welfare (thread turned into Y.a. neos v paleos argument)

[John Dibble]

Corporate, though political is damn close. Political welfare could at least theoretically be used to even the playing field, though of course usually it isn't. Corporate welfare on the other hand goes against free market principles and gives certain companies advantages they shouldn't have over their competitors, and often it's to companies that don't even need it.

[John Dibble]

Corporate, though political is damn close. Political welfare could at least theoretically be used to even the playing field, though of course usually it isn't. Corporate welfare on the other hand goes against free market principles and gives certain companies advantages they shouldn't have over their competitors, and often it's to companies that don't even need it.

But John, by eliminating political welfare we could elect more third parties that would do away with corporate welfare.

Not necessarily. Remember that the LP doesn't actually use the political welfare even when offered - the welfare itself in that case doesn't hinder us so much as help those who are willing to take it. Not saying we should take it, but that's the truth. Also, it's not like eliminating it would magically get us elected. People have to agree with our ideas and vote for us. Not to mention that the major parties still beat the crap out of us in terms of funding. There's also the simple stone cold fact that political welfare isn't even close to the top factor that keeps third parties down - hell, doesn't even make the top five. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that one step is all it's gonna take, ok.

[John Dibble]

True-it wouldn't mean automatic offices for LP members, but it would definitely increase the likelihood by a great deal.

I really doubt it - like I said it doesn't even come close to the top five factors that keep us out. Ballot access laws, the plurality voting system('wasted vote syndrome' resulting from this), extremisim of the party, ect. are far bigger. All it would result in is a little less funding for certain Dems and Reps, but all in all it wouldn't increase our coffers any.

[John Dibble]

While I'll agree that the first two you mentioned are other important issues, I disagree-the LP recently revised it's platform to make things more palatable for the spineless moderates-so getting them to vote for us shouldn't be an issue anymore.

First off thank you for bringing up another issue with your 'spineless moderates' comment - there's more than one kind of extremism in the LP. The purist mentality. The purist wants a pure LP, one that doesn't cater to most people. For some god forsaken reason they still think they'll get things done. And those purists still have the attitude that anyone who isn't a gung-ho libertarian attitude is a damn socialist and that they aren't welcome in our party. Do you honestly think we're going to get people to vote for us with that kind of exclusionist attitude?

Have you ever considered for a moment that maybe those 'spineless' moderates have legitimate reasons for being moderates? That they thought out their positions? I'm guessing the answer is no based on your prejudiced comments. If you can't get over that holier-than-thou attitude, then perhaps you should at least not insult prospective voters. Nobody likes dealing with jerks.

As far as the platform goes, the reforms are a step in the right direction, but the party is still not pragmatic enough to start winning. The platform was gutted - it doesn't take stances on many of today's issues. It needs to offer solutions. Not bats**t crazy solutions either - practical ones that more than just hardcore libertarians can agree with. Again, if you think only a single step is going to solve our problems you are delusional.

[John Dibble]

kinda did that to annoy you and see if you'd fly off the handle-so I was right in that theory

I didn't 'fly off the handle' - I was merely pointing out that the attitude is prejudiced and 'holier than thou'. It's the stone cold truth. I've heard a number of people complain about it when they investigated joining the LP - it pushed them away.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, because I still don't think we're at the right place yet. I told you that one step isn't going to do it, didn't I? As I said, the platform may have had some of the more extreme parts gutted, but it also lacks viable solutions to replace what was taken out. I'm hoping this will be done at the next convention. The moderates will still be looking for said solutions - if we don't they'll likely assume we haven't changed all that much. We also need to start running moderate libertarian candidates, especially in our high profile races(if we can get someone who doesn't seem like a moonbat in some way, shape or form to run for president in 2008 that would do wonders). The candidates we run are part of our image, after all. There's other issues to work through as well, no doubt. The work on moderating the party to something politically palatable is going to take time.

Whoa there. Two Libertarians beating each other up. That's not good.

Being the voice of moderation that I am please allow me to moderate.

Lighten up guys we have far more in common than not. If we allow ourselves to be divided then our party's 1% of the vote becomes two parties each with 1/2% of the vote. We can have differences of opinion and still be friends.

Don't worry about that David - we're not splitting up the party(though there certainly were some purists grumbling about it when the platform was gutted). I'm thinking you guys are picking up on hostilities that aren't there.

Oh, and *I* am the voice of moderation ya damn purist!

[John Dibble]

David - don't you think stuff like, oh, I don't know, ending all taxes and eliminating all public schools might scare a few people? The idea of smaller, fiscally responsible government that respects our freedoms isn't what people find insane. Rather they find the implementation to get that insane in some cases, as well as the idea that it must be instantaneous rather than incremental(not univeral to big L's, but common enough). Keep in mind that as much people bitch about certain things they get comfortable in the status quo, so if you shake things up too much they're not going to be comfortable with it.

Take the ACLU for example - their mission is protecting civil rights of citizens. People dig the basic idea. But when the ACLU defends people like NAMBLA or the Westboro Baptist Church you're gonna make people nervous(I'm not saying they shouldn't, even though I detest those groups, just making an example).

Since we're a political party(unlike the ACLU) and thusly to get anywhere we must get elected, we need to avoid things that freak out too many voters.

MaC - you can say you aren't hardcore all you like, but if people think you're hardcore then it doesn't make much difference, now does it? What I want is solutions that incorporate libertarian ideas that are politically palatable to enough people so that we are an effective political force that can actually get libertarians into office. For example rather than advocating the total abolishment of public schools we might advocate a return to federalism, virtually eliminating the feds role and increasing that of the individual states, thus respecting the 10th amendment and libertarian principles of smaller government. People can better swallow that idea, and we don't have to stop being libertarians to advocate it. Even if you prefer abolishing public schools altogether, I'd find it hard to argue that you would prefer the current system, right?

As far as wasted vote syndrome, while Badnarik has a point that I agree with personally it does not help us in political reality. It doesn't matter if they dislike the two major parties when they don't agree with us enough to vote. Not being the Democrats or Republicans won't get us very far - at most it'll snag a few votes here and there, but it'll never be significant enough to effect change. While the main solution to WVS is changing the voting system, we still need to get people to agree with our solutions in order to get their votes.

[John Dibble]

now, you accuse me of being extreme, but I think the voting system would probably change after the schools are all privatised.  People like 'one candidate, one vote' and I couldn't see libertarians still getting elected with that kinda system because we don't have as much money to advertise as the two parties-the reason: political welfare.

Here's the first problem with that little theory - the schools won't be privatized. I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's a loser issue. Too many people like the idea of public schools to get rid of them. So the whole argument you're making is kind of pointless.

Second, even if you managed to privatise all the schools you are making a very big assumption. What are you basing this hypothesis on? There's no indication that private schools would teach alternative voting systems such as approval voting or preferential voting, much less get people to advocate them. I find it unlikely that you would, and you certainly couldn't force them to.

Third and final - as I've already mentioned eliminating political welfare won't cripple the Reps or Dems. Sure, they'll have less money to advertise with in some races, but they'll still be beating us hands down in terms of funding. Also do keep in mind that we are handicapping ourselves further by refusing to take matching funds and other political welfare. (not saying we should mind you, but it's the truth) But when it comes down to it the ultimate reason that we have less money than the major parties is because we don't have as many people donating. Eliminating political welfare would eliminate at most half of the major parties' funds, but even with half they'd still beat us.

[John Dibble]

I think most "moderate" libertarians (read those like John Dibble) will eventually tire of losing election after election and move on to a new affiliation (hopefully a new party with decent financing sans the baggage the LP brings to the table) leaving the current LP to ideologues.

It ultimately might depend on how much progress the Libertarian Reform Caucus makes. We've made some, but it's still gonna take a lot of work.

[John Dibble]

Saying that income tax should not be paid on wages is definitely crazy.

My main complaint about taxing wages as income is that they do it twice - once every paycheck and once a year at income tax time. Pick one way or the other and stick with it as far as I'm concerned.

The kind of reduction of the government advocated by libertarians as well as the belief that there are no positive rights, i.e. there is nothing morally wrong with ignoring people in peril will always strike a lot of people as out there.

There's a difference between saying there's no positive rights and saying that it's not morally wrong to ignore people in trouble. One can think that a person has no right to force another person to help them but still assert that the other person should help them. For example if someone is being attacked by thugs then does that person have a right to make me risk my life trying to get rid of the thugs? I would say no, but I would say doing anything in my power to stop it would be the right thing to do.