Libertarian Question

[Crumbled_pavement]

So I'm working my way through a question I had and it led me to the question I wan to pose to the forum. First off, I was pondering why it is that most people, Democrat or Republican, always complain about the lousy choices for president they have. Many on both sides of the aisle are disappointed with the choice of either Obama or Romney.

So I was wondering, why so little support for 3rd party candidates? As I'm thinking this I ponder my opinions of the only 3rd party candidate for president, Gary Johnson. While some things about his platform I agree with, and some that I don't, I don't think he can be an effective president. I said the exact same thing about Ron Paul.

The problem with Johnson and Paul is that they don't have a congress that supports their ideas. Both Obama and Romney have lots of people in congress that support them. That makes it easier for either of them to get their agenda across.There probably isn't even 10 independents in all of the Senate and House combined [[approx. 535 members).

So with all that blah, blah, blah, I finally come to the question I want to pose to the forum...

Libertarians candidates are notoriously for limited government, and the little government they do believe in is at the state level. So why don't Libertarians focus on taken over state legislatures and then state governorships? Even at the federal level, why don't Libertarians focus on electing more members of congress instead of just going for the presidency? If Libertarians could get more people elected at the levels I suggested they would find it easier to elect a president. What good is it to be elected president with a congress that is almost completely opposed to you?


Why not focus on the state legislatures, state governorships, and fed congress first?

[firstandten]

I think they are. There are over 150 libertarians voted into statewide office nationwide however most were in non-partisan races. It may just be an inability to field enough candidates for all of the state/local elected offices.

[gazhekwe]

A lot of us remember perfectly good third party candidates who got a lot of support and a lot of votes. All they did was take votes from one of the major parties, throwing the election to [[usually) the other guy. I think the independent swing voters are the ones the major candidates depend on. Losing those to the third party candidate cost them the election.

[oladub]

Paul and Johnson are both constitutional libertarians meaning that their libertarianism is tempered by a set of rules. Pure libertarianism, by contrast, would be anarchy. Johnson was a Governor who did control his budget.

There are obstacles set up against third parties. When Perot managed to get up on the stage of a presidential debate he embarrassed the other two candidates with topics they did not want to bring up. After that, Democrats and Republicans set up the Presidential Debate Commission made up of Democrats and Republicans to make sure the League of Women Voters would never pull that stunt again. TV stations refused to market Perot ads even though the Federal Communication commission is charged with fairness. The networks are owned by big money interests who want to 'lobby' government so it wasn't in their interests to let in someone not dedicated to promoting the status quo. Perot wasn't even a libertarian. Also, the Republican and Democratic parties have the cheapest bulk mailing rate and it is not available for third parties.

More importantly, Americans seem to prefer security to liberty, given the choice, as Germans did in the early thirties. Even though, Ron Paul received 2.5 times as much support as four years ago and now controls some states heading to the convention, his percentage of the Republican party is still small. The 'liberty' [[as in libertarian) faction will continue to grow, I'm guessing, but it will probably take a Jim DeMint or a compromising Rand Paul to get any of the liberty movement message to center stage in 2016 to dominate the neocons. With about half of Americans now dependent on government programs, a new status quo, and with many other Americans getting rich off of that arrangement, it will be difficult to expand the liberty movement. It will most likely not be by a third party given the silent treatment given third parties.

As to presidential power: As commander in chief, a president can just order the troops to come home and end the wars. A president also can veto anything requiring a 2/3 majority of both houses to override him. Imagine trying to pass a federal budget with a President Paul. It is a prospect too scary for even neocon and corporate owned Republicans.

Ron Paul on our future - 2002

[firstandten]

But Oladub, your post begs the question of why not run more libertarians at the state and local level where I believe real policy change can happen. It could expose people to libertarian public policy and the people can decide if it is something they like. If enough people like it then it makes libertarian candidates at the Federal level a more viable option.

[Occurrence]

The answer to the question is that the majority of the population, or the common person, is too stupid to care about other parties. They are content with the 2-party system.

My dad who is a straight up Democrat gets riled up when I say I can't stand either parties and point out they are both basically the same thing. You can't logically argue or debate with people who actually believe one is better than the other without question.

I don't care what letter is next to their name. I try to make it a point to vote for the candidate who seems like less of a fake asshole than the other.

[oladub]

firstandten, It's happening. In Minnesota, over 50 Ron Paul supporter candidates are running mostly at the local level mostly as Republicans. Middleton, WI, a suburb of Madison, for years had a Libertarian Party city manager. He cut costs by privatizing trash collection and other innovations. Middleton still managed to make some lists of "best cities in America" to live in. Services were still there but at a lower cost. The trick is making the jump from local politician to national politician because a constitutional libertarian is free to spend on things locally which are not permitted at the federal level. Of course, there are other spending items federally which aren't permitted by states. Another problem that I touched on before is that federal elections are based more on corporate money and why would corporations promote liberty? They would rather support politicians who make you buy their product or force the competition out of business.

[firstandten]

firstandten, It's happening. In Minnesota, over 50 Ron Paul supporter candidates are running mostly at the local level mostly as Republicans.

There lies the problem they are running as Repubs so they will be identified as Repubs and not the constitutional libertarians that they are or want to be. Now I understand why they would do it, but to me it doesn't advance the platform of the party if they can't be ID right off the bat as Libertarians

[oladub]

firstandten, Ron Paul has run as a Libertarian and as a Republican. He gets a lot more votes as a Republican. The idea is to take over the Republican Party from the neocons and country club crowd just as the neocons and religious right hijacked it from moderate Republicans. What is unfortunate is that libertarians cannot get any foothold in the Democratic Party even though Democrats are more libertarian about some very specific social liberty issues such as abortion, marriage rules, and drugs than most Republicans. Ron Paul has said that for liberty to fly, it needs to have both a wing of social liberty to accompany a wing of economic liberty.

[firstandten]

firstandten, Ron Paul has run as a Libertarian and as a Republican. He gets a lot more votes as a Republican. The idea is to take over the Republican Party from the neocons and country club crowd just as the neocons and religious right hijacked it from moderate Republicans. What is unfortunate is that libertarians cannot get any foothold in the Democratic Party even though Democrats are more libertarian about some very specific social liberty issues such as abortion, marriage rules, and drugs than most Republicans. Ron Paul has said that for liberty to fly, it needs to have both a wing of social liberty to accompany a wing of economic liberty.

I understand what you are saying, but I just think that there wing of social liberty would be a deal-breaker for the Repubs, and the wing of economic liberty would be a deal-breaker for the Dems

Sometimes I think the best course of action is to let people know this is who we are and this is what we believe, and then go on to say that for those of you who are tired of politics as usual we represent an alternative. Then sit back and wait on the scrutiny thats sure to come from the mainstream media.

[rb336]

I understand what you are saying, but I just think that there wing of social liberty would be a deal-breaker for the Repubs, and the wing of economic liberty would be a deal-breaker for the Dems

actually, the wing of true economic liberty would be a deal breaker for the republicans as well. true economic liberty means that everyone legitimately has the same access to economic success, which is what any real liberal would want. however, as framed by Paul and the Libertarian Party, "economic freedom" would result in economic serfdom for the vast majority of people

[oladub]

rb, The middle class and working class in our Country are being systematically destroyed and made wards of the State, right now under Obama, and you are worried about liberty? Liberals don't even want personal economic success. Failed collectivist programs with Orwellian newspeak names are more their style. The Road to Serfdom was written by libertarian economics Nobel Prize winner Hayek and might be therapeutic when suffering from libertyphobia.

[rb336]

Hayek's book is a) reductionist, b) proven wrong in a number of its predictions and c) totally beside the point in this conversation, as it totally ignores the point that I and every other liberal on here are making. this is not about a "planned economy" at all [[although Hayek's book is NOT a broadside against all levels of economic planning, nor is it a blanket endorsement of laissez faire capitalism). There is absolutely nothing in modern liberalism that even closely resembles a call for a centrally planned economy. Meanwhile, if the libertarians had there way, there WOULD be a centrally planned economy. It would simply be run by corporate giants rather than governments. That is their big blindspot. The end result of doing away with corporate regulation would inevitably result in greater and greater concentration of economic power into fewer and fewer hands -- with absolutely no check on their power and no accountability. In other words, the Corporate Feudal World Government. If you don't believe that, tell me what mechanism would stop that from happening, and please be specific. None of the non-existent "invisible noodle of the marketplace" BS [[yes, that is a reference to the Flying Spaghetti Monster).

Tell me, how much economic freedom does a kid in an Appalachian coal town have? Can't afford to go to college, or even a decent primary school. probably has intellectual abilities inhibited due to heavy metal contamination of his entire environment [[which, of course, would get much worse when the libertarians dump the environmental and safety regulations that are "hampering" the mining interests)

[oladub]

Hayek was so wrong that he won a Nobel prize? I realize that our President also won a Nobel Prize for his peace efforts but Hayek was a Jew who had to leave his home because of the national socialist corporatist government which had assumed power in his home country. Hayek, not Obama, was an enemy of corporatism.

rb goes on, "There is absolutely nothing in modern liberalism that even closely resembles a call for a centrally planned economy." What about the 2,700 page health care plan for starters or the "economic recovery plan"? We already have a corporatist economy. The Obamacare health care plan being a case in point with "greater and greater concentration of economic power into fewer and fewer hands -- with absolutely no check on their power and no accountability. In other words, the Corporate Feudal World Government." The middle class and US workers are in the process of being destroyed. While you scare monger about what might happen, it is already going on around us with with Obama leading the charge "forward". Your concerns about liberty serve as a smokescreen to divert attention from what is happening NOW.

"Tell me, how much economic freedom does a kid in an Appalachian coal town have"; or Detroit for that matter? Detroit always votes Democratic. Should be no problem there. Maybe if some liberty was allowed in the system, people could run their own schools more efficiently. How about taking the $71B taxpayers, present and future, give the US DOE and give it back to local communities so the parents could spend it on their own kids instead of on bureaucrats planning from Washington?

You also error in fitting all libertarians into your mold. The reality is that libertarians include anarchist who definitely would not promote corporate interests and constitutional libertarians who promote individual rather than corporate freedoms. Do you really think corporations would rather have Ron Paul elected rather than Obama or Romney? Lobbyists don't even show up in Paul's office because he isn't for sale and wants to end all corporate subsidies, end the Fed, end NATO type agreements, end the oil wars, and punish guilty bankers.

[firstandten]

rb goes on, "There is absolutely nothing in modern liberalism that even closely resembles a call for a centrally planned economy." What about the 2,700 page health care plan for starters or the "economic recovery plan"? We already have a corporatist economy. The Obamacare health care plan being a case in point with "greater and greater concentration of economic power into fewer and fewer hands -- with absolutely no check on their power and no accountability.

Thats a stretch to even imply that the ACA comes anywhere close to a centrally planned economy. The essence of the ACA is that its a market based system with some rules to make sure the insurance companies are not abusing the public as was previously, and the bone that was thrown to insurance companies was the IM.

We have a mixed economy, market based with substantial regulation. All of Obama's economy policies have been consistant with that fact.

[rb336]

That's the thing with ideologues - they twist the definitions of thing so far out of whack just to support their position.

now on to ola's usual rant:

1) he shared the Nobel Prize with an ardent socialist. When I'm saying he's wrong, it's SPECIFICALLY about items in the book you cited. He was also against a return to the gold standard. You obviously believe he is wrong on that.
2) what firstandten said
3) Corporations don't support RP because his ideology is inherently chaotic. Even they realize that a structure of regulation is necessary for any economic system to work, especially in the current global economy
4) I am not scare mongering, just pointing out that the end result of your ideology will be exactly the opposite of what you profess that you want
5) then you go and post a link to a guy who hides behind the name of a character in fight club, who is, most likely, Daniel Ivandjiitski, who was busted for insider trading, which uses some of the most heavily debunked right-wing talking points.
6) I am well aware of what is happening now, it is the result of 30 years of trickle down and the decimation of unions. the economic stimulus was a watered-down joke, with republicans and blue dogs blocking the effective parts and replacing them with pitiful tax rebates. meanwhile, aid to states and municipalities for first responders, teachers, and other necessary functions was slashed, resulting in the loss of numerous jobs, further depressing the job market
7) the whole idea of "Maybe if some liberty was allowed in the system, people could run their own schools more efficiently" sounds nice on the surface, but see above. Every country that outdoes the US does so with more strict controls and requirements on their education systems than we have. The worst performing states? well, they are the ones that allow local school districts to re-write history books, teach creationism as science, etc. - in other words, the schools with the greatest local control

[oladub]

1) rb, I support the gold standard as required by the Constitution but I did not mention the gold standard. You did. I mentioned Hayek’s book dealing with centralized planning.
2 & 3) Obama’s societally unaffordable health care plan, the “economic recovery plan, your support for whatever the less than transparent Fed is up to are all examples of central planning. True to corporatist form, they involves a collusion of corporate interests and federal government planners. Corporation love it. What corporations would hate is someone like Ron Paul who wants to end all corporate welfare, end NAFTA type agreements, stop subsidizing illegal immigration, stop fighting oil proxy wars, stop providing guaranteed customers, and run a government not committed to eliminating corporate competition. Corporations have all that now with their Bush and Obama puppets. Your concern for ‘order’ to facilitate an economic system that would facilitate corporations in the ‘global economy ‘ is touching. You have not lost your touch as a champion of corporatism.
4) Your opinion.
5) Fight Club,Daniel Ivandjiitski [[?), You lost me with these red herrings.
6) Unions have already largely died because US union jobs have been exported or given to illegal aliens. This is past tense and has been going on for thirty years under both Republicans and Democrats through Obama. Your scare mongering about what horrible things might happen, in your opinion, if libertarians expanded our liberty distracts from what is happening under the current regime. There is no need for US workers under present federal policies and waving a wand claiming otherwise is as productive as pushing string.
7. Your statement, “Every country that outdoes the US does so with more strict controls and requirements on their education systems than we have” is probably not true. Belgium and Canada, at least, offer some vouchers to parents to allow parents more freedom to choose better schools. What is true is that US teachers are better paid than most of those better performing school systems. Borrowing your logic, we would have better schools if we paid teachers what they are paid elsewhere. I would be glad to just divert the $71B that we fund the bureaucrats in Washington with to local schools to buy more books or hire more teachers. Let people back home decide what to do with that money. Give parents the option of where to school their kids. That’s a whiff of liberty. Many of the better performing counties also have a smaller population than Michigan suggesting Michigan, and other states, do not need a federal agency planning for and regulating them.This thread isn’t about the gold standard which I do support, socialists, Fight Club, Daniel Ivandjiitski and whatever other red herrings you brought into the discussion.

Friedrich Hayek though is a prominent libertarian economist. Here is an abbreviated version of The Road to Serfdom so everyone can read it without the rb spin factor:

The Road To Serfdom

by F.A. Hayek

[rb336]

Guess what? There is NO SUCH THING as the constitution requiring the gold standard on the federal government. The restriction to gold and silver is on ONLY the states:

Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility;


For the federal government, no such restriction exists:

Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 5: [The Congress shall have Power] To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;


Paulites like to put these two distinct items into the same paragraph.

as far as teacher salaries are concerned, average starting wage in northern/western Europe ranges from $36K/year to a high of around $41K/year. In the US, it is from $24K - $39K a year. In Belgium, money follows the child and, like the Netherlands, the school systems are all federally funded and state or locality administered. The only real private schools are international schools that deal mostly with the ex-pat community. They have different schools for flemings, walloons and german speaking communities. The schools in Belgium are not allowed to implement whatever curricula they want. It all has to be approved.


"societally unaffordable health care plan"? how so? that is mere rhetoric with ZERO basis in fact.

as far as the items you mention being "centrally planned," they are. they are not, however, evidence for a centrally planned economy. They are evidence of the mixed economy we have enjoyed since the end of the robber baron era. Heck, the ACA is a perfect example -- it is capitalist, in that it is based on private sector companies, but it provides a broad framework in which those companies work

There are simply some things that are important to societal well-being, and the welfare of the nation, that government should do. Investing in research and development of new technologies is top of the list. NO company can afford to research new energy technologies that will be needed in the future without government assistance, especially when those technologies are infra-structure dependent. Take the internet, for example. Would any company have put together the internet and wait 20 years for the technology to reach the level where such a venture would be profitable? no, they wouldn't. They piggybacked on the federally developed military system [[and, yes, thank you Al Gore for the legislation that allowed them to do so.)

[oladub]

rb, "The Gold standard" ="No State shall...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.

There is no conflict with the other parts of the Constitution you jotted down. For instance, Roosevelt devalued the dollar by regulating the value thereof. Assuming Congress authorized that, it was Constitutional. We maintained this gold standard until Richard Nixon ended it. Until 1974, we could swap our paper dollars for silver at any bank upon demand. Without the gold standard, the mega-bank owned federal reserve can print and lend out money as it sees fit without congressional oversight and has done so.

Thank you for affirming that in Belgium the money follows the children allowing the parents some say. I don't know what your point or fetish is about control. Every school district in the US, public or private, has a curriculum. So do most homeschool moms. I'm always glad to see home schoolers doing so well. It's such a libertarian concept, almost all the homeschoolers I know have done well, and they show that Washington's meddling is not needed.

""unaffordable health care plan"? how so?" We presently have a health care system that is unaffordable to many Americans. Obamacare maintains the lawyers, expands the number of bureaucrats, expands the roles of insurance companies, and protects big pharmaceutical from real competition. The affordability issue is transferred from the poor to middle class taxpayers. Adding the bureaucrats doesn't make it societally more affordable. We will just pay higher insurance premiums and higher taxes.

If a plan is from Washington and blankets the entire Country, it is 'centalized" planning. You confuse capitalism with corporatism. Capitalism promotes ruthless competition. Corporatism is about the collusion of corporations with government as in Obamacare.

Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook come to mind as examples of companies that came to market essentially without government help but what has that got to do with libertarianism?

"Liberty" is a word used as freely in totalitarian states as elsewhere. Indeed, it could almost be said that wherever liberty as we know it has been destroyed, this has been done in the name of some new freedom promised to the people. Even among us we have planners who promise us a "collective freedom," which is as misleading as anything said by totalitarian politicians. "Collective freedom" is not the freedom of the members of society but the unlimited freedom of the planner to do with society that which he pleases.

-Road To Serfdom

[firstandten]

""

unaffordable health care plan"? how so?" We presently have a health care system that is unaffordable to many Americans. Obamacare maintains the lawyers, expands the number of bureaucrats, expands the roles of insurance companies, and protects big pharmaceutical from real competition. The affordability issue is transferred from the poor to middle class taxpayers. Adding the bureaucrats doesn't make it societally more affordable. We will just pay higher insurance premiums and higher taxes.

I'm not going to tell you ACA is the greatest thing since sliced bread because it isn't. But like I said it has made a broken system a little less broken. To fix the system the way it should be is not politically possible. The affordablity issue always has been and will continue to be on the backs of the middle class. I'm not convinced we will pay higher premiums as a result of the ACA, since the IM is considered a tax then yes, but then theres that issue of fairness I keep harping on that no-one has addressed and if you read my posts you know what it is.

If a p

lan is from Washington and blankets the entire Country, it is 'centalized" planning. You confuse capitalism with corporatism. Capitalism promotes ruthless competition. Corporatism is about the collusion of corporations with government as in Obamacare.

So Obama is a corporatist... Newsflash! so is every other president dating back to possibly FDR and if Romney should upset Obama so will he.

In other words if we use your definitions, central planning has been part of our gov't for a long time. Sometimes I think you say things like Corporatist and Central Planning for shock effect. A real centrally planned gov't is something like Cuba or N. Korea. What we have , we have had for a long time and things are unlikely to change.

A

pple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook come to mind as examples of companies that came to market essentially without government help but what has that got to do with libertarianism?

I can't speak for Rb but libertarianism doesn't operate in a vacuum. Google, Apple and others coming to market without gov't help is great but they were able to do so because of gov't R&D support on the technologies that they use.

True free market economics that Libertarians love to talk about is in reality a brutal lassez-faire capitalism that will run the middle class over like a freight train if allowed to be unleashed.


"

[oladub]

firstandten: I'm not going to tell you ACA is the greatest thing since sliced bread because it isn't. But like I said it has made a broken system a little less broken. To fix the system the way it should be is not politically possible. The affordablity issue always has been and will continue to be on the backs of the middle class. I'm not convinced we will pay higher premiums as a result of the ACA, since the IM is considered a tax then yes, but then theres that issue of fairness I keep harping on that no-one has addressed and if you read my posts you know what it is.

I, of course, contend that this is a power delegated to the States rather than the federal government. That aside, the extra costs associated with Obamacare is and will make health care even less societally unaffordable because there are more costs and more requirements. For instance, requiring policies to include kids on their parents policies until age 26 may or may not be cheaper for the family than buying a college offered health care policy but insurance companies have to spread their extra costs for that requirement to all other policy holders even if they are single or retired. Health insurance policies have gone up 14% in the two years since Obamacare was passed and are expected to increase another 7% this year. This is unaffordable to a lot of policy holders. Hiring thousands of extra IRS agents to enforce Obamacare also costs money and they heal no one. A 2.3% new tax on medical equipment...what kind of nonsense is that?

The tax, a penalty actually as Obama originally claimed*, is a pittance starting at $645 for an individual who is allowed to buy into an insurance policy if anything expensive comes up. Again, the cost is transferred to existing policy holders; hardly fair to anyone conscientious enough to keep their policies up.

So Obama is a corporatist... Newsflash! so is every other president dating back to possibly FDR and if Romney should upset Obama so will he.

In other words if we use your definitions, central planning has been part of our gov't for a long time. Sometimes I think you say things like Corporatist and Central Planning for shock effect. A real centrally planned gov't is something like Cuba or N. Korea. What we have , we have had for a long time and things are unlikely to change.

I totally agree that other presidents have had corporatist policies. Thanks for bringing up FDR who admired and modeled some of his economic policies on those of Mussolini.

Taking over and regulating 1/6 of the US economy could be said to be a piece of centralized planning.You must be looking for a higher percentage 1/3, 1/2, 2/3... whatever before it crosses your line as to what you would define as centralized economic planning. Given that the definition is arbitrary and relative, Cuba and North Korea are a lot more centralized.

I can't speak for Rb but libertarianism doesn't operate in a vacuum. Google, Apple and others coming to market without gov't help is great but they were able to do so because of gov't R&D support on the technologies that they use.

True free market economics that Libertarians love to talk about is in reality a brutal lassez-faire capitalism that will run the middle class over like a freight train if allowed to be unleashed.

Nothing operates in a vacuum. You could make the same argument about Google needing government roads to operate it's vehicles. rb's statement was, "NO company can afford to research new energy technologies that will be needed in the future without government assistance". That was ridiculous as proven by Apple which developed its products for the most part without government. Yes, roads, public schools, and an internet originally developed for military purposes were stepping stones but so was the invention of the wheel and making fires which probably had nothing to do with governments. I did notice that he referred specifically to energy technology and I am mentioning computer technology. I was on the losing end of an investment in KMS of Ann Arbor which was making rapid advances in fusion reactors until brought down by the federal government. The federal government is still poking along in its Livermore Lab trying to advance the technology it stole. Long story but we have the more recent misadventure with Solyndra.

if you look around you, you will notice that the middle class is being run over by a freight train. Present tense. Nothing to do with libertarians but a lot to do with corporatism. Keep repeating the same thing and getting the same results? Time for real change.

*regarding whether the IM is a tax or a penalty: The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those they have always held, but which were not properly understood or recognized before. And the most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning. Few traits of totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing to the superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual climate as this complete perversion of language. -The Road to Serfdom

[rb336]

""[COLOR=#333333]
In other words if we use your definitions, central planning has been part of our gov't for a long time. Sometimes I think you say things like Corporatist and Central Planning for shock effect. A real centrally planned gov't is something like Cuba or N. Korea. What we have , we have had for a long time and things are unlikely to change.

you hit the shock effect motivation right on the head. ditto for the real planned economies. the problem with Ola and his ilk is that their understanding of economics is simplistic at best, simple-minded at worst. anything that doesn't fit neatly into black or white is re-defined to fit on one side or the other. they lock on to minuscule phrases [[like Ola's thanking me for the comment about money following the student and ignoring the information that the government has much stricter rules regarding the curricula, even in the religious schools). It would be funny if they didn't take themselves so seriously. And arguing that the author of that book is right because he won a Nobel prize [[even though segments of the book have been proven wrong historically). Hawkings won a Nobel too. Guess who was wrong about Higgs?

I can't speak for Rb but libertarianism doesn't operate in a vacuum. Google, Apple and others coming to market without gov't help is great but they were able to do so because of gov't R&D support on the technologies that they use.

Ola evidently ignored the FACT that the entire infrastructure in which Google, Facebook, et. al. function was created by whom? Oh yeah!!! the GOVERNMENT.

He still hasn't provided a mechanism to prevent the corporations from totally controlling our lives under his/Paul's system, either. And he won't, because there is none. He's been asked to provide that mechanism at least a dozen times over the years, never has

[oladub]

rb336: you hit the shock effect motivation right on the head. ditto for the real planned economies. the problem with Ola and his ilk is that their understanding of economics is simplistic at best, simple-minded at worst. anything that doesn't fit neatly into black or white is re-defined to fit on one side or the other. they lock on to minuscule phrases [[like Ola's thanking me for the comment about money following the student and ignoring the information that the government has much stricter rules regarding the curricula, even in the religious schools). It would be funny if they didn't take themselves so seriously. And arguing that the author of that book is right because he won a Nobel prize [[even though segments of the book have been proven wrong historically). Hawkings won a Nobel too. Guess who was wrong about Higgs?

"ola and his ilk" [[?) Oh, oh, rb lost it again. A Paul Krugman video might be soothing.

1. ilk Pronoun Represents a group of items of the same type.
Has a connotation of the typed group being of bad or questionable character.

Ola evidently ignored the FACT that the entire infrastructure in which Google, Facebook, et. al. function was created by whom? Oh yeah!!! the GOVERNMENT.

No I didn't. For your convenience and the betterment of your reading comprehension, this is what I wrote,"Nothing operates in a vacuum. You could make the same argument about Google needing government roads to operate it's vehicles. rb's statement was, "NO company can afford to research new energy technologies that will be needed in the future without government assistance". That was ridiculous as proven by Apple which developed its products for the most part without government. Yes, roads, public schools, and an internet originally developed for military purposes were stepping stones but so was the invention of the wheel and making fires which probably had nothing to do with governments. I did notice that he referred specifically to energy technology and I am mentioning computer technology. I was on the losing end of an investment in KMS of Ann Arbor which was making rapid advances in fusion reactors until brought down by the federal government. The federal government is still poking along in its Livermore Lab trying to advance the technology it stole. Long story but we have the more recent misadventure with Solyndra."

See, I gave government and cavemen both their due. Cavemen probably innovated without government funding. I'm still p----d off though that I lost some money when the federal government retarded the efforts of KMS to produce low cost fusion energy.

He still hasn't provided a mechanism to prevent the corporations from totally controlling our lives under his/Paul's system, either. And he won't, because there is none. He's been asked to provide that mechanism at least a dozen times over the years, never has.

Corporations already control much of our lives. Already been through this numerous times. Paul wouldn't be waging oil wars, providing banker bailouts, providing corporate subsidies, etc.. That is how your guys do control our lives.

[firstandten]

Oladub, lets get back on track and address the threads question and maybe see what alternatives are out there.

As the resident Libertarian on this board can that party realistically hi-jack the Repubs from the Neo-cons and religious fundamentalist, or do you think that is even the proper strategy?
or

Is the Libertarian party destined to be just be a fringe third party like the Green party and some others ?

[rb336]

i'd love to see greens hi-jack the Democratic Party