Why libertarians should leave the LP

[Anarchist420]

The Constitution Party is more libertarian.

The LP criticized Rand Paul's libertarian stance on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

They nominated Bob Barr (supporter of the patriot act and non principled, despite being in the "party of principle") and Wayne Root (pro-U.N.) over Ruwart last time.

They have Mike Gravel, Neal Boortz, and William Weld.

They believe in abortion which is anti-natural rights.

They're pro-immigration which keeps our welfare expenditures high.

Why vote Libertarian Party when you can vote Constitution Party or for RLC members?

I'm simply going to cut off all my ties with the LP because of the reasons above. They're mostly neocons now.

 

[shiner]

What about snacks? Which party has better snacks?

 

[MotF Bane]

YAA420T.

:awe:

 

[ichy]

LOL I'm sure they're upset about the fact that someone who calls himself "Anarchist420" has severed his ties with them.

 

[ayabe]

Newsflash, we spend far more public money supporting white trailer trash in the south than we ever have or ever will on mexicans picking vegetables.

OP, I'd prefer if you cut all ties to the internet.

 

[BoberFett]

The whole idea of a "libertarian party" is regarded by many libertarians as being an oxymoron. I'm not part of the party myself, though I have voted for their candidates often. The last LP president I voted for was Harry Browne, the last two have been yahoos that I wouldn't want as president any more than the R or D candidates.

 

[CrackRabbit]

What about snacks? Which party has better snacks?

I hear the Green Party guys have Punch and Pie...

 

[PrinceofWands]

Because the Constitution party is a front for theocrats. What you need to do is divest the LP of the free marketeers, then what's left will be more or less libertarian.

 

[Tristicus]

Why you should stop posting:

You're retarded.

 

[Kirby]

I hear the Green Party guys have Punch and Pie...

I heard it was soy milk and vegan burgers. :hmm:

 

[BoberFett]

Because the Constitution party is a front for theocrats. What you need to do is divest the LP of the free marketeers, then what's left will be more or less libertarian.

The free market is an important part of freedom. If you are not free to buy and sell your time or goods, then you're not really free.

 

[PrinceofWands]

The free market is an important part of freedom. If you are not free to buy and sell your time or goods, then you're not really free.

The free market does not, has not ever, and cannot ever exist. It's an economic theory without pragmatic potential (much like true communism). Blurring the lines between theoretical potential for economic exploitation and individual liberty is a sickness of the modern capitalist and should have NOTHING to do with the LP.

There is NO individual liberty while there exists freedom for economic dominance. At least, unless you live in true total anarchy where any person economically oppressed/exploited is free to simply execute those who would abuse them for personal gain.

 

[BoberFett]

The free market does not, has not ever, and cannot ever exist. It's an economic theory without pragmatic potential (much like true communism). Blurring the lines between theoretical potential for economic exploitation and individual liberty is a sickness of the modern capitalist and should have NOTHING to do with the LP.

There is NO individual liberty while there exists freedom for economic dominance. At least, unless you live in true total anarchy where any person economically oppressed/exploited is free to simply execute those who would abuse them for personal gain.

A successful command economy does not, has not ever and cannot every exist.

There is NO individual liberty when society tells you what your time or goods are worth. At least, unless you live in a benevolent monarchy ruled by an empath who can read the minds of everyone everywhere and properly set the values of all labor and products every few seconds at their optimal level to ensure that everyone is wealthy and happy.

 

[PrinceofWands]

A successful command economy does not, has not ever and cannot every exist.

There is NO individual liberty when society tells you what your time or goods are worth. At least, unless you live in a benevolent monarchy ruled by an empath who can read the minds of everyone everywhere and properly set the values of all labor and products every few seconds at their optimal level to ensure that everyone is wealthy and happy.

I didn't say the alternatives were rosey, merely denied the bs spewed by modern greed whores.

However, viewing the growth of the American middle class from 1940 until 2000 pretty much shows that, at least for the short term (6 decades), carefully regulated capitalism functions perfectly well. It would work fine again as well, after adjustment and global market compensation.

 

[BoberFett]

I didn't say the alternatives were rosey, merely denied the bs spewed by modern greed whores.

However, viewing the growth of the American middle class from 1940 until 2000 pretty much shows that, at least for the short term (6 decades), carefully regulated capitalism functions perfectly well. It would work fine again as well, after adjustment and global market compensation.

I call BS. The last six decades were a farce. A house of cards. Built on unsustainable consumerism and debt. Until humanity can discover nearly unlimited, environmentally sound energy and Star Trek like replicator technology to end scarcity, the recent success of the west was just a fart in the hurricane of history.

 

[PrinceofWands]

I call BS. The last six decades were a farce. A house of cards. Built on unsustainable consumerism and debt. Until humanity can discover nearly unlimited, environmentally sound energy and Star Trek like replicator technology to end scarcity, the recent success of the west was just a fart in the hurricane of history.

I would agree that both consumerism and debt played a role (though much more so in the last two decades than the first three of the upswing). I don't agree that it was meaningless however. I think it was an absolutely VITAL step in dealing with the anthropological transition from agriculture to industry. The best previous example of such a transition was the rise of aristocracy (mercantile, government, and church based) as a reaction to transition from hunter/gathering to sedentary agricultural civilizations.

What the US did was create protections for the mass of citizens against aristocratic exploitation during the sudden revealed potential of industrialization. Not just protections, but avenues of enrichment. Regulated capitalism wasn't just about us having plasma tvs and three gaming consoles today. It's about a huge bulk of lower income kids with an education in literature, calculus, and computers. It's about people able to live for the production of art.

The next major transition (and one of the reasons we're in dutch today) is the move towards global markets, the discrepancy among disparate nations, and hopefully the final abandonment of directed empiralism (though embraced empirialism will likely continue, and even increase).

What won't help (and in fact would ruin) are the farcical notions of egocentrism, selfish achievement, and economic opportunism that are personified by the free marketeers.

 

[werepossum]

The whole idea of a "libertarian party" is regarded by many libertarians as being an oxymoron. I'm not part of the party myself, though I have voted for their candidates often. The last LP president I voted for was Harry Browne, the last two have been yahoos that I wouldn't want as president any more than the R or D candidates.

Hah, my feelings exactly. Of course, Browne was a safe choice because you knew he'd never get elected. Barr on the other hand is one of those people who has no sense of humor (but thinks he does), and those people really don't need to be in power.

 

[BoberFett]

I would agree that both consumerism and debt played a role (though much more so in the last two decades than the first three of the upswing). I don't agree that it was meaningless however. I think it was an absolutely VITAL step in dealing with the anthropological transition from agriculture to industry. The best previous example of such a transition was the rise of aristocracy (mercantile, government, and church based) as a reaction to transition from hunter/gathering to sedentary agricultural civilizations.

The first three decades of US success following WW2 were because we were the only capitalist nation that didn't have the hell bombed out of our manufacturing infrastructure. That time is over. As is our ability to buy everything on credit.

What the US did was create protections for the mass of citizens against aristocratic exploitation during the sudden revealed potential of industrialization. Not just protections, but avenues of enrichment. Regulated capitalism wasn't just about us having plasma tvs and three gaming consoles today. It's about a huge bulk of lower income kids with an education in literature, calculus, and computers. It's about people able to live for the production of art.

The world simply cannot support it's current population if everyone on the planet lived even a lower class American lifestyle. The fact that there are tiny percentage of people who are mega-wealthy does not change this. Take everything those mega-wealthy have and distribute it to the poor of the world and you'll have several billion slightly less poor. But they're still poor and now you've run out of wealthy people to take money from. Now what?

The next major transition (and one of the reasons we're in dutch today) is the move towards global markets, the discrepancy among disparate nations, and hopefully the final abandonment of directed empiralism (though embraced empirialism will likely continue, and even increase).

What won't help (and in fact would ruin) are the farcical notions of egocentrism, selfish achievement, and economic opportunism that are personified by the free marketeers.

The thing that has brought humanity as far as it has is exactly those qualities which you criticize. Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Until we have that unlimited energy and freely duplicated goods and can bring the cost of any object to essentially nothing, there must be a trade involved and the free market has shown itself to be a far better (not perfect, but better) way to determine value than a command economy. The joke here in ATP&N is calling people like me "libertopian" but I can nobody more hopelessly mired in their foolish utopian dreams than those who believe that a small subset of humanity (generally those on the bottom wrung of the ethics ladder aka politicians) are better able to direct the economic output of a nation than the citizens themselves.

 

[Kappo]

Newsflash, we spend far more public money supporting white trailer trash in the south than we ever have or ever will on mexicans picking vegetables.

OP, I'd prefer if you cut all ties to the internet.

Care to look at the ratio's a bit closer? What are the numbers for the ghettotrash that keeps crap like Hussein in office?

 

[woolfe9999]

The Constitution Party is more libertarian.

The LP criticized Rand Paul's libertarian stance on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

They nominated Bob Barr (supporter of the patriot act and non principled, despite being in the "party of principle") and Wayne Root (pro-U.N.) over Ruwart last time.

They have Mike Gravel, Neal Boortz, and William Weld.

They believe in abortion which is anti-natural rights.

They're pro-immigration which keeps our welfare expenditures high.

Why vote Libertarian Party when you can vote Constitution Party or for RLC members?

I'm simply going to cut off all my ties with the LP because of the reasons above. They're mostly neocons now.

You criticize the LP for being "mostly neocons now," and at the same time, you criticize them for not liking Rand Paul. Yet the Civil Rights Act was not the only thing they are critical of Paul about. They are also critical of him because he doesn't support immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. It's all such a conundrum, being such a hardcore ideologue, isn't it? No one, just no one, can ever quite pass the purity test. Someone is always purer, or claims to be. Who knows, someone out there may be just purer than you.

Nah.

- wolf

 

[Kappo]

You criticize the LP for being "mostly neocons now," and at the same time, you criticize them for not liking Rand Paul. Yet the Civil Rights Act was not the only thing they are critical of Paul about. They are also critical of him because he doesn't support immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. It's all such a conundrum, being such a hardcore ideologue, isn't it? No one, just no one, can ever quite pass the purity test. Someone is always purer, or claims to be. Who knows, someone out there may be just purer than you.

Nah.

- wolf

I scrambled for a bright, shining light. Couldn't find one that looked good. Still don't know what tag to use to post images. But I DO have this :

------------------------------------------light below----------------------------------















--------------------------------------end light----------------------------------------