Libertarians need candidates - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14980910
Right now, we are nowhere on election day. Gary Johnson was a total failure, in part because he wasn't nearly as "libertarian" as he initially claimed.

In 2016, the Libertarian Party had a "golden opportunity," with both major parties picking nominees with over 50 negative ratings in the polls. That is likely to repeat in 2020, and we need to do better than Gary Johnson.

First Choice would be Jesse Ventura, and he needs to be pressured to make up his mind early this time, instead of sucking all the oxygen until it was too late and then not running (again). If Jesse won't run, we need to find a real candidate so that the American voter will have a real "third option" in 2020.

Aside from President, we need more candidates across the board. The American people are now almost all "hater voters," meaning they vote "against" instead of "for." A real third option and an aggressive campaign may very well open up this pathetic excuse of a "2 party" system that is railroading America into the gutter at warp speed.
#14980916
LaDexter wrote:Right now, we are nowhere on election day. Gary Johnson was a total failure, in part because he wasn't nearly as "libertarian" as he initially claimed.

In 2016, the Libertarian Party had a "golden opportunity," with both major parties picking nominees with over 50 negative ratings in the polls. That is likely to repeat in 2020, and we need to do better than Gary Johnson.

First Choice would be Jesse Ventura, and he needs to be pressured to make up his mind early this time, instead of sucking all the oxygen until it was too late and then not running (again). If Jesse won't run, we need to find a real candidate so that the American voter will have a real "third option" in 2020.

Aside from President, we need more candidates across the board. The American people are now almost all "hater voters," meaning they vote "against" instead of "for." A real third option and an aggressive campaign may very well open up this pathetic excuse of a "2 party" system that is railroading America into the gutter at warp speed.


Libertarians don’t need better candidates, they need a consistent platform. Throwing in things to attract the ‘politically correct’ voters on national issues is not consistent with wanting greater local control.
#14981004
Libertarians do not necessarily want local control

Libertarians I have met usually do not actually know what a libertarian is.

There was a libertarian candidate; Rand Paul. He is as close as you are likely to find. He got trounced.

Libertarians first need to understand what they want. Then they need to sell their message. And that does not mean talking like a bunch of Ayn Rand besotted teenagers which is the way most libertarians come off. The Libertarian Party platform reads like it was written by an 8th grader.

We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.


By aspiring to lead the omnipotent state? :eek:
#14981014
At least the US has a party with some, albeit low, profile. In the UK Thatcherism is as far as we have gone yet and that was really just one very small step in the right direction. It is an idea whose time has come really; this is the 21st century so why do we need any level of totalitarian government when there are no total wars to fight? I get why everyone had to be totalitarian in the 20th century, two world wars and a cold war, but now? Even if wars happen now they will not need nor want fat drunken citizen joe to leap into the breach, they have the mega weapons now. If citizen joe is not needed to become GI Joe then for what do we need to be subjected to military discipline?

In the absence of any total wars the 21st century should be as free as the 19th century.
#14981332
Libertarians do not want local control, state control, or federal control.... or dictatorship from Tel Aviv.

We want truth, freedom, limited government, and financial solvency for the US, everything the Dems and GOP oppose today.
#14981335
We want truth, freedom, limited government, and financial solvency for the US, everything the Dems and GOP oppose today.


This is demonstrably untrue. If only it was true. I would support all of those. Those values used to be called "conservative".
#14981337
LaDexter wrote:Libertarians do not want local control, state control, or federal control.... or dictatorship from Tel Aviv.

We want truth, freedom, limited government, and financial solvency for the US, everything the Dems and GOP oppose today.


The Libertarian platform makes repeated references to the federal government guaranteeing what you want. How do you justify this with limited government and the individuals right to choose? Why do you rely upon federal authority? What does financial solvency of the US government have to do with individual freedom? How does the government achieve financial solvency without control over individuals behavior?

Don’t take this as an attack, I tried repeatedly to get answers from the Libertarian party and was ignored. I am interested in your explanation.
#14987666
"What does financial solvency of the US government have to do with individual freedom? "



That's just breathtaking. Apparently, supporters of big government still haven't admitted what happened in Greece when their fantasy big government spent and spent and spent and didn't care how much it stole or how bankrupt it left Greece and its people....



"How does the government achieve financial solvency without control over individuals behavior?"


Easy. It SPENDS LESS than it takes in from taxes.....

From 1995 to 1998, the pre 1998 GOP actually did that....
#14987667
Victoribus Spolia wrote:A Libertarian Political Party is an oxymoron.




There are plenty of political oxymorons, but that isn't one. A libertarian political party supports....

1. LESS GOVERNMENT
2. MORE INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM
3. LOWER TAXES
4. LESS GOVERNMENT SPENDING
5. NON INTERVENTIONALIST FOREIGN POLICY


Top 10 political oxymorons of 2019


1. honest Democrat
2. patriotic (post 1998) Republican
3. conservative (post 1998) Republican
4. sensible gun control
5. ally Israel
6. Co2 and warming in the same sentence
7. intelligent Christian
8. compassionate liberalism
9. compassionate "conservatism" - (in reality NOTHING W did in office was actually "conservative")
10. honest media
#14987684
@LaDexter,

Other than yourself, I am probably the only active Libertarian still on this forum, so I am hesitant to get in a dispute with someone within my own tribe, but I think some things need to be mentioned regarding the problem with a Libertarian political party given the actual political philosophy of Libertarianism, so let me first address your first remark:

LaDexter wrote:There are plenty of political oxymorons, but that isn't one.


I respectfully disagree; and in doing so I am following the ideas of Edward Konkin in his work "The New Libertarian Manifesto."
and to a lesser (but no less profound) degree, of Hans-Herman Hoppe in his work "Democracy, The God That Failed."

The reason I disagree is because the idea of reducing or eliminating government by becoming one of its machinations is entirely misplaced for several points.

The first point is the idea that the state would/could ever reduce its power, the second one is the presumption that a representative government is even compatible with libertarian ideals in the first place, and the last point is that such a position as you propose invariably pits actual libertarians against "reformist" libertarians in practice in a way that is patently ridiculous. So let me address these one-by-one.


I. The State Will Not Reduce Its Power.


The point is important, and depending on how you respond, we could go in deep to discuss it, but for now it will suffice for me to summarize the main idea; namely, that government will NOT reduce its power given its nature as a human institution (praxeology).

The state as we have it ( a social contract style representative system) is predicated on a lack of private ownership in the governing process itself. The reason this is significant is because such a scenario creates a case where temporarily elected representatives are in charge of major economic decisions for which they themselves are not financially liable.

Under such conditions, you have people who gain power purely by an appeal to the population, serving temporary terms, and having no personal liability for any use of money for the general public. What sort of state of affairs would predictibly obtain given this recipe?

Firstly, it means that in order to gain votes, these politicians will offer what is popular, not what is responsible. So, even though cutting taxes is popular, so is increasing benefits, and since money is currently printed at will by the U.S. government, there is no reason why taxes can't be kept very low while spending remains high; and that is exactly what both parties have generally done. This has nothing to do with their relative platforms, its a matter of what they MUST do given human nature and what it takes to get elected.

Thus, deficit spending and an exponentially increasing debt is not only a winning platform for both parties, but is something they cannot even help, for not only are such actions the only way to get power and stay in power, but none of these representatives are personally liable for these "public funds."

For instance, if I were to personally spend more that I earn, I would lose my home, car, and assets; however, when an elected representative does this, he loses nothing as he is not the personal owner of the government or its assets; rather, he is only a temporary caretaker elected purely on the basis for his ability to be financially irresponsible.

Hence, the idea of a Libertarian Political Party is an oxymoron because the system is entirely predicated on deficit spending and not owning the means of governance. So not only does this doom the economic platform of Libertarianism to marginalization, but even if a Libertarian became elected, he could little to nothing to change this dynamic once in office and would therefore perform little different than your average democrat or republican.


II. Representative Government is NOT compatible with Libertarian Principles.

This point is a tough one to swallow for most Americans, but its just a fact. The cardinal principle of Libertarianism is the Non-Aggression Principle (Voluntaryism). This principle is what defines Libertarianism; however, its this very principle that exists in contradiction to the U.S. Constitution and the system of government that stems from it.

For instance, the federal government taxes me at gunpoint, if I don't pay taxes they will make me do so under threat of force. This is a violation of the NAP and therefore invalid. Now, you might object that I can vote and am therefore complicit in this thievery via representation; however, I never agreed to this arrangement, nor did my father, nor did his father's father. We are born under this obligation and must abide by it against our will or consent.

Indeed, if it were truly voluntary and consistent with the NAP, then we could surrender our privilege to vote in exchange for no longer having to pay taxes; however, we all know what would happen then now don't we?
Everyone would surrender their voting privileges in order to be tax free and the government would entirely collapse.

Next, let me hit the Constitution of the United States specifically on this point; namely the idea that its represents a libertarian document that we ought to use or uphold as a standard; I will now quote Lysander Spooner in refuting this notion:

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.

-Lysander Spooner, The Constitution of No Authority.

Think about that for a moment; the U.S. constitution either directly authorized the tyrannical regime we have now (that I presume you have serious problems with); or it was powerless to prevent the rise of such a bloated regime. Thus, this constitution is either a doctrine explicitly promoting tyranny, or is an impotent piece of paper.

Thus, from a Libertarian perspective, the U.S. constitution is either a document of tyrants or mere trash that lying politicians pay lip service to in order to dupe the masses who would believe them.

Hence, a Libertarian political party is an oxymoron because the government we have is a contradiction to libertarian ideals and the constitution itself is either anti-libertarian or utterly worthless.


III. Libertarian Political Reform Creates Treacherous Stupidity.

Now, lets imagine a libertarian party becoming involved in politics as a viable party and being involved in government. Under such a scenario, you may have libertarian police officers, libertarian home inspectors, libertarian judges, libertarian jailers, etc, etc. These guys are trying to "reform" the system by being "a part of it," and so they have good intentions, no matter how retarded they actually are; now let me show you why such a scenario is retarded.

Imagine that by majority vote, Congress passes into law the continuance of a ban on marijuana and a ban on homeschooling. Now, in this scenario, Libertarians DID try to stop this legislation, but just lacked the votes to get it stopped (in spite having more numbers in Congress than ever before in their history).

So, with this new law being signed into implementation by the President of the United States, you now have a whole governemnt obligated under the Constitution to abide by and enforce this law.

Now, lets say a Libertarian home-inspector (he only became an "inspector" so that he could "reform" the system) is called to a home to check the windows on a cabin being built by an ACTUAL Libertarian named Stan.

Stan finds out that the home-inspector is a Libertarian and so he feels free to complain to the inspector about the evil government and how he is keeping a bunch of unregistered firearms, growing his own marijuana, and homeschooling his ten kids.

After which, the Libertarian home-inspector informs Stan that he now has to report this to the proper authorities given the new law that was passed, and so the libertarian home inspector turns in the libertarian homeowner to the police, but he does tell Stan that he wished he didn't have to do so because he shares his "views." :lol:

The police then come, and Stan finds out that the police man who is cuffing him is also a libertarian (he became a police officer to reform the policing system to make it more libertarian). so, actual libertarian Stan is taken into custody for practicing libertarianism by the libertarian cop, but the Libertarian cop tells Stan that "he wished he didn't have to do this, because he shares Stan's views."

At the court, he finds out his judge is also an elected judge from the Libertarian Party, the guy ran to become the local judge because he wanted to reform the system, and so the Judge now condemns the actual libertarian Stan for doing libertarian things and sends him to jail where he is guarded by a libertarian guard. Both the Judge and the guard tell Stan that they "wished they didn't have to do this," because they share his views.

This hypothetical about Stan is also why a Libertarian Political Party is an oxymoron; the NAP is not a token political slogan, its a moral law that supersedes any government, and so to have a libertarian party is to invariably create a group of people claiming to hold that the NAP is true who are obligated to violate that same NAP in order to punish people who do actually live by it.

I am sorry my friend, but that is just as absurd as Christians voluntarily joining a government that kills Christians and working for them in their process to do so. Its plain and simple horseshit, and so is a Libertarian Party.
#14987686
Should re resurrect the word "LOLbertarian?"

I used to identify as a Libertarian, but then I grew a brain, a dick, and a heart.

Seriously though, I think I just stopped caring to follow someone else's ideas/principles. I'm basically following my own set ideas/principles these days which is largely a hybrid of a bunch of other shit of course.
#14987765
Lolbertarians do not actually have a political position. Just impractical general disaffection and a lot of solutions in search of problems.
#14987815
B0ycey wrote:but neglected to explain why a Libertarian Party is an oxymoron but instead addressed why it might not be elected. Big difference.


:eh:

When I read shit like this it makes me wonder if people even read my post at all.

I showed that Libertarian political philosophy is incompatible with representative government itself, the constitution, and that if libertarians got elected they would be forced to persecute more consistent libertarians; likewise, I argued under the first point that the government can never give up power and so a political party is likewise futile.

I NEVER argued that libertarians were merely unelectable. That is absurd (even if that is true).

Rather, I argued that Libertarians being involved in government would be contradicting their own principles and engaging in an act of futility.
#14987817
Drlee wrote:Just impractical general disaffection and a lot of solutions in search of problems.


If by impractical you mean uninterested in futile attempts at political reform, then sure; however, on a day-to-day basis I have hardly seen a more practical political philosophy; especially when you consider something like Agorism.
#14987822
Victoribus Spolia wrote::eh:

When I read shit like this it makes me wonder if people even read my post at all.

I showed that Libertarian political philosophy is incompatible with representative government itself, the constitution, and that if libertarians got elected they would be forced to persecute more consistent libertarians; likewise, I argued under the first point that the government can never give up power and so a political party is likewise futile.

I NEVER argued that libertarians were merely unelectable. That is absurd (even if that is true).

Rather, I argued that Libertarians being involved in government would be contradicting their own principles and engaging in an act of futility.


No you explained why a Libertarian Party would not get elected on a manifesto solely with the interests of the free market and why if they did get elected they might not act on their policies. But none of this is an Oxymoron. Or are you redefining definitions again? After all, party principles does not mean electable principles.

Nonetheless your argument would make a great thread on why all political parties end up being the same once in power because apart from the conclusion you make a few very good points.
#14987825
B0ycey wrote:No you explained why a Libertarian Party would not get elected on a manifesto solely with the interests of the free market and why if they did get elected they might not act on their policies.



What!? Where did I say this in the post!? Please quote it and provide evidence for your claim; I NEVER made the argument you are claiming that I made. I am not critical of Libertarian party because it can't get elected, I am critical of the Libertarian party because it is a contradiction of the NAP to be involved in government at all (point two), it would cause libertarian political persons to persecute actual libertarians (point three), and government will never reform in a libertarian direction because of its praxeology (point one).

As proof: here are the summarized segments on each sub-point in my post, presented under their headings:

This was my thesis statement:

Victoribus Spolia wrote:The first point is the idea that the state would/could ever reduce its power, the second one is the presumption that a representative government is even compatible with libertarian ideals in the first place, and the last point is that such a position as you propose invariably pits actual libertarians against "reformist" libertarians in practice in a way that is patently ridiculous. So let me address these one-by-one.


Point One was headed as such

Victoribus Spolia wrote:I. The State Will Not Reduce Its Power.



Under this heading (point one of the thesis statement); I concluded my argument as such:

Victoribus Spolia wrote:Hence, the idea of a Libertarian Political Party is an oxymoron because the system is entirely predicated on deficit spending and not owning the means of governance. So not only does this doom the economic platform of Libertarianism to marginalization, but even if a Libertarian became elected, he could little to nothing to change this dynamic once in office and would therefore perform little different than your average democrat or republican.



Point two heading was this:

Victoribus Spolia wrote:II. Representative Government is NOT compatible with Libertarian Principles.


How does this have anything to do with electoral viability? The very point is about how it would be inconsistent for libertarians to run AT ALL.

Here was the conclusion under this heading:

Victoribus Spolia wrote:Hence, a Libertarian political party is an oxymoron because the government we have is a contradiction to libertarian ideals and the constitution itself is either anti-libertarian or utterly worthless.



The third point's heading was thus:

Victoribus Spolia wrote:III. Libertarian Political Reform Creates Treacherous Stupidity.


Here was the conclusion:

Victoribus Spolia wrote:This hypothetical about Stan is also why a Libertarian Political Party is an oxymoron; the NAP is not a token political slogan, its a moral law that supersedes any government, and so to have a libertarian party is to invariably create a group of people claiming to hold that the NAP is true who are obligated to violate that same NAP in order to punish people who do actually live by it. I am sorry my friend, but that is just as absurd as Christians voluntarily joining a government that kills Christians and working for them in their process to do so. Its plain and simple horseshit, and so is a Libertarian Party.



Learn to fucking read.
#14987827
OK. If you stand by your assertion that a Libertarian Party can get elected, then it is even less of an Oxymoron then before. Once elected any party can easily fulfil Heyekian policies whilst liberating social laws. And deficit spending is not absolute requirement FYI. Germany can balance the books.

I dob't know. Security clearances are an odd thin[…]

As usual you do not understand the topic so it lea[…]

Just imagine the horror as the UK becomes more li[…]

Ann Coulter has never been a big picture Republic[…]