- Status
Really makes you wish that 3rd parties were more viable, and not seemingly dominated by more extreme versions of the Big Two.[/QUOTE]
Or crazy in their own right.
We need a party of 'Meh'
Where do you stand on abortion? Meh
Gay rights? Meh
The environment? Meh
Wait, is there anything you feel strongly about? Yeah, lunch.[/QUOTE]
And their young-age platforms could be aptly named The Jaded Youths or something, I guess. Eh.
That party already got 43% in the last election.
GasBandit
Staff member
So I'm late to the party, but I'll just chime in with a few bullet points -
The Texas GOP is a pretty wacky bunch all right... and you should see the Texas Democrats!
All of the personal responsibility with none of the theocracy and homophobia.
- Ban gay marriage = bad.
- Ban abortion = bad.
- Reform/revise/repeal patriot act = good.
- There's no bureaucrat like a Texas Bureaucrat.
- I just learned today you have to have a concealed-carry permit to pretty much have a gun ANYWHERE in your car at any time in Texas, so stick that in your "Texas is Anarchy and Guns" pipe and smoke it.
- Texas haters can go gargle dicks. Or rather, go BACK to gargling dicks
The Texas GOP is a pretty wacky bunch all right... and you should see the Texas Democrats!
All of the personal responsibility with none of the theocracy and homophobia.
Is it wrong that your image makes me think of a basketball team logo? Because I swear to god, for a second I thought the Statue of Liberty was trying to dunk.
Is it wrong that your image makes me think of a basketball team logo? Because I swear to god, for a second I thought the Statue of Liberty was trying to dunk.[/QUOTE]
The Libertarian party would be ok with that, as long as it was her choice to dunk.
But where is the compassion for human beings? Or common sense?
Compassion is for suckers. That's the lesson of Jesus.
GasBandit
Staff member
Libertarianism is the most compassionate. It grants you your freedom to forge your own destiny instead of go to seed in the prison of good intentions that statists inflict upon you.
Yeah, like you'd know that if you saw it.
Look, I just need a political party that supports the existence of a fire department and police force. That's all I ask.
Fuck you, hippie!
It's socialist bastards like you that are ruining this country.
Necronic
Staff member
You gonna vote for Bill White? Please tell me you aren't throwing your vote away on some libertarian shmoe. Don't get me wrong, I am a libertarian too, but as a libertarian you get a choice.So I'm late to the party, but I'll just chime in with a few bullet points -
- Ban gay marriage = bad.
- Ban abortion = bad.
- Reform/revise/repeal patriot act = good.
- There's no bureaucrat like a Texas Bureaucrat.
- I just learned today you have to have a concealed-carry permit to pretty much have a gun ANYWHERE in your car at any time in Texas, so stick that in your "Texas is Anarchy and Guns" pipe and smoke it.
- Texas haters can go gargle dicks. Or rather, go BACK to gargling dicks
The Texas GOP is a pretty wacky bunch all right... and you should see the Texas Democrats!
All of the personal responsibility with none of the theocracy and homophobia.
Republican - Legislating Morality and enforcing police state laws, but high levels of economic freedom
Democrat - Steal from the rich and give to the poor, but little legislation of morality and generally against too much police power.
The good thing is that White is a nice moderate democrat, definitely someone who used to run an oil town.
GasBandit
Staff member
I don't think it counts as "compassion" if the "giving" is done with the government's monopoly on the use of deadly force poking you in the back of the ribs reminding you to get out your checkbook. Liberals are big on socialism, conservatives are big on private charity.
A lot of people confuse Libertarianism for Anarchism, but it isn't the same. The Libertarian party still wants police departments, fire departments, public libraries and schools and all that stuff. They just aren't into telling people what to do with their money, their dick, or their soul.
I haven't decided yet who to vote for in the gubernatorial election, because Kathy Glass hasn't chimed in on all the issues yet. But as long as she doesn't say something stupid and contrary to Libertarianism, like wanting to ban all abortion or something, she'll probably get my vote. I'll definitely be voting Libertarian for any legislative positions that come up, however. I don't care how moderate Chet Edwards is, he's keeping the Speaker title in front of Nancy Pelosi's name, which has to stop. I'm hoping Wayne Allyn Root gets the presidential nomination in 2012.
I don't think it counts as "compassion" if the "giving" is done with the government's monopoly on the use of deadly force poking you in the back of the ribs reminding you to get out your checkbook. Liberals are big on socialism, conservatives are big on private charity.[/QUOTE]But the problem is that private charity has no where near the built in resources to find and help people in need that the government does. Besides, the simple fact is that it seems (to me, and I might be wrong) that Americans, rich or middle class, are more interested in sending charitable contributions to the other side of the world.
But all those things you listed ARE telling people what to do with their money. And I think many libertarians would do away with public libraries and schools, completely ignoring the fact that it would put education in the hands of the rich.
I voted Libertarian in the last presidential election, and I doubt I will ever do so again. Bob Barr is just as much of a dick as a Libertarian as he was as a Republican. If an intolerant jerk can get their nomination, then they can't get my vote. (To head off potential argument: "live and let live" is not defined as "I laugh at your religion and wouldn't want to serve with you in the military". Matter of fact, its kinda the opposite).
GasBandit
Staff member
I don't think it counts as "compassion" if the "giving" is done with the government's monopoly on the use of deadly force poking you in the back of the ribs reminding you to get out your checkbook. Liberals are big on socialism, conservatives are big on private charity.[/QUOTE]But the problem is that private charity has no where near the built in resources to find and help people in need that the government does. Besides, the simple fact is that it seems (to me, and I might be wrong) that Americans, rich or middle class, are more interested in sending charitable contributions to the other side of the world. [/quote]
You better have some numbers to back that up, because that sounds like something you pulled entirely out of your preconceptions. The fact is, private charities actually do very well at what they do because they ARE set up to do it. Especially at the local level. I know my community, for example, has multiple local charities which specialize in dealing with poverty, homelessness, drug and child abuse right here. They get lots of contributions, help lots of people, and have much less overhead because they're not centrally managed out of DC or anywhere else.
Why is he a dick, because he is made uncomfortable by the phoney baloney spiritualism that is marginalized even by the phoney baloney organized religions? Note that his statement is not that paganism should be banned, or used as a basis of military or social discrimination, just that he has a negative opinion about it. This is the dichotomy that so many statists of both flavors (left and right) cannot grasp - that personal beliefs and policy decisions can and must be separate from each other.
Now, to your former point - Libertarianism. Is. Not. Anarchy. It's not even a form (or lack of) government - it's the idea that government should be as small as possible, being only used for that which it is absolutely necessary for - like fire departments, police, armies, and yes, libraries. Schools are another issue altogether - for another thread. But Libertarians don't want to disband the government and cancel all government-provided services, they just want to stop government from doing the things that it has no business doing - like telling you on what days you can buy liquor, or telling you what cars you can and can't buy, or forcing you to sell your house so that they can build something there that they think will bring in more tax revenue... or refusing to let a . The list of government abuses goes on and on. There's plenty of fat to be trimmed before you worry about cutting into the muscle, much less bone structure of government.
Necronic
Staff member
I'm still surprised that you would intentionally vote for a third party in this election though. Rick Perry really needs to go, before he can put in his ridiculous trans texas corridor, and Bill White is a very solid democrat for a libertarian to get behind.
He's strongly moderate, so strongly moderate that he has been called soft by the GOP, and even members of his own party. And then there is this awesome quote:
The fact is that if the independants don't work with the democrats then we will never get rid of Rick Perry, and that should be the number one goal. Remember, this isn't Harry Reed, this is a Texas Democrat, hell, this is a Houston Democrat.
He's strongly moderate, so strongly moderate that he has been called soft by the GOP, and even members of his own party. And then there is this awesome quote:
He is also strongly financially conservative. I mean hell, he ran Houston. You can't do that as a bleeding heart. Somehow he ran one of the biggest industry towns in the world and actually improved air quality without damaging the businesses.Bill White on the GOP said:
The fact is that if the independants don't work with the democrats then we will never get rid of Rick Perry, and that should be the number one goal. Remember, this isn't Harry Reed, this is a Texas Democrat, hell, this is a Houston Democrat.
I am no card-carrying Democrat by any means, but I am hella voting for Bill White.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, I'm not set in stone, so I may decide to vote for White. I just hate promulgating the two-party paradigm, where you HAVE to vote for one or the other. That's an entirely fictitious creation that only self-reinforces. If we could get enough people voting for so-called "third" parties (no matter how many third parties there are), we'd all be a lot better off.
I don't think it counts as "compassion" if the "giving" is done with the government's monopoly on the use of deadly force poking you in the back of the ribs reminding you to get out your checkbook. Liberals are big on socialism, conservatives are big on private charity.[/QUOTE]But the problem is that private charity has no where near the built in resources to find and help people in need that the government does. Besides, the simple fact is that it seems (to me, and I might be wrong) that Americans, rich or middle class, are more interested in sending charitable contributions to the other side of the world. [/quote]
You better have some numbers to back that up, because that sounds like something you pulled entirely out of your preconceptions. The fact is, private charities actually do very well at what they do because they ARE set up to do it. Especially at the local level. I know my community, for example, has multiple local charities which specialize in dealing with poverty, homelessness, drug and child abuse right here. They get lots of contributions, help lots of people, and have much less overhead because they're not centrally managed out of DC or anywhere else.[/QUOTE]I withdraw that point because you are right, it is based on preconception. But I see ads for stuff like Christian Childrens' Fund, telethons for disasters in far off nations, and read about how much money Bill Gates gives to fight AIDs in Africa (all worthy causes, to be sure) a hell of a lot more than I ever hear about people raising money to provide healthcare or housing to the poor in THIS country.
He is a dick because is saying that religion of soldiers is sillier than his own beliefs (it ain't) and the quote "one might legitimately wonder just how far such tolerance should extend" sounds a hell of a lot like it would influence his policies. Someone who claims to be libertarian should not be questioning how far religious tolerance should extend unless laws are being broken.
But there are already private military corporations, private security agencies, private ambulance services, and even privately owned libraries. My question to a strict libertarian such as yourself is why does the line exist with these on the government side of things when private alternatives are not only possible but already existent?
Fair enough, I suppose. But why the hell private institutions would open to provide schooling for people who have not the money to pay nor the population to make it cost effective is my big question on that.
A standpoint that can be awfully subjective.
Agreed on this point. Either a jurisdiction should be either "wet" or "dry", not change based on days of the week.
Um, when have they done that? I mean, I live in the Detroit Metro Area, the car capital. Other than emissions standards...I don't know of which you speak.
Pretty sure you'd need a constitutional amendment or a very specific Supreme Court ruling to restrict eminent domain.
A what?
But what you consider fat and what someone else considers fat may vary wildly. I've found that libertarians (I used to identify as one) tend to be REALLY harsh and bordering on social darwinistic and naive when it comes to concepts like pulling yourself up by your bootstraps or the effectiveness of private charity. I've also met more than a couple who believed the police to be brutal fascists. So, while YOU may not be a nigh-anarchist, plenty of folks (in my admittedly limited experience) who claim to share your beliefs are.
Necronic
Staff member
Well, I'm not set in stone, so I may decide to vote for White. I just hate promulgating the two-party paradigm, where you HAVE to vote for one or the other. That's an entirely fictitious creation that only self-reinforces. If we could get enough people voting for so-called "third" parties (no matter how many third parties there are), we'd all be a lot better off.[/QUOTE]
I hear you but its a very difficult (and potentially dangerous) agenda to go after. Generally speaking a third party will draw votes away from the party they are closest too. This means that by pushing the third party concept you are actually hurting the progress of your other political beliefs. Case in point would be the 2k elections, but many many other examples exist (Strom Thurmand).
The way I see it the legislative branch is the place to push the third party concept, as its not an "all or nothing" situation. If you loose, you will only have given away 1 seat among hundreds to the party you are least favorable too. In the executive branches, when you loose (and you will) you loose the entire branch to the main opposition.
In the executive branch the place to fight is in the primaries. Ron Paul's support in the Republican primaries arguably did more to push certain concepts of the libertarian party than any vote cast for Bob Barr.
GasBandit
Staff member
Wondering how far religious tolerance could extend is a valid concern, when some religions require adherence to tenets that can become dangers to health and safety in a military setting. Just as a f'rinstance, GIs don't shear their hair because it looks butch... but there are religions where cutting your hair or facial hair is discouraged. Also, the Fort Hood massacre happened BECAUSE a blind eye was turned to an obvious murderous intent, because of fear of being called religiously or culturally intolerant.
1) Private Military Corporations - first of all, because the nation needs its own army. A nation without an army doesn't remain a nation for long, and it isn't prudent to put all your eggs in a mercenary's basket.
2) Security Agencies - For a similar reason to PMCs, and going further - I don't know about where you are, but where I am, Sheriffs are elected and the Chief of Police is appointed by and answers to the Mayor's office (though I've heard some places, such as in parts of Louisiana, Chief of Police is also an elected position). As with the Military, Law Enforcement has to be directly answerable to the elected legislators and executives to ensure accountability in so broad a mission.
3) Private Ambulances - I don't see a problem with private ambulances, or making health care in general more privatized. It's a service that can be provided in competition, unlike the above two.
4) Private Libraries - Yes, there are some, but there needs to be public ones too to ensure access. Plus, a public library forces nobody to read or learn, and is relatively inexpensive so far as government spending goes.
In some places, they already are. And many privatized school systems in europe are showing better results for less money spent per student than we spend here. I don't want to divert this thread, but a good intermediary step here would be school vouchers - let the parents pick the school, have the money follow the child, and watch competition improve the quality of education... because what makes capitalism such a great thing for the consumer is competition.
That's why we have a constitution.
Um, when have they done that? I mean, I live in the Detroit Metro Area, the car capital. Other than emissions standards...I don't know of which you speak.[/quote] Well, as you point out, they already control what you can buy by decreeing what can be sold. You know why there are no station wagons any more? I'll give you a hint, it's not because people stopped wanting station wagons. The answer is CAFE standards. Enter the SUV.
We've had a very bad Supreme court ruling on exactly that. Kelo vs. New London. Eminent Domain is supposed to be for things like rail lines, roads or military bases... not for private development. It sent such shockwaves through the nation that many states enacted their own ED amendment laws to explicitly prohibit use of ED to benefit private developers.
Sorry, that was my fault.. I meant to link the story about the taiwanese oil-sucking boat that the federal government wouldn't give permission to do its things because 1% of the oil might slip back out through the water exhaust, and the Coast Guard had to count their life preservers and such. But I went looking for the link, couldn't find it, and then got sidetracked.
Anything not described in the constitution, its amendments or acts derived directly from them are pretty safe to call "fat." We can later determine if local government oversteps their bounds on certain issues - at least their reach is limited by jurisdiction for the time being. But the most egregious abuses come from the Federal Level.
Well, there are nuts in every mix, sure. After all, look at Democrats and Republicans. The more ways we split power in government, in my opinion, the better. I'm not saying the Libertarian party should be the ONLY party. I'm saying two is too few. I'd like to see five. Yes, even a socialist party. Then we could debate the merit of their ideas openly on the national stage, rather them having to watermelon their way through the democrat party's eco-guerrilla wing.
Necronic
Staff member
I was listening to NPR this morning and they were talking about the third parties in Germany, and it got me thinking. One major thing about the third parties there and the ones here is that there they form coalitions. Here the third parties simply play spoiler.
What kind of bargaining power could a major third party like the libertarians or the green party have with one of the big 2? Like if I said to the dems "give us these 3 items in the party platform and remove this other one and we will back you." The bigger third parties have a fair amount of members, bob barr took what, 0.5%?
When it comes to the executive branch elections, I think that is the only legitimate move by a third party.
What kind of bargaining power could a major third party like the libertarians or the green party have with one of the big 2? Like if I said to the dems "give us these 3 items in the party platform and remove this other one and we will back you." The bigger third parties have a fair amount of members, bob barr took what, 0.5%?
When it comes to the executive branch elections, I think that is the only legitimate move by a third party.
But there are no legitimate 3rd parties. If they throw there weight anywhere it will be back to the BIG-2.
You really can not compare American politics with the geographically small nations of Europe. Every election in an European Nation is a local election. So smaller concerns, one issue parties are viable. The US needs broad catch all parties to get the needed votes to put an executive into office.
You really can not compare American politics with the geographically small nations of Europe. Every election in an European Nation is a local election. So smaller concerns, one issue parties are viable. The US needs broad catch all parties to get the needed votes to put an executive into office.
A lot of parliamentary systems are like that; their 3rd-parties are based less on acrimonious opposition to the ruling parties and more on focusing on key issues that are important to their supporters, which gives them flexibility as far as their negotiating with the ruling parties since they stay very open to political positions that their supporters don't care as much about.
In this country, for whatever reason, our 3rd parties tend to have vague, yet widely encompassing platforms with positions that are simply more extreme, in one direction or another, than the positions on those same issues of the Big Two. So not only are they often less compelling to voters, the Big Two know that the 3rd-parties are simply part of their fringe instead of a genuine voting bloc, and believe (justifiably) that they don't need to court those voters back into the fold.
EDIT: 6pack said is shorter.
In this country, for whatever reason, our 3rd parties tend to have vague, yet widely encompassing platforms with positions that are simply more extreme, in one direction or another, than the positions on those same issues of the Big Two. So not only are they often less compelling to voters, the Big Two know that the 3rd-parties are simply part of their fringe instead of a genuine voting bloc, and believe (justifiably) that they don't need to court those voters back into the fold.
EDIT: 6pack said is shorter.
GasBandit
Staff member
No, I said it in IRC yesterday. I didn't come up with it though, I forget where I got it. But it's true.
- Status