If the Libertarian Party breaks 5%, should they be denied federal funding?

[Statilius the Epicurean]

After all, it would be a violation of their libertarian principles to receive an unfair financial advantage from the government. 

[SirMuxALot]

Ah yes, the old "you must unilaterally disarm" argument.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Ah yes, the old "you must unilaterally disarm" argument.

Are you suggesting that libertarians wilfully take part in the government artificially distorting the marketplace of ideas?

[Lachi]

Of course not, wouldn't that be violating some sort of act?

[dspNY]

Of course not. If they get the 5% they are legally entitled to it

[SirMuxALot]

Are you suggesting that libertarians wilfully take part in the government artificially distorting the marketplace of ideas?

You can dispense with the high school debate team type cleverism masquerading as a sincere question.

This is the same thing as demanding that those who want higher government spending / increased taxes are hypocrites if they don't send in more than they are legally obligated to.

If the Libertarians seek to eliminate taxpayer funding of political campaigns, it's clearly an unfair demand that they "unilaterally disarm" in advance of being able to legislatively eliminate that funding for all parties.

[Maxwell]

Yes, tired of big government moochers.

[Angel of Death]

Accepting funding would be an admission that money has an undue influence in elections, and therefore in life generally, undermining the whole ideology of libertarianism in the first place. It would be like the Confederacy arming slaves.

[SirMuxALot]

Accepting funding would be an admission that money has an undue influence in elections

No, it's actually a position that is independent of one's view of money-as-influence.

Two cases, for argument's sake:

1. If money is not influential.  Libertarian view would be that by definition, this is utterly wasteful of taxpayer dollars.

2. Money is influential.  Libertarian view can still be argued that it's not a proper role of government to attempt (and probably fail) to fairly balance out those influences.

[DavidB.]

The Libertarian Party should always be denied federal funding.

[Ab1234mdusr]

Yes, they'll use it to buy weed.

[The Other Castro]

They won't break 5%.

[Maxwell]

They won't break 5%.

also obviously this.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

Of course not. If they get the 5% they are legally entitled to it

[7,052,770]

They should only get federal funding if they start nominating people like Bob Barrie again.

[cwt]

After all, it would be a violation of their libertarian principles to receive an unfair financial advantage from the government. 

How is it unfair if the two major parties are already entitled to the same funds?

[MasterJedi]

Denied? No, but if they're real libertarians they'll turn it down.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Of course not. If they get the 5% they are legally entitled to it

And they should accept it no matter how much DW Perry screams about it.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

LOL, it's the only way to compete in a major election for now: spend money. The real benefits would come later if you could reduce the ridiculous spending necessary to run a political campaign.

Maybe shortening the election cycle or put a cap on what one person's campaign can spend for a given office.

[Orser67]

They're legally entitled to it. And we're entitled to make fun of them.