Anybody else ready for libertarianism?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

luchog,

Would you say that Libertarians are doing considerably better at the local level, or that Libertarians are doing considerably worse at the local level?

They are doing .12% better at the local level than at the national level!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

bump

This had fallen off the first page, so I bumped it in order that all skeptics would have a chance to laugh at the Libertarian Party!

 

[ranson]

In the last major election around here, we had a few "Big L" candidates on the ticket. As I was rather disillusioned with my other choices, I considered them as protest votes.

Then I read their backgrounds, platforms, and personal statements.

I may vote for a lesser evil, but I'm sure as hell not voting for a person who picture I could find by pointing to a random page in the DSM IV. Not only that, but they fielded candidates that hadn't finished high school, had run multiple businesses into the ground, and one guy who had worked in fast food/secretarial for fifteen years! Yeah, that's who I want leading me! Men of principle that I have managed to outpace in personal achievement, though they had a ten-to-thirty year head start.

With the exception of a lieutenant governor candidate, these were all local and state legislative offices, and not a single candidate was viable.

I'm not seeing grassroots support here.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm not seeing grassroots support here.

You must be mistaken. They have "more than 600" of their loonies in office.

 

[luchog]

luchog,

Would you say that Libertarians are doing considerably better at the local level, or that Libertarians are doing considerably worse at the local level?

1) They're currently doing better than any other third party.

2) You're making the mistake that the only politically valid activity is electing candidates. The LP spends much more effort on local initiatives and other legislation campaigning. A lot of libs are concentrating their efforts on libertarian-leaning candidates in the Big Two parties, as previously noted; in an effort to influence them toward more overal libertarian policies.

Much effort has been spend on issues rather than candidates; and has seen considerable improvement in many, particularly obscenity laws (despite some notable setbacks), concealed firearms carry (where restrictions have dropped to almost nil over the last two decades), and cannabis legalization (a growing number of states have decriminalized, or passed medical cannabis legislation).
There is far more support for this sort of grass-roots activity right now than there is for political candidates; where most people still prefer to vote for "lesser evils".

 

[Kerberos]

1) They're currently doing better than any other third party.

Quite so, The Libertarian Party has the honour of being the bigest third party in a two party system.

2) You're making the mistake that the only politically valid activity is electing candidates. The LP spends much more effort on local initiatives and other legislation campaigning. A lot of libs are concentrating their efforts on libertarian-leaning candidates in the Big Two parties, as previously noted; in an effort to influence them toward more overal libertarian policies.

Much effort has been spend on issues rather than candidates; and has seen considerable improvement in many, particularly obscenity laws (despite some notable setbacks), concealed firearms carry (where restrictions have dropped to almost nil over the last two decades), and cannabis legalization (a growing number of states have decriminalized, or passed medical cannabis legislation).
There is far more support for this sort of grass-roots activity right now than there is for political candidates; where most people still prefer to vote for "lesser evils".

That's a valid point, of course the question is whether these things happened because of those efforts or if they might not have hapened anyways.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

1) They're currently doing better than any other third party.

Now that you've returned to the thread, maybe you can address this:

Shanek always made that claim, and yet, when asked for evidence, could never provide it, except to wave it off and say there are "hundreds" of Libertarians in office nationwide. Of course, when one does research, one finds that 90+% of these "officeholders" are dogcatchers, county water commisioners, anti-drug task force members, or mayor of Gooberville NC, population 37.

So, can you perhaps give an example of a Libertarian who is either a congressman or senator or mayor of a city larger than, say, 50,000? And who won the office in an actual contested election against at least one opponent from the Democratic or Republican parties?

Shanek couldn't do it. Would you care to try?

 

[billydkid]

bump

This had fallen off the first page, so I bumped it in order that all skeptics would have a chance to laugh at the Libertarian Party!

Please explain to me your obsession with the Libertarians? If they are simply ridiculous why do they occupy such a significant place in your heart?

 

[CFLarsen]

1) They're currently doing better than any other third party.

But that's not the point. You claimed that the LP was doing better on a local level than on a national level, using the presidential election result as comparison.

2) You're making the mistake that the only politically valid activity is electing candidates. The LP spends much more effort on local initiatives and other legislation campaigning. A lot of libs are concentrating their efforts on libertarian-leaning candidates in the Big Two parties, as previously noted; in an effort to influence them toward more overal libertarian policies.

Much effort has been spend on issues rather than candidates; and has seen considerable improvement in many, particularly obscenity laws (despite some notable setbacks), concealed firearms carry (where restrictions have dropped to almost nil over the last two decades), and cannabis legalization (a growing number of states have decriminalized, or passed medical cannabis legislation).
There is far more support for this sort of grass-roots activity right now than there is for political candidates; where most people still prefer to vote for "lesser evils".

Prove it.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Please explain to me your obsession with the Libertarians? If they are simply ridiculous why do they occupy such a significant place in your heart?

I enjoy laughing at The Three Stooges too.


Carry on.

 

[Marc L]

No, people should not be trusted to govern over other people at all. Libertarians still believe that in some aspects - such as the protection of property - people should govern.

I don't understand. I mean, I agree, we should definitely not trust those who govern us-hence a representative system, and one in which we can keep an eye on the government. But by it's very nature, there are humans in government, and thus, governing over other people. Unless I'm completely missing the point.

Governing should be left to systems which eliminate human stupidity. This is entirely possible, but it requires the understanding that human intelligence is limited and that no one is able to govern anything by letting them freely make choices without being corrected by others.

Have you a suggestion?

Marc

 

[Art Vandelay]

Well you first seem to support Zito's view that principles more important than principles, and then you shortly thereafter object to a principled stance against mariage because you believe it would have bad consequences. I thought that was a bit amusing, but it's not neccessarilly inconsistent.

The argument that luchog was making seemed to be based on the principle that denying privileges is bad, and I pointed that according to that same principle, getting rid of marriage would be worse.

ETA: I do in fact, not really get the notion that principles, divorced from whatever real world consequences they have, are particuarly significant. I care far more about being able to do what i want, than whether I'm "free" according to Libertarian Dogma.

I don't think that's exactly an accurate understanding of my position. What I'm saying is that if you try to argue against libertarianism on the basis that merely pointing out that there is some problem that it fails to solve, then you are implicitly asserting that solving that problem is more important than liberty. It is an inherently utilitarian argument, and thus is really just begging the question, since your are assuming from the start that liberty is not paramount.

Your response, too, has a touch of begging the question, as it assumes that actual freedom conflicts with libertarian freedom. It also changes the subject, as the question is not what interpretation of freedom is most valid, but whether one person can deprive another person of freedom for their own benefit. You aren’t really rejecting the idea of sticking to principles, you simply have a different principle to which you stick: the greatest good must be pursued at all costs, even it at the expense of freedom.

We have to. Otherwise, the LP has a renegade in their ranks.

Anyone who has any idea not representative of their party is a “renegade”?

Look, if you are going to argue that the Libertarian Presidential Candidate doesn't speak for Libertarians and the Libertarian Party - capital L - then how do you suggest we take anything they say seriously?

Like you taking the Libertarian Party sriously is actually on the table. Look, there’s this thing called a “party platform”. If you can find support for your assertions in the party platform, I will concede that they are representative of the party. But you aren’t citing the platform, and your citations don’t support your actual assertions, so you don’t have a leg to stand on.

No, no, no. Don't shift the onus on me. You name one thing that is entirely Libertarian.

You’re referencing your previous question, which is a separate issue. I was discussing another point, and I asked you to name one thing that you think is good. Not one thing unique to a party, one thing, just one thing, that you think is good, and you refused to do even that. Which suggests that you not only do you have no interest in actually understanding my position, you are more interested in negativism and attacking other people’s positions than actually putting forth your own positions. Apparently, thinking of just one thing that you support is a huge burden.

That is such a lame excuse. "I didn't vote for him". Meaning: "I can't be held responsible for anything".

No, meaning “I can’t be held responsible for everything a completely different person says.” Quit making up words to put in my mouth. I’m responsible for what I say, Shanek is responsible for what he says, and if you're going to call that a “lame excuse”, then you’re the one with no integrity.

Browne, 2000: 0.37%

Badnarik, 2004: 0.33%

Of course, it's both 0%.....

You are simply displaying your ignorance of mathematics.

In fact, it would be more accurate to refer to me as anti-woo-woo. Which is why shanek, Art Vandelay and other Libertarians don't like me.

Just how am I “woo-woo”?

Because I laugh at them.

Yes, this is the real reason I don’t like you: you don’t simply disagree with libertarianism, you insist on being as much of an ******* about as possible.

And if I learned anything in 2nd grade math class, it's this: .12% rounded equals........drumroll..............

ZERO %

If you had paid attention to math past the second grade, you might have learned that “rounds to” and “equal to” are completely different concepts. After all, Kerry’s share of the vote rounds to 0 as well. “Anti-woo-woo” indeed.

Funny how all of these hyper-individualists all think alike.

I’ve disagreed with Shanek even more times than I’ve disagreed with you, so it seems to me that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

One thing I hate is the intermixing of libertarian and anarchist thought. Even libertarians believe laws ought to be followed; indeed, if laws are ignored, it undermines the entire justice system. I believe in having open borders. I would vote in favor of such a proposal. HOWEVER, at present, we have a set of immigration laws on the books. Thus, illegal aliens are, by definition, criminals. I do not support giving criminals amnesty. When laws are ignored on a widespread basis--even just one law--it breeds a general, pernicious lawlessness. That's something I don't tolerate.

So why not advocate repealing the laws?

 

[hgc]

Presidential Candidate != Party Head. Like the Democrats and Republicans, the party is headed by a committee. Bush is not the party head of the Republicans, nor is he the representative of all members of the GOP. Neither was Reagan, Ford, Nixon, etc. Neither is John Kerry representative of all of the Democrats. American politics work quite a bit different from parliamentary politics common to most European nations.

...

For the party with the presidency, the president has defacto control over the party. At the time of the presidential nomination, the nominee becomes the defacto head of the party, despite the fact that there is another person with the title of chairman. That person is the pick of the president/nominee. This is not the official process, but merely the way it has occurred for a very, very long time in the Dem and Rep parties.

I'm not sure how it happens in the LP, but perhaps you can tell me who was in power in the LP in an official capacity other than Badnarik after his selection at the convention in 2004, and what were the official positions the LP platform that differed from Badnarik's curious positions. (And I don't think the LP took an official position on the JFK assassination conspiracy, so don't cite that.)

 

[Kerberos]

I don't think that's exactly an accurate understanding of my position. What I'm saying is that if you try to argue against libertarianism on the basis that merely pointing out that there is some problem that it fails to solve, then you are implicitly asserting that solving that problem is more important than liberty. It is an inherently utilitarian argument, and thus is really just begging the question, since your are assuming from the start that liberty is not paramount.

No it's assuming that the libertarian concept of freedom is not paramount. That's not necessarily the same thing.

Your response, too, has a touch of begging the question, as it assumes that actual freedom conflicts with libertarian freedom.

No, it just assumed that libertarian freedom is not the same as being able to do what you want. Any two different values can potentially come into conflict. I realize you're less fundamentalist than for example Shanek, but libertarianism seems, at it's philosophical core, to only regard something as a limitation of freedom if it's enforced by violence or the threat of it, which I find to be an extremely narrow view if freedom. I tend to regard freedom more as the ability to actually do what you want, which means that I do not accept the view that government regulation, other than that which is in defence of property rights, automatically constitutes a limitation of freedom, it can equally well mean more freedom.

It also changes the subject, as the question is not what interpretation of freedom is most valid, but whether one person can deprive another person of freedom for their own benefit.

It makes little sense to separate those two questions. Whether we can legitimately deprive a person of X is irrevocably tied to what X is.

You aren’t really rejecting the idea of sticking to principles

I never said I rejected sticking to principles; I simply rejected the notion of separating principles from their real world consequences.

you simply have a different principle to which you stick: the greatest good must be pursued at all costs, even it at the expense of freedom.

Even at the expense of the libertarian concept of freedom.

 

[LeFevre]

I enjoy laughing at The Three Stooges too.


Carry on.

You didn't answer the question Scrut. Looking more and more like Geri from here Scrut, you could try some actual discussion rather than one liners with a smilie. Or you could do something witty like you did in your sig to Denise, class buddy.

 

[CFLarsen]

Anyone who has any idea not representative of their party is a “renegade”?

I'm not talking about a couple of ideas here. I'm talking about his politics. E.g., a cop can refuse to arrest a child-molestor raping a child, if said cop thinks that child-rape is unconstitutional.

You would think it's more than enough to get him kicked from the list of candidates, but it isn't. Far from it.

Unless - of course - that the LP isn't aware that Shanek is espousing that as LP politics. In which case he is a renegade.

So, which is it? Is it Libertarian politics that cops can walk away from a child-molestor, or is it only Shanek who, without informing the LP, holds this atrocious opinion?

Like you taking the Libertarian Party sriously is actually on the table. Look, there’s this thing called a “party platform”. If you can find support for your assertions in the party platform, I will concede that they are representative of the party. But you aren’t citing the platform, and your citations don’t support your actual assertions, so you don’t have a leg to stand on.

But we're talking about Badnarik, the party's top politician. If he isn't going to at least pretend to stick to the party platform, why have a party platform in the first place?

You’re referencing your previous question, which is a separate issue. I was discussing another point, and I asked you to name one thing that you think is good. Not one thing unique to a party, one thing, just one thing, that you think is good, and you refused to do even that. Which suggests that you not only do you have no interest in actually understanding my position, you are more interested in negativism and attacking other people’s positions than actually putting forth your own positions. Apparently, thinking of just one thing that you support is a huge burden.

That's what I said: You are trying to shift the onus to me. Just answer the question: Can you name one thing that is entirely Libertarian?

No, meaning “I can’t be held responsible for everything a completely different person says.” Quit making up words to put in my mouth. I’m responsible for what I say, Shanek is responsible for what he says, and if you're going to call that a “lame excuse”, then you’re the one with no integrity.

You can have that opinion, sure. Or, you could acknowledge that Shanek is a LP renegade.

You are simply displaying your ignorance of mathematics.

Erm, no, it's you. Rounded, it's 0%. When I write it with no decimals, I round it off.

If you had paid attention to math past the second grade, you might have learned that “rounds to” and “equal to” are completely different concepts. After all, Kerry’s share of the vote rounds to 0 as well. “Anti-woo-woo” indeed.

Erm, no, you're wrong again. Kerry's share of the vote is 48.27%, which is 48% rounded.

I really think you should refresh your math. Have your kids help you.

 

[blakehaydn]

Bingo. I like freedom for individuals and businesses. However I concede that there needs be some degree of regulation and even socialism. The question is, how much? I like the typical, less is more approach. Too much worries more than too little.

Funny you say that while Roman Saluting Christmas / \

 

[Art Vandelay]

No it's assuming that the libertarian concept of freedom is not paramount. That's not necessarily the same thing.

No, if you say that libertarianism is flawed because it fails to solve X, then you are implying that X is more important than everything, including liberty an the libertarian concept of freedom.

No, it just assumed that libertarian freedom is not the same as being able to do what you want.

If they are not the same, doesn't that mean that they conflict?

I tend to regard freedom more as the ability to actually do what you want, which means that I do not accept the view that government regulation, other than that which is in defence of property rights, automatically constitutes a limitation of freedom, it can equally well mean more freedom.

I think that you're confusing the issue. Every government regulation restricts someone's freedom. By definition. Now, it might increase someone else's freedom, but that doesn't change the fact that it limits someone's freedom.

It makes little sense to separate those two questions. Whether we can legitimately deprive a person of X is irrevocably tied to what X is.

It's tiedto what X, but not to what we call X. Also, there a difference between protecting one's interests and advancing one's interests.

I never said I rejected sticking to principles; I simply rejected the notion of separating principles from their real world consequences.

I don't think that's an accurate summary of my position.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I'm not talking about a couple of ideas here. I'm talking about his politics. E.g., a cop can refuse to arrest a child-molestor raping a child, if said cop thinks that child-rape is unconstitutional.

Didn't bother looking over your post, I take it?

You would think it's more than enough to get him kicked from the list of candidates, but it isn't. Far from it.

Why would it?

Unless - of course - that the LP isn't aware that Shanek is espousing that as LP politics. In which case he is a renegade.

We aren't talking about Shanek, we're talking about Badnarik. Sheesh.

Is it Libertarian politics that cops can walk away from a child-molestor, or is it only Shanek who, without informing the LP, holds this atrocious opinion?

I choose C) Claus is misrepresenting Shanek's position.

But we're talking about Badnarik, the party's top politician. If he isn't going to at least pretend to stick to the party platform, why have a party platform in the first place?

So we know the official party position. Duh.

That's what I said: You are trying to shift the onus to me.

They are completely different issues. Simply beacuse you ask one question, and I later ask a completely different question, does not mean I am trying to shift the onus on to me.

Just answer the question: Can you name one thing that is entirely Libertarian?

Why don't YOU answer the question of why you're asking such a pointless question?

You can have that opinion, sure. Or, you could acknowledge that Shanek is a LP renegade.

If Shanek is a renegade, then you can usually absolutely nothing that he says to criticize the LP (or me, not that I am affiliated with the LP, contrary to your apparent beliefs). You can't eat your cake and have it too.

Erm, no, it's you. Rounded, it's 0%. When I write it with no decimals, I round it off.

What part of "rounded doesn't mean equal" do you not understand?

Erm, no, you're wrong again. Kerry's share of the vote is 48.27%, which is 48% rounded.

I really think you should refresh your math. Have your kids help you.

Kerry's share of the vote was .48, which rounds to 0. You're the one that needs to refresh your math (as well as many other things). Here's a hint for the future: if you and I disagree on a math issue, you can just save time and assume that you're wrong. Because you are.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I choose C) Claus is misrepresenting Shanek's position.

Wrong. As shocking as it might seem, that is exactly Shanek's position. He never denied it.