The Birth of the 3rd Party

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
John S. wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Thunderbolt is right. Libertarianism – the philosophy – is too hard for the average person to understand. It rests on principle alone which most people do not see fitting with the pragmatism that politics is forced to take on.

This is why the libertarian movement needs to focus first on getting its ideas into the public in a way that the average person can accept. I am not sure how that will happen except for people like Ron Paul, et al – but then again he has been at it for 40 years.

Maybe in an other 40 years there will be enough people who are libertarian for it to make a difference.

Wait till people start experiencing the inflation that the republicans and democrats have created. The Libertarian side is the only side who has been calling it since the beginning and once it hits expect a lot more people to be joining the conservative-Libertarian movement. It wont be in 40 years, expect a very strong conservative to come along and be in charge in 2012.

John S I’d like to believe the republicans can come back. My only concern is that when they start to drag too much religion into the issue. But from what candidates have been thrown out I don’t forsee somebody strong enough to take on Obama (without a total collapse within the Prez’s supporters)

[/quote]

While he still is around 48% approval, that is going to drop once inflation officially sets in.

Inflation will wipe out the elderly(a big democrat voting block). The poor will be the next to fall.(a big democrat voting block). By the time it sets in the blame bush strategy will not work.

After the health care bill fallout whichever way it goes there will be a split. Progressives and Blue Dogs have had an uneasy friendship for too long. What you see in the GOP right now is what is waiting for the Democrats.

42

[quote]John S. wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:
Also, will we get rid of a standing Army? No mention of that one in the Constitution. In fact when Washington requested a two year draft in 1776, the Continental Congress said Nope. You can have money for recruitment instead. We almost got our “collective” asses kicked in 1812 because we disbanded the Army and Navy after the Revolution. Think of all the money we’ll save without a defense budget. Come on Ron Paul. The politically retarded unite behind their leader.

Article 1 section 8. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy.

Perhaps you should read the constitution before you talk about it?

[/quote]

My Constitutional Kung-Fu is much better than yours, light-weight. My point was, and your statement supports it, is that we cannot put the genie back in the bottle on a standing army, yet there is no Constitutional provision for such an army. Raising and supporting an army for two years in the age of potential nuclear warfare would not really hold mustard. The framers saw a standing army as a tool of government oppression and therefore disbanded said armies whenever not in use. The Revolution was fought with local militias which drove Washington crazy. A military as we now know it didn’t exist. Professional soldiers didn’t come about until the advent of the academies, West Point and Annapolis in 1817 and 1845 respectively.

You also haven’t answered the question of what we do with the 9,600 or so new US Reps we get under Ron Pauls Constitional sized government. The point Ron Paul and his followers often miss is that the Constitution is an asperational document designed by its authors to be maliable to the times. Thus the provision for Amendments.

I am also confused by many of the posts here that want to discount one apparatus of the “free market,” the component of political will. Draft for me an scenario in which, in a representative government, constituents (also known as consumers) don’t demand protection from unforseeable or difficult to forcast outcomes in the free market. You all blather on about a free society and then rale about the outcome a free society naturally produces. Do you really think that democratically elected officials will keep their jobs if they brazenly ignore the will of voters, even if that will is misguided. You respond, “yes, but leaders should lead.” Then I suggest you get off the web, begin your campaign of persuasion and win over the hearts of minds of a majority of voters needed to gain an elected office. Otherwise quit boring me with your observations that the “will of the people” is often wrong.

43

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Thunderbolt is right. Libertarianism – the philosophy – is too hard for the average person to understand. It rests on principle alone which most people do not see fitting with the pragmatism that politics is forced to take on.

This is why the libertarian movement needs to focus first on getting its ideas into the public in a way that the average person can accept. I am not sure how that will happen except for people like Ron Paul, et al – but then again he has been at it for 40 years.

Maybe in an other 40 years there will be enough people who are libertarian for it to make a difference.[/quote]

What we cannot do is vote for the lessor of two evil, like some would have us do. This has gotten us precisely where we are today. If you continue to vote for Republicans, you are providing positive feedback on their current actions. Moral hazard applies to politicians as much as it applies to failed companies and welfare recipients. Not that complex a concept.

There is a breaking here that we will have to cross for most to sit up and take notice. We will only get there slower, prolonging the pain, with the current crop of Republicans. The sooner the system collapses, the sooner and quicker the recovery.

44

[quote]John S. wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
John S. wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Thunderbolt is right. Libertarianism – the philosophy – is too hard for the average person to understand. It rests on principle alone which most people do not see fitting with the pragmatism that politics is forced to take on.

This is why the libertarian movement needs to focus first on getting its ideas into the public in a way that the average person can accept. I am not sure how that will happen except for people like Ron Paul, et al – but then again he has been at it for 40 years.

Maybe in an other 40 years there will be enough people who are libertarian for it to make a difference.

Wait till people start experiencing the inflation that the republicans and democrats have created. The Libertarian side is the only side who has been calling it since the beginning and once it hits expect a lot more people to be joining the conservative-Libertarian movement. It wont be in 40 years, expect a very strong conservative to come along and be in charge in 2012.

John S I’d like to believe the republicans can come back. My only concern is that when they start to drag too much religion into the issue. But from what candidates have been thrown out I don’t forsee somebody strong enough to take on Obama (without a total collapse within the Prez’s supporters)

While he still is around 48% approval, that is going to drop once inflation officially sets in.

Inflation will wipe out the elderly(a big democrat voting block). The poor will be the next to fall.(a big democrat voting block). By the time it sets in the blame bush strategy will not work.

After the health care bill fallout whichever way it goes there will be a split. Progressives and Blue Dogs have had an uneasy friendship for too long. What you see in the GOP right now is what is waiting for the Democrats.[/quote]

When you write “wipe out” or “fall” do you mean to say they will all physically die? What besides death do you suppose will cause the seniors or poor people to not vote their interests? “By the time it sets in” is also a curious statement. Do you think that perhaps “it” hasn’t “set in?” Perhaps there are people still sitting around thinking, “gosh things sure are great.” As the middle class shrinks, and it is shrinking, the political movement will be to the left not the right. The frenzied hysteria currently coming from the far right will amount to so much pissing in the wind.

Your day will come when the economy rebounds, as it will, and the pangs of poverty are forgotten by most. Then the pendulum will swing back to the right, as it always does, because government intervention and oversight will seem like more of a kill-joy than a necessary evil. It has always been thus, it will always be thus.

45

[quote]John S. wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
John S. wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Thunderbolt is right. Libertarianism – the philosophy – is too hard for the average person to understand. It rests on principle alone which most people do not see fitting with the pragmatism that politics is forced to take on.

This is why the libertarian movement needs to focus first on getting its ideas into the public in a way that the average person can accept. I am not sure how that will happen except for people like Ron Paul, et al – but then again he has been at it for 40 years.

Maybe in an other 40 years there will be enough people who are libertarian for it to make a difference.

Wait till people start experiencing the inflation that the republicans and democrats have created. The Libertarian side is the only side who has been calling it since the beginning and once it hits expect a lot more people to be joining the conservative-Libertarian movement. It wont be in 40 years, expect a very strong conservative to come along and be in charge in 2012.

John S I’d like to believe the republicans can come back. My only concern is that when they start to drag too much religion into the issue. But from what candidates have been thrown out I don’t forsee somebody strong enough to take on Obama (without a total collapse within the Prez’s supporters)

While he still is around 48% approval, that is going to drop once inflation officially sets in.

Inflation will wipe out the elderly(a big democrat voting block). The poor will be the next to fall.(a big democrat voting block). By the time it sets in the blame bush strategy will not work.

After the health care bill fallout whichever way it goes there will be a split. Progressives and Blue Dogs have had an uneasy friendship for too long. What you see in the GOP right now is what is waiting for the Democrats.[/quote]

I can easily see a good portion of the Dems splitting after the shit hits the fan. There are going to be people that realize that bigger government is not sustainable, and they will look for an alternative. The republican party will be in taters because they have already proven over and over that they can not be counted on to be fiscally responsible, so the disgruntled dems will find someone else. My money is on the Libertarian party, but who knows, it could be something else that springs up with similar values. The reason the Libertarian party can work for democrats is that they are socially liberal on a ton of issues. They want you to be able to do whatever you want as long as it doesn’t negatively impact others around you. I think deep down democrats will realise this is an ok tradeoff to the entire country going down the tubes and EVERYONE suffering. I mean there will be people who suffer, there always will be.

V

46

[quote]3IdSpetsnaz wrote:
Let’s hope not at this point. This will only serve to HAND an election to democrats, and that’s it.
Because the Republicans are the solution? Palin and Jindal are more capable of fixing our problems? Wow…[/quote]

So they are the face of the party? wow…shallow dude.

47

Limited government is an oxymoron. Even if the “Libertarian” party could get power it would only be a short time before they are compromising their principles for political expediency.

Thus is the nature of democracy.

48

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Limited government is an oxymoron. Even if the “Libertarian” party could get power it would only be a short time before they are compromising their principles for political expediency.

Thus is the nature of democracy.[/quote]

You’re right.
That’s the nature of all governments and nations. The masses will beg for government control and get tyranny and totalitarianism.
That’s how the world recycles nations.

49

Honestly ya. Last election the GOP ran McCain and Palin as viable candidates, I mean McCain I can see to some degree, SOME degree, but Palin? Has the GOP lost its mind? It was only 8 months and a peck ago that I read and heard very real talk about Jindal and Palin ticket for 2012. I mean this laughable dialogue and ludicrous decisions, I don’t really trust governance in the hands of a party that has sank so low.

In their past 5 terms of Executive governance they haven’t even followed the fiscal conservative model at all, so I don’t really understand what the fukk they even stand for at this point. Perhaps only misgovernance.

50

[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
John S. wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:
Also, will we get rid of a standing Army? No mention of that one in the Constitution. In fact when Washington requested a two year draft in 1776, the Continental Congress said Nope. You can have money for recruitment instead. We almost got our “collective” asses kicked in 1812 because we disbanded the Army and Navy after the Revolution. Think of all the money we’ll save without a defense budget. Come on Ron Paul. The politically retarded unite behind their leader.

Article 1 section 8. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy.

Perhaps you should read the constitution before you talk about it?

My Constitutional Kung-Fu is much better than yours, light-weight. My point was, and your statement supports it, is that we cannot put the genie back in the bottle on a standing army, yet there is no Constitutional provision for such an army. Raising and supporting an army for two years in the age of potential nuclear warfare would not really hold mustard. The framers saw a standing army as a tool of government oppression and therefore disbanded said armies whenever not in use. The Revolution was fought with local militias which drove Washington crazy. A military as we now know it didn’t exist. Professional soldiers didn’t come about until the advent of the academies, West Point and Annapolis in 1817 and 1845 respectively.

You also haven’t answered the question of what we do with the 9,600 or so new US Reps we get under Ron Pauls Constitional sized government. The point Ron Paul and his followers often miss is that the Constitution is an asperational document designed by its authors to be maliable to the times. Thus the provision for Amendments.

I am also confused by many of the posts here that want to discount one apparatus of the “free market,” the component of political will. Draft for me an scenario in which, in a representative government, constituents (also known as consumers) don’t demand protection from unforseeable or difficult to forcast outcomes in the free market. You all blather on about a free society and then rale about the outcome a free society naturally produces. Do you really think that democratically elected officials will keep their jobs if they brazenly ignore the will of voters, even if that will is misguided. You respond, “yes, but leaders should lead.” Then I suggest you get off the web, begin your campaign of persuasion and win over the hearts of minds of a majority of voters needed to gain an elected office. Otherwise quit boring me with your observations that the “will of the people” is often wrong.[/quote]

It is not my fault you fail to understand the constitution. The Law of the Land(The constitution) requires that we the people choose to fund the army every 2 years. It also requires a standing navy. You tried to say it didn’t and I slapped you silly with the constitution.

You are right, the constitution does have the ability to be amended, that is why if we do not want the 9600 representatives we should amend the constitution. Tho I personally would prefer more representatives.

The fact is the Constitution does not give the government the right to interfere with free market. I don’t care how much the people beg, the government has never fixed the problem. The fact of the matter is every time the government gets its claws into the free market that section inflates then dies. The fact that you can sit here and try and defend them just proves to me your inept understanding of what is going on.

You have a lot to learn before you can dismiss me, or the Constitution for that matter. You are way out of your league here, now respond with some more bullshit(Tho well written bullshit).

51

John S wrote: The fact is the Constitution does not give the government the right to interfere with free market.

Article I Section 8: Enumerated Powers of Congress

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes (wait, are the words regulate and Commerce in the same sentence…craziness.)

Here you go on some long, meaningless diatribe about how this only applies to interstate commerce for which I refer you to the body of cases following 1936 as decided by the Supreme Court, also a bunch of sophomoric Constitutional amateurs compared to the brilliant minds that meet here on T-Nation. Then you reply, wait the Court initially rejected all the New Deal proposals as an overextention of Congressional powers. To which I say yes, until Roosevelt threatened to “pack the Court” with additional left-leaning judges and then magically New Deal proposals became Constitutional. Then you say, yea, that’s bullshit, Roosevelt shouldn’t have monkeyed with the Court that way, blah, blah, separation of powers, blah. To which I reply, you’re right, it would have been better if the Federal Congress had proposed a Constitutional Amendment declaring laissez faire economics a dead-letter. That would have passed with flying colors in during the Depression. Then everyone here would have gone to better schools and I wouldn’t feel like I’m trying to teach a room full of chimps how to read.

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures (Holy shit, regulate the value of money…fix the standards of weights and measures…have I gone mad?)

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; (OMG promote the progress of science and useful arts…communists.)

And so you know, if it was your birthday and I was in a coma, I would still not be out of my league.

52

If Sarah Palin gets the nomination in '12 for President, it’ll be the best thing that could ever happen to the Libertarian Party.

53

[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
John S wrote: The fact is the Constitution does not give the government the right to interfere with free market.

Article I Section 8: Enumerated Powers of Congress

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes (wait, are the words regulate and Commerce in the same sentence…craziness.)

Here you go on some long, meaningless diatribe about how this only applies to interstate commerce for which I refer you to the body of cases following 1939 as decided by the Supreme Court, also a bunch of sophomoric Constitutional amateurs compared to the brilliant minds that meet here on T-Nation.

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures (Holy shit, regulate the value of money…fix the standards of weights and measures…have I gone mad?)

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; (OMG promote the progress of science and useful arts…communists.)

And so you know, if it was your birthday and I was in a coma, I would still not be out of my league.
[/quote]

To regulate means to keep open. So one state could not tariff another state. The supreme court has also upheld The fairness doctrine they sold out a long time ago.(This was to correct your attempt to dispute the tariff claim). Congress also is supposed to coin money, now what you will find interesting is that by weight and measure they are talking about gold and silver.(That’s right we don’t even follow the law with our money). The closet thing we have seen to this in the past 100 years is the dollar being 40% backed by gold.

The fact that you did not read the complete sentence in promote arts and science is fucking hilarious. The government allows patents and only patents. Go ahead and give it another go, I will be back later to enlighten you.

54

[quote]artw wrote:
If Sarah Palin gets the nomination in '12 for President, it’ll be the best thing that could ever happen to the Libertarian Party.[/quote]

Nah…it’ll just be handing a guaranteed victory to the dems.

55

[quote]John S. wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:
John S wrote: The fact is the Constitution does not give the government the right to interfere with free market.

Article I Section 8: Enumerated Powers of Congress

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes (wait, are the words regulate and Commerce in the same sentence…craziness.)

Here you go on some long, meaningless diatribe about how this only applies to interstate commerce for which I refer you to the body of cases following 1939 as decided by the Supreme Court, also a bunch of sophomoric Constitutional amateurs compared to the brilliant minds that meet here on T-Nation.

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures (Holy shit, regulate the value of money…fix the standards of weights and measures…have I gone mad?)

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; (OMG promote the progress of science and useful arts…communists.)

And so you know, if it was your birthday and I was in a coma, I would still not be out of my league.

To regulate means to keep open. So one state could not tariff another state. The supreme court has also upheld The fairness doctrine they sold out a long time ago.(This was to correct your attempt to dispute the tariff claim). Congress also is supposed to coin money, now what you will find interesting is that by weight and measure they are talking about gold and silver.(That’s right we don’t even follow the law with our money). The closet thing we have seen to this in the past 100 years is the dollar being 40% backed by gold.

The fact that you did not read the complete sentence in promote arts and science is fucking hilarious. The government allows patents and only patents. Go ahead and give it another go, I will be back later to enlighten you.
[/quote]

I edited my ealier post for your edification, but where does it say “patents and only patents” imbecile? You respond with some long tangent about enumerated powers and how that encapsulates all the federal congress’s powers, which even if I concede you that point, means nothing because of the 10th Amendment. (You take time to look up 10th Amendment, stumble over 9th, get lost, stumble back). Many of the laws that posters here find most objectionable, usury laws, laws proscribing the sale of this thing or that, are state laws. This point is important, STATES CAN DO WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY WANT TO, so long as they don’t breach preemption or fundamental rights territory. Legislators don’t like the taste of Colt 45, they can ban it and it won’t even get cert by the Supremes unless Congress or the Constitution guarantees the right to drink Colt 45 or malt liquor generally. Back to school ladies.

56

Historically third party presidential candidates do not do very well. Ralph Nadar ran several times. He was accused of handing the election to GW in 2000, which is debatable. John Anderson ran in 1980 getting only 7% of the vote against Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan.

As an independent candidate Ross Perot was actually leading in many of the major polls when he suddenly decided to drop out of the race accusing the press of playing “gothya politics”. When he regained his senses and reentered the race he had lost the momentum, the public doesn’t like quitters. But he still managed to get 19% of the vote on election day, no small feat. This, many believe handed the victory to Bill Clinton, that too is debatable.

Keep in mind Ross Perot is a billionaire and spent almost 1 billion dollars (you may adjust for inflation) trying to capture the white house. He set up what was known as the “reform party”. Opening offices and hiring people all over the country. Many compared him to Harry Truman in style, he was a charismatic little guy to be sure, but still came up short.

Those who are thinking that there will be a third party candidate any time soon are either young and foolish or simply don’t have both feet planted firmly on the ground. It won’t happen and I assure you that both major parties will do everything in their power (considerable power) to prevent it from happening.

57

[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
John S. wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:
John S wrote: The fact is the Constitution does not give the government the right to interfere with free market.

Article I Section 8: Enumerated Powers of Congress

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes (wait, are the words regulate and Commerce in the same sentence…craziness.)

Here you go on some long, meaningless diatribe about how this only applies to interstate commerce for which I refer you to the body of cases following 1939 as decided by the Supreme Court, also a bunch of sophomoric Constitutional amateurs compared to the brilliant minds that meet here on T-Nation.

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures (Holy shit, regulate the value of money…fix the standards of weights and measures…have I gone mad?)

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; (OMG promote the progress of science and useful arts…communists.)

And so you know, if it was your birthday and I was in a coma, I would still not be out of my league.

To regulate means to keep open. So one state could not tariff another state. The supreme court has also upheld The fairness doctrine they sold out a long time ago.(This was to correct your attempt to dispute the tariff claim). Congress also is supposed to coin money, now what you will find interesting is that by weight and measure they are talking about gold and silver.(That’s right we don’t even follow the law with our money). The closet thing we have seen to this in the past 100 years is the dollar being 40% backed by gold.

The fact that you did not read the complete sentence in promote arts and science is fucking hilarious. The government allows patents and only patents. Go ahead and give it another go, I will be back later to enlighten you.

I edited my ealier post for your edification, but where does it say “patents and only patents” imbecile? You respond with some long tangent about enumerated powers and how that encapsulates all the federal congress’s powers, which even if I concede you that point, means nothing because of the 10th Amendment. (You take time to look up 10th Amendment, stumble over 9th, get lost, stumble back). Many of the laws that posters here find most objectionable, usury laws, laws proscribing the sale of this thing or that, are state laws. This point is important, STATES CAN DO WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY WANT TO, so long as they don’t breach preemption or fundamental rights territory. Legislators don’t like the taste of Colt 45, they can ban it and it won’t even get cert by the Supremes unless Congress or the Constitution guarantees the right to drink Colt 45 or malt liquor generally. Back to school ladies.[/quote]

The states can do what ever the want as long as it does not interfere with the rights granted by the Constitution. Not sure where I have ever said anything different. One thing the states can not do is place a tariff on another state, that is where we get the regulation clause. Your stance keeps jumping around. I prove you wrong so you jump to something completely unrelated, and it is beginning to bore me.

You are now trying to challenge me by saying states have most of the rights, which has been my stance since the beginning. So you wrote out a big pile of shit basically agreeing with me in order to make me argue against you? Do you really think I am going to be tricked by that.

Oh and since you fail at reading here is the part I was talking about. by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;(we call those patents).

NEXT

58

[quote]John S. wrote:
The states can do what ever the want as long as it does not interfere with the rights granted by the Constitution.[/quote]

Technically, the constitution does not grant rights. It states specifically what rights government is not to infringe and lays the foundation for its “functioning”.

The framers believed natural rights are inalienable which means they are not given to us but instead they are ours inherently and cannot be taken away.

They believed man and government could only coexist with each other when the power of government is limited.

The Constitution sets those limits by imposing a set of requirements on the leaders at the federal level.

59

[quote]pushharder wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
… My only concern is that when they start to drag too much religion into the issue…

Gee thanks Push I never knew you cared…

Like Bill said, Repubs only resisted using TAXPAYER dollars to fund stem cell research.

Also the abortion debate encompasses so much more than religion. It is a legitimate debate whether one is religious or not.[/quote]

Exactly. It’s just that one side also happens to believe in talking snakes and Noah’s ark. No correlation. None.

60

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
John S. wrote:
The states can do what ever the want as long as it does not interfere with the rights granted by the Constitution.

Technically, the constitution does not grant rights. It states specifically what rights government is not to infringe and lays the foundation for its “functioning”.

[/quote]

You are right, our rights are God given. (or natural for the P/C crowd).