RoR: Forum

Now, who would Obama be here? Bobe hope?

;)

Post 1

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 2:35am

OK, let's make this topic be about the Libertarian party. Forgetting for the moment the issue of a third party taking votes away from a more viable Republi-cratic, let's pretend that the Libertarians managed to establish themselves as a truly viable political party and fielded a reasonable candidate for president, what would be your real concerns?

I think that the Libertarians have done a poor job in clearly articulating a platform on foreign policy/national defense. Their over-reliance on the NIOF (non-initiation of force) principle coupled with tinges of isolationist/anarchistic thought has produced a very muddled picture here which leaves me wondering just exactly how they would respond to aggression (or threats of aggression) from foreign powers and how they would go about defending US business interests abroad. Of course, I'm also not clear on what the Republicans are up to either, and I'm pretty sure that I'd rather have any Libertarian candidate making policy decisions rather than what most Democrats appear to be proposing in this arena. The failure to present a clear and concise policy in this area leads to the sort of debate we see currently on the thread Jon Voight: My Concerns for America. So, I'm agreeing that this area is one of real concern and is most responsible for my not voting Libertarian in the past.

Beyond the foreign policy issue, what other problems do people have with the Libertarian party? Do you think that in matters of economics, human rights, the application of constitutional law, etc. that the party poses other potentially grave risks to one's safety, freedom and wellbeing, such that it makes them unsupportable? Personally, I'm much more comfortable with the Libertarian's articulated positions on the domestic front.

Regards,
--
Jeff

(Edited by C. Jeffery Small on 8/18, 2:38am)

Post 2

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 4:49am

Mea Culpa

Jeff, I posted this quote in a fit of pique at your having posted two quotes at the same time, pushing my quote of Jon Letendre below off the bulletin board. I think this quote of Rand's is both relevant and informative. Maybe I'll discuss it later.

As a matter of courtesy, I try very much not to post polls or quotes so often as to drive other people's submissions off the front page. I like to have all discussion on one topic be on the same thread, rather than starting a new thread when the current one is going against one's point of view. So the truth is, that while, again, this quote is a good one, and I came across it without looking for something with which to pester you, when I saw it, I laughed, rubbed my hands together, tugged at the corner of my mustache, and stage whispered: "Now I've got him!"

Here is the offended against quote:

"A recurring head-in-the-sandism of isolationists is the premise that every threat is best dealt with by leaving it alone in its cage. The unstated premise is that the dog can't or won't get out, and the only way to get hurt is by mucking in his business. Of course, the dog can get out. The only question is: Should we let him see us picking up a big stick, or stringing up our sneakers?"

Post 3

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 5:13am

Jeff, here is a start on your suggestion.

When one goes to the Libertarian Party web site, and looks under "Issues" and "Foreign Policy" what you find is just okay (from my point of view) except for what is NOT there at all.

There is no mention of a strong national defense. No discussion of projecting sufficiently massive force to handle any attack on this country or an imminent threat of attack. There is no discussion of making aggressors pay the full consequences of aggression. There is no discussion of the principles by which the military is used. Maybe this is for the Anarchist side of the party. There is no mention of how terrorism should be handled. That these things are absent makes no sense to me.

If you go to the "Crime and Violence" issue, they speak towards a strong police force and tough on criminal approach, but that isn't there for the military.

In "Current Issues" they mention Iraq - it is an isolationist view which I like, but I can't be happy without a policy statement that meets these requirements:
1. More even-handed in the description of the facts (they are only being viewed from one side (and the view is out of date)
2. It isn't a policy statement until it describes why a position is taken - in principles - so that anyone can pick up those principles and apply them to facts of a different time or place or imagined future situation. That party of principle?

If you leave the Issues area and go to the Platform area, you do find this small section:

"3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service."

I think that with importance national defense holds in the world today, and the impact it has on our lives, and the fears (justified and not), and the differences of opinion, and the confusions that abound, much more needs to be said. This tiny bit is like hiding - because of how little is said.

There is also no mention of defense of rights - domestic or foreign- in the introduction. They warrants a sentence or two for each of those.

There is a section labeled "What Americans Want" and another section labeled "Why not stick with the establishment" - there both offer excellent places to advocate for policies that effective against those who attack or would attack our countries while not falling into the trap of playing world policeman. Hitting the right note here would appeal to lots of voters on both sides of the typical military issues.

Post 4

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 7:44am

At the 2006 national convention, the National LP platform was cut from over 60 planks to under 20. Some issues are simply left out. It upset many long-time activists.

Some even feel that the LP "leadership" conspired to do this. They held the convention in Portland, Oregon, which is far away from just about everything. I heard one person say that it was the lowest-attended national convention since 1973.

I've already went on record elsewhere with my prediction that Bob Barr won't get more than 800,000 votes. I still stand by it.

In many respects, the LP died for me when they decided to run a candidate for assessor here in Travis County. The Blue incumbent will likely be re-elected by a landslide anyway. Against her is running a very decent and principled "Goldwater Republican" named Don Zimmerman. I asked the LP candidate in person: "Why are you running against Don?" He simply said that the LP wanted to get as many candidates on the ballot as possible.

I've said for a while that the LP might do better to focus its energy on races in which either the Red or Blue Team is not running a candidate. That's a lot of races, too. My biggest beef with the party has simply been that many of these people couldn't sell ice water in the middle of the Sahara.

Post 5

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 9:01am

I think Rand's alternative is worthy of discussion. I believe there are other threads here speaking to education as the main tool to enact change, with good reason. Just as another quote here speaks about attacking evil at it's root instead of the various branches, I think making changes in our cultural and societal ideals will require the same. I see it as much more fruitful to build a strong bedrock of education based on objective reality and enlightened self interest, rather than trying to change the smaller branches of political leadership in a society that doesn't already understand or appreciate those values. I suppose there is a reason that politics is mentioned in describing her philosophy only after Metaphysics, Epistomology, and Ethics.

In other words, let's not play whack-a-mole with our single votes that won't really change much. Let's take a look at changing the game altogether.

(Edited by Bauer Westeren on 8/18, 9:09am)

Post 6

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 1:56pm

Ted:

Sorry to have driven off your quote post! That was not even an issue I was aware of. I'll try to honor the Gladsden motto in the future and make an effort to "not tread on thee!".

regards,
--
Jeff

Post 7

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 1:59pm

Ted wrote:

when I saw it, I laughed, rubbed my hands together, tugged at the corner of my mustache, and stage whispered: "Now I've got him!"

Ted:

I'm still waiting for that picture of you. I have just got to get a peek at that mustache!

Regards,
--
Jeff

(Edited by C. Jeffery Small on 8/18, 2:00pm)

Post 8

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 2:23pm

The only jpg I have is from 1990, and does not show my goatee. I will change my avatar briefly, imagine it with Sean Connery's hairline and facial hair.

Post 9

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 2:36pm

Wow, Ted. You look just like Matt Damon, you devil! And now, 18 years later you're a ringer for Sean Connery!! No wonder you don't want to post your picture. It's too distracting for the girls! Let's keep focused on philosophy ... :-)

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 10

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 3:10pm

Oh, lord. It's that picture - no one has ever told me in real life that I look like Matt Damon. I have been told I look like Metallica's Hetfield, and was given a joint by a stranger because of it. Back to the Doctor avatar!

(Edited by Ted Keer on 8/18, 4:52pm)

Post 11

Monday, August 18, 2008 - 3:22pm