Their stance on legalization is far from my only reason for supporting the Libertarians. However, I do feel that the magnitude of the civil liberties violations committed in the name of the War on Drugs (largest prison population in the world, mostly non-violent drug offenders, they probably don't think that this issue is peripheral), if not the growing prison population crisis, earns it a little more focus than "peripheral issue".

[Edited on April 13, 2006 at 4:01 PM. Reason : is]

4/13/2006 3:58:41 PM

i say make it a peripheral issue for several reasons:

1. They chose to break the law, fully knowing the potential consequences.
2. The prison population of "victimless" drug offenders is still a small minority of the population. work on stuff that affects more people.
3. You aren't going to get anything accomplished any time soon other than chilling out on marijuana, and that's an uphill battle
4. you don't go to prison for getting caught with some pot. you generally have to be a real dumbass and screw up on a much bigger scale.

4/13/2006 4:06:46 PM

Quote :

"We need to start to wean ourselves from the socialism that has insidiously been creeping into our way of life."

Excellent point. "weaning" is the key word. The LP shouldn't be shooting off its most radical big guns first. We should be sniping at easier targets of gov't waste and corruption. This congressman who used his tax-payer supported staff to babysit his kids is a good example.

Quote :

"But I do certainly believe that a society can function with significantly fewer laws, particularly victimless and moral crime laws, than we have."

I think G-Cat has a libertarian streak at heart, he's just embarassed, as I am, at the party's unsuccessful strategy.

Quote :

"police are oppressors."

Police are very necessary in my libertarian world. They would just be enforcing fewer laws that followed the Constitution more closely.

Quote :

"moderating the libertarian party would actually accomplish -10%"

The LP has to get the word out that they are not just GOP-lite. We differ quite a bit with the GOP's suffocating social agenda. We tend to see eye to eye with the democrat's desire for social freedom, we just want to throw in economic freedom as well.

If any party needed a takeover by the moderates, it would be the LP. A government-less anarchy just won't sell...no matter how much you pretty it up. But trying to cut gov't spending and regulation and interference by just one fourth or a third would be a big victory.

[Edited on April 13, 2006 at 8:26 PM. Reason : .]

4/13/2006 8:25:57 PM

i think that most americans have a large libertarian streak within them. that is why communists have never gained ground here, as opposed to almost every other nation.
look at someone like me who agrees with a lot of what marx has to say, yet rejects his solution because i do not think communism is implementable.

[Edited on April 13, 2006 at 8:33 PM. Reason : which makes the libertarian party's complete lack of success more surprising and distrubing.]

4/13/2006 8:32:04 PM

I hear ya.
Our education system shares a big part of the blame. Go'vt schools have almost drummed out our heritage of liberty. They are trying to eliminate the very basic symbol of our flag from the classroom. 8th grade science class students are lectured on liberal politics. College classes are taught that America is the most evil country ever to exist. If the teachers could pull themselves away long enough from having sex with the students, they could teach them about the Constitution and the love of liberty and the tradition of limited gov't.

4/13/2006 9:09:17 PM

of course the solution is...

the privatization of schools. REFORM IS FOR PUSSIES.

here is a question: forget about sacred documents for a second. how practical and logical are the Libs in the cosmic sense?

4/13/2006 9:13:54 PM

where the fuck did you go to school?

the only "liberal bullshit" ive encountered in classrooms has been from college professors who admitted at the start of the semester to being liberal, and followed that by allowing conservatives to speak. maybe i was just lucky.

4/13/2006 9:15:12 PM

in Libertarian world, the thought of taxes is "too liberal"

Quote :

"If the teachers could pull themselves away long enough from having sex with the students, they could teach them about the Constitution and the love of liberty and the tradition of limited gov't. "

Exibit A: why you people conduct politics like middle schoolers.

[Edited on April 13, 2006 at 9:17 PM. Reason : .]

4/13/2006 9:16:42 PM

Exibit B: "Rush is a Moron.."

Quote :

"in Libertarian world, the thought of taxes is "too liberal""

I've never said that. I think taxes are necessary. Let's just try to keep them under rape-levels.

Quote :

"of course the solution is...the privatization of schools. REFORM IS FOR PUSSIES."

No..the solution is to keep throwing money at the school system and calling the failures "reform."
The solution is letting the teacher's union continue making teachers, not kids, the number one priority.

[Edited on April 13, 2006 at 9:43 PM. Reason : .]

4/13/2006 9:43:13 PM

1.im not using my threads as selling points for a political party.

2. raped by current taxes? really?

3. please tell me how privatization will make kids care enough to raise their education standard.

[Edited on April 13, 2006 at 9:48 PM. Reason : .]

4/13/2006 9:47:26 PM

oh the teachers union argument

north carolina is a right to work state. the teachers union here is almost powerless.

4/13/2006 9:50:40 PM

Quote :

"please tell me how privatization will make kids care enough to raise their education standard."

Well, let's say we're currently spending around $10,000 per kid. (I'm still OK with collecting tax money for education). Instead of the board of education holding the kid hostage in their choice of public school, the parents would get to decide which school to use.

Schools would compete for that $10K. Thye would send representatives to parent's homes, explain their curriculum, tout their achievements. Parents would have a real choice. Some schools might cost more than 10K -and parents can make that up if they choose. Eventually there would be a wide variety of schools specializing in this and that all competing for those education dollars.

Teachers would compete just like everyone else. Teachers with specialized and in-demand credentials could command higher pay.

Quote :

"north carolina is a right to work state. the teachers union here is almost powerless."

The two national teacher's unions are the biggest, most powerful unions in the country. Their influence affects every state.

4/13/2006 10:47:34 PM

one of the things talked about in an econ class was that the market will not provide universal services because it has no incentive. yes i know thtas a simplification, but still. I find it doubtful that the market would provide quality education.

4/13/2006 10:54:35 PM

^^ If the money needed to operate a school were an on-demand linear function of the number of kids enrolled in that school, that would work great. Too bad the real world is different.

4/13/2006 11:02:11 PM

Quote :

"econ class ...I find it doubtful that the market would provide quality education."

If your econ class is anything like mine was, I doubt it was taught by any supporter of free markets. Private schools exist and flourish and have to compete with the gov't system. Let parents take their education tax money and spend it as they see best. Voucher systems do work.

4/13/2006 11:43:15 PM

i dont think private schools really exist in competition with public schools. its kinda like saying that hummer is competing against honda, except taken to a greater extreme.

4/13/2006 11:50:17 PM

^^my college econ class was definitely taught by a free marketeer

4/14/2006 12:06:55 AM

^^ Well, I hate to say, but they are in competition. If the universe consisted of only hummer and honda and honda went out of business, what would everyone be driving?

On a similar note, if the public system ceased to exist then nearly everyone would be sending their kids to a private school.

4/14/2006 12:19:53 AM

yes. if there are two choices and one is not a choice anymore then almost everyone will choose the choice that is left.

except i dont think its true with education. if you dont offer free public education how can you require that people send their kids to school?

[Edited on April 14, 2006 at 12:29 AM. Reason : buy it? wtf was i thinking]

4/14/2006 12:29:03 AM

Quote :

"On a similar note, if the public system ceased to exist then nearly everyone would be sending their kids to a private school."

>.<

4/14/2006 12:32:32 AM

Quote :

"if you dont offer free public education how can you require that people send their kids to school?"

If you don't offer people free insurance how can you require that people get auto coverage?

4/14/2006 12:34:02 AM

Vouchers are a terrible idea. Why take money out of a system that needs money to fix the problems that make it shitty in the first place?

4/14/2006 12:36:19 AM

CAR INSURANCE = SCHOOL.

4/14/2006 12:40:19 AM

Gov't Requirement doesn't mean Gov't-Provided

[Edited on April 14, 2006 at 1:00 AM. Reason : .]

4/14/2006 12:59:29 AM

fair enough.


but the children are our future.

4/14/2006 1:03:50 AM

Teach them well and let them lead the way

and buy a lottery ticket to-day...

4/14/2006 1:20:10 AM

i love the "dont throw more money at the problem" line of thinking.

how do we teach them better?
we decrease class size
pay teachers a real wage
change the curriculum
(maybe) implement more testing


how can you do any of that with LESS money?

4/14/2006 1:49:04 PM

Quote :

"Schools would compete for that $10K. Thye would send representatives to parent's homes, explain their curriculum, tout their achievements. Parents would have a real choice. Some schools might cost more than 10K -and parents can make that up if they choose. Eventually there would be a wide variety of schools specializing in this and that all competing for those education dollars. "

yes, lets just end up lumping similar demographics together, thatll teach kids real world lessons.

i actually like Arnold's plan for CA. We need to begin reforming by making vocational education an honorable route by touting the importantce of skilled labor in the workforce, opportunity for upward mobilty, and some pretty good dollars. for too long we've neglected those not bound for college, and it has to stop now.

4/15/2006 1:28:48 AM

Quote :

"1. Don't campaign like a 4-year old."

hey, it worked for quick or langley

4/15/2006 2:05:46 AM

Quote :

"We need to begin reforming by making vocational education an honorable route "

And what would make us believe that we wouldn't just end up with a bunch of poorly run vocational schools with disappointing results as we currently have now with public education?

You'll just end up with gov't teachers having sex with kids who are good with their hands.

4/15/2006 10:51:09 AM

Yeah. That would never happen if we privatized schools...

4/15/2006 12:51:06 PM

Quote :

"Yeah. That would never happen if we privatized schools..."

I guess you're trying to say that private school teachers have sex with their students too. I would guess that's true. But can you find me a recent case of a private school teacher having sex with a student? I can find a boat-load of stories about gov't teachers having sex with kids.

See in the private sector, if it gets around that your school has that problem, no one is going to sign up their kids with you and you go out of business. But with gov't schools, you have to keep sending your kids to the sex-abuse school. if you're lucky enough to still have enough money left over after paying your public school taxes, you can send them to a private school.

4/15/2006 11:09:50 PM

There are usually signs before-hand. However, because of teachers unions you cannot fire people just for suspicion (and being fired is sufficient suspicion to prevent someone else from hiring you).

4/15/2006 11:37:39 PM

rofl did this really turn into a debate about child molestation?

4/16/2006 12:10:22 AM

I marvel at libertarians' undying faith in the private sector. It's so 1920s.

4/16/2006 1:28:17 AM

The static or oversimplified dynamic equilbrium imposed by current/typical legislation will only approximate the optimal equilibrium between labor and capital in passing, whereas a free market will generally close on the optimal equilibrium. Considering the complexity of solving for the cumulative actions of an entire society, I think it's safe to say ANY legislation would be an oversimplification. An unregulated market might be more prone to fluxation (favorable and unfavorable) than a highly regulated market, but intuition leads me to believe that an unreglated market would be more efficient in the long run than a regulated (but less irregular) market. Particularly, I think America is responding very irrationally to the global economy problem, prolonging it and magnifying its intensity, where I think a free market would adapt quickly (if unfavorably to the majority of the American constituency. The Chinese would probably be thrilled for a decade or two until the market returned to equilbrium.) I think they key to understanding this problem is that, yes, the market WILL NOT ALWAYS FAVOR YOUR INDIVIDUAL INTERESTS, and you might not like that, but the market will reflect majority consensus more accurately and directly than any form of representative legislature.

Disclaimer: this post sounded fairly rational when I wrote it, but I was drunk at the time. Your individual interpretation may vary. I probably don't care.

4/16/2006 2:54:06 AM

Quote :

"An unregulated market might be more prone to fluxation (favorable and unfavorable) than a highly regulated market, but intuition leads me to believe that an unreglated market would be more efficient in the long run than a regulated (but less irregular) market."

and the best answer, as usual, is somewhere in the middle.

although I lean decidedly towards less regulation, for the reasons you outlined.

4/16/2006 2:56:59 AM

I can see it now.

Privatize Schools and then 30% of the population recieves no school and then lots of rich white guys get killed by hoards of brown people.

seems ok with me.

4/16/2006 10:34:25 AM

Quote :

"Gamecat: I marvel at libertarians' undying faith in the private sector."

As a budding financial advisor, I would think you would also have some amount of faith and hope for the private sector.

Quote :

"30% of the population recieves no school ."

Ah ye of little faith. I think the private sector would step in and do a fine job in building a market for education. You would have top elite schools competing with strings of franchise schools. Some offering general curriculums, some very specialized. As I've said before..education is much too important to leave in the hands of politicians.

4/16/2006 10:53:50 AM

so I should go to Walmart-High

NEIN!!!!!!!!!!

4/16/2006 11:04:31 AM

Quote :

"Privatize Schools and then 30% of the population recieves no school"

how do you figure that (obviously depending on how the schools were privatized, but in the way that most people talk about doing it, that wouldn't be a problem)

4/16/2006 11:32:07 AM

i might be wrong but a large portion of the population would just not go to school or would not have access to one. Without manditory school enforced by the government I believe a large portion of the US would not go to school. Thus leading to lots of even dumber rednecks and minorities killin rich white people.

4/16/2006 11:34:45 AM

yeah, some hard line Libertarians do think that school should not be required, but I think that's retarded (and I'm guessing mine is the prevailing viewpoint, even in the capital-"L" Libertarian Party).

the "privatization" of schools that most people talk about isn't what it sounds like you're thinking, though. The voucher system is the most common solution that people offer. I didn't like the idea for a while, but I'm getting behind it more and more, with the caveat that there be a curriculum that must be followed (I wouldn't want a kid getting nothing but shop class, or an extremist Christian or Muslim school to be depriving kids of a well-rounded, respectable education.)

I DO think, though, that the competition of what would amount to a market of sorts would be good, as well as the ability for parents/kids to be able to tailor their education a little more (i.e., make vocational education something more than what you do if you're a dumbass and want to skate through highschool as easily as possible).

4/16/2006 11:47:06 AM

Quote :

"EarthDogg: As a budding financial advisor, I would think you would also have some amount of faith and hope for the private sector."

Interesting you should bring that up.

Do you know how many perfectly good regulations are involved in the securities industry? More than enough to make a hard fucking test on. The examples in the book about business practices that took place before substantial market regulation was in place is enough to convince me that an unregulated market are an absolutely AWFUL idea.

You couldn't pay me enough to want a perfectly free market, despite the fact that I'm going to be a financial advisor.

Quote :

"theDuke866: (I wouldn't want a kid getting nothing but shop class, or an extremist Christian or Muslim school to be depriving kids of a well-rounded, respectable education.)"

i.e. learning about Intelligent Design and Creationism in Biology.

[Edited on April 16, 2006 at 2:30 PM. Reason : subj verb agreement, durr]

4/16/2006 2:24:57 PM

my problem with the whole theory of free markets is that a completely free market tends towards consilidation. this eventually leads to monopolies, which are decidely non-free market, since a free market depends upon the ability for people to enter the market at will. i actually think that a more free market could be created by an increase in regulation. what i mean is that by breaking apart some of these huge corporations we would arrive at a more free market.

4/16/2006 2:25:25 PM

Quote :

"this eventually leads to monopolies, which are decidely non-free market, since a free market depends upon the ability for people to enter the market at will. "

It seems to me that if a monopoly springs up somewhere, the gov't had something to do with it.

Quote :

"You couldn't pay me enough to want a perfectly free market"

I agree with you there. What percentage of the regulations would you say are necessary, G-Cat?
Are the regulations aimed mostly at protecting the stock-buying consumer or the IRS?

4/16/2006 8:23:56 PM

I'm not going to assign an arbitrary value that I think are necessary. The vast majority of them aren't terribly hard to comply with (most are covered by this: "Don't lie, don't omit material facts, and don't do shit with people's money they don't want you to") and the rest are other fairly reasonable limits of risk to investors.

I don't see how any of the regulations I've seen exist to protect the IRS. What do you mean by that?

4/16/2006 8:33:06 PM

Quote :

"It seems to me that if a monopoly springs up somewhere, the gov't had something to do with it."

i disagree with this completely.
capitalism encourages competition, and competition encourages efficiency (among other things). But, its more efficient for companies to consolidate, because although competition is great for the consumer, it is bad for the business. This is because lower prices mean a lower level of profits. therefore its natural for companies to consolidate.

4/16/2006 8:39:19 PM

A free society opposes consolidation in a free market that is to the disadvantage of labor by way of unions, no?

4/16/2006 10:09:57 PM

im not sure if company size greatly effects wages or not.
im inclined to say that the more competitive the market the more incentive there is to lower or maintain wages in an effort to increase your profit margins, or at least maintain profit levels while lowering prices. one reason that increased competition could increase wages would be because workers would have more oppurtunities to find other jobs, or to go into business themselves.

but im not really sure how consilidation affects labor.

4/16/2006 10:20:21 PM