Time for Third Party?

I wanna cleanse this country of the filth that has overtaken it.

Nobody's talking to you.

Whoa. I need to check the sandbox more often... Carl is back.

And so is Humpty

Whoa. I need to check the sandbox more often... Carl is back. Originally Posted by Damon Bradley

And so is Humpty Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

He never left. He's been 4 different handles in the past week. Crackin' me up.

Nearly 65% of respondents believe the two-party system is bullshit. Interesting results. How hard do you think the Ds and the Rs will try and hold on to it? How hard do you think the Rs might start gripping if the Tea Party actually does declare its independence?

Most of us seem to think that would be a good thing.

Nearly 65% of respondents believe the two-party system is bullshit. Interesting results. How hard do you think the Ds and the Rs will try and hold on to it? How hard do you think the Rs might start gripping if the Tea Party actually does declare its independence?

Most of us seem to think that would be a good thing. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Is the TP 'candidate' really going to defeat both the R and the D? I think not, they'll split votes. The Tea Party would rather see a R in office than a D for the most part and they know if they declare and split the vote that BHusseinO will easily win, something no R or TP member really wants. The goal is to get him out, not keep him in...

And you are a wise man and smart enough to figure out you can't take an ECCIE poll as true hard #'s unless you can get total respondents above one or two hundred. Way above. For politics try 1,000 at least.

Also, easier to make a poll ' yes or no or A or B ' w/o a ' vague' third option, those skew the polls. They suck votes from A or B just like a real election, a 3rd party candidate will suck votes away from one of the two who actually will win, so I find that vote to be a waste.

They suck votes from A or B just like a real election, a 3rd party candidate will suck votes away from one of the two who actually will win, so I find that vote to be a waste. Originally Posted by KosherCowboy

I'll strongly disagree here. In a viable republic, each individual needs to vote for the person who they believe will best represent them. Otherwise they end up voting for the lesser of two evils, and get stuck with evil...

In your scenario, voting only for a D or R, you will end up voting for a federalist, a person who believes in concentration of power for the purpose of transferring wealth. So all you really will be voting for is who gets to decide who to victimize and who divvies up the plunder.

I'll strongly disagree here. In a viable republic, each individual needs to vote for the person who they believe will best represent them. Otherwise they end up voting for the lesser of two evils, and get stuck with evil...

In your scenario, voting only for a D or R, you will end up voting for a federalist, a person who believes in concentration of power for the purpose of transferring wealth. So all you really will be voting for is who gets to decide who to victimize and who divvies up the plunder. Originally Posted by rCoder

I understand your point clearly and don't disagree in theory but in reality, either R or D will win. We know this. No ( Ind.) or tea bagger or green etc. party will win, they'll just make a point. However, after the election we'll have four years where many voters who did not vote R or D ( to make a point) will be upset their candidate is out and they will complain about R or D so they may as well cast that vote for the lesser of two evils because 100% one of them will win.

I do see your point, I do believe in anyone should be able to run but I truly believe it is a wasted vote and folks should vote on #1 or #2 because ain't no way #3 + is even going to come close to winning..

wasted vote, a great way to make a point, but if someone votes Green, Tea etc. let them not bitch the next four years about the R or D because they wandered at the voting booth and in ' protest' voted for a useless 3rd party with no shot in hell from the get go.

imho...

If most people would simply take the time to actually read the Constitution then look at the true Libertarian platform, they would be shocked to realize that THEY are indeed Libertarians themselves! It is not some "crazy fringe group" like the Demonicans and Republictrats desperately want you to believe. It is actually the third largest organized political party, and the ORIGINAL PLATFORM OF THE FOUNDING OF THIS COUNTRY! And the Asses and Elephants know it and it scares the crap out of them. Hence the continual marginalization of it and all other independent parties.
Vote Libertarian, win a free country. At least check out the actual LP platform (www.lp.org) and take the World's Smallest Political Quiz before you deride it like the rest of the lazy sleeping sheeple. Give it a try, you might be pleasantly surprised. Originally Posted by JustMe68

I am a libertarian and strict Constitutionalist. I believe that the only way this country can be saved is to return to the principles of the 1776 revolution and the Constitution.

However I've never voted for anyone in the Libertarian Party because they are not seeking to return to the Constitution.

What they're seeking to do is eliminate all government regulation of any kind and therefore prevent government from prosecuting those who are seeking to do society harm.

They are advocating for a jungle; they are anarchists not libertarians, and that's NOT what the founders sought. The Libertarian platform would not usher in a land of liberty and happiness....it would create a plutacracy where the rich and powerful craft a new feudal order with no authority to restrain them [which is largely what's happening now].*

When a party of true constitutionalists and liberty-minded people arise I will support them. For now the closest thing to that are the Ron Paul supporters.

*the early years of the Republic and the split between the Federalists and anti-Federalists largely hinged on this issue.

And you are a wise man and smart enough to figure out you can't take an ECCIE poll as true hard #'s unless you can get total respondents above one or two hundred. Way above. For politics try 1,000 at least.

Also, easier to make a poll ' yes or no or A or B ' w/o a ' vague' third option, those skew the polls. They suck votes from A or B just like a real election, a 3rd party candidate will suck votes away from one of the two who actually will win, so I find that vote to be a waste. Originally Posted by KosherCowboy

Shirley you're not discussing methodology of polling on ECCIE!

You know, it's possible to get an accurate snapshot of a two or three question probe with a couple hundred responses in a universe of 250,000. Most probes, though, use a sample of about 300 for a universe that size. Of course, if you want to get SCIENTIFIC about this stuff, then I'd suggest a more, er, measurable universe and a few control questions.

But I, as much as anybody, know you're a smart guy and know this already. And I know, don't call you Shirley!




Also, I've got to say I agree with TAE on the Libertarian Party. It's a popular, sexy term to use when describing your political philosophy, but just like there are no real Communists, there are no real Libertarians. Perhaps that's why the Ls have failed so miserably and repeatedly.

However, I think that strict adherence to the principles and doctrines of 1776 is akin to religious fundamentalism. A lot of people aren't willing to amend their view of religion either.

I
However I've never voted for anyone in the Libertarian Party because they are not seeking to return to the Constitution.

They are advocating for a jungle; they are anarchists not libertarians, and that's NOT what the founders sought. The Libertarian platform would not usher in a land of liberty and happiness....it would create a plutacracy where the rich and powerful craft a new feudal order with no authority to restrain them [which is largely what's happening now].* Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

I'm astonished. Something from TAE I completely agree with. A few related thoughts:

1. Most of the people who imagine they are libertarians are really "Randists", as in Ayn Rand, seduced by the illusion that if the expletive-deleted government could just be strangled in a bathtub they would be among those who, by their inherent brilliance and moral virtue would zoom to the top of the heap.

2. If the "Sovereign", as Thomas Hobbes put it, ceased to enforce the laws against using brutish force to get what one wants, the parlor Libertarians would be utterly surprised to have their vital organs handed to them by the world's genuine tough guys, who are not idealogues.

3. If you would like to see an extended thought experiment on what an anarchical society might be like, try Ken Macleod's The Sky Road or The Stone Canal. For another view, not nearly so violent or chaotic but much grayer and grimmer, try Ursula K. LeGuin's The Dispossessed.
None of them seem particularly attractive.

Yeah, the original question was about the Tea Party specifically but it/they are too incoherent to really say much about. Possibly because they are more of an "Astroturf" product than a grassroots movement. Not to say that having been created they will necessarily continue to act as the operatives responsible would prefer them to. Ask the Pakistani ISI how happy they are these days about the Taliban they created.

The core philosophy of libertarianism is centered around the concept of a free society. To have a free society then every member of the society must have the same rights, no exceptions. Things like a free market, minimal government, social freedoms, etc are byproducts of a free society.

The Libertarian Party is not very good at communicating this core philosophy. They get caught up in the issues where the media, Ds and Rs trivialize them over things like civil unions and drug use. Part of the reason is most libertarians are still on the path to enlightenment and there is a lot of cultural baggage that must be jettisoned along the way.

There are some libertarians that extend the position that a pure free society is anarchy, by which they mean that there is no need for a government, which differs greatly from the popular view of anarchy which is where the strongest rule, i.e., totalitarianism. But libertarian principles do not exclude having a very limited government with one clearly stated purpose, to collectively defend each individual's rights.

As a libertarian, I'm all for resurrecting the Constitution complete with all it's limitations on government. That would be a great first step. Then we can amend it to impose further limitations until we achieve a free society.

I'm astonished. Something from TAE I completely agree with. A few related thoughts:

1. Most of the people who imagine they are libertarians are really "Randists", as in Ayn Rand, seduced by the illusion that if the expletive-deleted government could just be strangled in a bathtub they would be among those who, by their inherent brilliance and moral virtue would zoom to the top of the heap.

2. If the "Sovereign", as Thomas Hobbes put it, ceased to enforce the laws against using brutish force to get what one wants, the parlor Libertarians would be utterly surprised to have their vital organs handed to them by the world's genuine tough guys, who are not idealogues.

3. If you would like to see an extended thought experiment on what an anarchical society might be like, try Ken Macleod's The Sky Road or The Stone Canal. For another view, not nearly so violent or chaotic but much grayer and grimmer, try Ursula K. LeGuin's The Dispossessed.
None of them seem particularly attractive.

Yeah, the original question was about the Tea Party specifically but it/they are too incoherent to really say much about. Possibly because they are more of an "Astroturf" product than a grassroots movement. Not to say that having been created they will necessarily continue to act as the operatives responsible would prefer them to. Ask the Pakistani ISI how happy they are these days about the Taliban they created. Originally Posted by greymouse

You're right on all counts.

Ayn Rand wasn't a libertarian or even an individualist. She was a ultra-right polemicist who conflated "altruism" with Stalinism, and sought to argue that any collective action led to totalitarianism. She has contempt for anything that is "popular," or expresses the wishes of the majority. To her the majority is always wrong because the masses are morally and aesthetically inferior to the economic elites [hardly a new idea]. What she's advocating for is a feudal surfdom where the majority has no rights at all...none. Her favorite societies are those like El Salvador and Guatamala, where 5% own everything and 95% are basically slaves with no education or rights of any kind. In her mind that's what they deserve.

What the founders sought to avoid and what we've wandered into is a tyranny of the majority.

Specifically.....the CRIMINAL CODES have now been extended to define as criminal a host of things that aren't criminal at all, but simply reflect behaviors the majority wishes to discourage.

It is now a criminal act to not wear a seatbelt, to not wear a helmet when riding a bicycle, to not file a tax return, etc. etc.*

In the English system which the founders sought to retain a crime was an act of malice directed at harming society. It required a malicious intent to deliberately do physical injury to another person or to deprive them of their property, including by fraud or deception. THAT INTENT ALONE IS WHAT JUSTIFIED THE POLICE POWER OF THE STATE TO DEPRIVE ANY INDIVIDUAL OF THEIR FREEDOM BY THROWING THEM INTO A JAIL.

Of course the criminal laws should be used to prosecute anyone who uses deception to bring financial harm to society. Of course we need the government to protect us from unscrupulous lenders, securities brokers, medical device manufacturers, attornies, employers or anyone using deception to bring physical or financial harm.

What we don't need is social engineers who seek to use the criminal code to remedy every conceivable thing the public might be frightened over.

But the biggest issue the founders had was over the war making powers of the executive and the threat of a standing army. This of course is where we've recently totally lost ourselves, and done so in exactly the way the founders feared....out of public alarm over exaggerated foreign threats.

*I note with interest that the current national radio campaign warning people to wear seatbelts doesn't encourage their use because it increases safety [as with former such campaigns] but solely because if they don't the police will punish them. The appeal now is to do what is good for you solely out of fear of the police if you don't.

And yes I am conflating seat belt laws with filing an income tax return. Failing to file a return contains no malice of intent at all, and enforcement of such should lie soley in the civil statutes, just as traffic laws should as well [many states such as California have traffic laws in the civil rather than criminal statutes].