Is the Libertarian Party the closest thing to Anarchism the U.S. political system has?

[Aaron]

I've been a Libertarian for the last few decades, but recently I've been drawn to its ideals more and more. I think it's the only party that's sincerely trying to limit the amount of government intrusion into our lives.

 

Most people's complaints about the LP is that the party's platforms are unrealistic, for instance they tend to believe the government needs to provide welfare as a form of economic relief for the poor, yet most people fail to realize that the private sector provides nearly three times the amount of financial assistance the government does.

 

I also think that the more one depends on the government for assistance the more they become beholden to it. The only way for us to be free to question the government is to lessen our dependence on it. This doesn't mean I oppose assistance to the poor, just that I believe that people are much more compassionate than we give them credit for. I think people would receive much more assistance in times of need from the private sector, if the government wasn't subsidizing that assistance.

 

Another major complaint is their stance on drug laws. The LP believes people have the right to put whatever they want in their body and the government has no right to regulate it. The only people that are getting rich from drug laws are cartels and corporations. Take away the laws and you take away the power these entities have over us. Of course that doesn't mean we don't regulate what goes into our food, especially in regards to labeling, but rather we allow people to choose what they put in their bodies, not the government.

 

The LP also believes in our right to privacy. It's members were among the few politicians opposed to the Patriot Act. The LP understood that there was no justifiable reason for taking away a person's right to privacy. Now that we're living in a police state, for all intents and purposes, it's even more important for people to remember that we had those rights in the first place. Many kids who are of voting age now don't even realize that these laws are unconstitutional. They've grown up in a world of warrant-less wiretaps and government propaganda that taught them that the ends justify the means. It's the responsibility of those who still remember to stand up and fight for those rights now.

 

The LP is also the only party that is against censorship in any form, because it understands that the government's job is not to morally police people, but rather to ensure that people have the right to read, and ultimately think, whatever they want. Censorship is the most dangerous threat to freedom, because it allows the government to regulate our thoughts and ideas, to deem what is appropriate and what isn't.

 

Anyways I could go on, but I do feel that the Libertarian Party is the most enlightened party in regards to the dangers of government interference in our lives. The problem is that most people cry freedom, but really don't want freedom, but rather a sense of safety in their lives, even if that sense of safety is false. The only real freedom comes from our abilities to live our lives as we see fit, unless it interferes with the rights of someone else. The constitution was meant to ensure this, but because of unconstitutional actions taken under the guise of protecting us, we've lost our freedom.

 

Anyways, I'd like to hear what other people think about these things, in particular the Libertarian Party, our rights, and the best way to protect them.

 

Aaron

Edited November 12, 2013 by Aaron

[Aetherous]

The only way I would believe Libertarian ideas about people naturally being compassionate, is if the Libertarian party set up a fund to support all of the homeless and poor in America and actually pulled it off long term. Once that happens, I'll consider their ideas...until then, it's all talk. All I see right now is that people who need help get it from government programs (sometimes they're not even able to), and Libertarians are quick to point their fingers and say on one hand "don't take even a cent from my hard earned money, that's slavery, I want freedom" and on the other hand to destitute people "you should find a better job so you can survive this society". Survival? That's what America is to us now? That's certainly what the "free market" makes life into!

For instance, you can bring up the wages of a McDonalds worker to a Libertarian and get the answer: "they should go to college and get a better job, or become skilled at something". Yeah that might be true for some people, but it's an ignorant answer all around, and doesn't tackle the real issue (corporations getting away with paying low wages in a society that demands a "living wage" to merely survive. The dollar even 10 years ago was a lot more valuable than it is today!).

I see the opposite of compassion in this party; I see greed under the guise of "freedom". Compassion also involves consideration...but it's not a considerate party that has no mercy for those who need help, and has limitless mercy for those who don't. Let me tell you something: freedom is not homeless families down the street from multi million dollar mansions. It's not kids starving on the streets of our country, while others are eating $500 meals and giggling away.

On the other hand, admittedly, "freedom" is also not pure socialism or communism.

So, freedom. My view is that society itself has taken our freedom on a fundamental level. True freedom to me, would be to go find an open piece of land, build a house on it, not pay any money to anyone for the house or the land, be able to hunt fish and grow my own stuff. That is the basis of freedom. That's how we're supposed to live in the natural world. A society could possibly exist with that system in place, even with a form of government. That is where Libertarianism would thrive. People wouldn't interfere in the lives of others (for instance through taxes), if this basis were in place. Government could be used to simply protect individuals' freedoms..."big brother" in the more true sense of the word, protecting you from those who illegally infringe on your rights. It is possible in another world.

Instead, here we have a society where you need money to have food, water, clothing, and shelter...the very basics of mere survival. In this, the right to "life" has been taken when you can't get food or water. The right to "liberty" is obviously gone...and the right to "pursue happiness" is limited unless you land a good job, and that requires a certain quality of clothing and showers etc.

It's set up to enslave (employ or destroy) the lower classes and legally nullify their rights (until they can afford to get them back). The rich get richer. This is not freedom, and it's not something Libertarians address. In this climate, government is actually a blessing, and a protection against the compassionless.

Libertarians want to blame people on welfare (who are actually the victims of society) for the state of things, rather than recognize that the monetary system and people's greed is the very problem. A poor person owning an iphone might be a strange sight, but it's not a problem to you at all...what does that person get out of our paychecks? Like a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a cent? The argument does not matter...do Libertarians know where the majority of their taxes go, anyway? Not primarily to those who need it, such as the poor! Taxes go to many different things in government...taxes also go to benefit corporations, which is pretty messed up in my view. I recall seeing something which showed how more of our taxes go to that than to welfare programs! Why don't Libertarians discuss this issue.......?

Of course, it's not realistic to get rid of land ownership, the monetary system, etc, in our current society. People would whine about infringements on their "right" to own tons of unused property (which is funny in comparison to the right to life being less considered, if we're talking about the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Cash is king). But since Libertarianism is about ideology instead of pragmatism, we might as well point this disparity out!

The ideal of not infringing on anyone else's personal life doesn't work when you're already infringed upon by all people in the society. Or a quote about society: "Hell is other people".

No offense to anyone, or you Aaron...political views are a touchy subject...but I'm strongly against the Libertarian party. I think it's set up to seem very appealing, but in reality is destructive to the entire country...so I view it as a threat to Liberty, ironically. It's true that it's very close to Anarchism...but not a good form of it, in my view. I mean look at what it does already, setting one person against another pointlessly (the rich, or even lower classes who watch Fox News, trying to blame the poor). We should look at real solutions, rather than what we merely believe would work (which is not tested in reality). For instance, the day that Libertarians set up a way to provide a lasting and workable alternative to welfare, to unemployment, to food stamps, etc...is the day that we can start to consider that we don't need the government to take taxes for those things. Simply saying, "trust us, we're good people, we'll give money to those who need it, look at how much we donate to various charities...we'll do this as long as you stop taxing us for those things, don't take a cent from my hard earned money!" makes no sense.

Just sharing my personal view on this, since they were asked for, and it might help people consider something different...I won't get into any political discussions, as that's against my code of conduct. Respect to those who adhere to different views.

[soaring crane]

The Libertarian approach is (in my view and based on my experience) the poster child for 'be careful what you wish for because you just might get it'. A consumption-based, market economy is one thing (and probably the best choice for large, complex societies) but privatization of all critical areas of modern life - education, medicine, policing, fire and other emergency services, etc - is a slippery slope that I think a lot of people would prefer to avoid, especially once they slide down it.

 

The Libertarian Party, being the only really viable alternative available to Americans, attracts a whole slew of characters from the genuinely thoughtful and honest to the devious and deluded. As a political force, I think it's best if they remain on the fringes, frankly.

 

Here's a conundrum - I've been living in Germany since 1995 and have slowly come to appreciate the political system here, and feel that I actually have far more personal freedom than I ever did back in the USA.

Edited November 10, 2013 by soaring crane

[Aetherous]

Here is a link discussing what I mentioned about how corporations are getting more from our taxes than welfare recipients: http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/19844-food-stamps-are-affordable-corporate-welfare-is-not

[Aaron]

Hi Scotty,

 

I think you're confusing the Libertarian Party with the Tea Party, which isn't a fair comparison. The Libertarian Party doesn't blame the poor for America's woes, but rather the failed economic policies that hinder the ability of a free market within the United States, as well as corporate interference in the government itself. If you pay attention to the discussions by prominent Libertarians their main interest is separating the government from corporate interests, reducing the spending on the military, withdrawing the military from foreign bases and thus reducing the taxes we collect to fund the bloated military industrial complex.

 

The fact is, the more we doctor the economy, the more we screw it up, so deregulation doesn't mean a free reign of power for corporations, but rather reigning in the power they have through tax breaks and regulation that allows them to manipulate the market for their own interests.

 

The basis of the constitution is that freedom is the ability of each of us to live our lives as we see fit. This means that if I don't want to help another person, then I shouldn't have to, and if I do want to help another person, then I can. Welfare is one of the major causes of poverty in my opinion, because it perpetuates a cycle of poverty. Before welfare there were groups within the private sector that offered aid to those in need, This can be seen with the many groups that helped those in need during the great depression as well as during WWII. Even now the private sector provides nearly three times as much public aid to the needy as the government sector does. Of course we also have to keep in mind that less than 5% of Americans are actually receiving some form of welfare in America right now, yet nearly 15% struggle to provide food for their family. Obviously the welfare system has failed us, in part because it provides a false sense of security to the American people. We naturally believe that those in need get the assistance they need, when that isn't true. The fact is the end to the welfare system may be the best thing that could happen to the American people, because it would force us to look at the real problem and understand that it requires the active participation of society, rather than the government, to help end hunger.

 

If you want to go even deeper, we need only look at social security. The government uses the program as a personal piggy bank, rather than it's actual purpose, to help provide a means of retirement for the elderly. If we had the ability to save the money we put in social security in our own private accounts, investing as we see fit, I think we'd see a vast decrease in poverty among the elderly in just a few decades.

 

Social programs are fine and good when they work, but as Taoists we should understand that compassion can't be regulated, in fact when it is, it ceases to be compassion. I do have faith in the human race, faith that when we are free to live as we see fit, we tend to do the right thing and stand up against the wrongs that we encounter. However, when we live under the guise of freedom, then we don't have that chance, the natural way is is polluted and we see what's happening today.

 

I could go on, but I think those were your major concerns and I wanted to address them. I was hoping other people might get involved in this discussion, because I think it's an excellent opportunity for us to discuss what we feel needs to be changed within the political system today. For me, I think we need to restore the rights afforded to us by the constitution, amongst those rights is minimizing the federal government's interference in our lives.

 

I see the federal government as a form of spell checking. It tries to correct everything that's misspelled, but in the process we've forgotten how to spell. There is no freedom to make mistakes, to correct those mistakes on our own, and learn from those mistakes. The next generation is already worse off than the previous. We are already predicted to have over 50% poverty rates within the next 50 years, when do we stop and say what we're doing has failed? I hope we do it before it's too late.

 

Aaron

Edited November 11, 2013 by Aaron

[soaring crane]

How does the Libertarian platform address poverty?

[ralis]

How does the Libertarian platform address poverty?

Libertarians have no answer to tough social problems. Their ideology is based on Ayn Rand objectivist ideology, Milton Friedman supply side/trickle down theory which was developed at the University of Chicago School of Economics. The root of which is an idealized view of human nature in that persons are rational participants in the marketplace. The less government interference in regards to regulation, then an economy is more efficient.

 

Reagan cut the marginal tax rate on Corporations from 74% to 28%. Since then the corparate tax rate is somewhere in the upper 30% if I remember correctly. In spite of lower marginal tax rates, corporations as well as their spokespersons, claim that jobs are moved overseas due to excessive tax rates and oppressive government regulatory policy.

 

There is much documentation online if you care to research this. When I was studying for my degree in the early eighties, supply economics was the emphasis. Before Milton Friedmans death, he experimented with his theories in Chile and Russia which there is much documentation online as to the failure of so called free market economics. Free markets don't work because they don't exist in large complex systems where basic human emotions such as fear, greed and lack of trust are predominate.

 

To answer your question in regards to structural poverty, the Libertarian view is not equipped to deal with the cause given that the basic problem of human emotion is not part if their view. Their only response is an appeal to reason which fails to address primal emotion. I would suggest there is self interest/selfishness which is really code for 'Social Darwinism'. A society will no evolve or survive based on the selfish interests of the few.

 

I would suggest reading as to what Karl Marx wrote about small group economies with no outside intrusion and compare and contrast that with complex systems such as the economy in the U.S.

Edited November 11, 2013 by ralis

[Aaron]

How does the Libertarian platform address poverty?

 

Hi Soaring Crane,

 

The Libertarian Party doesn't feel that the government should provide financial assistance to the poor, but rather it's main purpose is to ensure that there is a fair equitable free market that stimulates the economy and provides jobs for those in need. As for deregulated economies, it has been so long since we've actually had one, that no one knows for sure what would happen, it's all conjecture, but what we do know is that the vast majority of the wealthy are receiving a free ride in the current political landscape, in part because the government is subsidizing big business, rather than providing an economy stimulated by growth.

 

So to be more concise, the Libertarian Party feels that welfare programs should be run by the private sector rather than the government. If you read my first and second post, I elaborated on the reasons why they feel this way.

 

Aaron

[ralis]

 

Hi Soaring Crane,

 

The Libertarian Party doesn't feel that the government should provide financial assistance to the poor, but rather it's main purpose is to ensure that there is a fair equitable free market that stimulates the economy and provides jobs for those in need. As for deregulated economies, it has been so long since we've actually had one, that no one knows for sure what would happen, it's all conjecture, but what we do know is that the vast majority of the wealthy are receiving a free ride in the current political landscape, in part because the government is subsidizing big business, rather than providing an economy stimulated by growth.

 

So to be more concise, the Libertarian Party feels that welfare programs should be run by the private sector rather than the government. If you read my first and second post, I elaborated on the reasons why they feel this way.

 

Aaron

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who funds these private sector welfare programs? Who in the private sector decides who benefits and who doesn't?

 

Look at the last several decades and see what a reduced regulatory environment does to the economy. Deregulation of banks is one example. Somalia is a free market deregulated economy.

Edited November 11, 2013 by ralis

[soaring crane]

Somalia is a free market deregulated economy.

 

This.

 

'No one knows for sure what will happen' is a pretty flimsy ideological impetus, imo. Besides, most people are perfectly able to see where private powers would go if they were left to their own devices. If you think they have a hold on the gov't now, why in the world would you think that they'd behave more honorably when given the key to henhouse?

 

I will grant the Libertarian view one thing - they have the right idea on foreign policy and especially the military. Hey it's Veterans' Day - respect today's Vets by making fewer of them in future!

[ralis]

This.

 

'No one knows for sure what will happen' is a pretty flimsy ideological impetus, imo. Besides, most people are perfectly able to see where private powers would go if they were left to their own devices. If you think they have a hold on the gov't now, why in the world would you think that they'd behave more honorably when given the key to henhouse?

 

I will grant the Libertarian view one thing - they have the right idea on foreign policy and especially the military. Hey it's Veterans' Day - respect today's Vets by making fewer of them in future!

 

Well said! History is replete with examples of private groups given too much power and the ensuing chaos.

 

 

 

 

[soaring crane]

Well said! History is replete with examples of private groups given too much power and the ensuing chaos.

 

And governments who go to war on behalf of the private interests in their countries.

 

The weird thing is, there are people like Aaron who will tell you it's the politician's fault when he gets bribed by the businessman. Yet it's the businessman who his following his nature.

[Aaron]

Who funds these private sector welfare programs? Who in the private sector decides who benefits and who doesn't?

 

Look at the last several decades and see what a reduced regulatory environment does to the economy. Deregulation of banks is one example. Somalia is a free market deregulated economy.

 

Currently Good Will, The Salvation Army, Red Cross, and the United Way are just a small list of the large number of private organizations that provide aid to those in need. If you are in need of food, clothing, or shelter, all of these groups will provide assistance. The fact is there is three times as much assistance provided by private organizations as there is by the government. No one seems to grasp this fact, but it's very important if we're to understand what's actually going on.

 

5% of the population receives welfare assistance of some form, but 15% actually need assistance. Where do you think that extra 10% comes from, it's from the private sector that saw the need and provided it. I'm not making these things up. People seem to think that humans are a bunch of greedy monster that are willing to watch little children starve to death and kick old people out on the street, but the reality is quite different, as can be seen by these groups that provide support to families and the elderly.

 

Also, Somalia is barely a government and has been in the grips of a vicious civil war for over three decades and using it as an example isn't really fair. There has actually been no deregulated economy in America in the last 100 years, because of corporate intervention into politics. In regards to an actual free market economy in the world, I can't think of one in the last 100 years either. Corporate interests have made it all but impossible to have one in any major market in the world.

 

In regards to the free market, deregulation doesn't mean that there wouldn't be regulations, no taxes, etc., nor does it mean that the corporate interests could impose harm on the economy as they see fit Again, this isn't the TEA PARTY, the Libertarian Party is not advocating a Wild West type environment, but rather an economy that would help stimulate growth, by allowing everyone to compete on an even field, without one side or the other gaining subsidies that they do not deserve.

 

Aaron

Edited November 12, 2013 by Aaron

[Aaron]

Soaring Crane,

 

I don't appreciate the phrase "people like Aaron", so if you could not make those kinds of inflammatory remarks, I'd greatly appreciate it. Also, I've repeatedly said we need to hold the corporations accountable, but you seem to miss that. AGAIN THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY IS NOT THE TEA PARTY! The differences between the two far outweigh the similarities. Anyone who knows me knows I'm a compassionate person, but I don't believe that compassion should be forced or regulated, or that any one group or organization has the right to take from one group and give to the other, simply because they feel morally or intellectually superior. By definition that precludes a free and democratic government.

 

In regards to Lao Tzu's teachings, the Libertarian Party is the closest to the anarchist ideology and also the Tao Te Ching's teachings. I'm surprised more anarchists aren't getting involved in this discussion for that very reason. Anyways, I'm not going to continue to talk to anyone who wants to make this a name calling game. If you want to talk about the politics, that's fine, but if you want to say "people like him" then I'm done. I'm not wasting my breath on hate-mongering.

 

Aaron

[soaring crane]

but rather an economy that would help stimulate growth, by allowing everyone to compete on an even field, without one side or the other gaining subsidies that they do not deserve.

 

Sounds great until you come to the realization that there is no even field, just as there are no John Galts or Dagny Taggarts out there. How do you think corporations 'gain subsidies'? Do you think it's the politicians who meet and discuss who they should hand money to? It's the other way round. The corruption starts on the private side and it infests the public domain. Always.

 

How would the Libertarian Party deal with environmental issues?

Education?

Medicine?

Policing?

 

By unleashing the power of the free market, and completely destroying all of them for all but the extremely privileged few.

 

For a pretty good view of a Libertarian future, take a good look at the private prison system already in place and growing.

[soaring crane]

I don't appreciate the phrase "people like Aaron",

 

I didn't see it as inflammatory at all, I meant it quite objectively. But I apologize for my lapse in judgment.

 

Edit:

 

This is how you started this thread: "I think it's the only party that's sincerely trying to limit the amount of government intrusion into our lives."

 

And this is my comment: "The weird thing is, there are people like Aaron who will tell you it's the politician's fault when he gets bribed by the businessman."

 

I see the one as following the other quite consistently.

Edited November 11, 2013 by soaring crane

[ralis]

Most Libertarians are not aware that the Charles Koch funded 'Cato Institute' is the propaganda appartus for Libertarian ideology. Here we have the Koch bros. who represent the interests of the corporate elite disseminating revisionist history, advocating junk science and Ayn Rand objectivism. The Koch bros. father founded the ' John Birch Society' and the ideological views of these elite follow from the fear of Communist/Socialist ideology.

[Aaron]

Sounds great until you come to the realization that there is no even field, just as there are no John Galts or Dagny Taggarts out there. How do you think corporations 'gain subsidies'? Do you think it's the politicians who meet and discuss who they should hand money to? It's the other way round. The corruption starts on the private side and it infests the public domain. Always.

 

How would the Libertarian Party deal with environmental issues?

Education?

Medicine?

Policing?

 

By unleashing the power of the free market, and completely destroying all of them for all but the extremely privileged few.

 

For a pretty good view of a Libertarian future, take a good look at the private prison system already in place and growing.

 

Again, the Libertarian Party is based on the idea that people can make a change, that the government isn't needed to do that. The irony is that people cry freedom, but what they really mean is, comfort and security. Well you've got your comfort and security, but at what cost?

 

Education- Again, people shouldn't have to pay for something that they are not using. I have no children, why should I have to support a public education system? Why do I need to send someone else's kid's to school? Even more importantly, why should the government dictate how our children are educated? The children of America do not belong to the government, but to their parents and ultimately the parents should decide what kind of education they receive (and this is coming from an atheist by the way).

 

Medicine- Again, historically the private sector has provided medical care for those in need when it wasn't provided by the government. Honestly, why should I be forced to provide care for someone else? If I want to help someone else, shouldn't I have that choice? Also, do you honestly think requiring people to have medical insurance is going to make a difference if those people can't afford it in the first place?

 

Policing- First this is where it gets tricky, constitutionally the only group that is supposed to police it's citizens is the state, not the federal government. In that light the states would have to raise the money for their own police force through taxation. Federal law enforcement would be dramatically reduced. The DEA, for instance, would be unnecessary, as would the ATF. Perhaps there would be a need for the FBI, but only when investigating federal crimes, and keep in mind that the legal system would most likely go through dramatic changes, because the vast majority of federal law is actually unconstitutional if viewed objectively. (The other thing most people are unaware of is the fact that the vast majority of laws are pushed through by government in lieu of the constitution.)

 

And as for the environment, do you really think the Libertarians are going to say, "dump whatever you want wherever"... Again, they're not the Tea Party, they aren't going to allow for the wholesale destruction of the environment.

 

Really... if you think the LP is in bed with the corporations, why aren't they supporting them? Corporate interests aren't funding LP campaigns because they understand that the deregulation they're talking about (not the Tea Party illusionary deregulation) is actually going to lose them money. Follow the money and you'll see where the truth is.

 

Aaron

[Aaron]

Most Libertarians are not aware that the Charles Koch funded 'Cato Institute' is the propaganda appartus for Libertarian ideology. Here we have the Koch bros. who represent the interests of the corporate elite disseminating revisionist history, advocating junk science and Ayn Rand objectivism. The Koch bros. father founded the ' John Birch Society' and the ideological views of these elite follow from the fear of Communist/Socialist ideology.

 

The Koch brother's quit funding the CATO Institute after it was founded, the primary reason being the institute wouldn't play ball with them, In particular the Cato institutes criticism of corporate welfare, the various state settlements with the tobacco industry (a major source of the Koch family wealth), and numerous other disagreements led to the Koch's ceasing funding of the institute and instead founding other Republican think tanks that were more in line with the Koch's own ideology.

 

Again, you're confusing the Tea Party and Libertarians, they're not the same. The Koch's haven't touched the Libertarian Party since the 80s.

 

Aaron

Edited November 11, 2013 by Aaron

[Aaron]

Watch this if you want to learn more about the current two party system...

 

 

http://www.minds.com/blog/view/246671165156757504/judge-napolitano-how-to-get-fired-from-fox-business-in-under-5-mins

[soaring crane]

Again, the Libertarian Party is based on the idea that people can make a change, that the government isn't needed to do that. The irony is that people cry freedom, but what they really mean is, comfort and security. Well you've got your comfort and security, but at what cost?

 

Well, you don't speak for all people and can't possibly psychoanalyze the deeper meaning of their words. So, this statement breaks down to simple rhetoric.

 

 

why should I have to support a public education system?

 

Because you don't want to live in a third-world nation of downtrodden, uneducated, illiterate, faceless corporate-fodder, which is what you'll get if you leave it to the profit motive to decide who gets education or not. The school system in much of the US is a mess, but the answer cannot be turning the whole thing over to people who want to exploit it for their own gain.

 

 

Medicine- Again, historically the private sector has provided medical care for those in need when it wasn't provided by the government. Honestly, why should I be forced to provide care for someone else? If I want to help someone else, shouldn't I have that choice? Also, do you honestly think requiring people to have medical insurance is going to make a difference if those people can't afford it in the first place?

 

I think Healthcare in the US and much of the western world, Germany included, is primarily geared toward the profit motive already. Drugs that make money get to market, while less expensive therapies have no chance. If there's any industry that should be heavily regulated, it's the medical industry. Re mandatory insurance, I really have no opinions on this anymore when it comes to the US. I think the system is beyond corruption and irreversibly kaputt. The German healtcare system has been in operation since about the 1870s and it does quite well.

 

Policing- First this is where it gets tricky, constitutionally the only group that is supposed to police it's citizens is the state, not the federal government. In that light the states would have to raise the money for their own police force through taxation.

 

I forgot that the LP platform does in fact aknowledge the legitimacy of the public police. A private police force would be a huge disaster ala Blackwater.

 

 

And as for the environment, do you really think the Libertarians are going to say, "dump whatever you want wherever"... Again, they're not the Tea Party, they aren't going to allow for the wholesale destruction of the environment.

 

No, and I didn't indicate that. My angle is that the LP is basically naive when it comes to human nature.

 

 

Really... if you think the LP is in bed with the corporations, why aren't they supporting them?

 

I didn't say that, either. See above. The problem is that the LP would result in a government completely incapable of controlling the demons it releases.

 

have to cut short....

[ralis]

Well, you don't speak for all people and can't possibly psychoanalyze the deeper meaning of their words. So, this statement breaks down to simple rhetoric.

 

 

 

 

Because you don't want to live in a third-world nation of downtrodden, uneducated, illiterate, faceless corporate-fodder, which is what you'll get if you leave it to the profit motive to decide who gets education or not. The school system in much of the US is a mess, but the answer cannot be turning the whole thing over to people who want to exploit it for their own gain.

 

 

 

 

I think Healthcare in the US and much of the western world, Germany included, is primarily geared toward the profit motive already. Drugs that make money get to market, while less expensive therapies have no chance. If there's any industry that should be heavily regulated, it's the medical industry. Re mandatory insurance, I really have no opinions on this anymore when it comes to the US. I think the system is beyond corruption and irreversibly kaputt. The German healtcare system has been in operation since about the 1870s and it does quite well.

 

 

 

I forgot that the LP platform does in fact aknowledge the legitimacy of the public police. A private police force would be a huge disaster ala Blackwater.

 

 

 

 

No, and I didn't indicate that. My angle is that the LP is basically naive when it comes to human nature.

 

 

 

 

I didn't say that, either. See above. The problem is that the LP would result in a government completely incapable of controlling the demons it releases.

 

have to cut short....

 

Ecxellent point on the educational system! I imagine Aaron was educated at a public funded school.

 

In regards to medicine and public health, FDA food inspections, eradicating infectious disease, giving excellent health care to all as opposed to only the privileged few is of benefit to all. After all, the real wealth of any nation lies in a healthy, well educated populace.

[dawei]

Because you don't want to live in a third-world nation of downtrodden, uneducated, illiterate, faceless corporate-fodder, which is what you'll get if you leave it to the profit motive to decide who gets education or not. The school system in much of the US is a mess, but the answer cannot be turning the whole thing over to people who want to exploit it for their own gain.

 

I don't know the exact proposals but it doesn't have to be based on profit motive... it can simply be that parents pay (even partial) for school. In china, I think they pay 1/2 of the costs to the 'state'. It certainly keeps one more serious about something when they pay for it.

 

BTW: I don't have a horse in this race

 

Edited November 11, 2013 by dawei

[ralis]

In terms of education, I don't want to see religion or any type of creation science taught in public education.

[soaring crane]

A little disclosure, I used to be a card-carrying member of the LP (and by that I mean I carried the 'card', the little political test in card format).

 

Here's another weak link in the party platform: Advertising. A Libertarian society would be awash in unfettered, unregulated advertising. It would be omnipresent. There would be laws against 'false advertising' (with presumably drastic punishment for infractions), but just picture the little guy going up against big companies because an ingredient in their product caused him harm. I really don't have to provide illustration, do I? (perversely, a Libertarian may make the argument that an educated, informed consumer is responsible for the decisions he makes, while at the same time championing a system guaranteed to leave 90% of the population uneducated and uninformed).

 

And that segues into the very weird 'personal contract' aspect of the platform. The government would essentially be replaced by a system of contracts, not well-defined, that would leave all business interactions (including private purchases) up to the parties to sort out among themselves. Well, that just can't work. And the logical result would be a court system so large and opaque that it would dwarf the current system of regulatory agencies, ineffective and inefficient as they are.

 

No, sorry, the Libertarian platform sounds good on paper (and a couple of the specifics really are attractive and I'd welcome them) but a little time spent following the bulk of the ideas to their logical conclusion should result in nothing less than a shudder and shaking of the head.