What's wrong with the Libertarian Party ?

[Sean Tudor]

I have just checked out www.lp.org and don't see anything really strange there ? Is there a stigma attached to this party ?

Any party that proposes a reduction in taxes and military spending has to be a good thing.

Hey they even support gun ownership - that's bound to be popular with the American people.

There's more there but they do make some good points on immigration and foreign aid to name two.

[Met_K]

Sean, the big stigma about libertarians is best explained in this "joke":

A man in a new BMW z3 drives up to a car wash and parks his car in the very front of the line, making it impossible for those who were before him to enter and get their cars' washed. The man gets out of his car, walks up to the nearest attendant, and begins to speak in a rather matter-of-fact tone, "Look, son. I see you've got a line of about ten cars here, and have about ten cars in front being dried from their newest wash. Seeing as how you've made your profit for today, I believe you should allow me to get my car washed right now, for free."

The man drops the keys in the attendants' hands and then turns to walk away, completely ignoring all the livid customers and the shock on the lackey's face. "Oh, and please don't scratch the paint or dirty the interior. I'll be inside waiting when you're done."

[GMicek]

Sean, the big stigma about libertarians is best explained in this "joke":

A man in a new BMW z3 drives up to a car wash and parks his car in the very front of the line, making it impossible for those who were before him to enter and get their cars' washed. The man gets out of his car, walks up to the nearest attendant, and begins to speak in a rather matter-of-fact tone, "Look, son. I see you've got a line of about ten cars here, and have about ten cars in front being dried from their newest wash. Seeing as how you've made your profit for today, I believe you should allow me to get my car washed right now, for free."

Hahahaha, whoooo! That's great.

[Met_K]

Hahahaha, whoooo! That's great.

Note the quotes around joke. I never said it was funny. :P

[GMicek]

Hahahaha, whoooo! That's great.

Note the quotes around joke. I never said it was funny. :P

Well, i live with one so it hit particularly close to home, hehe.

[Sharpe]

Um, how in the hell is that "joke" connected to the Libertarians? The joke as posted had nearly no meaning (no offense). Is it incomplete? Or is there some incredibly subte and deeply penetrating implication about Libertarianism that I am missing?

Dan

[Met_K]

Um, how in the hell is that "joke" connected to the Libertarians? The joke as posted had nearly no meaning (no offense). Is it incomplete? Or is there some incredibly subte and deeply penetrating implication about Libertarianism that I am missing?

Do you know a libertarian? As in, actually know one?

Micek gets it. Most everyone who knows a lick about politics and libertarians gets it. You do have to know libertarians up close and personal to truly "get it," though.

Edit:

Well, i live with one so it hit particularly close to home, hehe.

Oops, my mistake. I thought you were simply mocking me... here I am, paranoid as usual. :)

[voltaic]

Well, i live with one so it hit particularly close to home, hehe.

Oops, my mistake. I thought you were simply mocking me... here I am, paranoid as usual. :)

I'm the guilty party here, and I don't get the joke. Could someone who is enlightened explain it to me? Greg? Special_K?

[voltaic]

I have just checked out www.lp.org and don't see anything really strange there ? Is there a stigma attached to this party ?

Any party that proposes a reduction in taxes and military spending has to be a good thing.

Hey they even support gun ownership - that's bound to be popular with the American people.

There's more there but they do make some good points on immigration and foreign aid to name two.

There are three major reasons, IMNSHO, why people do not vote libertarian in modern American politics.

1) They believe it is a wasted vote. Somehow people attach so much importance to one vote in a large election, say for a state congressman, that they would rather choose the lesser of two evils (dem or rep) instead of casting their vote on any third party (lib, green, const, etc). This is kind of a vicious cycle, but it's funny how so many people are concerned about "wasting a vote" and then bitch for the entire term of whomever won because they didn't really agree with either of the "big two" candidates.

2) They were raised dem or rep. This is how many people are about many things. You are raised in a religion, you never leave it. You were raised in a political paradigm, you _know_ it's the right one. This is an appeal to parental or other authority. It removes the burden of thinking for yourself. Personally, I'm all for someone who chooses to be a dem or rep based on thought and investigation, but someone who does it because they were in some sense "told to" or "raised to" makes me ill.

3) They have ulterior motives. Examples here are a poor ghetto single mom who is not interested in bettering her life or her kids and wants to stay on the welfare. You're not safe on welfare if a lib wins office because it has a good chance of going away. Or a corporate exec who works for/with a large company producing, for example, military stuff. You're going to vote for the guy who continues military spending because that's in you and your company's interest. Generally people with motives are one-issue voters... they'll find the one candidate who they agree with on their pet issue (gun control, the drug war, welfare, military spending, abortion, etc) and vote on that alone.

If the people from categories 1 and 2 above would come out of their hidey-holes for a little while and vote their conscience, I think a lib would win any election for any seat in the Union form the local to national level. In fact there are TONS of libertarians in offices up to the mayoral level all over the US. I guess we're starting small but making a difference.

[Met_K]

Basically, voltaic, the joke plays on how libertarians are the closest thing to democratic communists there are. I'm sure there's much more to it, but I don't feel like getting into it. Hopefully Greg will, though, or maybe someone else.

And voltaic, in response to your three points, I have to say that while they are very well written and thought out, that thought process is quite in line with number two. It would be nice to say in a perfect world that people vote for someone for one of x amount of reasons. But that's not true. Just like you don't vote libertarian for just one reason. Or just two reasons. Or just three. You vote libertarian for many, many reasons.

It's closed-minded of -anyone- to think that way. Not saying you are, but I'm just sort of detecting a hint of it. And I can whole-heartedly understand the fact that while there are so many reasons as to why people vote the way they do and that it is easier to only list a couple, you just can't do it. Saying that everyone who votes dem or rep without knowing all the facts is ignorant is just wrong. Wouldn't you say the same of people who vote libertarian just because it's not the two big ones?

I hate to say it, but it seems pretty arrogant to critisize the two big parties, then make the claims you're making about libertarians. Again, nothing against you, but that's just a trend I've seen amongst libertarians. Democrats, republicans, and liberals are sneaky, shady folks. Libertarians are just plain cocky. Their reasoning? The same reasoning amongst most independent people in a world of conformism: "We're different."

I'm not against any of the parties, per se. I'm against them all. The party system is flawed.

[chet]

Examples here are a poor ghetto single mom who is not interested in bettering her life or her kids and wants to stay on the welfare. You're not safe on welfare if a lib wins office because it has a good chance of going away.

Or a white farmer - the biggest receivers of welfare. The mom can now only be on welfare for so long - the farmer can be on it for the rest of his life.

Doesn't help their most well known candiates or elected officials are nut cases.

Chet

[Met_K]

Or a white farmer - the biggest receivers of welfare. The mom can now only be on welfare for so long - the farmer can be on it for the rest of his life.

Doesn't help their most well known candiates or elected officials are nut cases.

The American farming system would be completely fucked without government help. Completely, utterly, fucked.

[voltaic]

Examples here are a poor ghetto single mom who is not interested in bettering her life or her kids and wants to stay on the welfare. You're not safe on welfare if a lib wins office because it has a good chance of going away.

Or a white farmer - the biggest receivers of welfare. The mom can now only be on welfare for so long - the farmer can be on it for the rest of his life.

Although I was conscioiusly avoiding the race issue at all, you are correct. White farmers and white corporate businessmen receive more milk from the government tit than just about anyone. They do't get excluded when one of us "libs" gets into office. Heh.

However there is a loophole in the welfare limit. Have another kid! That's right, exercise your right to bang anyone you want and pop out another mouth. Welfare limit resets. There's a very good reason that so many welfare recipients have so many kids (and keep on having them over and over and over).

[chet]

Yeah, All the poor farmers would just starve if they didn't get their needed benefits

Poor, poor farmers.


Chet
ps. sorry for the linkbacks, but the articles no longer exist on their new sites.

[Met_K]

Yeah, All the poor farmers would just starve if they didn't get their needed benefits

Poor, poor farmers.

While I realize this might be a hard concert for you, but have you ever actually been to a farming town? Have you ever actually seen farmers before? Have you ever met anyone who will inherit a farm?

People do not make money farming. They either have it when they go and start farming, or farming is not their only source of income. For every rich farmer, there's 20, no, wait... 30, no... 60 farmers who aren't rich. Who aren't even middle of the road.

You've said it yourself, Chet. Don't believe all you read.

[voltaic]

Basically, voltaic, the joke plays on how libertarians are the closest thing to democratic communists there are. I'm sure there's much more to it, but I don't feel like getting into it. Hopefully Greg will, though, or maybe someone else.

I'd like that. I honestly don't get it, and your explanation hasn't helped. The gist of economic communism is everyone owning everything and working together (i.e. "communes" of altruistic people). The gist of economic libertarianism is a free market where you get to keep what you earn and you don't get to take from others who have earned.

And voltaic, in response to your three points, I have to say that while they are very well written and thought out, that thought process is quite in line with number two. It would be nice to say in a perfect world that people vote for someone for one of x amount of reasons. But that's not true. Just like you don't vote libertarian for just one reason. Or just two reasons. Or just three. You vote libertarian for many, many reasons.

It's closed-minded of -anyone- to think that way. Not saying you are, but I'm just sort of detecting a hint of it. And I can whole-heartedly understand the fact that while there are so many reasons as to why people vote the way they do and that it is easier to only list a couple, you just can't do it. Saying that everyone who votes dem or rep without knowing all the facts is ignorant is just wrong. Wouldn't you say the same of people who vote libertarian just because it's not the two big ones?

Absolutely. If someone is raised libertarian or is otherwise grown in that environment and votes for it just because that's all they have known, I'm against that. To answer a potential question, I was raised republican and am to this day tyring to convince my parents of the holiness of the lib and the evil satanism of the republicans, but it hasn't worked yet. :lol:

I hate to say it, but it seems pretty arrogant to critisize the two big parties, then make the claims you're making about libertarians. Again, nothing against you, but that's just a trend I've seen amongst libertarians. Democrats, republicans, and liberals are sneaky, shady folks. Libertarians are just plain cocky. Their reasoning? The same reasoning amongst most independent people in a world of conformism: "We're different."

I think that is a valid point. I also believe that all of the "third parties" are using that kind of an idea to get people to hear what they have to say, getting behind the extremely tired adage, "change is good". However it doesn't invalidate their positions. I'd argue that the fact that third parties have to resort to this kind of business to get people in the sideshow tent acts as a strong example that the two big parties are entrenched firmly for no good reason other than that's the way it has always been (by "always" we mean you know for like 70 years or so).

I'm not against any of the parties, per se. I'm against them all. The party system is flawed.

George Washington agrees with you. I'd say that at the foundation, die-hard libertarians agree with you too. The problem is that to gain any political stature in America you have to be a "party". I mean you can't gte on ballots, you can't hold rallies, you can't do shit unless you are a gubmint certified political party. So there is a matter of necessary evil in there also. Hopefully third parties will start making a bigger difference and the party system will collapse. Hell the country was founded on the notion that whoever came in second place would be vice-president, not some "running mate". Imagine that... King Bush in charge with Tipp... uh I mean Al Gore as vice-president. Ha! Good times...

[chet]

Metk, huh? So those stories are fabricated?

Or are you claiming they are just good news bites to spread disinformation?

Because the real problem with farm aid is hilighted pretty clearly by these two articles.

It is not need based. I have no problem helping needy farmers - but farm aid is not need based, so yes I have a problem with it.

Chet

[Met_K]

Metk, huh? So those stories are fabricated?

Or are you claiming they are just good news bites to spread disinformation?

Because the real problem with farm aid is hilighted pretty clearly by these two articles.

It is not need based. I have no problem helping needy farmers - but farm aid is not need based, so yes I have a problem with it.

Yes, Chet, and I agree. Blanket farm aid is -wrong-. But the solution is not to remove farm aid. Tweaking it is also a very delicate thing.

The only way farm aid will ever truly be scrutiny free is when the government takes over farms and contracts the farmers as workers. Otherwise, someone will always exploit it.

[Met_K]

George Washington agrees with you. I'd say that at the foundation, die-hard libertarians agree with you too. The problem is that to gain any political stature in America you have to be a "party". I mean you can't gte on ballots, you can't hold rallies, you can't do shit unless you are a gubmint certified political party. So there is a matter of necessary evil in there also. Hopefully third parties will start making a bigger difference and the party system will collapse. Hell the country was founded on the notion that whoever came in second place would be vice-president, not some "running mate". Imagine that... King Bush in charge with Tipp... uh I mean Al Gore as vice-president. Ha! Good times...

Seeing as how I agree with the rest of what you said, I'll simply choose to reply to this...

You get the libertarians to commit someone to dissolving parties and putting the second place runner-up in the VP seat and I will be voting libertarian. Otherwise, I vote the exact same as I did in 2000: Nothing.

I will not vote democrat, republican, and definitely not liberal. Liberal is the worst of them all. I may have gripes with libertarians seemingly being arrogant, but liberals take it too fucking far. They jump on the bandwagon of whichever of the big two is winning if they think they have no chance. Their morals are about as solid as my cock while looking at furry porn. Their integrity stands for as long as a cock-castle in the middle of a windtunnel. Liberals are the worst.

Like I said, you get a libertarian politician who is willing to do what it takes to fix the system, and I'll vote for 'em. Until then, I feel like my vote is wasted no matter where I go.

Edit: Oh, and also, I want to point out that alot of my anger with libertarians seems to come with most people who call themselves libertarians. It's kind of why I dislike alot of bands at first; Their fans annoy the hell out of me, so I just dismiss them. You guys really should hold some conference somewhere so you can tell people who don't know what they're doing or what the party is all about to fuck off and stop spreading the wrong word.

[Jason McCullough]

I have just checked out www.lp.org and don't see anything really strange there ? Is there a stigma attached to this party ?

Any party that proposes a reduction in taxes and military spending has to be a good thing.

Hey they even support gun ownership - that's bound to be popular with the American people.

There's more there but they do make some good points on immigration and foreign aid to name two.

There are three major reasons, IMNSHO, why people do not vote libertarian in modern American politics.

1) They believe it is a wasted vote. Somehow people attach so much importance to one vote in a large election, say for a state congressman, that they would rather choose the lesser of two evils (dem or rep) instead of casting their vote on any third party (lib, green, const, etc). This is kind of a vicious cycle, but it's funny how so many people are concerned about "wasting a vote" and then bitch for the entire term of whomever won because they didn't really agree with either of the "big two" candidates.

2) They were raised dem or rep. This is how many people are about many things. You are raised in a religion, you never leave it. You were raised in a political paradigm, you _know_ it's the right one. This is an appeal to parental or other authority. It removes the burden of thinking for yourself. Personally, I'm all for someone who chooses to be a dem or rep based on thought and investigation, but someone who does it because they were in some sense "told to" or "raised to" makes me ill.

3) They have ulterior motives. Examples here are a poor ghetto single mom who is not interested in bettering her life or her kids and wants to stay on the welfare. You're not safe on welfare if a lib wins office because it has a good chance of going away. Or a corporate exec who works for/with a large company producing, for example, military stuff. You're going to vote for the guy who continues military spending because that's in you and your company's interest. Generally people with motives are one-issue voters... they'll find the one candidate who they agree with on their pet issue (gun control, the drug war, welfare, military spending, abortion, etc) and vote on that alone.

If the people from categories 1 and 2 above would come out of their hidey-holes for a little while and vote their conscience, I think a lib would win any election for any seat in the Union form the local to national level. In fact there are TONS of libertarians in offices up to the mayoral level all over the US. I guess we're starting small but making a difference.

This site sums up why libertarianism is pretty much kooky.

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

It's pretty fair how you don't include "people think the free-market doesn't always produce preferable outcomes" and "people like a social contract with risk-pooling" in the list of reasons. ;0

People do not make money farming. They either have it when they go and start farming, or farming is not their only source of income. For every rich farmer, there's 20, no, wait... 30, no... 60 farmers who aren't rich. Who aren't even middle of the road.

The family farm no longer exists. The vast majority of food, and farm welfare, goes to corporate farms. Sure, they're out there, but they're like 10% of farmers.

[Sean Tudor]

Their morals are about as solid as my cock while looking at furry porn.

Now THAT is a classic line ! :twisted:

[asspennies]

I consider myself a libertarian. My views are economically very conservative, while socially they tend to be much more on the liberal side. However, I certainly feel that a "libertarian society" is as much hogwash as a "communist society" is - it's can't work, because of people.

Pure capitalism would require perfect information, and perfect egalitarianism. It's absurd to ever think such a society could form. Call it what you will, evolutionary forces or whatever, but people are going to look out for their own interests first and foremost.

So while my views are libertarian, I am not a registered member of the libertarian party, nor do I find myself voting for libertarians. Because most of them believe...and I don't.

[Brandon Clements]

Pure capitalism would require perfect information, and perfect egalitarianism.

I don't think that capitalism requires egalitarianism
:)

[voltaic]

Edit: Oh, and also, I want to point out that alot of my anger with libertarians seems to come with most people who call themselves libertarians. It's kind of why I dislike alot of bands at first; Their fans annoy the hell out of me, so I just dismiss them. You guys really should hold some conference somewhere so you can tell people who don't know what they're doing or what the party is all about to fuck off and stop spreading the wrong word.

http://www.lp.org/issues/ should just about sum it up.

[asspennies]

[quote="Brandon Clements"]

I don't think that capitalism requires egalitarianism
:)

I guess there's an argument to be made, but in most views, perfect capitalism means you don't discriminate or use any other bearer for making your decisions on purchasing or selling (from a micro-economic standpoint). The only influence to your decision would be opportunity cost.

That's egalitarianism if you ask me.

[voltaic]

This site sums up why libertarianism is pretty much kooky.

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

That's alot to read. I'm about 1/3rd through it so far and, frankly, I think the author ought to change the title to "ways to argue with libertarians on USENET". Perhaps there will be some critiques of the philosophies themselves before too much longer...

It's pretty fair how you don't include "people think the free-market doesn't always produce preferable outcomes" and "people like a social contract with risk-pooling" in the list of reasons. ;0

True, but I did say "three major reasons". I don't count things like intelligently considering micro- and macro-economic effects of the free market to be within the domain of most modern Americans. I'll go further and speculate that most Americans don't care anything about the economy as long as they have a job that pays the rent. I'm sure you'll agree with that.

[voltaic]

That's alot to read. I'm about 1/3rd through it so far and, frankly, I think the author ought to change the title to "ways to argue with libertarians on USENET". Perhaps there will be some critiques of the philosophies themselves before too much longer...

No such luck. Of the whole 100K document (all text, I may add) he spends exactly one short paragraph at the end talking about libertarian philosophy. I understand that the idea of this FAQ was more the show the problems with what many "online libertarians" may say in usenet groups, but that's hardly enough to, as you say, show how libs are kooks.

I elected to quote his whole paragraph here to show how little substance there is in the FAQ besides attacking bumper-stickers and slogans:

LIBERTARIAN PHILOSOPHY

Libertarianism does have a lot of philosophical literature which is much more sophisticated than the evangelistic and bumper sticker arguments critiqued above. However, much of it can be critiqued as fundamentally flawed. James K. Galbraith, criticizing many economists, might well have been criticizing libertarians when he wrote (in a letter in Slate, Nov. 5, 1996):

I don't accept that much of use can be learned about policy in this way [well-structured deduction from metaphysical first principles.] When the world deviates from the principles, as it usually does, the simple lessons go astray. This is not a complaint against math. It is a complaint against indiscriminate application of the deductive method, sometimes called the Ricardian vice, to problems of human action. Mine is an old gripe against much of what professional economists do; not against science but against scientism, against the pretense of science. To combat it, I spend my research time wrestling with real-world data, and I spend much of my writing time warring against the policy ideas of aggressive, ahistorical deductivists.

A thorough discussion of problems of libertarian philosophy would be well beyond the scope of this FAQ, though an overview might one day be developed. In the mean time, a few sources are available at the "Critiques of Libertarianism" site ( http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html ), and still better are a number of the excellent critical references listed below.

I dunno, I just don't see alot of substance in the first FAQ. Interestingly, in the "criticisms" section from the main page, he says: "Many libertarians agree with much of the Non-Libertarian FAQ, because its aim is mostly at bad arguments rather than libertarianism." OK so at least he recognizes this!

[Jason McCullough]

This site sums up why libertarianism is pretty much kooky.

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

That's alot to read. I'm about 1/3rd through it so far and, frankly, I think the author ought to change the title to "ways to argue with libertarians on USENET". Perhaps there will be some critiques of the philosophies themselves before too much longer...

It's pretty fair how you don't include "people think the free-market doesn't always produce preferable outcomes" and "people like a social contract with risk-pooling" in the list of reasons. ;0

True, but I did say "three major reasons". I don't count things like intelligently considering micro- and macro-economic effects of the free market to be within the domain of most modern Americans. I'll go further and speculate that most Americans don't care anything about the economy as long as they have a job that pays the rent. I'm sure you'll agree with that.

This is the other problem I have with libertarianism: assuming everyone's a moron.

Edit: well, that and arguing that the government spends your tax money chiefly like this, from their issues guide:

For example, politicians spend millions of dollars to urge people not to smoke -- while spending more millions to subsidize tobacco farmers. They send billions overseas for foreign aid -- while the federal deficit swells. They spend millions to subsidize public art -- while working families struggle to pay their taxes.

Back here in the real world, the government spends your tax money like this:

http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2001/guide02.html


69% of the budget is untouchably popular. The 19% discretionary spending, where porkish programs are hidden, is broken down among the listings in table 2-3; most of it goes to completely uncontroversial stuff.

A more coherent summary by Paul Krugman:

http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/figleaf.html

The Statistical Abstract makes it quite easy to get a realistic picture of where your tax dollar goes. For example, here is a list of 10 major federal programs. The number after the colon indicates each program's percentage of fiscal 1994 spending:

Social Security: 21.6
Defense: 18.9
Interest on the debt: 13.7
Medicare: 9.7
Medicaid: 5.8
Pensions for federal workers: 4.2
Veterans' benefits: 2.6
Transportation (mainly highways, air traffic, etc.): 2.6
Unemployment insurance: 2.0
Administration of justice (courts, law enforcement, etc.): 1.1

There are three important things to say about this list. The first is that it encompasses the bulk of government spending--82.2 percent, to be precise. Anyone who proposes a radical downsizing of the federal government must mean to slash this list. The second is that with one possible exception, these are programs that the public likes--they are not at all what people object to when they rail against Big Government.

Don't even get me started on the right's fetish for the gold standard, and the outright lies told about Social Security.

[chet]

More fun with Libertarians - they just aren't like regular people.

Libertarian U.S. Senate candidate Stan Jones has a distinct blue-gray skin color, the result of taking too much of an anti-bacterial form of pure silver.

Jones said he started taking colloidal silver in 1999, in preparation for what he feared might be Y2K disruptions that could lead to a shortage of antibiotics.

He made his own concoction by electrically charging a couple of silver wires in a glass of water.

[...]

He does not take the supplement any longer, but the skin condition - argyria - is permanent.

[Bub, Andrew]

Curse them for running a story like that with no photograph.