How is it right?

I think they should be allowed in the debates if people want that, but do they? I mean a majority of people?

I became familiar with the Libertarian Party at a state fair a couple yrs. ago. The guy at the booth ranted for close to half an hour about their platform. I do agree with some of the positions, but not with others.

Why do you suppose Kerry talks bullshit, but Badnarik would/does not? Probably because you're biased, as we all are. Bush and Kerry make some promises that they won't be able to keep, but they will do very different things in office. Badnarik and Nader probably would not fullfill all their pledges either.

You "always" hear that from people? I find that very hard to believe. I don't know anyone who wants to vote Libertarian or even likes their platform. I do know a few people who want to vote Nader, but hate Bush so much they will vote Kerry. All of those people voted Nader last time (those that were old enough to vote).
I personally share many values of the 3rd parties, but not enough in any one party to vote that way, except maybe Nader. This election is not the time though.
We need a majority of people to come together and vote Bush out. That is the biggest and most effective statement that can possibly be made this year.

The right direction as you see it.
Look, we don't need small factions getting people in office who didn't even get close to the majority of the nation's vote. That would not really be democracy either.

 

Last time I heard, which was a little after the first debate, 57% of the people in this country want to Let Ralph Debate! Let Ralph Debate! Let Ralph Debate! Its not fair...
I'm sure the number has gone up since then.

 

As I've said on other threads, instant runoff voting would probably be the best way to give smaller parties a real voice in the system.

What specific regulations (labor, consumer, environmental protections, etc.) would be reduced?

Again, be more specific. Which elements of their platform do you find unconstitutional?

 

Vote Dennis Kucinich.

 

Matt, you present valid points. And you are right about most of it. But until the media is able to allow libertarians to get more coverage, I am going to have to vote democrat, because (as sad as it is) right now, a libertarian vote IS a vote for Bush. Hopefully one day that will change. But I don't see it happening for a while.

I am not against while you are saying at all. Infact I agree with most of it. I just try to look at the whole picture realistically. The media DOES have control over. . . well, everything. It sucks. It really does. I am sure this post isn't going to make you very happy, but I'm sorry Matt. I still love ya!

 

at one point i would have agreed with this, but now, i'm not so sure.

matt, check your messages please.

 

I occasionally get this criticism form someone coming from a "progressive" persuasion, but it is quite rare. Much, much more often I get criticisms from Republicans and other "conservative" sympathizers. This is the case as we are seen as the party who believes in minimalistic government and because "conservatives" believe this-albeit mostly in theory-they deplore the fact that we run people against them! The fact of the matter is that if Republicans or other "conservatives" didn't support corporate welfare, international intervention or civil liberties encroachments, we'd be "sitting at the same table."

 

Many times corporate rule is a symptom and result of corporate welfare. It is true that Libertarians would like to privatize government functions wherever possible. This does not mean that we necessarily favor corporate takeovers of these functions, however. Just because a government function is turned over to the private sector does not necessarily mean that that function will be turned over to a corporate entity.

Much of what has happened in recent years with a number of municipal and city governments with the 'privatization' of schools is that these entities are turned over to a corporate entity usually as a political favor. This, however is not what a libertarian ideal. There are many, many non-corporate entities that could take over such services.


www.strike-the-root.com/4/gregory/gregory12.html
www.blancmange.net/tmh/articles/strombrg.html

 

At least half of those polled wanted to see Nader included in the debates,and a significant number (around 45%) wanted to see Badnarik included as well. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that any candidate who has organization in enough states and who gets ballot access in enough states to be able to win the election should be included in the debates.

I'll confess some of our activists could use some social savvy when it comes to presenting libertarianism in a positive light. I confess that I can be that way, too. When I admit that I don't have the answer to a certain question, I'll turn to someone who can give an intelligent answer or try to do the research myself. (I will confess that I don't have all the answers.)

Maybe, maybe not. What Badnarik, Nader, Cobb and Peroutka do bring to the table are new ideas that the major parties do not want to talk about, such as globalism, corporate welfare and our failed foreign policy, just to name a few. If these people were given a congress that they could work with, these candidates could fulfill more of their promises.

I for one could not bring myself to watch the debates as I havent the last two presidential elections because I saw it as a total waste of my time. I'll admit my bias here in that I think that Badnarik has some interesting ideas for reducing the size of government so that people's standard of living can increase. If you take a look at his website and platform, I feel you may find more there to like.
www.badnarik.org

I'll reiterate again that I get alot of the "spoiler" criticism much more from "the right" than I do "the left." We Libertarians, people whom I'll call "heritage conservatives (i.e. Constitution party, John Birch Society, the "Buchananites") as well as some populist groups such as those who were aligned with Perot and the Reform party, get alot of criticism from Republicans and are still bitter over the losses in the '92 and '96 presidential elections because of folks like us. Then again, some of these people would just as soon not vote if they had nothing to vote for.

This is true! The problem is that Kerry doesn't offer much of an alternative-at least not for people like myself. For starters, He hasn't talked about how he will withdraw our troops not only from the Middle East, but from around the rest of the world as well. He has not talked about how he will get rid of ALL foreign aid. He has not talked about how he will end the war on drugs. What's worse is that I can never figure out what position he'll take on an issue "this week!"

Something you might want to try with any "conservsatives" that you know is to try to get them to vote for either Badnarik or Peroutka.

Well once again, here's my perspective on the two campaigns: You have two trains on parallel tracks both travelling at about 100 miles per hour with one of the trains going slightly faster than the other. Which train is travelling at which speed is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the brakes on both trains don't work, the engineers are both madmen and the trains are headed over a cliff! Now, do you really want to be on either train?

It's the small parties in the past which have been able to influence public policy to the point where the major parties had to take notice. The fact of the matter is we can never see freedom in this country unless we stop voting for the lesser of evils and try delaying the inevitable! By voting for either of the 'two goons', you're giving them "Carte-Blanche" to impose their agendas almost at will! We all need to educate ourselves on issues, join together and resist tyrrany!

 

Well, I don't think the "majority" even knows who the third party candidates are. People can't "want" something if they don't know it exists. Perhaps if they were allowed into the debates, people would then know who the candidates are and what they stand for.

Because of people such as yourself, who hate democracy, it does not surprise me you feel the way you do. In the eyes of people like you, the only democracy is what YOU see fit.

I never said they would fulfill their pledges if elected. All I said is that they have something drastically different to offer compared to the two corporate-owned candidates, and their voices should be heard.

Part of the reason third party candidates will not be elected is because they are left in the dark by the mainstream, government-owned media.

Sorry, but I don't buy into that mass media-spawned, group-think ideal.

If I thought Kerry was any different than Bush on the REAL issues, I would consider voting for him.

What does this even mean?

I guess you love big-government tyranny. To each their own.

 

i thought we were living in a republic, not a democracy. we don't vote for our leaders, the electoral college does.


matt, i'm going to try to message you now, so please check your messages.

 

I'm at all not against 3rd party candidates being allowed to debate. I'm just wondering why there isn't more outrage at the fact they are not allowed in the debates, where are all your supporters? If you really think you have a shot at the presidency in the near future, I would think you'd have more of a voice by now.

Well, I wasn't complaining, just making the point that people can find out more about these diff. parties, it's not hard. But still they aren't very popular, so I think Americans just don't want them. It's not entirely the media's fault.

But they won't get elected.
You know, sure it's easy for Nader to go super far to the left, he doesn't have to worry about appealing to a large number of voters because he knows he will not get elected. He can afford that risk. Kerry gets shit for being too liberal as it is. What should he do, appeal to some of you guys, or some of us?

Our standard of living is extremely high especially compared to other countries. I don't think a Libertarian gov. would protect the environment, the market wouldn't do the job.

That's true, I mostly don't care for Nader because he does pull votes away from Kerry. However this year he doesn't have much of a following.

That's a great idea. I don't know if I'll have time to get to know their platform, but it's an idea.

Yeah, that's your choice, vote for who you want, but Kerry is my choice.

 

Okay.......haven't you said that the uninformed should not vote??? But you advocate it as long as they vote for your candidate. You also think the debates were worthless and the two just lied the whole 90 minutes.....but if your man was in there he would tell the truth and the public could trust him and believe he'll do what he says?
Can you try not to be so biased.

How do I hate democracy? I think you just type garbage like that (outlandish accusations) when you have nothing intelligent to say. Save it.
I think they should be allowed to debate. What don't you understand?
What are you doing about it? I don't have time to do anything about it, I'm fighting for my candidate, it's time consuming. 3rd party issues are not a priority for me at this time for obvious reasons. I really don't understand what you guys are doing, if anything, to get your candidates more access. It takes work. Also, you should support offices other than the president, start local.

You said that Kerry would not, so it can be assumed you think your candidates would.
You're right, they are drastically different. Too different. I don't think we're ready. However, I did see a Badnarik yard sign today, I was surprised.
Why doesn't the media talk about him more, all you hear about is Nader...it pisses me off.

I think he is different on all issues and we just disaggree apparently on what the "real" issues are.

Oh yep, I guess so, haw haw. That's me.
That's right, go extreme with your response when you can't properly dispute what someone says, that way you are off the hook.
I'm prepared to overlook your grotesque mischaracterization and explain my comment further, apparently I need to, -this is a democracy, so majority rules, simply put. If we have the vote split up into say 4 different parties of equal influence, a candidate getting only say 25% of America's vote could get in office. That's not a large number of people deciding who runs the country. That's all I was saying.

 

I didn't read all of the responses to this thread, but I just want to say that this is totally unfair. The third parties should be able to debate the other parties. How are we supposed to know what they're all about if we don't give them a chance to explain theirselves? We sure as heck can't count on the media to tell us anything useful. A lot of people don't like either Bush or Kerry, and are voting for one just to keep the other out. This is somthing I do not understand.

 

I agree...how can anyone see anyhting wrong with more choices? Our stong two-party presence disrupts democracy in our country. In more ways than one...

 

Unfortunately, minor parties get blocked by the mainstream media. That is unless you happen to have deep pockets like Perot. Badnarik tries to serve papers to the debate commission and you may recall that he got himself arrestedalong with David Cobb of the Green party. While Badnarik wasn't allowed into the debates in Arizona, the court allowed the campaign to file a lawsuit against the debate commission. Despite this the media chose to ignore these activities!

BTW! (Just in case this wasn't a joke) in one of your previous posts, I heard you refer to Badnarik and Cobb as "criminals" for their civil disobedience in St. Louis. Let's not forget that these types of activities are the same that Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi engaged in while trying to fight for civil rights back during their times! were they criminals, too?

On your first point, I apologize for any misunderstanding. On your other point, people's lives can get quite busy and many cannot devote the time necessary for them to do the necessary research to make an informed decision. Furthermore, too many Americans get their news from mainstream media. I don't care what anyone says, mainstream media will do their best to distort the facts as much as possible, and this year is no exception! Hence, many people are misinformed. For example, there are many people to this day who believe that Lyndon LaRouche is a Libertarian which he never was, he is a Democrat (albeit a radical one)!

Not unless enough of us get together and start doing something about it! We need to educate ourselves about issues, (as odd, radical, strange and redundant as it may be) learn about what the Constitution really has to say and get together with other like-minded individuals and figure out how we're going to take our country back! An excellent source for education on the constitution can be found by going to www.save-a-patriot.org. Beware though, this is not for the faint of heart!

IMO, we will never be a free people until we learn to accept each other's differences, start to look for common sense solutions to our problems and realize that government intervention is rarely, if ever, the solution. Call me paranoid, but I feel one thing that politicians try to do is to get people who have differening opinions on a given issue to set people against each other as a means to usurp power.

On your first point, you're correct! This is largely because we have freedom-but like anything else it could always be better! If you look to the poorest countries around the world, you'll almost always notice that the citizens (or subjects) have little freedom. On your second point I beg to differ. With freedom comes responsibility. Individuals and companies need to be held liable for the damage that they create. If polluters are required to compensate their victims for the damage they created, it would send a message to others not to commit these kinds of offenses. BTW, one of the things that I have advocated elsewhere in these forums is to allow growing and use of industrial hemp, which would do wonders for our economy and environment!

Check out: www.lp.org
www.badnarik.org
www.peroutka2004.com

Hey, it's your vote!

 

EXCELLENT obsservation! Unfortunately, few people understand this! FTR, the purpose of our constitution upon which our republic was founded was to defend minorities against the majority or mob rule!

This is true, as it was one of the 'checks and balances' that was put into our constitution at its inception. I do feel that it should be revised to reflect more proportional results as is done in Maine and Nebreska.

 

Hey, I share your frustration, really, but I don't want to take any time to deal with that right now, my time is little and it is devoted to Kerry, I hope you understand.

Oh I think it was mostly a joke, I don't remember, but it might have been in reference to Badnarik not paying taxes, which I think is not fair since the rest of us have to. I agree with their protesting the debate issue though, I support that wholeheartedly.
I agree that civil disobedience is an effective and necessary action in many cases and if the Patriot Act 2 is forced upon us, then I highly encourage it.

I know, I'm working on encouraging people to vote for Kerry and have come across some very uninformed (and uninterested) people. That is very alarming since the media does give Kerry the time of day. I've found a lot of people just don't care about politics.

That may be true, I've found myself arguing with Libertarians on here a lot, but that is not my purpose. I guess I just defend Kerry when someone posts something I think is untrue about him.

How would polluters be required to compensate victims without gov. involvement?

 

Hey! So be it! It's your vote!

On your first point, I was just curious. On your second point, Keep in mind that without a Social Security Number, you are not obliged to pay taxes. Granted, you also make yourself ineligible for any government assistance or programs. As I've said in this forum before, there are people who have taken the bold step of rescinding their SSN and decide to become as self sufficient as possible. Badnarik was one of these people. A group out of Maryland, the Save-A-Patriot Fellowship can give instructions and advice on how to do this. Their website is:
www.save-a-patriot.org
Also check out: www.tax-freedom.com as well as www.taxfreedom101.com
Again though, this step is not for the faint of heart!

I'm glad that we agree on this one! Unfortunately, I must question if Kerry opposes PA2.

I think that many people are disenfranchised and don't feel like their vote will count or that voting is an excercise in futility.

Hey, again, that's your right!

I'll try to answer this the best way that I can. We need to hold individuals and companies liable for the damage that they cause. If I own a factory near a residential area and I pollute the surrounding area, I should be subjected to compensate my victims for the damage that I created.

Something that doesn't seem to get mentioned is that we need industries which can operate more environmentally friendly. For instance, why aren't farmers allowed to grow industrial hemp so that they can provide paper, fuel, fiber and other amenities which can compete with industries that thus far have proven to be detrimental to our well being. Also, if someone comes up with, say, a more efficient method of burning fuel, the existing industries should NOT try to lobby the government to stop this inventor from promoting his product! Many times what industries will do is lobby the government to pass laws to protect their industries. Part of this involves lobbying to allow that industry to pollute up to a certain amount, otherwise known as a pollution credit, available for a price. It also allows the biggest polluter, the government, virtually off the hook! The websites provided below may help explain this better. FWIW, Despite our disagreements, I have enjoyed our exchange of ideas.

www.kenk.org/envi.php -Ken Krawchuck's gubernatorial (PA) campaign website from 2002-provides excellent insight on the failure of government protection of the environment.
www.lp.org/issues/environment.html -Exxcerpts from Mart J. Ruwart's book, "Healing Our World", a highly recommended read!

I hope this helps!