Good news for the "less government" people

[AnonT]

A recent poll indicates that almost 2/3 of voters say that they want less government spending, as opposed to less than 1/4 of voters who want more government spending.

Good news for us Libertarians, since we have a spend-and-spend President up against a Democratic challenger who's running on a tax-and-spend platform. Tax less and spend less 4 eva!

[bentodd]

I agree. I think this will be the year of the Libertarians. We have so much going for us, an opressive government, 2 high profile presidental canidates, and at a time where most people want less government. Most people who look at the Libertarian party are not seeing the true movement. The Libertarian movement is much much larger then the party. Groups such as the Cato Institute, the Future of Freedom Foundation, and here in Vermont the Eathan Allen Institute, form a huge movement for less government.

Benjamin Todd

[Jackney Sneeb]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (AnonT,)
A recent poll indicates that almost 2/3 of voters say that they want less government spending, as opposed to less than 1/4 of voters who want more government spending.

Good news for us Libertarians, since we have a spend-and-spend President up against a Democratic challenger who's running on a tax-and-spend platform. Tax less and spend less 4 eva!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
If two thirds of voters want less government spending, and nearly half the voters are DemocRATs while the other half are Repooplican, then at least some DemocRATs have figured out that more "government" spending necessarily means higher taxes/inflation. Who told them, Rush Limbaugh?

--Jackney Sneeb

[Leopard]

alot of people in both camps (Rep and Dem) are 'multi-Issued' - there are alot of Dems who want less spending/taxes but more important to them might be the civil liberties issues (like abortion) so they vote Democrat. On the Republican side, there are plenty of Tax & Spenders but just can't stand the idea of legalizing drugs or, again, the abortion issue.

The problem EVERYONE faces is that we ultimately have only 2 candidates, neither of which represent all or even most of the issues we desire, so we compromise... and compromise... and compromise... and whoever gets elected thinks he has some sort of 'overwhelming majority support' on his ENTIRE running platform... and so we get shafted... and shafted... and then there are special interest pressures... and we get shafted some more... its like being married to a spouse who you can't stand, and there is no such thing as divorce...

Our political system is great... as long as you like bending over


one of those 'less government' people,
michael

[AnonT]

I'd relate it more to a situation that happens in the Middle East and Africa a lot.... you get married, but then your spouse marries someone else and spends most of their time with that other person, spends most of their money on that other person, etc. but still expects you to do all the work.

[Leopard]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (AnonT,)
I'd relate it more to a situation that happens in the Middle East and Africa a lot.... you get married, but then your spouse marries someone else and spends most of their time with that other person, spends most of their money on that other person, etc. but still expects you to do all the work.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

yeah, that would work as well - either way, divorce either is not an option or such a hugely painful option as to make unviable

[Poetic_Justice]

now if government were free market run, we wouldnt have this problem... Do you see wasteful companies lasting long?

[Leopard]

since government operates in exactly opposite direction as the free market, it is impossible to combine the two and still define it as one or the other...

either it operates by force or fraud OR it is a private venture respecting rights

[Poetic_Justice]

true enough... i should have specified by saying current government services...

[castille]

Problem is, not a lot of people want the government to be efficient.

The democrats/liberals want taxes to be increased to give to the poor or to other countries.

Corporate republicans want the government to continue to protect American industry, thus taxes are not important.


Libertarians and anarchists are better off appealing to America's 20 million small business owners and entrepreneurs. They're the people who support decreased taxes and a more efficient government structure. They're most likely to be libertarian supporters.

[Leopard]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,)
true enough... i should have specified by saying current government services...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

if there is a government service that can be run as a business, then why the need for government to act as the middleman, draining resources?

[Jackney Sneeb]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,)
true enough... i should have specified by saying current government services...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

if there is a government service that can be run as a business, then why the need for government to act as the middleman, draining resources?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
You heartless, mean-spirited extremist! Do you want to put politicians out of business? Most of them are merely lawyers. How can you expect them to survive on only $350/hour? How can you be so cruel as to want to force them to fend for themselves? I bet you want their children to shine your shoes! You capitalist!

--Jackney Sneeb

PS - the foregoing was satire, for all you gullible statists out there who might be tempted to quote me out of context.

[Poetic_Justice]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Leopard,)
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,)
true enough... i should have specified by saying current government services...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

if there is a government service that can be run as a business, then why the need for government to act as the middleman, draining resources?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

No need to argue with me leopard, I agree with you whole-heartedly

[Pyackog]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (AnonT,)
A recent poll indicates that almost 2/3 of voters say that they want less government spending, as opposed to less than 1/4 of voters who want more government spending.

Good news for us Libertarians, since we have a spend-and-spend President up against a Democratic challenger who's running on a tax-and-spend platform. Tax less and spend less 4 eva!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Not really good news because those two-thirds will still vote for one of the tax and spend presidents anyway. Too many people are convinced that only two parties exist in this country and only two solutions to an given problem.

[Stigmata66]

We(libertarians) need a strong canidate that can appeal to those 2/3 of the people and be able to get some sort of dare i say media coverage so that people will actually know what the libertarians stand for.

[Pyackog]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,)
We(libertarians) need a strong canidate that can appeal to those 2/3 of the people and be able to get some sort of dare i say media coverage so that people will actually know what the libertarians stand for.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Very true, but how to do it? I don't know that one. I know quite a few people who truly are libertarian, who still vote mostly republican because they "don't want to waste their vote." As long as people continue to do that, we will never make any headway. They say they won't vote for a person who has no chance of winning, but the candidate will never have a chance of winning because people won't vote for them.

I don't know how to end that cycle on a large scale, unless it starts with gaining a lot of local spots and building strength in that manner.

[Stigmata66]

First off maybe some national advertising competting with dems and republicans during the fall and during primary season might get some attention. Unless libertarians starting voting and advokating the libertarian views then nothing will change.

[Poetic_Justice]

We libertarians gotta stop legitimizing the system...

Ethically, we cannot justify taking the public's money through taxation for our own salary.

Ethically, we cannot justify voting for or against a law which effects the public.(Although I would say that we can ethically vote to strike down regulations, as striking down regulations merely limits government's powers and therefore is actually giving the right to those sorts of things back to the populace.)

So this leaves us in a quandary, if we are elected, to be consistent in our ethics we must vote exactly as those who voted us in would have us vote. However, the system does not allow us to divide up our vote. Abstaining would not be respecting the wishes of our constituents. So really, participating in an election leaves us inconsistent in our ethics.

Therefore, we must concern ourselves instead with things like lobbying groups, pamphleteering, and seceding. To participate in the politicalsystem, is to legitimize government!

[bentodd]

To the question about running a Libertarian canidate for president who can cause some change the answer is that the LP has 2 high profile canidates this year Gary Nolan, and Aaron Russo.

Gary Nolan is a former nationally syndicated radio talk show host, and Aaron Russo is a former Hollywood producer.

I have been working with the Gary Nolan campaign writing and publishing articles, distributing press releases, and posting press releases to major forums such as www.slate.msn.com

He has been getting invitations to speak at events by his former guests. He spoke at the Arab American national convention along with 8 democratic canidates. He has had articles written about his success at Amazon.com, and was added to a poll at the University of Rochester NY as the only 3rd party canidate. He won the poll with 34% and Bush got 21%.
http://www.garynolan.com

Benjamin Todd
http://groups.yahoo.com/gary-nolan-activist-committee

[Leopard]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Poetic_Justice,)
We libertarians gotta stop legitimizing the system...

Ethically, we cannot justify taking the public's money through taxation for our own salary.

Ethically, we cannot justify voting for or against a law which effects the public.(Although I would say that we can ethically vote to strike down regulations, as striking down regulations merely limits government's powers and therefore is actually giving the right to those sorts of things back to the populace.)

So this leaves us in a quandary, if we are elected, to be consistent in our ethics we must vote exactly as those who voted us in would have us vote. However, the system does not allow us to divide up our vote. Abstaining would not be respecting the wishes of our constituents. So really, participating in an election leaves us inconsistent in our ethics.

Therefore, we must concern ourselves instead with things like lobbying groups, pamphleteering, and seceding. To participate in the politicalsystem, is to legitimize government!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

not at all - isn't taxation and voting forms of force? who exactly initiated this force upon us - all the other voters in america! Our own voting or taxation is in DEFENSE! check out The Free State Project as the only currently viable method left to effect change in our country...