The last thread expired, so I want to make a new one for this guy.

http://www.munger4ncgov.com is the website, I HIGHLY encourage you to read up about him.

Yes he looks like a pro-wrestler, yes he has a perm, and yes he is awesome.

His core issues:

Annexation
Eminent Domain
Capital Punishment
Corporate Welfare
Education Vouchers
Marriage
Drinking Age
Victimless "Crimes"
Electoral Reform
Profesional Entry Barriers

He is the chair of Political Science, Economics and Public Policy at Duke. He's got a Ph.D. Basically he's the exact opposite of nearly every governor we've ever had, not to mention most every politician, which in my mind is a pretty good thing.

7/11/2007 8:57:01 PM

Sounds pretty cool.

7/11/2007 9:10:57 PM

i don't know which is funnier:

- his hairdo

or

- you thinking any state-wide libertarian campaign has a snowflake's chance in hell.

now seriously, dude... stop for a moment and think about which state you live in.

are you going to seriously tell people like my unreconstructed kinfolk in rural Johnston County (and people like them across the state) that they should vote for a guy looks like Goldilocks on steroids, and who wants to legalize pot and gay marriage?

lol

7/11/2007 9:18:37 PM

If they actually read his platform, hell yes they would.

Btw he doesn't support "gay marraige" at all. He supports equal tax representation for unions of any two people. If you read the issue, he says it's completely within the rights of the church to deny marriage to gay couples and he supports that choice.

And seeing as how almost every tobacco farmer in the state grows weed too, and what a monsterous financial boom it would be to the tobacco companies who, btw, are headquartered largely in this state, you better believe it. No one is going to come out and say it, but marijuana has been a supplement economy for tobacco farmers for over a decade.

7/11/2007 9:25:43 PM

Quote :

"He supports equal tax representation for unions of any two people."

right, what i said. he supports gay marriage.

(ftr, i do too, but it's not an electable platform in the South... hell, gay marriage can't even get passed through Washington State legislature.)

Quote :

"If you read the issue, he says it's completely within the rights of the church to deny marriage to gay couples and he supports that choice."

*sigh*. do you really think anyone is stupid enough to think that somehow negates the fact that his platform will throw the marriage gates wide open to any gay couple who wants to get married?





[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 9:45 PM. Reason : ]

7/11/2007 9:44:23 PM

dude it doesn't.

He supports CIVIL UNIONS. There is a HUGE religious and philosophical difference. He DOES NOT SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE. The whole push for gay marriage has come from states where civil unions are recognized, but the damn gays want to be religiously recognized. Which he doesn't think is a government matter or concern.

7/11/2007 9:47:09 PM

yeah, I know the difference.

the average NC voter won't care or appreciate the nuance, because the end result will be

"faggots gettin' married? oh, the hell you say, bo!"

anyhow...

it doesnt matter.

libertarians will never, ever, get more than 5% of a statewide vote, and that's being generous.

7/11/2007 9:52:11 PM

fuck how many governors have we had with a Ph.D.?

7/11/2007 9:55:19 PM

^^Not true. In that last election, several libertarian candidates (forced to run as independents because the state dropped the party from the ballot, but that's another huge issue) ran successful campaigns, and dozens were elected to office, though admittedly not state offices, but many many local positions.

7/11/2007 10:03:05 PM

^^

James G. Martin, 1985-1993, Republican, PhD in Chemistry is the only one I can find.

And he's the only other with with a post-graduate degree who was NOT a lawyer.

7/11/2007 10:11:26 PM

Quote :

"My themes, a moratorium on capital punishment, control of municipal aggression against property, a broad-based education vouchers system and ending corporate welfare, are all echoes of this one central theme. I am a liberal, in the way that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were liberals. I believe in the human spirit more than I believe in government direction and control of human activity. As Governor, I will lead North Carolina towards a rebirth of liberty, tempered by the requirements, and the ethics, of personal responsibility. --Michael Munger"

7/11/2007 10:25:07 PM

If you think his hairdo is funny, you should see his son. Although, he's pretty cool.

7/12/2007 12:36:49 AM

Quote :

"and dozens were elected to office, though admittedly not state offices,"

which is why i was careful to specify "state office" i know they can and do occasionally get elected at the local city/county level.

and strange, but it seems more local libertarians get elected when they run as independents rather than under the big-L Libertarian umbrella. something to think about, maybe?

........

anyhow, lets start the vote pool right now. i'll throw in the first guess:

Quote :

"Prediction: Munger will receive 3% of the popular vote for NC Governor in 2008 --joe_schmoe "

[Edited on July 12, 2007 at 2:00 AM. Reason : ]

7/12/2007 1:40:50 AM

^it's because there is no libertarian banner in NC. The party was officially removed from the ticket a few years ago. Burned my ass too, when I got the letter in the mail telling me my affiliation had been changed from Libertarian to independent. That was in 2005.

The last gubernatorial candidate that ran as a Libertarian was Barbara How, she got 2.04% of the vote. Not bad, and sure a heck worth running. 50,000 votes on a campaign she ran with pennies.

7/12/2007 2:15:31 AM

Barbara Howe

yeah, i remember her. i mean she seemed like a decent candidate. that is, until you saw the "L" beside her name. then it was just

and you think 2% of the vote is "worth running" for? all the stress and expense? okay ... i guess that's why you're all fired up about Munger.

well, have fun. maybe your guy will exceed all expectations and get 5% of the vote. Stranger things have happened. still, my money is on 3%.

7/12/2007 2:37:47 AM

Howe ran on a complete shoe string budget, with a less than clear platform.

Munger has a hell of a lot more going for him. If he pulled in 5-10% of the vote, it would be an absolutely huge success in my eyes. And I think it's absolutely possible.

The act of getting a third party back on the ticket is a pretty big thing in this state. The fact that you are so disillusioned by the current system and so apathetic to the people running only reinforces my desire to get the Libertarians back on the ticket.

You change things by doing something. You keep the same old bs by mocking the people who are trying to do so because of your own disillusionment. I'm going to volunteer, for the first time in my life I might add, to actually try and make a difference.

7/12/2007 2:47:59 AM

the 2 party system wouldnt be all that bad if it consistently had good candidates imo

but i kinda agree with noens last post...i'm just glad hes the one doing it cause i'm too complacent

7/12/2007 2:54:20 AM

its like saying, hey we have Ford and GM. As long as they keep making good cars, why do we need to have Toyota or VW or BMW?

7/12/2007 3:35:08 AM

Not at all.

Libertarianism is one of the most flawed political belief systems and has been shown to failure many times over.

I put munger at 2%. This is going to be a hotly contested presidential election, senate election, and no one is crazy enough to vote libertarian.

7/12/2007 9:44:11 AM

I'll put him at 6% if he runs HULK SMASH ads.

7/12/2007 9:50:59 AM

Quote :

"I'm going to volunteer, for the first time in my life I might add, to actually try and make a difference."

Good for you!

ILLEGITIMI NON CARBORUNDUM

7/12/2007 10:10:45 AM

Quote :

"Libertarianism is one of the most flawed political belief systems and has been shown to failure many times over."

please find me some texts on this. also, more specifically on how his platform issues are flawed. also more specifically how he is the rep for this "most flawed" system and yet is department chair of said departments at one of the most respectable instititions in the nation.

7/12/2007 10:22:36 AM

Libertarianism is a relic of the pre-industrialization/pre-urbanization era. It's easy to say you oppose things without explaining how you have better plan. I'm glad he has no chance in hell, because actually doing these things would bring fiscal and economic disaster to North Carolina's cities.

Also, if you are going to run as a libertarian you should at least try to not look crazy.

Quote :

"Michael Munger's Issues Annexation Eminent Domain Capital Punishment Corporate Welfare Education Vouchers Marriage Drinking Age Victimless "Crimes" Electoral Reform Profesional Entry Barriers "

He should probably at least spell check his core issues.

[Edited on July 12, 2007 at 11:03 AM. Reason : .]

7/12/2007 10:59:09 AM

i think third parties would be a good thing to have, and would consider supporting some

IF THE US VOTING SYSTEM WAS NOT FUNDAMENTALLY DESIGNED TO PREVENT IT.

you can not have a viable third party in this country as long as you have a winner-take-all, "first-past-the-post" (FPTP) voting system

you just cant fucking do it.

LOOK THIS UP: Duverger's Law

http://www.google.com/search?q=duvergers+law

any amount of time you spend working on a third party is wasted. spend your time instead on electoral reform, to change the voting system to a "proportional representation" format. which will probably involve an Amendment to the Constitution

until then, any attempt to support a third party is just a sad joke.




[Edited on July 12, 2007 at 12:24 PM. Reason : ]

7/12/2007 12:24:08 PM

I heard him on State of Things a few months back and thought he might have a slight chance of doing well.

Then I checked out his website:



wtf man?

7/12/2007 12:32:56 PM

^^ and ^^^ good posts

i want to see noen debate you on that so i can view this from another angle

7/12/2007 1:04:08 PM

If he cleaned his hair up, he could look pretty political, actually.

[Edited on July 12, 2007 at 5:16 PM. Reason : ]

7/12/2007 5:00:10 PM

Quote :

"the damn gays Noen"

OMFGWRAL

7/12/2007 6:35:09 PM

I'd vote for his perm.

7/12/2007 6:37:26 PM

Quote :

"Libertarianism is a relic of the pre-industrialization/pre-urbanization era. It's easy to say you oppose things without explaining how you have better plan. I'm glad he has no chance in hell, because actually doing these things would bring fiscal and economic disaster to North Carolina's cities."

He has plans in place for all of his issues. In fact, he goes more in depth into his campaign proposal than any major party candidate I have yet read about. Not only that, but he will OPENLY and unabashedly talk about whatever issue you want, another large departure from the doublespeak of current politicians who don't even understand the policies they present.

Libertarianism is hardly a relic. Our two major parties are relics, I know that without a doubt. There isn't a democrat or republican in office right now that stands for the original party ideals.

Quote :

"any amount of time you spend working on a third party is wasted. spend your time instead on electoral reform, to change the voting system to a "proportional representation" format. which will probably involve an Amendment to the Constitution"

I completely agree with you Joe in the need for electoral reform. And I think one clear way to begin that process is to get a third option on the ballot, whether they win or not. Proportional representation only works if there are other options.

7/12/2007 7:07:14 PM

Quote :

"Our two major parties are relics, I know that without a doubt. There isn't a democrat or republican in office right now that stands for the original party ideals."

It's called adaptation. Party platforms have adapted through time. Political conventions are more than just parties for the party faithful. It is there where the national party's platform is adjusted and changed.

Libertarianism, however, has not adopted major platform changes. That is why it is a relic.

7/12/2007 7:12:25 PM

I don't consider holding to an ideal as a sign of faulire.

I think it's important to look at WHY the part platforms have changed and adapted. It's my belief that it's happened to keep power verus adaptating to the NEEDS of the people.

There is a HUGE difference between platform change, and the change of underlying ideology. The platforms for true Libertarians have changed dramatically as the world has, but the underlying principals driving the solutions outlined in those platforms has remained consistent. I don't consider that a bad thing at all.

With a libertarian candidate, you know what the aims of policy are as well as what the candidates stand for and will strive for in office.

The same cannot be said at all for the current two party system. Each candidate is entangled in a massive web of lobbyists, personal agendas, and rarely outlined core ideologies.

7/12/2007 7:43:32 PM

^Libertarianism doesn't offer solutions, only ideology.

I'll pick the first "core issue" of his: annexation. Without annexation (and absent some very aggressive growth controls like Portland, which I am seriously doubtful a libertarian would support), do you have any expectation center cities will remain fiscally sound? A huge portion of the AAA bond rated cities are in North Carolina, and annexation law has been critical in that. That bond rating provides for capital investment while keeping your tax bill lower. Does Munger have a plan to avoid this, or is he satisfied with letting North Carolina's municipalities go down the tubes like many center cities have in other states? I'm guessing the latter, as it is clear from his website that he has a problem with local government. I suppose it is easier to cast stones at "the city taking mah propertah" than offer a sensible solution. So much for libertarians wanting lower taxes--not to mention their pure, consistent political philosophy.

[Edited on July 12, 2007 at 9:27 PM. Reason : .]

7/12/2007 9:25:21 PM

He isn't against annexation. He is against forced annexation. There's a big difference. A homeowner should absolutely have the right to CHOOSE the conditions their property is governed by. No one is saying annexation should be outlawed or banned, just that the people being annexed should have a voice and choice in the process.

There are MANY instances where forced annexation has put ridiculous burden on property owners and annexed communities simply because they had no clout in the process.

http://stopncannexation.com/Searchfiles/Position.htm

Maybe you should read a little more in depth.

7/12/2007 9:48:58 PM

^Do you REALLY think there is a significant difference? More libertarian gobbledygook, using loaded (but irrelevant) words like "choose" and "forced" to avoid addressing the real policy issue.

Here is a good article on why annexation authority is a good thing:
http://www.tryondailybulletin.com/news/21123.asp

7/12/2007 10:28:34 PM

noen i know you are smart enough to not waste your time on a libertarian in this state...good thread but i mean...realistically what's the point

7/12/2007 10:34:50 PM

Just looking at him, you can tell that he has questionable judgement.

FYI, this guy is a HUGE UNC fan.

Quote :

"More libertarian gobbledygook, using loaded (but irrelevant) words like "choose" and "forced" to avoid addressing the real policy issue."

Elegant summary of libertarian rhetoric.

[Edited on July 12, 2007 at 11:18 PM. Reason : dsf]

7/12/2007 11:16:12 PM

^^How is it gobbledygook? The principle of the matter is to give landowners being annexed the ability to review the proposed annexation, suggest potentially beneficial changes to it and to make sure it makes sense economically to go through with the annexation.

Annexation, like many policies is NOT a blanket, always positive situation. In the situation where you have a community with a high tax base, high growth, commercial and residential development and a balanced or surplus budget, they would rightfully have concerns with being annexed by a larger neighbor with low growth, a low tax base and poor fiscal management and local government.

Also, over annexation can result in mass suburban sprawl that spreads municipal resources far beyond the point of efficienty to the city/town.

And if you want a shining star of a city that has and continues to benefit greatly from citizen directed annexation, look no further than Atlanta. With a metro population more than 10 times the city population, the city benefits tremendously from the commercial impact of the metro population without having to massively increase it's municiple infrastructure. And as towns propose annexation, it ensures both parties are really at a mutual interest in joining.

If you want a great example of when annexation doesn't work so well, look at Jacksonville Florida.

I do agree with you that there are a lot of nut jobs out there who take the "its my land, fuck off" attitutde, who do support annexation reform simply to prevent it from happening completely. But, with any legislation, you always have the extremists and retards.

7/12/2007 11:58:57 PM

I used the word gobbledygook for trumpeting ideals and buzzwords with no regard for what is practical, or how to implement these values into the real world. Do you have a better term?

Explain to me how making annexation difficult inhibits sprawl. That is primarily a land use issue, followed by infrastructure. Is your contention that counties in this state have more land use controls and density than the cities within them?

Quote :

"Annexation, like many policies is NOT a blanket, always positive situation. In the situation where you have a community with a high tax base, high growth, commercial and residential development and a balanced or surplus budget, they would rightfully have concerns with being annexed by a larger neighbor with low growth, a low tax base and poor fiscal management and local government."

I do agree that annexation is not a blanket, always positive situation. City councils should carefully evaluate any proposed annexation. However, this argument is another sham intended to attract residents of cities. Who is more likely to act in the fiscal best interests of the city, the city or the nonresident landowner?

Also your concerns about the city becoming low growth, low tax base is the situation you find in zeroelastic cities.

Quote :

" I do agree with you that there are a lot of nut jobs out there who take the "its my land, fuck off" attitutde, who do support annexation reform simply to prevent it from happening completely. But, with any legislation, you always have the extremists and retards."

The problem is in this case, we aren't talking about extremists and retards. What portion of people that choose to live outside of but immediately adjacent to the city do you expect would want annexation? Many if not most if it is a bedroom community are living there, enjoying many of the benefits of city services while not paying city taxes. I agree that there are unique situations for the farmer that has been there for over 50 years, etc.

7/13/2007 5:47:22 AM

why do libertarians always look like nutjobs.

its not like libertarianism is all that crazy, but only the crazies choose to run, I guess

7/13/2007 7:27:02 AM

so this guy likes fags and unc? What a coincidink

[Edited on July 13, 2007 at 10:55 AM. Reason : ']

7/13/2007 10:55:31 AM

i like what he stands for but he needs a hair cut if he wants anyone to take him seriously

7/13/2007 11:42:20 AM

Quote :

"Explain to me how making annexation difficult inhibits sprawl. That is primarily a land use issue, followed by infrastructure. Is your contention that counties in this state have more land use controls and density than the cities within them?"

In the case where you have a declining or dead city center, where the city wants to expand to broaden the tax base, you are significantly increasing the sprawl, with waning benefits of infrastructure. This is much more a small town issue than it is for larger cities like Raleigh. In towns like Asheville where the impact of the border-dwellers is very disputable because there are generally several nearby towns that county residents frequent and where the municiple benefits nowhere near account for the property tax increases.

My content is the county services do not have or need the same land use controls as cities precisely because of the much lower density. When you have county communities that begin to reach viable densities, they tend to incorporate themselves (Summerfield, Cary, Morrisville, etc) and start their own municiple infrastructure. This serves their larger neighbors in a couple of ways, the community is paying for it's own growth and they are developing municiple services to meet their own needs.

Had Raleigh continued to annex what is now Cary, I would argue it would not have nearly the property value increase or growth as it does now. While there is a LOT about Cary I don't agree with, this is one area where I think they got it right. Now Raleigh has a thriving sister city that has dramatically increased the commercial viability of Raleigh without the major drain on our municiple resources and has been part of the reason that inner-beltline Raleigh has enjoyed such a great period of rejuvenation and growth over the past 10-15 years.

Quote :

"Who is more likely to act in the fiscal best interests of the city, the city or the nonresident landowner?"

This is precisely why land owners should have a REAL voice. Because all too often city government shoots for the short term budget increase without acknowledging or ignoring the potential longterm hazards of a decision. Corporate welfare is an extremely good example of this situation and it runs rampant in NC. Also see the recent problems with imminent domain for private development in several areas of the state (another issue, incidentally, that Munger is running on).

Quote :

"Also your concerns about the city becoming low growth, low tax base is the situation you find in zeroelastic cities."

My concern is that a high tax base, growing area can be derailed by being sucked into a city or town desperate to increase it's tax base. Rather than annexation being a solution to a problem, it should be a stepping stone to even greater success. If the problem is really that people are living on the outskirts and leeching city services, I absolutely, 100% agree that annexation is warranted. But this is rarely the clear-cut case.

Quote :

"What portion of people that choose to live outside of but immediately adjacent to the city do you expect would want annexation? Many if not most if it is a bedroom community are living there, enjoying many of the benefits of city services while not paying city taxes. I agree that there are unique situations for the farmer that has been there for over 50 years, etc. "

Yes, I have very little sympathy for bedroom communities. I still think they should have a voice in the decision, to negotiate the terms and needs they require to be brought in without undue burden to their own expense and without undue expenditures by the city to bring them in.

And it's the farmer communities and the multi-generation lands that are now quickly becoming the issue.

7/13/2007 1:15:17 PM

^ your arguments are persuasive, but your candidate still looks like one half of a 1980's-era Goldilocks/BigBadWolf WWF tag team.



i mean really. Libertarians already have serious credibility problems. you'd think some people in the big-L org would make this guy go get sheared.

[Edited on July 13, 2007 at 1:51 PM. Reason : ]

7/13/2007 1:50:08 PM

Quote :

"i like what he stands for but he needs a hair cut if he wants anyone to take him seriously"

There you go, bucky, feel better?

Everyone ends up with some goofy photos. Don't make me start posting silly pics of Hillary, Edwards, Kerry, Kennedy et al.

Munger seems like a pretty smart fellow....

Quote :

"Professor Munger received a Ph.D. in Economics in 1984 from Washington University in St. Louis, and worked as a staff economist at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. He has also worked in the Economics Department at Dartmouth College, and in the Political Science Departments at the University of Texas-Austin and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill before joining the faculty at Duke. His administrative positions include Director of the Masters of Public Administration Program at UNC-Chapel Hill; and President of the Public Choice Society, an international academic society with members from 16 countries, and with a focus on interdisciplinary research on government, markets, and regulation. Professor Munger is currently the Chairman of the Department of Political Science at Duke, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Economics. "

7/13/2007 8:44:57 PM

Quote :

"Everyone ends up with some goofy photos. "

goofy photos should be from the *past* ... like old high school, college, military yearbook.

not present-day current appearance, prominently featured on campaign websites.

he looks like someone who takes recreational hallucinogens. sorry, but that's not Governor material. I dont care what Minnesota did.

7/13/2007 9:12:34 PM

I mean, apparently the more retarded you look, the better you do

[Edited on July 13, 2007 at 9:27 PM. Reason : just sayin]

7/13/2007 9:26:38 PM

yeah yeah


thats nice and all.


... they ^ can make silly faces, but their faces WILL return to normal the moment they stop.

this guy, however ...



looks like a moonbat 24/7

...

now if he gets a fucking haircut, i will double my prediction of his popular vote share from 3% to 6%.

7/13/2007 9:44:22 PM

hahah, I'll pass that on to him

The real question is would YOU vote for him if he gets his hair cut?

7/13/2007 10:56:16 PM

Quote :

"hell, gay marriage can't even get passed through Washington State legislature"

Dude you should know as well as anyone here that most of WA is a bunch of hillbilly rednecks that at times makes Johnston County look like the bastion of liberalism. Hell you don't even have to go far from Seattle, just go hang out in Everett. I get what you are saying though, but honestly I'd be surprised if many states outside of the Northeast ever pass statewide laws allowing gay marriage.


At one point I was a registered Libertarian but it seems like the more of them I meet in person the more the party core seems to be full of nuts. Plus I've been pissed that so many of them have decided to side with Republicans in major elections instead of actually backing the party.

That said, I have to agree with most of what Joe has said here. Our current political system has created two extremely entrenched political parties that reach so far beyond politics, into the business and religious powers within the US, that it's going to be nearly impossible to get a 3rd party into major office (beyond say a county seat). Until there is a full electoral reform, valid 3rd party candidates are better off pulling a Lieberman and running independent but caucusing with one of the two parties.

I'm sure Munger is a very smart guy with some good ideas, but running as a Libertarian was his big mistake. I think there are a lot of people out there like me that agree with many of the libertarian ideals but have been turned off by the Libertarian party as a whole due to the " "it's my land, fuck off" attitude."

7/13/2007 11:07:19 PM