Why isn't the Libertarian Party more popular? [Archive]

shanek

5th January 2004, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Margam
I think that this party has a lot of common sense on most issues, and would make a legitamite third party. Any ideas on why there is so little support for Libertarians?

Coercive measurements stopping us from raising money and getting the word out.

The so-called "campaign finance reforms" have basically crippled us. We can't even turn around without finding out we've violated one of them. There is basically very few ways that we can raise money...and even if we could, the fact that we are so intensely restricted on advertising etc. means that we really can't get the word out to people. We're left with word of mouth and what we can do by "hoofing" it, and even then we can't collect any more than $1,000 per person in an election cycle.

This is a big reason for the formation of the American Liberty Foundation. By simply being a nonpartisan group, we can run issue ads on radio and television with the libertarian position, although of course we can't mention the party in any way. But even that has just been hugely restricted: we won't be allowed to run ANY ads in the 60 days before an election.

Meanwhile, the Democrats and Republicans enjoy literally hours of free air time every month if not week and get millions of taxpayer dollars to run their campaigns.

That really makes it crystal clear why we're having trouble getting anywhere.

shanek

5th January 2004, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by hgc
I think that most people, upon close examination of the Libertarian goals, realize that civilization depends on some level of coercive cooperation. That is government.

And where does libertarianism disagree with this? Or are you subscribing to Jon's LIE that libertarians are anarchists?

Margam

5th January 2004, 12:24 PM

From what I know about the Libertarian Party is that they are for the rights of the individual, not about anarchy and lawlessness. If that is what people think, I can see why they aren't popular.

5th January 2004, 12:24 PM

Well, I think the problem is that most people realize, deep down, that pure libertarianism is the economic converse of communism, and that it would work about as well.

There is much good under the libertarian umbrella, but as usual with extremists, the need to push the extreme seems to win out over any kind of common sense or any understanding that cooperation is necessary in any real society, and further that for some individuals, cooperation must always be coerced.

There have been several debates here on the issues, but the issue of the tragedy of the commons has been shown completely unresolvable in game-theory terms using libertarian rules, for instance, and many other issues (roads, rational design, etc) stand out as obvious candidates for the same sort of problem.

The problem of local optimization of planning is visible in many places in the USA, the corner of Greenbrook, North Plainfield, Watchung, and Warren NJ comes to mind as an egregious example, for instance (but only one of many). Pure libertariaism expressly condones for such local optimization, and sets up a system wherein such local optimization is the way of things.

So, while there are many good facets to libertarianism, the implementation that is espoused at present is an extreme, and one that is visibly flawed and just as nonfunctional as communism.

shanek

5th January 2004, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron
I so want to hear shanek's explanation for this one.

Simple: It's a stupidly worded plank. They're trying to say that the GOVERNMENT shouldn't be able to lock these people up. But, say, a close family member should be able to bring someone in and commit them; that would fall under the meaning of "voluntary" in this passage. Not that it SAYS that; you have to read it in through the context, which is why it's stupidly worded.

shanek

5th January 2004, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
While my knowledge of the Libertarian Party is limited by the viewpoints expressed and links provided by Libertarians on this forum, I would nevertheless hazard the guess that what turns people off is the fanaticism expressed. The US Constitution and the mantra "No initiation of force" is the "be all" of the Party. No exceptions. No mitigations. The Holly Grail has been found and there can be no compromises with this religion.

IMO, it is simply too fanatical.

You have been presented with so many reasons why this stylization of libertarianism is wrong that it can be nothing more than just plain dishonesty and bigotry that you still adhere to it.

shanek

5th January 2004, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
People dont like libertarians because they realize that Libertarians=Anarchist lite.

No, we aren't, and you know it, liar.

People are stoopid but not so stoopid to think that you can get by without a government.

Libertarians don't claim you can get by without a government and you know it, liar.

Nyarlathotep

5th January 2004, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Simple: It's a stupidly worded plank. They're trying to say that the GOVERNMENT shouldn't be able to lock these people up. But, say, a close family member should be able to bring someone in and commit them; that would fall under the meaning of "voluntary" in this passage. Not that it SAYS that; you have to read it in through the context, which is why it's stupidly worded.

Yes, but what about the situation where someone is clearly insane and clearly poses a danger (i.e. he is threatening people with bodily harm) but has no close family or anyone else with the authority to speak for him? This seems like it would be a common situation and one where if the governement doesn't have the authority to step in someone is going to get hurt.

Luke T.

5th January 2004, 12:43 PM

hgc

5th January 2004, 12:43 PM

hgc:

I think that most people, upon close examination of the Libertarian goals, realize that civilization depends on some level of coercive cooperation. That is government.

Originally posted by shanek

And where does libertarianism disagree with this? Or are you subscribing to Jon's LIE that libertarians are anarchists? I don't subscribe to lies, so that can't be the case. ;)

What are you saying libertarianism does or doesn't disagree with? That civilization depends on systems of coercive cooperation? That such systems are commonly referred to as "government?" That libertarianism seeks to eliminate large portions of that system, in favor of voluntary cooperation? What is the lie here, exactly.

Luke T.

5th January 2004, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by shanek

The so-called "campaign finance reforms" have basically crippled us. We can't even turn around without finding out we've violated one of them. There is basically very few ways that we can raise money...and even if we could, the fact that we are so intensely restricted on advertising etc. means that we really can't get the word out to people. We're left with word of mouth and what we can do by "hoofing" it, and even then we can't collect any more than $1,000 per person in an election cycle.

These same laws apply to everyone. So if they have truly "crippled" the Libertarian Party, then so have they "crippled" all other parties.

Perhaps the reason you can't raise money is because NO ONE LIKES YOUR PLATFORM!

This is a big reason for the formation of the American Liberty Foundation. By simply being a nonpartisan group, we can run issue ads on radio and television with the libertarian position, although of course we can't mention the party in any way. But even that has just been hugely restricted: we won't be allowed to run ANY ads in the 60 days before an election.

This is a lie and you know it. You can run any ads you want prior to the election. You just have to stay within the law, like everyone else.

Meanwhile, the Democrats and Republicans enjoy literally hours of free air time every month if not week and get millions of taxpayer dollars to run their campaigns.

That really makes it crystal clear why we're having trouble getting anywhere.

I assume by the "free air time" you mean the invitation to speak on issues of the day on talking head programs. In this, the two major parties have a clear advantage. But it isn't because they are Republicans or Democrats. It is because they are in office and actually affect whatever policy is being discussed.

And not all of the major party candidates have accepted matching taxpayer dollars.

Shanek, you guys need to accept that your biggest obstacle is your own message. The problem is internal, not external.

Your message isn't being prevented from being spread. The internet is the cheapest, most uninhibited, and best vehicle for a wide dissemination of ideas. If your ideas were so great and wonderful and acceptable to people, your numbers would grow accordingly, just like any other grass roots movement that has taken off.

Suddenly

5th January 2004, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.

Not only that, some families won't admit one of their own is a nutjob. "Not MY son!"

Heh heh.

Every now and then I have the task of interviewing a close relative of a client that is doing like 122938 years for various depraved and violent felonies, usually based on virtually watertight evidence. The vast majority of these relatives, especially the mothers, say at some point:

"He's really a good boy."

Suddenly

5th January 2004, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Yes, but what about the situation where someone is clearly insane and clearly poses a danger (i.e. he is threatening people with bodily harm) but has no close family or anyone else with the authority to speak for him? This seems like it would be a common situation and one where if the governement doesn't have the authority to step in someone is going to get hurt.

Actually the government would have the authority to arrest and convict him for assault and/or battery and send his butt to jail for a while. Remember that we've taken away his insanity defense, right?

That will teach him to be mentally ill without a family. He can't get away with that once we put the Libertarians in charge!! He'd better shape up or at least get a few relatives if he wants to stay out of prison!

As for those people he randomly attacks, it is their own fault for not exercising their right to bear arms, or at least not exercising them quickly enough. Those that fail to exercise freedom deserve what they get. Perhaps they should move to a communist mommy state like Canada.

Luke T.

5th January 2004, 01:03 PM

Shanek, the Libertarians are living in an insular mindset. I suggest paying an objective, well established polling firm (Harris, maybe) to take a poll of the American people to see how they stand on some issues. They can ask properly worded questions to prevent bias as much as possible.

Spend some of the money in your war chest to ask people their opinions on legalizing crack cocaine. Ask if people with no criminal record should be allowed to carry a handgun on an airplane. Ask if the FDA should be abolished. Very specific stuff like that, and not the generic stuff in the LP platform.

I think it will open your eyes on why you just can't seem to get anywhere. It has nothing to do with The Man keeping you down.

Grammatron

5th January 2004, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Simple: It's a stupidly worded plank. They're trying to say that the GOVERNMENT shouldn't be able to lock these people up. But, say, a close family member should be able to bring someone in and commit them; that would fall under the meaning of "voluntary" in this passage. Not that it SAYS that; you have to read it in through the context, which is why it's stupidly worded.

Not so simple when you inject some reality into it. What about if a person has no family -- or no known family which is mostly the case -- and they are acting out their insanity, what then? Does a PRIVATE institution then have rights to take away that person's freedom? If so who decides what constitutes insanity?

Luke T.

5th January 2004, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Simple: It's a stupidly worded plank.

I'm not sure I can vote for a Party that stupidly words its planks...
:p

*hastens to check GOP platform*

DanishDynamite

5th January 2004, 01:27 PM

shanek:You have been presented with so many reasons why this stylization of libertarianism is wrong that it can be nothing more than just plain dishonesty and bigotry that you still adhere to it.
"You're a bigot and a liar".

shanek, have you ever considered changing your vote-gathering slogan? I agree that it is clear, concise and to-the-point, but somehow I still think it lacks appeal. Perhaps the Libertarians could see hire a proffesional PR-man.

Michael Redman

5th January 2004, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.
Spend some of the money in your war chest to ask people their opinions on legalizing crack cocaine. Ask if people with no criminal record should be allowed to carry a handgun on an airplane. Ask if the FDA should be abolished. Very specific stuff like that, and not the generic stuff in the LP platform.And they'll just say the results demonstrate that people don't understand the issues due to all the republicrat propaganda. Otherwise they couldn't help but agree with the Libertarians.

hgc

5th January 2004, 01:33 PM

Shane,

I'm wondering how the problem of Reps and Dems getting all the free media coverage might be addressed. Perhaps a good dose of government intervention is called for. What do you think?

The idea

5th January 2004, 01:34 PM

(1) Where do they stand on polygamy?

(2) How about privately run contests between gladiators fighting to the death in contests broadcast live on TV? Provided that the gladiators are fighting voluntarily (for money), is there a problem?

EvilYeti

5th January 2004, 01:42 PM

Funny, looks like the free market rejects Libertarianism!

corplinx

5th January 2004, 01:44 PM

The reason Libertarianism isn't more popular is because of two things:

A. people who say they believe in freedom really don't, only when the behavior that is free is inoffensive to them

B. diehards in the Libertarian party that believe government does't have a duty to address imperfections in the market with regulation (e.g. there will never be such a thing as perfect information, hence the need for some sorts of regulations as assurance that you can make good faith purchases)

Mind you, information is more freely available than ever to disseminate yet we are still adding more and more regulation, the time for at least a good dose of libertarianism is has come.

5th January 2004, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by shanek

No, we aren't, and you know it, liar.

Ooh, Jon, you must have said something really telling, since he's relapsed to his final insult, "liar".

He's called me that many times, and factually has never shown a single lie on my part (which is not surprising, since I don't lie in debates, under my own close-to-libertarian ethics, lying is a waste of everyone's time, and therefore a serious crime, since life is short).

So feel good, instead of bad. You must have nailed him cold on something.

Libertarians don't claim you can get by without a government and you know it, liar.
Really? Which ones?

5th January 2004, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.

Not only that, some families won't admit one of their own is a nutjob. "Not MY son!"

You know, that's part of the problem with the libertarians, come to think of it.

5th January 2004, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly

Actually the government would have the authority to arrest and convict him for assault and/or battery and send his butt to jail for a while. Remember that we've taken away his insanity defense, right?

That will teach him to be mentally ill without a family. He can't get away with that once we put the Libertarians in charge!! He'd better shape up or at least get a few relatives if he wants to stay out of prison!

As for those people he randomly attacks, it is their own fault for not exercising their right to bear arms, or at least not exercising them quickly enough. Those that fail to exercise freedom deserve what they get. Perhaps they should move to a communist mommy state like Canada.

/*libertarian mocking flame status ::= ON*/

Now, wait a minute, Suddenly. What do you mean we're going to put him in prison and feed him? Why should we feed him if he hasn't provided for himself.
/*LMFS ::= OFF*/

Now, I will actually grant that libertarians don't say that, they say that the private, business-run prison should in fact be humane. What they don't tell us is who and how that actually, really, gets supported. People will, we're told, support that because they know they should, and you know, that's exactly the same reason people should work at their maximum ability in a communist society, "because they know they should". We already know how that works out, eh?

Segnosaur

5th January 2004, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron

Not so simple when you inject some reality into it. What about if a person has no family -- or no known family which is mostly the case -- and they are acting out their insanity, what then?

Or what if half the family says a family member is insane and should be committed, and the other half says they're fine and should be free... who wins? Could you put it to a vote? And if so, does the insane persion get a vote themselves? (Maybe 2 votes if they're schitzophrenic.)

Or what if a family member tryes to get someone committed even though they aren't really insane (for revenge for example)?

Nasarius

5th January 2004, 02:46 PM

I think drug legalization is an issue entirely different from carrying a gun on a plane or the need for government regulatory agencies. It's about protection from harm. While the latter two involve the government attempting to prevent people from hurting other people, the illegality of certain psychoactives is trying to protect people from hurting themselves. It doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't want to derail this thread, but I've never heard a convincing argument as to why all intoxicating substances shouldn't have the same status as alcohol. It all ends up with attempting to protect people from themselves, which to my eyes is just as bad as censorship.

But of course, it's common sense that "drugs are bad", so things will never change.

The idea

5th January 2004, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Nasarius
[...] the illegality of certain psychoactives is trying to protect people from hurting themselves.
Why doesn't the Libertarian Party start by making legal drugs available over the counter so that people don't have to pay a pharmacy dispensing fee? After all, there are more cases of people harming themselves with psychoactives than there are of people overdosing on hemorrhoid medication.

Zep

5th January 2004, 03:26 PM

I'm still curious as to why the Libertarian Party can't collect massive party donations and the big parties can.

I quite am aware of the existence of PACs - a mechanism to divorce the parties from the actual money (OK, it's really to make an end run around the rules about the amounts that can be donated directly, but whatever...). Literally hundreds of millions of dollars runs through these channels each election time, obviously in expectation of some sort of "favours" following success - just ask Nixon and Dubya for a start.

So why isn't this same mechanism being used by the Libertarians? It's (apparently) legal, it works, all the major parties use it... Surely the LP can't be pretending to be too simon-pure to use it??

And if this IS available, and there are supposedly all those millions of supporters willing to put in at least a few bucks each, why the beef about "limitations on campaign funding imposed by the gubmint", Shane?

Segnosaur

5th January 2004, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by Nasarius
I think drug legalization is an issue entirely different from carrying a gun on a plane or the need for government regulatory agencies. It's about protection from harm. While the latter two involve the government attempting to prevent people from hurting other people, the illegality of certain psychoactives is trying to protect people from hurting themselves.

I agree that most of the anti-drug laws are to prevent people from hurting themselves (or are simply a power-grab), keep in mind that drug use can have a negative effect on more people than just the user. For example:

- People driving while impaired from drug use
- Costs (e.g. in terms of welfare, etc.) from people who let drug use negatively affect their ability to work
- Drain on medical system. Even now we don't know what all the long term effects of legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco are; do we really need to worry about how other chemicals work long-term? Remember, if you legalize one drug (Pot, for example, which is probably quite harmless), you may also have to legalize heroine (HIV transmission anyone?), crack, and "designer drugs" (who knows what can be in some of those things).

I would be quite happy getting rid of all drug laws, if I knew that 1) drug users would never drive on the same roads I use, 2) they would give up all welfare, and 3) They would never use "my" health care system (in Canada, health care is payed for by taxes)

Originally posted by Nasarius
It doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't want to derail this thread, but I've never heard a convincing argument as to why all intoxicating substances shouldn't have the same status as alcohol.

I agree, it does seem a bit silly to make a distinction between alcohol (and maybe tobacco) and other drugs. But, there are some reasons why 'legal' drugs can be treated differently than 'illegal' ones:

- We have ways to detect impairment from alcohol, so drunk driving isn't as big a problem (we need to have the equivalent of a 'breathalizer' for Pot, Crack, PCP, Cocaine, etc.)
- Alcohol has probably been studied (in a scientific sense) for quite a while, so we have a better idea of how it affects the body (Pot has probably also been studied quite well, but there are many drugs which haven't been)
- Because of the 'scale' needed to create alcohol (raw materials needed, containers to fermet/brew stuff, etc.), it can be controlled by the government (purity, etc. can be dictated, taxes collected and distribution controlled). Many drugs can be grown/manufactured on a small scale, by individuals. Thus, purity may not be maintained, less control can be had over who it is sold to, etc.

specious_reasons

5th January 2004, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Zep
Literally hundreds of millions of dollars runs through these channels each election time, obviously in expectation of some sort of "favours" following success - just ask Nixon and Dubya for a start.

So why isn't this same mechanism being used by the Libertarians? It's (apparently) legal, it works, all the major parties use it... Surely the LP can't be pretending to be too simon-pure to use it??

#1. I thought the current round of campaign finance reform dealt a severe blow to this type of funding.

#2. Usually, big donors expect big favors in return, and you have to have people in power to provide those big favors. A catch-22.

Plus, when it comes down to it, big favors have a tendency to mean more governance, something which Libertarians seem not to like.

The idea

5th January 2004, 03:50 PM

Where does the Libertarian Party stand on public libraries? Should they be privatized? Would information about the law only be available to paying customers?

EvilYeti

5th January 2004, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by Segnosaur

I would be quite happy getting rid of all drug laws, if I knew that 1) drug users would never drive on the same roads I use, 2) they would give up all welfare, and 3) They would never use "my" health care system (in Canada, health care is payed for by taxes)

Well, here's the problem. Under the current system, drug users are incarcerated and end up costing the system much more than if they were simply on welfare. Remember, prison incurs housing, food, medical, adiminstrative and judical costs far in excess of welfare. Admittedly they would be off of the roads, but there are better ways to enforce that then locking people up willy-nilly.

billydkid

5th January 2004, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by American
If you believe everyone who claims they are libertarian, then they should hold the majority. They don't; they just want to sound cool by saying it. Makes them look non-conformist like that. It's BS. Either they don't even vote, or they're liars.

The Libertarian party is a victim of its own ideals--

Drug legalization? "Yes."

{widespread applause}

Crack too? "Oh yes, of course crack as well."

{silence}

As long as they accept jaw-droppingly stupid ideas like legalizing smack, they will never, ever be anything more than a fringe group that people say they belong to so they can look trendy at parties, or hope a stranger will trust them enough to score a dime bag. Seriously, in the right setting, "I'm libertarian" is practically a code-word for "I smoke pot. Who wants to come smoke with me?"

This isn't that hard to grasp. One of the very fundamental principles of libertarian philosophy is that you own YOURSELF. It isn't about being pro-drug or pro-prostitution or pro- any one of those buggaboo spectres that people bring up. The point is that libertarians believe that the government has no business deciding for us what we can ingest or read or say or think or in any other way deciding for us how to conduct our personal lives and that we should be free to conduct our own lives in precisely the manner we choose too in as much as we are not interfering with another's ability to do the same.

This notion that we will all going to go to hell in a hand basket with the government nannying our existance is just BS. I'm a grownup. You're a grownup. I can decide for myself the best way to conduct my life and I am willing to live with the consequences of my decisions. I don't need the government to protect me from myself. Do you? I don't need the government to decide for me that I shouldn't smoke crack cocaine. I have already decided that for myself. And for those people who have decided otherwise, well, it has been, frankly, futile as well as ungodly expensive and destructive for the government to try and prevent them from doing what they want to do.

You can not control how people conduct their private lives and, furthermore, it is wrong to presume to do so. Freedom is scarey for some people. It means you have to step up to the plate and take ownership of your own life. To my mind, that is essential if we are to have a free and prosperous and hopeful society.

Segnosaur

5th January 2004, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti

Well, here's the problem. Under the current system, drug users are incarcerated and end up costing the system much more than if they were simply on welfare. Remember, prison incurs housing, food, medical, adiminstrative and judical costs far in excess of welfare. Admittedly they would be off of the roads, but there are better ways to enforce that then locking people up willy-nilly.

But the question is, do drug laws act as a deterant, either for the use of drugs or the sale/production of drugs? (Heck, even if they don't make people stop buying them directly, it probably at least drives up the price.) If it does provide a deterrant, then the cost of locking one person up may be offset by more than one person staying off welfare and keeping their job. (And there is still the medical costs)

And if you know of a better way to prevent impaired driving from drug use, I'd like to hear it.

I don't think there are any good answers; I just think that keeping most drugs illegal (or tightly controlled) is the best of a very bad group of solutions.

Nasarius

5th January 2004, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Segnosaur
[quote]- We have ways to detect impairment from alcohol, so drunk driving isn't as big a problem (we need to have the equivalent of a 'breathalizer' for Pot, Crack, PCP, Cocaine, etc.)
Well, reckless driving is reckless driving.

- Alcohol has probably been studied (in a scientific sense) for quite a while, so we have a better idea of how it affects the body (Pot has probably also been studied quite well, but there are many drugs which haven't been)
And? This is the individual's risk.

- Because of the 'scale' needed to create alcohol (raw materials needed, containers to fermet/brew stuff, etc.), it can be controlled by the government (purity, etc. can be dictated, taxes collected and distribution controlled). Many drugs can be grown/manufactured on a small scale, by individuals. Thus, purity may not be maintained, less control can be had over who it is sold to, etc.

You're kidding, right? My father makes a few gallons of beer every year. There are tons of people out there who make their own beer and wine. The initial investment isn't that big. Distilled alcohol is somewhat different. Anyone can go pick up a homebrew kit, or hell, a pack of yeast and some sugar. You know that ethanol is a byproduct of anaerobic respiration, right?
This is in stark contrast to drugs like LSD or MDMA, which require very specific, relatively rare precursors (ergot alkaloids and safrole, respectively).

Grammatron

5th January 2004, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Segnosaur

But the question is, do drug laws act as a deterant, either for the use of drugs or the sale/production of drugs? (Heck, even if they don't make people stop buying them directly, it probably at least drives up the price.) If it does provide a deterrant, then the cost of locking one person up may be offset by more than one person staying off welfare and keeping their job. (And there is still the medical costs)

And if you know of a better way to prevent impaired driving from drug use, I'd like to hear it.

I don't think there are any good answers; I just think that keeping most drugs illegal (or tightly controlled) is the best of a very bad group of solutions.

So let me get this straight, you believe anti-drug laws stop people from taking illegal drugs but anti-driving-while-on-drugs laws would do nothing...Am I missing something?

billydkid

5th January 2004, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by billydkid

This isn't that hard to grasp. One of the very fundamental principles of libertarian philosophy is that you own YOURSELF. It isn't about being pro-drug or pro-prostitution or pro- any one of those buggaboo spectres that people bring up. The point is that libertarians believe that the government has no business deciding for us what we can ingest or read or say or think or in any other way deciding for us how to conduct our personal lives and that we should be free to conduct our own lives in precisely the manner we choose too in as much as we are not interfering with another's ability to do the same.

This notion that we will all going to go to hell in a hand basket with the government nannying our existance is just BS. I'm a grownup. You're a grownup. I can decide for myself the best way to conduct my life and I am willing to live with the consequences of my decisions. I don't need the government to protect me from myself. Do you? I don't need the government to decide for me that I shouldn't smoke crack cocaine. I have already decided that for myself. And for those people who have decided otherwise, well, it has been, frankly, futile as well as ungodly expensive and destructive for the government to try and prevent them from doing what they want to do.

You can not control how people conduct their private lives and, furthermore, it is wrong to presume to do so. Freedom is scarey for some people. It means you have to step up to the plate and take ownership of your own life. To my mind, that is essential if we are to have a free and prosperous and hopeful society.

Of course, I really meant this: This notion that we will all going to go to hell in a hand basket WITHOUT the government nannying our existance is just BS.

I have got to learn to proof before posting.

Grammatron

5th January 2004, 04:24 PM

Here's a good question to ask when it comes to drug laws. Who here wanted some drug and was unable to get a drug because of the drug law(s)? I suspect the number of people who were unable to get the drug would be 0 or close to 0.

shanek

5th January 2004, 04:30 PM

Segnosaur

5th January 2004, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by billydkid
The point is that libertarians believe that the government has no business deciding for us what we can ingest or read or say or think or in any other way deciding for us how to conduct our personal lives and that we should be free to conduct our own lives in precisely the manner we choose too in as much as we are not interfering with another's ability to do the same.

How exactly do you define "not interfering"? As I pointed out in other posts, there are ways that drug use can affect more than just the user of the drugs themselves.

Are you willing to sign a waiver that says "I promise that once I use crack, I will never accept welfare, drive on roads used by non-crack users, or use public health care again"? (It should be noted that the libertarian position is probably that government-mandated welfare could be replaced by things like charity; however, are we willing to dismantle all government support for the poor/unemployed?)

Originally posted by billydkid

I don't need the government to protect me from myself. Do you?

Yes I do.

Ok, I'm smart enough to never touch illegal drugs; however, I do depend on the government to make sure food and water is safe, medicine is properly tested, etc. I expect that while they will make some mistakes, for the most part I think they do a passable job. I believe the libertarian position is that the government should not be performing these actions.

shanek

5th January 2004, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by hgc
What are you saying libertarianism does or doesn't disagree with? That civilization depends on systems of coercive cooperation? That such systems are commonly referred to as "government?" That libertarianism seeks to eliminate large portions of that system, in favor of voluntary cooperation? What is the lie here, exactly.

Eliminating "large portions" is not the same as wanting to eliminate the whole thing, which is what your original post implied.

shanek

5th January 2004, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.
These same laws apply to everyone. So if they have truly "crippled" the Libertarian Party, then so have they "crippled" all other parties.

Not when they put in loopholes for themselves. The spending limitations and advertising limitations don't apply, for example, to the taxpayer money they get.

Perhaps the reason you can't raise money is because NO ONE LIKES YOUR PLATFORM!

Then explain why in NC for the last two years the number of registered Libertarians has grown steadily while the number of registered Democrats and Republicans has decreased? In fact, we just went above 10,000 elected Libertarians for the first time!

No, that's just a statement you WISH were true because of your anti-libertarian bigotry which you have already shown in abundance on this forum.

This is a lie and you know it. You can run any ads you want prior to the election.

No, we can't. The Supreme Court upheld that restriction.

I assume by the "free air time" you mean the invitation to speak on issues of the day on talking head programs. In this, the two major parties have a clear advantage. But it isn't because they are Republicans or Democrats. It is because they are in office and actually affect whatever policy is being discussed.

Uh-huh. The Committee for Presidential Debates is a BI-partisan group that took over the Presidential debates when the League of Women Voters, who had been running it previously, decided to start letting in independent candidates. They then imposed ridiculous requirements they knew no third party candidate could ever meet. And that's just one example. In 2002, both Elizabeth Dole and Erskine Bowles said that they would not only not participate in the debates but also pull their own advertising if our candidate, Sean Haugh, was allowed in.

Shanek, you guys need to accept that your biggest obstacle is your own message. The problem is internal, not external.

That just isn't true. A great number of the people who actually hear our message come over to our side. I know that's what your bigoted little mind doesn't want to hear, but that's what the numbers clearly show. More Libertarians, fewer Democrats and Republicans.

Your message isn't being prevented from being spread. The internet is the cheapest, most uninhibited, and best vehicle for a wide dissemination of ideas.

And it's also where we've had the greatest support and made the most inroads. Coincidence? But the fact remains that coverage on the Internet still gives you coverage of a scant minority of the people.

If your ideas were so great and wonderful and acceptable to people, your numbers would grow accordingly,

And they are. There are just so many restrictions that keep that from translating into vote totals.

EvilYeti

5th January 2004, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Segnosaur

But the question is, do drug laws act as a deterant, either for the use of drugs or the sale/production of drugs?

To be fair, yes the current drug laws do act as a detterant for some people. For example, I would probably be a regular pot smoker if the herb was legal. Its just too much of a hassle and risk to buy it in the current environment.

I will say the idea that all the drug addicts would be productive members of society without substance abuse to be false. Believe me, I know plenty of f**ckups that were messed up WELL prior to drug use. I think former causes the latter, not the other way around.

And if you know of a better way to prevent impaired driving from drug use, I'd like to hear it.

Well, sure. Just increase the police force by 10X, repeal the bill of rights and institute a policy of field drug testing erratic drivers. Anyone who tests postive is shot and left to decompose in the street as a warning to others.

Is that really what you want? If not, the best you can do is enforce the current laws, which make driving under the influence illegal and arrest as many violators as possible. Yes, some (probably most) are going to get away with it, but thats just life.

I don't think there are any good answers; I just think that keeping most drugs illegal (or tightly controlled) is the best of a very bad group of solutions.

Considering the billions of dollars we spend every year, the steady erosion of our civil liberties, urban decay, increase in crime and utter failure to curb america's appetite for drugs, I hesitate to see how anyone could call the current solution the "best" of anything.

shanek

5th January 2004, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.
Shanek, the Libertarians are living in an insular mindset. I suggest paying an objective, well established polling firm (Harris, maybe) to take a poll of the American people to see how they stand on some issues.

Already done. (http://www.theadvocates.org/library/poll-results.html)

shanek

5th January 2004, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.
I'm not sure I can vote for a Party that stupidly words its planks.

Which will leave no one left to vote for.

shanek

5th January 2004, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by hgc
I'm wondering how the problem of Reps and Dems getting all the free media coverage might be addressed. Perhaps a good dose of government intervention is called for. What do you think?

No, the solution is to take the shackles off of the challengers and allow them to raise and spend the money necessary to counteract that. Otherwise, you'd be put in the position of having to restrict not only free speech but free press, since the press couldn't cover what any politician was doing if he was running for reelection.

shanek

5th January 2004, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by The idea
(1) Where do they stand on polygamy?

As long as they're all consenting adults, I have no problem with it. In fact, the marriage plank I've submitted for discussion in the NC Platform Committee covers polygamy.

(2) How about privately run contests between gladiators fighting to the death in contests broadcast live on TV? Provided that the gladiators are fighting voluntarily (for money), is there a problem?

Now you're just being outrageous.

Segnosaur

5th January 2004, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Nasarius

Well, reckless driving is reckless driving.

But a person's ability to control a motor vehicle can be affected even if they are not intoxicated to the point that they are driving reckless.

Originally posted by Nasarius

And? This is the individual's risk.

As I have said before, the "risk" affects other people too...

What of the cost to any public health care system if its found that certain drugs have unexpected long-term consequences? What about the effect on unborn children when taking drugs during pregnancy? (We know about fetal alchohol syndrome, but what complications are there if you take other drugs during pregnancy?)

What is a safe level of (for example) pot in your system when you drive? (And pot-smokers will be driving on the same roads as non-smokers) Has that even been determined? At least with alcohol we have a general guideline of 1 drink/hour.

Originally posted by Nasarius

You're kidding, right? My father makes a few gallons of beer every year. There are tons of people out there who make their own beer and wine. The initial investment isn't that big. Distilled alcohol is somewhat different. Anyone can go pick up a homebrew kit, or hell, a pack of yeast and some sugar. You know that ethanol is a byproduct of anaerobic respiration, right?
This is in stark contrast to drugs like LSD or MDMA, which require very specific, relatively rare precursors (ergot alkaloids and safrole, respectively).

Yes, and my parents make a few bottles of wine. Thing is, not everyone has the desire or patience to make their own alcohol, and even if they did, I doubt most people would be able to make more alcohol than they drink in a year. (Your dad makes a few gallons of beer? Does he make enough that he never has to buy any? Heck, my dad could probably go through that in a weekend.)

And yes, some drugs (like LSD) are hard to make; that is why, in my original post, I said many drugs are easy to grow/manufacture. (I never said ALL drugs are easy to manufacture.) I had friends who said they grew marijuana plans at college (not too many friends of mine had stills...)

Mike B.

5th January 2004, 04:46 PM

The truth Libretarians might not want to face is that BIG government is popular.

I remember Stockman, who was Reagan's budget director in the early 80s, said something very telling.

When he tried to actually cut large chunks out of government spending, he found he could get little support.

He said something like, "The Reagan Revolution is a failure. The American people are conservative. They want to conserve the New Deal."

shanek

5th January 2004, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by Zep
I'm still curious as to why the Libertarian Party can't collect massive party donations and the big parties can.

Because we are particularly and expressly limited to $1,000 per person per election cycle. And we don't meet the criteria for applying for the loopholes that the major parties enjoy. The only way we could do so is if a very rich person wanted to run for office himself; he could then at least use the money for his own campaign.

So why isn't this same mechanism being used by the Libertarians? It's (apparently) legal, it works, all the major parties use it... Surely the LP can't be pretending to be too simon-pure to use it??

No, the rules just prevent us from doing so. You have to meet certain criteria, and (surprise!) we don't.

And every time we get to where we do, they change the criteria.

Segnosaur

5th January 2004, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti

Is that really what you want? If not, the best you can do is enforce the current laws, which make driving under the influence illegal and arrest as many violators as possible. Yes, some (probably most) are going to get away with it, but thats just life.

But that was one of my points....as far as I know, we don't have a good measure of what constitutes 'impaired' for drugs other than alcohol. (Will you require 0% level for pot, PCP, crack, cocaine, etc. or will you allow low levels like we do for alchohol?)

Even if we did decide on acceptable levels for all drugs (unlikely, since new drugs could in theory be created all the time), do we have 'breathalizer' tests to check for all drugs? Or are users going to have to give blood samples if they ever get pulled over?

shanek

5th January 2004, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Grammatron
Here's a good question to ask when it comes to drug laws. Who here wanted some drug and was unable to get a drug because of the drug law(s)? I suspect the number of people who were unable to get the drug would be 0 or close to 0.

Not really. My son has had to do without his medication several times because of government rules. The law doesn't allow for the fact that kids, especially autistic kids, sometimes gag on their medicine and spit it up. It's not as if they can just take it again; the pill's not in that form anymore. So every month or two, he has to go three or four days without his pills because the government won't allow his doctor to renew his prescription early. So he has to do without, and suffers as a result.

Mike B.

5th January 2004, 04:54 PM

If the Libretarians were ever a REAL force in National politics could you imagine the negative ads run against them:

"Libretarian candidate x wants to get rid of government mandated safety caps on children's medicine.

He even wants to get rid of government mandated safety belts.

He won't even let the goverment committ mentally ill people.

He wants to abolish social security and medicare."

The candidate would be eaten alive. I don't care how much money.

5th January 2004, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by shanek

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Luke T.
I'm not sure I can vote for a Party that stupidly words its planks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which will leave no one left to vote for.

When you're right, you're right.

5th January 2004, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Because we are particularly and expressly limited to $1,000 per person per election cycle. And we don't meet the criteria for applying for the loopholes that the major parties enjoy. The only way we could do so is if a very rich person wanted to run for office himself; he could then at least use the money for his own campaign.

No, the rules just prevent us from doing so. You have to meet certain criteria, and (surprise!) we don't.

And every time we get to where we do, they change the criteria.

Zep, this is actually pretty close to the facts here (since I haven't looked in a few years, I'm not sure how exact, but it's close). Several times Libertarians have qualified for government money. Each time, the rules have been changed. There is no doubt that both parties are deliberately preventing the creation of any new ones.

Margam

5th January 2004, 05:14 PM

I am surprised about all the negativity towards the Libertarian stance. I thought that more people would actually want less government in their business and more freedom. I don't think that their platform is extreme at all. Some of the arguments against it are over the top IMO.
The whole reason I brought this thread up is because of my disappointment with the two major parties. I am attracted to the Libertarian party because of its stance on individual freedom and smaller government. It seems to me that neither party is willing to stop government from expanding.

Zep

5th January 2004, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by jj
Zep, this is actually pretty close to the facts here (since I haven't looked in a few years, I'm not sure how exact, but it's close). Several times Libertarians have qualified for government money. Each time, the rules have been changed. There is no doubt that both parties are deliberately preventing the creation of any new ones. OK, perhaps I need to have my understanding of what a PAC is and how it works updated.

For example, I understood PACs were not part of the "government money limits for candidates" situation - they were completely private bodies aimed at supporting candidates or parties, and the dollars poured into them like rain into a barrel.

{insert knowledge here!}

shanek

5th January 2004, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Mike B.
If the Libretarians were ever a REAL force in National politics could you imagine the negative ads run against them:

You mean, like these?

http://www.quiz2d.com/commercials/Education.mp3
http://www.quiz2d.com/commercials/IRS.mp3
http://www.quiz2d.com/commercials/Marijuana.mp3

:D

shanek

5th January 2004, 05:27 PM

http://www.liberty-news.com/cartoons/PacMan.gif

Grammatron

5th January 2004, 05:31 PM

shanek

5th January 2004, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by Margam
I am surprised about all the negativity towards the Libertarian stance.

Don't be. They're the same handful of people who mindlessly rail against Libertarianism in practically every thread on the subject. They don't even represent the views of most people on this board, let alone most people out there in the real world.

FACT: Number of registered Libertarians in NC is at an all-time high.
FACT: Number of registered Democrats and Republicans is at an all-time low.
FACT: More Libertarians are elected every year in NC. We added six to our ranks of elected officials in 2002, and two more in 2003 (well, actually, three more, but we lost one—but the one we lost was replaced by one of the ones we gained, so, two more).
FACT: NC is hardly the only state that can make this kind of boast. (It's just the one I happen to have the figures for, actually living there and all...)

These facts all fly in the face of the inane blathering the bigots on this thread have spewed out, but they'll never acknowledge it, any more than they acknowledged it the last several times I brought up similar statistics. The point is, we're making gains even in spite of all the restrictions the two major parties can lump on us. How much faster can we run without the leg irons? That's what these people are afraid of.

As Gandhi said: First, they ignore you. Then, they laugh at you. Then, they fight you. Then, you win. We entered phase three years ago, and are just beginning into phase four. And that scares the pants off the Democrats and Republicans.

I thought that more people would actually want less government in their business and more freedom.

By and large, they do.

I don't think that their platform is extreme at all. Some of the arguments against it are over the top IMO.

All I can tell you is, welcome to the board!

The idea

5th January 2004, 05:49 PM

It seems that Libertarianism relies on the concept of "consenting adults." Now, the Libertarian Party seems to define adulthood economically, but does that mean that the law should consider an 8-year-old movie star to be an adult?

If a dishwasher is economically an adult, then would any young person who is capable of washing dishes be able to do so and declare himself/herself to be an adult?

Suppose a child doesn't want to study fiction. Do the child's parents have the power to require the child to study fiction on the grounds that studying fiction will actually help the child become economically self-sufficient? How about music or history? What percentage of children who study music or history are later able to use them to earn money?

Should children have the power to choose studies that will, as quickly as possible, lead to economic self-sufficiency or should a child's lack of economic self-sufficiency be considered an adequate basis for parents to require a child to pursue studies that will not actually contribute to the child's economic self-sufficiency?

Roadtoad

5th January 2004, 05:52 PM

Regrettably, the biggest problem facing getting the Libertarian message out is getting past the weirdos who want the extreme end of the Party's vision. I have real problems with permitting polygamy, or polyandry for that matter, and I know too well there are people out there who need a room with mattress wall paper, but won't get it because someone screams about rights, ignoring the reality that allowing someone like that to run loose is even more destructive. And no, I'm not all that crazy about allowing free and unrestricted use of mind altering substances. (Just look at what free and unrestricted use of alcohol has done to our nation's freeways.)

Libertarianism works when people accept responsibility for themselves, and for their actions. In the Libertarian mindset, yes, cameras at red lights are wrong, but most Libertarians would also realize it's stupid to run a red light. Libertarians would be against mandatory gun locks, but they'd have their guns locked up in the first place, because only an idiot leaves it out like Daddy's surrogate phallus where a kid can get his mitts on it. Libertarians would be against drug laws, but you would also have a hard time finding a Libertarian out in a bar getting smashed or tokin' on some Ganja, then trying to drive. A Libertarian would be against racial preferences, but you would, in theory, have a damned hard time finding a Libertarian who would do anything as stupid as discriminate against someone because of their race, creed, color, ethnicity, or sexual preference, and thereby deny themselves and their business skilled labor.

At least, in theory.

My experience is that most Libertarians (and this explains why I only sometimes vote for them) are usually pretty flaky, and are, in fact, quite anarchic. That's been my experience here in CA, but that does NOT mean that's the case all over the country. As it happens, we're probably going to move to WA pretty soon. It would be nice to think that Libertarians in the Pacific Northwest at least have their heads screwed on straight.

Response please? I could easily be wrong.

BTW: you may want to take a look at this. (http://www.clubforgrowth.org/taxsavings2004.php?clubforgrowth=b93a3f6811f4205b1 3fa98e9c03649be)

The idea

5th January 2004, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Now you're just being outrageous.
You missed this one:

Where does the Libertarian Party stand on public libraries? Should they be privatized? Would information about the law only be available to paying customers?

Also, some questions are at the very bottom of the second page.

specious_reasons

5th January 2004, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Not really. My son has had to do without his medication several times because of government rules. The law doesn't allow for the fact that kids, especially autistic kids, sometimes gag on their medicine and spit it up. It's not as if they can just take it again; the pill's not in that form anymore. So every month or two, he has to go three or four days without his pills because the government won't allow his doctor to renew his prescription early. So he has to do without, and suffers as a result.

Shane, I don't understand this... Your doctor is the one who writes the perscription. Hence, if you run out sooner, your doctor can be the one who takes responsibility for writing you a perscription sooner. The only thing I can see preventing him from doing so would be malpractice insurance.... not exactly a governmental body.

...although I suppose there could be laws, depending on the drug and how highly regulated it is.

specious_reasons

5th January 2004, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by Margam
I am surprised about all the negativity towards the Libertarian stance. I thought that more people would actually want less government in their business and more freedom. I don't think that their platform is extreme at all. Some of the arguments against it are over the top IMO.
The whole reason I brought this thread up is because of my disappointment with the two major parties. I am attracted to the Libertarian party because of its stance on individual freedom and smaller government. It seems to me that neither party is willing to stop government from expanding.

Some of the anti-LP stance on this forum comes from the heated debates we have on these subjects. ShaneK is a smart and prolific poster, but then he gets angry and starts telling people they are liars and bigots. Some of them just do it to egg him on, and some of it is honest disagreement misinterpreted until it becomes a flame war.

There have been others, who I don't see very often, who were just nasty. (I'm thinking of WMT1.)

Some people have a real dislike for the LP.... and it comes from all political spectrums. Yes, people want more freedoms and less government, so the major parties adopt these stances when public sentiment for this.

I don't like the LP, and its platform, but its because I'm not buying what they're selling. I usually try to be civil about it, though. Usually.

shanek

5th January 2004, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by The idea
Where does the Libertarian Party stand on public libraries?

They're great; they're wonderful; they're fantastic. Just don't force people to pay for them against their will.

shanek

5th January 2004, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by specious_reasons
Shane, I don't understand this... Your doctor is the one who writes the perscription. Hence, if you run out sooner, your doctor can be the one who takes responsibility for writing you a perscription sooner. The only thing I can see preventing him from doing so would be malpractice insurance.... not exactly a governmental body.

...although I suppose there could be laws, depending on the drug and how highly regulated it is.

It is. They're scheduled drugs. And they do just that—keep it on a schedule. Apparently, these things can fetch over $50 a pill on the black market, so the idea is that you stop someone skimming off four or five pills and selling them on the black market and going back for an earlier refill.

In other words, because SOME PEOPLE are abusing it, MY SON has to suffer.

shanek

5th January 2004, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by specious_reasons
ShaneK is a smart and prolific poster, but then he gets angry and starts telling people they are liars and bigots.

Only when they lie and make bigoted remarks. Like many of them in this very thread, like LukeT going on yet again about how people don't agree with the Libertarian message when the facts show otherwise. How can remarks like those not be considered bigoted? And how can making claims about Libertarians (like libertarianism=anarchy) that has been pointed out to that poster numerous times is erroneous not be a lie?

I don't like the LP, and its platform, but its because I'm not buying what they're selling. I usually try to be civil about it, though. Usually.

In fact, I don't recall you being anything but. And I don't ever recall using the words "liar" or "bigot" to describe you no matter how much you disagreed with me. If you'll look at these discussions objectively, you'll see perfectly well what kind of posts those are reserved for.

The idea

5th January 2004, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by shanek
They're great; they're wonderful; they're fantastic. Just don't force people to pay for them against their will.
Well, would people be punished for breaking laws that they don't know about and that they can't afford to find out about?

5th January 2004, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Only when they lie and make bigoted remarks.

Bull. The accusations you've made of me are legion, and each and every one of them was false.

As a libertarian, you take NO responsiblity for your own dastardly actions, and we all know it.

Roadtoad

5th January 2004, 07:59 PM

This reminds me of the Newberry Library, which was started solely with private funds. Most libraries, for that matter, were started in that way. Now, it's considered a national entitlement, but they're closed most of the times I am able to go, and much of what I want to read, I can't find. (Hey, The Demon Haunted World is very popular at the Antelope branch.)

Nowadays, most libraries are not a place where you can have free and open exchange of ideas, but rather what the dominant political force wants you to know, which in turn dictates what's on the library shelves. I'd rather have privately funded libraries, which allow open discourse, rather than publicly funded ones which are run by bureaucrats who have an agenda, regardless of what the agenda is.

Of course, show me how many people actually are willing to contribute money to keep libraries open. THAT'S the problem!

toad

5th January 2004, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.
If your ideas were so great and wonderful and acceptable to people, your numbers would grow accordingly, just like any other grass roots movement that has taken off.

I was unable to find more current data that is this readily understood, but it would appear that those numbers have grown steadily and continue to do so.

http://www.dehnbase.org/lpus/library/registration.html

shanek

5th January 2004, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by The idea

Well, would people be punished for breaking laws that they don't know about and that they can't afford to find out about?

What are you talking about and what does that have to do with what you asked me?

shanek

5th January 2004, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by jj
Bull. The accusations you've made of me are legion, and each and every one of them was false.

No, you LIED, and each and every time I supported my accusation against you.

shanek

5th January 2004, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by Roadtoad
This reminds me of the Newberry Library, which was started solely with private funds. Most libraries, for that matter, were started in that way.

According to the American Library Association, there are 117,000 libraries operating in America today, only 9,000 of which are public libraries.

5th January 2004, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by shanek

No, you LIED, and each and every time I supported my accusation against you.

Not once have you offered a just or coherent proof for your accusations.

shanek

5th January 2004, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by jj
Not once have you offered a just or coherent proof for your accusations.

You LIED in the "Shanek on technology" thread, particularly when you claimed Westinghouse was gone when they aren't. You then, instead of acknowledging your error, backpedalled and claimed you really meant something else, that it was just their research division which was dead, when that actually went against the very point you were making: that the free market "punishes" corporations for doing research by running them out of business.

You LIED in the "Maxrism" [sic] thread when you saidf that Libertarianism requires people to be rational all of the time when it doesn't, something that has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions. Repeating something you know to be false is a LIE.

You LIED persistently about Hooker and Love Canal in the "Negative externalities" thread even after I showed you evidence that your accusation was wrong.

And you maintained your numerous LIES in the deregulation thread, even after I directly quoted the New Jersey regulations that were in effect when you said they had been "deregulated."

When you continue to state things after it has been shown to you that they are false, that is LYING.

5th January 2004, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by shanek

You LIED in the "Shanek on technology" thread, particularly when you claimed Westinghouse was gone when they aren't.

Again, you try to suport your malicious removal from context. As you well know, and are now deliberately defaming me by failing to admit, the context was RESEARCH, and as we both know, my statement is true IN CONTEXT.

You then, instead of acknowledging your error, backpedalled and claimed you really meant something else, that it was just their research division which was dead, when that actually went against the very point you were making: that the free market "punishes" corporations for doing research by running them out of business.

Stop making things up. The context of research was clear from day one, from the initial post, and we both know it.

You LIED in the "Maxrism" [sic] thread when you saidf that Libertarianism requires people to be rational all of the time when it doesn't, something that has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions. Repeating something you know to be false is a LIE.

You CLAIM to have convinced me of that. You have NOT convinced me of that, and it is dishonest of you to reflect my disagreement with your absurd politics as a "LIE".

You LIED persistently about Hooker and Love Canal in the "Negative externalities" thread even after I showed you evidence that your accusation was wrong.

You still, despite the evidence, have entirely failed to make your case. The fact that I reject your unmade case is no lie, it is fact.

And you maintained your numerous LIES in the deregulation thread, even after I directly quoted the New Jersey regulations that were in effect when you said they had been "deregulated."

Again, when caught in an accidental embarrassment, you redefine your words to mean something else, and then call the other fellow a liar.

When you continue to state things after it has been shown to you that they are false, that is LYING.

AHA. There we have it;

SHANEK SAYS: LYING IS WHEN SOMEBODY REJECTS MY FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS AND KEEPS ON ARGUING WITH ME!

Do you even know what the word "lie" means?

You demand that you get to be the final authority on all statements, that you are the arbiter of truth, and you accuse others of lying when they reject your claim to omniscience. You claim to "show" something, and guess what, I disagree. That does not mean I'm a liar, it means that I think I have identified one or more flaws in your "showing" and reject what you've "shown". For you to claim that represents a lie promotes you to making a claim of omniscience.

Well, you're not god, you're not omniscient, and it's not lying to disagree with you.

Mr Manifesto

5th January 2004, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.

Not only that, some families won't admit one of their own is a nutjob. "Not MY son!"

Someone's probably already replied to this by now, but this actually isn't true. My Mom is still trying to lock me up. Thank goodness for budget cuts in the health sector is all I can say!

Mr Manifesto

5th January 2004, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly

Heh heh.

Every now and then I have the task of interviewing a close relative of a client that is doing like 122938 years for various depraved and violent felonies, usually based on virtually watertight evidence. The vast majority of these relatives, especially the mothers, say at some point:

"He's really a good boy."

Do you ever get, "He told me he stabbed a paedophile!"?

Jailies never go to jail for goods in custody, abeyance, aggravated assault... No, it's always "I stabbed a paedophile," or, "My mate raped my best friend so I bashed him." Amazing, that. You'd think this would be brought up in court to mitigate the sentence.

epepke

6th January 2004, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by Margam
I think that this party has a lot of common sense on most issues, and would make a legitamite third party. Any ideas on why there is so little support for Libertarians?

I tend to go for libertarian ideas more often than not. However, Libertarianism as an overarching concept I'm not so sure about. It seems too much like a fantasyland.

RPG Advocate

6th January 2004, 12:18 AM

What is the point of civil commitment, anyway? I think that involuntary commitment to a mental institution should only be possible after conviction of a crime (as a seperate determination of mental competence after conviction). I would argue that one crosses the line from "eccentric" to "nuts" when one starts stealing, destroying property, making threats, causing bodily harm, or exposing others to risk (such as drunk driving). Whether those behaviors are the result of idiocy or delusions, the government has a right to intervene then and only then. If it's found to be the result of delusions or other mental illness, the convict would be subject to mandatory treatment (at his own expense, or funded by donations, of course).

Can anyone think of any other objective standard for exposing someone to the risk of involuntary commitment?

richardm

6th January 2004, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by RPG Advocate
What is the point of civil commitment, anyway?
...

Can anyone think of any other objective standard for exposing someone to the risk of involuntary commitment?

I think that people are most often committed when they are deemed to be a risk to themselves as much as a risk to other people. In other words, they are put in a place of safety because they are thought likely to injure themselves.

In the UK I believe that you need to be pronounced at risk by more than one clinical psychologist before you are committed (or "Sectioned", as it's called over here).

shanek

6th January 2004, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by jj
Again, you try to suport your malicious removal from context. As you well know, and are now deliberately defaming me by failing to admit, the context was RESEARCH, and as we both know, my statement is true IN CONTEXT.

You're lying, of course.

Here is your main argument from that thread:

Let's see how that corresponds to reality.

Perhaps the entity most responsible for technological advancement anywhere in the world in the last century was Bell Labs. You can argue some other entities contributed, of course, but there is a very strong record of technological innovation that you simply can't deny, starting from vacuum tubes, the transistor, 2.7k, and a whole army of other things.

AT&T/The Bell System was as heavily regulated as anything ever was, and they provided a disproportionally LARGE number of the technological advances. The Bell System was the most heavily regulated industry IN THIS COUNTRY at the same time that Bell Labs was the most productive research lab in the world.

That is, until they were SPLIT UP AND DEREGULATED, and now, thanks entirely to free-market operation, they are gone.

Sorry, the real world shows that you are dead, flat, competely wrong.

Your argument is clearly that any company that conducts such research, left to free market forces, GOES AWAY COMPLETELY. In my very first post on that thread, I mentioned Westinghouse, and you responded:

Westinghouse is gone, Shanek, and you know it, and it's GONE BECAUSE OF THE FREE MARKET. That's why it died, the FREE MARKET didn't support its forwardlooking work.

It's clear what you meant, liar.

Stop making things up. The context of research was clear from day one, from the initial post, and we both know it.

I quoted it above, liar.

You CLAIM to have convinced me of that. You have NOT convinced me of that, and it is dishonest of you to reflect my disagreement with your absurd politics as a "LIE".

All it takes is for a Libertarian to point out to you that we don't expect people to be rational 100% of the time. I also explained to how our policy accounts for people behaving irrationally. Regardless of whether or not your believe such would work, continuing to claim that Libertarians expect people to behave rationally 100% of the time is a LIE, a lie which you are continuing right now.

You still, despite the evidence, have entirely failed to make your case. The fact that I reject your unmade case is no lie, it is fact.

Regardless of whether or not I have "made my case," it was still a LIE.

Again, when caught in an accidental embarrassment, you redefine your words to mean something else, and then call the other fellow a liar.

Uh-huh. You said there were no regulations in the New Jersey power market. I quoted you several of them, with a cite. You continued to deny their existance. At that point, you were LYING.

You were LYING, you are LYING, you are a LIAR.

shanek

6th January 2004, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by RPG Advocate
What is the point of civil commitment, anyway? I think that involuntary commitment to a mental institution should only be possible after conviction of a crime (as a seperate determination of mental competence after conviction).

That is exactly the point.

shanek

6th January 2004, 07:08 AM

Originally posted by richardm
I think that people are most often committed when they are deemed to be a risk to themselves as much as a risk to other people. In other words, they are put in a place of safety because they are thought likely to injure themselves.

No, there must be the aspect that they are not in control of their actions. Otherwise, everyone into BDSM would be locked up. The presumption is that someone who does this out of insanity would prefer not to if they were in their right mind, so the proper course of action is to get them help.

richardm

6th January 2004, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by shanek

No, there must be the aspect that they are not in control of their actions. Otherwise, everyone into BDSM would be locked up. The presumption is that someone who does this out of insanity would prefer not to if they were in their right mind, so the proper course of action is to get them help.

Yes indeed, you don't want to go reaching for incarceration at the drop of a hat. I was just pointing out that there are instances where it might be desirable to section somebody without waiting for them to actually act first.

Luke T.

6th January 2004, 07:31 AM

Luke T: This is a lie and you know it. You can run any ads you want prior to the election.

shanek: No, we can't. The Supreme Court upheld that restriction.

We've been over this before, and you have yet to prove you cannot run whatever ads you want before an election. Show me where it says you can't. You know what? You won't be able to show me, will you? Just like before.

Now if you want to talk about limiting factors involved in running whatever ads you want, that is a whole different issue.

daenku32

6th January 2004, 07:35 AM

Luke T.

6th January 2004, 07:37 AM

Luke T:Shanek, the Libertarians are living in an insular mindset. I suggest paying an objective, well established polling firm (Harris, maybe) to take a poll of the American people to see how they stand on some issues.

shanek

Already done. (http://www.theadvocates.org/library/poll-results.html)

And there you have it, folks. I can't believe it, but you have demonstrated my point perfectly, shanek. I did not dare hope you would actually point to that poll.

It is a Libertarian poll, not a poll by an objective outside agency.

Many refer to the “World’s Smallest Political Quiz”, a product of the libertarian leaning Advocates for Self-Government. The quiz asks participants ten questions that position them on a liberal, conservative, centrist, authoritarian, and libertarian scale.

Insular mindset.

I would bet the wording of that poll is an industry joke.

Luke T.

6th January 2004, 07:44 AM

The forum is acting up again. I have had to edit this post a couple of times to correct some math errors and to add some important information.

Originally posted by shanek

Then explain why in NC for the last two years the number of registered Libertarians has grown steadily while the number of registered Democrats and Republicans has decreased? In fact, we just went above 10,000 elected Libertarians for the first time!

First, I would like to see some backup for this "10,000 elected Libertarians" claim. Not one Libertarian elected to a national seat from NC.

Second, you have made yet another claim that I can prove is a lie.
I'll get to that.

Third, here (http://nfib.sohodojo.com/races-candidates.php) is a link to the number of registered voters in North Carolina and their party affiliations.

Democrat: 2,495,399
Republican:1,671,571
Libertarian: 5,627
Unaffiliated: 757,722*

Total Registered Voters: 4,930,319
Source: NC Board of Elections

*According to NC State Board of Elections, Reform party candidate numbers are included in the Unaffiliated total.

You are barely .7 percent the size of the Unaffiliateds! :eek:

And only .1 percent of the total registered voters. Notice where the decimal point is?

Nothing to brag about.

Now about that lie. You said, "the number of registered Democrats and Republicans has decreased."

In the link above is this statement:

The number of unaffiliated voters in North Carolina has increased sharply over the last decade, accounting now for 15.5 % of voters. Democratic registration in the state has dropped from 72% in 1980 to 50.7% today, while Republican registration has continued to climb over the same period.

And at a second source, (http://www.southnow.org/publications/sn_updates/datapack%20guide%20October%202,2002.doc) is this statement:

Voter registration in North Carolina increased by nearly 160% between 1966 and 2002, and the number of actual voters increased by almost 140% over the same period.

Comparatively, Democratic registration decreased by nearly 40% between 1966 and 2002, while Republican registration has increased by more than 90%. Importantly, Unaffiliated or Independent registration has increased by more than 400% in the last two decades, and it is virtually equal to the 1966 level of Republican affiliation.

You should know by now I check your claims, shanek.

edited yet again to add: Neither source says the Libertarians have increased in registration numbers. That doesn't mean they haven't. I have not been able to find any source that shows they have. But when they are only 5627 in number, one more guy on the books is probably a substantial increase to them. :D

Jon_in_london

6th January 2004, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by shanek

No, we aren't, and you know it, liar.

Libertarians don't claim you can get by without a government and you know it, liar.

Are too! Liar yerself!

Then how are libertarians going to sustain a government with no revenue? Liar!

Skeptical Greg

6th January 2004, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by The idea

Well, would people be punished for breaking laws that they don't know about and that they can't afford to find out about?

I'm trying to imagine, just a whole lot of people, browsing through ( now free ) law libraries, making sure there are not any laws they are not breaking..

Then, this whole segment of the population languishing in jail, once this free access is denied them...

Sounds like a great reason to me, to keep them libertarians out of power...

Skeptical Greg

6th January 2004, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

Are too! Liar yerself!

Then how are libertarians going to sustain a government with no revenue? Liar!

Just curious... Why it is your contention, that Libertarians support a government that does not collect revenue?

Cleon

6th January 2004, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

Are too! Liar yerself!

Then how are libertarians going to sustain a government with no revenue? Liar!

Libertarians want to abolish income taxes, not all taxes. There are other ways to generate revenue than income taxes. The federal income tax is only about 100 years old; unless the rest of US history is fabricated, there was indeed a sustained government before it was adopted.

(I'm not a libertarian by any means, but I'm trying to be fair, here.)

Samus

6th January 2004, 08:38 AM

Jon_in_london: Then how are libertarians going to sustain a government with no revenue? Liar! Libertarians want to eliminate the federal income tax, not the federal government. There are other sources of revenue, and user fees, that they suggest as an alternative. Shane has made that clear many times in many threads on this forum, Jon.

I just think the LP isn't more popular because not enough people believe in its principles. I like their fiscal conservative nature, but I disagree with enough of the platform to not register with the party.

Edited to add: looks like Cleon beat me by a couple minutes...

richardm

6th January 2004, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Cleon

Libertarians want to abolish income taxes, not all taxes.

I don't think that is generally true:

We should support all moves to reduce and repeal taxes because taxes are obtained immorally, by force. The income tax is particularly evil, since it penalizes productivity and forces all of us to expose our private affairs to government snoopers.

(From

here) (http://www.theadvocates.org/library/libertarian-faq.html#Lib.FAQ.15)

Libertarians believe that Americans will voluntarily finance services.

Luke T.

6th January 2004, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Then explain why in NC for the last two years the number of registered Libertarians has grown steadily while the number of registered Democrats and Republicans has decreased? In fact, we just went above 10,000 elected Libertarians for the first time!

I'm looking for support for this 10000 elected Libertarians thing. I'd hate to think the entire quoted paragraph is one giant lie.

I have
this link (http://www.cmlc.org/cmlc/runmany.htm), but it is from 1997, and says there are only 215 elected Libertarians in the whole country. All non-national offices. That would mean that in the last 6 years, Libertarians would have to have gained 9785 offices nationwide. A virtual revolution I think we would have heard about.

On the Libertarian Party's own web site, there is a story entitled

The Top 10 Libertarian Stories of 2003 (http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0402/top10_stories.html). No mention of this 10000 achievement.

Interestingly, in the same story is this bit:

10) The number of people who took the online version of the World's Smallest Political Quiz passes 2 million. (August 2003)

Recap: On August 31, the number of cybersurfers who have taken the interactive online version of the World's Smallest Political Quiz hit the 2-million mark.

The Quiz -- which measures political beliefs on a four-way map (libertarian, liberal, conservative, authoritarian) -- is offered by the Georgia-based Advocates for Self-Government (www.TheAdvocates.org).

"It was exciting because it's a big number," said Advocates' president Sharon Harris. "It makes you aware how many people are seeing it."

:D

Luke T.

6th January 2004, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by Cleon

Libertarians want to abolish income taxes, not all taxes. There are other ways to generate revenue than income taxes. The federal income tax is only about 100 years old; unless the rest of US history is fabricated, there was indeed a sustained government before it was adopted.

(I'm not a libertarian by any means, but I'm trying to be fair, here.)

That was two world wars ago, when we were virtually isolated from the rest of the planet and still getting around by horse and buggy.

Thanz

6th January 2004, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

I'm looking for support for this 10000 elected Libertarians thing. I'd hate to think the entire quoted paragraph is one giant lie.

My guess is that the "10,000 elected Libertarians" is just a mistake by shanek, and that he meant to say that there are 10000 registered Libertarians. It looks like your numbers are from 2000, so a growth of 4400 registrations in 3 years is certainly more reasonable than growth of 9785 elected officials.

It tends to make more sense with the rest of his paragraph as well.

The news that the Libertarians now have 10,000 registered voters in NC (compared to about 5 million total and 1.6 million of the lower of the two major parties) was probably big news on radio station WGAF.

The idea

6th January 2004, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
I'm trying to imagine, just a whole lot of people, browsing through ( now free ) law libraries, making sure there are not any laws they are not breaking..

Then, this whole segment of the population languishing in jail, once this free access is denied them...

Sounds like a great reason to me, to keep them libertarians out of power...
When I asked about punishment, did you assume that I was necessarily referring to jail?

Do you insist on a purely pragmatic analysis or are you willing to consider the moral argument? In your view, is it morally acceptable to punish people for breaking laws if they had no opportunity to discover that those laws exist?

And on another topic, suppose some adults, who own a home in a city, want to walk around nude on the front lawn. Under a Libertarian government, would they have the legal right to do that?

Mahatma Kane Jeeves

6th January 2004, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Originally posted by Roadtoad
This reminds me of the Newberry Library, which was started solely with private funds. Most libraries, for that matter, were started in that way.

According to the American Library Association, there are 117,000 libraries operating in America today, only 9,000 of which are public libraries.
From the context of your reply, you seem to be implying that the other 108,000 libraries are "private."

Number of Libraries in the United States (http://www.ala.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Our_Association/Offices/Library1/Library_Fact_Sheets/ALA_Library_Fact_Sheet_1__Number_of_Libraries_in_t he_United_States.htm)
Public libraries (administrative units) 9,074

Centrals * 8,915

Branches 7,383

Buildings 16,298

Academic Libraries 3,658

Less than four year 1,438

Four year and above 2,220

School Libraries 93,861

Public schools 76,807

Private schools 17,054

Special Libraries * * 9,170

Armed Forces Libraries 329

Government Libraries 1,326

Total 117,418

* The number of central buildings is different from the
number of public libraries because some public library
systems have no central building and some have more
than one.

* * Special libraries include Corporate, Medical,
Law, Religious, etc.

Luke T.

6th January 2004, 09:11 AM

A simple tour of the Libertarian Party web site shows their stand on some issues.

Eliminate the Department of Education. (http://www.lp.org/issues/program/edu.html)

Unilaterally end all domestic subsidy programs, trade barriers and tariffs. (http://www.lp.org/issues/program/unemp.html)

Replace the FDA. (http://www.lp.org/issues/program/health.html) "The agency should be abolished and replaced with voluntary certification by a private-sector organization, similar to the way Underwriters Laboratories certifies electrical appliances."

End drug prohibition. (http://www.lp.org/issues/program/vcd.html) "Just as alcohol prohibition gave us Al Capone and the mafia, drug prohibition has given us the Crips, the Bloods and drive-by shootings."

Because these all cost money, they anticipate a great savings of taxdollars, and therefore taxes across the board would be reduced, in addition to eliminating the income tax.

The idea

6th January 2004, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.
A simple tour of the Libertarian Party web site shows their stand on some issues.
It seem that they focus on changes that they want to make. Questions arise about issues that they don't discuss. If their principles suggest that a given existing law should not exist, then are they going to abolish it in accordance with their principles or are they going to keep the law and introduce more complicated principles to justify keeping the law?

Cain

6th January 2004, 09:24 AM

Ignoring all the intervening bullsh*t, I'll offer several reasons why I'm not a Libertarian. Most of these have been discussed at length on this board.

Property Acquisition: For Libertarianism, property is important. In fact, I think a better name for this particular ideology is propertarianism. In the case of the United States, where Libertarianism finds its strongest support, the land was rather recently stolen. Robert Nozick, the smartest and most influential Libertarian philosopher*, argued in favor of even returning large stretches of land to the offspring of the Indians it was stolen from.

Other social contract oriented political philosophies can dismiss this (according ot their internal logic) and focus on social justice. Libertarianism, commonly understood, is fanatically process oriented. See Herbert Spencer's original edition of _Social Statics_ or the writings of Henry George (basically a populist Libertarian).

Another reason for rejecting Libertarianism is their impoverished understanding of liberty as freedom from interference. There's a vast literature on this subject with come claiming that it's merely deficient to others who say it leads to internal contradiction. Negative rights require positive obligations; taken to their logical conclusion, "pure" negative rights may prevent the creation of any government; and so on. This has been discussed at length here.

Another philosophical objection is that Libertarianism, laissez-faire capitalism, in fact runs contrary to the idea of people's lives being determined by personal choices rather than uncontrollable circumstances. If someone is born into poverty, refused a decent education, their life may have been denied significant opportunities. Similarly, if you're born a Hilton heir, where you're expected to inherit over hundreds of millions of dollars by virtue of your blood line, that lifestyle is not the result of hard-work, effort, or sacrifice.

Then there are standard empirical arguments.

Problem of externalities, public goods.

Idealized (i.e. unrealistic) market assumptions.

Why aren't all Libertarians in agreement that the government's monopoly on force should be abolished in favor of a market system consisting of privately competing defense agencies?

And the list goes on.

*Later in life Nozick ended up renouncing many of his ideas to the point where he could no longer consider himself a Libertarian.

Luke T.

6th January 2004, 09:25 AM

Originally posted by Thanz

My guess is that the "10,000 elected Libertarians" is just a mistake by shanek, and that he meant to say that there are 10000 registered Libertarians. It looks like your numbers are from 2000, so a growth of 4400 registrations in 3 years is certainly more reasonable than growth of 9785 elected officials.

It tends to make more sense with the rest of his paragraph as well.

The news that the Libertarians now have 10,000 registered voters in NC (compared to about 5 million total and 1.6 million of the lower of the two major parties) was probably big news on radio station WGAF.

Ordinarily, I give a person the benefit of the doubt. But shanek repeatedly makes statements which prove to be false. It happens too frequently. And, yes, I can certainly back that up.

The claim that the number of registered Republicans dropped in the same paragraph, for example. The claim that when the roof ripped off an airplane in flight that no one was injured, for another. Simple searches of his claims show them to be false often enough that I now must doubt every claim he makes.

And when I suggest the Libertarian party have a poll done by an outside agency, he points to a libertarian poll as evidence it has already been done, well, what can I say? It is just too bizarre.

I am not as opposed to some of the Libertarian platform as I imagine Shane must think I am by now. I am mostly opposed to shanek's representation of the Libertarian party, and to the more extremist positions of the LP.

The idea

6th January 2004, 09:30 AM

Suppose someone wants a housekeeper who will work for a minimum of 2000 hours and who will accept physical punishment from the employer whenever the employer is annoyed concerning the quality of the work done. For example, the contract might specify that the physical punishment might include slapping and kicking that might cause bruising and a small amount of bleeding, but no broken bones or permanent injuries.

Suppose someone signs the contract, agreeing to work for the 2000 hours. After a month, the housekeeper is concerned that the employer's quality demands are very strict and the physical punishment is worse than expected. The housekeeper wants to quit. Would courts under a Libertarian government enforce the contract and force the housekeeper to complete the full 2000 hours of work?

Skeptical Greg

6th January 2004, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by The idea

When I asked about punishment, did you assume that I was necessarily referring to jail?

Do you insist on a purely pragmatic analysis or are you willing to consider the moral argument? In your view, is it morally acceptable to punish people for breaking laws if they had no opportunity to discover that those laws exist?

Under our current judicial system, ignorance of a law is not an excuse for breaking it. How do you think this would change with a library system that was no longer funded with general tax revenues?

And on another topic, suppose some adults, who own a home in a city, want to walk around nude on the front lawn. Under a Libertarian government, would they have the legal right to do that?

Only if it was not against the law..

Suddenly

6th January 2004, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by The idea
Suppose someone wants a housekeeper who will work for a minimum of 2000 hours and who will accept physical punishment from the employer whenever the employer is annoyed concerning the quality of the work done. For example, the contract might specify that the physical punishment might include slapping and kicking that might cause bruising and a small amount of bleeding, but no broken bones or permanent injuries.

Suppose someone signs the contract, agreeing to work for the 2000 hours. After a month, the housekeeper is concerned that the employer's quality demands are very strict and the physical punishment is worse than expected. The housekeeper wants to quit. Would courts under a Libertarian government enforce the contract and force the housekeeper to complete the full 2000 hours of work?

No. Specific enforcement of personal service contracts are not required by the libertarian commitment to the sanctity of contract. These types of contracts, like most contracts, are enforced by the party in breach paying money damages. There are several theories as to how these damages are calculated, and in this case the damages would likely be the amount necessary to put the wronged party in the same position had the contract been performed.

Skeptical Greg

6th January 2004, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by The idea
Suppose someone wants a housekeeper who will work for a minimum of 2000 hours and who will accept physical punishment from the employer whenever the employer is annoyed concerning the quality of the work done. For example, the contract might specify that the physical punishment might include slapping and kicking that might cause bruising and a small amount of bleeding, but no broken bones or permanent injuries.

Suppose someone signs the contract, agreeing to work for the 2000 hours. After a month, the housekeeper is concerned that the employer's quality demands are very strict and the physical punishment is worse than expected. The housekeeper wants to quit. Would courts under a Libertarian government enforce the contract and force the housekeeper to complete the full 2000 hours of work?

Why do you seem to think that a Libertarian government has nothing to do with common sense?

Luke T.

6th January 2004, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Cain
Why aren't all Libertarians in agreement that the government's monopoly on force should be abolished in favor of a market system consisting of privately competing defense agencies?

Interesting question. If they are all about privatization of the FDA, Dept of Ed, and other departments, why not all of them?

Cleon

6th January 2004, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

That was two world wars ago, when we were virtually isolated from the rest of the planet and still getting around by horse and buggy.

As I said, I'm not advocating said view, merely trying to be fair. Claiming that the LP wants to get rid of all taxes, that they're anarchists, etc. is just gross distortion of the LP's ideas.

Hell, I'm a Green--and a left-wing Green, at that. It's not like I've got Ayn Rand lining my shelves or anything. :)

Luke T.

6th January 2004, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly

No. Specific enforcement of personal service contracts are not required by the libertarian commitment to the sanctity of contract. These types of contracts, like most contracts, are enforced by the party in breach paying money damages. There are several theories as to how these damages are calculated, and in this case the damages would likely be the amount necessary to put the wronged party in the same position had the contract been performed.

But there is a question about the "right" of someone to enter into a contract of bondage implied in the idea's question, too. Can a person voluntarily enter into bondage, and if they want to back out of that contract because it exceeds their expectations of bondage, which party is the wronged party? And from a Libertarian point of view, is it even a valid contract?

EvilYeti

6th January 2004, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes

Why do you seem to think that a Libertarian government has nothing to do with common sense?

Well, for me its because none of the Libertarians on this board seem to have any!

Luke T.

6th January 2004, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by Cleon

As I said, I'm not advocating said view, merely trying to be fair. Claiming that the LP wants to get rid of all taxes, that they're anarchists, etc. is just gross distortion of the LP's ideas.

Hell, I'm a Green--and a left-wing Green, at that. It's not like I've got Ayn Rand lining my shelves or anything. :)

I believe the orginal statement was by jon in london to the effect that the LP is "anarchy lite." The post was a waggish summation of a complicated party position, but basically correct. The LP wants to pare down our current government to a tiny fraction of its current size.

People are smart enough to see that more government than the LP thinks is necessary is actually necessary. And they are smart enough about human nature to know that you can always count on human nature to undermine an ideal. To trust "market forces" as much as the LP does, you would have to believe that greed and contempt are not a great enough factor to warrant regulation.

Mike B.

6th January 2004, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves

According to the American Library Association, there are 117,000 libraries operating in America today, only 9,000 of which are public libraries.
From the context of your reply, you seem to be implying that the other 108,000 libraries are "private."

Number of Libraries in the United States (http://www.ala.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Our_Association/Offices/Library1/Library_Fact_Sheets/ALA_Library_Fact_Sheet_1__Number_of_Libraries_in_t he_United_States.htm)
Public libraries (administrative units) 9,074

Centrals * 8,915

Branches 7,383

Buildings 16,298

Academic Libraries 3,658

Less than four year 1,438

Four year and above 2,220

School Libraries 93,861

Public schools 76,807

Private schools 17,054

Special Libraries * * 9,170

Armed Forces Libraries 329

Government Libraries 1,326

Total 117,418

* The number of central buildings is different from the
number of public libraries because some public library
systems have no central building and some have more
than one.

* * Special libraries include Corporate, Medical,
Law, Religious, etc. [/QUOTE]

Brilliant...
I think we will see more weaseling...or call you a liar...or scream, "STRAWMAN."

But please don't confuse this discussion with cold hard facts.

Thanz

6th January 2004, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

Ordinarily, I give a person the benefit of the doubt. But shanek repeatedly makes statements which prove to be false. It happens too frequently. And, yes, I can certainly back that up.
In general I agree with you, but I think that shanek is willing to correct the kind of mistake that I think he made here - and I would have put that to him before I bothered searching for elected Libertarians. But, to each their own I commend your effort.

The claim that the number of registered Republicans dropped in the same paragraph, for example. The claim that when the roof ripped off an airplane in flight that no one was injured, for another. Simple searches of his claims show them to be false often enough that I now must doubt every claim he makes.
I understand your stance, and good work digging up the resources. I also find Mahatma Kane Jeeves to be excellent at debunking shanek's various claims.

To add to your list of false claims, I offer his claim that somehow government regulations regarding the classification of vehicles were behind the Pinto fiasco. When pressed, he mentioned that it had to do with weight and cost factors. I found a source that showed that the weight/cost factors were imposed by Lee Iaccoa, and that a one dollar one pound part would have solved much of the problem. But of course, shanek still blames the big bad government.....

And when I suggest the Libertarian party have a poll done by an outside agency, he points to a libertarian poll as evidence it has already been done, well, what can I say? It is just too bizarre.
I find that... uh, interesting as well. IIRC, I was also labelled a liar and a bigot when I suggested that some of the questions were worded in a biased manner.

I am not as opposed to some of the Libertarian platform as I imagine Shane must think I am by now. I am mostly opposed to shanek's representation of the Libertarian party, and to the more extremist positions of the LP.
I really don't think that he is doing his cause any good here either. IMO, he comes off as a less than honest fanatic who refuses to listen to other's arguments.

Tricky

6th January 2004, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.
Ordinarily, I give a person the benefit of the doubt. But shanek repeatedly makes statements which prove to be false. It happens too frequently. And, yes, I can certainly back that up.
...
I am not as opposed to some of the Libertarian platform as I imagine Shane must think I am by now. I am mostly opposed to shanek's representation of the Libertarian party, and to the more extremist positions of the LP.
This is the same problem I have with Libertarians. While I can agree that some of their ideas have merit, I am still looking for that elusive non-loony Libertarian. Most of the sensible people I know who espouse some libertarian ideals do so within a realistic, workable framework, not requiring a complete restructuring of society. The die-hard Libertarians I know, in contrast, support incredibly unworkable things. One Libertarian friend of mine said that we should eliminate all police. When I pointed out that this would likely lead to private militias who would support their employer's policies at the end of a pointed gun, he replied, "Yeah, well they haven't seen my guns."

As to the library question, I suspected when Shanek quoted the library numbers that the vast majority of "non-public" libraries were in fact school libraries. Thanks to MJK, we see that is the case.

My experience with school libraries (especially college libraries) is that anyone can use them, although not to check out books. I have yet to see a library where you must pay a fee or buy a membership just to enter.

Suddenly

6th January 2004, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

But there is a question about the "right" of someone to enter into a contract of bondage implied in the idea's question, too. Can a person voluntarily enter into bondage, and if they want to back out of that contract because it exceeds their expectations of bondage, which party is the wronged party? And from a Libertarian point of view, is it even a valid contract?

Depends on what is meant by bondage. The right to refuse to continue a contract for personal services is I would think the main factor in determining whether someone is a slave or an contractual employee. Employees can quit, slaves can't.

If you promise to do something in exchange for consideration, and don't do it, you are in breach.

Now, a libertarian government would have certain powers to enforce these contracts, and that power would not include forcing people into bondage, as a libertarian government would be anti-slavery and identify slavery as illegal. So if you sign a contract that includes a clause that breach is remedied by forced performance (in other words you MUST perform), the government simply doesn't have the power to force performance of that part of the contract. Same as if the contract called for a penalty of death for a breach, as murder is also illegal under a libertarian government. Money damages is as far as the government could go.

Such a contract would carry a moral obligation for continued performance (or to shoot yourself in the other example), but such performance could not be forced by a libertarian government.

Samus

6th January 2004, 10:56 AM

Luke T.: Interesting question. If they are all about privatization of the FDA, Dept of Ed, and other departments, why not all of them? Because providing for the national defense is one of the enumerated powers granted to Congress in the constitution. It's not something that can (or should) be delegated out.

Again, I'm no Libertarian, I'm just answering your question.

specious_reasons

6th January 2004, 11:35 AM

Margam,

I think you've about gotten the idea now....

:)

shanek

6th January 2004, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.
We've been over this before, and you have yet to prove you cannot run whatever ads you want before an election. Show me where it says you can't. You know what? You won't be able to show me, will you? Just like before.

You're lying, of course.

http://www.independentsector.org/PDFs/campfin3.pdf

Ban on Paying for Electioneering Communications: All corporations, including tax-exempt corporations, will be prohibited from paying for “electioneering communications.” An electioneering communication is defined as:
(1) a broadcast, cable or satellite communication that
(2) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office,
(3) is made within 60 days before a general, special or runoff election or 30 days before a primary or preference election, or convention or caucus of a political party to nominate a candidate, and
(4) for candidates other than presidential or vice-presidential candidates, can be received by 50,000 or more persons in the district (for a candidate for Representative) or state (for a candidate for Senator) the candidate seeks to represent.

Many of the other restrictions are laid out there as well.

shanek

6th January 2004, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.

And there you have it, folks. I can't believe it, but you have demonstrated my point perfectly, shanek. I did not dare hope you would actually point to that poll.

It is a Libertarian poll, not a poll by an objective outside agency.

You're lying again! The poll was done by RASMUSSEN RESEARCH, AN OBJECTIVE OUTSIDE AGENCY!!! :mad:

Unless you have evidence that Scott Rasmussen, one of the most respected pollsters in the business, is a closet Libertarian and deliberately skewed the poll...

specious_reasons

6th January 2004, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.

People are smart enough to see that more government than the LP thinks is necessary is actually necessary.

That pretty much sums up my opinion on the LP.

Thanks for calling me "smart enough" I'll consider it a compliment. :)

shanek

6th January 2004, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.
First, I would like to see some backup for this "10,000 elected Libertarians" claim.

Sorry, my bad. That should have been 10,000 registered Libertarians. I was talking about voter registration in NC. And in both raw numbers and as a proportion of all registered voters, the number of registered Libertarians is increasing, and the number of registered Democrats and Republicans is decreasing.

Samus

6th January 2004, 12:12 PM

shanek: You're lying again! The poll was done by RASMUSSEN RESEARCH, AN OBJECTIVE OUTSIDE AGENCY!!! :mad:

Unless you have evidence that Scott Rasmussen, one of the most respected pollsters in the business, is a closet Libertarian and deliberately skewed the poll... No, but that poll was executed using the political quiz developed by the Libertarian Party. Even though it was done by an independent agency, the responses are the equivalent of the LP conducting the poll, as it was using questions developed by the LP.

When Luke says objective/independent, I think he is referring to the whole package: pollster, funding, and questions. Clearly, the questions in this case were not developed independent of the LP.

He's not lying, and neither are you. You're just not on the same page, if you will.

shanek

6th January 2004, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Are too! Liar yerself!

Then how are libertarians going to sustain a government with no revenue? Liar!

No, YOU are lying again. We never said there would be no revenue. And you know it.

shanek

6th January 2004, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
I'm trying to imagine, just a whole lot of people, browsing through ( now free ) law libraries, making sure there are not any laws they are not breaking..

Then, this whole segment of the population languishing in jail, once this free access is denied them...

Sounds like a great reason to me, to keep them libertarians out of power...

When did I ever advocate anything of the kind? The government should absolutely make all of the laws available to people (and right now, they aren't even—in many cases you have to pay a third party to find out what the law is).

Again, you're just making stuff up because you can't refute what we're genuinely saying.

shanek

6th January 2004, 12:16 PM

The idea

6th January 2004, 12:17 PM

And on another topic, suppose some adults, who own a home in a city, want to walk around nude on the front lawn. Under a Libertarian government, would they have the legal right to do that?
Originally posted by Diogenes
Only if it was not against the law..

If the Libertarian party would simply use that approach to answer all questions, then they wouldn't have to bother developing policies.

Two questions about animals under a Libertarian government:

(1) Would intentional or negligent mistreatment of dogs, cats, rabbits, etc. by breeders (puppy mills) be against the law or would it simply be frowned upon by society?

(2) Would restaurants be allowed to sell puppy burgers?

shanek

6th January 2004, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.
Ordinarily, I give a person the benefit of the doubt. But shanek repeatedly makes statements which prove to be false. It happens too frequently. And, yes, I can certainly back that up.

Oh, go cry me a farking river. I made a mistake. Get over it. At least I don't LIE.

And when I suggest the Libertarian party have a poll done by an outside agency, he points to a libertarian poll as evidence it has already been done, well, what can I say? It is just too bizarre.

Like right there. You've been told several times in other threads that the poll was done by Rasmussen Research. It's even in the press release linked to.

And you wonder why I call you a bigot!

shanek

6th January 2004, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
To add to your list of false claims, I offer his claim that somehow government regulations regarding the classification of vehicles were behind the Pinto fiasco. When pressed, he mentioned that it had to do with weight and cost factors. I found a source that showed that the weight/cost factors were imposed by Lee Iaccoa, and that a one dollar one pound part would have solved much of the problem. But of course, shanek still blames the big bad government.....

This is another LIE. In that very thread, I retracted my claim in a direct reply to you.

I find that... uh, interesting as well. IIRC, I was also labelled a liar and a bigot when I suggested that some of the questions were worded in a biased manner.

No, you were called a "bigot" when you presented alternative questions, clearly with an anti-Libertarian bias, claiming that it would make the test more fair. You then suggested taking the very confusing measure of mixing up the answer, making the test virtually worthless because people would then not understand how it was being scored. But, here you are, LYING about what I said to you. Figures.

6th January 2004, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Oh, go cry me a farking river. I made a mistake. Get over it. At least I don't LIE.

Like right there. You've been told several times in other threads that the poll was done by Rasmussen Research. It's even in the press release linked to.

And you wonder why I call you a bigot!

Oh, goodie, now Luke is a bigot.

You really can't cope with your betters catching on to your little shuffle-around-the-truth acts, can you?

So, you say the things about them that you fear the most, like "liar" and "bigot", eh? Is that it?

You are an impossibly, stunningly dishonest, malicious, and utterly irresponsible poster who routinely constructively smears the people who catch on to your shuffleboard-with-the-facts act.

You, sir, are a jerk, a full, complete, and malicious jerk.

shanek

6th January 2004, 12:24 PM

shanek

6th January 2004, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Commander Cool
When Luke says objective/independent, I think he is referring to the whole package: pollster, funding, and questions. Clearly, the questions in this case were not developed independent of the LP.

He's not lying, and neither are you. You're just not on the same page, if you will.

That's not what he said. He said, "It is a Libertarian poll, not a poll by an objective outside agency." The meaning is clear, and is FALSE. And he knew it at the time he made the post.

Besides, doesn't it say something about the questions that one of the most respected pollsters in the business decided they were valid enough to use in a national poll?

Mahatma Kane Jeeves

6th January 2004, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by shanek

The same applies to private libraries. So what's the point of the distinction?
Are you suggesting that "anyone can use" a private library ("though not to check out books")?

Michael Redman

6th January 2004, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
My experience with school libraries (especially college libraries) is that anyone can use them, although not to check out books. I have yet to see a library where you must pay a fee or buy a membership just to enter. To take that a little further, most of those libraries are tax payer funded, not privately funded, as is clearly the implication of the original claim. They may not be "public" as in your local public library, but, like school libraries, they are nevertheless NOT private.

What we're really talking about is the possibility that we would have public libraries if we didn't fund them with tax money. The existance of libraries other than "public" libraries was pointed out to show that we would, but these libraries are mostly still publicly funded. The evidence does not tend to support the claim.

Suddenly

6th January 2004, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by jj

Oh, goodie, now Luke is a bigot.

You really can't cope with your betters catching on to your little shuffle-around-the-truth acts, can you?

So, you say the things about them that you fear the most, like "liar" and "bigot", eh? Is that it?

You are an impossibly, stunningly dishonest, malicious, and utterly irresponsible poster who routinely constructively smears the people who catch on to your shuffleboard-with-the-facts act.

You, sir, are a jerk, a full, complete, and malicious jerk.

I know you are disappointed jj, but until shanek directly calls you a bigot you are not eligible for membership in our secret club. Luke has been called a bigot for quite some time, and is a prized member, as he gives a much needed conservative flavor to our organization. Your status of a mere "liar" gives you associate status but does not make you eligible for full blown membership.

Sorry. Best of luck in the future.

Of course, you are free to disagree with our decision. We won't even call you a liar for doing so.

Michael Redman

6th January 2004, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by shanek
The same applies to private libraries. Really? It's generally true that I can walk into a private library and look around? Even in people's homes? I can go into law firms and use their libraries? Or are you talking about some undefined portion of theoretical privately funded libraries that are open to the public. I know of one or two of these, but they are clearly not indicative of private libraries in general, as you imply.

Cain

6th January 2004, 12:55 PM

Because providing for the national defense is one of the enumerated powers granted to Congress in the constitution.

First, just because it's written in the Constitution doesn't make it right or just. Legal, yes, but we're not talking about legalities. An amendment to the Constitution empowers the federal government to collect income taxes, but Libertarians oppose that. We're speaking in the ethical context of ought/should, not is/can.

It's not something that can (or should) be delegated out.

In which case that institution is being evaluated by economic calculations. You're in effect saying this would be a case of market failure, and nearly all economists agree. However, economists also agree, generally, that other services are prone to market failure because they do not satisfy free-market assumptions of good information, low barrier to entry/exit, rationality, homogenous/identical products and so on.

That means a Libertarian would have to consider all cases of government intervention from an economic standpoint. She cannot dismiss a regulation or government monopoly on the grounds that it violates natural liberty.

Shanek has had difficulty in the past distinguishing core premises of Libertarianism unfortunately, and I doubt it can be explained to him by the most patient person on earth speaking slowly and in monosyllables.

Full disclosure: Shanek has called me both a liar and a bigot.
_______________________________

Anyway, an episode of CSI (stupid show), my mention of Nozick, and a crappy movie got me to thinking about an issue between collective versus individual rights marginally related to Libertarian views.

In the film Arachnophobia the old, stodgy community doctor rationalizes recent deaths (from killer spiders) as perfectly natural. The town's new doctor wants autopsies performed to determine the exact cause of death. The elder M.D. says that no one in the community wants their friends and family butchered to determine what's probably just a heart-attack.

Now any minimally acceptable political philosophy places strong emphasis on self-ownership and individual rights. I own my body, and I should be free to do with it as I please (so long as I'm not harming anyone else). In fact, that statement is often trumpeted as the over-riding principle of Libertarianism.

Suppose I am extremely religious and I do not want my body opened up and the organs removed removed under *any* circumstances. I leave explicit instructions on my position. The reasoning itself isn't important and doesn't have to be rational. Perhaps I think these organs are necessary for the after-life.

Suppose I die under mysterious and/or suspicious circumstances, and the police want an autospy to determine the cause of death. Most of us, I think, agree without second thought that the government has this "right". They can open up a body because the rights and interests of living people over-ride my wishes.

Interestingly, most of us -- this is only a guess -- would, at least initially, strongly oppose legislation that empowered the government to harvest organs upon death. The government just goes in and takes them. The benefits of such a program would dwarf the benefits from autopsies in criminal investigations. Universal organ donation helps us all. First, you're more likely to receive than donate, and besides, donation costs nothing (except your well-being in the after-life).

Libertarians probably agree with autopsies in criminal investigations. In the episode of CSI, a body was exhumed for autospy without the consent of the surviving spouse (because he was probably the killer).

Assuming the victim (or spouse) opposed an autospy, we still think apprehending a murderer outweighs those wishes.

Libertarians (and indeed most of us) would probably have a knee-jerk reaction against "forced" organ donation, but the underlying logic -- in my first analysis -- appears consistent. The needs and interests of a patient in need of an organ outweighs the mere wishes of a person with wacky views (even if those views are religious in nature).

Now, Libertarians and conservatives -- this is where Nozick comes in -- strongly oppose the so-called "death tax", which only applied to 2% of estates. Republicans cried about "family" farms (and, incidentially, couldn't cite a single example where a family farm was taken), so Democrats and moderate Republicans had a proposal to exempt the first 100 million dollars. That would insure beyond any reasonable doubt that "family farms" are preserverd. Republicans defeated the measure because they're just opposed to an estate tax in principle. Libertarians are no different in this respect.

But the estate tax doesn't even apply to our flesh and bones. It applies to the external world, which you certainly can't take with you to the "next life." Moreover, this isn't a tax everyone has to pay; there are special circumstances (as in the case of autopsies).

Nozick recognized the gross unfairness of large inheritances (not to mention the concomitant benefits of financing government through the least painful form of taxation).

*Some might wonder what organ donations even have to do with aims of this post.

Skeptical Greg

6th January 2004, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by shanek

When did I ever advocate anything of the kind? The government should absolutely make all of the laws available to people (and right now, they aren't even—in many cases you have to pay a third party to find out what the law is).

Again, you're just making stuff up because you can't refute what we're genuinely saying.

Sorry Shane, I forgot to turn ' sarcasm ' on.. ( If you notice, the poster I was replying to, seemed to sense it.. )

I actually share many Libertarian sentiments. Mostly those that deal with the downsizing ( in a huge way ) of federal government and the elimination of the Federal income tax..

Of course such radical changes would not happen overnight ( as some might envision that Libertarians believe they will) and certainly not as long as a majority of the voting public remains under the delusion that they somehow benefit from the practice of paying a dollar to have a nickel handed back to them..

Local and state governments would be free to deal with entitlement programs as the people would allow, and then people could choose to live in the communities that best suited their needs.( of course the big problem here, is that the people who usually benefit from entitlements, are not the people who pay for them, and they may have trouble finding a community that is willing to support them .. Imagine a large bureaucracy, where the bureaucrats are the only ones who actually have a job? )
People who insist on ' free ' libraries, could live in communties that provided them, while pretending that they are really free..

Thanz

6th January 2004, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by shanek

This is another LIE. In that very thread, I retracted my claim in a direct reply to you.
I do not recall this retraction. Show it to me and I will gladly recant that portion of my post.

To be clear, do you now accept that the Pinto debacle was not caused by gov't regulations?

No, you were called a "bigot" when you presented alternative questions, clearly with an anti-Libertarian bias, claiming that it would make the test more fair.
Actually, no. I suggested some rather neutral wording of questions. Others presented wording that they felt was just as biased against libertarianism as the ones in the test are for libertarianism. You called me a bigot for suggesting that the wording of the questions was biased.

For the record, here is the wording I proposed:
Drug laws should be repealed.

Minimum wage laws should be repealed.

Or, you could flip the position to "be maintained" rather than "be repealed".
How those could possibly be biased against libertarianism is beyond rationality. I repeatedly asked you to address this wording, and you never did.

According to the Shanek lexicon, can I now call you a LIAR? Here is the thread: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32021&perpage=40&highlight=political%20quiz&pagenumber=2

All the interaction between us on this is on page 2.

You then suggested taking the very confusing measure of mixing up the answer, making the test virtually worthless because people would then not understand how it was being scored. But, here you are, LYING about what I said to you. Figures.
No, I suggested making the web version of the test flip the wordings of some of the questions to see if the wording of the question makes any difference at all. In other words, to determine if all the cries of bias on both sides actually amount to anything. That's when you spouted off about the little cards and how people couldn't score them.

So to recap: I stated my opinion that a couple of the questions were phrased in a bias manner. I suggested neutral wording (which you never even addressed). I suggested a methodology to see if the "biased wording" on either side made any difference at all. And for this you labelled me a bigot.

Tricky

6th January 2004, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Really? It's generally true that I can walk into a private library and look around? Even in people's homes? I can go into law firms and use their libraries?
I believe the technical term for this sort of library is "a bunch of books".

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Or are you talking about some undefined portion of theoretical privately funded libraries that are open to the public. I know of one or two of these, but they are clearly not indicative of private libraries in general, as you imply.
I am guessing that what the statistical reference calls "public libraries" are those which are owned by the government, but not a part of a school or other facility.

If I understand the libertarian ideal, then they would like to have libraries funded by usage fees. I think it has been shown that there are relatively few of these types of libraries in the US.

Mr Manifesto

6th January 2004, 02:12 PM

shanek

6th January 2004, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
To be clear, do you now accept that the Pinto debacle was not caused by gov't regulations?

Yes. The restrictions apparently came from Iacocca himself, and he was apparently not prompted by the vehicle classification regulations as I thought (or, at least, I no longer have evidence to conclude that they were).

Actually, no.

My apologies. I had Suddenly's questions confused with yours. My problem with yours wasn't that they were biased, but that they took the principled cause away from the question. And I absolutely reject the notion that the questions as phrased are at all biased. They present a position, which a question MUST do before you can agree or disagree with it. Your claim of "bias" simply cane about because those questions took a principled position, which is a bogus accusation, especially when we're trying to make people only answer Yes or No when their principles lead them to that answer, the idea being if they answer Yes to that one question they would answer Yes to a number of other similar questions that might be asked. This makes the test more effective with only ten questions.

Whereas, your wording just presents their opinions on that one particular issue without necessitating a principled standpoint, and that adds more randomness into the responses.

Again, over ten years of study and trial went into the wording of those questions. They were worded to be as neutral as possible while still giving accurate results.

No, I suggested making the web version of the test flip the wordings of some of the questions to see if the wording of the question makes any difference at all.

But again, that would confuse people because they wouldn't understand how the test was being scored and how the computer ended up with them in that particular position on the Nolan Chart. The online quiz is presented for the benefit of the quiz taker only; internet polls are just too unscientific to be taken at all seriously. So it's important for the quiz taker to understand where they were placed and why. Again, your proposal just confuses that unnecessarily.

shanek

6th January 2004, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
I am guessing that what the statistical reference calls "public libraries" are those which are owned by the government, but not a part of a school or other facility.

If I understand the libertarian ideal, then they would like to have libraries funded by usage fees. I think it has been shown that there are relatively few of these types of libraries in the US.

Precisely. School libraries, whether private, public, or government, are there as a function of providing a school. They are paid for out of the school's budget, so they're a completely different issue. It's the public library that has a direct budget and even existance to be considered. Those are the ones that would be "in jeopardy" (assuming these libraries would all go away instead of being privatized) if Libertarians took over, but as I pointed out this is just the scantest minority of libraries in the US.

shanek

6th January 2004, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Cain
First, just because it's written in the Constitution doesn't make it right or just.

Agreed 100%. The Income Tax is Constitutional, but extremely unjust, for example. As were the Fugitive Slave Laws at the time.

The problem is, discussing the justice or morality of items in the Constitution doesn't make any difference if the government isn't obeying the Constitution to begin with. The Constitution is the rule of law as far as government is concerned, and when the government ignores the Constitution we have political anarchy.

There are a lot of changes I would like to see made to the Constitution. But they're meaningless unless the government is forced to obey it.

shanek

6th January 2004, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
Sorry Shane, I forgot to turn ' sarcasm ' on.. ( If you notice, the poster I was replying to, seemed to sense it.. )

Sorry, I missed it. You have my apologies. But let me be absolutely clear: Not only would Libertarians make all of the laws easily available to all of the people, and possibly even a librarian who could give advice on where to find what law etc., I personally would say it's the government's duty to do exactly that.

But that doesn't mean they have to stock all the Sue Grafton alphabet mysteries, for example.

Of course such radical changes would not happen overnight ( as some might envision that Libertarians believe they will) and certainly not as long as a majority of the voting public remains under the delusion that they somehow benefit from the practice of paying a dollar to have a nickel handed back to them.

Granted. In The Great Libertarian Offer, Harry Browne outlines his plan to reduce government over five years, assuming he would have been popular enough to be elected and reelected. As much as we'd love to cut government all at once, we know it's just not realistic. But we also know that the "cuts" that the Republicans have put through are worthless, since they don't take place until after an intervening election and are pretty much always cancelled out by the time they're supposed to take effect.

roger

6th January 2004, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Well, if this is the Libertarian ideal, it basically removes the library as a free source of information for all, basically curtailing freedom of speech. Ironic, ain't it? Aren't you conflating free with freedom?

EvilYeti

6th January 2004, 03:52 PM

To try and get this discussion back on track let me offer another hypothesis why the LP is not very popular. Consider the following government organizations and programs.

NASA
NSF
FDA
USDA
FBI
The National Park System
Social Security
The U.S. Armed forces

I know there are many more, but these are some of the more popular ones. Now consider how many people are employed by, have a family member employed by or make use of the above institutions. Then consider how many people own or work for businesses that are dependent on the above for revenue. Finally, consider the multitudes that think some or all of the above are just a good idea.

Now consider that the LP wants to dismantle each and every one of the above in return for eliminating the income tax. Call me crazy, but I can't think of the benefit of huge tax cut if millions of Americans are goingt to be unemployed as a result. Therefore, none of those millions are going to vote to deprive themselves of income. With such a large percentage of the population alienated it becomes impossible to develop any sort of meaningful support. Ergo, they are forever doomed to the fringes of the politcal spectrum.

Any questions?

Mahatma Kane Jeeves

6th January 2004, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by shanek
It's the public library that has a direct budget and even existance to be considered. Those are the ones that would be "in jeopardy" (assuming these libraries would all go away instead of being privatized) if Libertarians took over, but as I pointed out this is just the scantest minority of libraries in the US.
You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that a library is a library is a library; and since public libraries are the "scantest minority" of libraries they could easily be replaced by private ones. "Private" libraries usually serve a very specific clientele and have highly specialized collections to serve them. You also seem to believe that private libraries are open to the public. This is usually not the case. In any event, most of the public would probably not be in the least bit interested in visiting them. Besides, if you take school libraries out of the equation (and government/military ones as well, since they won't be around after the Libertarians come) , then public libraries make up 41% of the total. Hardly a "scanty" minority. Let me know when you find out how many "private libraries " are accessible to the public.

Full disclosure: I am a librarian. My entire professional career has been in "private" libraries (usually corporate R&D libraries). No sucking on the public teat for me. If you come to my company to see if you can read the hot item of the week, Brown stock washing using rotary filters, the front desk will politely tell you, "Sorry, we're not a public library." Then they'll call security.

Libertarian

6th January 2004, 04:39 PM

Why isn't the Libertarian Party more popular?

Because, despite the obstensible cry for "change!" that we hear at every election, the majority of Americans are rather comfortable, and their love for the stinking corpse of the status quo borders on political necrophilia.

Samus

6th January 2004, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
NASA
NSF
FDA
USDA
FBI
The National Park System
Social Security
The U.S. Armed forces Actually, the armed forces (and you could argue the FBI) are covered as enumerated powers in the constitution that the Congress has. So the LP isn't advocating elimination of those. Though, you must admit, they could sure use a little streamlining.

But, your point remains, that most Americans are perfectly happy to pay taxes for useful government functions, even those not necessarily covered in the constitution. And that is the crux of why the LP doesn't catch on, because its principles are not popular.

Skeptical Greg

6th January 2004, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by Commander Cool
Actually, the armed forces (and you could argue the FBI) are covered as enumerated powers in the constitution that the Congress has. So the LP isn't advocating elimination of those. Though, you must admit, they could sure use a little streamlining.

But, your point remains, that most Americans are perfectly happy to pay taxes for useful government functions, even those not necessarily covered in the constitution. And that is the crux of why the LP doesn't catch on, because its principles are not popular.

It's principals aren't very popular either...;)

Jocko

6th January 2004, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes

It's principals aren't very popular either...;)

It needs more principals, since most of its membership is students.

Tricky

6th January 2004, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by Libertarian
Why isn't the Libertarian Party more popular?

Because, despite the obstensible cry for "change!" that we hear at every election, the majority of Americans are rather comfortable, and their love for the stinking corpse of the status quo borders on political necrophilia.
Ah, a straight answer at last!

Yes, it is true that Americans are distrustful of rapid changes. In fact, one positive aspect of our government is that it moves slowly and incrementally. I believe this is a good thing, making it less likely to swing like a wind vane in whatever direction public sentiment is blowing at the moment.

But even though I am a liberal, and less enamored of the status quo than some, I do not think that we have a stinking corpse here. In spite of some truly atrocious recent decisions, America is pretty vital, being the only remaining superpower in the world (but watch out for China). No, it may not be the best it could possibly be, but I don't see the buzzards circling just yet.

Let's fix the problems, slowly and carefully. Let's not throw out a system that has made us the most prosperous and one of the most free countries in the world, simply because you can't stand the status quo, eh?

Roadtoad

6th January 2004, 08:03 PM

Geez, I take a run over the hill to Reno, and this is what I come back home to!

And now we see why discussing Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Greens, and the like becomes a cluster f***. I read people I normally respect and whose views (which I don't always agree with) are of great value to me involved in a discussion that has degenerated into a shouting match not unlike those I got into when I worked in Christian radio. (Yes, I know: Christian Radio is an oxymoron. Get used to it.) And for crying out loud, what's up with dumping sh** on JJ, of all people!?!?

I've said this before: I don't agree with ALL of the Libertarians' ideals. I probably never will. Voluntary payment to support our government will not work. I defy you to show me that it will. Considering that we had to have taxation (with representation) in order to form this nation's first fire departments, for God's sake, how the hell do you propose that we'd support a CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED entity such as the Department of Defense on donations? Anyone for a BAKE SALE!?!?!

There's a great deal that we as a society are supposed to be doing without involving the Federal and State governments. Schools, for example, were supposed to be completely local, and for the most part, they were in the past run by the local churches.

Now, tell me this: How likely would it have been for Linda Brown back in the 1950's to go to a "white" school if we'd continued on that path? Remember: Jerry Falwell back in the 50's was still saying that God had ordained segregation. And while, yes, we've had difficulties with this, I'm still of the opinion that ending segregation was a great idea, and to the betterment of the nation.

Look, I'm just in from a long day on the road, and I'm tired. I'll continue this later. But, in the meantime, could we work towards something resembling CIVILITY? (Geez, Tricky, I thought you were supposed to be one of the BAD guys! :D )

Tricky

6th January 2004, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by Roadtoad
(Geez, Tricky, I thought you were supposed to be one of the BAD guys! :D )
It's my day off. :p

EvilYeti

6th January 2004, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Commander Cool
Actually, the armed forces (and you could argue the FBI) are covered as enumerated powers in the constitution that the Congress has. So the LP isn't advocating elimination of those. Though, you must admit, they could sure use a little streamlining.

Yes, but the LP calls for a federal government about 10% the size of the current one. Since defense spending is more than 50% of the national budget, even the core LP friendly powers would have to be DRASTICALLY reduced in size.

Jon_in_london

7th January 2004, 12:18 AM

Originally posted by shanek

No, YOU are lying again. We never said there would be no revenue. And you know it.

So you wont be taxing people- because as we all know- "Taxation is the forceful removal of money that legitimately belongs to a person at the point of a gun."

Given that the LP cant really think its fine to go around pointing guns at people and taking their stuff, where will this magic money come from?

Skeptical Greg

7th January 2004, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

So you wont be taxing people- because as we all know- "Taxation is the forceful removal of money that legitimately belongs to a person at the point of a gun."

Given that the LP cant really think its fine to go around pointing guns at people and taking their stuff, where will this magic money come from?

Do you ever find yourself actually paying for stuff you use?

Do you understand how the insurance industry works?

Do you know anything about how the ' underwriting ' process works?

Skeptical Greg

7th January 2004, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by EvilYeti

Yes, but the LP calls for a federal government about 10% the size of the current one. Since defense spending is more than 50% of the national budget, even the core LP friendly powers would have to be DRASTICALLY reduced in size.

50%?

Not even close!!!

2004 Budget (http://www.budgetsim.org/nbs/shortbudget04.html)

( To see the budget, don't make any changes and scroll down and press " Find Out What The Budget Is "... )

It's more like 18%.. If you add in the Iraq war and veterans benefits its only about 24%... The give-away programs lead the pack by far...

Even if you removed the 500 billion Social Security Item ( which should not be part of the Federal Budget ) , millitary spending would only be about 23%...

Quit making stuff up, just so you can play like you have a point...

shanek

7th January 2004, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
Let's not throw out a system that has made us the most prosperous and one of the most free countries in the world, simply because you can't stand the status quo, eh?

That's not what Libertarians want to do. We want to preserve what made us one of the most prosperous and free countries in the world and throw out the things that are inhibiting that.

Thanz

7th January 2004, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Yes. The restrictions apparently came from Iacocca himself, and he was apparently not prompted by the vehicle classification regulations as I thought (or, at least, I no longer have evidence to conclude that they were).
Thank you. It is good to see that you can listen to arguments and evidence from others and reverse positions in certain cases.

And, of course, I now retract that portion of my previous post.

My apologies. I had Suddenly's questions confused with yours. My problem with yours wasn't that they were biased, but that they took the principled cause away from the question. And I absolutely reject the notion that the questions as phrased are at all biased. They present a position, which a question MUST do before you can agree or disagree with it. Your claim of "bias" simply cane about because those questions took a principled position, which is a bogus accusation, especially when we're trying to make people only answer Yes or No when their principles lead them to that answer, the idea being if they answer Yes to that one question they would answer Yes to a number of other similar questions that might be asked. This makes the test more effective with only ten questions.
We simply disagree here, and I don't think that makes me a bigot. The reason I feel that they are biased is that it only presents the one principled position. If a person simply does not know enough about an issue, they may take the position as fact and just agree with it. For example, someone may say "Minimum wage laws cause unemployment? I didn't know that. Of course repeal them". If the question were worded to take the opposite principle position ("Minimum wage laws allow the lowest wage earners to make a living. Maintain them.") the poll results might be different.

Whereas, your wording just presents their opinions on that one particular issue without necessitating a principled standpoint, and that adds more randomness into the responses.
I don't see how it adds more randomness. If anything, it will add to the "maybe/I don't know" category, which may in fact be more truthful a response for some.

Again, over ten years of study and trial went into the wording of those questions. They were worded to be as neutral as possible while still giving accurate results.
I would be more impressed with the quiz if it asked questions from different viewpoints and not just the libertarian one. There are only ten questions. It can't be that hard to just provide an answer key for scoring rather than all yes responses are 2 points, or whatever.

But again, that would confuse people because they wouldn't understand how the test was being scored and how the computer ended up with them in that particular position on the Nolan Chart. The online quiz is presented for the benefit of the quiz taker only; internet polls are just too unscientific to be taken at all seriously. So it's important for the quiz taker to understand where they were placed and why. Again, your proposal just confuses that unnecessarily.
I agree that Internet polls are unscientific - the comparison of the actual poll results to the online poll results bears this out. However, the purpose of my suggestion was simply to ferret out whether the wording actually is biased - whether it does make a difference how you ask these questions. It could be that I am wrong, and this argument is all just so much blather. But without testing that theory, it is impossible to know for sure.

Jon_in_london

7th January 2004, 07:26 AM

Skeptical Greg

7th January 2004, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

No. WTF does that have to do with this?

NO? You don't pay for stuff you use?

No wonder you have a problem with Libertarian concepts....

I can't believe I even have to respond to this, but you asked where the money would come from if there were no U.S. Federal Income Tax...

I provided you with some examples..

I know the idea of people who use services actually paying for them, may seem ludicrous to some, but it actually appeals to others..

Tricky

7th January 2004, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by shanek

That's not what Libertarians want to do. We want to preserve what made us one of the most prosperous and free countries in the world and throw out the things that are inhibiting that.
I'm sure each of us believe that is what we want to do, but I've seen some um... dedicated Libertarians propose things that to me seem outlandish (like getting rid of the FDA), while others seem to be proposing change for the sake of change, e.g.
Originally posted by Libertarian
Because, despite the obstensible cry for "change!" that we hear at every election, the majority of Americans are rather comfortable, and their love for the stinking corpse of the status quo borders on political necrophilia.

Jon_in_london

7th January 2004, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes

NO? You don't pay for stuff you use?

No wonder you have a problem with Libertarian concepts....

I can't believe I even have to respond to this, but you asked where the money would come from if there were no U.S. Federal Income Tax...

I provided you with some examples..

I know the idea of people who use services actually paying for them, may seem ludicrous to some, but it actually appeals to others..

No, I dont know about underwriting.

What do you think, I dont pay for stuff? Think I steal or am given everything?

Its not just income tax. All tax is seen by libertarians as mugging.

Some examples? where? Do you mean to simply re-name tax as insurance?

shanek

7th January 2004, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by Roadtoad
And for crying out loud, what's up with dumping sh** on JJ, of all people!?!?

If you'd seen how abusive he was to me in other threads, you wouldn't have to ask that.

Look at this thread, for example:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25295

Notice that it all started very civilly, but jj kept claiming that NJ's power companies were deregulated and that was the cause of the problems, then when I came in and quoted a lot of regulations in this "deregulated" structure and why they contributed to the problem, he became abusive and evasive spouting out such gems as:

"When you have some facts to argue with, get back to me."

"So ask a PROPER question and I'll think about it."

"Grow up."

"You appear unworthy of discourse."

"No, I'm not going to restate my claim, you're the one who's been bandying about the straw men, YOU knuckle down and figure out what I DID write."

"Reality check, please, Shakek."

"Go back and read what I wrote, and then write a legitimate question, and I will CONSIDER giving you the priviledge of an answer."

"You know as well as I do that I owe you nothing but scorn and ridicule."

And then, after many pages of ignoring my questions and just flat-out refusing to have any kind of rational discussion, he had the audacity to say this:

"How could you EVER have missed the s**t-slinging Shanek has been sending my way ever since I dared to gore his anti-regulatory ox?

He (and how you) have complete derailed this discussion, because someone (me) dared to state what really happened and happens instead of granting the ideal outcome."

Of course, if he had simply answered our questions and had a proper debate things might have turned out very differently. You'll notice that in a small side discussion he did convince me of the benefits of fuel cell technology.

Voluntary payment to support our government will not work.

It probably won't. That's why Harry Browne and a lot of other Libertarians (myself included) have proposed financing the government pretty much the way it was from the start: tariffs and excises.

Michael Redman

7th January 2004, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
I know the idea of people who use services actually paying for them, may seem ludicrous to some, but it actually appeals to others.. You can't put user fees on things like national defense and law enforcement.

shanek

7th January 2004, 07:53 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes
It's more like 18%.. If you add in the Iraq war and veterans benefits its only about 24%... The give-away programs lead the pack by far...

And that's a for military even larger than the one we had during the Cold War, which we need now, uh, why?

Quit making stuff up, just so you can play like you have a point...

That's EY's MO. Just watch your step or he'll accuse you of being a sex offender.

Michael Redman

7th January 2004, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by shanek
That's why Harry Browne and a lot of other Libertarians (myself included) have proposed financing the government pretty much the way it was from the start: tariffs and excises. The money still ultimately has to come out of the pockets of individual workers. Why are these sources better than income taxation?

shanek

7th January 2004, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Michael Redman
You can't put user fees on things like national defense and law enforcement.

To an extent, you can. What is a fine for a ticket, after all? It (supposedly) goes to compensate the government for having to pull you over and cite you with a violation of the law. Same for other fines, court costs, etc. But the law enforcement aspect is fairly moot since that's supposed to be a state and local issue anyway.

National Defense is another matter. I've seen a lot of very clever ideas as to how it could be funded without taxes, but whether or not they'll work is another matter.

Suddenly

7th January 2004, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes

Do you ever find yourself actually paying for stuff you use?

Do you understand how the insurance industry works?

Do you know anything about how the ' underwriting ' process works?

Sure. How are we going to apply that to national defense? We can call it a user fee, but what happens if I don't pay? When the horde of Albanians hits the shores do we let them pillage the houses of those that didn't subscribe to the "national defense" fee?

Once it is conceeded that there are areas that taxation is necessary for practical purposes, be it national defense or whatever, then the idealistic position that all tax is some sort of ultimate sin becomes impossible to maintain, as then the argument must center around utility rather than pure principle. The difference lies in where taxation is necessary as a practical matter, and even the concept of what is "necessary" could vary from person to person.

Now, an anti tax principle could factor into a decision based on utility; some thing like a form of Occam's razor where government involvement is kept to a minimmum.

The larger problem dealing with the original question here is one of shifting terminology. A reasonable person once they have an understanding of economics and the way the world works will usually recognize that government controll is best minimized. Thus, we say that many people have a libertarian bent. However, few of these people are complete "Libertarians" for roughly the same reasons that few people that think it is bad to torture animals are members of "PETA." There is a valid principle behind PETA, that perhaps animals are not at the complete disposal of humans, but that is a long way from saying that eating a steak is the moral equivilant of murder. However, those that eat steak according to PETA are "unethical"in their treatment of animals, as they do not share PETA's concept of "ethics" w/r/t animals.

Likewise, there are those that think the drug war is a bad idea, but who think the FDA or some system of mental hygene commitment proceedings are examples of appropriate use of governmental power.

As one Libertarian put it: Guys, here's really the nutshell of it:

A Libertarian is someone who believes that the initiation of force or fraud is never justified. If you aren't a Libertarian, then you must mean that the initiation of force or fraud is, at least sometimes, justified in some way.

So, what are these ways? When is it all right to initiate force or fraud against someone else? And how do you set up a system where only those particular initiations are committed and none others are?

So, those that disagree with any of the Libertarian positions are intitators of force. Nevermind that "initiation of force" is an impossibly broad concept that reasonable people could disagree on, or that virtually any action whatsoever can be framed as a response to something else, if you arent a "Libertarian" you advocate the initiation of force.

The above "initiation of force" principle only makes sense if you subscribe to the idea that such terms can somehow have an absolute meaning. There are going to be gray areas, such as can we arrest drunk drivers, and if so why can't we arrest anyone that increases risk of injury? More to the point and discussed ad-nauseum in these threads is that if force is never justified how do we allow for the private ownership of property, in that how does "property" become "privately owned" if not by an initial force (exclusion of others or establishment of the right thereof)?

There are always complexities, if not outright exceptions, to this or any other principle, and it is folly to believe that all people, regardless of cultural or educational background will always agree to the application of a simple principle to a complex problem. Anyone with a different concept of "initiation of force" than the one the Libertarian party holds as the One True Meaning of the term will find themselves on the outside.

In short political entities that tie their central purpose to a particular reading of a wildly vague principle will always be less popular than they would seem to be if everyone that held the vague principle were members. This is because they are largely a subset of a larger group masquerading as the whole group, which has the result that much of their support is in name only, persons speaking to the general principle, but who will distance themselves from that subset's particular views when the differences become material.

Thanz

7th January 2004, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by shanek

It probably won't. That's why Harry Browne and a lot of other Libertarians (myself included) have proposed financing the government pretty much the way it was from the start: tariffs and excises.
How does this mesh with the official Libertarian platform that calls for them to "Unilaterally end all domestic subsidy programs, trade barriers and tariffs."?

The section on issues and positions on taxes talks a lot about what programs they would cut or alter so that taxes could be cut, but doesn't say what taxes would be left. Do you know the official position on what taxes would actually be necessary - both in amount and in kind (ie, income, sales, tariffs)?

Skeptical Greg

7th January 2004, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

All tax is seen by libertarians as mugging.

And your references for this assertion is?

Tmy

7th January 2004, 08:44 AM

There biggest problem is that the Libs dont have a cool animal logo! Like the Demo Donkey and Repub Elephant.

Somthing catchy?? Im thinking ............a PLATAPUS!!!

The Don

7th January 2004, 08:53 AM

An imaginary animal may be more appropriate

shanek

7th January 2004, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly
Once it is conceeded that there are areas that taxation is necessary for practical purposes, be it national defense or whatever, then the idealistic position that all tax is some sort of ultimate sin becomes impossible to maintain,

Which shouldn't be a problem, as the claim is NOT that taxation is "ultimate sin," merely that taxation, like all government activities, is force, and therefore should only be applied when force is justifiable. Since a national defense should not be there for the initiation of force, then its existance and use is perfectly within Libertarian principles unless it suddenly decides to delcare martial law and take over the country.

Anyone with a different concept of "initiation of force" than the one the Libertarian party holds as the One True Meaning of the term will find themselves on the outside.

I disagree with this strongly, and have explained to you why on several occasions. I'm unaware of anyone who says that there is One True Meaning to the non-initiation of force principle. And I'm certainly unaware of anyone who claims that Libertarians are a homogeneous group who all view these things the same way. We have debates that make the ones on this board look tame by comparison.

You try to act as if Libertarians all believe the same thing and believe that anyone who doesn't agree with them 100% is not a "true" Libertarian. Horse hockey.

shanek

7th January 2004, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by Thanz

How does this mesh with the official Libertarian platform that calls for them to "Unilaterally end all domestic subsidy programs, trade barriers and tariffs."?

Simple: You can call for peace on Earth and goodwill towards men. I don't think any reasonable adult believes it's ever going to happen, but that doesn't mean it isn't something to strive for.

The section on issues and positions on taxes talks a lot about what programs they would cut or alter so that taxes could be cut, but doesn't say what taxes would be left. Do you know the official position on what taxes would actually be necessary - both in amount and in kind (ie, income, sales, tariffs)?

It's all explained in The Great Libertarian Offer in much greater detail and clarity than I could put here.

shanek

7th January 2004, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
There biggest problem is that the Libs dont have a cool animal logo! Like the Demo Donkey and Repub Elephant.

We most certainly do! We have the coolest animal of all of them!

http://lincoln.lpnc.org/lincoln/TheLP.gif

Cleon

7th January 2004, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by shanek

We most certainly do! We have the coolest animal of all of them!

http://lincoln.lpnc.org/lincoln/TheLP.gif

Whoa whoa whoa! Has anyone asked Linus Torvalds about this?

Roadtoad

7th January 2004, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by shanek
If you'd seen how abusive he was to me in other threads, you wouldn't have to ask that.

First, I'm not a referee, or a playground monitor. I'm sorry you two have a disagreement. I'm only asking that it be kept civil. That's all.

Okay, tariffs and excises. Taxes, in other words. But, what the LP has been traditionally against has been the Income Tax. There's good reason to oppose it, primarily because it's a punishment of acheivement, (or at least economic acheivement, as it were), and secondly, because the Feds have without fail demonstrated they cannot control their spending, and whenever they have money, they blow it.

It's a false assumption that a deficit is always bad. A deficit is a negative when you make no plans or efforts to eliminate it, or at least reduce it. Clinton's administration wasn't interested in eliminating the deficit until 2004, when the Republicans came in and took over Congress. (I still remember hearing Robert Reich saying on national TV something like, "We don't want to eliminate the deficit, not if it means subjecting people to additional pain." The only problem, Mr. Secretary, is that someone will need to suffer pain to get rid of the deficit. It's a fact of life.) Oddly enough, I respect Reich for his statement and sentiment. But as a French political scientist once said, you don't want a good king, you want a competent one.

Unfortunately, once the Republicans got going, the only thing they did was substitute their pork for the Democrats pork. How much more Federal money does Sunkist need? How many more regulations need to be eliminated to keep Ken Lay happy? Or Bernie Ebbers? Extremes on either side have proven disastrous.

What scares me is that we want to cut taxes, but only enough to boost revenue. We don't want to eliminate what's proven to be a costly, intrusive, and unwieldy system. My own preference, if we're going to continue to use an income tax is to make it an across the board flat tax, and as has been suggested, make the 1040 a postcard size piece of paper. Further, I'd eliminate Federal withholding, and ask people to pay it once a month. (Forget this April 15th nonsense once and for all, and quit making employers your proxy.)

Now, is this workable?

If I had to say one way or another, I'd say "No." Proof? Open your phone book and look under "Collection Agencies."

Tariffs and excises are indirect. You are getting the money, but not directly from the general population. It goes through back channels. Workable? Yeah, we've been doing it for nearly 230 years. It's even fair, as far as I can tell. But, does it produce enough income to support the DOD and other Constitutionally mandated entities? Show me you can do that, and we have something to discuss.

Michael Redman

7th January 2004, 09:56 AM

No matter what system you use, you tax those who make the most more than those who make the least. Whether it's a VAT, a tariff, or an income tax, the richest are going to pay the most. There's no way around it, other than giving everyone the ame level of wealth. You can call it a disincentive to achieve, but for some reason no one seem to stop trying to achieve as a result.

Direct or indirect, tax money has to come out of the ecomony, and therefore our pockets. No one doubts, I hope, that tariffs end up getting paid by consumers. There is no other way to make up the money.

There is no reason why tariffs must raise less money than income tax. They do now only because we raise plenty of revenue elsewhere. The isn't anything stopping Congress from using a tariff and excise only revenue system to collect just as much money as an income tax system. I fail to see the advantage of tariffs, duties, and excises over any other form of taxation. At least with income taxation, we know how much tax we're paying. With tariffs and excises, we have no idea, as it's hidden in the cost of all our economic activity.

In addition, of course, many tariffs and excises are violations of treaties to which we're party. Giving up on those treaties is going to have a huge negative impacy on our foreigh trade, and therefore any chance to collect tariffs.

Roadtoad

7th January 2004, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by Michael Redman
In addition, of course, many tariffs and excises are violations of treaties to which we're party. Giving up on those treaties is going to have a huge negative impacy on our foreigh trade, and therefore any chance to collect tariffs.

Thanks for mentioning that. I don't usually deal with international loads, so this slipped my mind. :o

Suddenly

7th January 2004, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Which shouldn't be a problem, as the claim is NOT that taxation is "ultimate sin," merely that taxation, like all government activities, is force, and therefore should only be applied when force is justifiable. Since a national defense should not be there for the initiation of force, then its existance and use is perfectly within Libertarian principles unless it suddenly decides to delcare martial law and take over the country.

What "justifiable?" Your words:

A Libertarian is someone who believes that the initiation of force or fraud is never justified. If you aren't a Libertarian, then you must mean that the initiation of force or fraud is, at least sometimes, justified in some way.

Thus the test is "initiation", not "justification." Money is taken from me (at gunpoint, according to your prior assertions) to support a military, with no need for my consent. This is an initiation of force if I have not consented, nor is the government responding to force on my part. This, according to your words, is never justified under a Libertarian government.

I disagree with this strongly, and have explained to you why on several occasions. I'm unaware of anyone who says that there is One True Meaning to the non-initiation of force principle. And I'm certainly unaware of anyone who claims that Libertarians are a homogeneous group who all view these things the same way. We have debates that make the ones on this board look tame by comparison.
Libertarians may differ among themselves as to the details of that One True Meaning, but that is my point, that virtually every concept has aspects that reasonable people can differ on. Libertarians One True Meaning of "do not initiate force" includes and even stresses the concept of an absolute private property right. Plenty of details to squabble over within that particular meaning. However, there are those that disagree with private property rights being justified by a "do not initiate force" principle.

If I believe that all property ownership is an initiation of force it is pretty clear I'm not a "Libertarian" as we know it in this country. However, "do not initiate force" can be used to defend virtually every political belief in existence, depending on the details. That is my point, the Libertarian Party as a practical matter holds views much narrower than their stated principles, and they apply the "initiator of force" label to those that are not "Libertarians." Your words:

If you aren't a Libertarian, then you must mean that the initiation of force or fraud is, at least sometimes, justified in some way.

I'm sure that the LP has nasty debates, although I'm skeptical that those debates contain real substance, as I've seen a bit of a pattern that Libertarians confuse how angry a debate is with its quality. I have a vision in my head of a bunch of angry middle aged white guys screaming "bigot" at each other over how police forces should be funded.

You try to act as if Libertarians all believe the same thing and believe that anyone who doesn't agree with them 100% is not a "true" Libertarian. Horse hockey.

I don't say they all believe exactly the same thing, that would contradict my larger point, rather that they share the general vision of "non-initiation of force" that I describe above, that Libertarians hold beliefs that on the whole make them a very small subset of those persons that are partial to less government. They then use their general title and a vague statement of principle to try to recruit the larger set into the subset, the general idea being that "You like liberty (or some libertarian principle)? You are a Libertarian!! You should also believe in other Libertarian principles..." In reality, this isn't really a recognition of belief, rather a subtle means of persuasion not uncommon in political or religious circles:

(exagerated examples)
You like peace? Jesus liked peace! You are a Christian! Lets go shoot gay people!!

You don't want poor people to starve? Democrats dont want poor people to starve!! You are a Democrat. Lets go advocate gay marriage!!

You think animals shouldn't be tortured for no reason? PETA says that. You must agree with PETA! Lets go pour blood on people that work at McDonalds!!

(slightly less exagerated)

You are against the unneccesary government expenditures? Libertarians are against those as well!! You are a Libertarian!! Lets go advocate ending the concept of a "insanity" defense in criminal proceedings... (Or the U.S. out of the U.N., or abolishing the FDA, or whatever)

shanek

7th January 2004, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Cleon
Whoa whoa whoa! Has anyone asked Linus Torvalds about this?

Since the Liberty Penguin was designed years before Tux, I highly doubt Torvalds can complain.

It's interesting, though, that two separate groups dedicated to freedom independently chose the penguin.

Cleon

7th January 2004, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Since the Liberty Penguin was designed years before Tux, I highly doubt Torvalds can complain.

It's interesting, though, that two separate groups dedicated to freedom independently chose the penguin.

Mario Lemieux for President! :D

shanek

7th January 2004, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by Roadtoad
Okay, tariffs and excises. Taxes, in other words.

But unobtrusive taxes which are limited by the fact that if the government tries to raise them too high fewer people will buy the product and they won't end up getting all these extra revenues anyway.

But, what the LP has been traditionally against has been the Income Tax.

One could certainly make the argument that Income Tax is the most intrusive, unlimited, and evil of all taxes, and is tantamount to involuntary servitude.

It's a false assumption that a deficit is always bad.

But it's not a false assumption that a deficit always has detrimental effects. The argument, if there is one, should be whether or not whatever beneficial effects of running a deficit outweigh those detrimental effects. For example, increased deficit spending for World War II caused the Fed to increase the money supply and thus get us out of the Great Depression. So deficits can be effective in a deflationary economy where the money supply is being constrained.

Tariffs and excises are indirect. You are getting the money, but not directly from the general population. It goes through back channels. Workable? Yeah, we've been doing it for nearly 230 years. It's even fair, as far as I can tell. But, does it produce enough income to support the DOD and other Constitutionally mandated entities? Show me you can do that, and we have something to discuss.

Again, I have to refer you to Browne's plan in The Great Libertarian Offer.

shanek

7th January 2004, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly
Libertarians may differ among themselves as to the details of that One True Meaning, but that is my point, that virtually every concept has aspects that reasonable people can differ on.[

And how is this different from any other philosophy, and how is this any kind of argument against Libertarianism?

I'm sure that the LP has nasty debates, although I'm skeptical that those debates contain real substance,

Well, as long as you've been able to psychically divine that. :rolleyes:

I can certainly tell you that my discussions with other Liebrtarians have had much greater substance than those I've had here on this board.

I have a vision in my head of a bunch of angry middle aged white guys screaming "bigot" at each other over how police forces should be funded.

And that is an indication of a problem with your perception, not of Libertarianism.

They then use their general title and a vague statement of principle to try to recruit the larger set into the subset, the general idea being that "You like liberty (or some libertarian principle)? You are a Libertarian!! You should also believe in other Libertarian principles..."

This is a flat-out lie. I have never heard any Libertarian say that someone MUST believe a certain way about a certain issue to be a Libertarian. That they SHOULD, sure, but only by betraying the core principles is someone considered to not be a true Libertarian.

(exagerated examples)
You like peace? Jesus liked peace! You are a Christian! Lets go shoot gay people!!

You don't want poor people to starve? Democrats dont want poor people to starve!! You are a Democrat. Lets go advocate gay marriage!!

You think animals shouldn't be tortured for no reason? PETA says that. You must agree with PETA! Lets go pour blood on people that work at McDonalds!!

If I have to actually explain the differences between these "examples" and how you have just described the Libertarians then there truly is no hope for you.

You are against the unneccesary government expenditures? Libertarians are against those as well!! You are a Libertarian!!

That is so totally bogus it's laughable. That would mean we consider Republicans to be Libertarians, and I can assure you that's not the case.

Thanz

7th January 2004, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Simple: You can call for peace on Earth and goodwill towards men. I don't think any reasonable adult believes it's ever going to happen, but that doesn't mean it isn't something to strive for.
But this was taken from the Libertarian Party's Legislative Program, the section on Unemployment. They state:

To enable Americans to find jobs, we must do everything in our power to give workers, and the companies they work for, the ability to compete in world markets. The Libertarian Party supports five major initiatives to achieve this goal:

Phase out all direct and indirect subsidies to foreign nations, foreign companies, and foreign citizens.

Eliminate the double taxation of corporate profits.

Eliminate regulations and mandates that make companies less competitive and cost jobs.

Unilaterally end all domestic subsidy programs, trade barriers and tariffs.

End government economic meddling that results in depressions and recessions that destroy jobs.
If eliminating tariffs is as pie-in-the-sky as world peace, just how am I to know what in their legislative program they are actually going to implement and what they are not? The elimination of tarriffs and subsidies seems to be one of the easier ones to do in terms of legislation. Simply stop paying subsidies or charging tariffs. No international furor will result over this. Why can't I take them at their word on this?

It's all explained in The Great Libertarian Offer in much greater detail and clarity than I could put here.
I can appreciate that. But if you could just give me a thumbnail sketch, I won't proceed to grill you on the details. I'm just looking for an idea, like "we think we only need excise taxes at their current levels plus a small 5% income tax" or whatever. I promise not to flip out and call the idea ridiculous or anything - I just want an idea. If it is just too complex for a one liner, I'll accept that too.

EvilYeti

7th January 2004, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by Diogenes

50%?

Not even close!!!

2004 Budget (http://www.budgetsim.org/nbs/shortbudget04.html)

( To see the budget, don't make any changes and scroll down and press " Find Out What The Budget Is "... )

It's more like 18%.. If you add in the Iraq war and veterans benefits its only about 24%... The give-away programs lead the pack by far...

Even if you removed the 500 billion Social Security Item ( which should not be part of the Federal Budget ) , millitary spending would only be about 23%...

Quit making stuff up, just so you can play like you have a point...

Depends on how you do your accounting:

http://www.warresisters.org/images/pieFY04.jpg

That's an accurate representation of where your income tax goes. And we are talking about income tax, remember?

Or are you so credulous that you take federal budgetary accounting at face value and don't bother analyzing it critically? You must really trust our government!

Thanz

7th January 2004, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by shanek

And how is this different from any other philosophy, and how is this any kind of argument against Libertarianism?

What I'm interested in is the apparent contradiction in what you have said earlier: A Libertarian is someone who believes that the initiation of force or fraud is never justified.
and what you said about taxes in this thread:
Which shouldn't be a problem, as the claim is NOT that taxation is "ultimate sin," merely that taxation, like all government activities, is force, and therefore should only be applied when force is justifiable.
So are taxes "justifiable force"? And if you believe that they are, or can be in some circumstances, does that mean that you are NOT a libertarian?

Cain

7th January 2004, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Yes, but the LP calls for a federal government about 10% the size of the current one. Since defense spending is more than 50% of the national budget, even the core LP friendly powers would have to be DRASTICALLY reduced in size.

You corrected yourself in the last post with the famous pie chart from the WRL, but, as you say, that's only federal income taxes. It does not account for social security taxes, which, historically, used to be separate. The Johnson administration moved toward the so-called "unified budget" to offset the appearance of costs in the Vietnam war.

Here's what I find interesting. Conservatives (and Libertarians) will complain that the pie chart excludes payroll taxes, but 95% of their complaints about taxation is directed at the graduated income tax. Payroll taxes are extremely regressive, and in fact, every no and again you'll see near the bottom of an article on the budget a proposal by Republicans to increase pay roll taxes in exchange for decreasing income taxes.

______________________________

Thanz writes:

So are taxes "justifiable force"? And if you believe that they are, or can be in some circumstances, does that mean that you are NOT a libertarian?

This is another reason why, taken to it's logical conclusion, Libertarianism morphs into anarcho-capitalism. How do you propose to finance government? User fees? Well, why can't private businesses take on those roles?

Michael Redman

7th January 2004, 11:26 AM

The more I look, the more confused it gets:

Unilaterally end all domestic subsidy programs, trade barriers and tariffs.Eliminating trade barriers and tariffs is going to make it a little difficult to fund the government entirely on excise and tariff revenue, isn't it?

7th January 2004, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Cain

Heh. I know, you old floppy cock JJ, you are one miserable Goddamn F*cking Moron. Congratulations, and treasure this award (you certainly earned it). Oh, and remember to keep on flamin' you crazy idiot.

You, like Shanek, are a destructive jerk.

You live only to poison the well and vilify people who stymie your ridiculous politics of the day (which seem to be chosen strictly on the basis of what kind of flames you want to draw as far as anyone can tell here).

Suddenly

7th January 2004, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by shanek

And how is this different from any other philosophy, and how is this any kind of argument against Libertarianism?

I'm trying to explain how it is part of the argument, that Libertarians (well maybe just the ones I have encountered) seem to have difficulty with the concept. Those that hold different ideas are simply wrong, and when they don't admit they are wrong they are liars and such.

Well, as long as you've been able to psychically divine that. :rolleyes: I did say skeptical, didn't I? I don't know for sure, never claimed that. I base it on my own interactions with Libertarians, which are considerable, and it is my opinion of what I expect to find.

I can certainly tell you that my discussions with other Liebrtarians have had much greater substance than those I've had here on this board. It is telling that you find discussions with those that mostly agree with you to be of more substance than discussions with those you completely disagree with you. If I were a wee bit more cynical I'd say it supports my perception that Libertarians on the whole have trouble dealing with viewpoints that reject the basic principles of Libertarianism. Aww heck, I am cynical, so lets just say that I am saying that.

And that is an indication of a problem with your perception, not of Libertarianism. Perhaps, but it is also a valid point as to how Libertarians portray themselves and conduct themselves in argument, as that is where those perceptions occur. I have found that most Libertarians I encounter seem rather rabid and prone to insult, I'm sure there are exceptions that mitigate against my perception. Plus as you note above, maybe Libertarians are much more civil and reasonable when arguing with those they largely agree with.

This is a flat-out lie. I have never heard any Libertarian say that someone MUST believe a certain way about a certain issue to be a Libertarian. That they SHOULD, sure, but only by betraying the core principles is someone considered to not be a true Libertarian.

Ummm. That's not what I am saying. I'm putting this forward as an example of a common persuasion technique. You are completely missing the point.

I am not saying that Libertarians say: "You must believe in X if you are a Libertarian"

I am saying that it is a general persuasion technique that Libertarians (and others use) that "Hey, you believe in Y!!, you are a Libertarian, so you should believe in X and Z as well!"

This is simplified to be sure, as these are illustrations of the larger concept of using a specific to assume agreement to the general, then using the general to imply agreement to other specifics, similar to my other exaggerated examples.

If I have to actually explain the differences between these "examples" and how you have just described the Libertarians then there truly is no hope for you.
I'm talking about the reasoning, not the substance. All of these examples follow the specific - general -specific pattern I identify above.

That is so totally bogus it's laughable. That would mean we consider Republicans to be Libertarians, and I can assure you that's not the case.

The irony here is that you are identifying that person as a Republican. This is the first step of the persuasion technique I am describing, that the general is assumed by the existence of a particular. Here, a person is against spending, so they are a Republican. The next step is based on that first conclusion to help the person "realize" whatever other "Republican" ideals they hold.

This is all an example in that I am saying that generally the Libertarian party regularly engages in this sort of specific - general - specific kind of persuasion, starting with their very name, then into things like the "worlds smallest political quiz" and other things such as some of Browne's articles meant to establish common ground between the LP and people unaware of the LP's positions. (Of course Browne is also trolling for clients for his investment business, but I'm sure that is a coincidence)

There is nothing wrong with this per se, I may think it is a bit silly, but good luck finding any political group that is not in some way involved in this activity. All I am saying is that this goes to explain why there seem to be so many "libertarians" but far less "Libertarians," and why Libertarians are not falling over themselves in distinguishing "Libertarianism" and "libertarianism." It is a nice recruiting tool for them, but it does inspire the kinds of questions similar to the title of this thread.

Cain

7th January 2004, 11:33 AM

You, like Shanek, are a destructive jerk.

You live only to poison the well and vilify people who stymie your ridiculous politics of the day (which seem to be chosen strictly on the basis of what kind of flames you want to draw as far as anyone can tell here).

Nonsense of course, but go ahead and have a good C-R-Y.

http://www.math.eku.edu/greenwell/daytonabeach/cry.jpg

Skeptical Greg

7th January 2004, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by EvilYeti

Depends on how you do your accounting:

http://www.warresisters.org/images/pieFY04.jpg

That's an accurate representation of where your income tax goes. And we are talking about income tax, remember?

Or are you so credulous that you take federal budgetary accounting at face value and don't bother analyzing it critically? You must really trust our government!

HUH? WTF is that pie chart? And what does it have to do with your statement that the millitary accounts for over 50% of the U.S. Federal budget?

I don't have a problem with a large percent of my Federal taxes supporting the millitary.. It is a legitimate function of the Federal Government..

Besides, a lot of the money that is spent for millitary reasons actually ends up in the hands of people who have real jobs and pay taxes..

Kodiak

7th January 2004, 12:13 PM

Kodiak

7th January 2004, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes
I don't have a problem with a large percent of my Federal taxes supporting the millitary.. It is a legitimate function of the Federal Government..

Besides, a lot of the money that is spent for millitary reasons actually ends up in the hands of people who have real jobs and pay taxes..

Do you have any idea how many ardent leftists (Malachi151, for example) you are giving seizures to?!?? :D

EvilYeti

7th January 2004, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by Michael Redman
The more I look, the more confused it gets:

Eliminating trade barriers and tariffs is going to make it a little difficult to fund the government entirely on excise and tariff revenue, isn't it?

Well, thats another one of the myriad of problems with Libertarianism. It's so internally inconsistient that it's impossible to figure out exactly what they are proposing.

I have yet to see any detailed explanation of how the LP plans to fund even a minimal government when they are apparently opposed to any and all forms of taxation. I also fail to see how any taxes they DO decide to levy are enforced any differently than current ones, i.e. "at the point of a gun".

EvilYeti

7th January 2004, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by Diogenes

HUH? WTF is that pie chart? And what does it have to do with your statement that the millitary accounts for over 50% of the U.S. Federal budget?

That pie-chart is breakdown of where money collected through income tax goes.

I admit I made an error in saying "over 50%", I remembered the exact figure as 57% rather than 47%, so sue me.

I don't have a problem with a large percent of my Federal taxes supporting the millitary.. It is a legitimate function of the Federal Government..

Besides, a lot of the money that is spent for millitary reasons actually ends up in the hands of people who have real jobs and pay taxes..

Fine, I agree 100% (no error there, I promise!). Now how do you feel about the LP campaigning to elimate 100% of military funding WITHOUT proposing an alternate source of revenue?

Kodiak

7th January 2004, 12:36 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti

Fine, I agree 100% (no error there, I promise!). Now how do you feel about the LP campaigning to elimate 100% of military funding WITHOUT proposing an alternate source of revenue?

Are you implying that the LP is indeed proposing this?!?

Skeptical Greg

7th January 2004, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti

Fine, I agree 100% (no error there, I promise!). Now how do you feel about the LP campaigning to elimate 100% of military funding WITHOUT proposing an alternate source of revenue?

If that is true, I have a big problem with it. I certainly would not support a candidate for any office, who suggested this was their goal...

EvilYeti

7th January 2004, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Are you implying that the LP is indeed proposing this?!?

Yes! The U.S. Military is funded primarily through income taxes. The LP is proposing the elimination of the income tax, ergo "no more military funding". What is so difficult about drawing that conclusion?

I have yet to see any detailed information from the LP of how they propose to fund a military even a fraction of the size of the current one without any income tax. The money has to come from somewhere! Shanek's "usage fee's and excises" mantra doesn't cut it, I want a detailed breakdown on how the Lib's plan on raising the $390+ billion dollars annually it takes to maintain our Armed forces.

hgc

7th January 2004, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by EvilYeti

Yes! The U.S. Military is funded primarily through income taxes. The LP is proposing the elimination of the income tax, ergo "no more military funding". What is so difficult about drawing that conclusion?

I have yet to see any detailed information from the LP of how they propose to fund a military even a fraction of the size of the current one without any income tax. The money has to come from somewhere! Shanek's "usage fee's and excises" mantra doesn't cut it, I want a detailed breakdown on how the Lib's plan on raising the $390+ billion dollars annually it takes to maintain our Armed forces. I think you inadvertantly stumbled onto it. Start by charging usage fees to S. Korea and NATO countries and everyone else the U.S. Military protects. Even France has to pay up. As for protecting our own country, we can wait for the invasion, and then gather everyone who wants to live free into The Zone of Libertarian Protection, charging a usage fee upon entry. We can then build up an army and repel the invading Goths.

7th January 2004, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Kodiak

Do you have any idea how many ardent leftists (Malachi151, for example) you are giving seizures to?!?? :D

Oh, my heart, it bleeds. (well, if it does, you'll need a microscope to find the drips...)

A strong military is one of the prime functions of government, in my opinion. I may never want to use it, but there's always some (*&&(* bully out there somewhere, just like here. Somebody always has to poison the well.

7th January 2004, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Cain
Heh. I know, you old floppy cock JJ, you are one miserable Goddamn F*cking Moron. Congratulations, and treasure this award (you certainly earned it). Oh, and remember to keep on flamin' you crazy idiot.

Still poisoning the well and being a disruptive jerk, I see.

Let's examine your performance here:

1) You lie about what others have or have not said.
2) You can't tell the difference between someone who won't accept your poorly made case, and someone who is making their own case.
3) You routinely make ad-hominem attacks.
4) You add little information to the discussion.
5) You routinely use inflamatory language as a substitute for substance.

Yeah, I think we know your kind. Maybe when you get to be 18 or 19 the hormones will start to drop and you'll have some human attributes.

Oh, and son, I'm not flaming. You'd know if I was.

Roadtoad

7th January 2004, 01:55 PM

Cain, it's old. Drop it, please.

Cain

7th January 2004, 02:06 PM

Geez, I thought this was a JJ free zone. If you wish to comment on my signature, please do so in the other thread ("Study of Communism").

I can play along for a few moments though.

Let's examine your performance here:

1) You lie about what others have or have not said.

Presumably you're talking about this thread (or are we still hung up on the sig?). Here's an idea: cite text.

2) You can't tell the difference between someone who won't accept your poorly made case, and someone who is making their own case.

Cite text.

3) You routinely make ad-hominem attacks.

The other thread proves you do not understand the meaning of this term.

4) You add little information to the discussion.

Consult the other thread as a model demonstration. Any person's findings are instructive.

5) You routinely use inflamatory language as a substitute for substance.

Again, that's just plain wrong. It's supplemental. There's an argument and then a comment (or an "inflammatory" comment followed by an argument).

There are numerous examples in the other thread: See my responses to Skeptic, C0rbin, and you.

________________________________
Kodiak writes:

Do you have any idea how many ardent leftists (Malachi151, for example) you are giving seizures to?!??

What are the combined military expenditures of the "Axis of Evil"? What are the combined military expenditures of all designated rogue states? If you want to add China as an enemy, add China. Compare with U.S. spending. Don't forget our NATO allies, who themselves spend ~300 billion dollars a year.

A Libertarian government is supposedly an inward looking pacifist state. Didn't most Libertarians oppose the war in Iraq?

Milton Friedman's "golden years" in US history, the late 19th century, how did our military compare to other nations?

Also, if expenditures are viewed on the "guns versus butter" curve, buillding bombs takes up dollars that could be spent on -- oh, I dunno -- healthcare, the environment and so on. Civilian spending.

Roadtoad

7th January 2004, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Cain
Geez, I thought this was a JJ free zone. If you wish to comment on my signature, please do so in the other thread ("Study of Communism").

No one is against fair comment. But you were getting into something far worse. I enjoy reading your comments on other matters enough that I'd rather not see you suspended. We may not agree, but I don't enjoy people who are in total agreement all the time.

As far as your comparisons, I'd like to see more info, please.

7th January 2004, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by Cain
What are the combined military expenditures of the "Axis of Evil"? What are the combined military expenditures of all designated rogue states? If you want to add China as an enemy, add China. Compare with U.S. spending. Don't forget our NATO allies, who themselves spend ~300 billion dollars a year.

As usual, a bunch of questions, but no position that you can be held responsible for. Once again, an attempt to poison the well. Are you pro or anti here? Do you even know?

A Libertarian government is supposedly an inward looking pacifist state. Didn't most Libertarians oppose the war in Iraq?

Did they? I haven't taken a position. Have you given them a position?

Also, if expenditures are viewed on the "guns versus butter" curve, buillding bombs takes up dollars that could be spent on -- oh, I dunno -- healthcare, the environment and so on. Civilian spending.

What? You've actually almost taken a position. Saints preserve us, probably in aspic, no less!

To which I reply, in the REAL world, without guns, and lots of them, and trained people to use them, somebody else will just move in, blow up the hospitals, polute the environment, and steal the butter.

And we live in the real world, not the kooky idealized ones of either libertarianism or communism. (Let me be clear, those are not the only two kooky political platforms out there, too. We could talk about the present bunch of would-be religious totalitarians who use the power of the executive branch to hide protesters, for instance, but we're already doing that in another thread where you haven't come to poison the well, yet. Yes, that's a test, Cain, I want to see how much of yourself you'll raise, and ...

Whoa, boy, put down that back leg, no mark of Cain there! Whoa boy!)

Cain

7th January 2004, 02:50 PM

As usual, a bunch of questions, but no position that you can be held responsible for. Once again, an attempt to poison the well. Are you pro or anti here? Do you even know?

They're mostly rhetorical questions for anyone familiar with these matters. Go ahead and compute the spending for all designated rogue nations. It's a pittance compared to U.S. spending. And, again, we cannot forget all of the spending of our allies.

Did [Libertarians oppose the war in Iraq]? I haven't taken a position. Have you given them a position?

The Libertarian Party opposed the war in Iraq, I'm pretty sure. Check their press releases. This is not difficult, even for you.

What? You've actually almost taken a position. Saints preserve us, probably in aspic, no less!

To which I reply, in the REAL world, without guns, and lots of them, and trained people to use them, somebody else will just move in, blow up the hospitals, polute the environment, and steal the butter.

Wow JJ, that's a very impressive retort. Of course, as I've maintained, our spending combined with the spending of our allies dwarfs all other countries (sort of like how a monkey towers over you intellectually). The United States is also, um, separated from most other nations by two oceans.

And we live in the real world, not the kooky idealized ones of either libertarianism or communism.

Fascinating. What does that have to do with me? In the other thread I told you several times that I'm not a communist. Of course, you never responded. I see you're resurrecting that mudslinging tactic here. This is important because you don't actually have an argument.

It's also worth noting that you again refused to even bother replying to my above post against your inflated, oft-repeated charges.

Whoa, boy, put down that back leg, no mark of Cain there! Whoa boy!)

:rolleyes:

7th January 2004, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Cain

They're mostly rhetorical questions for anyone familiar with these matters. Go ahead and compute the spending for all designated rogue nations. It's a pittance compared to U.S. spending. And, again, we cannot forget all of the spending of our allies.

And we have the most to loose. Big deal. We also have fewer people to spend, and more money. Your point? (And, no, I don't advocate "spending" people, but that's what war does, like it or not.)

So, we should, rather, cater to the other guys' strengths instead of our own? Oh, puhleeze.

The Libertarian Party opposed the war in Iraq, I'm pretty sure. Check their press releases. This is not difficult, even for you.

In my experience the libertarian party has a lot of trouble making its mind up. You're the one offering an assertion, do your homework. Did it take a position? You're the one making the assertion, you tell me.

While I think they have a wise take on many issues, the overall kookiness of libertarians, along with the obvious indifference of the "philosophy" to the realities of the world, really turns me off, as do their rabid, reality-denying supporters.

Wow JJ, that's a very impressive retort. Of course, as I've maintained, our spending combined with the spending of our allies dwarfs all other countries (sort of like how a monkey towers over you intellectually). The United States is also, um, separated from most other nations by two oceans.

Oooh. You remind me of those guys who thought we shouldn't get into WW2, now. Yeah, two oceans. Let's see, how long does it take a missile to cross one of them? Oh, about that (snap) long. Your point?

It's a new world, Cain, and you're not part of it, I guess. In this new world, anybody can attack anybody else, from anywhere, anytime. (Well not quite, yet, but we're getting there very fast.)

The oceans don't matter if what one wants is DESTRUCTION as opposed to OCCUPATION. So what if there are oceans? Your ridiculous logic would seem to indicate that we stand alone, our economy stands alone, and we don't need anyone else. Is that what you really think, or did you just take that slant in order to further your poisoning of the well?

Fascinating. What does that have to do with me? In the other thread I told you several times that I'm not a communist.

So? The issues at hand were communists in Malachi's thread, and libertarians in this one.

If you don't like the context, don't participate.

You know as well as I do that I didn't say you were either (and in fact I did at least once ask you what your position was, and I don't recall a decodable answer), so stop tilting at your pathetic little suborned straw man here. It's a shame, really, you can't even seem to get a good fire going under your own straw men.

You showed up here to annoy me, at least partially because I wouldn't cave to your well-poisoning and bullying in the communist thread, and now you're simply running a disinformation campaign against me because I have the guts to stand up and call you for the dishonest, trolling bully that you so obviously are.

Of course, you never responded. I see you're resurrecting that mudslinging tactic here. This is important because you don't actually have an argument.

Once again, you appear incapable of recognizing an argument unless it agrees with you. I feel no compulsion to agree with you, so as to get you to admit I made an "argument". Monty Python comes to mind here, I have to admit.

Frankly, your false accusations were beneath comtempt. EVeryone here, including those lunatic right-wingers here who have routinely vilified me as part of their own political campaign, know how and what I argue, and even they know you're full of it.

It's also worth noting that you again refused to even bother replying to my above post against your inflated, oft-repeated charges.

My actions speak for themselves, and pretty much everyone here is smart enough to see right through your games, just like they see through Shanek's.

:rolleyes:

Still raising yourself, I see.

It's ironic you seemed to think I was flaming. You know, I haven't even started to flame you. You do such a good job of flaming yourself by proxy that I don't have to. Quite aside from that, I like this board, and most of the people on it, and the rules ban flaming except in one place, so I don't generally flame at all. It's a shame that you have neither respect for the people here or for this board, but I guess we're used to it by now.

Cain

7th January 2004, 04:10 PM

Cain writes:
They're mostly rhetorical questions for anyone familiar with these matters. Go ahead and compute the spending for all designated rogue nations. It's a pittance compared to U.S. spending. And, again, we cannot forget all of the spending of our allies.

JJ "responds":
And we have the most to loose. Big deal. We also have fewer people to spend, and more money. Your point? (And, no, I don't advocate "spending" people, but that's what war does, like it or not.)

So, we should, rather, cater to the other guys' strengths instead of our own? Oh, puhleeze.

How is this in any way a response? What's my point? My point is that we already outspend every other nation on earth. We spend more than the next twenty five countries combined. Most -- if not all -- of those next 25 countries are our allies. You don't think that's at all relevant? What do you mean "cater to the other guy's strength"?

In my experience the libertarian party has a lot of trouble making its mind up. You're the one offering an assertion, do your homework. Did it take a position? You're the one making the assertion, you tell me.

I didn't think it was very controversial. We know where Shanek gets his marching orders from. But 30 seconds of websurfing produces the following:

http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=598

While I think they have a wise take on many issues, the overall kookiness of libertarians, along with the obvious indifference of the "philosophy" to the realities of the world, really turns me off, as do their rabid, reality-denying supporters.

Wow, that's really interesting. All of your opinions are interesting. You're just so... interesting.

Oooh. You remind me of those guys who thought we shouldn't get into WW2, now. Yeah, two oceans. Let's see, how long does it take a missile to cross one of them? Oh, about that (snap) long. Your point?

No, an isolationist Libertarian is as indifferent the concerns of other nations as its own citizens. I'm not Libertarian, and I'm not sure what the hell World War II has do with anything. But please, continue to digress as usual.

It's a new world, Cain, and you're not part of it, I guess. In this new world, anybody can attack anybody else, from anywhere, anytime. (Well not quite, yet, but we're getting there very fast.)

Yeah, and how do aircraft carriers, missile shileds, and updated fighter jets prevent someone from using a suitcase bomb or smashing commercial airliners into buildings?

The oceans don't matter if what one wants is DESTRUCTION as opposed to OCCUPATION. So what if there are oceans? Your ridiculous logic would seem to indicate that we stand alone, our economy stands alone, and we don't need anyone else. Is that what you really think, or did you just take that slant in order to further your poisoning of the well?

Geez, you're just oblivious to my point. How will military expenditures -- 47% of the Federal income tax -- prevent that?

So? The issues at hand were communists in Malachi's thread, and libertarians in this one.

If you don't like the context, don't participate.

How is this at all a reply to what I said?

"Fascinating. What does that have to do with me? In the other thread I told you several times that I'm not a communist."

You know as well as I do that I didn't say you were either (and in fact I did at least once ask you what your position was, and I don't recall a decodable answer), so stop tilting at your pathetic little suborned straw man here. It's a shame, really, you can't even seem to get a good fire going under your own straw men.

Here's what you wrote:
Communism, once again, is an abject, total, and final failure as a governing idea. It's dead. Please attend the funeral, so that you may have some closure on this issue, and stop bothering us with ideas whose time never even came.

Here was my reply then, which I don't believe you ever commented on:

And of course I'm not defending communism (or "communism") as a competing model or an alternative.

You showed up here to annoy me, at least partially because I wouldn't cave to your well-poisoning and bullying in the communist thread, and now you're simply running a disinformation campaign against me because I have the guts to stand up and call you for the dishonest, trolling bully that you so obviously are.

Is this self-parody? I'm seriously asking.

See my original comments on this thread (which dealt with negative rights, among other things). None of my posts here have had anything to do with you.

In fact, YOU'RE the one who carried over the previous discussion with the following nonsense:

You, like Shanek, are a destructive jerk.

I never said word one to you in this thread up to that point. Can you please f*ck off now?

Not only do you mistakenly accuse me of unsubstantiated nonsense (straw man, ad hominem, etc), but you engage in those tactics as well. Christ.

My actions speak for themselves, and pretty much everyone here is smart enough to see right through your games, just like they see through Shanek's.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Not that I care at all about popular opinion, but it's unquestionably on your side :rolleyes:

It's ironic you seemed to think I was flaming. You know, I haven't even started to flame you.

Man, you're a goddamn f*cking moron. I tag that last line on to all of my sigs. You do realize that it's a signature, right? Tell me you're not so incredibly f*cking stupid that you never noticed.

See this thread:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31581&highlight=Cain

Besides, earlier you promised to "ridicule me to bits." Oh my, I'm scared. NOT. :rolleyes:

Am I finished cockslapping you now?

Luke T.

7th January 2004, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by shanek

You're lying, of course.

http://www.independentsector.org/PDFs/campfin3.pdf

Many of the other restrictions are laid out there as well.

It is strange how every time this comes up, you never link to the actual law. (http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/fec/bpcmpnrfrmact2002.pdf) Read it. You are incorrect, sir.

We will see who is wrong next October when we see campaing ads for candidates still on the air, won't we, Shanek? ;)

Here (http://www.fec.gov/pages/charts_ec_dates_pres.htm) is a nice site that explains the law for you.

Guide to 2004 Reporting:
Coverage Periods for Electioneering Communications
Made on Behalf of 2004 Presidential Candidates

As required by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), the Federal Election Commission (FEC) promulgated new electioneering communications rules governing television and radio communications that refer to a clearly identified federal candidate and are distributed within 60 days prior to the general election or 30 days prior to a primary, nominating convention, or caucus. See 11 CFR 100.29. The statute and regulations require, among other things, that individuals and other groups not registered with the FEC who make electioneering communications costing more than $10,000 in the aggregate disclose that activity to the Commission within 24 hours of the distribution of the communication. See 11 CFR 104.20.

You see? You can still run ads. The people running the ads have to report who spent what on the ad.

Luke T.

7th January 2004, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by shanek

You're lying again! The poll was done by RASMUSSEN RESEARCH, AN OBJECTIVE OUTSIDE AGENCY!!! :mad:

Unless you have evidence that Scott Rasmussen, one of the most respected pollsters in the business, is a closet Libertarian and deliberately skewed the poll...

Shanek, are you reading your own links? :eek:

From your link about the poll:

Another interesting aspect of this survey is that it once again highlights the difference between reliable, scientifically conducted telephone surveys and online surveys. While only 16% of Americans are libertarian according to the Worldâ€™s Smallest Political Quiz, 38% of those who take the quiz on the Advocates for Self-Government Web Site qualify as libertarian. The difference is probably accounted for by the fact that libertarians are more likely to visit the site than liberals, conservatives, centrists, and authoritarians.

7th January 2004, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by Cain
Cain writes:
See this thread:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31581&highlight=Cain

Besides, earlier you promised to "ridicule me to bits." Oh my, I'm scared. NOT. :rolleyes:

Am I finished cockslapping you now?
...
Heh. I know, you old floppy cock JJ, you are one miserable Goddamn F*cking Moron. Congratulations, and treasure this award (you certainly earned it). Oh, and remember to keep on flamin' you crazy idiot.

Once again, poisoning the well, vilification, and not a trace of substance.

Luke T.

7th January 2004, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Sorry, my bad. That should have been 10,000 registered Libertarians. I was talking about voter registration in NC. And in both raw numbers and as a proportion of all registered voters, the number of registered Libertarians is increasing, and the number of registered Democrats and Republicans is decreasing.

I cannot believe you still make this claim about decreasing Dems and Republicans in the face of TWO SOURCES I have provided which show that to be untrue, while you have provided NONE!!!

Unbelievable.

edited to add:

Once again, Source 1 (http://nfib.sohodojo.com/races-candidates.php) and Source 2. (http://www.southnow.org/publications/sn_updates/datapack%20guide%20October%202,2002.doc)

The number of unaffiliated voters in North Carolina has increased sharply over the last decade, accounting now for 15.5 % of voters. Democratic registration in the state has dropped from 72% in 1980 to 50.7% today, while Republican registration has continued to climb over the same period.

Voter registration in North Carolina increased by nearly 160% between 1966 and 2002, and the number of actual voters increased by almost 140% over the same period.

Comparatively, Democratic registration decreased by nearly 40% between 1966 and 2002, while Republican registration has increased by more than 90%. Importantly, Unaffiliated or Independent registration has increased by more than 400% in the last two decades, and it is virtually equal to the 1966 level of Republican affiliation.

Now unless there was a plague that only kills Republicans since this data was established, there is no way the number of registered Republicans has dropped, and you are making up your claims. You have not even provided evidence North Carolina has 10,000 registered Libertarians, for crying out loud.

7th January 2004, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.

I cannot believe you still make this claim about decreasing Dems and Republicans in the face of TWO SOURCES I have provided which show that to be untrue, while you have provided NONE!!!

Unbelievable.

Easy, Luke, easy. He does this all the time.

When he's backed into a corner, he spews almost anything.

It's just how he is.

Don't worry, even if I disagree with you 99% about most political matters (and I'm not sure I do) I know which one of you isn't lying. I think most people know it, too.

In a way, being called a "liar" by Shanek is almost a badge of honor. Ask Yeti, Suddenly, or any of a whole variety of people who have dared to introduce contrary evidence or arguments to his party line. If you don't accept his arguments, and continue to argue, you're a "liar" because you have been "shown" you're wrong, and hence are "lying" when you continue to disagree. I'm using those quotes of contempt on purpose.

Btw, excellent find on the quote regarding the self-selecting nature of the poll. It reminds me of those "polls" I get from the republiguns and dummycrats.

I'm starting to think that being defamed by Cain is a similar honor. Anyone who can't see the relationship between an isolationist status and WW2 is just not playing with a full deck, and it certainly isn't a Pinochle deck, either, it's more like what's left when you combine two decks to make a Pinochle deck.

Tricky

7th January 2004, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by hgc
I think you inadvertantly stumbled onto it. Start by charging usage fees to S. Korea and NATO countries and everyone else the U.S. Military protects. Even France has to pay up. As for protecting our own country, we can wait for the invasion, and then gather everyone who wants to live free into The Zone of Libertarian Protection, charging a usage fee upon entry. We can then build up an army and repel the invading Goths.
That's it! Protection money! I can see it now.

Dat's a nice Eyefull Tower you gots dere, Frog. You wouldn't wanna see anyting happen to it, now woudja?

Roadtoad

7th January 2004, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

That's it! Protection money! I can see it now.

Dat's a nice Eyefull Tower you gots dere, Frog. You wouldn't wanna see anyting happen to it, now woudja?

Odd, I always thought guys like Rumsfeld would look about right running around in silk suits, black shirts, white ties, and carrying violin cases.

shanek

7th January 2004, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.
Shanek, are you reading your own links? :eek:

From your link about the poll:

What does that quote have to do with anything? They're not doing anything but highlighting the benefits of the poll being done. It was still done by Scott Rasmussen as a Portrait of America poll. I know you don't like it, I know you don't want to believe it, but it is so nonetheless.

You claim to have read the link. That means you've read the following:

Portrait of America conducted this national telephone survey of 822 likely voters on August 23, 2000. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Either you saw this and still claimed otherwise, in which case you LIED about who conducted the poll, or you didn't read this part, in which case you LIED about having read the link and made a claim which you had not done even the smallest amount of effort necessary to verify it.

Either way, you are a LIAR, and I am going to ignore your dishonest ramblings throughout the remainder of the thread. You obviously have nothing at all constructive to offer here.

Zep

7th January 2004, 07:25 PM

You know, Shane, you would get a lot further with your causes, have way fewer insults thrown at you, and have a lot more people standing with you than against you if you just learned to stop dissing people and calling them "liar" when they disagree with you. Even if they ARE cretins and liars themselves. Ignore the insults and go with the meat of the issue, OK? Unless you LIKE that sort of thing, of course...

Mahatma Kane Jeeves

7th January 2004, 07:51 PM

Gresham’s Law of Junk (http://muweb.millersville.edu/~politics/jan082002.htm)
Social scientists have been sharply critical of CRAP [computerized response audience polls] polls for several justifiable reasons. One problem is the identity of the respondent. Your five year old can punch the keys on the telephone and voice her opinion, or your favorite uncle from Tulsa who happens to be around when the phone rings can have his say as well. Who really knows who’s on the other end of the phone? Real survey researchers call the practice the uncontrolled selection of respondents, and it can be a real source of error. It’s tantamount to standing on the street corner and haphazardly asking questions of anyone who happens by.

Then, there is the problem of response rate. CRAP poll machines call thousands of people to complete six or seven hundred interviews, producing a very low response rate. Phone hang-ups especially plague the computer polls. The more people who don’t answer the poll, the more likely the results will be misleading--reflecting the views of those who were called and answered the poll, but not those who were called but failed to answer. Even high quality polls have response rate problems, but they are magnified many times over by the computer polls.

In the 2000 presidential election, the CRAP entry was the Rasmussen poll, conducted by Scott Rasmussen. His Portrait Of America poll was off by 4.5% compared to an average of 1.1% for the final polls taken by the ten leading national surveys just prior to Election Day. The traditional polls used random samples and real interviewers. Rasmussen himself is not a trained survey researcher. He was one of the cofounders of ESPN, the sports cable network. He admits that his purpose is to create a bunch of number addicts that will “feed the sports junkie’s appetite”, and not to conduct scientific polls for serious survey research.
But professional pollsters across the country condemn these computer polls. Respected pollster Daniel Yankelovich has been among the most blunt. “The notion that a poll is a poll, and it doesn’t matter how cheap and simple minded it is such a deterioration. It’s Gresham’s Law of junk driving out quality. They couldn’t be more misleading.”

Michael Traugott, a former president of the American Association For Public Opinion Research, has said it best about CRAP polls: “ Until there is more information about their methods and a longer track to evaluate their results, we should not confuse the work they do with scientific surveys, and it should not be called polling.”