The Libertarian Party? Why Mike?

March 26th, 2008 by insaniac

I found this news shocking.. Why would Mike Gravel join the Libertarian Party? The only thing Mike Gravel and the LP would have in common is perhaps their views on foreign policy. But c'mon! The LPs are against universal health care, public funding of education, etc. This contradicts what Gravel views. Libertarians claim to be in favour of freedom, but in reality their view of freedom would naturally lead to private tyranny.

 

Gravel believes in carbon tax.. Libertarians are strongly opposed to that

Gravel believes in universal health care... Libertarians strongly oppose this.

Gravel believes in strengthening social security.. Libertarians want to abolish it

Gravel believes in strengthening the VA .. Libertarians would abolish it

Gravel believes in regulating ISPs to keep Net neutrality.... Libertarians are anti-regulation, thus against any net-neutrality legislation.

 

Why Mike? Why?

‹ Free Midtown Manhattan Office Available for Gravel Campaign It's too bad Mike joined the Libertarians ›

Comments

Explanation of why Mike's Bold Move is Needed

Submitted on March 30th, 2008 by Bosoxdad

http://www.diatribune.com/the-libertarian-party-along-with-mike-gravel-can-bring-us-back-sanity

 

Gravel 2008!

www.resetamerica.com

Submitted on March 31st, 2008 by time4change

it's odd how eerily similiar these views are with Senator Gravel's.  Any word on the front runner for VP.

Good Move

Submitted on March 30th, 2008 by jg51

This is a great move for Mike.

NI4D overrides his opinions

Submitted on March 28th, 2008 by Audax

Mike's main platform is the NI4D so it doesnt really matter what his opinions are because all of his policies depend on the votes of the people. if the people reject it then he says oh well i think this is the best but you dont want it.

 

 

Freedom Crazy?

Submitted on March 27th, 2008 by NumLock

Mike is not a Libertarian. Green Party will fit him better. But anyways. I am a Libertarian as was Thomas Jefferson in principle. We have too much government and more government will not fix this feel free to argue this. If you want socialized programs feel free to organize one but do not force ME to take part of programs I do not want to be part of. The reason corporations have so much damn power is because government gives it to them. I do not like the libertarian party but I uphold limited government views.

Wouldn't the corporations

Submitted on March 28th, 2008 by gravel08nj

Wouldn't the corporations have just as much power (or more) if there weren't any regulations?

 

 

Corportations/Regulation

Submitted on March 30th, 2008 by redgar

NO. Absolutley not.  In almost all cases the regulations are drafted with good intentions, but the regulating bodies are taken over by the corportations themselves.  They then use the regulations to erect barriers to entry to limit small business from competing with them.  Regulations create and maintain monopolies and make the corporations more powerful.

That seems to make sense...

Submitted on March 30th, 2008 by gravel08nj

That seems to make sense... but the corporations have now grown to impossible sizes, with said regulations. How could small businesses then be reinjected into the mix by removing the regulations?

In most situations, I agree

Submitted on March 29th, 2008 by rossl

In most situations, I agree with this.  But in situations like that of Polyface Farms and its disputes with the USDA (www.polyfacefarms.com and the book "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan), government regulation and intervention in the free market can force industries into certain situations.  This ability can be taken advantage of, and even if it isn't it limits innovation and diversity.  Just look at the state of the agricultural industry - it's an industry first of all, not agriculture anymore - but 80% of all the beef in the US is produced by 4 companies in factory farms, and nearly every food we eat has a good portion of it derived from industrial, processed corn that shifts everyone in the process but the major agribusinesses.

I'm glad that you found a

Submitted on March 27th, 2008 by Hitsumei

I'm glad that you found a way of staying in the race, Mike.

 

However, like I said in the "he's a lib?" topic, I think that the libertarians are too insane (someone wanted to indoctrinate me into far-right-wing libertarianism yesterday with Rothbard propaganda, but I firmly held my ground and I am still an independent with a liberal streak. I care about the environment, I support the carbon tax, I want real health care, I want education to be the priority of this country...). I don't think they would pick Gravel as their nominee for the LP,

 

In my heart, you are an independent. If you don't win the LP nomination (I'm saying this because the libertarians I know prefer nutcases like Barr, Root or Paul. I know two libertarians who freaked out over the carbon tax. ), then consider an independent run because that's what you are, and you'll really be able to teach people to value substance over party.

 

You're the only sane member of the LP I really know, Gravel.

 

I value substance over party and no matter which party you are in, I will still vote for you because you have a proven track record, you taught me how to be politically literate, I love your book "Citizen Power" (I am considering shouting a few quotes on the metro), you will empower me to make laws, you have a spine, and you have concrete and ethical ideas.

 

I wish that the notion of political parties could be abolished because political parties incite stereotypes, double standards and prevent people from looking beyond a party label. Political parties also fuel the awful notion of "we want power, but let's forget about the substance".

 

I predict that Gravel will not win the LP nomination and will decide to run as an independent before November. By then, he will probably expose the craziness of the LP just as much as he exposed the craziness of the Democratic Party.

Obama or Barr...

Submitted on March 27th, 2008 by biphenylene

I dunno...

 

If Mike can become the nominee of the Libertarian Party, I'll vote for him in November. I don't imagine Bob Barr or any other LP nominee will keep me from supporting the Green Party or Obama.

 

Bob Barr...

 

I'm sorry, I'll vote for Obama over Barr without a second thought. God, I'd vote for (ugh!) Hillary over Barr.

 

I can only hope this is the best thing that ever happened to the Libertarian Party...

I think Mike is definitely

Submitted on March 27th, 2008 by crs6785

I think Mike is definitely at odds with some of the parts of the Libertarian Party platform. This move to the Libertarian Party seems wise from a financial and publicity point of view, but I really think Mike's stance on the issues of health care, public programs, education, social security, and even taxes are just simply out of step with the Libertarian Party platform. However, I will grant that he is probably closer to matching the Libertarian Party platform than what the Democratic one has become.

 

I'm still a little torn over this switch. I will still strongly support Mike Gravel individually, but I cannot identify or allign myself with the libertarian party. Which I guess isn't too different then before, because I don't identify with the status quo that the democratic party emits with their top picks as candidates. I will vote for someones idividual stances on the issues, and will not be driven to vote for someone merely because they carry a certain political label or party name.

NI4D

Submitted on March 26th, 2008 by parisd

Something that all libertarians should be able to agree on is the NI4D. Issues like the federal reserve or the IRS is something that we the people could decide on once NI4D becomes a constitutional amendment. Thinking that one person will deal with all of the issues that favor the people is naive, especially when you have 35000 lobbyist in DC who control the strings and write the laws.

But then you have

Submitted on March 27th, 2008 by rossl

But then you have Libertarians like Ron Paul that are strict Constitutionalists, and they can't see beyond that.  Unfortunately, most of them (I am speaking more of Ron Paul Constitutionalists than anyone else) think that the Constitution was a document written in stone by gods that agreed on every issue.  Really, it is a living document meant to be altered.

It's safe to say that Ron

Submitted on March 27th, 2008 by insaniac

It's safe to say that Ron Paul is an accurate portrayal of what the Libertarian Party stands for. This National Initiative would NEVER fly with the LP. Other people voting on things that affect their lives infringes on their "freedom".. as they would say. The LP just want government to provide security for their rights to life and property. That's IT. Taxation, to them, is theft and infringement on their property rights.

Ron Paul/National Initiative

Submitted on March 30th, 2008 by redgar

I don't believe that Ron Paul is an "accurate" portrayal of the LP.  Paul is closer to the right wing. He has many libertarian philosophies but is not completely libertarian. Especially on the issues of abortion and immigration.  See an article I wrote at The Party of Ron Paul? for a comparison of Paul versus the LP versus the Constitution party.

The problem with National Initiative (and Democracy) is when 51% of the population realize that they can vote for the other 49% of the population to hand over their wealth.  Our founders didn't found a democracy. We are a constitutionally limited republic.  Democracy is not an ideal goal.

Democracy has checks and

Submitted on March 31st, 2008 by insaniac

Democracy has checks and balances. If you live in a minarchist society, it doesn't stop a minority elite class from corrupting that minarchist government. If you have anarcho-capitalism, it also doesn't prevent a minority elite class from establishing a government and forcing it on all people. However, if you're simply afraid of mob rule, it is as likely to happen in an anarchist society as it can in a democratic statist society. Unfortunately, what most Libertarians propose would only lead to a rule by the minority.

Anarchy is not libertarianism

Submitted on April 1st, 2008 by redgar

Pure democracy does not have checks and balances.  Its tryanny of the majority.

Anarcho-capitalism doesn't work either.  You need a set of enforced rules that provide a framework for property ownership, property transfer, debt collection, etc. in order to have a free market work.

With either anarchy or hyper democracy tryanny could easily happen.

You don't have a thorough understanding of libertarianism. Libertarians do not believe in either extreme. Libertarians believe in the rule of law, not anarchy.  Laws must exist and be enforced to protect your rights.

"A little government involvement is just as dangerous as a lot -because the first leads inevitably to the second." -- Harry Browne 1996 and 2000 Libertarian candidate for president.

 

The National Initiative as an Extra Set of Checks-and-Balances

Submitted on April 1st, 2008 by Jaywin

 

Hi redgar,

Thank-you very much for your post. I certainly agree that the rule of law is important and that a lack of checks and balances combined with pure democracy can have seriously detrimental effects on individual liberties.

However, it should be noted that Senator Gravel's proposal for a National Initiative is not a proposal to replace representative government. It is a proposal to effectively create a fourth branch of government where the people themselves become an additional set of checks and balances. The National Initiative  is meant to supplement constitutionally-based representative government, not replace it.

Though I would agree that pure democracy without a constitutionally-based representational government leads to a "tyranny of the majority", I would equally argue that a constitutionally-based representative government without the people as an added set of checks-and-balances leads to oligarchy, "the tyranny of the few".

Comments?

--------------------------------

Jason

National Staff

Volunteer Moderator

Jason@Gravel2008.us

 

I agree

Submitted on April 1st, 2008 by redgar

I agree.

I admit I haven't looked at his proposal fully.  Any national intitiative proposal should not be easy to do. Changes to the constitution should be taken seriously. Perhaps requiring a 2/3 approval by the states? Constitutional changes should require a super majority and should recognize that we are nation of states. (i.e. have a check against a group of highly populated states imposing their will on lesser populated states)  I'd have to see the specific proposal before shooting it down.

I welcome Gravel into the libertarian fold and hope that his supporters learn about libertarian principles before assuming that we are anarchists or right wingers.

I like Gravel and believe that he is very libertarian. However I don't believe Gravel will get the nomination unless he proves his dedication to libertarian principles to the convention delegates.

Amendment, Act, and Question

Submitted on April 1st, 2008 by Jaywin

 

Hi redgar,

First, here's some links to the actual proposals:

I hope you enjoy the reading, and feel free to "shoot away" afterwards! :-)

My question:

As I understand it, there are several schools of Libertarian thought. Though they may be significantly different in a number of ways, they all share in common the assumption that the concepts of liberty and freedom should be the core values of all of our social, political, and economic discourse. They may disagree on the very meaning of these concepts, and even if there is an agreement on "description", there may be disagreements on the best "prescription"...that is, what are the best ways to enhance freedom and liberty for the maximum amout of people?

However, I have always been under the impression that the Libertarian Party tends to represent (tolerate?) only one or two of these schools of thought, and even be hostile to these other schools of libertarian thought.

Is my impression of the current state of affairs correct, or is it completely off the mark? If there is some truth to what I'm saying, would it not be appropriate for the Libertarian party to not only tolerate but encourage these different schools of thought within their own party with the "good faith" assumption that all of these schools want the same thing: more liberty and freedom. They just may disagree on how to both define and accomplish that end. And a continuous, open-ended, and open-minded  discussion combined with the assumption of "good faith" on the part of all who are involved in that discourse is where liberty and freedom truly begin.

Thoughts?

--------------------------------

Jason

National Staff

Volunteer Moderator

Jason@Gravel2008.us

 

Libertarian thought

Submitted on April 1st, 2008 by redgar

Libertarians all never agree on everything.

I think the litmus test tends to be the Libertarian creed:

"I don't believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means to achieve personal, social, political or economic goals."

So force in defending oneself against some other party's initiation of force is fine. Force is defined broadly. If you go to the government and demand that they take money/resources/rights away from party A to give to party B, you are initiating force.

IMO any "school of libertarian thought" that violates this creed is not libertarian. 

Different Schools of Thought in Libertarianism

Submitted on March 26th, 2008 by Jaywin

 

Check out the Category at Wikipedia listing different libertarian schools of thought. 

--------------------------------

Jason

National Staff

Volunteer Moderator

Jason@Gravel2008.us

 

...

Submitted on March 26th, 2008 by insaniac

I understand that different schools of thought exist, but the Libertarian Party comes from one particular school of thought. They come from the austrian economic line of thinking. Hayek, Rothbard, etc. Look at their platform:

 

- Adoption of laissez-faire principles which would reduce the state's role in the economy.

- Privatization of Social Security and welfare 

- Rollbacks of labor regulations, and reduction of government interference in foreign trade.

 

I understand Gravel would probably be more of Libertarian Socialist... so why join this party? There are other parties that would suit Gravel's position much more adequately. For example, the Green Party.

Liberaltarian

Submitted on March 26th, 2008 by J. Skyler McKinley

Mike is in the liberal wing of the Libertarian party.

 

 

I second that.  There are

Submitted on March 26th, 2008 by Peace Czar

I second that.  There are stereotypes of the Libertarian party, and Ron Paul did no favors in terms of perpetuating many of them.  As Mike has said, he's more Libertarian than Paul (on some issues).  It comes down to relative definition and how you define it.

 

Mike was on a radio program Monday where he articulated some of these ideas, one of which is how he and The National Initiative are very libertarian.  Prime reason being that it is all about empowerment of the people, making them the sovereigns they were rightfully meant to be.  Instead of deferring one's sovereignty to the state.

 

Mike is on the liberal wing and is a collective libertarian.

What do you mean

Submitted on March 26th, 2008 by insaniac

What do you mean "stereotypes"?? RP is representing exactly what the LP stands for. The LP does not represent Libertarian socialism. Read their platform. We're not talking about whether Gravel is a Liberterian or not. I would consider him a libertarian.. but he is NOT a libertarian that the LP represents... There's a big difference. Chomsky is a libertarian, but he'd NEVER join the Libertarian Party because that part represents a specific idealogy. It is not a party for any kind of libertarian. You just need to read their platform to know what kind of libertarians they appeal to.

welcome

Submitted on March 26th, 2008 by JackTanner

Mike .. welcome to the Libertarian Party .. members of any party do not agree on everything .. thanks for your efforts during the Democratic primary .. Jack Tanner, LP Treasurer, Florida and Lee County

 

http://LPF.org

http://LeeLibertarians.org

http://LeeSoilAndWaterConservationDistrict.com

 

 

Yes, but when you

Submitted on March 26th, 2008 by insaniac

Yes, but when you fundamentally disagree on things, then why join the party? Mike Gravel is in favour of universal health care.. that is a FUNDAMENTAL disagreement with the LP's philosophy. Let's not kid ourselves.. there aren't any Libertarian socialists in this Libertarian Party. The LP is a party full of anarcho-capitalists / minarchists.

Bottom Line

Submitted on April 2nd, 2008 by cuzimray

People are finally reaching the conclusion that a 2 party government isn't substantial for out "melting pot" and that it also breeds corruption. Based on the premise "when life gives you lemons", those with the lemons must come together to fight against those planting the seeds. Fundamentaly, Gravel and the Libs are not so different, it is smaller details that make them seem diverse. Smaller government, the I.M.C. , and so forth are on the collective agenda. There are tinier issues that clash, but that is the beauty of the libertarians, where all voices of support are heard and tried. There are hundreds of Libertarian candidates that contradict each other's views and platforms, but they all have the same FUNDAMENTAL reasoning for standing under the Lib umbrella.  As far as anarcho-capitalists, I would love to see no income tax just because I am a citizen and allow individuals to start businesses where the "good 'ol boy" system currently shuts them out. Then defending minarchists, I will look no further that our Constitution and Bill of Rights; both written to defend the right to live freely and do what we feel is appropriate with out own lives. These principals are all on Mr. Gravel's agenda and are the reason he is a much more attractive candidate that the other hood-ornaments that are garnering your attention.

 

CURMUDGEONS AND ICONOCLASTS UNITE!- it is time.

Maybe so...

Submitted on March 26th, 2008 by DebbieKat

But I think all of us can pretty much agree that the Democratic party is worthless now. Personally, I think I identify more with the Greens, but I am really closely aligned with Gravel's viewpoints and libertarian leanings. It could be that we need a new party, but for now, I'm happy to vote Libertarian this time around. :-)

 

Yay Mike!!!

Yes, the Democratic party is

Submitted on March 27th, 2008 by insaniac

Yes, the Democratic party is worthless. However, there is no way Gravel will be nominated leader for the LP. I'd be very surprised if he was or even nominated as the running mate. 90% of the party members would probably throw their copies of 'The Road to Serfdom' at him

OBAMA

Submitted on April 2nd, 2008 by mykyle

Obama 2008!!!!! YES WE CAN!!!! YES WE CAN!!!

OBAMA

Submitted on April 2nd, 2008 by parisd

OBAMA, no he cant, now leave this site and quit trolling. We dont come on your site to mess around, dont come on this one.

I am no stranger to sarcasm, but

Submitted on April 2nd, 2008 by cuzimray

are you kidding me?

 

CURMUDGEONS AND ICONOCLASTS UNITE!