Can the Libertarian Party Actually Make a Difference?
The Libertarian Party can make a difference if it connects with frustrated voters by pledging to uproot America’s corrupt crony system.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
I agree that it is unfortunate that the meaning of capitalism (the still unknown ideal) is being tainted by being coupled with "crony", but it is not incorrect. "Cronyism" alone can apply in other contexts of collusion.
We have to use words as people understand them. With ordinary folks I have some success in equating capitalism with the popular Kickstarter program.
I am not sure whether or not this is identical to the "dedicated, thoroughgoing subjectivism" that Rand considered "libertarianism" and stridently opposed. The paragraph in ARI's FAQ which explains this "subjectivism" associates it with Murray Rothbard (for whom I have no use) and with a pacifist foreign policy (for which I also have no use).
I certainly deeply disagree with Rand on the definition of capitalism, since my definition requires the principle of "consumer sovereignty" and hers appears to forbid it.
I also find it both self-defeating and irrational that she (and ARI) refused to partner with anyone who didn't share her core philosophy. I believe anyone who sticks to that decision accomplishes nothing except to marginalize himself permanently. Or to put it another way, my core goal is individual rights, and I don't have any problem working with allies to achieve it even if they are anarchists or believe in God.
And Ayn Rand’s definition of capitalism is “a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.”
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/cap...
This definition certainly supports “consumer sovereignty,” since it defends a consumer’s right to trade his labor or property for the labor or property of others.
If your definition above is the correct one, the conflict disappears.
Johnson has to sell the idea of reducing gov't influence and that this is not radical. Given the power of gov't, people are rightly afraid of anything radical.
Most people here don't like to hear this but if we had eight (8) years of a moderate libertarian and nominal (not per GDP, not inflation-adjusted) gov't outlays were the same after eight (8) years and we had a framework to keep it from growing, it would be a phenomenal achievement.
The VP is another matter, only top two got to US Senate so R or D choice for VP would be new VP depending on how US Senate elections go in November. Gov Weld is there to try to help win a State or two in the NE US.
They would also have some "moral" pressure pushing them that way if Johnson got the plurality of votes. If one or both of the D/R candidates have a serious scandal, something involving sex or clear theft that everyone agrees is a bona fide scandal, he has a real chance.
The alternative is armed revolt and no sane person wants that.
Plus, the fact is, the Libertarians are not ready. They are neither fully organized nor properly funded. Look, I was there when Rothbard was the rage among Objectivists. I was among the first of them to encourage the Libertarian concept, which was difficult because A.R. was against it. However, to me, her opposition seemed to be more out of petulance than anything else. But I cannot back that up with anything other than my instinct. Perhaps in the next election cycle of '18 the Libertarians can show a little progress and actually win a seat or two, or at the very least come close in a meaningful election. Then, it may be time to take them more seriously.
In any case, I don't believe that I am compromising my principles by taking this position. If by some miracle, the Libertarians and Johnson make significant progress between now and November, I'd be willing to reappraise.
Those who fearfully sacrifice liberty for the illusion of temporary safety deserve neither.
None of these statist looters will do this or anything else that gives me a reason to vote for them.
Trump could do this easily if he was really interested in individual liberty and free markets. He would win the election in the biggest landslide since 1980.
He could start the grassroots stuff immediately but keep the reason quiet until the announcement at the convention. He would get most of Cruz votes and piss off the insiders.
Even the libertarian candidate isn't at all as pure as you are thinking, and could hardly even get nominated in this culture
I think that AR was right in AS. Philosophy first, then politics. I have severe doubts that a large country like this one can survive over time. It's time for this one to break up.
I thought perhaps the crony establishment would fall under the attacks by sanders and trump, but the hatred that has come out towards both of them is so strong that the establishment will continue to thrive under Hillary and her supporters at the expense of the rest of us
I agree that diversity just breaks up the tribes and makes people feel they need to be only out for themselves. There isnt a lot of group unity anymore.
Most people know that I wasn't a Trump supporter but if you don't have the tool you want, you must make do with the one you have, or do nothing. Doing nothing now, would be a calamity.
http://atlassociety.org/images/Gary_J...
Those who vote for either Trump or Hillary have no rational thought whatsoever.
Democracy has been proven a failure repeatedly. Voting should be restricted to those who can demonstrate the ability to think rationally, own property, and have ethical training.
Frightened children have no place in a voting booth.
https://ari.aynrand.org/faq
What I would suggest is that after Donald Trump becomes the Presidential disaster I believe he will be, the Republican Party should disintegrate and a new Party take its place. From a naming perspective, however, I don't think "Libertarian" really captures people's imagination as well as "Constitution". I wouldn't use "Tea Party" because the Progressives have already railroaded that one with vile epithets and it wasn't what the movement was about in the first place.
PS: Some idiot doing a chubby strip doesn't inspire seriousness.
The lefty "mainstream" media surely won't help them.
The key commentators at Fox News appear to now be backing Trump regardless of what each personally may have to say about that.
However, since all the demrep candidates are looting liars who will never do the pro-liberty, free-market things they say, it doesn't matter if Johnson "agrees" with what Bernie says because Bernie is a looting liar.
FWIW, I took the "test" at www.isidewith.com and agreed most with Johnson, and least with Hillary. Hillary, Bernie and Jill sloshed around near the bottom with HRM Donnie in the middle of the disgusting bottle of poison. Only Johnson rose to the top.
The lies that are so frequent . John Q public yawns and repeats their brainwashed reasoning .The end justifies the means.
I wouldn't give the time of day to anyone who freely lies.
Ds won't vote libertarian no matter what, its contrary to how they've been taught to think. The only party hurt by the rise of libertarianism is the Rs (they deserve it, but not at the expense of the POTUS).
Now, (IMHO) a vote for the President is going to sway this out of control branch for generations to come. I will not vote for Hillary because of this, as well as several other factors. A Trump vote is the only way to block the liberal ideology from being further ingrained into our society. Something could/should be said of the lack of quality candidates in all parties. I, for one, am tired of holding my nose when walking into the voting booth..."Lesser of Two-Evils" argument.
This is a very different election. The people who will actually vote are extremely difficult to predict right now. It's a time for new paradigms.
Finally, The GOP dos this to themselves by selecting a lunatic for a candidate. It is completely wrong-headed to blame those who vote their conscience for the disaster that is to come this election season.
I hope you are right. If not, she or sanders is exactly what we'll get.
They do not have any solutions to issues. For example :Healthcare costs are exorbitant. With ACA Obamacare .There was a crisis at emergency rooms filled with uninsured people using them like office visits causing ambulances to reroute during critical emergencies in major metro areas often with fatal results.That could be fixed with a different approach.
It is obvious the healthcare system is bloated with uncontrollable expenses the way the current system dysfunctions. A huge expense is CYA. Brought about by a vulgar legal liability.
Enabled by the AMA--- they allow bad doctors to continue to practice. (10% of Doctors cause 90% malpractice cases).
Health Insurance money is massive and wasteful in addition to taking away an individual's self determination how to spend their own money. Republicans lack a solutions based approach to opposition of ACA.
So they are an easy target from the left . They say
" see Republicans don't want you to have healthcare"
Same story on many issues. They are weak on creativity and consciousness.
So called public servants ( Kakistocrats) spend most of their time raising $ to be reelected.
They don't get the message out about the disaster of failed welfare programs or personal responsibility.
The list goes on and on.
more than the Ds, resulting in a 3rd BHO term. . not
a pretty sight. -- j
.
At this point it all sounds like cry baby stuff, "I don't like it so I won't play", even if it means fundamentally changing the supreme court for the next few generations into the future.
Every intelligent argument I've heard or article I've read is either a year too late or 3 years too early. The time has come, the battlelines are drawn. It's time to join the battle and try to influence the next four years. Anything less is just commentary.
Libertarians are so far from both of the established parties that they will get it from all sides.
As Trump says- he just wants the voters, and thats what the libertarians need BEFORE they make a big splash politically.
All the libertarian party would do now is help elect hillary.