Platform | Libertarian Party What does Forgehub think about the LP? Personally, i think it is honestly the only party I have ever agreed with so much on. Everything I've read from them is almost spot on to how I feel. What about you guys?
I consider myself Libertarian as well. Whenever someones asks me if I'm a Democrat or Republican, I have to explain that I'm Libertarian, and what Libertarians are all about. Gets annoying sometimes, i wish they were more well-known. >_>
After reading The Fountainhead and Anthem by Ayn Rand, I became a Libertarian. It's a pretty sound political system for those who don't care what other people do, it's their life. Who am I to restrict them? But in reality, it's hard to find a legitimate candidate to get into a high office. I agree with Democrats on social issues, not on economics. I agree with Republicans on economic issues, but not social issues. A slippery slope, indeed.
I'll be the one to speak up against the Libertarians. I know its a much more complicated issue that this, but the simplest way I can put it is... deregulation of industry is just a horrible idea. I don't want the government involved in social affairs... at all... no more than any of you do. But it's pretty clear to me that unregulated capitalism is destroying lots of good things in the world. I know the argument, I've heard it plenty of times. That it's actually too much regulation that allows companies to carry out atrocities (yes, there are plenty of examples that I could site that warrant the word 'atrocity'). I don't buy that. History doesn't hold up to that. It's not even logical. And I'm sick and tired of large corporations using small business as a human shield. The problem is not too much regulation, it's bad regulation. It needs to be done, but smartly, and honestly. And the money needs to be separated from the election process in order for this to happen. I think that all campaign donations are fundamentally anti-democratic. That is the problem with the government. It needs to be fixed, not eliminated. A democracy should essentially be an advocate, or a lawyer if you will, for the people in the face of capital power. They don't have to interfere with social issues to do that. I'm not saying I support the Democrats 100% (I CERTAINLY don't support the Republicans), but this "third way" is not a viable alternative. Hell, I'm actually a bit of a wanna-be Anarchist (contradiction much? I know.) But I don't even think the Libertarians embody the virtues of Anarchy.
libertarians are just anarchists without balls. btw im a republican. closer to the fascist end of the spectrum.
I don't know much about the American political parties and I don't feel much like reading through large articles on the internet to find out; so anyone care to explain to me briefly what the libertarian party is all about?
actually Wood Wonk summed it up pretty well, lol. Rich Anarchists who still want cops around.\ oh yeah, fun fact: Ron Paul is my congressman.
I don't really do the whole internet debate thing anymore or really even talk about what I believe all that much anymore for a variety of reasons. After taking a long hard look at my life, it doesn't seem worth it. So, just so you know. I'm not debating and I probably won't respond. Regulation is a vague term. You can regulate the market, you can regulate the housing industry, you can regulate pharmaceuticals or you can regulate a menstrual cycle. Saying regulation of industry brings us a step closer but that still encompasses everything in the market. With the housing market I can use the example that as far back as the 1920's when regulation of the housing industry was tried by both parties for varying reasons the ultimate result was more foreclosures than were necessary. Throughout the 30's, 40's (espec. 40's), 50's, 60's, etc. the result has always been the same. I can use the example of government price controls on luxury apartments in New York which have led to a higher number of dormant apartments than the total amount of homeless. Of course, the property owners ultimately lose more money by keeping them out rather than inviting them in. Imagine owning a luxury apartment building and having zero dollars a month to show for it. Personally, I'd charge a $1 a month for every homeless person that wanted in, which is of course greater than $0. Unfortunately the result would be me being arrested and the land being seized and my tenants forced onto the streets. Regulation of the pharmaceuticals industry has led to higher prescription drug costs resulting in old people not being able to afford their medications. The result of that result is a government offered "Medicaid" or Tenn-care (as it is in Tennessee) which subsidizes the price of the good so the elderly can afford it. The further unintended result is that drugs not covered by Medicaid become more expensive and force the elderly to purchase "Supplemental" health insurance (which ends up costing more than just regular insurance). The total cost the the taxpayers is in the billions. The total cost of the inefficiency of the market is somewhere substantially higher. The result of all this increased cost? A reelected senator for his bravery in taking the fight to "Big-pharma". Regulation of the financial industry would take a substantial amount of time to fully flesh out and explain in detail. The consequences are substantial. India and China are excellent examples of obscene regulation on the financial industry. After the 1980's (I think?) when the regulations were removed the amount of people in India coming out of poverty per day was estimated to be in the thousands, the amount in China is estimated at 5 million per day. Five million people per day came out of poverty as a result of deregulation. China currently has the fastest growing market and less financial regulation than the United States. Though, not all regulation is created equal. But those are my thoughts on the subject of regulation.
For the record, I always though you were an excellent debate opponent, genuinely better than me, who made me want to do better. As you can see, I haven't refined my spiel much since we last talked about this, lol.
Don't mention it. I guess I'll speak my peace and leave it alone as well. I'm not a keen enough student of the subject to really argue the specifics. You can give thousands of examples of where regulation has gone badly, no doubt about that. My point is simply that it is at least called for sometimes. As you said, "regulation" could mean lots of things. My understanding of the Libertarian party is that they would do away with all of it, by any definition. Hence the "free market". That's where I object. I just can't easily dismiss the apparent correlation between unfettered capitalism and imperialism. Too many sad stories I've been told, I guess.
Exactly. Political parties shouldn't exist in government, in my opinion. Also, that's a bad link for people who want to honestly learn about the Libertarian Party.
I think that people are just sick of multiple party systems, and I agree with the common sense that LP advocates, so yeah I'm a Libertarian, since they seem to be the only party that is not a complete pile of crap. I wonder if the LP will become dominant - but it's not likely. Public support only gets you so far.
Whatever party allows me to have guns and explosives without a license. A rocket launcher would be nice.
Nitrous (or anyone), if you see this, here's something to read. On Anarchism, Noam Chomsky interviewed by Tom Lane "Anarcho-capitalism" is mentioned in question 5, which is what I suppose Libertarianism as discussed here to mean. Do you have any take on this topic as filtered through the terminology used here?