Say a shitload of Libertarians started getting elected much more often in roles such as Governors and Senators? What if a Libertarian President existed?
I’m voting Libertarian. The Libertarian plan I believe would steer this country in a better course than anything Republicans or Democrats have been offering for a whlie.
[quote]Producer wrote:
Say a shitload of Libertarians started getting elected much more often in roles such as Governors and Senators? What if a Libertarian President existed?
I’m voting Libertarian. The Libertarian plan I believe would steer this country in a better course than anything Republicans or Democrats have been offering for a whlie.[/quote]
It won’t, so nothing to worry about.
You must be a psychic. Am I right?
I like some of the things that Libertarian says, but for the most I don’t think theuy’d be able to manage our country well. I think if the Libertarians took over, many ppl would live very well, and many ppl would become very impoverished. Our system would basically start to resemble something kind of hybrid of Amsterdam and Latin America.
If it was pure libertarian this country would be much better off. There would be no 12 trillion dollar national debt. That is going to make everyone poor.
[quote]John S. wrote:
If it was pure libertarian this country would be much better off. There would be no 12 trillion dollar national debt. That is going to make everyone poor.[/quote]
How do you know? That debt was mostly driven by so-called conservative’s wars and the greedy capitalist corporations stealing money from tax payers. Capitalism off the chain, wouldn’t prevent corporations from naipulating government.
[quote]3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
John S. wrote:
If it was pure libertarian this country would be much better off. There would be no 12 trillion dollar national debt. That is going to make everyone poor.
How do you know? That debt was mostly driven by so-called conservative’s wars and the greedy capitalist corporations stealing money from tax payers. Capitalism off the chain, wouldn’t prevent corporations from naipulating government.[/quote]
Really, Ron Paul was supporting all these wars? He is what a libertarian looks like. Maybe if people elected people who followed the Constitution(Libertarians) we wouldn’t have these problems.
Oh and by the way, the loony left gave us about 55 trillion dollars of unfunded liabilitys. So we all owe about $175,000 a piece. They sold the next generation into slavery. If you want to get side bashing you will find while the Republicans are bad with the debt they don’t even hold a candle to the lefts inept spending habits.
[quote]Producer wrote:
Say a shitload of Libertarians started getting elected much more often in roles such as Governors and Senators? What if a Libertarian President existed?
I’m voting Libertarian. The Libertarian plan I believe would steer this country in a better course than anything Republicans or Democrats have been offering for a whlie.
[/quote]
The government we elect reflects the philosophy we embrace.
The system we have in place reflects this. Most people are irrational; they think that government can and should do irrational things, like spend more than it earns, or engage in wars that cannot be won.
[quote]John S. wrote:
3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
John S. wrote:
If it was pure libertarian this country would be much better off. There would be no 12 trillion dollar national debt. That is going to make everyone poor.
How do you know? That debt was mostly driven by so-called conservative’s wars and the greedy capitalist corporations stealing money from tax payers. Capitalism off the chain, wouldn’t prevent corporations from naipulating government.
Really, Ron Paul was supporting all these wars? He is what a libertarian looks like. Maybe if people elected people who followed the Constitution(Libertarians) we wouldn’t have these problems.
Oh and by the way, the loony left gave us about 55 trillion dollars of unfunded liabilitys. So we all owe about $175,000 a piece. They sold the next generation into slavery. If you want to get side bashing you will find while the Republicans are bad with the debt they don’t even hold a candle to the lefts inept spending habits.[/quote]
Ron Paul is a man of principle, unfortunately if the libertarians took power, all the fools would rush in. Assuming the libertarians did as the libertarians say. Then what exactly would be remedied by their ascent from your piont of view?
Not inept.
That $175,000 per person of debt – which the government most certainly will extract from its subjects in the future – represents obtaining more power as this becomes due.
Spend now and get votes… and later have more power (because of being able to force higher taxation and still keep office, whereas if there were no such debt, that degree of taxation wouldn’t be tolerated.)
Not inept.
[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Not inept.
That $175,000 per person of debt – which the government most certainly will extract from its subjects in the future – represents obtaining more power as this becomes due.
Spend now and get votes… and later have more power (because of being able to force higher taxation and still keep office, whereas if there were no such debt, that degree of taxation wouldn’t be tolerated.)
Not inept.[/quote]
I disagree that those 175k will be extracted in the future.
The dollar will collapse, that is all.
I’m active in my state Libertarian Party. Because of the way election laws and ballot access is set up, it’s VERY hard to get any third parties on the ballot for any election-- thanks to you bastard R’s and D’s laws.
Anyway, given the political climate here, we tend to act more to support R and D (or any affiliation) candidates who, regardless of official affiliation, tend to vote toward libertarian (small L) principles. That applies at the state level (house/senate/govn’r), town/city levels (mayoral/selectman), and other affiliated elected positions.
We have a referendum question this election that, if won, will implement a “Taxpayers Bill of Rights” that will limit how fast government can spend money annually. That’s all-- doesn’t cut anything or require gov’t to shrink, it only limits how fast it can grow. There’s a provision that says if the government WANTS to spend more than allowed, it simply must go to the voters for approval, and, if needed, it can be suspended in an emergency (similar to Colorado’s TaBoR).
Of course, the big spenders would have us believe that having such a radical Libertarian idea implemented would mean that fire houses would be shut down, schools would close, and crime would skyrocket because police would get laid off…
Producer-- The problem with the Libertarian Party (big L) is this: It will never rise because it is too worried about who, within the party, is the most Libertarian. If you’ve never done it, follow a Libertarian primary sometime. Acceptable candidates are often chided because they’re not ‘pure’ enough. Two elections ago Michael Badnarik was the Presidential candidate. While he’s a very smart guy, and certainly understands the Libertarian stance (he’s a Libertarian’s Libertarian), he wasn’t much of an exciting candidate, and certainly not convincing to a lot of people.
Harry Browne (RIP) on the other hand did much for the party in that he was likeable, had experience, and could make you understand in simple terms how his point of view would help everyone. I voted for him twice. Sadly, he died a few years ago. Look up his books and read them.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I’m active in my state Libertarian Party. Because of the way election laws and ballot access is set up, it’s VERY hard to get any third parties on the ballot for any election-- thanks to you bastard R’s and D’s laws.
Anyway, given the political climate here, we tend to act more to support R and D (or any affiliation) candidates who, regardless of official affiliation, tend to vote toward libertarian (small L) principles. That applies at the state level (house/senate/govn’r), town/city levels (mayoral/selectman), and other affiliated elected positions.
We have a referendum question this election that, if won, will implement a “Taxpayers Bill of Rights” that will limit how fast government can spend money annually. That’s all-- doesn’t cut anything or require gov’t to shrink, it only limits how fast it can grow. There’s a provision that says if the government WANTS to spend more than allowed, it simply must go to the voters for approval, and, if needed, it can be suspended in an emergency (similar to Colorado’s TaBoR).
Of course, the big spenders would have us believe that having such a radical Libertarian idea implemented would mean that fire houses would be shut down, schools would close, and crime would skyrocket because police would get laid off…
Producer-- The problem with the Libertarian Party (big L) is this: It will never rise because it is too worried about who, within the party, is the most Libertarian. If you’ve never done it, follow a Libertarian primary sometime. Acceptable candidates are often chided because they’re not ‘pure’ enough. Two elections ago Michael Badnarik was the Presidential candidate. While he’s a very smart guy, and certainly understands the Libertarian stance (he’s a Libertarian’s Libertarian), he wasn’t much of an exciting candidate, and certainly not convincing to a lot of people.
Harry Browne (RIP) on the other hand did much for the party in that he was likeable, had experience, and could make you understand in simple terms how his point of view would help everyone. I voted for him twice. Sadly, he died a few years ago. Look up his books and read them.[/quote]
Have fun with TABOR. I love it, but it is constantly under attack. Colorado is a very mixed state, and it’s easier for voters to change the constitution than to change a statute. As a result, we have some provisions like TABOR, that limit the growth of government, while having conflicting provisions like Amendment 23, which mandates increased spending for schools every year.
Still, I look at the taxes that people in CA and NY pay, and I’m thrilled we have TABOR.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I’m active in my state Libertarian Party. Because of the way election laws and ballot access is set up, it’s VERY hard to get any third parties on the ballot for any election-- thanks to you bastard R’s and D’s laws.
Anyway, given the political climate here, we tend to act more to support R and D (or any affiliation) candidates who, regardless of official affiliation, tend to vote toward libertarian (small L) principles. That applies at the state level (house/senate/govn’r), town/city levels (mayoral/selectman), and other affiliated elected positions.
We have a referendum question this election that, if won, will implement a “Taxpayers Bill of Rights” that will limit how fast government can spend money annually. That’s all-- doesn’t cut anything or require gov’t to shrink, it only limits how fast it can grow. There’s a provision that says if the government WANTS to spend more than allowed, it simply must go to the voters for approval, and, if needed, it can be suspended in an emergency (similar to Colorado’s TaBoR).
Of course, the big spenders would have us believe that having such a radical Libertarian idea implemented would mean that fire houses would be shut down, schools would close, and crime would skyrocket because police would get laid off…
Producer-- The problem with the Libertarian Party (big L) is this: It will never rise because it is too worried about who, within the party, is the most Libertarian. If you’ve never done it, follow a Libertarian primary sometime. Acceptable candidates are often chided because they’re not ‘pure’ enough. Two elections ago Michael Badnarik was the Presidential candidate. While he’s a very smart guy, and certainly understands the Libertarian stance (he’s a Libertarian’s Libertarian), he wasn’t much of an exciting candidate, and certainly not convincing to a lot of people.
Harry Browne (RIP) on the other hand did much for the party in that he was likeable, had experience, and could make you understand in simple terms how his point of view would help everyone. I voted for him twice. Sadly, he died a few years ago. Look up his books and read them.[/quote]
Be very carefull with that whole “TABOR” thing. While I understand how you want to tie the hands of large government (state legislature level), there is a vicous fallout from TABOR that nobody here in Colorado forsaw.
We didn’t have firehouses closed, but we have had layoffs, updated safety and EMS equipment that can’t be purchased and training that can’t be accomplished also. The places it hits hardest are the small rural agencies and districts. These places are already operating pretty lean and when you rachet them down too much the wrong areas suffer.
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
I’m active in my state Libertarian Party. Because of the way election laws and ballot access is set up, it’s VERY hard to get any third parties on the ballot for any election-- thanks to you bastard R’s and D’s laws.
Anyway, given the political climate here, we tend to act more to support R and D (or any affiliation) candidates who, regardless of official affiliation, tend to vote toward libertarian (small L) principles. That applies at the state level (house/senate/govn’r), town/city levels (mayoral/selectman), and other affiliated elected positions.
We have a referendum question this election that, if won, will implement a “Taxpayers Bill of Rights” that will limit how fast government can spend money annually. That’s all-- doesn’t cut anything or require gov’t to shrink, it only limits how fast it can grow. There’s a provision that says if the government WANTS to spend more than allowed, it simply must go to the voters for approval, and, if needed, it can be suspended in an emergency (similar to Colorado’s TaBoR).
Of course, the big spenders would have us believe that having such a radical Libertarian idea implemented would mean that fire houses would be shut down, schools would close, and crime would skyrocket because police would get laid off…
Producer-- The problem with the Libertarian Party (big L) is this: It will never rise because it is too worried about who, within the party, is the most Libertarian. If you’ve never done it, follow a Libertarian primary sometime. Acceptable candidates are often chided because they’re not ‘pure’ enough. Two elections ago Michael Badnarik was the Presidential candidate. While he’s a very smart guy, and certainly understands the Libertarian stance (he’s a Libertarian’s Libertarian), he wasn’t much of an exciting candidate, and certainly not convincing to a lot of people.
Harry Browne (RIP) on the other hand did much for the party in that he was likeable, had experience, and could make you understand in simple terms how his point of view would help everyone. I voted for him twice. Sadly, he died a few years ago. Look up his books and read them.
Be very carefull with that whole “TABOR” thing. While I understand how you want to tie the hands of large government (state legislature level), there is a vicous fallout from TABOR that nobody here in Colorado forsaw.
We didn’t have firehouses closed, but we have had layoffs, updated safety and EMS equipment that can’t be purchased and training that can’t be accomplished also. The places it hits hardest are the small rural agencies and districts. These places are already operating pretty lean and when you rachet them down too much the wrong areas suffer.[/quote]
IMHO the ratchet down is the only problem with TABOR, and it sounds like they accounted for that in the proposed Maine legislation.
[quote]Producer wrote:
Say a shitload of Libertarians started getting elected much more often in roles such as Governors and Senators? What if a Libertarian President existed?
I’m voting Libertarian. The Libertarian plan I believe would steer this country in a better course than anything Republicans or Democrats have been offering for a whlie.
[/quote]
Salvation lies in the ideas of liberty not in an established political group.
If you want change you must promote the ideas that matter and not the politic.
Promoting a particular group that does not share all of the important ideas will only lead to more of the same – unworkable pragmatism.
Focus on the ideas first and foremost so that you can defend those principles that you wish to see established.
re: Colorado TABOR.
Maine doesn’t have the Constitutional conflict that CO has, that’s the good news. I have a double vested interest in that I live in Maine, but my company is based in Ft. Collins, CO.-- I’m out there often enough to follow CO’s implementation (pros and cons). My perception from reading/watching TV/talking to people is that TaBoR is doing its job, even with warts and all.
Folks from the Colorado campaign have been instrumental in consulting with our effort. Of course, all we hear about Colorado in the ads is how children were freezing to death and forced to wear mittens in school because evil TABOR cut off funding for fuel… (For those not familiar, TABOR laws CUT NOTHING)…
Maine has tried a couple attempts, but Unions, ESPECIALLY teachers’ unions oppose it (and therefore amply fund the opposition campaign). Public service employees have come around a little, at least those that understand the how it works.
lanchefan1-- I can’t speak to the details of those layoffs and purchases, but TABOR allows for spending beyond the limits with a simple vote, ESPECIALLY at the town level. EMS purchases are at the forefront of the argument and it was designed to accommodate those purchases at at the town level.
Editor of Colorado Gazette (speaking in Maine, dispelling lies propagated from CO):
Yeah, my old job entailed creating local governments to do things like fire, water and sanitation, parks and recreation, etc. We dealt with TABOR a LOT because you would have a community that wanted something done, so they had to vote for it. TABOR is great because at the local level, it truly is people agreeing to tax themselves to pay for something they want. It makes development pay its own way. It limits a lot at the state level because no one wants to pay for shit for people in another county.
The ratchet down effect is basically this: in 1999, the economy is great and everyone has plenty of money, property tax revenues are at, say, $1,000,000 for a theoretical local government. In 2001, the economy goes to shit and property values drop, so the theoretical local government’s property tax revenues drop to, say, $500,000. Then, in 2003, everything is awesome again - while property valuation could support property tax levels of $1,000,000 again, TABOR says that property taxes, absent a vote, can only increase by inflation + population growth. So property taxes under TABOR may be limited to (again, theoretically) $600,000 based on this formula, even though the government used to get $1,000,000. This is the ratchet down effect.
Under TABOR, if the government collects more tax from you than it is supposed to, you get a refund.
The liberal half of Colorado pushed through Referendum C a few years ago, which really weakens TABOR’s ratchet down effect - it actually ratchets up spending. They also took away our refunds. But, the libs weren’t able to push through a massive Referendum allowing a shit ton of bonds, so TABOR, while attacked, still worked to limit spending.
I just realized I really love TABOR. I’m going to go update my resume now.
[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
I’m active in my state Libertarian Party. Because of the way election laws and ballot access is set up, it’s VERY hard to get any third parties on the ballot for any election-- thanks to you bastard R’s and D’s laws.
Anyway, given the political climate here, we tend to act more to support R and D (or any affiliation) candidates who, regardless of official affiliation, tend to vote toward libertarian (small L) principles. That applies at the state level (house/senate/govn’r), town/city levels (mayoral/selectman), and other affiliated elected positions.
We have a referendum question this election that, if won, will implement a “Taxpayers Bill of Rights” that will limit how fast government can spend money annually. That’s all-- doesn’t cut anything or require gov’t to shrink, it only limits how fast it can grow. There’s a provision that says if the government WANTS to spend more than allowed, it simply must go to the voters for approval, and, if needed, it can be suspended in an emergency (similar to Colorado’s TaBoR).
Of course, the big spenders would have us believe that having such a radical Libertarian idea implemented would mean that fire houses would be shut down, schools would close, and crime would skyrocket because police would get laid off…
Producer-- The problem with the Libertarian Party (big L) is this: It will never rise because it is too worried about who, within the party, is the most Libertarian. If you’ve never done it, follow a Libertarian primary sometime. Acceptable candidates are often chided because they’re not ‘pure’ enough. Two elections ago Michael Badnarik was the Presidential candidate. While he’s a very smart guy, and certainly understands the Libertarian stance (he’s a Libertarian’s Libertarian), he wasn’t much of an exciting candidate, and certainly not convincing to a lot of people.
Harry Browne (RIP) on the other hand did much for the party in that he was likeable, had experience, and could make you understand in simple terms how his point of view would help everyone. I voted for him twice. Sadly, he died a few years ago. Look up his books and read them.
Be very carefull with that whole “TABOR” thing. While I understand how you want to tie the hands of large government (state legislature level), there is a vicous fallout from TABOR that nobody here in Colorado forsaw.
We didn’t have firehouses closed, but we have had layoffs, updated safety and EMS equipment that can’t be purchased and training that can’t be accomplished also. The places it hits hardest are the small rural agencies and districts. These places are already operating pretty lean and when you rachet them down too much the wrong areas suffer.
IMHO the ratchet down is the only problem with TABOR, and it sounds like they accounted for that in the proposed Maine legislation.[/quote]
Yeah if they fixed that part I see no reason why TABOR shouldn’t work just fine. A balanced budget is not a bad thing (but agencies do need to allow for a rainy day disaster fund which many don’t).
To me, libertarianism is fatally flawed. There’s this odd mash up of social liberalism and free market ideology. And, I just don’t think it’s possible to have both. A socially conservative culture is neccessary for tearing down the welfare state. To me, a socially liberal society just ends up being a socially liberal society with a gigantic welfare state.
I used to have a more favorable opinion of libertarianism. As if they were useful allies against liberals. Now, I know longer feel that way.