libertarian party. The brave new way or a wolf in sheeps clothing?

[wellard]

libertarian party. The brave new way or a wolf in sheeps clothing?

The discussion really started here
Timbers Nixon thread

and a link to the libertarian party web site

http://www.lp.org/


Do you think they can become a force in the future? I have noted many people from both sides of politics proclaiming sympathy with many of there views. Is this the new way foreword or just a bunch of old hippy idealists gone conservative in their old age

discuss [img]smile.gif[/img]

[wellard]

Originally posted by Morgeruat: It would lead to better situations than I see here in PA, 1/3 of the state budget is allocated to welfare. I'd rather see that $ as tools to provide the means for self betterment, the teach a man to fish vs give a man a fish theory

I could not agree more with that theory Morgeruat [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] and after several month of welfare (unless medical problems) a solution has to be found other than a soul destroying life time of government charity. But the safety net must always be there for the children regardless of the perceived sins / failures of the parents, a safety net not mentioned on there site. From the sound of the Libertarian party web site; turning a family into beggars is on the cards.

[shamrock_uk]

I think you've identified the main sticking point with libertarianism - it's not about allowing everyone an equal chance in life and rewarding those who make the most of their abilities. Instead, it really is 'dog-eat-dog' in the most literal sense.

Those who squander their wealth and talent should in theory sink to the bottom, but there is no provision to help those who start at the bottom. It seems...wasteful. Also I'm not convinced it's possible to be as upwardly-mobile as the LP would claim. Once you have money it's easy to get richer - for a given economy you would therefore expect to see more and more people at the bottom scrabbling for fewer and fewer scraps as time went on. Just take a glance at the wealth gap between rich and poor over time...

As for whether they'll be a political force in America's future - I would imagine we'll see a continual increase for the next few years as Timber's paleo-cons become increasingly dissolusioned with both the Bush administration and the lingering effects of its policies, economic and political. After that, I would imagine their membership will stagnate.


I wouldn't mind hearing people's opinions on whether it's possible to reconcile libertarian views with a belief in human dignity and a social conscience.

Edits for additions.

[ 11-23-2005, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by wellard: quote: Originally posted by Morgeruat: It would lead to better situations than I see here in PA, 1/3 of the state budget is allocated to welfare. I'd rather see that $ as tools to provide the means for self betterment, the teach a man to fish vs give a man a fish theory

I could not agree more with that theory Morgeruat [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] and after several month of welfare (unless medical problems) a solution has to be found other than a soul destroying life time of government charity. But the safety net must always be there for the children regardless of the perceived sins / failures of the parents, a safety net not mentioned on there site. From the sound of the Libertarian party web site; turning a family into beggars is on the cards. [/QUOTE]Agreed, I fully support government scholarships, grants, and bonuses for military service along the lines of scholarships, things which give children in low-income/low opportunity families (like I myself came from) a chance at a better future, if they have access to those programs and squander them, they've earned their career at McDonalds, but supporting someone who is fully capable of working but is either a baby factory (as is most often seen with inner city minorities) in order to collect a continuous welfare check should be right out. People that are physically or mentally disabled should be taken care of at some level, I don't think a federal program is the right idea, a more local level (state or county level) should be where it is covered.

[wellard]

Federal or state is Ok with me Morgeruat, the inner workings and powers of your states v federal rights is well beyond us foreigners [img]tongue.gif[/img] As long the welfare is dignified and as Shamrock mentions that seems very hard to achieve with such a hard line policy.


However the vexed issue of abortion remains unanswered (as far as I can see) does the party have a policy on this even if it would be to allow the status quo? This issue seems such a monster topic in the USA and one that could stop any new party stone dead.

[Morgeruat]

Given the party's general stance on lack of government interference in the day to day lives of it's citizens, I would suggest that the stance is very hands off, probably the best road to take as even democrats or republicans inside their own parties can't agree on it most of the time, and compromise on it in order to gain concessions on other issues.

[wellard]

On abortion I'm going to take a guess that the status quo will remain, I can not see any party having the will / mandate to change the law drastically.


One area that wins me (and others) is the small government line, a winning catchphrase if ever one was made. But in real terms how do you make a government smaller? By legislation? Joking aside how is that practical?

[shamrock_uk]

That's the problem isn't it [img]smile.gif[/img]

Gordon Brown pledged to chop the number of civil servants in the UK by a fair amount but it's emerged that the number has grown since! Considering how much the numbers have swelled since 1997, I'm amazed that they find anywhere to put them all!

Often large bureaucratic bodies take on effective lives of their own and even defend themselves against attempts at abolition. Integration theorists writing about the EU often use these kinds of models to explain the growth of the European bureaucracy. For example, the European Court of Justice has now grown sufficiently powerful that it plays member states against each other and has just about ensured that no measure designed to reduce its role would ever get enacted.

The last word about reducing the size of government has to go to Yes Minister and that wonderful episode The Economy Drive [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 11-24-2005, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Morgeruat]

the same way that my job when I was military was determined to be less expensive to be contracted out than kept as a military/DOD civilian position, perform an audit to determine how much work is done, what work is done, and then find out if it is necessary or cost effective to do it in house. Departments that are bloated and inefficient can be stripped down to a minimum nunmber of people, and the only real problem is the unions, which make firing gov't employees a PitA process, that and "bumping" in which a pay level say 8 employee can get shuffled into a job with a pay level of say 3, they retain their own pay level, and do a job they are theoretically overqualified for, and are paid far too much for (another thing I saw during the outsourcing of my department to contractors)

As an aside I left the military at the same time the contrtactors took over and actually ended up working in the same job, in the same desk working for them.

[Chewbacca]

I have doubts the Libertarian Party has matured enough to greatly impact our political climate. I doubt they will gain many defecting Republican politicians either. Years of propoganda make issues like drug/prostitution legalization politically risky, plus the Libertarian fixation on the minuteau of destroying government is too easily percieved as extremist. Making the abolishment of Driver's Licenses a hot-button issue is just silly!!!

In the years to come I can see a older, wiser Libertarian Party emerging with a platform that balances expanding personal freedom and reducing government with realism, common sense, and moderation.