Jump to content
270soft Forum
servo75

Libertarian Party Candidate

Recommended Posts

FYI Jo Jorgenson, not even in the built-in campaign at all, was nominated by the Libertarian Party several weeks ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, servo75 said:

FYI Jo Jorgenson, not even in the built-in campaign at all, was nominated by the Libertarian Party several weeks ago.

I'm surprised they couldn't nominate someone with even remote name recognition. This is probably going to be the worst showing for her party in 20 years.

Yeah, she wasn't even on the Libertarian nomination radar a few months ago. If one was going to look at the candidates and make an estimate on who it would be, at least 5 names would be put forth first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, servo75 said:

FYI Jo Jorgenson, not even in the built-in campaign at all, was nominated by the Libertarian Party several weeks ago.

 

20 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'm surprised they couldn't nominate someone with even remote name recognition. This is probably going to be the worst showing for her party in 20 years.

Yeah, she wasn't even on the Libertarian nomination radar a few months ago. If one was going to look at the candidates and make an estimate on who it would be, at least 5 names would be put forth first. 

I don't think it is just rational sense that leads to a general aversion to a political system  that's built around abdicating all but a very few duties of actually being a government, and handing most of those to sociopathic, rapacious corporations to whom profit matters far more than the lives or well-being of their employees or consumers or State governments being freely allowed to inhuman, abusive, and and/or deliberately neglectful laws and policies if they choose to, with neither having many meaningful limits on their abilities so to do. I see a de facto Neo-Feudal of the ultra-wealthy over everyone emerging from such a vile and irresponsible principal of governance - and not very much "freedom," or "liberty," for the great majority, de facto, in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite being a very staunch libertarian, the Libertarian Party has many many problems. I compare them in some way to the Jedi Council in their dedicataion to dogma. They're too hung up on charts and graphs, letting perfect be the enemy of good. They're leaderless, rudderless, have no local structure, no identity and cannot stay above the fray they claim to oppose most. If good ideas were all it took to win elections, we'd be finishing the 2nd term of Ron Paul right now, I think (I actually wrote him in in 2012 disgusted with how the GOP treated him). It's too bad. I kept saying that if I could have dictatorially hand-picked the President in 2016, it would have been Gary Johnson. But they just can't get out of their own way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Patine said:

I don't think it is just rational sense that leads to a general aversion to a political system  that's built around abdicating all but a very few duties of actually being a government, and handing most of those to sociopathic, rapacious corporations to whom profit matters far more than the lives or well-being of their employees or consumers or State governments being freely allowed to inhuman, abusive, and and/or deliberately neglectful laws and policies if they choose to, with neither having many meaningful limits on their abilities so to do. I see a de facto Neo-Feudal of the ultra-wealthy over everyone emerging from such a vile and irresponsible principal of governance - and not very much "freedom," or "liberty," for the great majority, de facto, in the end.

So it would be fair to say you're a Bernie Bro? Corporations have their problems, but IMHO I think you're being a little harsh here. I really hate it when people on the left use phrases like "people over profits" as if the two could be separated, as if it were possible to have one without the other. Or the people who want to tear down an entire system because of some bad apples. How about "people AND profits?" You only MAKE profits by making people happy. Because without people you can't run a business and without profits you can't pay the people, or expand your business to create more jobs. Where do people get the notion that our economy can exist without the generation of profit and wealth? Where would their precious tax money come from if they would just slay the golden goose, which is exactly what they seem to want? They want increased taxes while decrying the very system which produces the money to supply them! Incroyable! A good capitalist system (which we don't I think have here in the US) has all the checks and balances needed for almost all aspects of the economy. Any corporation doing half of the stuff you accuse of above would rightfully go out of business, and yet they don't. I'd say to anyone who, for example, chastises an Amazon or Apple, or Nike for "exploiting" humans and not paying taxes, all of the above... the solution is simple. Don't buy from them. And yet, we do.

I have to laugh at the naive college student who rails against the capitalist system on her iPhone over the Verizon network while sitting in Starbucks wearing her Nike sweatshirt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, servo75 said:

So it would be fair to say you're a Bernie Bro? Corporations have their problems, but IMHO I think you're being a little harsh here. I really hate it when people on the left use phrases like "people over profits" as if the two could be separated, as if it were possible to have one without the other. Or the people who want to tear down an entire system because of some bad apples. How about "people AND profits?" You only MAKE profits by making people happy. Because without people you can't run a business and without profits you can't pay the people, or expand your business to create more jobs. Where do people get the notion that our economy can exist without the generation of profit and wealth? Where would their precious tax money come from if they would just slay the golden goose, which is exactly what they seem to want? They want increased taxes while decrying the very system which produces the money to supply them! Incroyable! A good capitalist system (which we don't I think have here in the US) has all the checks and balances needed for almost all aspects of the economy. Any corporation doing half of the stuff you accuse of above would rightfully go out of business, and yet they don't. I'd say to anyone who, for example, chastises an Amazon or Apple, or Nike for "exploiting" humans and not paying taxes, all of the above... the solution is simple. Don't buy from them. And yet, we do.

I have to laugh at the naive college student who rails against the capitalist system on her iPhone over the Verizon network while sitting in Starbucks wearing her Nike sweatshirt.

Well, since you've just, on one post DECIDED, in your mind, my entire political ideology and everyone I support blindly - even, in fact, that I must buy into the ludicrous, artificial, binary, Neo-Manichaean, braindead division of "left-versus-right-wing" politics that has THOROUGHLY poisoned the socio-political well of thought - and have obviously completely lost track of how corporate behaviour has empirically changed over the past half-century, becoming more abusive, predatory, and rapacious, and openly flaunting or using blatant loopholes in many laws that common citizens do not benefit from and even bribing - YES, BRIBING - Governments, up to and including the U.S. Federal Government itself - thorough and complete denial of all these corporatist problems even EXISTING - I think you may be too far down your own ideological rabbit-hole and believing the "magic land of liberty, freedom, and opportunity without a nanny state," LSD-laced, Willy Wonka fairy tales to probably get any rational point across to. Also, I am NOT a naïve college student, I do not own a cellphone, and no article of clothing I wear prominently displays a brand name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, servo75 said:

FYI Jo Jorgenson, not even in the built-in campaign at all, was nominated by the Libertarian Party several weeks ago.

Thanks for this - noted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2020 at 8:38 AM, Patine said:

Well, since you've just, on one post DECIDED, in your mind, my entire political ideology and everyone I support blindly - even, in fact, that I must buy into the ludicrous, artificial, binary, Neo-Manichaean, braindead division of "left-versus-right-wing" politics that has THOROUGHLY poisoned the socio-political well of thought - and have obviously completely lost track of how corporate behaviour has empirically changed over the past half-century, becoming more abusive, predatory, and rapacious, and openly flaunting or using blatant loopholes in many laws that common citizens do not benefit from and even bribing - YES, BRIBING - Governments, up to and including the U.S. Federal Government itself - thorough and complete denial of all these corporatist problems even EXISTING - I think you may be too far down your own ideological rabbit-hole and believing the "magic land of liberty, freedom, and opportunity without a nanny state," LSD-laced, Willy Wonka fairy tales to probably get any rational point across to. Also, I am NOT a naïve college student, I do not own a cellphone, and no article of clothing I wear prominently displays a brand name.

Patine. You're brutal lmao. 

I know many people like him, mostly from Reddit 😔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2020 at 5:38 PM, Patine said:

Well, since you've just, on one post DECIDED, in your mind, my entire political ideology and everyone I support blindly - even, in fact, that I must buy into the ludicrous, artificial, binary, Neo-Manichaean, braindead division of "left-versus-right-wing" politics that has THOROUGHLY poisoned the socio-political well of thought - and have obviously completely lost track of how corporate behaviour has empirically changed over the past half-century, becoming more abusive, predatory, and rapacious, and openly flaunting or using blatant loopholes in many laws that common citizens do not benefit from and even bribing - YES, BRIBING - Governments, up to and including the U.S. Federal Government itself - thorough and complete denial of all these corporatist problems even EXISTING - I think you may be too far down your own ideological rabbit-hole and believing the "magic land of liberty, freedom, and opportunity without a nanny state," LSD-laced, Willy Wonka fairy tales to probably get any rational point across to. Also, I am NOT a naïve college student, I do not own a cellphone, and no article of clothing I wear prominently displays a brand name.

I disagree. And it's not like you've never made unfounded assumptions about my beliefs. So we're even I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, servo75 said:

I disagree. And it's not like you've never made unfounded assumptions about my beliefs. So we're even I guess.

You blatantly and proudly broadcast your ideologies. And you can disagree all you want with the FACT of what I've just called you to task for - because fortunately, Paradigm Parapsychology and Consentual Really Theory are bunk, and your disagreements and denial don't magically change the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2020 at 11:42 PM, Patine said:

You blatantly and proudly broadcast your ideologies. And you can disagree all you want with the FACT of what I've just called you to task for - because fortunately, Paradigm Parapsychology and Consentual Really Theory are bunk, and your disagreements and denial don't magically change the facts.

Yes, I am very proud of my ideologies and if you want to call that blatant, well I guess it is. I argue very aggressively, just like you, but that doesn't give you the right to reflexively giving me personal insult for no reason other than you don't like what I'm saying. When I give my opinion, I say it's my opinion, but when I know I'm right, I say it. Yes, I aggressively attacked your opinion and asked probing questions. I even used the word IMHO for fuck's sake! Are you really so filled with rage you can't see that? From now on, do me a favor and either ignore me or pound sand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2020 at 8:32 AM, CentristGuy said:

I know many people like him, mostly from Reddit

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, servo75 said:

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

I misgendered the Jo Jogersen woman. I apologize. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, CentristGuy said:

I misgendered the Jo Jogersen woman. I apologize. 

I'm sure she doesn't mind... :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr Jorgensen will be a real alternative instead of a disgruntled former Republican doing a vanity exercise

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/29/2020 at 7:05 PM, pilight said:

Dr Jorgensen will be a real alternative instead of a disgruntled former Republican doing a vanity exercise

Yes, but... not nearly the name recognition. Johnson did pathetically for a race where the two front runners were supposedly so hated. 3% nationally and that's a record? I'd be surprised if Jorgensen breaks 1%. If good ideas won Presidential elections, we'd be finishing up Ron Paul's 2nd term now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, servo75 said:

Yes, but... not nearly the name recognition. Johnson did pathetically for a race where the two front runners were supposedly so hated. 3% nationally and that's a record? I'd be surprised if Jorgensen breaks 1%. If good ideas won Presidential elections, we'd be finishing up Ron Paul's 2nd term now.

You assume consensus on "good ideas," there, too easily. Ron Paul has several noble ideals I strongly agree with, and think would be great improvements - in fact, that are practically screamed out for. However, he also has ideas that would turn the U.S. to a Corporatist Neo-Feudal system, de facto, and make life an unmitigated hardship and misery for so many - and for no appreciable gain except to a very few.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Patine said:

You assume consensus on "good ideas," there, too easily. Ron Paul has several noble ideals I strongly agree with, and think would be great improvements - in fact, that are practically screamed out for. However, he also has ideas that would turn the U.S. to a Corporatist Neo-Feudal system, de facto, and make life an unmitigated hardship and misery for so many - and for no appreciable gain except to a very few.

I'd be very interested in why you feel he would turn the U.S. into a "Corporatist Neo-Feudal" system. To be honest, I'm not even sure what that means. There seems, to me at least, to be a mis-perception among many that people of Dr. Paul's ilk, being pro-business, means they condone the current system. Right now, we really don't have a true 100% capitalist system. Yes capitalism is at the core of our system, but also we have many bad aspects which I, and I believe libertarian Republicans, abhor: We have cronyism, with government and corporations in bed with each other, special favors, loopholes, a government run by and laws written by lobbyists and regulations made by un-elected department heads who are not accountable to the voters. These things have to go, obviously. I think, and I think so do Dr. Paul and his supporters, can't have governments picking winners and losers, subsidizing this industry and punishing that one. It's a theory of mine that a good portion of the people who say they hate capitalism are only really referring to the ugly side I describe above, which isn't really true capitalism, assuming that the cronyism is part of that system. Capitalism is by definition free choice, and if we have the things I describe above, that's not capitalism. Further, and this is a study I'd very much like to see done, I would propose that if you gave YOUNG voters a "Pepsi taste-test" sort of survey, in which capitalism (true capitalism, not what we have now) and socialism were put in front of them, but without calling them that, just "System A" and "System B", I really believe that an overwhelming majority, even of young Democrat voters, would choose the former, because I think that many people have a distorted view of what both really mean. That a true conservative would reject the funny business that marries government and business, creating monopolies (or worse) leaving the consumer without a choice. If there's no true consumer choice, it ain't capitalism. I could be wrong and I'd like to see the study done to be honest, but that would be my hypothesis and I have strong reason to believe it might be the case.

In short, I think that being pro-business is an effect, not a cause, of Libertarian thinking. The over-riding philosophy is being pro-freedom, to get the government off the backs of citizens and businesses, and only regulate to the extent that is needed to make things fair for both. A by-product of this, obviously, is a pro-business mantra, but I think too many people think that, by extension, Dr. Paul must also support the cronyism I describe above. As someone who has listened to him extensively, I have never heard him say that, and as a matter of fact, the cozy relationship between corporations and government goes directly against his libertarian principles, because it lowers freedom for the citizens. We can't let either one become too powerful.

Incidentally, back when Ron Paul ran in 2008, and I was a Democrat at the time who eventually voted for Obama, I remember thinking to myself, "This IS the one Republican I could see myself voting for, because he's not like the rest."

Nevertheless, even if we debate whether Ron Paul's ideas are good or not, I still stand by my overall point, and I think we would agree, that the best ideas don't win elections. They never really have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, servo75 said:

I'd be very interested in why you feel he would turn the U.S. into a "Corporatist Neo-Feudal" system. To be honest, I'm not even sure what that means. There seems, to me at least, to be a mis-perception among many that people of Dr. Paul's ilk, being pro-business, means they condone the current system. Right now, we really don't have a true 100% capitalist system. Yes capitalism is at the core of our system, but also we have many bad aspects which I, and I believe libertarian Republicans, abhor: We have cronyism, with government and corporations in bed with each other, special favors, loopholes, a government run by and laws written by lobbyists and regulations made by un-elected department heads who are not accountable to the voters. These things have to go, obviously. I think, and I think so do Dr. Paul and his supporters, can't have governments picking winners and losers, subsidizing this industry and punishing that one. It's a theory of mine that a good portion of the people who say they hate capitalism are only really referring to the ugly side I describe above, which isn't really true capitalism, assuming that the cronyism is part of that system. Capitalism is by definition free choice, and if we have the things I describe above, that's not capitalism. Further, and this is a study I'd very much like to see done, I would propose that if you gave YOUNG voters a "Pepsi taste-test" sort of survey, in which capitalism (true capitalism, not what we have now) and socialism were put in front of them, but without calling them that, just "System A" and "System B", I really believe that an overwhelming majority, even of young Democrat voters, would choose the former, because I think that many people have a distorted view of what both really mean. That a true conservative would reject the funny business that marries government and business, creating monopolies (or worse) leaving the consumer without a choice. If there's no true consumer choice, it ain't capitalism. I could be wrong and I'd like to see the study done to be honest, but that would be my hypothesis and I have strong reason to believe it might be the case.

In short, I think that being pro-business is an effect, not a cause, of Libertarian thinking. The over-riding philosophy is being pro-freedom, to get the government off the backs of citizens and businesses, and only regulate to the extent that is needed to make things fair for both. A by-product of this, obviously, is a pro-business mantra, but I think too many people think that, by extension, Dr. Paul must also support the cronyism I describe above. As someone who has listened to him extensively, I have never heard him say that, and as a matter of fact, the cozy relationship between corporations and government goes directly against his libertarian principles, because it lowers freedom for the citizens. We can't let either one become too powerful.

Incidentally, back when Ron Paul ran in 2008, and I was a Democrat at the time who eventually voted for Obama, I remember thinking to myself, "This IS the one Republican I could see myself voting for, because he's not like the rest."

Nevertheless, even if we debate whether Ron Paul's ideas are good or not, I still stand by my overall point, and I think we would agree, that the best ideas don't win elections. They never really have.

Let me ask about another part of Libertarian ideology that scares me to death, and disgusts me to the core at the same time. I may have mentioned, from time to time, that I am a social worker by profession. And one of the big planks of Libertarianism is a complete lack of a social support network by the government. But realistically, whatever rhetoric about "only the lazy are unemployed and poor if Capitalism's working" (which is malarkey) such a thing would mean a slow, grinding, horrible death, or path to exploitation of the horrible sorts, to a lot of people - and not because they were "lazy," but because they were naturally, for one reason or another, unemployable, but had no family willing or able to support them - and also includes those willing and able to work, but for whom no job openings or opportunities are available unless they travel (which is not so easy, especially if your unemployed). Also, completely privatized medicine where hospitals and doctors all work for profit - well India is a good case study of that. How humiliating would it be for the richest nation on Earth to have European, Canadian, and Filipino medical missionaries (the type who go to Latin America, Africa and South Asia, and that Mother Theresa was among) come to the U.S. to give charity medical service to the poor because they can't afford it otherwise. For a nation of such great wealth and abundance, such utter callousness to their least fortunate is just plain repugnant, ethically speaking. And you can say Capitalism is the "natural system of affairs," and "governments are Socialism and are the Government on people's backs," but that would just mask the point of a disgusting classist disregard for fellow human beings to let them perish a slow, vile demise, or fall to horrid, exploitative predation to preserve the purity of "freedom," (do you think the people I've mentioned feel very "free," in life) and the right to make a "hard-earned income," (and only a small minority are still going to get rich - and it won't be the "hardest workers") and prevent "Socialistic government meddling," and to have such inequity in a land of great wealth and abundance - these unfortunates suffering and languishing for little or no fault of their own, in conditions they might in dirt-poor Third World Nations, when the actual cost of giving them a life with a modicum of livability and dignity is statistically quite paltry and small - but, offensive to Libertarianism out of ideological purity - and it's always vile and reprehensible ideological purity, alone, costs human lives unnecessarily and egregiously, and is expected to be a justification and validity for such. It's frankly disgusting, and one of the real aspects of Libertarianism I can point to that really gets me fuming in disgust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Patine said:

I may have mentioned, from time to time, that I am a social worker by profession. And one of the big planks of Libertarianism is a complete lack of a social support network by the government.

Libertarians are very varied on this subject. But not unanimous. I think it's a bit inaccurate to say a "complete" lack of social support, nor is it a big plank. The anarcho-capitliasts, so-called, are I believe a minority. I can only speak for myself here, but I think most of us agree that some social safety net is necessary, as long as it's used juidiciously, when necessary, managed correctly to prevent fraud, and most importantly, coupled with job training needed to increase one's station. I think it's very true that there is a significant portion of those on means-tested programs who do not need to be so, and who do have other means of self-support. As a former teacher, I also believe our education system is horribly broken, especially in the inner cities. I don't believe the problem is lack of money, but much deeper, structural in nature. I would favor opening up more charter schools, or at the very least start voucher programs so that a parent can send their child to a charter school or even another public school. Competition will force schools to improve. The districts get a lot of money but too much of it is wasted on bureaucracy. The problem, as I have observed, is that union bosses, school superintendents and their cronies are lining their pockets at the expense of money getting to the classroom. That is certainly intolerable.

The libertarian platform, and I cannot go into depth here so I must oversimplify, is more reliance on private sector (which includes but is not limited to big and small businesses, non-profits, and individuals), and less on government programs. What you will find more unanimity on is the belief that, generally speaking, the profit motive gives private businesses the incentive to do things cheaper, more efficiently, and more effectively than government agencies whose leaders don't know that industry, have no competition and no incentive to change. I also think it's a disturbing myth that this means lack of government services, and some will say we already live in a socialist country because of government services. I disagree with that. We can respect private industry, and still have government do things that are not feasible in private hands, things that ARE the job of governments, like police, fire, military, education (to a limited extent), roads, post offices, safety inspections and the like. The government should protect people from things that individuals can not reasonably be expected to protect themselves from. Having private, or even state armies, or each bank coining their own money, would be disastrous. Even the staunchest libertarian will agree that there is some, albeit limited, role for government. Covid-19 is a good example of this. While responses, supplies, etc. should be up to the states and localities and individual hospitals, organizations like the CDC play an important role in research and planning. I only take issue with them when they try to make binding rules because those things should only come from Congress and legislatures.

You mention privatized medicine. I cannot do the subject justice here, it's way too complicated. I'm of the belief that before we figure out who pays for healthcare, we first must bravely ask why it's so expensive in the first place. I think this is because there are too many cooks in the kitchen, so to speak.  Insurance companies, government agencies, all with hands in the pot. If medical practices could operate with fewer redundant regulations, heck if insurance companies could sell across state lines. It works for car insurance. Lots of things we can do to bring the cost down. My belief is that when things are in private hands, again, competition and the very profit motive some people find evil is the very thing motivating these enterprises to do better. Mistreat your customers and you go out of business. The government doesn't have that pressure. Even then, I'm all for a choice for government buy-in programs if that's what some people want. What the Democrats are proposing is even more extreme than Europe, because even there, private insurance is an option. If we can give people government options (which I think in the end most will end up rejecting) while keeping private competition, that can go a long way towards making health insurance and health care more affordable.

I won't respond to the rest right now because this is already too long. In closing I'll just say that I think you'll be surprised that I want many of the things you want. A good economy with people earning good incomes helps EVERYONE. Even the rich business owners get to sell more products and services. I want good education and good health care, I just think you and I disagree on the means for that to happen. I think the private sector, in general, is able to do things more quickly, cheaply, efficiently and higher quality than sluggish government programs with no incentive for success. But I also think we can come up with a public-private compromise so that we give people options and let the best system win. I just reject top-down control, and the thought that, "If the government doesn't do XYZ, then it won't get done, and if you don't want the government to solve this problem, then you must not want it to be solved." If we could get past that I think we could find a lot of compromise.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...