Why aren't more people Libertarian?

[Paulie]

I sleep great at night knowing there's a gun pointed at everyone's head to feed me in my time of need.

 

[konradv]

Once again you're going with the "government control" mantra.

Yes. Because that's what you keep proposing.

The government wouldn't have anything to do with it. It would be determined by the results of the ballot box. That would require a pre-primary election to determine those qualified to vie for party nominations or an independent run. How does that become politicized beyond the fact that the races would be about politics?

Who decides the rules for this process? Answering that question is inevitably political. How are you imagining that you can reduce collusion when you are increasing the incentive?

As far as the parties go, they'd lose a lot of their power, if the money angle was removed and become what they should be, clearinghouses for ideas. It's not the first time I've proposed this, so I should start crying like the libertarians do, that their ideas are constantly being misrepresented, I guess.

I think you've represented your ideas pretty clearly. You want to prohibit people, particularly rich people, from using their money to promote political candidates. You're essentially suggesting that we supplant the current informal "system" of voluntary campaign fundraising with an 'in house' contest run by the government and funded by taxpayers. I think this would be huge mistake.

You always go back to "run by the government". How is that the case? The taxpayers would be footing the bill, but the decision on who gets the money would be determined by the ballot box. If you're going to call that "run by the government" then every election we've had has been so. Also, rather than saying I'd want to stop people from using their money to promote a candidate, I'd prefer to look at it as preventing monied interests from extracting expensive promises from the candidates. Since the most powerful could do so to both sides, how are we really having fair elections? You wouldn't be able to contribute your money either, but what's more important, the amount of money each candidate has or the ideas and plans they have? What's fair about the candidate of your choice being swamped out every time, not because their ideas are flawed, but because a special interest can buy all the air time they want and your candidate can't? To my mind that isn't democracy, it's plutocracy.

 

[Paulie]

Once again you're going with the "government control" mantra.

Yes. Because that's what you keep proposing.



Who decides the rules for this process? Answering that question is inevitably political. How are you imagining that you can reduce collusion when you are increasing the incentive?

As far as the parties go, they'd lose a lot of their power, if the money angle was removed and become what they should be, clearinghouses for ideas. It's not the first time I've proposed this, so I should start crying like the libertarians do, that their ideas are constantly being misrepresented, I guess.

I think you've represented your ideas pretty clearly. You want to prohibit people, particularly rich people, from using their money to promote political candidates. You're essentially suggesting that we supplant the current informal "system" of voluntary campaign fundraising with an 'in house' contest run by the government and funded by taxpayers. I think this would be huge mistake.

You always go back to "run by the government". How is that the case? The taxpayers would be footing the bill, but the decision on who gets the money would be determined by the ballot box. If you're going to call that "run by the government" then every election we've had has been so. Also, rather than saying I'd want to stop people from using their money to promote a candidate, I'd prefer to look at it as preventing monied interests from extracting expensive promises from the candidates. Since the most powerful could do so to both sides, how are we really having fair elections? You wouldn't be able to contribute your money either, but what's more important, the amount of money each candidate has or the ideas and plans they have? What's fair about the candidate of your choice being swamped out every time, not because their ideas are flawed, but because a special interest can buy all the air time they want and your candidate can't? To my mind that isn't democracy, it's plutocracy.

Do me a favor, lay this proposal out in detail. I'd like to know exactly how you would work it. Start a thread if you would.

 

[konradv]

Yes. Because that's what you keep proposing.



Who decides the rules for this process? Answering that question is inevitably political. How are you imagining that you can reduce collusion when you are increasing the incentive?



I think you've represented your ideas pretty clearly. You want to prohibit people, particularly rich people, from using their money to promote political candidates. You're essentially suggesting that we supplant the current informal "system" of voluntary campaign fundraising with an 'in house' contest run by the government and funded by taxpayers. I think this would be huge mistake.

You always go back to "run by the government". How is that the case? The taxpayers would be footing the bill, but the decision on who gets the money would be determined by the ballot box. If you're going to call that "run by the government" then every election we've had has been so. Also, rather than saying I'd want to stop people from using their money to promote a candidate, I'd prefer to look at it as preventing monied interests from extracting expensive promises from the candidates. Since the most powerful could do so to both sides, how are we really having fair elections? You wouldn't be able to contribute your money either, but what's more important, the amount of money each candidate has or the ideas and plans they have? What's fair about the candidate of your choice being swamped out every time, not because their ideas are flawed, but because a special interest can buy all the air time they want and your candidate can't? To my mind that isn't democracy, it's plutocracy.

Do me a favor, lay this proposal out in detail. I'd like to know exactly how you would work it. Start a thread if you would.

OK, but not today. I'm trying to concentrate on football and the Ravens are coming on soon. As the others will tell you, it's not the first time I've talked about it and, frankly, many are tired of hearing it. But since this is the first time I've ever encountered your level of interest from a self-professed libertarian, I will. Look for it in a day or two. Maybe to keep the crazies to a minimum, I'll post it to the new philosophy forum. That should allow more room for thoughtful debate, instead of the usual name calling. Perhaps just an announcement on in this forum, so those interested will know it's on. Thanks for the interest.

 

[dblack]

You always go back to "run by the government". How is that the case?

Well, I assume you're not talking about a voluntary initiative. It's reasonable to assume government would be tasked with creating and enforcing whatever rules changes you are proposing.

The taxpayers would be footing the bill, but the decision on who gets the money would be determined by the ballot box.

It's the details of the qualification requirements that will be a constant source of politicking. Whoever controls the designation of the qualification criteria will, ultimately, control the process - deciding who to shut out and who to allow through. Whatever set of requirements might sound solid and fair to you today, will be challenged, twisted and changed by those who stand to gain. Looking at the shenanigans that currently swirl around voter id and gerrymandering.

Also, rather than saying I'd want to stop people from using their money to promote a candidate, I'd prefer to look at it as preventing monied interests from extracting expensive promises from the candidates.

I'm sure you would prefer to look at it that way, but I can't let you, because it isn't accurate. What you're proposing is a blanket ban on people spending their own money to fund political races. That might stop some of the quid-pro-quo action (though certainly not all of it), but it would also sacrifice the fundamental right to advocate for things we believe in.

Since the most powerful could do so to both sides, how are we really having fair elections? You wouldn't be able to contribute your money either, but what's more important, the amount of money each candidate has or the ideas and plans they have? What's fair about the candidate of your choice being swamped out every time, not because their ideas are flawed, but because a special interest can buy all the air time they want and your candidate can't? To my mind that isn't democracy, it's plutocracy.

There's an element of 'plutocracy' in any civilization that features private property rights and a free market. The whole point of capitalism is to distribute power throughout society, in large part in the form of wealth, rather that to keep it centralized in authoritarian structures.

 

[jack113]

You always go back to "run by the government". How is that the case?

Well, I assume you're not talking about a voluntary initiative. It's reasonable to assume government would be tasked with creating and enforcing whatever rules changes you are proposing.

The taxpayers would be footing the bill, but the decision on who gets the money would be determined by the ballot box.

It's the details of the qualification requirements that will be a constant source of politicking. Whoever controls the designation of the qualification criteria will, ultimately, control the process - deciding who to shut out and who to allow through. Whatever set of requirements might sound solid and fair to you today, will be challenged, twisted and changed by those who stand to gain. Looking at the shenanigans that currently swirl around voter id and gerrymandering.

Well, Also, rather than saying I'd want to stop people from using their money to promote a candidate, I'd prefer to look at it as preventing monied interests from extracting expensive promises from the candidates.

I'm sure you would prefer to look at it that way, but I can't let you, because it isn't accurate. What you're proposing is a blanket ban on people spending their own money to fund political races. That might stop some of the quid-pro-quo action (though certainly not all of it), but it would also sacrifice the fundamental right to advocate for things we believe in.

Since the most powerful could do so to both sides, how are we really having fair elections? You wouldn't be able to contribute your money either, but what's more important, the amount of money each candidate has or the ideas and plans they have? What's fair about the candidate of your choice being swamped out every time, not because their ideas are flawed, but because a special interest can buy all the air time they want and your candidate can't? To my mind that isn't democracy, it's plutocracy.

There's an element of 'plutocracy' in any civilization that features private property rights and a free market. The whole point of capitalism is to distribute power throughout society, in large part in the form of wealth, rather that to keep it centralized in authoritarian structures.

All you have to do is look at Ron Paul and his kid to see why libertarians will never be accepted.

 

[Oddball]

You always go back to "run by the government". How is that the case?

Well, I assume you're not talking about a voluntary initiative. It's reasonable to assume government would be tasked with creating and enforcing whatever rules changes you are proposing.

The taxpayers would be footing the bill, but the decision on who gets the money would be determined by the ballot box.

It's the details of the qualification requirements that will be a constant source of politicking. Whoever controls the designation of the qualification criteria will, ultimately, control the process - deciding who to shut out and who to allow through. Whatever set of requirements might sound solid and fair to you today, will be challenged, twisted and changed by those who stand to gain. Looking at the shenanigans that currently swirl around voter id and gerrymandering.

Also, rather than saying I'd want to stop people from using their money to promote a candidate, I'd prefer to look at it as preventing monied interests from extracting expensive promises from the candidates.

I'm sure you would prefer to look at it that way, but I can't let you, because it isn't accurate. What you're proposing is a blanket ban on people spending their own money to fund political races. That might stop some of the quid-pro-quo action (though certainly not all of it), but it would also sacrifice the fundamental right to advocate for things we believe in.

Since the most powerful could do so to both sides, how are we really having fair elections? You wouldn't be able to contribute your money either, but what's more important, the amount of money each candidate has or the ideas and plans they have? What's fair about the candidate of your choice being swamped out every time, not because their ideas are flawed, but because a special interest can buy all the air time they want and your candidate can't? To my mind that isn't democracy, it's plutocracy.

There's an element of 'plutocracy' in any civilization that features private property rights and a free market. The whole point of capitalism is to distribute power throughout society, in large part in the form of wealth, rather that to keep it centralized in authoritarian structures.

He has had every one of those points explained to him time and time and time again....He doesn't give a fuck...He's a committed socialist, therefore impervious to reality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oddball uses "socialist" as a generic description for those who disagree with him.

Why aren't more people Libertarian?

Because Americans are overwhelmingly not of the 'weak head' sort like Oddball.

 

[Oddball]

I use the term to define socialists, which fits in komrad's case...Just like the words poseur and liar apply to you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

. . . and "weak head" with you.

 

[beagle9]

Shove it up your ass, you bigoted liar.

Being pro-human starts with the smallest minority of humanity: The individual.

What a shit stripe you are. Libertarianism is all about social darwinism. To simpletons like yourself, the market is always right, and if you get fucked by it, it's your fault.

Nope. You're just wrong on that Dick. Do some more reading.

For most libertarians, it isn't a question of whether or not we should take care of each other as a community, but how. When it comes to solving our problems, coercive government isn't the only answer. It's our view that if we can solve our problems without resorting to the billy club we should.

But they've gotten so good at hiding the billy club from us anymore, and therefore we are controlled with no options available unto us anymore, especially not the billy club option, you know they had to get that one off the table real quick..LOL

 

[LibertyForAll]

1) The idea that libertarians are self centered is ridiculous. In a libertarian society any right that is secured for an individuals would be secured for ALL individuals regardless of race, sex or creed . For example; No one would allow economic slavery to corporate interests because they then could fall victim to such, No one would allow companies to pollute their water supply, No one would allow a strip club to be set up next to their kids school. So these arguments are ridiculous and irrelevant to the national stage anyway since they handled at the local level. States would and should have the power to set laws that would require zoning and environmental protections. The issue is whether the federal government should do it and the answer is an emphatic NO!

2) A monopoly that raises it's prices beyond the customers ability to pay will fail since it will be decreasing the barriers to market entry. The price point will have to remain affordable and the quality remain high in order to maintain their place on top and if they can do that they deserve to stay on top because that is what it's all about.


I am of the Minarchist branch of the philosophy which says that we should have the minimum amount of government necessary to secure the rights of everyone. In other words some government is necessary but the debate should be on what is absolutely necessary and what is superfluous. If it's necessary then taxation may be justified but when you waste tax dollars on the superfluous then that is theft.

 

[JakeStarkey]

How is that right secured? By force of the liberated individual?

Crazy loons.

 

[Paulie]

How is that right secured? By force of the liberated individual?

Crazy loons.

I urge you to check out a document called the US constitution. I'm sure it's available all over the internet if you do a google search.

 

[rightwinger]

1) The idea that libertarians are self centered is ridiculous. In a libertarian society any right that is secured for an individuals would be secured for ALL individuals regardless of race, sex or creed . For example; No one would allow economic slavery to corporate interests because they then could fall victim to such, No one would allow companies to pollute their water supply, No one would allow a strip club to be set up next to their kids school. So these arguments are ridiculous and irrelevant to the national stage anyway since they handled at the local level. States would and should have the power to set laws that would require zoning and environmental protections. The issue is whether the federal government should do it and the answer is an emphatic NO!

2) A monopoly that raises it's prices beyond the customers ability to pay will fail since it will be decreasing the barriers to market entry. The price point will have to remain affordable and the quality remain high in order to maintain their place on top and if they can do that they deserve to stay on top because that is what it's all about.


I am of the Minarchist branch of the philosophy which says that we should have the minimum amount of government necessary to secure the rights of everyone. In other words some government is necessary but the debate should be on what is absolutely necessary and what is superfluous. If it's necessary then taxation may be justified but when you waste tax dollars on the superfluous then that is theft.

A fine example of why more people are not Libertarian

 

[Paulie]

You always go back to "run by the government". How is that the case? The taxpayers would be footing the bill, but the decision on who gets the money would be determined by the ballot box. If you're going to call that "run by the government" then every election we've had has been so. Also, rather than saying I'd want to stop people from using their money to promote a candidate, I'd prefer to look at it as preventing monied interests from extracting expensive promises from the candidates. Since the most powerful could do so to both sides, how are we really having fair elections? You wouldn't be able to contribute your money either, but what's more important, the amount of money each candidate has or the ideas and plans they have? What's fair about the candidate of your choice being swamped out every time, not because their ideas are flawed, but because a special interest can buy all the air time they want and your candidate can't? To my mind that isn't democracy, it's plutocracy.

Do me a favor, lay this proposal out in detail. I'd like to know exactly how you would work it. Start a thread if you would.

OK, but not today. I'm trying to concentrate on football and the Ravens are coming on soon. As the others will tell you, it's not the first time I've talked about it and, frankly, many are tired of hearing it. But since this is the first time I've ever encountered your level of interest from a self-professed libertarian, I will. Look for it in a day or two. Maybe to keep the crazies to a minimum, I'll post it to the new philosophy forum. That should allow more room for thoughtful debate, instead of the usual name calling. Perhaps just an announcement on in this forum, so those interested will know it's on. Thanks for the interest.

I'm interested in the part where the government wouldn't be controlling it. I'm anxious to see how that would be possible.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

He'll just go into that age old tirade about how the people are the government, etc..and then say how legislators would go to jail for taking money not controlled by this new public campaign financing.

You know how we always send those legislators to jail!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The same Constitution that many libertarians despise because they find it "coercive"?

Paulie, step off if you can abide by constitutional, electoral process.

How is that right secured? By force of the liberated individual?

Crazy loons.

I urge you to check out a document called the US constitution. I'm sure it's available all over the internet if you do a google search.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are a broken record, TakeAStepBack.

Count your blessings instead of whining.

 

[cereal_killer]

The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently~ Nietzsche

Libertarians FTW.