The Libertarian Party

[MellowCream]

I'm not one to talk about politics, but I think this is very important with what the government has been doing lately.

 

 

The mission of the Libertarian Party of Canada is to reduce the responsibilities and expense of government. This, so that we may each manage our lives to mutually fulfill our needs by the free and voluntary exchange of our efforts and property for the value that best realizes our happiness.

 

 

The Libertarian Party is your representative in American politics. It is the only political organization which respects you as a unique and competent individual.

USA: www.lp.org

Canada: www.libertarian.ca

 

What do you guy think about the LP?

[Tech_Dreamer]

OH.. I thought you said "party".. 

 

 

MY BAD! :unsure:

[Erik4boss]

Go "blue" parties!

[Volbet]

I am all for a social libertarian construct, where laws are kept to a minimum and the government don't interfere with my choice of lifestyle. 

Unfortunatly social libertarianism is usually also accompanied by economical libertarianism, which in many ways don't work. 

 

I would also say that "Libertarian" in a European context usually is a bit different then the American "Libertarian"

[cae]

Agree with the basic principles, but it is not well represented to gain any kind of change through the political process.

[Osmium]

I am pretty conservative on some issues but I tend to remain independent on most issues. The way I see it is I am young and I do not have a ton of life experience so I should not be preaching views that I understand but don't quite comprehend.

[Fred Castellum]

I think we should all keep in mind just because someone says their right wing or left wing or heck libertarian it doesn't mean we should immediately make assumptions about what they believe in. Hear them out, categorizing them because of their political party straight away is a bad idea in general... sure they may say their right but that doesn't mean they support every single thing the right wing talks about... if so, and without their own personal reason then their more like sheep.  

 

I've seen a lot of hate against liberals but the reason why their hated is absurd at times because it directly counters with what they think so its like you hating a guy for liking pie because he looks like someone who likes pie but when you ask him he really doesn't like pie. 

[Llord Dominik]

More like the liebertarian party. But seriously, the US needs more of a political shift than a new party. I'd argue that the system has devolved into a de facto oligarchy that needs an extremely wide-reaching grass-roots movement to affect any significant change for the people.

 

Don't get me started on Australia. I always thought I could go back to my homeland if things got too bad here in the US, but I'm pretty shocked at what's been happening in the political climate over there.

[MellowCream]

More like the liebertarian party. But seriously, the US needs more of a political shift than a new party. I'd argue that the system has devolved into a de facto oligarchy that needs an extremely wide-reaching grass-roots movement to affect any significant change for the people.

 

Don't get me started on Australia. I always thought I could go back to my homeland if things got too bad here in the US, but I'm pretty shocked at what's been happening in the political climate over there.

How is it "liebertarian"?

[Llord Dominik]

How is it "liebertarian"?

 

That's what you latched on from my post? I was just being facetious.

 

In theory I prefer governments with a lot of regulatory power. But I also like populations that take their governing bodies extremely seriously. A government that is actually for the people, can advocate for the rights of the people better due it's size. Obviously this doesn't work in practice, but the fiscal conservative ideals of libertarianism don't make that much sense to me. Greed is pervasive in our modern world. We see an overemphasis on ideas like efficiency. More jobs are automated, to make more stuff, to make stuff cheaper. Meanwhile there are more people for less jobs, with jobs being taken by robots and lower-paid 3rd world workers.

The effect on technology of this kind of mindset is amazing, but it's a world that is difficult to live in if you don't start near the top. Large corporations already have a strangle hold on many areas of legislation. To reduce the responsibilities of the government might seem like a good fix, but I don't think it is. If we deregulate, what do we gain? The governments of the 1st world may not be a good advocate for the people, but without a government who would advocate for the masses?

To me the ideal political climate should look like this:

 

• The government should have the power to legislate quickly.
• The population should be extremely active in voicing their needs on a local level.
• Campaign finance should be severely capped (to reduce the influence of wealthy special interest parties. Too much of a politicians life is spent begging for funds).
• Terms should be shorter
• Ideally local levels of government should be able to legislate without too much interference from the state (This is to empower the greater population on a local level).
• The state should be able to legislate without too much interference from the federal government (This is because different states often need very different things from each other).

Some of this next stuff I haven't thought through that much

• Significant enough populations should be empowered to enact legislation without the help of appointed legislators (a, probably rewritten, constitution should be used to prevent legislation that abuses groups of people).
• Sensationalist ideas should be dealt with only on a local level and should be trumped by the constitution. Too heavy a focus on things like abortion, gay marriage, and religion fueled ideals on a larger scale detract from major issues which should define the worth of a candidate. Issues like stance on education, healthcare, criminal law effect many more people outside of their ideologies.

 

This system is not at all easy to implement. The biggest roadblock is the population. So many of us sit idly by, not engaging on any significant level. We vote for a president or a prime minister, but that means very little. The government is run by the legislators in whatever houses of parliament or senates that exist. Each member is beholden more to their special interest campaign contributors than to the people they serve. Legislators should fear that they will lose their power to legislate is their population doesn't like what they've done.

If the population worked harder to educate themselves and be active on a local level, this system could eventually exist.

 

I'm sure I have more thoughts that I haven't expressed, but that's enough effort for now. I realize that this is in no way even theoretically perfect, but it includes things that I think are sorely missing from most governments (at in some de facto sense).

 

 

Edit: Also in my experience, people who call themselves libertarian usually have grown up in more conservative areas. They've started to think about politics on a slightly more significant level, but they've rarely put in enough work to educate themselves to develop any kind of real opinion.

[Imaginaerum]

Libertarians remind me of a lot of talk with no votes

[MellowCream]

Libertarians remind me of a lot of talk with no votes

"America's third largest party"

[Llord Dominik]

"America's third largest party"

 

They have 0 seats in the senate, they have 0 seats in the house, there are 0 libertarian governors, they have 0 seats in state legislature. The 2 independent members of the senate constitute two more significant political parties than the libertarians.

 

TBH who really cares. Anyone who cares about politics from an outsider's perspective should develop a stance on any issue significant to them. You should know how you feel about issues before you care about how the major parties or any other do. Anyone who blindly follows a political party, voting only on major elections, without at least considering what is important to them on a deeper level is not contributing to the system.

 

Like I said before in my previous post, without being part of a larger group, you have no hope of significantly effecting policy. If you want to have an effect on this country's political climate, start by researching you local political scene. Find someone who is passionate about politics and shares your ideals and start a conversation with them. Even this is bloody hard. The larger your district or state, the less power you may have.

 

But Mellow, do you know how you feel about Healthcare policy (and why), Education (and why)? Do you know what issues really matter to you a citizen of the US and of Maryland? What about your city and your district?

[Imaginaerum]

"America's third largest party"

1% in 2012 election. Like with Ron Paul it seems to me they have a lot of voice online, but no one actually gets out of their house to do anything but complain.

[ShiverMePenguins]

I'm not one to talk about politics, but I think this is very important with what the government has been doing lately.

 

 

USA: www.lp.org

Canada: www.libertarian.ca

 

What do you guy think about the LP?

cool values, closest thing to a grassroots movement there is, unfortunately this society is lazy and too seperated.

[cae]

@Llord Dominik

 

I think I would fit into your final description. Grew up in a conservative family, but never really latched on to a party because something was always a bit off about either of them, including that they'd only given us two sides to choose from. Hear of the NAP and finally think there's a simple principle that can apply to a number of scenarios. I am still a novice, but realize much of that won't work with the systems we currently have in place now.

 

You say greed is pervasive. I would say greed is not intrinsic. So what would support that greed to the point where it would appear to be pervasive? That's where I see the government stepping in to either regulate competition out of competing or provide incentives to the point where dealings with the government are the only way to have a company flourish. I saw this first hand with my last employer, going from a smaller family run business which grew to the point where government contracts were prioritized to sustain growth - especially during a rough economy.

 

We don't like greed, but we also want our companies to be successful. Efficiency is a good thing, providing customers with either more of a product in demand, or a product at a lower cost. But people lose their jobs. It also frees them to become workers elsewhere, or become entrepreneurs, or invent something, or create something to bring to market. It's not easy (I'm still unemployed) but the opportunity would be there, if only the aforementioned government hadn't stepped in to shut down that opportunity through taxation, minimum wages, and regulatory licensing. (Not blaming government for my personal unemployment, I'm honestly lazy and just slowly burning through this stack of cash I've accumulated.)

 

You say the corporations have a strangle hold on legislation. I would say it's at least a two-way street, if not more of the legislators having a strangle hold on corporations. Without the threat of regulation, those corporations have no interest in lobbying for an advantage through legislation. Those corporations would then feel the effects of the market. They might have to work harder to compete with the innovations of an eager start-up (more jobs, better product) or become more charitable to sway public opinion on the qualities of your company.

 

I just see a lot of government-created (or bank-created, another story) problems that they conveniently seem to have forced solutions for that increase the people's reliance on the state. Perhaps it's just my virgin eyes. I mean no disrespect; it's great to see others' views in a civil environment when you're used to being fed one side only. 

 

Edit: Also, what happened to Australia?

[Llord Dominik]

-snippety snip-

 

There are a lot of things I disagree with in there. I think it would actually be a waste to try and address them all right now. I'd be down to discuss one issue at a time.

If there's interest, I'd be down to:

1. Make a list of political issues
2. Start a topic for one of them, with instructions saying look for evidence and form an opinion.
3. Post a topic a week later with two reserved posts, and then discuss the evidence found.
4. Use the reserved posts to display relevant stances and information that don't include any logical fallacies.
5. We could use it to see the actual substance of the political issue

It also wouldn't necessarily have to be political, it could include philosophical debate as well. It would be nice to get as many forum members involved as possible as I am lazy, and wouldn't want to have to gather mountains of evidence myself.

 

What do you think?

[cae]

@Llord Dominik

 

Sounds good to me. 

 

Certainly better than discussing shower farts.

[Llord Dominik]

@cae

 

Here's a bit of a list of topics:

 

Political:

• Forms of taxation
• Correct levels of Minimum wage
• The Right way to do healthcare
• Corporate Lobbying and Campaign Finance
• What power should local gov, state gov, and fed gov have over each other?
• How do we handle the growing inequality between classes?
• How should IP rights be managed in the technological age?

 

 

Philosophical:

• Is a growth centered economy the right kind of economy?
• Is Healthcare a human right?
• Where does Greed come from? Why is it good? Why is it bad? Is it an intrinsic quality of human nature?
• Is more stuff always better? Is more efficiency always better?

 

I think it's important to state that I don't think a straight up debate is the best way to look at these issues. I think looking for evidence that support a variety of positions is a good first step. Then sorting out where logical fallacies exist (False Dichotomy is a huuuuuuuuuge one even in very well managed discussions). This way we can actually focus on what is good evidence and enlighten or change our views on issues.

 

Obviously there is room for many more topics if you'd like to suggest more.

[cae]

@Llord Dominik

 

I like "How do we handle the growing inequality between classes?" but you're welcome to go with whatever you'd like.

[imthewalrus]

Raun Paul!

[ducecake]

Raun Paul!

This reminded me of this Vid! RAUUUN PAULLL!!! He comes in at the very end. lol. 

 

[Mooshi]

I believe the governments only legitimate role is to protect the nation from threat and her citizens from scams - be it scams from corporations or scams done by other members of government. The government's role should be to stop corruption of any kind.

 

Instead we have crony capitalism with corruption at the core of our government. At least in Murrica, the land of the "free" where the highest court in the land is paid off by lobbyists...disgusting.

[Avratz]

Frederic Bastiat said it best

 

"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."

[Erik4boss]

Don't forget about Denmark. Read this shit: http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/2014/05/13/voteman-ad-too-violent-sexist-for-denmark-parliament