What political party do you lean?

What party do you typically choose

  • Democrats

    Votes: 16 38.1%
  • Republicans

    Votes: 13 31.0%
  • Other, explain in comments

    Votes: 13 31.0%

  • Total voters
    42
Status
Not open for further replies.

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
The trouble with just voting for the "other" party as it will do nothing for the debt. The debt has risen under either party's control for over a hundred years. Inflation has risen directly proportional to government spending. End the spiraling debt by voting Libertarian.
You have not yet provided us with an example of a country that follows your Libertarian policies.

Give us an example of where these ideas are being successfully used.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member


That sounds like a phenominal idea (if you are wealthy enough not to worry if the market falls and you lose your businesses that the middle class folks work so hard to build up for the years in between recessions).



Because prior to the Federal Reserve system and all that ever present inflation you are so scared of there were recessions every couple years because the mega wealthy could just trigger a recession by withdrawing all their money from banks tanking the markets so they could buy up all the capital that was built up.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/15/why-third-parties-should-stop-running-candidates-president/
View attachment 4685369

If you had to pinpoint when third parties reached the height of their influence in modern U.S. presidential politics, it would have to be 2000, when Green Party nominee Ralph Nader received more than 97,000 votes in Florida, far more than George W. Bush’s 537-vote declared margin of victory. Which, given everything that happened over the subsequent eight years, was not exactly something to be proud of.

Though the effect was not quite as stark, in 2016, Green Party nominee Jill Stein received votes in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania that exceeded the margin by which Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton in each state. This year, we’re hearing less about the third parties, which have run into some trouble of late.

But this election — in which a vote for the Greens or the Libertarians has become almost impossible to justify — might lead them to reconsider their role in presidential politics.

The latest news is that because of a mundane paperwork snafu, the Green Party will not have its nominee, Howie Hawkins, on the ballot in Wisconsin, which makes a Joe Biden victory there significantly more likely.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Monday against the Greens, who had been disqualified because of discrepancies in addresses listed for their vice-presidential candidate on their application. Because they were not quick enough in appealing an initial decision by election officials, large numbers of ballots had already been sent out without the Green Party line on them; had they won, it would have meant sending out a second round of ballots, which would have caused extensive confusion.

To the Greens, it surely seems terribly unfair. Republicans are also deeply disappointed; it looks as though they will fail in their absurd effort to get rapper Kanye West on the Wisconsin ballot as well.

But we should ask why the Green Party, or any other third party, runs presidential candidates at all.

You can understand why they do: It’s a way to get attention for themselves and their views. People care about presidential campaigns. It’s the big show.

But nothing good comes of it, and in the worst-case scenario, they can help produce a disaster. Like Donald Trump becoming president of the United States.

What kind of establishment stooge am I to want to silence these important voices, you might ask? I’m not trying to silence them at all. I think it would be better if we had stronger third parties. But running in presidential campaigns doesn’t make them stronger.

Like it or not, we have a winner-take-all system when it comes to elections for president, Congress, and many other offices. Third-party candidates won’t win, they can only siphon votes away from candidates who agree with them on some things but not everything. The idea that doing so forces major-party candidates to be more responsive to their ideas — one justification they offer — has precisely zero evidence to back it up.

For instance, Biden is indeed much more liberal than he used to be or than Clinton was in 2016. But that’s not because of what happened with Stein four years ago, or because of the threat posed to Biden’s election by Hawkins. It’s because Democratic voters have moved to the left.

And to those potential third-party voters who say they just can’t get inspired by Biden: Who said you have to be inspired by your vote for president? Who said your presidential vote has to be a complete expression of everything you believe? It’s a dangerously narrow way to view politics.

Sometimes you vote for president for a very specific reason that stands apart from much of what you might like to see in the future. If you think that Trump is a monster, getting rid of him is a really good reason to vote for Biden, even if he’ll disappoint you in many ways.

If you like what the Green Party stands for, you’ll do a lot better to find ways to make it stronger on the state and local levels. There may be elections in your area where a third-party candidate can win, and then have real influence and power, which will help build the party and advance its ideas.

To be clear, third parties already organize on the local level; I’m not telling them something they don’t already know. But the problem they pose is with those casual voters, the ones who want to make a statement that they believe someone like Biden is a corporate sellout — but want to do it in the easiest way possible, a way that doesn’t require them to think too much about the complex nature of political power.

And plenty of third parties don’t run presidential candidates, even if they face their own challenges (the Working Families Party, which has been extremely influential in New York and endorsed Biden, is now facing a threat to its own access to the ballot which could greatly diminish its power, thanks to state Democrats).

The system is built and maintained by the two major parties, which would be happy to see third parties disappear (except when they can use them to undermine their opponents, as Republicans are now doing with the Greens). That makes building support and influence all the more challenging.
But at this point, we can pretty well say that whatever a third party’s strategy is for creating real change, running a candidate for president isn’t going to work.
The Green Party has a grass-roots effort in Oregon and I support some of their initiatives.

But the national effort is a joke.
 

smokin away

Well-Known Member
You have not yet provided us with an example of a country that follows your Libertarian policies.

Give us an example of where these ideas are being successfully used.
Granted there are no true Libertarian Governments to exhibit. There is however a great deal of literature and Sociological data to support the ideology.
First I submit a quote from Thomas Paine's Age of Reason published in 1796.
"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall."
Second, I present two articles that support the fact liberty and freedom improve the quality of life.
You must accept the credibility of these articles or reject them upon your own opinion.
Do we really need a government to make our decisions or is an individual able to use their power of reason to make decisions?
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Granted there are no true Libertarian Governments to exhibit. There is however a great deal of literature and Sociological data to support the ideology.
First I submit a quote from Thomas Paine's Age of Reason published in 1796.
"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other, and I trust I never shall."
Second, I present two articles that support the fact liberty and freedom improve the quality of life.
You must accept the credibility of these articles or reject them upon your own opinion.
Do we really need a government to make our decisions or is an individual able to use their power of reason to make decisions?
What are these decisions you speak of?
 

smokin away

Well-Known Member
What are these decisions you speak of?
Paying taxes, deciding what I do with my own life concerning recreational enjoyment and the right to bear whatever arms I see necessary for defense among others to long to list. There are also monetary decisions for health care and employment choices now governed by mandates and Licensing requirements.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Paying taxes, deciding what I do with my own life concerning recreational enjoyment and the right to bear whatever arms I see necessary for defense among others to long to list. There are also monetary decisions for health care and employment choices now governed by mandates and Licensing requirements.
Ok, so we just fundamentally disagree, because everything you listed seems pretty absurd to me, and are not something that you have 'lost' but just stuff that has always been governed. Because people have taken advantage of humanity in all those situations you listed, to the point that society had to step in and say no more because it was and is dangerous to everyone else.
 

smokin away

Well-Known Member
Ok, so we just fundamentally disagree, because everything you listed seems pretty absurd to me, and are not something that you have 'lost' but just stuff that has always been governed. Because people have taken advantage of humanity in all those situations you listed, to the point that society had to step in and say no more because it was and is dangerous to everyone else.
Truly I respect opinions other than my own. What is being overlooked here is who can best make these decisions. The Government or free individuals with our inherited right of Reason. This is a good description of Libertarian ideology and I know the man is Republican but he is well versed in Political Science and I respect his opinion.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Truly I respect opinions other than my own. What is being overlooked here is who can best make these decisions. The Government or free individuals with our inherited right of Reason. This is a good description of Libertarian ideology and I know the man is Republican but he is well versed in Political Science and I respect his opinion.
Ive listened to the Pauls for years and they have a horrible grasp of economics. All of these things that they try to pretend is a good idea has been shown over and over again to be disastrous on our economy when they have actually been done.

If you are a rich landowner or have a lot of capital, sure they can get by on stupid economic policy, because they are in a position to buy in the recessions. That is the problem with their short run faux economic hocus locus. That is why they generally try to sell it to people who think the world is going to end so the long run doesn't really matter.

Rand Paul just says shit and pretends it is reality. 'The number one reason for poverty' @4:00 is having kids out of wedlock is his answer. What kind of bullshit religious dogma is that? He is conflating having kids prior to finishing your education and starting your career as it being because of marriage. It is his spewing that kind of garbage logic that just because he can find some propagandist author with such low morality that they are willing to lie to publish something that I am talking about when I say not to trust them.
 

Keesje

Well-Known Member
Truly I respect opinions other than my own. What is being overlooked here is who can best make these decisions. The Government or free individuals with our inherited right of Reason.
The Government is nothing more than the representation of a large group of individuals.
Namely we the people.
So basically free individuals already have the power and make the decisions.

Libertarianism is a beautiful theory (just as communism may even be a beautiful theory :) )
Unfortunately, theories often ignore the fact that they do not work in practice.
Simply because they are based on an ideal - non-existent - view of man: That all people will always think rationally.
History and the daily news has shown that this will never be the case.
And even if they all would think rationally: Rational people can also do things that harm other people.

Libertarianism and other utopic theories such as socialism and communism are outdated and have long since been overtaken by reality.
But not all elements in those kinds of system are bad.
Politicians and journalists would do well not to discard everything that comes from a particular socio-economic system, simply because it comes from that system.
For example, rejecting national health care because it 'comes from the Nazis' is absurd.
First, because they are not the inventors of it, but more importantly: Suppose they had come up with it, could it not be that they came up with something clever?
With which I don't want to make a plea for national health care. But if something is a good idea for a particular society, then it should be recognized and acknowledged as such.
 

smokin away

Well-Known Member
The Government is nothing more than the representation of a large group of individuals.
Namely we the people.
So basically free individuals already have the power and make the decisions.

Libertarianism is a beautiful theory (just as communism may even be a beautiful theory :) )
Unfortunately, theories often ignore the fact that they do not work in practice.
Simply because they are based on an ideal - non-existent - view of man: That all people will always think rationally.
History and the daily news has shown that this will never be the case.
And even if they all would think rationally: Rational people can also do things that harm other people.

Libertarianism and other utopic theories such as socialism and communism are outdated and have long since been overtaken by reality.
But not all elements in those kinds of system are bad.
Politicians and journalists would do well not to discard everything that comes from a particular socio-economic system, simply because it comes from that system.
For example, rejecting national health care because it 'comes from the Nazis' is absurd.
First, because they are not the inventors of it, but more importantly: Suppose they had come up with it, could it not be that they came up with something clever?
With which I don't want to make a plea for national health care. But if something is a good idea for a particular society, then it should be recognized and acknowledged as such.
Did you really read the part about Communism that says: "It's already been tried but failed." Then it states Libertarianism has never been tried but there is a first time for everything.
Our two party politicians are bought and paid for cronies only subscribing to wealthy donors and special interest groups that support them. They are not representing us and only see the people who claim "Income Taxes" that they rob from us.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Did you really read the part about Communism that says: "It's already been tried but failed." Then it states Libertarianism has never been tried but there is a first time for everything.
Our two party politicians are bought and paid for cronies only subscribing to wealthy donors and special interest groups that support them. They are not representing us and only see the people who claim "Income Taxes" that they rob from us.

 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Paying taxes, deciding what I do with my own life concerning recreational enjoyment and the right to bear whatever arms I see necessary for defense among others to long to list. There are also monetary decisions for health care and employment choices now governed by mandates and Licensing requirements.
I can look up what libertarians want. I'm asking from a practical point of view, where has the kind of wholesale liberatarian policy you advocate shown to to enable a healthy, happy, thriving society that can defend itself?

I can point to countries where the kind of socialist Democracy I advocate for promotes societies that are thriving and happier than the US. Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Japan. Their taxes aren't such a burden that people can't live better lives than we have here today.

So rather than bore with propaganda and useless philosophy, give me some place where I can give a look at how people do in an unregulated capitalist society with small government and where money is all that matters?
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
I can look up what libertarians want. I'm asking from a practical point of view, where has the kind of wholesale liberatarian policy you advocate shown to to enable a healthy, happy, thriving society that can defend itself?

I can point to countries where the kind of socialist Democracy I advocate for promotes societies that are thriving and happier than the US. Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Japan. Their taxes aren't such a burden that people can't live better lives than we have here today.

So rather than bore with propaganda and useless philosophy, give me some place where I can give a look at how people do in an unregulated capitalist society with small government and where money is all that matters?
It is almost like the fact that lake Erie was once on fire because of this 'unregulated' mindset is forgotten about. Or all the toxic waste dumped in our cities did not have to have large tax payer funded federal programs to clean them up.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Did you really read the part about Communism that says: "It's already been tried but failed." Then it states Libertarianism has never been tried but there is a first time for everything.
Our two party politicians are bought and paid for cronies only subscribing to wealthy donors and special interest groups that support them. They are not representing us and only see the people who claim "Income Taxes" that they rob from us.
Lassiez Faire polices were tried and they ended up with monopolies.

Same with unregulated food and drugs. Same with unregulated markets. Same with unfair labor practices.

It's been tried and the results led to unions, regulations and anti-trust laws. So, I'm asking where on earth is there a country anyting like what you propose. Libraries are filled with books containing failed philosophies, including Communism. I think Libertarianism belongs there too. Convince me otherwise by giving practical examples.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
It is almost like the fact that lake Erie was once on fire because of this 'unregulated' mindset is forgotten about. Or all the toxic waste dumped in our cities did not have to have large tax payer funded federal programs to clean them up.
He sounds a lot like Rob Roy. I wonder if he believes that adults should be able to buy favors from children in exchange for an ice cream like Rob does. Because "to have laws that prevent free will is communism".
 
Last edited:

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
He sounds a lot like Rob Roy. I wonder if he believes that adults should be able to buy favors from chidden in exchange for an ice cream like Rob does. Because "to have laws that prevent free will is communism".
They have those tiny hands to get inside the machines, regulations be damned!
 

Keesje

Well-Known Member
Did you really read the part about Communism that says: "It's already been tried but failed." Then it states Libertarianism has never been tried but there is a first time for everything.
It has never been tried for a good reason: Because it will not work. And you can say: "But it has never been tried, so how do you know that?"
And I will reply by saying that all systems where people have total liberty, those same liberties will be abused by people more evil, more smart, more power and money hungry, then you and me. History showed that.
In anarchistic circumstances evil systems popped up. The powerless Weimar Republic led to the nazi-regime. The collapse of the Chinese Empire led to Mao coming to power. Those evil bastards could only come to power because there was no strong government, supported by the people, that could stop them. The French Revolution became a massacre among their own ranks after just months. Read stories about Robespierre.

Look at all those so-called love & peace hippy communities: When you hear the people talking who were part of it, you hear many stories of abuse of power. Women who were oppressed and used. Madmen like Charles Manson who influenced naive children and turned them into murderers. These are things that will happen when you release so-called freedom on a group. Not all people will become bad of course, but you only need a few to fuck up society.
Read the books Animal Farm by George Orwell or Lord of the Flies.

Perhaps you are right about the democrats and the republicans. I don't know and I don't care either (I am not a citizen of the US)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top