Would you support a REAL Libertarian Party?

[bentodd]

As the Libertarian Party grows we are running winable candidates and giving them the funding they need to compete with the major parties.

The Libertarian Party has moved to zero dues for membership so they can concentrate on training and funding candidates instead of membership renewals. To join for free go to www.lp.org

This thread and poll is to see how many people will give the Libertarian Party their vote for 1 year. If you agree with the Libertarians then vote strait Libertarian on election day 2006. If you don't see the growth of a strong third party with political clout at least it was not a presidental election year.

Will you support the Libertarian Party in 2006?

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: bentodd As the Libertarian Party grows we are running winable candidates and giving them the funding they need to compete with the major parties. The Libertarian Party has moved to zero dues for membership so they can concentrate on training and funding candidates instead of membership renewals. To join for free go to www.lp.org This thread and poll is to see how many people will give the Libertarian Party their vote for 1 year. If you agree with the Libertarians then vote strait Libertarian on election day 2006. If you don't see the growth of a strong third party with political clout at least it was not a presidental election year. Will you support the Libertarian Party in 2006?

I don't know if I should vote since I've been registered Libertarian for over 20 years. Perhaps, to avoid skewing the results of those of us who already support the LP you should have put a space in for "been there, done that".

Keith

[RickSp]

I wonder whether I should have participated in the poll. I have supported the LP, to one extent or another, since casting a write-in vote for John Hospers and Toni Nathan back in 1972. In recent years I have been increasingly disallusioned with the party. In the past three years, I have been particularly unimpressed by the party's luke warm opposition to the war. I also found the last election to be a real nose holder when it came to voting for the presidential candidate. If the party doesn't break out its Rothbarian navel gazing I'm not sure it has much of a future.

[bishop]

i've never voted LP, but i want to.. i'm still waiting to see a REAL candidate rather than a joke like badnarik. he'll never receive my vote.

[nm420]

While there are a few issues with which the LP and I don't see eye to eye on, I generally give them some support at the polls, though this has only been since 2000. I do have a dirty secret though: I voted for Kerry in 2004. I had planned on not doing it all the way up until a few days before the election, and then I started questioning myself. As soon as I stepped out of the polling station a feeling of disgust started welling up within me, and I've vowed to never vote with my more base emotions again. I'd be willing to put in all my votes this year for the LP as a sort of penitence for my misdeeds. Unfortunately, I can't afford to really donate money to the cause, as the handful of organizations I already donate to already are too much for me. But I shall lend my support via my opinion articles in the student newspaper, though I really don't need any prodding to do that.

[nm420]

What's with this?

YES, I certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.

Does the LP not want me if I don't ascribe to this belief? I left it unchecked as the jury is still out on this one for me. But it seems a little odd on any party's website, let alone the Libertarian's.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: nm420 What's with this? YES, I certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals. Does the LP not want me if I don't ascribe to this belief? I left it unchecked as the jury is still out on this one for me. But it seems a little odd on any party's website, let alone the Libertarian's.

What's the question here?

Yes, the Libertarian Party expects you to ascribe to this belief. Notice it doesn't say anything about "using" force but "initiating" force. It doesn't expect you to be a pacifist who refuses to use force in any situation, just to be able to justify TO YOURSELF that any force used is in response to another's initiation of that force.

Other than esoteric philisophical discussions no libertarian is going to expect you to justify the use of force to anyone but yourself. Now, if you believe that "private property is theft" you probably won't believe in much of anything else the LP stands for. However, if you believe that "taxation is theft" you will find much to agree with in the LP and, if you support the use of force to oppose taxation, as an initiation of force, you will find extensive support of that in the LP.

Ultimately, the entire philosophy of libertarianism revolves around the principle of opposition to the initiation of force. Unlike any other political party, the Libertarian Party is based on clearly defined principle. The principle that individuals have the right to ownership of their own lives. The way that ownership is threatened is through the initiation of force.

I could go on but this really is a topic for another thread, one that has probably been done already.

Keith

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Is there a website where I can find some key ideas and projects the libertarian party has?

[RickSp]

The LP site is www.lp.org . It was in Ben's initial post.

[bishop]

ya know.. i wonder if the internet would have ever been created had it not have been for "big government" spending...

i kind of doubt it to be honest..

i like the LP's ideas, some of them, but i'd rather have a more watered-down version. then, i'd support the LP in full.

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop ya know.. i wonder if the internet would have ever been created had it not have been for "big government" spending...

It is difficult to speculate what might have been constructed if the resources had been left in a society rather than be used to build, pyramids, armies or even the internet.

[bishop]

i think it's worthwhile to speculate nonetheless.. just using the internet as an example (or satellites, etc.), many of these truly innovative inventions were never economically viable in the beginning - not even close.

i just raise the example of the internet to illustrate that government intervention isn't always wasteful or counterproductive - as the LP's mantra suggests. sometimes it's very useful.

[bentodd]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Is there a website where I can find some key ideas and projects the libertarian party has?

The best thing to do is to go to www.lp.org where you will be able to find the site for your local/state party. Or you can do a google search for "your state" Libertarian party

[bentodd]

Quote by: bishop ya know.. i wonder if the internet would have ever been created had it not have been for "big government" spending... i kind of doubt it to be honest.. i like the LP's ideas, some of them, but i'd rather have a more watered-down version. then, i'd support the LP in full.

You may find that many libertarians, and candidates disagree on a few issues.
If you are 70% Libertarian I an sure that you agree with the LP much more than the Rs and Ds. Just a thought.

[xyzer]

I don't like the idea of open immigration...Does that mean that libertarian candidates would open our borders completely if they are elected. Illegal immigration problems wopuld be quickly settled by making it legal to come in...

[bishop]

Quote by: bentodd You may find that many libertarians, and candidates disagree on a few issues. If you are 70% Libertarian I an sure that you agree with the LP much more than the Rs and Ds. Just a thought.

that's true, but from what i've seen, LP primaries are largely contests of who can be the "purest" rather than who has the best ideas. i want to support the LP, but i need to see a solid candidate to support - and i'm still waiting.

and, i should add that i really do want to see the LP succeed (just not as long as it promotes the "purists")... the republicans and democrats are corrupt as all hell and beyond repair imo. i'm definitely not going to be one of these pleebs who criticizes the LP while acting like the republicans/democrats are actually better, which they certainly are not.

something that often confuses the hell out of me is that i like parts of the LP's message - and i also like elements of the green party's message. (hence why i characterize myself as a moderate - because i see good and bad in all political ideologies).. i'd have to say that i would want to see the green party succeed just as much as the LP.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: bishop i think it's worthwhile to speculate nonetheless.. just using the internet as an example (or satellites, etc.), many of these truly innovative inventions were never economically viable in the beginning - not even close. i just raise the example of the internet to illustrate that government intervention isn't always wasteful or counterproductive - as the LP's mantra suggests. sometimes it's very useful.

OK. Let's go with something to speculate on. As has been pointed out by libertarian science fiction author L. Neil Smith, the government parasitically takes 50% of the production of our economy through taxation. They take another 50% (at least) of the potential productivity of our economy through regulation.

OK. Let's speculate.

What could the American economy have produced with four times the technological progress over the past 100 years? What could the American economy have produced with four times the resources over the past 100 years?

And, remember, this is all cumulative and exponential.

Hell, I think we would have had flying cars, personal laser rifles, lunar communities, intergalactic travel, unlimited power resources with no pollution, the internet for free for everybody everywhere in the world, a perfect international missile defense. I think that almost anything you could imagine would have been done.

And all of that should have been available by the last quarter of the last century.

Compared to a 4x annual improvement in technology and living standards, what has the government provided us?

Keith

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: bentodd As the Libertarian Party grows we are running winable candidates and giving them the funding they need to compete with the major parties. The Libertarian Party has moved to zero dues for membership so they can concentrate on training and funding candidates instead of membership renewals. To join for free go to www.lp.org This thread and poll is to see how many people will give the Libertarian Party their vote for 1 year. If you agree with the Libertarians then vote strait Libertarian on election day 2006. If you don't see the growth of a strong third party with political clout at least it was not a presidental election year. Will you support the Libertarian Party in 2006?

The LP is dead.

They've never appealed to the normal voter and they don't have a chance.

[SteveA]

Remember folks, voting in the primary elections can be much more effective than voting in the general elections.

For example, if 5 candidates are running in a primary election and the votes are split like this:

Candidate A 2,000 votes
Candidate B 2,000 votes
Candidate C 2,000 votes
Candidate D 2,000 votes
Candidate E 3,000 votes

Then if any of candidates A through D are rather libertarian, it only takes 1,000 votes to swing the primary election.

If this was a Democratic primary for a generally Democratic state, then merely 1,000 votes can effectively swing the entire election.

I forget what the real effectivity of this was like for a real state but voting in a primary seemed to be more than 10 times as effective as voting in the general election, even considering that the candidate wasn't a perfect match.

You're still free to vote however you want in the general election anyway though. So it would seem worthwhile to register with the main political party in your state and get people to vote in their primary elections for a candidate that might be closer to your ideology (hopefully a minimal government/libertarian type :)).

After saying all this, I'm a bit hypocritical because it's doubtful I'll vote, at least not in CA. I'm a bit resigned to the fact that things here aren't going to be resolved until more people actively desire it. It seems people are only going to learn the hard way here. If there truly was a strong desire for reform, it's not like libertarian views are top secret or incomprehensible rocket science. I'm certain every legislator here in CA has been exposed to many libertarian recommendations but most of them can't control themselves, ignorant of the effects they have, have ulterior motives or simply don't really care about really improving the health of the state.

Real reforms won't happen until they come from bottom-up. Who else would be most interested in the welfare of individuals than non-governmental/private citizens? Imagine the effect that a single day of widespread outcry against the continued of growth government would have? You see tons of government unions go on strike or protest ... imagine the effects of such a protest by average Joe American? (I don't encourage protests, as there's no immediate positive benefit but currently a widescale peaceful one would definitely be worth the effort in the long run).

Quote by: Bishop ya know.. i wonder if the internet would have ever been created had it not have been for "big government" spending...

Consider a few things 1) Bulletin board systems were already becoming comingly used before the Internet came along. Systems like Compuserve and AOL were already around (founded in 1969) and growing before the internet came along.

Also the internet is primarily a private creation. This forum itself is almost entirely privately created, from the physical networks connecting it to the users themselves.

The only claim government really has for planting the initial seed. The time was ripe for having a seed planted and if government hadn't at that time, it's almost certain that private companies would have begun advertising full time connectivity as well. We spend countless billions every year paying for government. It seems obvious we should get some value in exchange for it.

But consider also what alternative growths in the private sector would have emerged without this governmental burden. It seems relatively easy to imagine private companies in electronics to have been 10 years or more further along in development if they hadn't been expected to pay for these burdens. The true value of the internet didn't come from its inception as much as from the value private individuals were seeing in the growth of electronics at the time, which included a rapidly increasing telecommunications network.

Consider as well that the initial internet was a small network of high speed fiber optic cables that were paid for by tax dollars. So private individuals and companies did already foot the bill for the internet, (and likely would have gotten a better deal out of the investment as well. From the track record, government programs aren't known to spend tax dollars efficiently).

So, yes, the creation of the internet was a boon but considering the real growth of the internet occurred in the private realm, the markets were already providing growing telecommunication opportunities. Consider that most computers already had modems, before the internet was around. The growth of the internet was basically inevitable as more and more electronic sources of connectivity began to mesh into a single large scale network. If government hadn't proposed the standard, Compuserve, AOL or Microsoft etc. would have. It was an idea that had already been growing and simply needed a catalyst to trigger it. Would the internet have been further along without government burdens placed on private electronics industries? It's quite possible actually.

OMG, that is soooo off topic isn't it? :(

[SteveA]

Still off thread a bit (though this truly is about the general character of how many libertarians view things):

Consider what percent of engineering talent is directly employed by government? And also what percent of this talent is indirectly employed by government contracts or subsidies? Often this engineering work is focused on rather non-immediately profitable enterprises like building more military technology or sending probes into space etc. The real question is whether or not the general state of humanity would be better if we'd have let these people focus on more private concerns instead (like better construction technology, improved telecommunications, energy and transportation etc.).

My guess is that the internet, housing, energy and transportation would be better served without government beaurocracies running a lot of the show in these areas. We'd likely have less military and space technology, but what real benefits does the average Joe gain from these? Few. It honestly would have been better to let engineers do what they do best and design and come up with new ideas with regard to their own personal desires and assist fulfilling the private desires of others than to assume centralized, socialized government politics were truly remain focused and beneficial to the needs of the average citizen.

So a wider scale view of the effect of government control over engineering resources has likely resulted in greater resources placed into space and military endeavors than otherwise. Is that truly beneficial? Also, have these resources been used efficiently? Would private use of engineering skills have been more thrifty and efficient in the use of these?

There is a greater benefit to publicly available technology than privately owned, but consider that government itself is the entity enforcing a model that treats ideas as if one person has sole private ownership of them. So the issue of the costs of private ownership/monopolization of technology is a problem government itself created.

No, it seems almost certain that technology would grow faster and be more immediately serving to the needs of people if the large majority of government control over technology were removed.