Unfortunately it sounds like the U.S. LP is becoming more infiltrated by right wing kooks just like the Republican Party has with theocrats.
I watched Ralph Nader on Sunday on Meet the Press make his announcement to run again as an independent. Aside from his socialistic economic regulatory proposals, I liked what he had to say about Clinton and Obama, and he's more appealing than the paleoconservatives who try to mascarade themselves as libertarians. Plus Nader wasn't as much responsible for Gore losing the election in 2000 as were the protest voters who cast their ballots for him.
I still think the Greens and Libertarians in the U.S. should put their differences aside temporarily and form a coalitions like third parties in Mexico have done to give the major parties a run for their money.
A Nader/Paul ticket would be a hoot!
I don't know about a Nader-Paul ticket (though it WOULD be a hoot) but a coalition LP/Green is starting to make sense to me.
Unfortunately, there hardly seem to be any libertarians left in the LP. How can one be a libertarian and anti-immigration? One can't.
As an officer of the AZLP and delegate to the LP convention in May of this year, I sympathize somewhat with the comments on this post.
However, I do not believe that the caliber or inconsistencies of the Presidential candidates are reflective of the party as a whole.
Like any other time, the LP will nominate someone for President willing to do so and if Wayne Allyn-Root gets the nod, I suspect we will see a situation similar to what happened with the Ed Clark campaign.
I too am concerned with the overall state of the LP and am willing to put time and effort to change it so it becomes reflective of the radical philosophy that it exists to further.
Mike: I don't know if your perception of the Clark campaign is based on personal experience or the line feed out ot Auburn. But the Clark campaign was a pretty decent campaign with a few explanations twisted out of shape by critics who had other agendas. I won't mention Rothbard by name.
We shall see if this indicative of the party as a whole as I believe Mary Ruwart will declare. If she is passed over in favor one of these conservatives in libertarian drag then the party is in very poor shape indeed.
If Mary Ruwart were to run, I just might start paying some attention to the LP. Mary's the real deal. Even if she were the nominee, though, I will not vote.
So am I understanding this the way you mean it? Are you saying that if a Libertarian candidate has a good stance on all issues except immigrants that you will allow one little disagreement with an otherwise worthy candidate stop you from voting for them?
Not that I see anybody I'm running down to the poll to vote for but if I see a great candidate who stand strong on all issues except one, I am not going to let one issue prevent me from voting.
Nobody is perfect. If that's what you are waiting for, you will probably never vote again in any country.
Hmmmm...???
Joe
Among the players who are taking it seriously, George Phillies is the one who seems to understand the most what it takes to run a meaningful campaign.
That said, you're spot-on about his charisma. (I say this, and I actually like the guy...)
Assrot: You need to follow things through to the logical conclusion. You seem to think the candidates position on illegal immigration is “one little disagreement.” Have you considered what that little disagreement requires?
If all illegals have to leave will they do so voluntarily? Unlikely. So how do you get right of them? First, you need a way to tell who is legal from who is illegal. That is what is driving the campaign for National ID. Next you have to create incentives to leave. So they start regulating private business contracts forcing business owners to act as INS offficials in regards to whom they hire. Some still won’t do it so you have to punish them if they refuse. So you imprison business owners, fine them or confiscate their business.
Just this weekend I was driving from a US border town north. All the traffic was stopped by government officials checking who was in each car. You’ll need a lot more of that.
What people are ignoring is that the policing of illegal immigration within the country requires massive amounts of state interference with citizens and not just non-citizens. It will cost billions which requires billions in additional taxes as well. There are some issues which are truly small issues and where the knock on effect of a bad position is minimal. But with these desires to control illegals in the country the effects are far more widespread and destructive than people realize. It isn’t a “little disagreement” at all but a major assault on liberty. And this assault is not just on the rights and liberties of the immigrants but of the entire population.
Ben: Phillies is right on some things and very wrong on others, his boring personality aside. He was opposed to tax cuts which he said were irresponsible and he is bad on illegals. Both are major issues as I see it.
>> Unfortunately, there hardly seem to
>> be any libertarians left in the LP.
>> How can one be a libertarian and
>> anti-immigration? One can't.
First off, I don't know of anybody who is opposed to all immigration, so it seems you are correct.
Since I believe you are also concerned about people who are opposed to *ILLEGAL* immigration, I'll address that:
1) A nation which has a welfare state and open borders is doomed. It will attract parasites, who will come and enjoy the bread and circuses. Yes, I want to see the welfare state dismantled. But I'm not going to see that this year, am I? So for now, America MUST limit immigration.
2) A nation which has an anti-job regulatory climate must not allow it's supply of workers to explode. Since business will not be able to grow and create jobs, and there will be massive unemployment. So for now, America MUST limit immigration.
Note that these issues are issues of ordering. Dismantle the welfare state, return to limited government, allow the economy to function, and THEN we should be able to allow immigration (although I would still favor limiting immigration to those who are willing to commit themselves to refraining from growing government). But unlimited immigration, combined with unlimited government and limited economic growth would be disaster. Until we can limit government and stop limiting economic growth, we must limit immigration.
Rich Paul: Read more of the posts as I think your concerns were answered before you expressed them here. If you can’t have welfare and immigration then dump welfare. It is absurd for libertarians to campaign to extend state power by restricting immigration than restrict state power by limiting welfare. Second, your concern hardly deals with illegal immigrants who do not qualify for most entitlement programs. And you never mention the fact that these people are also paying for programs that they can’t collect -- social security for instance. It seems to me that your beef ought to be direct at legal immigration not illegal immigration as the later are more restricted.
You are a closet statist it seems. Each time you whine about the state screwing things up your solution is more state power. You are also economically unaware since immigrants create jobs as well as fill them. They expand demand for instance but they also bring needed skills. The lower end immigrants are taking jobs which welfare-addicted Americans don’t want anyway.
These arguements have a source in groups that are racist but claim to be libertarian. You shouldn’t use them. They are invalid to the core and not libertarian.
Rich Paul -- the legal/illegal immigration distinction is bullshit, frankly. "Legal" means getting some bureaucrat's permission. "Illegal" immigration is a victimless crime.
The evidence is overwhelming that that "illegals" are net contributors to our economy is overwhelming. They are also less likely to consume taxpayer dollars than are native born citizens. They pay into social security and don't collect. The fear of illegals is way out of proportion to the problems, and the solutions are either to have open borders or a police state.
There's only one libertarian position here.
Commenting by HaloScan
