What Would Happen if The Libertarian Party Rose?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
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):

That was the funny thing within a year a ton of fire dept special districts (those not run by a city) all did their “DeBrucing” (Douglas Bruce author of our original TABOR bill and resident slum lord and criminal). It sounds like in Maine they are going about it the correct way.

22

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
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.

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).[/quote]

Actually, TABOR mandates a minimum 3% reserve fund.

23

Libertarians talk a good game…but all they really care about is smoking pot. It is their only core belief.

24

[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
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.

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).

Actually, TABOR mandates a minimum 3% reserve fund.[/quote]

Too bad the larger municipalities raid that too often.

And would you go get a damn JOB already! You’re making those of us that work two days a week jealous!

25

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
pushmepullme wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
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.

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).

Actually, TABOR mandates a minimum 3% reserve fund.

Too bad the larger municipalities raid that too often.

And would you go get a damn JOB already! You’re making those of us that work two days a week jealous![/quote]

Trust me, my friend. I’m trying!

26

[quote]Valor wrote:
Libertarians talk a good game…but all they really care about is smoking pot. It is their only core belief.[/quote]

and don’t forget nonaggression, too!

:smiley:

28

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Valor wrote:
Libertarians talk a good game…but all they really care about is smoking pot. It is their only core belief.

and don’t forget nonaggression, too!

:D[/quote]

Potatoes, pothatoes…

29

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Valor wrote:
Libertarians talk a good game…but all they really care about is smoking pot. It is their only core belief.

This was the problem I had with libertarianism for a long time. It seemed as though cannabis was the symbol in its flag, the point of the spear. I think that’s a huge mistake. I don’t have a problem with pot legalization as a by-product of an advancing libertarian mindset but here is what’s likely to happen. Many people including potheads would board the libertarian train but they want the first depot on the route to be drug legalization. I anticipate that if it ever happened those folks would de-board then and there and be done with it.

Sad. True libertarianism is much, much more than just stumbling around in an Amsterdam-like haze.[/quote]

Coincidentally, we’re voting on that this year, too :wink:

31

I’m a highly active member of the Libertarian Party in my county and have been since I was 18. One thing to keep in mind about Libertarianism is this: as we’ve seen with the fiscal irresponsibility of some of these banks and lending companies and so on, people won’t always do what’s best for society if left to make all decisions on their own. We’ve seen the dark side of what can happen when govt leaves the free market entirely alone. I still believe in the core Libertarian philosophies, but it’s unfortunate that Bush and Obama issued these stimulus packages and bailouts. Part of the free market concept is letting those institutions fail when their actions bring them to the brink even if it destroys the country’s economy. If that lesson isn’t learned the hard way, it may never be learned. I still plan on voting strictly Libertarian, but I’d like to see a little more pragmatism incorporated into the party’s concepts.

32

[quote]artw wrote:
I’m a highly active member of the Libertarian Party in my county and have been since I was 18. One thing to keep in mind about Libertarianism is this: as we’ve seen with the fiscal irresponsibility of some of these banks and lending companies and so on, people won’t always do what’s best for society if left to make all decisions on their own. We’ve seen the dark side of what can happen when govt leaves the free market entirely alone. I still believe in the core Libertarian philosophies, but it’s unfortunate that Bush and Obama issued these stimulus packages and bailouts. Part of the free market concept is letting those institutions fail when their actions bring them to the brink even if it destroys the country’s economy. If that lesson isn’t learned the hard way, it may never be learned. I still plan on voting strictly Libertarian, but I’d like to see a little more pragmatism incorporated into the party’s concepts.[/quote]

Libertarianism and pragmatism do not mix.

Either you are for aggression or you are against aggression. Make your choice and be done with it.

33

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
artw wrote:
I’m a highly active member of the Libertarian Party in my county and have been since I was 18. One thing to keep in mind about Libertarianism is this: as we’ve seen with the fiscal irresponsibility of some of these banks and lending companies and so on, people won’t always do what’s best for society if left to make all decisions on their own. We’ve seen the dark side of what can happen when govt leaves the free market entirely alone. I still believe in the core Libertarian philosophies, but it’s unfortunate that Bush and Obama issued these stimulus packages and bailouts. Part of the free market concept is letting those institutions fail when their actions bring them to the brink even if it destroys the country’s economy. If that lesson isn’t learned the hard way, it may never be learned. I still plan on voting strictly Libertarian, but I’d like to see a little more pragmatism incorporated into the party’s concepts.

Libertarianism and pragmatism do not mix.

Either you are for aggression or you are against aggression. Make your choice and be done with it.[/quote]

This is absolutely asinine. There is no room for black and white delineations on issues. The “either you’re with us or against us” mindset is exactly what’s wrong with the political landscape in this country right now. The LP is supposed to represent the middle ground, the ground that the Democrats and Republicans are moving further and further away from. If the LP wants to become a viable alternative to these two parties, there must be a willingness to move toward pragmatism. If you really look at taxation as aggression, you’d reject any and all taxes. But that mindset only works in a fantasy land.

People fail to realize that most of our taxes, especially at the state and local level, go toward many things we take for granted. We have paved roads, electricity, clean water, safe building and construction standards, garbage pickup and sewer systems thanks to taxes. In theory, you’d think people would pay private companies to do these things if there were no taxes to pay for them for us. But in reality, people don’t fix things until they’ve spiraled out of control. People wouldn’t pay for these essential services until the roads fall apart, the garbage piles up outside their homes and their sewers back up.

In theory virtually any political philosophy seems like it makes sense. Read the party charters of the GOP and the Dem. Party. But putting these theories into reality is entirely different. The LP needs to concentrate on putting their philosophies into use, which requires a certain level of practicality and pragmatism. Clinging to hardline stances like the all-or-nothing viewpoint associated with “you’re either for or against aggression” is exactly what keep the LP irrelevant to the national political scene.

34

If the Libertarian party gained ascendancy, it would either be watered down very quickly or the economy would completely collapse. Probably the former, since most of the support for a mass Libertarian movement would likely come from republicans, who have proven to love big government, just not the taxes to pay for it.

35

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
If the Libertarian party gained ascendancy, it would either be watered down very quickly or the economy would completely collapse. Probably the former, since most of the support for a mass Libertarian movement would likely come from republicans, who have proven to love big government, just not the taxes to pay for it.[/quote]

This is the only thing you have ever said that I agree with.

If the Libertarian party did gain influence it would only be a matter of time before they found pragmatism and then it just might as well be an other Democrat or Republican party.

36

[quote]artw wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
artw wrote:
I’m a highly active member of the Libertarian Party in my county and have been since I was 18. One thing to keep in mind about Libertarianism is this: as we’ve seen with the fiscal irresponsibility of some of these banks and lending companies and so on, people won’t always do what’s best for society if left to make all decisions on their own. We’ve seen the dark side of what can happen when govt leaves the free market entirely alone. I still believe in the core Libertarian philosophies, but it’s unfortunate that Bush and Obama issued these stimulus packages and bailouts. Part of the free market concept is letting those institutions fail when their actions bring them to the brink even if it destroys the country’s economy. If that lesson isn’t learned the hard way, it may never be learned. I still plan on voting strictly Libertarian, but I’d like to see a little more pragmatism incorporated into the party’s concepts.

Libertarianism and pragmatism do not mix.

Either you are for aggression or you are against aggression. Make your choice and be done with it.

This is absolutely asinine. There is no room for black and white delineations on issues. The “either you’re with us or against us” mindset is exactly what’s wrong with the political landscape in this country right now. The LP is supposed to represent the middle ground, the ground that the Democrats and Republicans are moving further and further away from. If the LP wants to become a viable alternative to these two parties, there must be a willingness to move toward pragmatism. If you really look at taxation as aggression, you’d reject any and all taxes. But that mindset only works in a fantasy land.

People fail to realize that most of our taxes, especially at the state and local level, go toward many things we take for granted. We have paved roads, electricity, clean water, safe building and construction standards, garbage pickup and sewer systems thanks to taxes. In theory, you’d think people would pay private companies to do these things if there were no taxes to pay for them for us. But in reality, people don’t fix things until they’ve spiraled out of control. People wouldn’t pay for these essential services until the roads fall apart, the garbage piles up outside their homes and their sewers back up.

In theory virtually any political philosophy seems like it makes sense. Read the party charters of the GOP and the Dem. Party. But putting these theories into reality is entirely different. The LP needs to concentrate on putting their philosophies into use, which requires a certain level of practicality and pragmatism. Clinging to hardline stances like the all-or-nothing viewpoint associated with “you’re either for or against aggression” is exactly what keep the LP irrelevant to the national political scene.[/quote]

You do not even know what libertarianism is. You are either for aggression or against it. Pick a side.

37

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
artw wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
artw wrote:
I’m a highly active member of the Libertarian Party in my county and have been since I was 18. One thing to keep in mind about Libertarianism is this: as we’ve seen with the fiscal irresponsibility of some of these banks and lending companies and so on, people won’t always do what’s best for society if left to make all decisions on their own. We’ve seen the dark side of what can happen when govt leaves the free market entirely alone. I still believe in the core Libertarian philosophies, but it’s unfortunate that Bush and Obama issued these stimulus packages and bailouts. Part of the free market concept is letting those institutions fail when their actions bring them to the brink even if it destroys the country’s economy. If that lesson isn’t learned the hard way, it may never be learned. I still plan on voting strictly Libertarian, but I’d like to see a little more pragmatism incorporated into the party’s concepts.

Libertarianism and pragmatism do not mix.

Either you are for aggression or you are against aggression. Make your choice and be done with it.

This is absolutely asinine. There is no room for black and white delineations on issues. The “either you’re with us or against us” mindset is exactly what’s wrong with the political landscape in this country right now. The LP is supposed to represent the middle ground, the ground that the Democrats and Republicans are moving further and further away from. If the LP wants to become a viable alternative to these two parties, there must be a willingness to move toward pragmatism. If you really look at taxation as aggression, you’d reject any and all taxes. But that mindset only works in a fantasy land.

People fail to realize that most of our taxes, especially at the state and local level, go toward many things we take for granted. We have paved roads, electricity, clean water, safe building and construction standards, garbage pickup and sewer systems thanks to taxes. In theory, you’d think people would pay private companies to do these things if there were no taxes to pay for them for us. But in reality, people don’t fix things until they’ve spiraled out of control. People wouldn’t pay for these essential services until the roads fall apart, the garbage piles up outside their homes and their sewers back up.

In theory virtually any political philosophy seems like it makes sense. Read the party charters of the GOP and the Dem. Party. But putting these theories into reality is entirely different. The LP needs to concentrate on putting their philosophies into use, which requires a certain level of practicality and pragmatism. Clinging to hardline stances like the all-or-nothing viewpoint associated with “you’re either for or against aggression” is exactly what keep the LP irrelevant to the national political scene.

You do not even know what libertarianism is. You are either for aggression or against it. Pick a side.[/quote]

But he’s been highly active in the party since he was 18!

38

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
artw wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
artw wrote:
I’m a highly active member of the Libertarian Party in my county and have been since I was 18. One thing to keep in mind about Libertarianism is this: as we’ve seen with the fiscal irresponsibility of some of these banks and lending companies and so on, people won’t always do what’s best for society if left to make all decisions on their own. We’ve seen the dark side of what can happen when govt leaves the free market entirely alone. I still believe in the core Libertarian philosophies, but it’s unfortunate that Bush and Obama issued these stimulus packages and bailouts. Part of the free market concept is letting those institutions fail when their actions bring them to the brink even if it destroys the country’s economy. If that lesson isn’t learned the hard way, it may never be learned. I still plan on voting strictly Libertarian, but I’d like to see a little more pragmatism incorporated into the party’s concepts.

Libertarianism and pragmatism do not mix.

Either you are for aggression or you are against aggression. Make your choice and be done with it.

This is absolutely asinine. There is no room for black and white delineations on issues. The “either you’re with us or against us” mindset is exactly what’s wrong with the political landscape in this country right now. The LP is supposed to represent the middle ground, the ground that the Democrats and Republicans are moving further and further away from. If the LP wants to become a viable alternative to these two parties, there must be a willingness to move toward pragmatism. If you really look at taxation as aggression, you’d reject any and all taxes. But that mindset only works in a fantasy land.

People fail to realize that most of our taxes, especially at the state and local level, go toward many things we take for granted. We have paved roads, electricity, clean water, safe building and construction standards, garbage pickup and sewer systems thanks to taxes. In theory, you’d think people would pay private companies to do these things if there were no taxes to pay for them for us. But in reality, people don’t fix things until they’ve spiraled out of control. People wouldn’t pay for these essential services until the roads fall apart, the garbage piles up outside their homes and their sewers back up.

In theory virtually any political philosophy seems like it makes sense. Read the party charters of the GOP and the Dem. Party. But putting these theories into reality is entirely different. The LP needs to concentrate on putting their philosophies into use, which requires a certain level of practicality and pragmatism. Clinging to hardline stances like the all-or-nothing viewpoint associated with “you’re either for or against aggression” is exactly what keep the LP irrelevant to the national political scene.

You do not even know what libertarianism is. You are either for aggression or against it. Pick a side.

But he’s been highly active in the party since he was 18!
[/quote]

Which just goes to show that hard work is not everything.

39

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:This is the only thing you have ever said that I agree with.

If the Libertarian party did gain influence it would only be a matter of time before they found pragmatism and then it just might as well be an other Democrat or Republican party.[/quote]

Thanks for acknowledging that Libertarianism is not practical.

40

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:This is the only thing you have ever said that I agree with.

If the Libertarian party did gain influence it would only be a matter of time before they found pragmatism and then it just might as well be an other Democrat or Republican party.

Thanks for acknowledging that Libertarianism is not practical.
[/quote]

It works as long as it lasts.

Which is more than we can say about socialism.