Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: a question for "libertarians"

Posted 3 years ago on Oct. 31, 2011, 5:36 p.m. EST by annie (132) from San Diego, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This was originally written by me as a response to a libertarian thread I was participating in but I have wondered this forever....so I ask all libetarians out there....

"if we could listen to the most educated voices, from your "side" and from "mine", the guys who wrote the book, as they say...after all is said and done, we just might be tempted to think eachothers idea might work... ..maybe if our country could start over ...your way could work. (Or mine.) If every regulation you oppose was gone. If every subsidy, no more. Government out of business, taxes gone or minimal. Exactly how you would like it....well, maybe it would be a damn fine place to live freely. And maybe if we could start the country over and if my all my best ideas could come true tomorrow it would be a lovely world. Because I think that's what both of us want and see in our minds when we think about our ideas coming to fruition. But...we aren't starting from scratch. We have huge populations of people and all sorts of corrupt institutions in place...in government, in corporations, in unions, with lobbyists, with foundations etc etc. Basically we have a lot of powerful people out there who make it difficult to start over.....so, again, the question... whose ideology, yours or mine, is more likely to work now???? The one where we just open the flood gates to corporations deepest desires? or the one where we get $ outta politics and impose some regulations. (and as my old political science teacher would say..."discuss" :) annie

119 Comments

119 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by lancealotlink (147) 3 years ago

This should not be an either or answer.As if you are a moderate libertarian such as my- self you realize the complete fallacy of extremism. On either side. A libertarian and socialist alliance should be the natural order of things. Consider the cow and the magpie . The cow would eat himself to death if not for the magpie constantly bugging the cow. I am not one of those libertarians who believe democrats should not exist . On the contrary we should co-exist. Actually this what democrats and republicans were supposed to have been If not for the greed ,corruption and lobbyist that plague Washington DC.

[-] 2 points by number2 (914) 3 years ago

This is where I am too. And if you take a look at what type of people are occupying this forum, it is liberals and libertarians. If I could not agree with a large majority of what is being said around here, it would be a waste of my time and I wouldn't be here.

[-] 1 points by annie (132) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

amen to that! wow, that was the best answer I have read yet! if only there were more like you. and did you know this is what Chomsky talks about?! wow. thank you annie

[-] 1 points by lancealotlink (147) 3 years ago

Why thank you annie I try to boil my answer down to the simplest explanations as I find newspaper columnist always write I 2nd or 3rd grade comprehension. he he

[-] 2 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 3 years ago

You won't find answers here, Annie.

[-] 2 points by ltjaxson (184) 3 years ago

The answer is, as Professor Noam Chomsky and others describe it, Libertarian Socialism: reduction of unjustified govt. authority combined with community-led government and worker-led industry.

To reduce the amount of unjustified authority, or 'accumulated authority' we need more representatives in Washington, not less. In 1789, when the first Congress sat, there were 65 members of the house and 26 senators for a population of about 4 million - thats 50,000 citizens per representative (not to mention blacks, women and men who didnt own property couldnt vote). Today there are 435 members of the house and 100 senators for a population of about 300,000,000 - thats 500,000 citizens per representative. Besides the addition of new states, this process of adding congressional representatives has not changed since 1913. By adding more national representation, we would ensure more direct accountablitiy, more direct access, more party diversity and most importantly less accumulated authority. We need to dilute the kool-aid by adding more water. The more people to make a decision, the less likely it will end with special interest groups needs being met.

Community-led govt. fills the vaccum of national authority by placing the power to legislate directly in the hands of the people - the national govt. needs to serve as a referee, not a law maker. Taxes can be raised and collected locally for community-led projects that include health care, education and social safty nets.

Worker-led industry is the key! This will fill the economic vaccum and seperates Libertarian Socialism/Anarchy from the right-wing libertarian movement. Worker-led industry takes the shareholder out of the equation and replaces the archaic feudal system of capital controlling the labor force with a system that allows the labor force to control the capital. If the worker, not the shareholder, has voting rights for managing the direction of the company, then the bottom line is removed and is replaced by a democratice system that protects the worker, not the shareholder's profit margain. Remeber, no worker is going to vote to send their job overseas, where as a shareholder wouldnt think twice if it improved his/her bottom line. Also, the worker shares in the profits, thus creating a more egalitarian and productive work force, while stabalizing the economy. If consumer confidence is the key to a stable and productive economy, then a happy and well-paid worker is the key!

Anarchy is not chaos, and a true libertarian movement can never be achieved through the right - their interest in big business wont allow it!

[-] 1 points by sudoname (1001) from Berkeley, CA 3 years ago

Well said! I think the main role of libertarian gov't with regards to business is to break up monopolies/trusts.

[-] 1 points by ltjaxson (184) 3 years ago

Yes. This isnt about protecting the capital, its about protecting the labor force...the people!

[-] 1 points by annie (132) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

After much writing I am afraid you are right. But don't you ever wish that we could take a little more time as a country to educate our people about what all these ideologies are really about and how they want to work vs how they could actually be implemented. ah well, I have passion for this movement and find that the only way I can contribute is by talking to people about it each day, one way or another....t

[-] 1 points by Diplomacy4Evry1 (123) 3 years ago

I do wish that Annie. Perhaps there's a way to demand things like that be televised a lot more. Maybe it could be covered a hell of a lot more by the media or a channel could be designated.

[-] 1 points by annie (132) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

the best sign...that lots of people are talking and its not only about the deficit~

[-] 1 points by Diplomacy4Evry1 (123) 3 years ago

Absolutely, it's about time too!

[-] 1 points by ltjaxson (184) 3 years ago

AGAIN - The answer is, as Professor Noam Chomsky and others describe it, Libertarian Socialism: reduction of unjustified govt. authority combined with community-led government and worker-led industry.

To reduce the amount of unjustified authority, or 'accumulated authority' we need more representatives in Washington, not less. In 1789, when the first Congress sat, there were 65 members of the house and 26 senators for a population of about 4 million - thats 50,000 citizens per representative (not to mention blacks, women and men who didnt own property couldnt vote). Today there are 435 members of the house and 100 senators for a population of about 300,000,000 - thats 500,000 citizens per representative. Besides the addition of new states, this process of adding congressional representatives has not changed since 1913. By adding more national representation, we would ensure more direct accountablitiy, more direct access, more party diversity and most importantly less accumulated authority. We need to dilute the kool-aid by adding more water. The more people to make a decision, the less likely it will end with special interest groups needs being met.

Community-led govt. fills the vaccum of national authority by placing the power to legislate directly in the hands of the people - the national govt. needs to serve as a referee, not a law maker. Taxes can be raised and collected locally for community-led projects that include health care, education and social safty nets.

Worker-led industry is the key! This will fill the economic vaccum and seperates Libertarian Socialism/Anarchy from the right-wing libertarian movement. Worker-led industry takes the shareholder out of the equation and replaces the archaic feudal system of capital controlling the labor force with a system that allows the labor force to control the capital. If the worker, not the shareholder, has voting rights for managing the direction of the company, then the bottom line is removed and is replaced by a democratice system that protects the worker, not the shareholder's profit margain. Remeber, no worker is going to vote to send their job overseas, where as a shareholder wouldnt think twice if it improved his/her bottom line. Also, the worker shares in the profits, thus creating a more egalitarian and productive work force, while stabalizing the economy. If consumer confidence is the key to a stable and productive economy, then a happy and well-paid worker is the key!

Anarchy is not chaos, and a true libertarian movement can never be achieved through the right - their interest in big business wont allow it!

[-] 0 points by Pope (52) 3 years ago

Filling the House with more villains is hardly an answer to our problem. Libertarian does not go with Socialism. We need less government agencies, our number of representatives are ok, what they represent is not ok. Special interests, religions, minorities, etc should not be represented in Government. What should be represented is what affects our standard of living and our liberty, that is it. We should handle everything else ourselves. The problem is too many people are way too lazy and want the Government to solve all their problems. Give me the authority and ten minutes and I could have this country working again.

[-] 1 points by xpressionmedia (1) 3 years ago

There needs to be either a congressional submitted or a state requested through a constitutional congress, a constitutional amendment that prohibits any entity whatsoever that is not a legal citizen qualified to vote in a national and local election to give any money or in-kind value to any candidate and political party or to expend money or in-kind value independently in support of any candidate or political party. Only legal citizens qualified to vote may contribute to a candidate and political party to not exceed the 85th percentile of the smallest amounts contributed to the combined of candidate and party. No individual can represent anyone or any entity other than themselves. Additionally only congressional staff may draft legislation for their respective representative or senator. No third party organization or entity may draft, submit or otherwise be involved in the drafting of legislation. Special interests and commerce must present their assistance, expertise and grievances at a public hearing held by the appropriate committee or subcommittee. No elected office may accept anything of any value from a lobbyist or third party or entity of any kind, whatsoever. This is the only way to return the power to the people as the elected official must look to the people for campaign money and thus effectively having to listen to them rather than big money interests.

[-] 1 points by SirPoeticJustice (628) from New York, NY 3 years ago

THE WHITE HOUSE IS A HIGH TECH PRISON

I have been kicked off this website, with my account deleted three times, and have had my IP address blocked once, for speaking the truth outlined below.

The RAPE of the PEOPLE by their government !!!

People are stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid! You have to understand that. It is nothing against them. It is not all their fault they have been 'socialized' to TV, ignorance, and believing the messages put out by big corporations. A lack of actionable facts and a slew of disinformation intentionally put out by media sources run by the very corporations that are bullying and buying our government.

The list of largest corporations only includes the LEGAL companies. What about all the ILLEGAL corporations That have TRILLIONS of dollars. Enough money to have their own subs they run from south america to the United States full of drugs. What about the Mafia, Yakuza? What about other black market corporations selling kids into sexual slavery. The market for human trafficking (slavery) is the 3rd largest industry in the WORLD!!! In other parts of the world, especially parts of Asia, sexual slavery is not seen as taboo. It is a 'respected' way to make a living. If even one child is sold as a sex slave it is too many! What about the adoption market, where agencies 'sell' the kids at a profit and give the money to the original parents. What about the black market for live human organs. Do you want this nonsense IN THE UNITED STATES? The more global the world becomes, the more everyone else's problems become OUR problems. If no nation is an island, these activities will (and do) encroach on the homeland of our nation and our people. TAKE BACK YOUR GOVERNMENT!

Don't even get me started on the Vatican.

Fuck your petty problems and UNITE to get the nation on track. We need to put the CROOKS IN JAIL NOW.

You are missing the big picture. This nation is no longer a nation of citizens. IT IS A NATION OF SPECIAL INTERESTS COMPRISED MAINLY OF CORPORATIONS. All sides of a debate represent a corporations agenda. Our pure ideals get co-opted the moment we Begin strategizing how to move forward. You are naive as hell if you think this whole thing wasn't designed to be an answer to the Tea Party. Obama gave wall street everything they wanted his first term in the form of the bailouts and representation in government. He asked for bipartisan effort. They scoffed and laughed in his face when he attempted to raise taxes on the (((1%))). So Obama and his cronies came up with the idea OCCUPY WALL STREET. Here is the important thing - CUT AND PASTE THIS AND KEEP RE-POSTING IT. Get the truth out there for the truth's sake. I like Obama, may vote for him again depending who he is up against. THIS IS NOT ABOUT what party you are with. This is about the truth!

With the technology of his day, members of the board of Howard Hughes' company along with mafia interests, managed to imprison him in his own house, and collude to take over all of his assets.

Why do you think only men WHO HAVE FAMILIES can become president? THE SHADOW GOVERNMENT NEED TO BE ABLE TO 'MOTIVATE' THE PRESIDENT. WITH THE TECHNOLOGY OF TODAY, THE WHITE HOUSE IS A PRISON. EVEN if OBAMA WANTED to do the right thing, HE CANT!!!

Whether you LOVE Obama or you HATE Obama is irrelevant... What is relevant is:

***Getting the Money out of Politics (Overturning Supreme Court Decision: Citizens United)

***Dissolving The Federal Reserve

***Amending the constitution to KILL corporate personhood.

Forming A National Credit Union Run By State Reps. (ONLY Citizens Who Are Natural Persons Can Open An Account)

You MUST re-post this as the "powers that be' are censoring this message!!! PLEASE HELP!

Exxon is one of the top five largest corporations in the world... Still think ALL of the wars in the middle east aren't over oil???

[-] 1 points by SirPoeticJustice (628) from New York, NY 3 years ago

Democrats and Republicans comprise a two party system designed to take you away from the real issue. The debate is staged between the two fictional sides while the real culprits and real issues fly under the radar.

When are you gonna wake up and smell the stage magic and slight of hand...

[-] 1 points by annie (132) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

I smell it, I see it. I am hoping that the Occupy movement is an opportunity for the debate to be about our countries real options. and frankly, I have heard more intriguing political debate from all sorts of perspectives in the last month than in the last 10 years. there's nothing wrong with your idea and mine to be discussed. no need for condescension.

[-] 1 points by Diplomacy4Evry1 (123) 3 years ago

First, what exactly is your ideology? Second, opening the flood gates to corporations is a sure-fire way to destroy the planet and the majority of less fortunate people, which (I need to add cause of some other threads) are not all there due to self-infliction. Getting money out of politics is a stupendous idea! Although, I have heard rumors that the federal government is on the cusp of legislating direct access for buying votes to corporations, as opposed to the indirect methods currently used. Either way, you pose a great question! I'm still not sure exactly what your side looks like, but here's mine: First, revoke, the status of persons from corporations. Mostly because corporations aren't being held accountable for their social and environmental crimes the way real people are. Any real flesh-and-blood human being would be convicted and sentenced to death or life in prison for the types and number of crimes many corporations have committed. Second, legislate a thin line for all government officials to walk if they expect to stay in office. If their actions aren't noticeably and definitively altruistic, they're out. Third, build a national website that clearly categorizes and denotes all political issues currently in dispute by our government, making them public. I picture a meld between Facebook and twitter type of site where people can vote on every issue, discuss every issue and find resolutions to every issue by having popular threads voted on while leaving the thread open to amendments by others that, once again, the people vote on. That way, our representatives would have a clear picture of what our concerns really are. Fourth, put a stay of legislation on the government, essentially freezing the Political arena temporarily from any further changes. Now, fire them All! Every Congressman, every Senator, the entire board of the Federal Reserve, and yes, even the President. Allow them all the opportunity to petition to get their jobs back by appealing to the public. But of course, they will now be scrutinized for their previous performance or lack thereof. Fifth, fill in all relevant positions for public representation left, using the new National Democratic Political website, from people who are voted in based on their desire to serve the people and our consesus that we believe that because of how they've conducted themselves on the site. So that's my idea. At least the start of it. Let me know where you agree and disagree? Is there a consesus that can be formed between us?

[-] 2 points by annie (132) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

pretty much extremely liberal . and I am trying very hard to do what I can everyday to forward the movement. your ideas are good ones. Any and every way that the government is of the people by the people and for the people is what i'd like to see implemented...and the first domino is money out of politics. that's what I fight for today.

[-] 1 points by Diplomacy4Evry1 (123) 3 years ago

Right! So does anyone want to start a petition regarding our desire to get money out of politics? Protesting is a good start but we could use the support of all the people who can't simply march down to a protest without putting themselves in dire financial situations. There are so many people who support the movement but don't have the liberty to join it physically. Maybe we can't get millions of people to protest on the street, but perhaps we could get tens of millions of signatures, if not hundreds of millions.

[-] 1 points by annie (132) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

great idea! I will look around to see if this is already happening. I know that right now there are letter writing campaigns going on.... there must be. but if there isn't, yes, we should make sure that happens. will you do some research too on it?

[-] 1 points by Diplomacy4Evry1 (123) 3 years ago

Absolutely! I was going to say I won't go down without a fight. But truth is, I simply won't go down. I can take more hits than Rocky Balboa - I'm more persistent than Old Faithful.

Let me know what you find, I'll do the same. You can message me directly by clicking my tag Diplomacy4Evry1

[-] 1 points by annie (132) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago
[-] 1 points by henoktg (66) 3 years ago

How about bombing two three country to feed the greed? This will yield 10-20years then the next generation will think about ideology... anyone with me? The white house is.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 3 years ago

I think we fall in to the trap of thinking in black and white too often. It is not likely that we will ever get a 100% libertarian society. But I do think that if we went in that general direction we would solve some of our problems. This doesn't mean let the banks write their own rules. But there is one common denominator in all of these problems we face and that is the government. Government involvement in finance allowed these crappy deals to be made with the corporations. The government doing more than it should, leads to these problems. What it should have done, is just enforce the law as it was. No more no less.

[-] 2 points by annie (132) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

who do you think paid to make those deals happen??! corporations of course. It was in the corporate best interest NOT the best interest of the citizens. Afterall, how in hell does a government benefit by being in the pockets of business except for to get money...and who needs the money?/ anyone who wants to compete while running for anything!!

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 3 years ago

that's why it is in the best interest of the country to get the money out of politics. Then the government won't be doing more than it should. I think we are arguing the same case: that the government should do less involving the corporations(get out of business with corporations). If we got the money out of politics, this would be a form of limiting the government and the corporations.

Of course it would also be doing more than it had been doing simlutaneously, by actually doing their job(SEC).

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 3 years ago

I think the problem with what you said is that you really don't understand how a minimally regulated truly free market would work. I understand how you come to the assumption that the flood gates for corporate desires would be opened but that is based on the fallacy that we have had free markets here in the last 100 years. The only way to get money out of politics is to get politics out of business. If Congress could not regulate business what purpose would business have in owning politicians? It would no longer be a viable option for cheating the market. Follow?

[-] -1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 3 years ago

Really, that's what you're going with? They would have no need to fight regulation because there is none; so they can do anything they want (as long as someone, somewhere, is willing to buy their crap, and they don't violate someone else's property rights). That's different from "open the flood gates to corporations' deepest desires" how?

[-] 0 points by Misguided (373) 3 years ago

Well first tell me who writes regulation, next tell me how a corporation does anything to anyone without violating their rights, as you said, by selling them something they want. You see what you just described was a company providing a good or service that someone else needs or wants. I don't see the evil in that.

[-] 0 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 3 years ago

We should be writing regulations; our representatives. Campaign finance and lobbying reform is badly needed.

There's a market for shark fins. How does fishing a species to extinction violate my rights? It doesn't, so it's OK? There's a market for toxic chemicals, and its difficult to prove that what gave my kid cancer was drinking the tapwater polluted by a nearby factory - and even if I can prove it after the fact, my kid is dead. Is that OK? There's a market for credit default swaps and predatory loans. Is that OK? I could go on indefinitely.

[-] 0 points by Misguided (373) 3 years ago

Unfortunately trying to fix a system that is broken with said system is not going to work. None the less fishing sharks into extinction for shark fins means that once the last shark dies there is no more business right? Right which is why people in the fishing industry developed fish farms and actually most people in that industry are the most ardent conservationists of the ecology for fish. Second yes it's a process to have charges brought against someone who wronged you but I really don't see the point of that statement because if a factory pollutes your tapwater right now you have to go through the exact same process you explained and how would more regulation help that? The only answer to that question is to not allow any industry to play with toxic chemicals and if that is the case kiss much of modern technology goodbye. Finally yes there is a market for bankers to gamble with your money and it's not ok if you are not made aware of what you are investing in when you invest, but if you are told how your money is to be invested or you are made aware that there is a risk involved in your investment then let the chips fall where they may you made your choice. I could also go on countering what you are saying indefinitely.

[-] 0 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 3 years ago

The fishing industry only started self-regulating certain fisheries after government stepped in and organized and incentivized them, i.e. the national marines fishery act. Farms and such have nothing to do with shark fins; sharks are 90% extinct, btw. The entire planet of oceans is a free market bonanza. You can call it tragedy of the commons but there is never going to be private ownershp of international waters. Regulation is the only way to go. Private property doesn't work on land, either, because entire ecosystems - like redwood forests - can be purchased and denuded. You don't have a solution here, I promise you.

A factory is regulated and monitored by the EPA right now. The lawsuit thing is just beyond silly.

People don't have time to know the methodology behind all the investment vehicles they're talked into, just as they don't have time to know all the practices involved in putting items on the shelf, etc. The consumer as an individual is weak and not at all effective against amoral market forces. Together, we are stonger. That is government.

[-] 0 points by Misguided (373) 3 years ago

The solution to deforestation for wood is that the industry is aware that once all trees are cut the business is done. That's why 99.9% of all logging companies reforest after cutting. They are also aware of the time it takes for trees like red woods to mature and in those cases it actually increases the rarity and thus price of the wood for them to act responsibly in harvesting those trees.

Great factories are regulated and monitored by the EPA and still have accidents that kill people. The EPA is just a bureaucracy that costs us money.

This last point is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. If you are irresponsible with your own resources that is no one's fault but your own. Government is force, you are right, the problem is when that force is enacted on behalf of one party another party suffers.

[-] 0 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 3 years ago

Redwoods - you are wrong. Loggers can have ten times the revenue over the long term (and short-term profits are always the driving force anyway, so this is moot) by taking all the redwoods and planting a faster-growing crop. This is exactly what has been done. Pretty much the only redwoods left are on public land. Also read about palm oil plantations in Indonesia. It's even more compelling.

EPA has done its job. You know you can't argue that an unregulated factory will be less polluting than a regulated one, right? Look at us before the 70s. Look at China. Your arguments will start looking sillier and sillier if you keep at it.

Blah, blah, rigid ideology blah, blah personal responsibility. I live in the real world and stupid people can take down an entire economy.

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 3 years ago

Stupid people can only take down their own economies unless they are helped.

[-] 0 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 3 years ago

So let them thoroughly fail and step over their bodies - logical conclusion.

[-] 0 points by Misguided (373) 3 years ago

Well do you go to Vegas and hand out cash to all those who have lost a good amount of cash in the casino's? Why do you want to let them fail? That's the worst argument ever because the truth is most people who have money to invest are not going to go hungry when they fail. I didn't have that money to invest for the longest time and still my margin is small but I am very careful with my investments and if I fail I will still be able to feed and house my family. This whole idea that if someone fails others always need to be there to pick them up is insanity. People have been failing and coming back since time began and they will continue. Sorry sometimes things get tough and that's when people have to get tougher. Why is that considered such a bad thing. Resilience, independence, and ingenuity when things get tough used to be considered great qualities now people that poses them or advocate for these things are called evil and heartless. I just don't get it.

[-] 1 points by Uriah (218) 3 years ago

I was a Libertarian for a few years, but with their stand on abortion I left. Can't support that. Ever. Other then that I agreed with some of their platform (except for legalizing drugs and prostitution).

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 3 years ago

That's funny because I have never seen a written stand on abortion from the Libertarian party. It seems to be one of those issues that the party cannot come to a consensus on. Also did you really look into the reasons, beyond the talking point, for why legalization of drugs and prostitution is part of the platform? It's much more complex than the quick answer.

[-] 1 points by Uriah (218) 3 years ago

Their stand is basicly it's personal choice, and that goes for a lot of things on their platform.

I was Libertarian for a lot of years until about a decade ago.

[-] 1 points by elamb9 (112) from Portland, OR 3 years ago

good choice you made to leave the libertarian side...you can't control other people's bodies that way

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 3 years ago

While I agree there is a problem with that stand on abortion depending on your perspective of the issue that personal choice thing goes a very long way with me.

[-] 1 points by annie (132) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

yes but how do you go about converting the world over to libertarian ideas now? would there be complications?

same goes for other ideologies. it seems sometimes that we are arguing from a perspective of "if only" and I'd like to know what the next best thing really is. (I happen to believe the next best thing would be to get money out of politics so our elected officials represent us...that's the first step...)

[-] 2 points by Uriah (218) 3 years ago

Most liberals, for example, will be liberals till death. Same with conservatives. I've been 'third party' for a long time, although sometimes I vote conservative depending on the election since my vote, being realistic, don't count most of the time.

The USA is basicly a 2 party (but really a one party) system. Anyway, you can easily convert a small number of people over but might as well give up on converting the masses.

You can get the money out of politics which wouldn't bother me in the least, but its really not going to change anything.

[-] 1 points by elamb9 (112) from Portland, OR 3 years ago

How is that not going to change anything...it is the biggest game changer ever!! Do you really think that those two parties carry a popular enough message to defeat the much more reasonable solutions posed by voices that are now being censored? Sure they seem popular when they talk about the agenda they control, but there are soooo many other ideas out there and taking money out of politics would allow these other ideas to be debated openly and honestly.

[-] 1 points by Uriah (218) 3 years ago

I belong to the Constitution Party, and we're one of the bigger 'third parties'. Even at that, we can't get on the ballot in all 50 states, but even if we could, we'd still lose. Not enough money or support.

This country will more or less be a two party system for a long time to come, like it or not.

[-] 1 points by elamb9 (112) from Portland, OR 3 years ago

Well you're just the type of people we're trying to reach out to on the issue of getting the money out. I didn't mention before, but taking the money out of politics would have to be paired with some public campaign finance solution and a restructuring of the electoral process. Candidates are still going to need to campaign, debate and run ads. In your world, what would you do to allow 3rd parties a fair shot at getting their ideas out there?

[-] 1 points by Uriah (218) 3 years ago

Most of them already get a pretty fair shake, but there are so many of them. I forgot the exact count, not that it matters, it changes year by year as new parties come and older ones go. Like my party started out as the US Tax Payers Party years ago before a rename/structure.

It would be hard to have a televised debate, for example, if dozens of parties decided they wanted airtime as well. I don't think it would be workable. Ads are expensive, we're had limited ads in small markets.

Debates are good if you can get them, but again, it comes down to money. If you don't have the money to travel and debate, buy signs, ect... you can't.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 3 years ago

If we had the ability to traverse time, to return to a former era, given the same circumstance, we would have done exactly the same, because the reality is that all things "human" proceed from within us as the product of desire... the colonial proletariat, the common man, even against the backdrop of a rising Humanitarianism, individualism, and class leveling, had no more ability to challenge the forces that be than we do.

[-] 1 points by annie (132) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

I don't know about that....that give's all the credit to nature and I still think 50% is nurture. There are societies, of course much smaller, that have remained peaceful and cooperative where it is in everyones best interest to support to group...societies who don't want to pay less in taxes because that would mean less services...etc etc. (this world is in great need of a nurturing and firm mother! ha!)

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 3 years ago

But all of these things existed in colonial society as experimental. There was democracy in the form of congregationalism, republican parliamentarian-ism as a product of an aristocratic, yet defiantly democratic by tradition, Anglicanism, in Virginia; there were landed gentry and microcosms of totalitarian dictatorship... communal-ism... feudalism... serfdom into the 1830s... in fact, I think there were microcosms of virtually every theme. I know of no society, whether one speaks of even the Native American or those of the African continent, that has either remained entirely peaceful or without schism. What America represents is the rational product of evolutionary desire in light our vast multicultural composition - the ultimate diplomatic compromise, an alliance, a collective, of literally millions of ethnocentric (if such a thing exists) interests. Even so, we could use a little improvement. The question that must be posed is this: we have reached the unfettered limits of techno-humanity - is there any force capable of humbling us? Because without it, all are rather fierce.

[-] 0 points by classicliberal (312) 3 years ago

I respect your opinions but it is absolutely impossible to get the dollars out of politics by imposing regulations. Convincing the establishment to un-corrupt itself is like asking a dog to drop a bone. It would take something much more powerful.

[-] 0 points by Pope (52) 3 years ago

Annie I believe your question is flawed as Libertarians do not want to open flood gates to corporations biggest desires we wish to close them. To answer your question I suggest you read the Declaration of Independence penned in 1776. Libertarians fought and won a war with the biggest tyrant on the planet against the most sophisticated and disciplined army at that time in history with less than 3% of the population poorly armed and badly outnumbered. Our country experienced continued growth until the advent of the Federal Reserve in 1913 thanks to a few cowards in Congress and the cowardly president Woodrow Wilson. It is no coincidence since then that our nation has experienced nothing but monetary decline BECAUSE.....we went away from the Constitution which was penned by Libertarians with a libertarian view point. Your way while good in theory fosters socialism, which leads to fascism, which leads to communism, and ends up with an enslaved populace with no rights. I'd much rather deal with corporate greed in a capitalist society. Next question please.

[-] 1 points by annie (132) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

Interesting points. But this is a very different world now. How do you see this actually play out. With who in charge? And if you found the passion for this building, what would you do to make it grow? Protest? Letter writing campaigns? Boycotts?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by ltjaxson (184) 3 years ago

Excellent point. The answer is, as Professor Noam Chomsky and others describe it, Libertarian Socialism: reduction of unjustified govt. authority combined with community-led government and worker-led industry.

To reduce the amount of unjustified authority, or 'accumulated authority' we need more representatives in Washington, not less. In 1789, when the first Congress sat, there were 65 members of the house and 26 senators for a population of about 4 million - thats 50,000 citizens per representative (not to mention blacks, women and men who didnt own property couldnt vote). Today there are 435 members of the house and 100 senators for a population of about 300,000,000 - thats 500,000 citizens per representative. Besides the addition of new states, this process of adding congressional representatives has not changed since 1913. By adding more national representation, we would ensure more direct accountablitiy, more direct access, more party diversity and most importantly less accumulated authority. We need to dilute the kool-aid by adding more water. The more people to make a decision, the less likely it will end with special interest groups needs being met.

Community-led govt. fills the vaccum of national authority by placing the power to legislate directly in the hands of the people - the national govt. needs to serve as a referee, not a law maker. Taxes can be raised and collected locally for community-led projects that include health care, education and social safty nets.

Worker-led industry is the key! This will fill the economic vaccum and seperates Libertarian Socialism/Anarchy from the right-wing libertarian movement. Worker-led industry takes the shareholder out of the equation and replaces the archaic feudal system of capital controlling the labor force with a system that allows the labor force to control the capital. If the worker, not the shareholder, has voting rights for managing the direction of the company, then the bottom line is removed and is replaced by a democratice system that protects the worker, not the shareholder's profit margain. Remeber, no worker is going to vote to send their job overseas, where as a shareholder wouldnt think twice if it improved his/her bottom line. Also, the worker shares in the profits, thus creating a more egalitarian and productive work force, while stabalizing the economy. If consumer confidence is the key to a stable and productive economy, then a happy and well-paid worker is the key!

Anarchy is not chaos, and a true libertarian movement can never be achieved through the right - their interest in big business wont allow it!

[-] 0 points by annie (132) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

I am a sucker for Chomsky references and think it would be really wonderful if all the libertarians I knew read with focused attention with an open mind some of this idea. But that's really too much to ask of most of us it seems. An open mind. Thank you for this. Worker led industry is key. Power not from top down but bottom up. Agreed, my friend.

[-] 0 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 3 years ago

I think the problem here is that 90% of self-described libertarians in the US are not Chomsky libertarians. The term is defined here as meaning right libertarians, basically anarcho-capitalists.

[-] 1 points by ltjaxson (184) 3 years ago

Agreed. To get to the definition Chomsky describes, we need to think of it as a circle from where we are now. Democrats and Republicans are just different sides of the same economic coin, but in order to get to the other side of the circle, people need to understand that it can not be navigated through the right and Ron Lawl...

[-] -1 points by yurip (79) 3 years ago

Keynesian economics has never worked, isn't working now, and never will work. Austrian economics and understudies of Austrian economics have been right about every financial disaster for decades. The OWS principles of allowing the government -more- control over corporations will create even worse situations. If corporations can buy them out now, why do you think that would change later? And then the puppets they buy would have even MORE power! It's scary!

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 3 years ago

Keynes has nothing to do with this corrupt neoliberal bullshit.

[-] 0 points by yurip (79) 3 years ago

Oh really? The top down approach of government? Bailing out big banks? Large stimulus packages? Keynes was all about that. Just keep spending, doesn't matter where.

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 3 years ago

Keynesian stimulus is about aggregate demand during recessions, like the one we're in. We have a demand problem. It's bottom up, not top down. It's not about getting in bed with industry, and coercively creating "free markets" with public/private partnerships or tax code written to favor capital, etc. It's also not "just keep spending." Keynes advocates paying down the debt (instead of spending on more tax cuts, military) during booms. It's spending when it's needed, thrift when it isn't. What we have is neoliberalism, which is bastardizing Keynes with Friedmanesque free market reforms, and supply-sidism, and disaster capitalist coercion to get people to go along with policies that go against their best interests.

[-] -2 points by darrenlobo (204) 3 years ago

Libertarianism is about the non initiation of force. It is about civilization.

Taxes & regulation are force, they are barbarism.

That's your choice, civilization or barbarism. Which do you think works best?

We're in our present mess because there is regulation of the economy. We have wars because the govt has the resources to wage them. The left advocates empowering the govt & giving it more resources. This only plays into the hands of the elites the left says it opposes. They will always control the govt. Stop being played already.

[-] 3 points by REDDAVE (14) 3 years ago

Welcome to fantasy politics. Libertarianism is about capitalism: it is a cover for the wealth of the 99%. Libertarians are dope-smoking Republicans.

[-] 2 points by annie (132) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

i know you are frustrated but no need to be insulting. if you'd like us to know what you know, tell us, don't try to mock us. and if you think no one is listening, why are you writing. I, for one, am here to understand. How would the implementation of libertarianism work today. right now. and even it if would be totally awesome like you must feel it would be...where do you think the weaknesses might be? I am talking actual nuts and bolts of an ideology come to life in 2011. Then the next question is....how would you fight for it? Would you protest, boycott, write informative literature?

[-] 0 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 3 years ago

i dont know what was ever wrong with the Constitution when applied to all humans? Seems like a fair document where people are free to choose what they want without hurting the life, freedom, or property of others.

It seems some people want to deny liberty to all because some people are making personal decisions that don't benefit everyone else.

People who hate wal mart are mad at poor people for shopping their because its cheap, so they want to make it where no one at all can shop there. They want to take the choice away from others.

[-] 2 points by annie (132) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

walmart idea confuses me. I am not mad at poor people for shopping at walmart. that's just weird. I don't want to take away anyones choice. My problem with walmart is that Walmart takes away everyones choice. Where as I used to be able to shop at my local hardware store, my local petsore, my local etc etc...walmart undercut all these places until they went out of business...then raised their prices again so we have no choice but to shop there. that isn't competition in a free market.