Third parties on the rise???

[bassjones]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

I could not possibly agree more with this column... Except I think the Libertarian party could capture that interest with the right charismatic leader.

[WBOB]

Might be a great time for one.. yeah, Perot came
sorta close for a short while,... then what's his
name from the "Green Party",.....

Completely tired of that the polarization that the "2 party"
system causes, which is bent on appeasing what gives them
their next vote,instead of what's right
for their(our) country....
eg: illegal immigration, war on terror....

Wish the Libertarian's would get more
press and the ability to expouse their mostly
unknow views. It would be interesting.

At least I can still vent at the voting booth....

[=^-..-^=]

First, The Libertarians need to push their one trump card to get today's detached and jaded generation to even take notice – the legalization of drugs. I myself am not too hyped on this platform, except that it makes more sense than filling prisons with pot smokers. ( I don't want my kids doing drugs.); but it is a starting point to get people to discuss the Libertarian viewpoint.

Second, the Libertarians need to get John Stossel (20/20 guy and STRONG Libertarian ) to run for president. He has the charisma, philosophical bent, and the access to sell the Libertarian viewpoint.

Third, the Libertarians need to drop the abortion issue from their platform. There are good Libertarian arguments for and against abortion, which alienate potential Libertarians. For that matter, the two major parties need to drop it as well.

[Morphine Child]

If Noam Chomsky (a libertarian) ran for President I would vote for him. Of course considering that would eliminate most welfare and welfare based programs, I would be out of a job.

[Bjart Sod]

Is Chomsky a capital L Llibertarian Party libertarian or a early twentieth century libertarian (i.e., euphemism for anarchist)? I was always under the impression that he considered himself more an anarchist, though he tends to downplay this in interviews. I see Wikipedia tags him as a "libertarian socialist," which wouldn't agree with the Libertarian Party.

To the point: I don't think he's exactly charismatic enough to win any election. Have you ever heard him lecture?

[bassjones]

Libertarian Socialist??? Those are two completely separate ideologies. That's like saying someone is a Totalitarian Anarchist...

[Bjart Sod]

Not if anarchists reclaimed the term libertarian. Erik Sod and I both call ourselves anarcho-socialists or progresive anarchists to mean about the same thing Chomsky does. Just imagine a society organized at the social level that respects certain rights of the individual (religion, speech, association, happiness, healthcare, education) but abolishes those the money economy has created (mostly to do with ownership, e.g. over unused property).

But with the modern usage of libertarian, I see your point. I mostly use libertarian-compounds to refer to right-wing anarchists that sometimes seem to make up the majority of American anarchists, but thankfully not the majority of active ones.

[=^-..-^=]

Libertarian Socialist??? Those are two completely separate ideologies. That's like saying someone is a Totalitarian Anarchist...

If you kind of see the political spectrum as more of a circle, it makes sense.

I think you and I are about the same, politically on this. This is the way I see it-tell me if you disagree:

Libertarian philosophy assumes that people are smart enough to act wisely in their own self-interest. Part of that self-interest is that people will recognize that acting PERSONALLY to benefit the community as a whole helps the individual to realize the greatest benefit from having personal freedom. Trodding on another's freedoms also threatens personal liberty.

When brains fail, rules are made.

So government is still necessary to coerce those exercise personal freedom to the detriment of the community as a whole; but sharing resources with the community must come from an inward, intrinsic motivation, not the external coercion of Socialism.

So maybe the proper term is Libertarian Community-ist

[bassjones]

Yes, we agree.

My favorite current libertarian thinker is Walter E. Williams - who happens to be a pro-life libertarian as well. As he put it, "Charity is a noble thing. Government programs are not charity, they are legalized extortion disguised as charity."

As an aside, every study I've ever seen indicates far better results from private (religious, usually) charities than from government programs. That runs the gamut from drug and alcohol rehab to feeding and caring for the homeless - most of whom would have been institutionalized for mental health reasons as recently as 30 years ago.

Don't take that to assume I mean to endorse Bush's "Faith Based Initiative" though. I think it's a horrible idea. First because philosophically I don't think it's the government's job to fund any programs. Secondly, I believe the greatest threat to religious freedom will come when the government starts funding religious charities. "You can't preach xxxxx and still receive funding for xxxxx program."

[=^-..-^=]

Yes, after working with poor people, I have seen the self-destructive "Entitlement Mentality" that government "charity" has created.

Charity that rewards failure is NOT charity - it is Enabling, and providing incentive for more failure. Private charity holds people personally accountable for their actions.

Unfortunately, government charity has created a dependent class that is too large for private charity to handle any more.

On the flip side, a majority of Americans on Welfare are on it two years or less, so it does its function as a safety net, in a majority of cases. Many people who are on aid, but then get a job, have to suffer a net pay cut as benefits are rolled back. This is tremendous disincentive.