NationStates Jolt Archive

What is your opinion of the Libertarian candate?

He strikes me as a respectable 3rd-pary candidate (as well as his platform - minus one or two issues), unlike Nader

I like him, although I am not too keen on the M-16 for every man, woman, and child policy. Has my vote, though.

I just dont believe that you should let the corporations do whatever they want. You gotta keep a check on those snaky corporate bastards that will do whatever they can to make the largest profit without thinking of the repercussions. The environment, our health and our future cant depend on rich cutthroat greedy bastards to do what is right of their own free will.

I just dont believe that you should let the corporations do whatever they want. You gotta keep a check on those snaky corporate bastards that will do whatever they can to make the largest profit without thinking of the repercussions. The environment, our health and our future cant depend on rich cutthroat greedy bastards to do what is right of their own free will.
Not all Libertarians are uber-free market capitalists - I believe that restrictions should be put in place to keep corrupt corporations in check. Yet the difference is that my Libertarian government would be smart about it; if there was a misdemeanor in corporate procedure, I believe we should just fine the ppl responsible (like w/Martha Stewart; just fine her); if something Enron-esque happens, then pursue the Ken Lays

I also believe that the government should end corporate welfare (like how they subsidize tobacco industries).

He will probably get my vote. Not because I think he will win. I will vote for him in hopes to get the libertarian party 5% of the vote. Also, I support most of his platform.

Libertarianism is cool

i have a lot of respect for their anti-gov ideology. I think there are some trade offs that society is in need of though.

Health, education, really, essential things that cant be trusted to the private sector since they shouldnt be for profit buissnusses

I just dont believe that you should let the corporations do whatever they want. You gotta keep a check on those snaky corporate bastards that will do whatever they can to make the largest profit without thinking of the repercussions. The environment, our health and our future cant depend on rich cutthroat greedy bastards to do what is right of their own free will.
Yeah, same here. I don't see how you can expect corporations to behave responsibly just out of the goodness of their hearts.

Libertarianism is cool

i have a lot of respect for their anti-gov ideology. I think there are some trade offs that society is in need of though.

Health, education, really, essential things that cant be trusted to the private sector since they shouldnt be for profit buissnusses

I respect the Libertarians main objective: freedom.

They are the only party that supports both drug and gun freedom, I believe.

Their social platforms make the most sense out of any ideology. Modern welfare liberals for the most part line up with the social freedom, so I vote Democrat.

As for their economic plans, you can debate economics all you want. I'm no economist. I think privatizing the police forces would be a bad idea though, I'm pretty sure of that. Government regulation and support of education, healthcare and so on is acceptable. What's NOT acceptable is government regulation of things like gay marriage, abortion, drugs, etc.

All in all, if I couldn't vote for Kerry or Nader, I'd vote for Badnarik.

Yeah, same here. I don't see how you can expect corporations to behave responsibly just out of the goodness of their hearts.

But we can always count on governments to behave responsibly.

But we can always count on governments to behave responsibly.

No, but at least elected officials can be removed. We have no such hold over Corporations.

No, but at least elected officials can be removed. We have no such hold over Corporations.Yep. The amount of control I can exercise over the government as a citizen is minimal, but at least it exists. I have no such control over corporations.

Yep. The amount of control I can exercise over the government as a citizen is minimal, but at least it exists. I have no such control over corporations.

Don't buy their products.

Yknow, i can even respect voting for a libertarian candidate, as opposed to voting for Nader. At least if the libertarians get 5% they get federal funding and can potentially shake up the system a bit once they get rolling.

Nader gets 5% of the vote..and jack squat happens other than Bush getting back in office.

The big thing that i think a lot of people forget about "just getting their guy into office to shake up the system" is, so what if theyre president, theyve got to work through a hostile congress which means jack squat is going to get changed while their in office. No third party candidate is going to change the system by capturing the presidency, what they MIGHT be able to do is get federal funding for the party, to get recognition for their party in senatorial and representative campaigns in the various states.

Don't buy their products.
It's not always that easy. Don't get me wrong--I do that when I can, but when government cedes control to business--and it has in the past--then you wind up with few, if any choices in the "free" market. Monopolization occurs, as surely as night follows day. And if there's only one product to buy, and only one place to buy it, then you have no control over the companies that make or sell the product.

I'd also like it noted that the first vote I ever cast for the Presidential election was for a Libertarian candidate--back in 1996. Harry Browne.

I was a much different political animal at the time. :D

Don't buy their products.
Of course, if they're selling food, medical supplies, etc., we kinda have to. Or we'll die. And don't tell me we can go to the competition, cause they'll be just as corrupt.

Of course, if they're selling food, medical supplies, etc., we kinda have to. Or we'll die. And don't tell me we can go to the competition, cause they'll be just as corrupt.

Why? They would have incentive to not be corrupt.

Why? They would have incentive to not be corrupt.
Didn't work back when Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle.

Didn't work back when Upton Sinclair wrote The Jungle.


Rubbish

http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=3035

Rubbish

http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=3035
Don't like Sinclair? Fine--I'll raise you an Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation. Same subject, even more disgusting results.

Don't like Sinclair? Fine--I'll raise you an Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation. Same subject, even more disgusting results.

What does that have to do with corruption? Fast food is gross, so what? Eat somewhere else.

I do have a genuine respect for Libertarians, although my views are much more aligned with someone like Nader or Cobb.

I should point out that it's the extreme Liberts. who want no corporate regulation and want to privatize the cops.

Thankfully, I am not one of them

What does that have to do with corruption? Fast food is gross, so what? Eat somewhere else.
Read the chapters on the meat-processing industry in the US. They're a prime example of what happens when government stops acting as a regulator. I'll give you an historical example as well--the S&L debacle. Do some research on what happened when Reagan turned the tender mercies of the free market loose on the Savings and Loan industry. I'll give you a hint--it cost the taxpayers a shitload of money.

Read the chapters on the meat-processing industry in the US. They're a prime example of what happens when government stops acting as a regulator. I'll give you an historical example as well--the S&L debacle. Do some research on what happened when Reagan turned the tender mercies of the free market loose on the Savings and Loan industry. I'll give you a hint--it cost the taxpayers a shitload of money.


I'll go to the library and check it out. I'll assume it's akin to Slaughterhouse. That still has nothing to do with personal freedom. We can eat a variety of foods from many sources.

The S&L problem arose from government regulation. De-regulation just made the problems visible. You see, they were all failing, but people kept pumping money into them because the govt continued to prop them up.


A good Cato article from a prof. of Economics

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n3/reg15n3-england.html

I just dont believe that you should let the corporations do whatever they want. You gotta keep a check on those snaky corporate bastards that will do whatever they can to make the largest profit without thinking of the repercussions. The environment, our health and our future cant depend on rich cutthroat greedy bastards to do what is right of their own free will.

"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. True free trade the kind that fosters peace does not depend on such organizations and rules, but is actually hindered by them... The managed trade that we see today, where politically connected corporations and favored nations get special deals, is anything but free."
-- Michael Badnarik ( http://badnarik.org/plans_freetrade.php )

It is perfectly reasonable to point out corporate corruption as a problem. However, the usual "solution," increased regulation and bigger government, has and will continue to fail for a couple of reasons. 1) Who is it that grants corporations their existance and rights to begin with? Government. 2) Who do the corporations go to in order to lobby for subsidies, bailouts, the "right" to polute, the ability to hide behind special protections that threaten our health and safety? Government. How then does increasing the power of the very entity that aids and abets corporate abuse solve anything? Our government serves to create and allow corporate abuse. More government will simply create more of the same.

The real solution is to reduce the size of government. By reducing the size, extent, and power of government, government will be less able serve the purposes of corporations and other special interests. A small, decentralized, Constitutionally limited government will be far harder to corrupt and far harder to exploit. Because corporations are direct creations of the government, the removal of power from the government will mean a removal of power from the corporations and their special interests. Corporations will be forced to compete against each other according to the will of the people, as dictated by the people in the marketplace.

The key to corporate power and abuse is the government which they lobby for that very power. Remove power from the government, remove from the rich elitists the power to look after corporate interests, and power is automatically removed from the corporations. Continuing to centralize and concentrate power, via more of the same failed government "regulation," will only serve to continue to centralize and concentrate corporate power.

Insisting on more government "regulation" is like making Al Capone chief of police in order to combat rampant crime. Yeah, that's gunna help. :)

Yep. The amount of control I can exercise over the government as a citizen is minimal, but at least it exists. I have no such control over corporations.

Yes, you do. We can quit voting their (http://www.democrats.org) goons (http://www.rnc.org) into office. :D


(Vote Libertarian [ http://www.lp.org ] :) )

Yknow, i can even respect voting for a libertarian candidate, as opposed to voting for Nader. At least if the libertarians get 5% they get federal funding and can potentially shake up the system a bit once they get rolling.


Expect a Libertarian candidate to always reject federal funds as a matter of principle.

"In order to achieve a free economy, in which government victimizes no one for the benefit of any other, we oppose all government subsidies to business, labor, education, agriculture, science, broadcasting, the arts, sports, or any other special interest."
-- National Platform of the Libertarian Party ( http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html#subsidie )

Michael Badnarik is a good person and I respect libertarian ideas more than most, but there are certain ideals that keep me from voting that way.

I'll go to the library and check it out. I'll assume it's akin to Slaughterhouse. That still has nothing to do with personal freedom. We can eat a variety of foods from many sources.

The S&L problem arose from government regulation. De-regulation just made the problems visible. You see, they were all failing, but people kept pumping money into them because the govt continued to prop them up.


A good Cato article from a prof. of Economics

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n3/reg15n3-england.html
I'm sorry, but you're kidding yourself if you think that regulation caused the S&L implosion. Every time in this nation's history, when financial institutions have been given free reign to do what they wish, there has always, always been a meltdown. Do you think it's a coincidence that we haven't had a nationwide meltdown since the institution of the Federal Reserve after the Great Depression? And that the only time we've come really close was the time we deregulated the industry? Come on.

I just dont believe that you should let the corporations do whatever they want. You gotta keep a check on those snaky corporate bastards that will do whatever they can to make the largest profit without thinking of the repercussions. The environment, our health and our future cant depend on rich cutthroat greedy bastards to do what is right of their own free will.

I set a torch to some other common anti-Libertarian strawmen in this thread:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=364708

More specifically, here:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7225468&postcount=12

here:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7225898&postcount=19

here:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7226112&postcount=28

and, finally, here:
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7226226&postcount=30

I'm sorry, but you're kidding yourself if you think that regulation caused the S&L implosion. Every time in this nation's history, when financial institutions have been given free reign to do what they wish, there has always, always been a meltdown. Do you think it's a coincidence that we haven't had a nationwide meltdown since the institution of the Federal Reserve after the Great Depression? And that the only time we've come really close was the time we deregulated the industry? Come on.

Did you read it? If there were no regulations in the first place, there would have been no meltdown. S&L were drowning themselves in debt because the govt would bail them out. It's called moral hazard. Once the govt said "no more" they all went to hell.


The Fed was created in 1913. Whoops.

And I'd like to add: it was the Fed screwing with the interest rates that helped lead to the Great Depression.

Did you read it? If there were no regulations in the first place, there would have been no meltdown. S&L were drowning themselves in debt because the govt would bail them out. It's called moral hazard. Once the govt said "no more" they all went to hell.


The Fed was created in 1913. Whoops.
Sorry about the Fed mixup.

As to the S&L scandal, you really need to go back and check on your history. When the S&Ls were deregulated, they were able to start floating a far larger percentage of their available as debt. They were also able to start making loans with less held as collateral and were able to loan more than the collateral was worth in order for the recepient of the loan to finance the loan while development on the property was underway.

This worked fine for a while, but like any pyramid scheme, it was bound to crumble, and it crumbled when Reagan managed to get inflation under control. All of a sudden, the gains the banks and the developers were expecting weren't materializing. They found themselves upside down in debt, i.e. the loan cost more than they could ever hope to recoup from the property. But instead of cutting their losses and moving on, the S&L people kept flipping loans over and over, refinancing again and again (and giving themselves huge bonuses on the business they were creating by the way) until eventually the bottom fell out. And when the bottom fell out, the whole thing went to shit, and we spent hundreds of billions of dollars bailing out S&Ls all over the country.

There's a great book--probably out of print by now, but you might find it in a library--called The Daisy Chain that follows Vernon Savings and Loan from its inception to its implosion. I know about Vernon because they financed some of the condos in Baton Rouge that never sold and eventually rotted to the ground. Try to find it and see another side to the S&L scandal.

Sorry about the Fed mixup.

As to the S&L scandal, you really need to go back and check on your history. When the S&Ls were deregulated, they were able to start floating a far larger percentage of their available as debt. They were also able to start making loans with less held as collateral and were able to loan more than the collateral was worth in order for the recepient of the loan to finance the loan while development on the property was underway.

And when the bottom fell out, the whole thing went to shit, and we spent hundreds of billions of dollars bailing out S&Ls all over the country.



I think you are missing my argument. They were government run/backed. Had they been private organizations, they would not have been insured by the government, they would not have been allowed to remain insolvant, and they would not have cost the taxpayers a dime. (Yes, bank deposits are FDIC insured, but investments are not.) Again, this is referred to as "moral hazard" and is the same problem that is plaguing the World Bank as they hand out money to countries with poor investment plans.

The dirty politicians and lobbyists are to blame here, not the market.

You can't argue about deregulation costing taxpayers. If it costs the taxpayers, it is the government's issue.

The S&L problem actually highlights why the government should not be allowed to muddle in the affairs of business.

I think you are missing my argument. They were government run/backed. Had they been private organizations, they would not have been insured by the government, they would not have been allowed to remain insolvant, and they would not have cost the taxpayers a dime. (Yes, bank deposits are FDIC insured, but investments are not.) Again, this is referred to as "moral hazard" and is the same problem that is plaguing the World Bank as they hand out money to countries with poor investment plans.

The dirty politicians and lobbyists are to blame here, not the market.

You can't argue about deregulation costing taxpayers. If it costs the taxpayers, it is the government's issue.

The S&L problem actually highlights why the government should not be allowed to muddle in the affairs of business.You're missing the point--S&L's are/were private organizations, just like banks, with the same caveat--only deposits were insured. Investments were not. The problem was that in the past, S&L's had been limited in the way they could use depositor money to create revenue. After deregulation, most of those limits were removed, and they became irresponsible, started making bad decisions.

In the early days of deregulation, it looked like it was working, because S&L's were rolling in the revenue and offering huge rates of return. They couldn't sustain it, though, and instead of pulling back on their rates, they threw bad money after good and wound up losing everything. But what was insured by the FSLIC was only depositor money--not the investments.

You're missing the point--S&L's are/were private organizations, just like banks, with the same caveat--only deposits were insured. Investments were not. The problem was that in the past, S&L's had been limited in the way they could use depositor money to create revenue. After deregulation, most of those limits were removed, and they became irresponsible, started making bad decisions.


I should have been more clear on my meaning. Investments were insured due to the fact that S&Ls were able to operate while being insolvent. If, however, bad decisions meant they would fold, S&L managers would have been more prudent in their investments. Yes, market disicpline was severly lacking, I'll give you that.


As the 1980s dawned, hundreds of S&Ls were insolvent. Unlike creditors of other businesses, however, savings and loan depositors, the primary private creditors of decapitalized S&Ls, continued to provide funding. Federal deposit insurance protected most S&L depositors from losses and made the federal government the creditor of last resort for weak institutions. The federal government also failed to act as a private creditor would have acted. Government-sponsored financial support continued through both subsidized loans and continued deposit insurance. S&L owners with little or none of their own money at risk were thus given broad new powers and access to a virtually unlimited source of funds. The results were disastrous.

One more thing before I head to work:

Do you think that the S&Ls would have just dissapeared had the government kept regulations? I ask because one would think that would be the case as they couldn't offer competitve rates.

Instead, the govt decided to do a half-ass job of deregulation.

Off to play with market derivs....

Okay, now I see where you're coming from. My point is that until deregulation, the S&L's weren't able to make such risky investments, and weren't allowed to put such a large chunk of their deposits at risk. That's the big reason they weren't major financial players--they were severely limited by what they could invest in and how much they could invest. When those regulations were lifted, all bets were off, so to speak.

The biggest problem was that real estate developers started buying their own S&Ls and started giving "close friends" (i.e shell companies) loans that they wouldn't otherwise qualify for, quite often for more than the development wasworth, thinking that high inflation meant they would make their money back with ease. When Reagan got inflation under control, they were screwed, but instead of taking the loss, they kept flipping the loans, which just exacerbated the situation.

What is your opinion of the Libertarian candate?

He strikes me as a respectable 3rd-pary candidate (as well as his platform - minus one or two issues), unlike Nader

What can I say? He's awesome. I agree with him on almost everything. I prefer Peroutka, though, even though Badnarik said on the Sting of Stang a few days ago that he and Peroutka agree on 90% of the issues.

Why does regulation of business necessarily mean we have to also protect businesses if they make bad investment decisions? I dont believe in corporate welfare, but I do believe that we will see a very toxic environment if we let companies do whatever they want. Sure we can stop buying the product, but that is only if we actually get the information to know what harm a company is causing. If they own the media and have all the money, they have the upper hand and can continue to feed people their lies without any repercussions, and we are left with foods with no health safety standards, and our wateways and air filled with toxins. Big business will cut every corner they can to make more of their all mighty dollar and have not one bit of concern for the negative effects it might produce.

In general, I am for the Libertarian party's overarching idea that less government is better. That being said, I think that some of the Libertarian party ideas as to what the least acceptable amount of government is are a bit too extreme, particularly on the areas of environmental and corporate regulation and education, which is why I am not voting for Badnarik this election. I wouldn't object if he miraculously wound up being elected, and I think he would do a good job, I just have enough disagreement with their current party platform (and enough agreement with others) that I am not going to vote for them.

Why does regulation of business necessarily mean we have to also protect businesses if they make bad investment decisions? I dont believe in corporate welfare, but I do believe that we will see a very toxic environment if we let companies do whatever they want. Sure we can stop buying the product, but that is only if we actually get the information to know what harm a company is causing. If they own the media and have all the money, they have the upper hand and can continue to feed people their lies without any repercussions, and we are left with foods with no health safety standards, and our wateways and air filled with toxins. Big business will cut every corner they can to make more of their all mighty dollar and have not one bit of concern for the negative effects it might produce.

1 - Corporations are made up of stock holders (people like us). If they disagree with the company's policies, they can replace management.

2 - You'd better believe that companies are always on the lookout for misdeeds by their competitors. The ultimate in checks and balances.

3 - Actions that adversely affect people are settled through lawsuits.

4 - You are creating a scenario in which one entity owns everything, which is impossible.

Yet the difference is that my Libertarian government would be smart about it; if there was a misdemeanor in corporate procedure, I believe we should just fine the ppl responsible (like w/Martha Stewart; just fine her); if something Enron-esque happens, then pursue the Ken Lays.
Fines often don't do anything to encourage corporations to follow the rules. Even fines of millions of dollars (which are rarely doled out) make no dent in very large companies.

Michael Badnarik is a good candidate. He passionately believes in his ideology of freedom. But he is too extreme for me. His presidency would be a chaotic time for America. I'm not against privatisation where economically wise, but things like the police should not be privatised. I also think that governments should intervene to prevent monopolisation and to protect competition.

Maybe if the Libertarians nominated a more traditional, moderate candidate (who still believed in a less extreme form of libertarianism) they would get ore votes. Just the fact remains that most people don't want to vote for someone who is just a step away from anarcho-capitalism.

I agree with much of his platform on social issues (although destructive things like heroin, cocaine and automatic guns should not be legalised), and ending corporate welfare would be great. How does the US Gov't get away with subsidising tobacco and oil companies?

What can I say? He's awesome. I agree with him on almost everything. I prefer Peroutka, though, even though Badnarik said on the Sting of Stang a few days ago that he and Peroutka agree on 90% of the issues.
While they both have similar positions on economic issues, aren't they near opposite on social issues? Peroutka is very conservative, isn't he? His platform of Christian theocracy, anti-gay rights, anti-abortion rights, anti-drugs positions really fly in the face of Badnarik.

While they both have similar positions on economic issues, aren't they near opposite on social issues? Peroutka is very conservative, isn't he? His platform of Christian theocracy, anti-gay rights, anti-abortion rights, anti-drugs positions really fly in the face of Badnarik.

Completely. Peroutka is who Jerry Falwell would vote for, if not Bush. The Constitution Party is the most right-wing Christian fascist party there is. Just check their platforms. They completely disregard the 1st Amendment while worshipping the 2nd. Unlike the Libertarians, who have the sense to respect all the amendments.

They may agree on gun rights, but that's it socially. They probably just don't talk about drugs, abortion, gay rights, euthanasia, contraceptives, etc, when they say we agree on 90% of everything.

Vote Libertarian all the way. It was what the founding fathers had always planned for the US to be.

What is your opinion of the Libertarian candate?

He strikes me as a respectable 3rd-pary candidate (as well as his platform - minus one or two issues), unlike Nader

I think both of them are better than Kerry OR Bush. Unfortunately, my opinion is that you shouldn't vote for either of them this year. I think getting Bush the hell out as soon as possible is much more important than the third party battle. That can wait for 2008.

I can't wait for April 9, 2008. The day I'll be eligible to register to vote...

As soon as the Republicans stop being an utterly toxic threat to society, however, the third party race is my top priority. I hope that in the next few elections, a whole state will be won by a third party candidate, and that soon, we'll have a third-party president. Okay, maybe not, but I can dream. I definitely think one state is possible, though.

Before any of this 3rd party stuff can really happen, the rules need to be messed with to encourage more than 2 parties, much like Britian's House of Parlament. Until that happens, there will continue to only be 2 parties in power ever, with them slipping out of existance or switching sides every 60 years or so. It all begins with local politics, more 3rd party local candidates and the destruction of the winner take all system of electoral votes for a more representative style like Maine or Nebraska.

Ol MB?

Well he says some interesting things and then he says some crazy things.

The thought of privatising the police force just doesn't work for me.

There are other things as well.

Hell would freeze over before he would get elected.

You have to woo voters, you can't tell them they are stupid and or insane and expect them to vote for you.