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

[soaring crane]

 

I don't know the exact proposals but it doesn't have to be based on profit motive...

 

 

In the Libertarian platform, it does; in the LP platform, everything does:

 

"Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education."

 

A completely baseless claim, with no historic examples to back it up, but that doesn't matter in the minds of the Libertarians. Oh, and, if the parents don't have any funds to expend? Well, fuck you poor people. I don't like to use that kind of language but it sums up this clause in their platform perfectly.

 

The Platform

Edited November 11, 2013 by soaring crane

[soaring crane]

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

 

 

Wise... very wise

[ralis]

What the LP ideology is calling for is neoliberalism which will lead to neofeudalism. Quite frankly, I see no difference between the LP platform and the tea party ideology. Both are based on Ayn Rand objectivism. Has anyone here besides me ever read her writings? Paul Ryan has made it required reading for his staff i. e, 'Atlas Shrugged'. Crappy literature!

[zerostao]

isnt our current corporate oligarchy already feudalism?

i am not going to read Atlas Shrugged but i think i understand its premise>> that anyone not in the 1%

is just a worthless moocher, is that close?

why havnt the big banks been broken up?????

imf????? = neo slavery, basically doesnt it?

its all the same dang game the gop was playing in the 20's then it was rockafella now its koch,

bigs banks create bubbles to fleece the 99%

so, about sometime in 2016,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

glass steagall 2.0

and even thomas jefferson was in favor of public education.

that golden arrow video i posted about a week ago.....

[ralis]

isnt our current corporate oligarchy already feudalism?

i am not going to read Atlas Shrugged but i think i understand its premise>> that anyone not in the 1%

is just a worthless moocher, is that close?

Karl Rove and his cronies have characterized it as the 'makers and takers'. Anyone in the 99% is a worthless moocher/taker. I guess that is feudalism. Of course the makers only make money and nothing else.

 

What is not well known about Ayn Rand is that she took full advantage of SS and related benefits in her later years.

Edited November 11, 2013 by ralis

[soaring crane]

Quite frankly, I see no difference between the LP platform and the tea party ideology. Both are based on Ayn Rand objectivism. Has anyone here besides me ever read her writings?

 

Did you catch my reference to Dagny Taggart?

 

But Aaron is right in that the LP has a much more comprehensive and philosophical platform than the Tea Party. Even I wouldn't compare the two. There are personalities who overlap and the lines do become blurry, but the LP is far and away the more mature and independent of the two.

 

I mean, who knows? Maybe the TP will be the purging the LP has needed for about twenty years now.

[zerostao]

the tea party is kinda like the occupy wall street crowd, in that both of those groups understand that something is dead in denmark, something is very broke with the current system and that there needs to be some type of change.

the supreme court has been paid off. money is speech, the only speech capable of being heard.

ideas are silenced. money talks. it lies but it talks

[Aaron]

What I want is government out of my life. The Libertarian Party is advocating that. I think our reliance on government is the reason why society has been rapidly declining in the last century. The more you rely on something, the more it can control you. Giving up your choice in your child's education by sending them to public school is essentially allowing the government to raise your child. I'm willing to sacrifice some comfort for the sake of freedom. If more people understood that their "freedom" was really nothing more than an illusion of comfort and security, that each day they grow closer and closer to a fascist state that will eventually control every sector of their lives, I think they'd be seeing the Libertarian platform in a different light.

 

And yes I was educated in the public school system. I graduated eighth grade and quit my second month into high school. I eventually got my GED and went to college on school loans I'm still paying for.

 

I am not a fan of the two party system and anyone who watched the video at the link I posted earlier will see why. There is no such thing as a democratic and republican party, the vast majority of politicians are being funded by the same corporate sectors. The game is rigged. Your children's future is rigged. You think the time of cameras watching every step you take is decades away? It's already here. You think the time of governments monitoring your purchases, political choices, and daily activities is decades away? It's already here. We are living in the police state and the only way to break free is to break the system and remake it in the form it was intended. The Republic of America was intended to withstand the oligarchical climate of its time, but we're facing a new oligarchy in the guise of corporate interests. If we don't understand this and start doing something to stop it, we'll all be paying for it with our lives sooner, probably, rather than later.

 

Aaron

Edited November 12, 2013 by Aaron

[Aaron]

Karl Rove and his cronies have characterized it as the 'makers and takers'. Anyone in the 99% is a worthless moocher/taker. I guess that is feudalism. Of course the makers only make money and nothing else.

 

What is not well known about Ayn Rand is that she took full advantage of SS and related benefits in her later years.

 

Ralis, Karl Rove isn't a libertarian. The fact is the vast majority of Libertarians are not "Ayn Rand" fans, in fact I'd like to know where you heard that, because I never heard of Ayn Rand when I first joined the party. It wasn't until I met some early Tea Party members, back in the beginning of the Bush era that I started to hear people using Ayn Rand's philosophies as a philosophical platform for the government.

 

Also keep in mind that there are different types of Libertarians, I'm a constitutional libertarian. There are Libertarians that are less reactionary, that understand the need for compromise, however in certain areas there is no room for compromise, and civil liberties is one of those areas.

 

The next time someone complains about the Patriot Act, just remember that nearly every republican and democrat in the senate and congress voted in support of it, the only ones that didn't were the Libertarians. How anyone can try to link them to corporate cronyism is beyond me.

 

Aaron

Edited November 12, 2013 by Aaron

[ralis]

Here is one reason we need a federal government. Without which women's rights will continue to be trampled on! BTW, smaller governments can lead to fascism.

 

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4266599/

 

 

[Aaron]

Hi Ralis,

 

I'm actually Pro-Life, because I believe that fetuses are living human beings by definition. I understand why people believe it's a woman's right to choose, but I honestly believe it's murder, so I tend to choose the pro-life stance. I'm not militant about it, but I do try to educate people when I can regarding the topic. I am not, however, anti-birth control, nor do I oppose the morning after pill.

 

IMPORTANT NOTE- THE VAST MAJORITY OF LIBERTARIANS ARE PRO-CHOICE. I'm not one of them.

 

Aaron

Edited November 14, 2013 by Aaron

[gendao]

Here is one reason we need a federal government. Without which women's rights will continue to be trampled on! BTW, smaller governments can lead to fascism. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4266599/

YES!!! Along with our anti-natural, pro-GMO FDA, lobbyist-run EPA, FRB, 0rweIIian N5A, war-mongering MIEC, anti-holistic Opharmacare, burgeoning tax-paid po-po state, exploding ~$50 trillion debt, etc..

THANK GOD for BIG GOV!!!! In Gov we Trust!!!

Cuz government policies & enterprise ALWAYS outsmart the reality-based "Wiki" wisdom of the crowd-funded free market!

The secret, dirty cost of Obama's green power push

AP Investigation: Obama's green energy drive comes with an unadvertised environmental cost

 

But the ethanol era has proven far more damaging to the environment than politicians promised and much worse than the government admits today.

As farmers rushed to find new places to plant corn, they wiped out millions of acres of conservation land, destroyed habitat and polluted water supplies, an Associated Press investigation found.

Five million acres of land set aside for conservation — more than Yellowstone, Everglades and Yosemite National Parks combined — have vanished on Obama's watch.

Landowners filled in wetlands. They plowed into pristine prairies, releasing carbon dioxide that had been locked in the soil.

Sprayers pumped out billions of pounds of fertilizer, some of which seeped into drinking water, contaminated rivers and worsened the huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico where marine life can't survive.

 

The consequences are so severe that environmentalists and many scientists have now rejected corn-based ethanol as bad environmental policy. But the Obama administration stands by it, highlighting its benefits to the farming industry rather than any negative impact.

Farmers planted 15 million more acres of corn last year than before the ethanol boom, and the effects are visible in places like south central Iowa.

The hilly, once-grassy landscape is made up of fragile soil that, unlike the earth in the rest of the state, is poorly suited for corn. Nevertheless, it has yielded to America's demand for it.

 

"They're raping the land," said Bill Alley, a member of the board of supervisors in Wayne County, which now bears little resemblance to the rolling cow pastures shown in postcards sold at a Corydon pharmacy.

All energy comes at a cost. The environmental consequences of drilling for oil and natural gas are well documented and severe. But in the president's push to reduce greenhouse gases and curtail global warming, his administration has allowed so-called green energy to do not-so-green things.

 

In some cases, such as its decision to allow wind farms to kill eagles, the administration accepts environmental costs because they pale in comparison to the havoc it believes global warming could ultimately cause.

Ethanol is different.

 

The government's predictions of the benefits have proven so inaccurate that independent scientists question whether it will ever achieve its central environmental goal: reducing greenhouse gases. That makes the hidden costs even more significant.

"This is an ecological disaster," said Craig Cox with the Environmental Working Group, a natural ally of the president that, like others, now finds itself at odds with the White House.

 

One of Obama's senior advisers, Pete Rouse, had worked on ethanol issues as chief of staff to Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota, a major ethanol booster and now chair of the DuPont Advisory Committee on Agriculture Innovation and Productivity.

 

By law, though, biofuels were supposed to be at least 20 percent greener than gasoline.

To get past 20 percent, the EPA needed to change its assumptions.

Agriculture companies like Monsanto Co. and DuPont Pioneer, which stood to make millions off an ethanol boom, told the government those numbers were too low.

They predicted that genetically modified seeds — which they produce — would send yields skyrocketing. With higher yields, farmers could produce more corn on less land, reducing the environmental effects.

"You adjust a few numbers to get it where you want it, and then you call it good," said Adam Liska, assistant professor of biological systems engineering at the University of Nebraska. He supports ethanol, even with its environmental trade-offs.

When the Obama administration finalized its first major green-energy policy, corn ethanol barely crossed the key threshold. The final score: 21 percent.

It didn't take long for reality to prove the Obama administration's predictions wrong.

But the ethanol boom was underway.

Meanwhile...Obama Holder still keeps this REAL green fuel strictly ILLEGAL!!!

Well, THANK GOV a bunch of lawyers are smart enough to dictate agricultural and health policies in this country for the rest of us!!! Like ZOMG, what would we do without them???

Edited November 14, 2013 by vortex

[Aaron]

The Libertarians are against the prohibition on Marijuana (and drugs in general) believing users should receive treatment, rather than incarceration.

 

Again, the reason I like the Libertarians so much is that they are focused on freedom as it was laid out in the constitution. The federal government was never meant to be the monster it is now. The sad thing is that the vast majority of children being educated in the government schools are being taught that there is no alternative. This is the main reason I advocate home schooling.

 

Aaron

[ralis]

Home schooling with no standards? Parents with no math skills teaching calculus, algebra, chemistry? Social skills around children's peers? While we are at it, throw in so called creation science and brain wash children that the earth is 6000 yrs old. I guess geology wont be in the curriculum.

[Aaron]

Ralis, I'm wondering why so many ivy league schools seem to feel different, in fact many of them are excited to have home schooled children, because more often than not they perform significantly better academically.

 

Now if you follow the democrats stance, a party that is funded by teachers unions, then it makes sense you might believe what you do, but in reality most home schooled kids excel in all subject matters compared to school taught kids. Remember the curriculum that home schooled children are taught is almost identical to the ones being taught in school. The only difference is that the parent is helping the child.

 

Of course you're probably right, a parent shouldn't be able to decide what their children are being taught, rather that should be dictated by the government, I mean how else are we going to ensure they kowtow to authority?

 

Now that I'm done with the sarcasm, let me just say that I am agnostic, leaning towards atheism, but I still believe that parents have the right to teach their children what they want to teach them, because I believe in freedom of speech, religion and expression. When you start to dictate what a child can and can't be taught, you take those things away from the parent and the child. For me there is a big difference between not teaching creative science in school and denying a parent's right to teach there child it at home.

 

Aaron

 

P.S. Ralis, if this sounds snarky in places, please disregard that. I know you're a good person with good intentions, so I accept that you disagree with me, and most of your ideas make perfect sense, I just feel in my heart that I'm touching on the right stuff here, mainly because I honestly believe Libertarian-ism is the closest thing to Taoism we have in our political landscape.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Aaron

[ralis]

Ralis, I'm wondering why so many ivy league schools seem to feel different, in fact many of them are excited to have home schooled children, because more often than not they perform significantly better academically.

 

Now if you follow the democrats stance, a party that is funded by teachers unions, then it makes sense you might believe what you do, but in reality most home schooled kids excel in all subject matters compared to school taught kids. Remember the curriculum that home schooled children are taught is almost identical to the ones being taught in school. The only difference is that the parent is helping the child.

 

Of course you're probably right, a parent shouldn't be able to decide what their children are being taught, rather that should be dictated by the government, I mean how else are we going to ensure they kowtow to authority?

 

Now that I'm done with the sarcasm, let me just say that I am agnostic, leaning towards atheism, but I still believe that parents have the right to teach their children what they want to teach them, because I believe in freedom of speech, religion and expression. When you start to dictate what a child can and can't be taught, you take those things away from the parent and the child. For me there is a big difference between not teaching creative science in school and denying a parent's right to teach there child it at home.

 

Aaron

 

P.S. Ralis, if this sounds snarky in places, please disregard that. I know you're a good person with good intentions, so I accept that you disagree with me, and most of your ideas make perfect sense, I just feel in my heart that I'm touching on the right stuff here, mainly because I honestly believe Libertarian-ism is the closest thing to Taoism we have in our political landscape.

 

Which Ivy league schools? References.

[ralis]

Hi Ralis,

 

I'm actually Pro-Life, because I believe that fetuses are living human beings by definition. I understand why people believe it's a woman's right to choose, but I honestly believe it's murder, so I tend to choose the pro-life stance. I'm not militant about it, but I do try to educate people when I can regarding the topic. I am not, however, anti-birth control, nor do I oppose the morning after pill.

 

IMPORTANT NOTE- THE VAST MAJORITY OF LIBERTARIANS ARE PRO-CHOICE. I'm not one of them.

 

Aaron

 

 

What definition are you referring to? I would prefer scientific definitions as opposed to religious doctrine.

Edited November 15, 2013 by ralis

[Aaron]

What definition are you referring to? I would prefer scientific definitions as opposed to religious doctrine.

 

Well let me ask you this question, Is a fetus the offspring of a human being? By definition a fetus is the developing offspring of a human being, thus being an offspring it is a human being. This is the ridiculous part to me, a baby is born premature, you kill it, it's murder, you decide to pull it out of the mother and sever it's spinal cord, it's an abortion. Something is seriously wrong there. Pro-life activists try to define it at 11 weeks, but scientists haven't been able to clearly distinguish when an embryo becomes a fetus... why, because an embryo is just a designation used by pro-choice elements to try to justify killing the baby, in reality it is a child, whether it is an embryo or a fetus, the fact that it follows the process of life and grows as it becomes older means that it is alive! So killing an embryo or fetus is still killing a living human being. That's my view. If you don't agree that's fine. Are you going to use semantics to try and win this argument?

 

Aaron

Edited November 15, 2013 by Aaron

[Aaron]

Which Ivy league schools? References.

 

US World News did an article on this topic. On page two they list the Ivy league schools that accepted one of the students. The basis of their acceptance is on their national scoring, of which Home Schooled students rank amongst the highest percentile.

 

http://www.usnews.com/education/high-schools/articles/2012/06/01/home-schooled-teens-ripe-for-college

 

Also you can check out the Huffington Post article on the same topic, that basically says the same thing, it can be found at...

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/01/homeschooled-students-wel_n_1562425.html

 

Here's a quote from the Huffington Post article-

 

"More than 2 million U.S. students in grades K-12 were home-schooled in 2010, accounting for nearly four percent of all school-aged children, according to the National Home Education Research Institute. Studies suggest that those who go on to college will outperform their peers.

Students coming from a home school graduated college at a higher rate than their peers­ -- 66.7 percent compared to 57.5 percent -- and earned higher grade point averages along the way, according to a study that compared students at one doctoral university from 2004-2009."

 

You should read these articles, I think it might change your opinion of home schooling. A lot of what you read is propaganda spun by the Teachers Unions and education system that loses money when children are taught at home.

 

Aaron

Edited November 15, 2013 by Aaron

[soaring crane]

YES!!! Along with our anti-natural, pro-GMO FDA, lobbyist-run EPA, FRB, 0rweIIian N5A, war-mongering MIEC, anti-holistic Opharmacare, burgeoning tax-paid po-po state, exploding ~$50 trillion debt, etc..

 

It's government/private collusion that you're (rightfully) railing against. The mistake, as I see it, is in thinking you can remove one of the those aspects i.e. government, and the problems will solve themselves.

 

Those agencies didn't start out corrupt; It took a few decades of hardcore industry lobbying to destroy them. And if the barriers had never been there in the first place, it's hello Oliver Twist.

[ralis]

What I see with Libertarian ideology is a championing of state's rights which has already been tried in this country. The Civil War and prior to the framing of the Constitution. The more state's are given free reign, the trend toward fascism is attained. Recently, the gutting of section 4 of the voting rights act has allowed the states that previously used 'Jim Crow' laws to control the vote, to re-institute draconian voting laws that are discriminatory towards minorities and poor people.

[ralis]

There are probably some here that did not experience the 'civil rights' movements of the 60's, which were movements against state's rights. Voting restrictions, segregation of schools, unequal access to public services and so forth were some of the egregious problems that needed to be addressed. Not one of these several states (Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia, Fla. etc) showed concern to change. Therefor, the Federal govt passed civil rights laws to insure that minorities have the same access as whites.

 

 

There are some that would vote for slavery to return.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAzO4OShWeQ

Edited November 15, 2013 by ralis

[Aaron]

Ahem... the civil rights movement was actually the correct response by the federal government. I don't know of any Libertarians that argue against the Civil Rights movement or Civil Rights laws, in fact the decisions made by the federal government upheld constitutional law already in place.

 

I would like to point out that in your argument, the same kind of social injustices should have been found in the northern states as well. I think the problem has less to do with state rights and more to do with social mores prevalent in the south. Also keep in mind that the Federal government was illegally monitoring civil rights leaders in order to try and find information they might be able to use against them. This was a clear sign of how the increase in Federal government was leading to a curtailing of civil rights.

 

Aaron

 

Edit- Also none of the people you're citing as sources are Libertarians, so I really don't understand how this can be connected to the Libertarian party.

Edited November 15, 2013 by Aaron

[Aaron]

Something interesting I saw that speaks volumes about the harm government interference in our daily lives causes without us knowing....

 

 

Aaron

[ralis]

In regards to returning to a strict Constitutional ideology, which is nothing but a misunderstanding of the Constitution. The framers could not foresee every change needed in the future with an evolving society but left provisions for amendments. I suppose that Libertarians would dispose of whatever amendments they don't like or even understand the reason for.

Edited November 17, 2013 by ralis