NationStates Jolt Archive

Who would you vote for?

Badnarik of the Libertarian Party
http://badnarik.org
http://www.lp.org

Badnarik answers questions from Slashdot readers
http://politics.slashdot.org/articl...&tid=11&tid=219

Libertarian and Green U.S. Presidential Candidates Arrested
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=364022

Arizona Libertarian Party Moves To Prevent Final U.S. Presidential Debate
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=364328

U.S. Mainstream Corporate Media Bias Against Libertarians And Other Third Parties
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=364531

Good god, someone voted Peroutka?! :eek:


;)

I picked Nader. I used to respect the guy till he said he was running again.

Good god, someone voted Peroutka?! :eek:


;)

I picked Nader. I used to respect the guy till he said he was running again.
I just saw 5 minutes of him on C-Span when I was flipping on the 3rd party debates and he seemed the most intelligent. I really don't care about 3rd parties, because they're a waste of time :p

I just saw 5 minutes of him on C-Span when I was flipping on the 3rd party debates and he seemed the most intelligent. I really don't care about 3rd parties, because they're a waste of time :p

I wish I had watched the third party debates, hopefully I can catch a rebroadcast.

But I can tell you one thing, the Constitution Party is the most far-right party out there. They are completely against ANY gun regulation. Yes, they even support allowing concealed weapons on airplanes. They would also ban pornography and gambling. Drugs too, maybe even alcohol if they could.

However, I do respect them at least that they hate Bush. :p

They are very anti-Iraq War, anti-Patriot Act, even anti-Gay Marriage Ban, for traditional conservative reasons, they hate the neocons in office right now.

-----------

I like the Libertarians too. I may disagree with them economically, but they got their heads in the right direction socially. Freedom... :)

I don't much know the difference between Nader and Cobb, seeing as how Nader was the Green candidate just 4 years ago.

I'd vote Pepe Dominguez - Independent :)

I would pick Nader over Cobb simply because of Nader's past experience. Then again, I havent checked Cobb's records so I may be wildly off.

I would vote communist.

commies aren't putting forth a candidate this year if I checked right.

commies aren't putting forth a candidate this year if I checked right.

Sure they are.

http://www.democrats.org
http://www.rnc.org

Their platforms call for:

[x] Socialism (for the poor, or for the rich, redistribution is redistribution; Republicans with special favors, subsidies, bail-outs for their corporate friends, and Democrats with special favors, subsidies, bail-outs for their corporate friends and some ineffective and wasteful social welfare thrown in on the side)

[x] Desire to spread governmental influence all over the world (both support use of pre-emptive force, war on terror, (EDIT: Kerry in particular with) greater control/influence in the U.N., etc)

[x] Totalitarian Government (both support the PATRIOT Act with increased and unconstitutional federal authority, blocking third parties from debates/media access, etc)

I voted Badnarik. The Libertarian economic platform is sort of scary, but I don't think they would be able to do any real harm in 4 years (of course, I'm sure some said the same thing of Bush in 2000, so who knows?).

The Libertarian economic platform is sort of scary, but I don't think they would be able to do any real harm in 4 years...

There is this common idea that Libertarians would create an economic system of unaccountable corporations run amuck, but it is not true; it is government power run amuck that allows corporate abuses to occur in the first place. Read what Badnarik has to say about free trade, multinational corporations, and the so called "free-trade" organizations like the WTO and NAFTA:

http://badnarik.org/plans_freetrade.php

"Although free trade is a blessing, managed bureaucratic trade is not. It is a dangerous misconception to think of the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and other international quasi-governmental structures as free trade organizations. They rely on thousands of pages of confusing regulations and corrupt agreements between multinational corporations and oppressive governments. ...The managed trade that we see today, where politically connected corporations and favored nations get special deals, is anything but free ...endowing special privileges to state-sponsored cartels and forbidding those without power to exchange with each other in peace."
-- Michael Badnarik ( http://badnarik.org/plans_freetrade.php )

I don't really need to imagine a lack of major party power. I'm voting for Badnarik anyway.

I'd write-in myself... no wait, I can't, I'm only 14.

I'd write-in some NS person ;)

Nader - too extreme

Cobb - too narrow

Peroukta - theocracy = bad

Badnarik - don't know his policies exactly. I am somewhat libertarian, but I believe they are generally too extreme

Brown - dunno about this guy specifically, but again, a complete socialist is too extreme

So, none of the above. Even if the Dems and Repubs were right on par with all the 3rd parties, I would still probably have to vote Dem in this particular election.

The real problem with 3rd parties is that they are either to narrowly-focused or too extreme on the issues for any good moderate to approve.
...Other

There is this common idea that Libertarians would create an economic system of unaccountable corporations run amuck, but it is not true; it is government power run amuck that allows corporate abuses to occur in the first place. Read what Badnarik has to say about free trade, multinational corporations, and the so called "free-trade" organizations like the WTO and NAFTA:

Yes, because it was the government regulations preventing corporations from working children to death that caused them to do so. Oh wait, those regulations were in response to that type of behavior and didn't exist before it happened.

Completely free trade leads to allowing people to do whatever they want to other human beings just so that they can get money. If someone wants to market a poison as a wonder fat-busting drug, they currently cannot do so - and that is a good thing.

Badnarik - don't know his policies exactly. I am somewhat libertarian, but I believe they are generally too extreme


Badnarik has many position papers on his campaign website at:
http://badnarik.org/plans.php

The comprehensive "National Platform of the Libertarian Party, Adopted in Convention, May 2004, Atlanta Georgia" can be viewed at:
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html

I wish I had watched the third party debates, hopefully I can catch a rebroadcast.

But I can tell you one thing, the Constitution Party is the most far-right party out there. They are completely against ANY gun regulation. Yes, they even support allowing concealed weapons on airplanes. They would also ban pornography and gambling. Drugs too, maybe even alcohol if they could.

However, I do respect them at least that they hate Bush. :p

They are very anti-Iraq War, anti-Patriot Act, even anti-Gay Marriage Ban, for traditional conservative reasons, they hate the neocons in office right now.

-----------

I like the Libertarians too. I may disagree with them economically, but they got their heads in the right direction socially. Freedom... :)

I don't much know the difference between Nader and Cobb, seeing as how Nader was the Green candidate just 4 years ago.

They're against the gay marriage ban? Funny, cuz I remember going to their homepage a while ago; they claimed to be pro-Constitution but added that it would be wise to restrict gay marriage, even adding an amendment if necessary. Although I like the fact that they're anti-Bush (the real reason they're against Bush is cuz he's not "conservative enough" for them) and anti-war, the thought of banned pornography/alcohol/dancing/_______ is too scary for me.

Constitution Party=a fringe group of hypocrites.

So far, I've been sorta vacillating between Badnarik, Cobb and Nader, but I'm leaning much more toward Cobb and Nader at this point, because unchecked corporate power is something that--I can guarantee this--the majority of the population would regret. At the same time, I like Badnarik because he thinks scaling back welfare is a good idea, and is OK about "victimless crimes". I also have some issues with his immigration policy. I'm probably one of the least racist/xenophobic people you'll meet, however the fact is, there's a practical issue involved. If immigration is totally open, where are we going to put all the people that come swarming in? What if they all go on Welfare, and drain the system even more by receiving Welfare checks without earning any kind of taxable income?

Yes, because it was the government regulations preventing corporations from working children to death that caused them to do so. Oh wait, those regulations were in response to that type of behavior and didn't exist before it happened.


"However, children always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians, and assuming all responsibilities of adulthood. A child is a human being and, as such, deserves to be treated justly. Parents have no right to abandon or recklessly endanger their children. Whenever they are unable or unwilling to raise their children, they have the obligation to find other person(s) willing to assume guardianship. ...Only local courts should be empowered to remove a child from his or her home, with the consent of the community. This is not meant to preclude appropriate action when a child is in immediate physical danger."
-- National Platform of the Libertarian Party ( http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html#famichil )

If a child is mature enough to hold a job, then by all means a child should be allowed to do so. This re-enforces the sense of responsibility of the child and helps develop maturity and life skills. Libertarians stand for non-initiation of violence and coersion. Of course, any reasonable person, most of all Libertarians, recognize that when a person, adult or child, is forced into any non-voluntary situation, by goverment or private entity, that person is made a slave, and his or her freedom has been violated. The idea that Libertarians would stand idle as children or adults are coerced to labor in conditions where they would otherwise leave is simply absurd. Libertarians do not call for the abolishment of all government to the extent that people's right to labor under voluntary conditions cannot be protected. Libertarians only call for the abolishment of those government regulations and corporate protections that allow such inhuman abuse to exist in the first place.

Again, I encourage people to read Badnarik's position on free trade ( http://badnarik.org/plans_freetrade.php ) and to see that it does not mean unrestrained corporate rule.

They're against the gay marriage ban? Funny, cuz I remember going to their homepage a while ago; they claimed to be pro-Constitution but added that it would be wise to restrict gay marriage, even adding an amendment if necessary.

well, I was as suprised as you must be now to see this: http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=itemview&event_id=118

Although I like the fact that they're anti-Bush (the real reason they're against Bush is cuz he's not "conservative enough" for them) and anti-war, the thought of banned pornography/alcohol/dancing/_______ is too scary for me.

You're right about the "not conservative enough". Several other articles on that site trash Bush for allowing abortion in case of rape, etc.

So far, I've been sorta vacillating between Badnarik, Cobb and Nader, but I'm leaning much more toward Cobb and Nader at this point, because unchecked corporate power is something that--I can guarantee this--the majority of the population would regret. At the same time, I like Badnarik because he thinks scaling back welfare is a good idea, and is OK about "victimless crimes". I also have some issues with his immigration policy. I'm probably one of the least racist/xenophobic people you'll meet, however the fact is, there's a practical issue involved. If immigration is totally open, where are we going to put all the people that come swarming in? What if they all go on Welfare, and drain the system even more by receiving Welfare checks without earning any kind of taxable income?

The Libertarians' social platform is surprising. They're anti-gun control and anti-drug control! Who would have thought such people existed? :p

I agree in principle, more freedom to the individual, even to harm ourselves (one of my gripes with mainstream liberals).

In that area, they have my respect.

Yes, because it was the government regulations preventing corporations from working children to death that caused them to do so. Oh wait, those regulations were in response to that type of behavior and didn't exist before it happened.

Completely free trade leads to allowing people to do whatever they want to other human beings just so that they can get money. If someone wants to market a poison as a wonder fat-busting drug, they currently cannot do so - and that is a good thing.

Exactly. Just look at what happened in the 1840s, when government only regulated industry/the economy to a very small extent. 9 year olds were sent to work at textile mills, there was no such thing as overtime, and corporations could pay workers whatever was cheapest. One could also look at it this way: When you eat cereal in the morning, how can you be sure there aren't traces of lead or arsenic in it? Government regulations. When you get in your car to go to work, how can you be sure that the car's frame won't totally fall apart once you get on the interstate? Government regulations. How can you be sure that the edible underwear you enjoy wasn't made by a five-year-old? Government regulations.

People keep saying that the government shouldn't regulate corporations and complain that it only creates more problems, but if those regulations were to suddenly disappear, they'd be really sorry.

well, I was as suprised as you must be now to see this: http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=itemview&event_id=118



You're right about the "not conservative enough". Several other articles on that site trash Bush for allowing abortion in case of rape, etc.



The Libertarians' social platform is surprising. They're anti-gun control and anti-drug control! Who would have thought such people existed? :p

I agree in principle, more freedom to the individual, even to harm ourselves (one of my gripes with mainstream liberals).

In that area, they have my respect.

Interesting. I would never have expected that they'd support that..LOL. By their logic, integrations of schools never would have happened, were it not for "judicial fiat". I bet they'd scream like a mashed cat if you told them that by their own logic, integrationist policies are just as illegitimate. Pisses me off that some groups, yes, minorities included, are automatically more favored than others.

I totally agree with the Libertarians' social ideals; i.e. pro-suicide, pro-drug etc. However, it's their economic/environmental/immigration platform that I have some issues with. I can understand their pro-gun views, in a lot of cases I think they make sense. Except for allowing assault rifles--face it, you don't use those for "self-defense", you use those to initiate an attack on somebody, probably a cop.

Exactly. Just look at what happened in the 1840s, when government only regulated industry/the economy to a very small extent. 9 year olds were sent to work at textile mills...


I've already destroyed the idea that Libertarians would support coerced, abusive, involuntary child labor here: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7225898&postcount=19

"However, children always have the right to establish their maturity by assuming administration and protection of their own rights, ending dependency upon their parents or other guardians, and assuming all responsibilities of adulthood. A child is a human being and, as such, deserves to be treated justly. Parents have no right to abandon or recklessly endanger their children. Whenever they are unable or unwilling to raise their children, they have the obligation to find other person(s) willing to assume guardianship. ...Only local courts should be empowered to remove a child from his or her home, with the consent of the community. This is not meant to preclude appropriate action when a child is in immediate physical danger."
-- National Platform of the Libertarian Party ( http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html#famichil )

If a child is mature enough to hold a job, then by all means a child should be allowed to do so. This re-enforces the sense of responsibility of the child and helps develop maturity and life skills. Libertarians stand for non-initiation of violence and coersion. Of course, any reasonable person, most of all Libertarians, recognize that when a person, adult or child, is forced into any non-voluntary situation, by goverment or private entity, that person is made a slave, and his or her freedom has been violated. The idea that Libertarians would stand idle as children or adults are coerced to labor in conditions where they would otherwise leave is simply absurd. Libertarians do not call for the abolishment of all government to the extent that people's right to labor under voluntary conditions cannot be protected. Libertarians only call for the abolishment of those government regulations and corporate protections that allow such inhuman abuse to exist in the first place.

It sorta depends on how you define "child"; I define "child" as under age 10. Over age 10 in my opinion does not count as a "child", at least for the sake of this discussion. In most cases, a 7 yr old kid would not be able to make a sound decision about whether or not s/he wanted a job. How many times have you heard little boys say that they want to be a firefighter or cop? Someone could capitalize on that and manipulate the kid into thinking that actually working for a cop is a good idea, when it really isn't. One could argue that the kid was deciding things for himself, but was it a sound decision, and did the kid really know what working as a cop meant?

Libertarian!!!

I've already destroyed the idea that Libertarians would support coerced, abusive, involuntary child labor here: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7225898&postcount=19

The post wasn't all about child labor, you know. The conditions in those places were horrible - and the corporations knew it and didn't care because no one was forcing them to not put their workers in such conditions.

Without regulations, a corporation can have an employee doing dangerous work, with no safety equipment, for $1/hour. If the person is desperate enough (and there are always those desperate enough), they will take the job and put their life on the line for the money they need to survive.

Also, without regulations, corporations can put out dangerous products that they know are dangerous with no fear of punishment.

It sorta depends on how you define "child"; I define "child" as under age 10. Over age 10 in my opinion does not count as a "child", at least for the sake of this discussion. In most cases, a 7 yr old kid would not be able to make a sound decision about whether or not s/he wanted a job. How many times have you heard little boys say that they want to be a firefighter or cop? Someone could capitalize on that and manipulate the kid into thinking that actually working for a cop is a good idea, when it really isn't. One could argue that the kid was deciding things for himself, but was it a sound decision, and did the kid really know what working as a cop meant?

You're absoultely right to point out that a child may not be able to fully understand the implications of taking a certain job. In such a case, it is the duty of the child's parents and the duty of those providing the job to judge if the child is even capable of handing the necessary responsibilities. Obviously an employer is not going to spend the time and money giving a job to a child who cannot handle the responsibilities. And even if parents or employers place children into dangerous situations, the Libertarian Platform clearly states that appropriate action can be taken (by the government or other concerned individuals) to rescue the child from those dangers.

Again, as the Libertarian Platform clearly states, the government is still capable of stepping in if a child is placed in direct physical danger. A child would thus be prevented from taking a job as a firefighter or cop, both of these being jobs provided by local governments, as local governments would easily conclude that a child should not be placed in the situations commonly encountered by firefighters or law enforcement officials.

The post wasn't all about child labor, you know. The conditions in those places were horrible - and the corporations knew it and didn't care because no one was forcing them to not put their workers in such conditions.

Without regulations, a corporation can have an employee doing dangerous work, with no safety equipment, for $1/hour. If the person is desperate enough (and there are always those desperate enough), they will take the job and put their life on the line for the money they need to survive.

Also, without regulations, corporations can put out dangerous products that they know are dangerous with no fear of punishment.

"We support the right of free persons to voluntarily establish, associate in, or not associate in, labor unions. An employer should have the right to recognize, or refuse to recognize, a union as the collective bargaining agent of some, or all, of its employees. ...Workers and employers should have the right to organize secondary boycotts if they so choose. Nevertheless, boycotts or strikes do not justify the initiation of violence against other workers, employers, strike-breakers and innocent bystanders."
-- National Platform of the Libertarian Party ( http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html#uniocoll )

Again, the Libertarian Party is opposed to any and all forms of coerced labor or slavery. If a worker is being forced, against his or he will, into dangerous situations that he or she would otherwise avoid, the Libertarian Party will stand fast to protect their rights. Even if a person is suffering from economic hardship (hardship often created by excessive taxation and government interference in the economic process), but still voluntarily takes a dangerous job, that person has made a free choice. Workers who find themselves in dangerous situations are always free to leave and find work elsewhere; no government or corporation can prevent this legitimately, as doing so is slavery. Workers are also free to create labor unions to negociate terms and conditions with employers, so long as they do so in a peaceful and voluntary way. Workers can also engage in strikes and boycotts, and consumers can certainly do so also (vote with your wallet, thats how the market works!), again, so long as all parties do so in a free and peaceful way.

What people need to realize is that abusive corporations lobby for protection from the government so that they can get away with exactly what you describe. Libertarians hold the views they do because they want to eliminate the ability of such abusers to legislate or lobby their responsibility away, while at the same time creating an economy that is truly free and prosperous.

I don't even know all these parties. But then again, only Reps and Dems get media attention here. Can someone describe me in accuracy what the Independents, Libertarians and Consituationalists are up for?

Also, without regulations, corporations can put out dangerous products that they know are dangerous with no fear of punishment.

" Consumer demand rather than legislative mandate should drive consumer safety and protection. We support strong and effective laws against fraud and misrepresentation. However, we oppose paternalistic regulations, which dictate to consumers, impose prices, define standards for products, or otherwise restrict risk-taking and free choice. ...We encourage consumer activism that would boycott and economically sanction those businesses that adversely affect human health and/or damage the environment, passing costs on to the general public. We look to independent entities such as Underwriters Laboratories, Consumer Reports and other testing organizations as models for grassroots consumer-driven certification."
-- National Platform of the Libertarian Party ( http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html#consprot )

Libertarians recognize that the huge, ineffective bureaucracy that is the United States Government actually threatens consumer safety. Not only do corporations regularly lobby the government for (and regularly achieve) special protection and favors, but the larger the consumer protection mechanism becomes, (EDIT: and the more tangled in government bureaucracy it becomes,) the more ineffectual and wasteful it becomes. Thus, poor and unsafe products are more likely to make their way through the government system (if they even go through at all), harming consumers.

Libertarians call for strong laws against fraud and misrepresentation so that consumers can gain justice against those who lie about the safety of their products. Also, Libertarians support grassroots, independent organizations, like Underwriters Laboratories [ http://www.ul.com ] (whose certifications are recognized and respected around the world) who test products and ensure consumer safety. Because organizations like UL are independent, and rely on accuracy and honesty to remain in existance, unlike government entities, they are closer to the people and thus far, far less likely to suffer from corruption.

I don't even know all these parties. But then again, only Reps and Dems get media attention here. Can someone describe me in accuracy what the Independents, Libertarians and Consituationalists are up for?

Links to the positions and ideas of the Libertarian U.S. Presidential Candidate, Michael Badnarik, and to the National Platform of the Libertarian Party can be found at post #17 above:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7225811&postcount=17

Yeah that's interesting. Its not complete though. What are his standpoints on:
* EU relations
* USPTO
* Copyright law
* PATRIOT act
* INDUCE act

Yeah that's interesting. Its not complete though. What are his standpoints on:
* EU relations
* USPTO
* Copyright law
* PATRIOT act
* INDUCE act

"I'm firmly on record as opposed to the PATRIOT Act and the INDUCE Act. As president, I'd veto those acts or renewals or extensions of them, and I'd direct the Justice Department not to avail themselves of their unconstitutional provisions and to fight them in court where necessary."
-- Michael Badnarik ( http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/20/1423219&tid=11&tid=219 )

"The Constitution empowers Congress to protect intellectual property with copyright and patent laws. Sans a constitutional amendment, they'll continue to grapple with the problems that the new technologies represent. And they'll probably make mistakes, like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. But, ultimately, the marketplace will decide how intellectual property is handled"
-- Michael Badnarik ( http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/20/1423219&tid=11&tid=219 )

Badnarik answers many other questions at http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/20/1423219&tid=11&tid=219

Information on the National Platform of the Libertarian Party in reguards to foreign relations can be found at: http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html#iv

Ah yes, i missed that /. thread. Thanks!
Its unfortunate people like this get pushed within an inch of their life due to the dogmatic sense of politics in the USA. The USA really deserve better.

Luckily he's not pro-IRV either, but instead is for approval, which is much more democratic :) in the interview, he doesn't explain why IRV is flawed though.

Is he pro Referendum?

i probably woudnt go sepuku but i probably would get mad and maybe flee to a different country

Nader. I'd also consider voting Cobb, but there really isn't too much of a difference in their positions, and Nader would probably be the candidate with more experience.

Badnarik's alright, but his economic policies are just too extreme. There must be a balanced amount of corporate power and government regulation in order to make sure neither abuse their power.

I don't know too much about Brown, he may be an OK choice.

I would not vote for Peroutka under any circumstances. His social and economic policies are just way too conservative for my taste.

Ah yes, i missed that /. thread. Thanks!

I added it to my first post only after I wrote that message ( http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7226568&postcount=33 ) above. Slashdot has got a pretty cool politics section which has several articles/stories/discussion in reguards to the third parties as well as other topics. Check it out at:
http://politics.slashdot.org/

Also have a look at the "Your Rights Online" section at:
http://yro.slashdot.org/

Imagine that the Dems and Republicans didn't have any power...
I do remember reading somewhere that the Dems were actually a 3rd party to begin with . ..

I added it to my first post only after I wrote that message ( http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7226568&postcount=33 ) above. Slashdot has got a pretty cool politics section which has several articles/stories/discussion in reguards to the third parties as well as other topics. Check it out at:
http://politics.slashdot.org/

Yeah, but its about US politics. No problem, but call it us.politics.slashdot.org or something then. Its more accurate. Also, it really costs a lot of time to track all of this as an innocent, powerless bystander who's dependant on the outcome of this election. So i'm not investing too much time. Nevertheles reading more about non-Rep/non-Dem candidates is interesting. The media here spends some time on the election, but only on the Dems & Reps, no other parties.

(I'm a /. regular btw.)

The post wasn't all about child labor, you know. The conditions in those places were horrible - and the corporations knew it and didn't care because no one was forcing them to not put their workers in such conditions.

Without regulations, a corporation can have an employee doing dangerous work, with no safety equipment, for $1/hour. If the person is desperate enough (and there are always those desperate enough), they will take the job and put their life on the line for the money they need to survive.
Exactly. Which is why so many American textile and manufacturing jobs have gone overseas to countries that don't have labor/minimum wage laws. So it's okay for seven-year-olds to work for a dollar a week as long as they aren't American? Interesting.

Now back to our thread topic.

It's horrible to see how little we know about third parties. Works well with the Marineris Colonies thread about U.S. media suppressing third parties.

Works well with the Marineris Colonies thread about U.S. media suppressing third parties.

Interesting. Link?

Interesting. Link?

U.S. Mainstream Corporate Media Bias Against Libertarians And Other Third Parties
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=364531

Nader

(With Cobb as an alternative, and Badnarik as a third option.)

Exactly. Just look at what happened in the 1840s, when government only regulated industry/the economy to a very small extent. 9 year olds were sent to work at textile mills, there was no such thing as overtime, and corporations could pay workers whatever was cheapest.

true, the state didn't regulate what industry did too much back then. but they spent an awful lot of time regulating what the workers could do (forming unions was actually illegal, as were strikes) and they had no qualms about using cannons to keep them in line. and the entire industrial system relied a number of state interventions to get it started and allow it to continue. without state intervention both here and abroad there wouldn't have been a poor landless class, and without the landless poor there could not be an industrial system.

in fact, all advances in worker's rights have had to be fought for in (often bloody) battles against both the capitalists and their enforcers, the state. and when the state actually did get around to codifying some of the rights people had fought for, it did only as much as was needed to undercut the threat to the state and elite posed by poor people organizing - never the full measure of what was being fought for. and then the state would get back to intervening even more on the side of the capitalists to shift the balance back in their favor.

Exactly. Which is why so many American textile and manufacturing jobs have gone overseas to countries that don't have labor/minimum wage laws. So it's okay for seven-year-olds to work for a dollar a week as long as they aren't American? Interesting.

I never said that. Nor would I.

No idea I like black and white man far more simple plus black and white have a whole lot of gray to wander into