Libertarian Party: Your Thoughts?

[squadops]

You are dealing with, for the most part on this site, with the Ron Paul camp 👍

Keep in mind, that is not me

 

[LeMansAid]

So @mustafur, what justification do you have for barring a consumer from directly buying a product that they believe will help them?

You talk of corruption in the system, but not allowing freedom of access means that that same system is reinforced by there being no alternate route. Doctors hold us to ransom. We are forced to need them.

 

[mustafur]

So @mustafur, what justification do you have for barring a consumer from directly buying a product that they believe will help them?

You talk of corruption in the system, but not allowing freedom of access means that that same system is reinforced by there being no alternate route. Doctors hold us to ransom. We are forced to need them.

When did a state this, not my words.

Unless your talking about the prescription system which is all you twisting words, I have no Problem with abolishing the prescription system but I do when there is Universal health care system in place.

Also Support mandatory Vaccination.

I'm a realist I have my own political views but I adapt them to the current environment, not a made up one in my head, because the world is quite far from my ideal situation but you live with what you got..

 

[Danoff]

Still trying to work out why none of the libertarians on here made anything much of this.

As a libertarian, there's just so much to complain about it's hard to hit everything. Obviously I don't support banning drug advertisements. I did bring up something really similar here:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...e-car-conversions.342337/page-2#post-11235909

I'm against the legal enforcement of the AMA anyway, so their vote to ban drug ads doesn't surprise me. I'm not sure, though, that it would take an act of congress to pull off. I wonder if the FCC could do it on their own - which is where my post above comes in.

If there's a reason why banning advertising for a certain product fits with a libertarian ethos, I'd like to know it. Further, if there's a reason why requiring a prescription fits with a libertarian ethos, I'd like to know it.

I'm against requiring prescriptions for anything*. I'm also against banning substances outright (like pot). If you want to shoot heroin without a prescription, that's your business (you can get a lot better than that with a prescription though).


*https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/antibiotics.312502/#post-10211774

 

[squadops]

Oh dear the FCC, what a farce 👍

 

[LeMansAid]

Phew, @Danoff to the rescue. In looking at libertarianism I see it as an umbrella concept, not an ethos where one can pick and choose where to apply it's principles.

Very much agreed that antibiotics straddle an awkward position where if given free reign people could, in a sense, kill with impunity. That said, to a certain extent it's a bit messed up already. People can and do get antibiotics on prescription and stop taking them once they feel better - when for the sake of proper eradication and staving off mutation they should be completing the full course of drugs. Though I would expect that a general raising of the sense of personal responsibility wouldn't go astray with that situation. Ergo, it's possible that increased risk due to freedom of access to all drugs could be more than offset by an increase in responsible thinking were we to enact a libertarian society.

Signed,
Utilitarian monster...... (apparently)

 

[Danoff]

The Libertarian party makes my job as a voter more difficult than it needs to be occasionally by not finding a decent candidate for certain positions. In Colorado right now I'm faced with a Gubernatorial candidate that can't seem to be bothered to actually appeal to anyone (not a great sign), and a state representative candidate that is just wholly unqualified.

At that point I usually start looking around for alternatives and... my gosh it's not that easy to find a good alternative. I don't particularly like the idea of abstaining on the Colorado Governor race, but I might. I do abstain on a fair number of ballot issues.

 

[polysmut]

My impression of Libertarians comes mostly from @Danoff. It seems like libertarians have a consistent (no self-contradictions) viewpoint based around people's rights. I suspect that impression might be more of you than of libertarians in general?

 

[Danoff]

My impression of Libertarians comes mostly from @Danoff. It seems like libertarians have a consistent (no self-contradictions) viewpoint based around people's rights. I suspect that impression might be more of you than of libertarians in general?

I don't know if libertarians in general have zero internal contradictions. But I will say that it kinda has to be fewer contradictions than US Democrats or Republicans. Traditionally Democrats argue for a lack of financial freedom and a prevalence of social freedom, and traditionally Republicans argue for a lack of social freedom and a prevalence of financial freedom. Each of those views strikes me as contradictory. Libertarians generally argue for freedom on both fronts.

Sometimes they clash on social freedoms though. Recently which side supports the 1st amendment vs. the 2nd amendment has become a red/blue question. You apparently don't get to like both of them.

My biggest issue with libertarian politicians is their general refusal to look at the current state of politics and make small quantifiable suggestions for improvement. For example, if you ask a libertarian candidate what their view of drugs is, they'd probably say "I want to legalize all drugs". But of course the less off-putting more practical more achievable goal would be to work toward legalization of marijuana nationally. That's a small quantifiable improvement that people could get behind that is on the road toward a libertarian end goal.

Recently the Libertarian candidate for governor in CO was asked about legalization of marijuana (a kinda layup question in this state), and he responded by saying "elect a president that supports it". Which, while technically accurate is just... dense.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I don't know if libertarians in general have zero internal contradictions. But I will say that it kinda has to be fewer contradictions than US Democrats or Republicans. Traditionally Democrats argue for a lack of financial freedom and a prevalence of social freedom, and traditionally Republicans argue for a lack of social freedom and a prevalence of financial freedom. Each of those views strikes me as contradictory. Libertarians generally argue for freedom on both fronts.

Sometimes they clash on social freedoms though. Recently which side supports the 1st amendment vs. the 2nd amendment has become a red/blue question. You apparently don't get to like both of them.

My biggest issue with libertarian politicians is their general refusal to look at the current state of politics and make small quantifiable suggestions for improvement. For example, if you ask a libertarian candidate what their view of drugs is, they'd probably say "I want to legalize all drugs". But of course the less off-putting more practical more achievable goal would be to work toward legalization of marijuana nationally. That's a small quantifiable improvement that people could get behind that is on the road toward a libertarian end goal.

Recently the Libertarian candidate for governor in CO was asked about legalization of marijuana (a kinda layup question in this state), and he responded by saying "elect a president that supports it". Which, while technically accurate is just... dense.

This is my particular issue with libertarian candidates. I remember watching an interview in which the interviewer asked a libertarian candidate (I honestly do not remember who it was, other than that I remember it was a white male, unsurprisingly) about whether there should be regulation to mandate that restaurant or food service employees should wash their hands after using the bathroom. He said unequivocally that there should not be and that 'the market' would take care of the issue; that is to say people would stop going to those restaurants if people got sick. When the interviewer pressed about the implications for the spreading of disease and general health of the population, he responded by saying that there should be regulation to post a sign to say that they do not wash their hands. There seems to be this absolutism in libertarianism (I think inspired by Ayn Rand, it's kind of a tenant of libertarianism in my experience....and I used to identify as one) that is intractable and that forces those who align with it to contort themselves into indefensible or at least unworkable positions.

I also think 'objectivity' stands in for 'cruelty' a little to easily within the libertarian ranks and they are only slightly less politically cynical than the beyond-the-pale GOP.

 

[Danoff]

about whether there should be regulation to mandate that restaurant or food service employees should wash their hands after using the bathroom. He said unequivocally that there should not be and that 'the market' would take care of the issue

...and of course that candidate was right, and the market does. But it's so easy to bait candidates with these questions and they seem to enjoy coming off as extreme. That's not how you win elections, well... it used to be not how you win elections anyway. Find some common ground with voters.

BTW I have literally participated in the "I'm not going to that restaurant because people are getting sick" feedback while in China.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

...and of course that candidate was right, and the market does. But it's so easy to bait candidates with these questions and they seem to enjoy coming off as extreme. That's not how you win elections, well... it used to be not how you win elections anyway. Find some common ground with voters.

BTW I have literally participated in the "I'm not going to that restaurant because people are getting sick" feedback while in China.

So are you saying it's better that way?

 

[Danoff]

So are you saying it's better that way?

I'll answer this question the way that candidate should have answered it. It's not relevant. Is this an issue we need to be discussing right now? Is this a problem in our country? Should we be devoting time to overhauling our food service industry standards right now? The biggest issue I've heard on that front in a long time is Chipotle, and it had nothing to do with bathrooms.

 

[Exorcet]

It seems like libertarians have a consistent (no self-contradictions) viewpoint based around people's rights.

This is what I try to go for. Either rights are absolute, or they aren't. There isn't really room for compromise there. I do think about how it makes me come across in discussions, sometimes I worry it might look dogmatic or unwilling to compromise. I'm really hesitant to support anything that would result in taking away rights, even "small" ones, but at the same time I realize that can make finding a workable solution in the eyes of different viewpoints difficult.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I'll answer this question the way that candidate should have answered it. It's not relevant. Is this an issue we need to be discussing right now? Is this a problem in our country? Should we be devoting time to overhauling our food service industry standards right now? The biggest issue I've heard on that front in a long time is Chipotle, and it had nothing to do with bathrooms.

Idk, it might not be directly relevant, but it is a reasonable question to ask, depending on context. It's more relatable for people than simply asking "do you believe there should be any regulation?" which is almost the same question, just without specific context. It's a pretty fundamental question despite its specificity, and it reveals a world view, in my opinion. Especially when considering a candidate for representation, I feel like you expect to understand a certain amount of that person's perspective.

I get the idea behind not regulating such a thing, but it just seems so obtuse and unnecessarily dogmatic / logically-circuitous not to. Regulations are the short cut between the issue and the desired result (your mileage may vary, of course). That's my opinion anyways.

 

[Danoff]

Idk, it might not be directly relevant, but it is a reasonable question to ask, depending on context. It's more relatable for people than simply asking "do you believe there should be any regulation?" which is almost the same question, just without specific context. It's a pretty fundamental question despite its specificity, and it reveals a world view, in my opinion. Especially when considering a candidate for representation, I feel like you expect to understand a certain amount of that person's perspective.

I get the idea behind not regulating such a thing, but it just seems so obtuse and unnecessarily dogmatic / logically-circuitous not to. Regulations are the short cut between the issue and the desired result (your mileage may vary, of course). That's my opinion anyways.

It doesn't matter. It's a distraction. Just because they're libertarian doesn't mean they'll immediately start removing any and all regulations. I think Libertarian candidates should come out and say things like "I'm not looking to change any bathroom policies, seems to be working just fine, there are other things to do". People do the kinds of things you're talking about (trying to learn every corner of a candidate's thinking) all the time and it yields terrible results.

It yields results like electing someone over their stance on abortion when they have no possible chance of doing anything about the issue. On a smaller scale, I constantly get asked to vote on local judges based on their party affiliation, and that is pure nonsense. What does their stance on universal healthcare or legalizing pot have to do with whether they can interpret law correctly? These should be appointed positions, but voters get nosy, want to know lots of irrelevant nonsense.

So yea, if I'm the candidate asked that question, that's my answer. I'm not planning on working to change the food service industry standards in regard to bathroom behavior. It doesn't seem to be an actual issue.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I think Libertarian candidates should come out and say things like "I'm not looking to change any bathroom policies, seems to be working just fine, there are other things to do".

For me, that is a totally reasonable response and it demonstrates self awareness. But as you mentioned, they seem to often go out of their way to represent themselves as unflinchingly absolute. The two responses might come from a similar perspective/position, but they project different renditions of character. I think that matters in a representative democracy. Why would I want to elect somebody who can't/won't even hypothetically concede some degree of compromise?

 

[Rich S]

Libertarians are quite diverse in views, they vary a bit. Republicans and democrats are predictable often times disgustingly.

I think these days I pull the lever for libertarian or independent. Abstaining to me is not logical, it's giving up vote.

 

[Danoff]

What is a government other than the morality of it's populace in a free society?

The function of government is to protect human rights. To the extent that it does not do so, it is not a legitimate government.

Let's say you get to this idealized government and it's all working as you imagine it. The market will always produce winners and losers. How do you prevent the people who end up off less fortunate than others from voting into power somebody who will enact new entitlements all over again?

Constitutional limitations. If the function of government is to protect human rights, how do you let people vote away the rights of the minority (check my signature)? What you're saying is that the majority will always try to vote away the rights of the minority, and that's why your government has to be expressly disallowed from violating the rights of its citizens. That's how America was intended to function.

I can't square your moral puritanism with the fallible nature of humans.

I don't disagree with your aspirational intent, I just see a limit to its feasibility.

I think we can improve the US by moving it in that direction. That's all Libertarianism has to be, a direction to move.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The function of government is to protect human rights. To the extent that it does not do so, it is not a legitimate government.

Constitutional limitations. If the function of government is to protect human rights, how do you let people vote away the rights of the minority (check my signature)? What you're saying is that the majority will always try to vote away the rights of the minority, and that's why your government has to be expressly disallowed from violating the rights of its citizens. That's how America was intended to function.

Constitutional limitations are subject to change otherwise nobody is truly free. When it becomes bad enough, might is right will always supersede human rights. A majority will not permit themselves to starve (metaphorically or otherwise) to serve an idealist philosophy. Human rights are great and should be respected...but I think we are kidding ourselves if we think they are truly the foundation of human existence. They are fair-weather niceties.

I think we can improve the US by moving it in that direction. That's all Libertarianism has to be, a direction to move.

I agree. Where I differ is I think it's unhelpful to convey the ideas of libertarianism in such purity testing ways. Don't you want to win people over? I'm generally inclined to see that the private sector as more productive and efficient than the public sector....but I don't think that needs to be so starkly black and white to be an effective message.

Thanks for moving this discussion to the appropriate thread, by the way.

 

[ryzno]

https://www.wsbradio.com/entertainm...ssler-doctrine-demand/ZyNb8GJFpKBHFegdzJAYpM/
I just wanted to leave this here. Only reason I posted this is cause I feel everyone thinks I only listen to Hannity and Rush.
He's Libertarian and has a different, humorous view on things. He's usually on 9AM-noon in Atlanta. I've actually met him too, at a "Clark's Christmas Kids" donation drive. He and Tim Andrews are pretty cool dudes. I didn't get to meet the rest of the cast cause they weren't there. He goes back to the 90's in Atlanta radio and I've been listening to him before he got out of his "shock jock" mode.
Sorry for taking it off topic, I thought some of y'all might like to hear him.

It's public radio but I'll leave a *mild language warning*.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

https://www.wsbradio.com/entertainm...ssler-doctrine-demand/ZyNb8GJFpKBHFegdzJAYpM/
I just wanted to leave this here. Only reason I posted this is cause I feel everyone thinks I only listen to Hannity and Rush.
He's Libertarian and has a different, humorous view on things. He's usually on 9AM-noon in Atlanta. I've actually met him too, at a "Clark's Christmas Kids" donation drive. He and Tim Andrews are pretty cool dudes. I didn't get to meet the rest of the cast cause they weren't there. He goes back to the 90's in Atlanta radio and I've been listening to him before he got out of his "shock jock" mode.
Sorry for taking it off topic, I thought some of y'all might like to hear him.

It's public radio but I'll leave a *mild language warning*.

Too much radio show banter for my liking - man radio hosts love to hear themselves talk!

 

[Northstar]

Too much radio show banter for my liking - man radio hosts love to hear themselves talk!

Almost as much as they love random long pauses that make you wonder why the radio shut off.

 

[Danoff]

Constitutional limitations are subject to change otherwise nobody is truly free.

That's definitely not true. Imagine, for a moment, if the US Bill of rights were not simply limitations on government, or enumerated powers of government, but instead included a more complete set of fundamental human rights (some of which are written in the federal criminal code, and some of which are written in overlapping state criminal codes). So, for example, supposing a right to life, or perhaps the criminality of murder, were enumerated in the constitution among the bill of rights.

Is it true that nobody is truly free unless that limitation can be changed? Is it true that nobody is truly free unless freedom of speech can be abridged? Is it true that nobody can truly be free unless we can overturn equal protection and enforce laws differently based on arbitrary characteristics? Obviously not. So no, your statement is demonstrably incorrect.

When it becomes bad enough, might is right will always supersede human rights.

You say "when" as if there is some kind of inevitability. I do not agree that humans will always be willing to harm each other for their own benefit, even when they are starving, or in danger. Some people are willing to die for human rights, indeed the United States would not exist were that not the case. Furthermore, we would never have shaken off slavery were that not the case. The history of this country is one of consistent life or death struggle for human rights.

A majority will not permit themselves to starve (metaphorically or otherwise) to serve an idealist philosophy.

What idealist philosophy is that?

Human rights are great and should be respected...but I think we are kidding ourselves if we think they are truly the foundation of human existence.

I'm not sure there is such a thing as a foundation of human existence. We are animals, we are matter. We are not fundamentally different from the rest of the universe in so many ways. Humans separated ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom in some respects slowly, it's where we came from, and we should certainly recognize that. But we should also recognize our potential, which is greater than that of the animals we know of.

They are fair-weather niceties.

It's like saying math is a fair-weather nicety. Or science. Or philosophy. It represents human understanding of logic, of the universe, of reality. You can call that a nicety if you want, but I call it discovery, progress, a catapult to greater achievement. Human rights have been a non-stop force for quality of life, progress, luxury, and happiness.

I agree. Where I differ is I think it's unhelpful to convey the ideas of libertarianism in such purity testing ways. Don't you want to win people over?

My aim is not to win people over, my aim is to speak and find truth. I'm not a politician.

 

[Keef]

There are a lot of folks on the Libertarian subreddit which simply cannot fathom being "reasonable". They seem much more interested in idealism and alienation rather than expanding Libertarian Party influence. So, as a guy who actually developed his morals right here on GTP but has finally grown up and realized that arguing with people about things they don't and/or don't want to understand will just piss them off, I can't really deal with that level of idealism anymore. It's not helpful and it's not practical. It's not effective to talk in a bubble of people just like yourself about how wrong everybody else is. I think the Party itself probably realizes this but the "libertarians" on the internet don't seem to.

 

[Danoff]

There are a lot of folks on the Libertarian subreddit which simply cannot fathom being "reasonable". They seem much more interested in idealism and alienation rather than expanding Libertarian Party influence.

Is that aimed at me?

I actually think that this kind of extreme demonizing of your political opponents is much of the problem with political discourse. I got called out here because I called taxation theft. And while some might see that as extreme or idealist in and of itself, I'm the same person who has said that curing that is an end goal, a direction to move, a guide toward a more moral government. But if you're thinking that I'm not pragmatic, take a look at the fact that every single time I try to lay out a roadmap toward that end, I actually advocate a sales tax. The reason is because I don't see how we can do it without doing it gradually.

 

[Keef]

Is that aimed at me?

Not at all - actually that was totally random and I didn't even read the previous posts.

But now that you mention it, I think as it pertains to marketing libertarianism or the Party, statements like "taxation is theft", "shut down the EPA", or "legalize all drugs" accomplish little more than alienating the vast majority of Americans. They might be based on totally rational and arguably true principles, but people don't give a damn about that.

You're absolutely right that ideas like this are goals to work toward but that's not how most of America thinks. They take bold statements at face value, whether it's shallow campaign promises or attainable goals. When they hear "taxation is theft" they think "well this maniac wants to eliminate taxes, there's no way that will work!" instead of realizing that it would probably take decades to reform the system into something more fair.

Libertarians need to market their ideas and their Party in a reasonable, relatable way. That probably starts with talking about topics people actually care about and providing a middle ground to the Democrat or Republican parties. Their lack of corruption is probably a good place to start. Eliminating Social Security is not a good place to start. My main argument here is that libertarianism and the Libertarian Party hasn't meant squat for decades and has gained virtually no support during that time. Why? Because they refuse to relate to the masses. It's a marketing problem.

EDIT: Of all the time I've spent on other political forums, especially on Reddit, the one thing they all have in common is that "libertarians are crazy idealists". So they should stop being crazy idealists.

 

[Danoff]

Can you clarify what you mean by sales tax in this context. I ask because a basic sales tax is not progressive so I struggle to see how it could be set it a level which would balance the books whilst at the same time not drive the poor into starvation. Unless perhaps you are referring to a progressive sales/consumption tax which would address that particular concern?

First of all, a progressive tax is unconstitutional (equal protection). Second, it puts all the incentives in the wrong place (those with no skin in the game can vote for "bread and circuses"). So it creates a distortion of democracy, and is a recipe for ever-expanding government budgets.

But beyond that, the amount of tax paid would be almost entirely by the rich, because the poor tend to buy things with most of their money that doesn't include sales tax (like rent, mortgages, and utilities). There are even-handed alternatives too, which are things like a sales tax rebate at a flat rate based on a minimum expected standard of living. So for example, one might be able to calculate that $10,000 in taxable purchase is a minimum required standard, and then issue a rebate check for (let's pretend the sales tax rate was 15%), 15% of $10,000 (so $1,500) to all households annually. The rich get $10,000 of purchases exempt, and so do the poor. That would be an equally applied sales tax scheme that is also "progressive" but avoids some of the perverse democratic effects of unequal tax law.

Edit:

Also, and this is getting a bit deep into the details... we don't currently tax people who visit and spend in the US from other countries. But if you're a rich Japanese businessman spending a lot of time in Hawaii, you'll get hit with federal sales tax when you would not get hit by income tax.

Also, we have the elderly, which are largely tax exempt, and which have a big distortion for their voting preferences. And they need skin in the game too.

So the rate might not be as high as you think.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

My aim is not to win people over, my aim is to speak and find truth. I'm not a politician.

Alright, you do you, I guess. I'd argue we would be better positioned to improve our civilization if people like you did aim to convince people, but that's too altruistic I guess...

 

[Danoff]

Alright, you do you, I guess. I'd argue we would be better positioned to improve our civilization if people like you did aim to convince people, but that's too altruistic I guess...

It's not that I wouldn't want to. It's that I'm not the right person for the job. It's not that I don't know how to write persuasively, or make a solid logical and factual case. In fact a lot of that overlaps with my current career path. I have a fair amount of experience in the area of making intellectual arguments. But that does't seem to be what appeals to voters, and this is based in part on personal experience with me attempting to lay out a factual or logical case and getting rebuffed by instinct or emotion. I'm probably the last person who would be successful at motivating people emotionally, and that's what it takes to achieve a political shift.

I'll give a tiny example. I had a family member get suckered in by a Pyramid Scheme (Quixtar if you want to know). That family member had successfully pyramid schemed their way to 3 other family members of mine. And by the time the 4 of them had realized they were about to strike it rich, it was time to reach out to me. All 4 of them made their case to me at once in what I would describe as an intervention-like setting.

I sat down with them and had a detailed explanation for why what they were proposing was a pyramid scheme, and why they should leave it. I was met with much vitriol (defensiveness), and they explained to me how it was just like any other company (pure intuition), and how I was basically crapping on their dreams (emotion). It was not the pyramid scheme that was causing the problem, it was me and my insistence on bringing a spotlight to their house of cards, upon which they had heaped their hopes, and in some cases a little bit of self-identity and self-esteem (I still have a strained relationship over that incident, from like 12 years back).

It's not that I don't understand why I get emotional responses, or why people allow themselves to be so swayed by appeals to emotion (Trump). I do, I just don't care. And I can't seem to bring myself to try to win emotional basketcases over to my side. I've tried, and I've consistently be disgusted by what ultimately is used to consider my perspective unconvincing. So I have given up trying to persuade people politically, or even in many aspects of life, and merely attempt to convey the truth.

I tried to talk a self-described "libertarian minded" individual into voting for Gary Johnson instead of Trump, and he declared with no irony that since Gary Johnson got confused about Aleppo, he could not vote for the man. I think that moment helped me understand, to a degree, that you cannot walk someone to your perspective. They have to walk on their own.

Edit:

I think, to a certain extent, resigning yourself to the insanity of the rest of the world goes hand in hand with third party voting.