencies don't get the chance again.