A Personal Message from Mike

I wanted to update you on my latest plans before news gets out. Today, I am announcing my plan to join the Libertarian Party, because the Democratic Party no longer represents my vision for our great country. I wanted my supporters to get this news first, because you have been the ones who have kept my campaign alive since I first declared my candidacy on April 17, 2006.

The fact is, the Democratic Party today is no longer the party of FDR. It is a party that continues to sustain war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism -- all of which I find anathema to my views.

By and large, I have been repeatedly marginalized in both national debates and in media exposure by the Democratic leadership, which works in tandem with the corporate interests that control what we read and hear in the media.

I look forward to advancing my presidential candidacy within the Libertarian Party, which is considerably closer to my values, my foreign policy views and my domestic views.

Please take a moment to make your most generous donation to my presidential campaign today. $10, $20, $50 -- whatever you feel you can afford.

I want to thank you all for your continued support.

Comments

Welcome, Mike!

The Preamble of the National Platform of the Libertarian Party:

 

 

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

 

 

I think Mike (and many of his past supporters) would agree with this. The issue for many (and maybe for Mike) is the means of achieving this. Many Libertarians see curtailing the power of the federal government in any way as the first step toward seeing liberty in our lifetimes. I don't see this as indefensible or a desire to return to Robber Barron America (businessmen who exploited their ties to municiple, state, and federal bureaucrats to create trusts -- this wasn't natural "free market" organization). These Libertarians distrust government in any of its forms because GOVERNMENT HOLDS A LEGAL MONOPOLY ON FORCE AND VIOLENCE! Anyone who doesn't distrust their government is a failed student of history and current events. However, some, including myself, put limiting the federal government's dangerous foreign policy and intrusion into the private lives of innocent Americans as primary. Markets can take a beating from stupid and misguided government policy, and work around it; civil liberties can't. Mike may not be a lock-step Libertarian, but he is certainly far closer to the central ideals of the LP than he is to whatever principles Democrats claim to stand on nowadays or the vague calls to social action offered by our Green friends. Welcome to the Party of Choice, Mike!

 

 

Libertarians are against civil rights

How hypocritical of Libertarians, that they claim to be champions of civil libertries, yet their own platform calls for repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights laws.  Why do Libertarians never speak about their opposition to Civil Rights law?  Don't bother asking them, because they will not answer.

 

http://sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php

Civil Rights

Real libertarians (not Gravel and most of the current members of the Libertarian Party) oppose civil rights laws (particularly the Civil Rights Act of 1964) because it diminishes individual rights. As the right of the individual is more important.

Rights for Whites

That works fine for you, because you are a white male.  All true libertarians are white males. All true libertarians are also racist, as shown by their contempt for Civil Rights Law.  That is just one reason why a Libertarian can't get elected dogcatcher in this country.   

 

http://sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php

Elimination of the following

Elimination of the following items is a stated goal in the Libertarian Party platform:

 

Civil rights laws  

All public lands (no national, state, county, or municipal parks. no public access to lakes, rivers, beaches, or anything else)

Public schools

Public infrastructure (roads, bridges, dams, ect.)

Public mass transportation

 

Fire Departments 

Welfare

Food stamps

Medicare

Medicaid

Social Security

Children’s Health Insurance Program

All environmental protection regulations

Anti-trust laws

 

Labor laws (including child labor laws)

Labor unions

Food and drug safety regulations and inspections

 

Better take a closer look at the party with which you are affiliating yourself.

 

http://www.rkba.org/libertarian/lp/platform.1992

Why Gravel?

Mike Gravel is NOT a libretarian.  Come'on!  Ron-Paul is a libretarian, not Mike Gravel.  I can't understand why he'd make this change.  Will we see a repeat of the Nader 2000 spoil with Mike Gravel's name cursed for the next four years?

Big L Libertarian

The rkba.org link is the Libertarian Party platform from '92.  Here's a link to their current positions on some select issues:

www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml

 

I'm not about to change my party affiliation, but if Mike Gravel is on the ballot in November, there's a good chance I'll vote for him.  I like Hillary and Barack, but I think Mike would make a better President.

LP and Issues

What makes the Libertarian Party so attractive to Senator Gravel is that they are the only party aside from the Dems and Reps that have full ballot access, which gives him a stage to get his message out.  There are LP's of all shapes sizes and points of view.  Go to www.resetamerica.com  and check out MicaeI Jingozian a businessman from Portland Oregon.  I would also like to point out if you took the platform from the Dems or Reps from 10 years ago you would find significant changes as well.  There are a number of exceptional candidates running for the Libertarian nomination.  Candidates who have very different platforms and agendas. The Libertarian Party is a party that focuses on the local election process and tries to represent local communities and issues and make sure that the issues affecting its members are addressed on that level.

Nothing has changed

I linked to the 1992 Libertarian platform because today's Libertarian party speaks in code to hide the most radical elements of their agenda.  Since you are a "Big L Libertarian, explain what has changed since 1992 in your platform.

 

Does the Libertarian party no longer want to repeal Civil Rights Laws?

 

Does the Libertarian party no longer want to sell the national, state, county, and municiple parks, waterways and beaches, to private individuals and corporations?

 

Does the Libertarian party no longer want to privatize Medicare, Social Security, schools, fire departments?

 

Does the Libertarian party no longer want to eliminate environment protection and food and drug safety regulations and inspections?

 

http://sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php

Good Man

Your vote means a lot to your future and the future for your family.

Libertarianism is not Liberty, but a Corporatocracy

Senator Gravel, I recognize the problems with the two-party system and greatly respect you for staying in the presidential race.  I supported you 100% and voted for you.  (I might note to Hilarious that there's a lot of steel under that Santa Claus uniform.)  However, our positions diverged when you chose to run in the Libertarian Party (LP).

I wholeheartedly agree with shoeless:  "Better take a closer look at the party with which you are affiliating yourself."  I am not entirely convinced of your statement:  “I'm joining the Libertarian Party because it is a party that combines a commitment to freedom and peace that can't be found in the two major parties that control the government and politics of America”  I admire the LP's stance of Freedom of Religion, Speech, reproductive rights, gender/sex bias, and respect for individual privacy.  However, many party principles do not deserve support.  The party supports the wealthy and ignores the poor. Kindly allow me to expand some of the problems involved with the party.  I welcome your response.

*   Individuals have the right to homestead unowned resources, both within the jurisdictions of governments and within such unclaimed territory as the ocean, Antarctica and extraterrestrial bodies.

I disagree.  We need to consider and manage our natural resources carefully.  For example, the environment in “Antarctica,” as well as the Arctic are extremely fragile:  the glaciers need protection against global warming.  Americans devastated the Rain Forest.  Contrary to LP’s assertion, people should not live in environmentally sensitive areas.  Land use is a critical factor of the environment and global warming.  Accordingly, a governing body needs to act as caretakers for the damage we caused.*   We oppose all laws at any level of government restricting, regulating or requiring the ownership, manufacture, transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

 The LP believes citizens have the right to carry concealed weapons.  I do not completely oppose the Second Amendment, but point out that the LP's stance is a dangerous premise.  The right to bear arms was a necessity for a burgeoning nation in the 18th Century when citizens needed to protect themselves due to no public services. In the 21st Century, government must consider ways to protect citizens.  The LP supports the right to bear "Saturday Night Specials" and assault rifles.  In point of fact, people use these firearms exclusively to rob and kill people.  If someone is robbed, killed, or maimed, who will take care of that person if there are no funds to maintain hospitals?  Should people have the freedom to kill others?

*   All rate regulation in utilities should transition to free market pricing.  End the Postal Service's monopoly and allow for the free competition in all aspects of mail delivery. State and local monopoly services should be opened to free-market competition.  Local and state governments can auction assets such as utility systems and landfills to private industry, thereby immediately reducing the tax burden on their citizens.

This view summarizes "privatization," a neo-Republican view.  Where taxes may drop in such cases, cost of services will surely increase.  Corporations are in business to make money.  LP's precept that "free-market competition" helps the consumer has no bearing in fact. Each of us must consider the detriment of a free-market economy.  To determine the outcome that privatization LP proposes, I suggest readers review the Bush Administration’s goal to privatize Social Security, Medicare, and increase the Prison Industrial Complex.  Privatization of Medicare caused health care for many elderly and the poor to become impossible to afford.  The detrimental effects include raising premiums, higher payments for medication, and increased out-of-pocket deductions for those who can least afford medical care.  Simply put, even semi-privatized Medicare has become a disaster. Just as dangerous is the Prison Industrial Complex the LP implicitly wants to dismantle.  On Global Research, she writes:

*  The prison industry complex is one of the fastest-growing industries in the United States and its investors are on Wall Street. "This multimillion-dollar industry has its own trade exhibitions, conventions, websites, and mail-order/Internet catalogs. It also has direct advertising campaigns, architecture companies, construction companies, investment houses on Wall Street, plumbing supply companies, food supply companies, armed security, and padded cells in a large variety of colors.

Given these scant examples of the appalling conditions arising from privatization stated here, how can anyone trust the LP’s free-market principles?  And how far will this go?  If education is privatized, there will be no more school lunches and only the wealthy will be able to afford an education:  this problem already plagues the nation.  I would welcome a statistical breakdown involving financial worth correlated with the percentages of students who are able to attend college. Noam Chomsky wrote:  “A public education system is based on the principle that you care whether the kid down the street gets an education…. corporations are not benevolent societies…. the board of directors of a corporation actually has a legal obligation to be a monster, an ethical monster. Their legal obligation is to maximize profits for the shareholders, the stockholders.”  Can we, shall we, trust privatization?

*   End federal requirements that benefits and services be provided to those in the country illegally. Repeal all measures that punish employers for hiring undocumented workers. Repeal all immigration quotas.

The LP demonstrates a complete lack of understanding relating to immigration.  First, many children of illegal immigrants were born in this country.  Are they American citizens?  If not, to what country do they belong?  Further, the repeal of measures that punish employers who hire illegal immigrants is a slippery slope to taking American jobs, also.  Corporations want to make money, so immigrants who work illegally are treated poorly with inadequate food, shelter, and clothing.  Further, they make far less money than the American worker, unless corporations are free to exploit workers. My perspective concerns not only the lack of humanity corporations routinely display to both legal and illegal workers.

I may not trust the government completely, but I trust corporations far less to hold our society’s best interests at heart.  Senator Gravel, your adoption of LP is disappointing in that is does not mirror the original issues of your platform which I ardently supported. Accordingly, I will not and cannot vote for a candidate whose party rewards the wealthy, puts the middle and lower classes at economic risk, can conceivably cause environmental damage, and supports running America as a profit-making Corporatocracy.

Privatization

Stella exposes some of the unacceptable aspects of the Libertarian agenda.  What she decribes is indeed Corporatism, or Corporate Feudalism.  It is nothing less than a return to the Robber Baron era, dismantling all of our social gains of the past 100 years.

 

Few people who are now expressing admiration for the libertarians understand their goal of complete privatization.  How many would support privatization of Fire Departments, for instance?  Who would want to see their neighbor's house burn because they could not afford to protect it?  Who wants to see the lakes, rivers, and parks sold to the highest bidder?   Who wants elimination of child  labor laws? 

 

Think of the practical results of implementation of libertarian ideology.  For example, Yellowstone National Park would be sold to mining corporations, and the next generation of children could be working in those mines.  Who wants that?

 

http://sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php

Thank you, Shoeless

You articulated my point far more succinctly than I was able to do.  The essay you posted should be read by everyone who applauds Libertarianism.  Everything you wrote was spot on:  great comment.  Senator Gravel, the Libertarian perspective has nothing to do with "Power to the People," but "Power to Big Business."

Libertarians hide their agenda

Stella, you did a great job of explaining some of the more heinous aspects of libertarian ideology.  You may have noticed that the Libertarians posting on this board have no intention of addressing their extremist views, which we have exposed.  Today's Libertarians have learned to speak in code with vague high minded talk of "liberty".  In fact, their idea of "liberty" is nothing more than enslavement of the general population by global corporatists, and a return of second class citizenship for minorities.

 

Everyone should remember, someone else's idea of "liberty" might just be the opposite of your's. 

 

http://sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php

Bravo, shoeless!

And thanks.  I couldn't agree with you more, although I'm extremely disappointed in Gravel's descion.  The LP doesn't seem to fit his original agenda.  If he was so enraged at GE/MSNBC silencing him, why would he run on a Libertarian platorm?  Just seems contrary to common sense.

TVNewsLies

Stella, you seem like a very intelligent, well informed progressive.  Check out TVNewsLies forum. 

 

You don't have to be a very intelligent, well informed progressive to join, but dumbass regressives don't find it to be an environment in which they can survive for long (gawd knows they still try). 

 

Please join us, I have a feeling you will like it there.  Tell them shoeless sent you.

 

http://tvnewslies.org/phpbb/index.php

 

While I agree Mike's choice

While I agree Mike's choice is a surprise, I don't honestly see him fitting in with any other third party any better.  I mean, what would the Green Party think about the Fair Tax?  And while I don't agree with everrything the Libs stand for, they still get a lot more right than the mainstream wing of the Democrats these days.

 

But what I think people don't notice is that Ron Paul is really no more or less Libertarian than Mike.  Sure, he liked to sell the brand, but if you look at the Libs' stands on social issues and immigration, you can see that Ron Paul is really just a far-right conservative with some Libertarian tendencies, just like Mike is a far-left liberal with some Libertarian tendencies.  Neither man is any more or less Libertarian than the other.

Everyone is WELCOME

Welcome Mike to the LP! You and all your supporters are definately welcomed and we look forward to working together on the important issues that face the world and each of us. It is important that all your supporters go to www.lp.org and follow your lead and join the Party. They must become involved NOW (today) in their local and state LP organization to become delegates to the national convention to vote for you if you are to receive the nomination. With you starting this late you must have your supporters to follow you into the Party to receive support at the Memorial weekend national convention. I can assure all Gravel supporters who join that you will be treated well and allowed to make a difference within the LP. The LP welcomes anyone who opposes war and the warmongers behind it. Mike realizes the advantages of joining the LP and we hope you supporters will stick with him and join. The LP needs you !

 

And don't underestimate the possibilites of a third Party effort in '08. In a 4 or 5 way electorial college race anything could happen. Hope you will help us to make it happen. Again WELCOME ! Enjoy the road less traveled with us...It should be FUN !!!

Now I understand.  They did

Now I understand.  They did a good job selling it to you, Senator Gravel.  You are a noble consumer and a true patriot.  I am glad that I am welcome and that I will be treated well by the kind Libertarians.  As Libertarians, we will all band together and Senator Gravel will be the next president! Unite, former Ron Paul supporters! 

Absolutely

I also welcome Mike Gravel to the Libertarian Party.  I am running as the Libertarian candidate for Attorney Genreal in Utah, and have been a Party member for 12 years.  During the last year, I have taken two online "tests" to determine which presidential candidate most refelcts my views.  Both of them showed Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich neck and neck -- far ahead of the unofficial libertarian favorite, Ron Paul.  I will probably be a delegate in Denver.  I am not committing at this time to MIke, as we have several other fine candidates as well.  But, I disagree with those who say that either Mike is not a real Libertarian, or that he should not be.  There is room in the Party for people like him and me; and also "conservatives" like those who support Ron Paul.  Mike will give our Party some new supporters, and some good publicity.  And if you don't think he should be our presidential candidate, please support your favorite.  And may the best person win.  I'm rather excited by this.

As an employee of a

As an employee of a congressionally appropriated organization that would surely be eliminated should the libertarian party ever have its way, I must say I am ashamed of my past praise for Senator Gravel.  I donated to the campaign.  I excitedly bought the autographed book (and was inspired more and more everytime I read it).  Until yesterday I had Gravel bumper stickers on my car.  I relentlessly defended him against people who said he was a crazy ego-driven old man.  I believed that he was beyond the need to fit in within an ambition-restricting political party.  He gave hope to the future. 

 

The government IS the people.  Hasn't that been the point all along?  The government is a provider of many good jobs with good benefits.  This libertarian "switch" seems to be an ego driven publicity stunt, except that no one really cares.  .........I can't express my disgust in words.  I want my donation back.  I want to apologize to friends and family and retract the past arguments I made.  The libertarian party is a joke, populated by those too far right for the republicans and pseudo-hippies (Ron Paul supporters, the people Gravel is hoping he can win over with this "switch") who have a detachment from the truths of reality and an attraction to fantasy lands that could never exist .  Respectable idea, but disasterous given the increasing complexity of society.  One could write a book on why aspects of the Libertarian ideology are dangerous to modern society. 

 

I still believe he's a good guy with good ideas.  But now one has to wonder if he really does what he does because he truly cares about the well-being of the people, or if it's just personal ambition.  Seriously, why the Libertarian Party?  Why does he even need to be associated with a party?  I thought his ideas were unique. 

 

 

The stigma of a label

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, right? Sen. Gravel has very little to work with and much to do. Party affiliation is a way of creating recognition and support by the masses, which is what his campaign needs more than anything (even funding). While on the the surface Gravel/Libertatian seems to be an awkward fit, if you look to the root cause of the libertarians in the U.S., you will see that their idealogy cannot come to fruition without a trailblazer like this candidate. Further, the uniqueness of the Gravel campaign mirrors the  unpopularity of change featured in libertarian rhetoric. I will admit that I do not agree with the party's mantra from A to Z, but do respect their desire to change the foundation of and structure of power within our government; that being the case, I believe that "strange bedmates" are excellent roommates and will increase the will of the American people to commit to change.

 

Msprono, I do not know ,or wish to know, what C.A.O. you are involved with, but I ask you to step back and ponder if the issue for which you are lobbying is more important than that of bringing a new bloodline to D.C. 

 

Lastly, I have to say that, ego or no ego, Gravel's ideas  and the National Initiative for Democracy have to be brought to the watercoolers of society through any means necessary and I wouldn't have cared if he decided to run under the republican party. The Bull Moose Party  isn't being used effectively anymore, but likely would not strike a strong enough cord with our fellow countrymen.

???

The Senator isn't changing his views to be any more "Libertarian," there's absolutely no reason to withdraw your support. He's the same candidate under a different party.

 

Do Not Confuse

Do not confuse pro-capitalist libertarians (Ron Paul) with european pro-social libertarians like Mike Gravel. Read on how the word "Libertarian" was bastardized here in the United States. Correct me if I am wrong guys...Mike Gravel's policies have not changed.

 

Before you assume Mike's positions because of the label "Libertarian", ask yourself if you understand it correctly. I think you will be suprised. Did you know Chomsky calls himself a libertarian as well?

I found a great explanation of the term liberal

From a British subject

 

"Americans who oppose the present extremist administration either call themselves liberals without understanding the meaning of the word, or are called this by drunken rednecks as a term of abuse.If you mean your Democrats, some of them - perhaps the best of them - are social democrats, maybe a very few are socialists, more simply want to get their noses in the trough - rather like the New Labour crooks here.Liberalism, properly understood, is an economic creed of the extreme Hayekian right, both on your side of the pond and ours. It is diametrically opposite to socialism, and 'liberals' regard both socialists and social democrats with hatred.In this sense, Blair, Brown and Muff are all 'liberals'. Muff, however, is also an imperialist. One or two political theorists have compared the politics of Thatcherites here, and Republicans on your side, to Bonapartism. Which is quite interesting if you think about it!"

pro-capitalist libertarians

pro-capitalist libertarians make up the entire LP, and most non-affiliated LP in the United States.   The name wasn't bastardizied, it was hijacked just like "liberal" was hijacked by socialists.  turn about is fair play no?  Liberal used to mean laissez faire capitalist, negative rights supporters, now it means communitarian welfare statist.

Libertarian agenda

Gravel is making the same mistake I made 30 years ago. Like Gravel, I am a progressive who was fooled into supporting the very regressive Libertarian party because I agreed with them on a few issues, such as privacy, victimless crimes and imperialism. It was many years before I discovered the rest of their agenda, and realized the Libertarians are racists who would return us to Jim Crow, and corporate feudalists who would return us to the Robber Baron era. Many people are ignorant of these heinous aspects of libertarian ideology, and when the whole truth is presented to them, some progressives are willing to accept the dark side of libertarianism in order to support a candidate such as Ron Paul, because they agree with him on a few narrow issues. It's hard to say where Gravel fits in this picture because he does not mention the extremist right-wing part of the Libertarian agenda. It's hard to imagine a liberal like Gravel being in favor of elimination of Social Security, for instance.

The party of FDR?

<blockquote>

The fact is, the Democratic Party today is no longer the party of FDR. It is a party that continues to sustain war, the military-industrial complex and imperialism -- all of which I find anathema to my views.

</blockquote>

 

So is it or is it not the party of FDR? First he says it's not, then he proceeds to describe that it is. Come on Mike, learn your history. The problem is that both the Republican and the Democratic parties today are the party of FDR.

 

 

Lets See A Real Debate!

 

OK so Mike Gravel's platform is not 100% Libertarian, but I think that Libertarians would agree with about 80% of his views.  So what if he doesn't fit the party 100%, political parties are just assemblages of ideas that draw people together around more or less the same concepts.  Can you imagine if everyone who belonged to a political party accepted every single stance that the party took?  We would live in an America where no matter who you talked to, there would only be about two or three political stances.  Thankfully we are not like that, as every person I talk to about politics is as diverse as the human gene pool.

 

So, given all of this political diversity, how do we find out the candidates differences?  A real debate!  I would love to see a televised debate (although U Tube would suffice) with Mike Gravel, Ron Paul, and Ralph Nader all on the panel.  In such a debate, I think that all candidtates could use as a launching point an agreement that certain civil liberties should not be infringed upon, then begin a real discussion of their political differences.

 

I am sick and tired of hearing about who is "the change candidate", and who is "the status quo".  I am fed up with hearing about "controversies" involving preacher selection, and about "misspeaking" during "war stories".  And who cares about releasing tax returns?

 

All of these things seem silly to talk about when there are real concerns that these candidates should be discussing instead.  Examples include: a war in which over 4000 US military have died along with uncountable Iraqi citizens, an economic recession clearly on its way to a depression, and the effects of Neo-Liberalism crushing American citizens’ ability to obtain the most basic requirements for life.

 

I support the switch to the Libertarian party by Mike Gravel; maybe the Libertarian party will not be as biased and shut-out as the Democratic Party has been.  Heck, even the Republican Party has fully endorsed a candidate that doesn't fully match its party's platform.  Why is the conservative right much more accepting of variation than the liberal left? Isn't it about time we change that?

Gravel Bolts Demo for Libertarion Part for Prez

Naughty !  Naugthy ! Mike Gravel, not the Alaskan " I Like Mike '' of the Late Sixties and Seventies. Nomeski ; Post ; March 26, 2008, 2030 ADT

Oh, Mike Gravel, your life

Oh, Mike Gravel, your life is a sad one indeed.  You are a visionary, sir, yet I fear that you will never be wholly respected by one political party.  Why?  Your views are all over the place - from libertarian to liberal.  You are a thoughtful man and don't simply adhere to a party standard.  And in a land where party comes before country, that is a no-no.

Libertarian

Correct me if I am wrong but there are essentially two kinds of libertarians. Ones that are pro-capitalist (Ron Paul), and ones that are pro-socialist (like Chomsky, and I guess Mike). Both types want to maximize liberty but have differing opinions of how to achieve that. If I understand Mike's positions correctly he is a libertarian in the original European sense of the term. Its just in the US, the concept got bastardized....so no wonder people are confused about how Mike can have pro-social views while also being libertarian.

 

I for one am a Mike Gravel kind of libertarian who recognizes that people are social creatures and that we cannot live without each other. Because of that to maximize liberty we have to maximize cooperation in our social structures. Which is why Democracy (True direct democracy) is a saving grace. The problem with pro-capitalist libertarians is that they think people make rational choices and that they voluntarily enter into contracts. However, real life shows otherwise. People are hardly rational and are always taken advatage of.

Consider yourself corrected

sorry, but hahahahaha, that's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

 

Socialism is the antithesis of liberty. There is no such thing as a "pro-socialist" libertarian. Socialism, by definition, is the use of force to take material goods from one person and give them to another. This is not a matter of "opinion". Capitalism is simply what happens when the government doesn't interfere in running people's lives. Socialism is what happens when it does.

 

So you believe that people sometimes are taken advantage of with 'voluntary' contracts? Sure, although in some cases there is actual fraud or force which a libertarian government would punish. Does this mean the government should force people to enter into relationships against their will? Absolutely no libertarian, by definition, would say so.

 

Correcting the corrected...

Your definitions are flawed.  Socialism is not the antithesis of liberty.  I invite you to study the Scandinavian countries where the government provides health care benefits and enlightened social programs to the citizens of the country.  Further, if you read some of the news from this country, you will discover that people are far more free.

Both Socialism and Capitalism can coexist for the benefit of the citizens.  Certainly, socialist-libertarianism doesn't make much sense to me, but a careful and thorough analysis reveals that Socialism does not limit people's rights.  Given the revised FISA, I'm not sure I can make the same statement for the Bush Administration.

Consider yourself read

Not that I reference wiki articles often but

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

 

I thought it has some fairly good explainations. You have to think outside the box that people can "own" something. The concept on private ownership is just that, a concept. The reality is that people only own something because they can successfully keep it away from other people from using it (sometimes even with violence). If I came to your house and took your lamp and you beat me up for it, who is going more harm to whom? Taking a lamp from you will not cause you as much harm as you hitting me. If the libertarian doctrine is "Do what you want as long as you don't harm other people", then you are violating more of the libertarian thought than I am. Or if you keep your bread away from me even if I am starving....then you are doing more harm to me if you keep the bread vs let me just take it. By "owning" resources, then they become available to others only by your allowence. If you own the water supply to a town and then cut it off....by libertarian doctrine, can the towns people come and take your land away? Moral issues transend the idea of artificial rules of ownership.

 

The reality is we have to start thingking, instead of following rules blindly.

 

So Democracy to me is the only legitamate form of government because people as a group agree on something voluntarily. If you want nothing to do with the government then you either move, or do not use its collective resources and the fruits of its production. Is this fair?

 

 

libertarianism

These distinctions are really the continuation of the silly name game.  "Left"-Libertarians are an anti-authoritarian socialist, without going into detail - this is in Europe what would be called just plain "libertarian" with out any qualifier.  In the United States when you say "Libertarian" it understood to mean all of the following inclusively:  Miniarchist, Objectivist (though Rand would have a fit), anarcho-capitalist, and "Classic" liberal. 

 

Moral issues are a lenghty topic and yes there are moral issues with collectivist ideology that democrats suggest are the right solutions.  All of your examples involve you being the initiator of force or theft which are all contemptable actions.  Giving voluntarily is comendable, but getting someone, or some institution, to take bread from someone and give it to the poor is not philanthropy.  A person has the right to defend themselves, and their property and the meausure of response must be relative to the force being used.  Certainly beating some to death for stealing a lamp is not a measured response, but reclaiming the item or demanding in a court to compensated is.

 

Democracy is not the only legitmate form of government, and if we use Democracy than majority rule is law.  If you let the majority decide everything, very soon you will find you can be in the minority on anything including your own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. 

 

There is a long list of things we could dicuss.  I understand where socialist philosphy comes from, and the idea of rights as social constructs, social contract (which doesn't hold water in the US), I just vehemently disagree with it.  If you haven't already researched him by all means check out "the first socialist" Jean-Jacques Rousseau an enlighenment thinker and contemporary of our founders.

Correction

I made a mistake. I meant to say a constitutional direct democracy is the most legitimate form of government in my opinion. A constitution based on the concept of rights protects the person from the government. Within the framework of rights, people can do a lot of good as a group. The most legitimate way for people to decide on something is to work to work together and agree on something, this is fundamentally democracy. In the framework of a constitutional government, majority rule is no problem. Consider the fact that what we have now is a minority rule government here in the United States. Why would you want a minority of people making decisions? So I see no problem with majority rule in a government which protects rights. What is often mistaken about the Majority is that it is often seen as one distinct cohesive group. The reality is that per issue, the majority will be composed of a mix of races, religions, and sexes. The majority is not invariant and is always changing per issue. Mike Gravel's National Initiative for Democracy is a way for us to have direct democracy in the framework of a federalist constitutional government. The voice of the people in our current system is completely lacking because representative government is fundamentally broken.

The message of freedom blossomed in America and moved to Europe.

You all know that the American Revolution brought a new breath of liberty to the world. This spirit quickly spread to France, and from 1789 to 1815 the French people fought a revolution to attain the rights which Americans obtained in the 1780s. After a quarter century of war this revolution failed in its more radical goals; but it wrought a major change on the continent of Europe. Inspired by liberty the people of Europe began to revolt. One revolution followed upon another, each chipping away at the chains which kept the masses of the people in thrall. The aristocrats and defenders of the old order were struck with fear; they saw their way of life being destroyed.

What most frightened them was the effectiveness of the armies of the revolution. Once the French people had declared for "liberte, egalite, fraternite," they were filled with a sense of energy. For countless centuries the kingdoms of Europe had been quite even in military strength. They could fight for generation after generation with only small changes in national boundries. Then in a few years the single nation of France, while fighting almost all of Europe at once, achieved smashing victories. As Napoleon noted, one French soldier - fighting for liberty - was equal to two Prussian soldiers.

This was the problem that confronted the old order. The aristocrats were outnumbered 100 to 1 by the common people. Worse, their serfs would not fight, at least not with any energy. If England had not somehow wound up on the wrong side in the Napoleonic Wars and won the battle for them, then feudal Europe would have been destroyed. What to do?

Clearly the problem was ideological. There is no military solution to odds of 100 to 1. The question was to devise a new ideology, an ideology which would appeal to the people of Europe more than the ideology of liberty. By the middle of the 19th century this problem was solved by some intellectual in the newly formed nation of Germany.

"Yes, we have been bad," went the new ideology. "We aristocrats have robbed from the poor and given to the rich. However, we are going to change. We are going to form a new government based on Christian principles. This government will be a like a great father to its people and operate on the principle of love. It will rob from the rich to give to the poor. In order that we can do this we ask that you not be too strict about property rights. So rejoice; the bad old days are over. Do not look to the west for governments which give you justice. We are going to give you something better than justice. We are going to give you something for nothing."

The two (principal) somethings-for-nothing which this new government - called the welfare state - gave to its subjects were old age retirement (social security) and free medical care (socialized medicine). Of course the German aristocracy had no intention of giving up its privileges. It was non-productive and had to rob from the common people just to maintain itself. Once the principle of robbing had been accepted as proper to government, just a little manipulation ensured that the direction of the money flow was as it had always been, from the poor to the rich. There was no way that the state could provide old age retirement or enough medical care to meet everyone's demands; so a third leg was soon added to the first two. The country abandoned the gold standard and paid out its benefits by printing money. It was this system which came to America in the 1930s with the New Deal.

Re

You are correct in your libertarian dichotomy; there are left-libertarians, in the original European sense, and right-libertarians, in the American sense.

 

However, the American Libertarian Party - the Party Gravel now adheres to - is explicitly capitalistic, pro-free market, pro-free trade, and anti-union. I'm having a hard time understanding Gravel's reasoning behind the switch, as his views are incompatible with and contradictory to the economic ideology of the Libertarian Party. I believe he would garner more support from Greens.

 

 

Yeah

He does seem like he'd fit in with the Environmental Socialist Party a lot better (Enzis?).

 

But he's not a libertarian is any sense of the word.

 

 

Exactly

Great point, Yeah.  I, too, felt the Greens were a far better fit for Sen. Gravel's original platform.

Unfortunately the Greens'

Unfortunately the Greens' primaries are well under way...

Not quite the party of FDR

 While I have do have great respect for you and many of you positions, as a Libertarian, I'm not sure you find many people who are for the legacy of FDR in the Libertarian party. Either way, best of luck.

Party Switch

 

DEAR MIKE,

 

GLAD TO HEAR OF YOUR SWITCH, ONLY BECAUSE IT MIGHT TRIGGER A STAMPEDE !

 

IT WILL TAKE SUCH A STAMPEDE TO WAKE PEOPLE UP, & CONVINCE VOTERS THAT THE DEMOPLICANS ARE AN UTTER ANTITHESIS TO FREEDOM.

UNFORTUNATELY, RON PAUL AND OTHERS BEFORE HIM TRIED TO NO AVAIL.

YOU NEED TO THINK LONG AND HARD ABOUT HOW TO BREAK THE TWO-PARTY STALEMATE, AND TAP INTO THE VAST

LEGION OF DISENCHANTED VOTERS TO ENABLE ANY REALISTIC CHANCE.

RON PAUL BARELY SCRATCHED THE SURFACE, DESPITE ALL THE MONEY HE RAISED, AND WAS EXCLUDED FROM TV DEBATES

AS A NON-VIABLE CANDIDATE, EFFECTIVELY NIXING HIS CHANCES.

 

YOU HAVE A TREMENDOUSLY DAUNTING TASK IN FRONT OF YOU AND I WISH YOU LUCK

 

CHEERS,

JIMBO

The Camel's Back Will Break One Day

Maybe such a campaign will not garner the gold medal this time, but one day....  

 

Every time I vote for a candidate outside of the Democratic and Republican party, my associates berate me as wasting a vote.  Even though my candidates may not win (now), I think we are building a force for a real "change for the future we can believe in."  :-)  There is life beyond the Democrats and Republicans!

 

I know there are points to your political beliefs that may not be 100% purist Libertarian.  I think that is okay.  As a Libertarian, I'm not sure I agree with all.  A single policy isn't going to destroy our country, but a system where choices are not available is trouble already arrived.   If you are willing to stand up and fight for this larger purpose, I am willing to march along side of you.

 

Peace.

 

Agree that the answer is not in the Dem or Rep parties.

I am brand new to this site and up to now have not paid attention to Mr. Gravel's campaign.  I am interested now.  I do not consider myself libertarian, democrat or republican but I think the solution to our countries problems resides outside the Big Two Parties.

Party Switch

 

 

Mike,

 

    I am so sorry to hear that you have switched from the Democratic Party. I truly believe that the only way to reform Our party is to work with it and the people to which it belongs.  Did the South's succession from the Union give it what it wanted? As I know, from all of your powerful words, you know the true power is in conciliation and the commitment to never give in. Your calls for universal healthcare supplied by the government do not work with the Libertarian Party. I know you will never sacrifice your beliefs for political opportunity. You need not prove yourself a true American. One of my idols, you stand for all the good I see in our nation.

     Despite the moves that you may make from here on, I will always remain a devoted comrade, a willing citizen, an inspired youth. You will remain, for me, the FDR that I so hoped would lead this generation. I am disappointed to receive the news of your switch, but I am simultaneously glad for you. The gladness that I hold for ALL who exercise their personal rights does not elude you. I wish you the best.

 

Your fellow citizen,

Taylor

 

I was so happy to hear

I was so glad to hear of Mike's switch.  The second I heard I began to reregister from Democrat to Libertarian.

I disagree with your sentiments about Mike's switch.  The Democratic party is nothing but a sham at this point.  They advertise that they are the party of the people -- and get a lot for support for saying this -- but cater to corporate interests, thereby swindling the people.  Leading Democrats have repeatedly tried to suppress Mike's voice.  When Mike was excluded from the debates, the DNC said nothing.  You can bet that if Obama were excluded for arbitrary reasons, Howard Dean would not let it rest until Obama were allowed back in.

Mike has always been libertarian.  Mike stands up for liberty, the rights and freedoms of the people, and justice.  That is the quintessential definition of a libertarian.

 

Mike, I didn't think I could respect you more, but you've proven me wrong.  Just last night I was reflecting on and venting my disgust with the Democratic party regarding foreign policy.  This could not have come at a better time for me.

Thank you for giving the sentiments of so many people a voice in Washington.

 

__

"It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it."

-Eugene V. Debs

"Leading Democrats have

"Leading Democrats have repeatedly tried to suppress Mike's voice.  When Mike was excluded from the debates, the DNC said nothing.  You can bet that if Obama were excluded for arbitrary reasons, Howard Dean would not let it rest until Obama were allowed back in."

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with trying to supress his voice.  It has to do with simple rules of viability.   Mike was NOT excluded from "the debates", just the several last ones.  This was on the simple basis that he was neither bringing in enough votes or money.  How is that arbitary?  By your rationale, I should be able to register as a Democrat and get into every debate.   And in that case, then the party should fund my travels to campaign all over the United States!  And everyone else and there mom could, too!  And in the end, the party would have a few dollars for everyone running!

 

"Mike has always been libertarian.  Mike stands up for liberty, the rights and freedoms of the people, and justice.  That is the quintessential definition of a libertarian."

 

Except for that whole "universal" aka "socialized" healthcare plan where the government controls the healthcare system in the United States.

 

I would love nothing more than to see Mike Gravel become the president.  He would absolutely be my first choice.  However, I always seem to favor the candidate with the least chance of winning.  And I used to believe that I was more insightful than the average American.  But then I read this kind of b.s. and it makes me question my own judgement and rationale...

 

 

response

"It has absolutely nothing to do with trying to supress his voice."  This is incorrect.  Mike states clearly, "By and large, I have been repeatedly marginalized in both national debates and in media exposure by the Democratic leadership, which works in tandem with the corporate interests that control what we read and hear in the media."

Your distinction between "the debates" and "several" debates is an arbitrary one.  Mike wasn't bringing enough money because he was one of the few candidates who is not independently wealthy.  As the party that claims to represent the people, the majority of which are not wealthy, it would seem that the DNC was being hypocritical by marginalizing Mike due to lack of money.  That marginalization, along with lack of personal wealth, is the reason he did not bring as many votes as Clinton, Edwards, or Obama.

"By your rationale, I should be able to register as a Democrat and get into every debate.   And in that case, then [sic] the party should fund my travels to campaign all over the United States!  And everyone else and there [sic] mom could, too!  And in the end, the party would have a few dollars for everyone running!" Also wrong.  Mike was recognized by the DNC as a legitimate candidate.  He applied for and received federal funding.  You have not.  Thus, you are not deserving of funding from the Democratic party, and Mike is.

"Except for that whole 'universal' aka 'socialized' healthcare plan where the government controls the healthcare system in the United States."  Actually, socialized healthcare, which Mike does not support, by the way, fits in perfectly with a libertarian philosophy -- specifically a libertarian socialist.  Oxymoron?  No.  Libertarianism predates capitalism.  Many early libertarians were also (some would say necessarily) socialists.  Again, Mike is not a socialist, nor does he support socialized healthcare, but it's an important distinction nonetheless.

I hope this has helped you realize who's really spewing the "b.s."  By the way, how would reading something you are so sure is "b.s." cause you to question your "own judgement [sic] and rationale"?

__

"It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it."

-Eugene V. Debs