Third Party & Independents Archives

Well said David. Made us readers reflect on the Day in a much broader way. It is the nature of mankind to protect his tribe. Perhaps it comes from the inherent realization that there is strength in numbers. Maslow’s Hierarchy seems a generalized theory witnessed throughout the history of mankind. Reading further on Maslow, Wiki states; “Chilean economist and philosopher Manfred Max Neef has also argued that fundamental human needs are non-hierarchical, and are ontologically universal and invariant in nature - part of the condition of being human; poverty, he argues, is the result of any one of these needs being frustrated, denied or unfulfilled”. Man is a complex being. The self-actualized man can cross the hill to an adjoining tribe and do some horrible deeds. I would proclaim Jefferson at the top of Maslow’s pyramid yet he was a slaveholder to some degree. But boy could he wax eloquent on freedom and liberty.
I tend to see our very brightest from our best Universities as self-actualized people. They are very protective of their families and communities. Yet while serving as leaders of our country they are willing to sell off bits and pieces of the sage of our Government put in place by Jefferson and others. I can only imagine having to deal with having money and goods shoved at you every day. Over a couple of hundred years the bits and pieces add up. Jefferson, and others, clearly saw this and gave us advice and the means to deal with it. Further, I think it has something to do with ‘country boy goes to the city and goes wild’ or ‘out of sight, out of mind’, or worse yet, ‘when the cat’s away the mice will play’. Maybe those are to simple for excuses. Irregardless, Houston we have a problem! We can no longer TRUST our politicians to represent our interests in Government. What is the remedy to a situation where there is a lack of trust? You replace trust with ACCOUNTABILITY. How might that be accomplished?

Roy, thanks. Roy asked: “You replace trust with ACCOUNTABILITY. How might that be accomplished?”

I pondered that question for years. I arrived finally at a solution, implausible as it might seem, that was not new or original at all. It was the very prescription the Founding Fathers would have issued if alive today. 3 steps:

1) Voters unite around allegiance to the concept of accountability for politician results, not allegiance to a politician of one stripe or another. (This is the toughest of the 3 steps, today.)

2) These voters resolve to elect challengers to incumbents whose behavior in office has failed to live up to accountability for the results of politician’s actions in government. In other words, if the economy is faltering, if the nation is engaged in wrong headed foreign policies, if the security and prosperity of our children’s future is jeopardized by political actions or inaction, voters resolve to vote for these politician’s challengers instead of these politicians reelection.) This has the effect of putting the challengers on notice that the same will be expected of them when elected.

3) The last step is the simplest. Assess whether the election of challengers instead of incumbents results in improved governance. If so, reelection is in order. If not, voting for a new round of challengers is in order, until we arrive at that point where elected officials finally get it: the voters control elections based on the performance and effectiveness of politicians achieving the voter’s ends. (Not the wealthy donor special interests who care not a whit for the people’s agenda or goals.)

David,

It would be lovely if all voters were so altruistic.

Unfortunately voters, be they rich or poor, all seem to vote their own selfish self interests. We cannot even seem to agree on what is in our collective interests.
Americans seem to be more interested in “reality shows” than they are in reality, and if it’s on TV, it’s got to be true.
An undereducated, and uninformed populous is a very dangerous thing for this country as it tends to allow the status quo to prevail. This will be even worse for those that are merely surviving, and as we continue to see high dropout rates in the inner city more and more folks will make political decisions based from their hearts rather than from their heads.

Rocky, I see signs this is turning around. It is as true today as in the frontier days, survival depends upon being able to read the signs of the trail and environment, and the wise scout does not ignore these signs. This is why Obama is going to be the next president. He has observed the signs on the trail and has the wisdom to not ignore them.

Rocky, it is not altruism. It is survival pragmatism. Whether voters choose to survive or their demise, is always up to each individual voter. One of the positive signs is that those who seek demise at the polls are unlikely to show up to vote.

A lot of voters who don’t prefer Obama, because of what they know about him from the media or Party primaries, know even less about McCain. As they learn as much about McCain as Obama, the majority of them that choose to vote will move to Obama as the better of the two choices.

IMPEACH BUSH…

read this: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/bills/?billnum=H.RES.1258&congress=110&size=full

THEN WRITE TO YOUR REPs!!!!!!

Thanks angrymob, I am sure many will write to their Senators insisting they vote to pass this legislation to impeach Bush and Cheney. But, your comment is not on the topic of this article. Please comply with our rules for participation.

Thanks.

David,

You obviously have more faith in our fellow Americans than I do.
I have worked long and hard to achieve the level of cynicism displayed here before you, and I won’t be giving it up easy.

And, certainly not for mere signs.

Give me an election cycle or two to see if the American people can truly do the right thing.

Until then I can only do my part, then wait and observe.

David R.: I concur almost entirely with what you said in your article. I also agree with your evaluation of what the voters must do. I just don’t believe it is going to happen.

I prefer a different but nearly equally unobtainable solution for producing more accountability from our politicians. I believe that we need the ability to have referendum voting.

Some would argue that the people are not educated enough or not informed enough on policy matters to use the referendum to effect policy in a positive way and that their attempts to do so could be very harmful to our country. The only thing we have to evaluate this is public opinion polls.

Public opinion evaluated the projected positive predictions for the war and the occupation in Iraq with the negative aspects and concluded that the war and the occupation weren’t in our countries best interests. Some Republicans don’t believe that the people came to the right conclusion, I believe that they did.

The people listened to the Republicans solution for Social Security and overwhelming disagreed, prefering to shore up and strengthen S.S. I believe they came to the right decision.

Public opinion thinks that our government, our economy, our country is headed in the wrong direction and that we should change many of the policies that have led us in that direction. I believe that the people evaluated the situation, both from a personal and public point of view and came to the right decision.

Both the Democratic and Republican Parties have decided that the wholesale importation of low skilled, low wage immigrants is in the best interests of the country. Public opinion disagrees with that decision and I believe that they are right. IMO, the people would have accepted a slower introduction of immigrants done in accordance with our laws.

I believe that the public is better informed and smarter on many of the issues than some give them credit for. They may not know the right solutions to the problems that we face but, they know that the solutions being put forth by the politicians aren’t the right ones.

Referendum voting will force our politicians to exert the effort to convince us that some of their more controversial policy decisions are the right ones rather than tell us to trust them, they know what is best for us.

I have spent many hours on the websites of the candidates. I have no problem whatsoever in coming to the conclusion that Obama would be better than McCain. However, I believe it is in my best interest to vote for Nader and third party candidates. If Obama is elected, he and the Democrats in Congress will have an opportunity to convince me that it is in my best interest to support them in the future.

Rocky said: “I have worked long and hard to achieve the level of cynicism displayed here before you, and I won’t be giving it up easy.”

It shows, and I wouldn’t think of asking you to give it up on my say so. A health democracy needs supporters, skeptics, and a healthy switching places of each as circumstances change or governance fails.

“Until then I can only do my part, then wait and observe.”

That is an eminently wise position to assume until one’s skepticism has been relieved of its necessity.

jlw, thanks for the kudos.

Regarding referendum voting at the federal level, I just couldn’t disagree with you more. There are as many examples of the public polling the wrong way in history as right.

Civil Rights, women’s suffrage, public support for the Viet Nam War through to 1969, halting the Korean War at the 38th parallel, economic policy in the Roaring 1920’s, Prohibition, the Red Scare of the McCarthyism era, etc. etc. etc.

I believe in education. I believe educated folks tackling complex issues like regulation and legislation have a better chance of getting it right than the general public without education in the pertinent areas under review. Americans barely know the geography of the western hemisphere, let alone the world, and that is a foundational requirement for foreign policy.

The Founding Fathers debated direct democracy, and thank history they dropped it like a British piss pot. The best compromise between direct democracy and a republic, is the parliamentarian system. It is fraught with its own unique problems, making it, on balance, neither worse nor better than our own democratic republic.

David -

Nicely put. As the stepfather of two great kids, each of whom has spent many more years with me than with their birth father, I am always gratified by the warmth and generosity they show me. I stepped into a ready-made family, and it took me some time to really figure out my place - that was five years ago, and my six- and seven year-olds have genuinely accepted me as part of their family.

The funny thing is - and I never thought this would happen - I’ve turned out to be exactly the same parent that my father was to me. I’m a little strict about manners and dinnertime, but pretty lax on everything else. And I tell terrible, terrible, terrible jokes ALL THE TIME.

The kids love it now… but wait until they’re 13 and I’m telling the same godawful jokes in front of their goth friends!

Anyway, I got taken out for dinner last night. Our local, very good, steakhouse was the venue. I was treated to a 12oz Filet, appetizers, and my wife drove so I had a couple of beers.

I still paid for it, but it’s the thought that counts :)

To great dads indeed - may I hope to remain, or become one.

David,
A great reflection of our Forefathers and Ancestors in America. For why Grandfathers, Fathers, and Sons may not always see eye to eye on every subject, history has proven time and time again that when it comes to the survival of the Human Race. I cannot find a single time in Ancient or Modern History where the Common Sense of Family, Frtiends, and Neighbors have not won out over the Total Destruction of the Pure Logic and Reason of Man to build a Better World.

No, why I can understand Rockys’ relucantance to embrass the Political and Societal Winds of Change. Like you, I see that today a Son who can talk to his Father and Grandfather about issues that My Generation was told to be quite about.

So, good going Dads! And why not one myself, I hope that the sons borned today still have the same Common Sense and Truth to Conviction that the Founding Fathers of America did when they wrote the Founding Documents of America.

Jon Rice, telling terrible jokes was also my penchant with my young daughter. She is 17.5 now, and utterly and completely ignores her dad when it is clear he is about to tell another one. I am so proud of her learning ability, and she, so disappointed in mine :-)

Thanks Henry. Insight is a largely a matter of persistence. Most Dads get better with practice. There are no short cuts to Wisdom however. Even today, wisdom as found in our nation’s founders and drafters, is rare thing.

One of my great fears politically is that a wise man or woman will run for office, and never be recognized as such due to facial features, dress, affiliation, or accent. Such a loss is too great for so many to suffer.

David,
As Wisdom is gained by understanding I can see where a Father and Grandfather would be right not to yield to a 10-Year-Old Child’s Demands and Wishes. However, seeing that Mothers and Grandmothers have their day as well. I have to ask myself if the Sons of the Silver Spoons of the 70’s are ready to show the Sons of the Youth of the 60’s how to build a Better World than their Parents.

For why a Wise Human may seek office and never achieve it due to the media and other forces of Man & Nature, I do realize that trying to figure out why probably needs to be left to the Spirit of Man.

I would say we are acting somewhat according to Maslow’s theory in that we are brothers of a tribe facing a common enemy. We are working to ensure the survival of our Federal Republic for future generations. I’m 68 years old and could coast on in, if I chose to. I’m way cynical of our three bodies of power. I truly fear we don’t have a lot of time to implement needed reform. Before Bush leaves office he could conceivably sign away much of our sovereignty. If our borders remain open another five or ten years where would our economy be? I see 40-50M illegal to amnesty voters as a big backdoor to a North American Union. David, you recommend voters educating themselves, scrutinizing candidates, and holding officials accountable at the ballot box. I support that position. I’m working hard towards the same goal. I saw how readily George Allen (R-Va) was ousted in 06. I’m way too cynical to vote for Obama, or McCain, or even Ron Paul. I will give Nader my vote in hopes he can impede the oligarchy for a few years. jlw you recommend a referendum by the people as a means to invoke accountability. I support your position as well. Rocky, this fence sitting, I dunno. The wolf is pretty much at the door. Maybe I can convince you to support my recommendation. I believe we need a strong third party, but it has to be something more than just another third party. Look at the American Reform Party right now. They are main stream political but seem to have hit a brick wall in building members. I propose a third party whereby it’s members are expected to hold their party’s elected officials accountable. If a Senator strays from the Party’s agenda or is perceived to be acting unethically, a few complaints by x percent of the members triggers an automatic vote requirement by the membership. If the Senator fails to garner 2/3rds of the membership vote, he/she is rejected from the Party. He/she would continue to serve out their term but would no longer have the support of a Party for future political endeavors. For example: Senator Dodd and the other Senator that received low interest loans. They might or might not survive a mandatory vote. I would expect the outcome would be based largely on how the voting members perceive the past performance of these Senators. That is how I would replace trust with accountability. Rocky, could you support such a Party? So, I support the effort for referendum voting, and the effort to educate, scrutinize, and elect the best candidates, along with supporting a third party effort with built in accountability. I reach out to support all venues that might result in putting accountability into the political system. Well, the fact they we are here, discussing these issues, seems somewhat self-actualizing. And Maslow did realize that each individual had his limits. I hope I’m not taking this out of context; “Self-actualization — a concept Maslow attributed to Kurt Goldstein, one of his mentors — is the instinctual need of humans to make the most of their abilities and to strive to be the best they can. Working toward fulfilling our potential, toward becoming all that we are capable of becoming.” Surely, there must be other ways of holding our officials accountable. Let’s hope we hear more ideas and I hope I can support them as well.

Roy Ellis, excellent commentary.

The problem with 3rd Parties is they officially or unofficially create Party platforms, which means taking a stand on the issues. Most folks who find a third Party’s platform more amendable to their drother’s, have to fight the upstream current that comes with 3rd Party’s, lacking sufficient base resource to actually compete for office at the federal level against the Duopoly Party.

Greens and Libertarians have been struggling with this for years and years. Greens have a slight advantage of being global, but, it doesn’t help them much here in the U.S. at the federal level, or in local districts dominated by Duopoly majority.

If I believed a Third Party could be an actual contender instead of policy pusher during federal elections, I would found a Third Party post haste. Skepticism has taken its toll on me, I guess.

Thanks David,

I agree whole heartedly with your reply. Let’s pursue a 3rd party a bit further. There needs to be a reform vehicle in place for the 2012 election. I see a 3rd party as the most expeditious path. To gain broad support it must provide something beyond the standard niche or single interest party. I believe people no longer trust politicians and are looking for some way to hold politicians accountable, to some degree, for their actions. Founding a party with built in accountability would ring true with people. We should concentrate way more on providing a MEANS for ‘clean’ candidates to compete and less on an agenda or platform. We should set an agenda/platform that is very main stream. From the gitgo we should caution/educate interested members against far out or extreme issues. I truly believe Ron Paul is not electable as many of his expressed views are seen as excessive change. Let’s get a good number of people elected before we start dismantling the IRS or closing down the CIA, etc. A very main stream agenda with political reform made possible through accountability. Further, building this Party would take place on the Internet. Once a respectable number of people have registered their interest, we would begin voting on issues: Name of the Party, what a member registration form would look like, where a banking account should be established, then on to platform agenda, etc. Even before founding the Party, people would participate and vote on every issue along the way. Takes some time but easily doable over the Internet. I envision a Party with few paid employees with candidate’s chosen from sources such as retiring baby boomers rather than ex-politicians or people seeking a career in politics. I believe that there is now sufficient free media coverage through such venues as CNN, NPR, Talk-Radio, Blogposts, and many local broadcasters to allow a 3rd party candidate to effectively compete. Well, I have more suggestions if you wish to hear them. Rocky, are you still on the fence?

There needs to be a reform vehicle in place for the 2012 election.

I guess the question here is what do you mean by reform? Your view of reform or the mainstream view of reform? Do they match? What happens if they don’t, you start a 4th party?

To gain broad support it must provide something beyond the standard niche or single interest party.

The two largest 3rd parties, the Libertarians and the Greens, are not niche or single interest parties.

I believe people no longer trust politicians and are looking for some way to hold politicians accountable, to some degree, for their actions.

No, I disagree completely. If this were the case, why would such an overwhelming number of them be getting re-elected?

Founding a party with built in accountability would ring true with people.

We have that system in place already, it’s called the democratic system where we, the people, get together every few years and vote on how they are doing. That we re-elect them at such large numbers tells them (and me) that the majority of people approve of the way they are doing their jobs.

We should set an agenda/platform that is very main stream.

What agenda/platform would that be?

I truly believe Ron Paul is not electable as many of his expressed views are seen as excessive change.

So, you want reform, change, principles. But not TOO much, that’s unreasonable!

Let’s get a good number of people elected before we start dismantling the IRS or closing down the CIA, etc.

Electing one person won’t do that. Electing Ron Paul as president, alone, would not bring about what he advocates. But by being up front about his views, and why he has them, a person can judge if that is the direction they would like the country to start going and then elect others that share his views. Then, once in a large enough of a majority, those things could happen. Basically what you are suggesting.

A mainstream president would bring about more of the same, especially if they are not allowed to discuss radical or ‘strange’ views. By definition, we would be right where we are now and have been for decades.

Further, building this Party would take place on the Internet.

Of course, even the major parties are now ‘using the internet’. But, be careful, the majority of vocal internet users are anti-government and therefore not mainstream. Some label them as ‘anarchists’. They would support someone like, on say Ron Paul. And you’ve stated this is not the direction you want to go.

Once a respectable number of people have registered their interest, we would begin voting on issues: Name of the Party, what a member registration form would look like, where a banking account should be established, then on to platform agenda, etc. Even before founding the Party, people would participate and vote on every issue along the way. Takes some time but easily doable over the Internet. I envision a Party with few paid employees with candidate’s chosen from sources such as retiring baby boomers rather than ex-politicians or people seeking a career in politics.

Exactly how is this different than the Libertarian and Green parties?

I believe that there is now sufficient free media coverage through such venues as CNN, NPR, Talk-Radio, Blogposts, and many local broadcasters to allow a 3rd party candidate to effectively compete. Well, I have more suggestions if you wish to hear them.

Hahahahahahahaha

Wow, that one was a funny one. BTW, were you able to cope with the wide wall to wall coverage of the Libertarian Party national convention a few weeks ago? It took over the airwaves for four full days, what will all of that free coverage that the largest 3rd party gets…

I’m sorry Roy, but there are so many obstacles put into place by the duopoly we have now that it is so difficult to get a 3rd party into national power. Between a lack of media coverage, exclusion from the debates and the ballot access restrictions that are put into place to protect the current main party dominance, even a 3rd party as large as the Libertarians have trouble getting on the ballots in all 50 states, and we are the only party to have gotten on the ballot in over 45 states for 6 election cycles in a row in the last 100 years… The Green Party, easily the 4th largest party, is routinely on 25-35. Nowhere near enough to be considered acceptable for the debates or get enough electoral votes…

Maybe you should look into the Boston Tea Party?

According to the website of the Boston Tea Party, the presidential candidate this year will be Charles Jay, and the vice-presidential candidate will be Thomas L. Knapp. The choice was made on the internet. 37 voters participated. The vote for president was Jay 28, Robert Milnes 5, “none of the above” 9. The total number of votes cast for president is higher than the number of voters, because a voter could vote for more than one candidate.

Charles Jay was the presidential candidate of the Personal Choice Party in 2004. He was only on the ballot in Utah, and he polled 946 votes.

Rhinehold, GET OUT OF MY MIND~! Your stealing my every reply, Man!!! :-)

Rhinehold, stop PILING on! I demur from debate today.
Welll, off the top of my head the word Liberarian smacks of liberal, and the word green smacks of Greenpeace or CO2. I’ll go check these parties out and if I find they are niche, I’ll be back. Wonder what Maslow would think of this?? Somebody better get over to the east side of Rome, the fires gettin bigger!!

Rhinehold,
Why you make a good point about what reform, I do believe that is the flaw with the current political parties in America. However, may I suggest a political party platform based on the Ideology of “We the People” of the 20th Century using the Gift of Nature given to us by our Ancestors of the 19th Century to show the Children of the 21st Century how to build a Better World for “We the People” of the 22nd Century.

In this manner, one would not be limited by the Status Quo of our Grandparents and Parents Ideology and be able to address the Issues facing America. For from the economy to energy independence of the Individual the challenges that face the citizens under the age of 30 are many. I do believe that through the two party political system in America the proper Political and Societal Debate can be formed between My Peers of the 70’s; 80’s; and 90’s and the Children of the 21st Century to address the concerns held by the Hierarchy of Society and My Elders.

Because why it is possible to build a Better World than the Youth of the 60’s and Silver Spoons of the 70’s, what and how that world will look like to the Future Humans on Earth and Above still only exists in the Spirit of Man & Nature does it not?

Roy, I agree with you that the Green Party’s in the world are more socialist leaning, and the Libertarian Party attracts more anarchist leaning supporters. Neither appeals much to the moderate centrists. They prefer the GOP and Dem’s.

But, Rhinehold is quite correct, the institutions of the Duopoly Party have rigged the election system, finance system, communications systems, to preserve their Duopoly Party from incursion by any others, through the FEC, FCC, CPD, etc.

Rhinehold et al,

Well, half an hour ago I thought I was done for the day. However, after educating myself on the two major and supposedly main stream parties, I felt compelled to release some energy through the ivory teclas.

Green Party

Attached in some way to an International Green Party.
Some 77 typewritten pages of platform. I glossed over at about page 5.
Something for everybody, give Hawaii back
Disarm ourselves in nuclear and space
Agree to agree with the world criminal court
Make us subservient to the UN command

Scare me to death!!!

Took me about 5 mins to pull that out. AND, AND (Rhinehold, raise my voice a little here please) in their entire website I saw nothing regarding ACCOUNTABILITY. Surely, after 200 + years of having politicians live outside the law we can form a party with built-in accountability for elected officials. I will never support a political organization that does not provide some sort of redress for the electorate.

Libertarian Party

“The Libertarian Party is for all who don’t want to push other people around and don’t want to be pushed around themselves. Live and let live is the Libertarian way.

Our vision is for a world in which all individuals can freely exercise the natural right of sole dominion over their own lives, liberty and property by building a political party that elects Libertarians to public office, and moving public policy in a libertarian direction.
Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market” ((Go Bobby Go – you GOP in the ruff))

Side stepping abortion issue - one good move for them.

“We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution.

. We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.”
((Whoops !! there is that term again, Go Bobby Go))

To think that after 200 + years of robber barron economy a political party would try to rise to power with a “get government out of business”
Well, I quit on that one. Again, took me about 5 minutes.

Saw nothing regarding ethics in government. Don’t believe I saw anything on Campaign Finance Reform. AND, AND (Rhinehold, raise my voice a little here please) in their entire website I saw nothing regarding ACCOUNTABILITY. Surely, after 200 + years of having politicians live outside the law we can form a party with built-in accountability for elected officials. I will never support a political organization that does not provide some sort of redress for the electorate.

I am amazed out of my mind that those two parties have gotten as far as they are. I mean that is frightening stuff to read, let alone get involved with. Wake up Maslow, wake up, you’ve got to hear this!!

If the Libertarian platform is “frightening stuff to read,” then you better not read the Constitution, it will scare the sh*t out of you.

Well, I quit on that one. Again, took me about 5 minutes.

Yeah, why bother wasting time when you can just use preconceived notions and partisanship to mock an ideal?

Frightening stuff to read? *sigh*

This is the Libertarian view. Tell me what about it you disagree with.

“People should be free to live their lives as they see fit unless they infringe upon another’s right to the same”. From the Party Platform:

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Now, that is the ideal of the Libertarian party. What part of that do you disagree with? Everything else is semantics, isn’t it, once you agree, or disagree, with that sentiment.

I am amazed out of my mind that those two parties have gotten as far as they are. I mean that is frightening stuff to read, let alone get involved with.

BTW, what about the right to bear arms or not having your property taken from you by force and given to another person do you disagree with? And no, the Libertarian Party does not side-step abortion, the government has no right to regulate what one person does with their own body. That extends, of course, to prostitution, suicide, drugs, gambling, etc.

As for ACCOUNTABILITY

We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.

With a fully free and open election (which we have a quasi-free and open election system now) the accountability is there, built into the process.

What you want is for the government to monitor and regulate itself. It is an invalid construct. Government should be monitoring and regulating businesses and individuals who violate the freedoms of others, not trying to take over those roles and then police themselves because it is a flawed, but highly sought-after, condition, one that for some reason they have been able to get away with for nearly a century…

You are going to make me give you the speech on how Government is Force, right? Well, to avoid boring everyone else, check out The Real Power of Government that I wrote some time ago. A quick preview:

There has been mention lately in the comments on these blog pages about what the government should be doing, can do and is constitutionally allowed to do. But underneath those discussions we need to understand what makes government different from other organizations. Private organizations like the Red Cross, the NAACP, MADD, the Salvation Army, Angie’s List and the ACLU can all perform functions the citizens of a regional area need. Most things the government can do can be performed by similar privately ran organizations, so what is it that the government can do that these organizations can’t? Simply put, the government is the only body that we have legally given the power of force over its citizens.

Rhinehold, I will show you what is wrong with the following: “We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.”

What of the Meth Lab set up in one’s townhome, sharing a common wall on either side of two neighbors? The Meth Lab owner isn’t forcing the neighbors to do anything. But, the Meth Lab owner is subjecting their neighbors to explosion risks, and their children indirectly to the risks of dangerous drug usage, presuming they are making Meth for sale on the streets to ANY willing buyers.

There would never have been a Tennessee Valley Authority, an Interstate Highway System, or NASA space program under Libertarian rule of the sort quoted above. One individual, just one, under Libertarian philosophy would be sufficient to prevent the nation from expanding its horizons in the directions mentioned here which benefited the nation, and millions and millions of Americans.

That is what’s wrong with Libertarian philosophy. It absolutely opposes democracy, the will of the majority, and defends the right of one individual to halt efforts shared by the majority. There are things that the private sector cannot or will not undertake but which serve posterity and the vast majority of Americans. Libertarian philosophy would defend the one individual who would protest, and we all know, there simply isn’t a single action of any government that would not be opposed by some individuals, regardless of how beneficial and necessary such government action would be for the nation, the people as a whole, and posterity.

David, couldn’t agree with you more. Also, you state: “But, Rhinehold is quite correct, the institutions of the Duopoly Party have rigged the election system, finance system, communications systems, to preserve their Duopoly Party from incursion by any others, through the FEC, FCC, CPD, etc.” Duopoly converts nicely to POLITICIANS. Left to act on their own, in a good old boys network, with little or no accountability, excluding physical, criminal crime, they have managed to take down this Late Great USA. And, to say or infer that we can’t do anything about it, other than blog ourselves to death, is, dare I say it, defeatist….

What about Paul in the lion’s den?

What about Pat’s “give me liberty or give me death”?

What about Tarzan kicking butt in the jungle?

What about my grandkids and great grandkids future? There I go, waxing Manslow again.

Regarding accountability through the ballot box: Rhinehold states: “We have that system in place already, it’s called the democratic system where we, the people, get together every few years and vote on how they are doing. That we re-elect them at such large numbers tells them (and me) that the majority of people approve of the way they are doing their jobs.” Let’s get down on this issue of accountability. Maybe it’s a matter of the degree of accountability we are having a hard time with. I agree, that to a very mild, weak degree, the election cycle process does offer some medium of accountability. I refer to the axing of the Va. Senator because he used a discriminatory word referencing a bystander. And, it didn’t help that he was a Bush brownie. Some reasons for the weakness of this system.
An incident occurs today and five years later, at election time, who remembers? The fires have cooled.
Just watch the Congress rally to support and produce evidence that Dodd did the right thing.
His Party loyals will spend a bunch of money to clean up his image with the public.
You can bet ex-Senator Allen is still on the GOP payroll. You can bet they will run him back in there when the time is right.
There is no cumulative meter running on these guys. It’s a one crime at a time process.

I could go on but you get the idea.

Now, consider a Party whereby:
Each member signs to acknowledge that a member who holds a position of local, state or federal elected, appointed, or ambassadorship must not stray far from the Party’s agenda/platform. and must retain a 2/3rds majority support of the Party’s electorate or they will be rejected from the Party.

Each member has signed a statement that they are encouraged to submit a pro-forma complaint via the Internet, about another member (member being –) if they perceive a problem with their respective politicians performance.

Each complaint received is posted in the appropriate place on the Party’s website and registered, automatically and electronically (hands off) in a software accumulator for that specific politician.

When x percent of the voting electorate have registered complaints against a person the accumulator turns from green to Oh, Oh, red. Automatically, emails go out to the electorate stating they have x weeks to submit their vote, pro-forma via the Internet. Votes come in and are automatically calculated and posted.. If 2/3rds of the votes are favorable the politician survives. Less than 2/3rds and he/she is automatically rejected from the Party. (I’ll bet George Allen wouldn’t like that). This politician has been digitally put out of the Party forever, with no further Party support for any future political endeavors he/she may wish to undertake.

The electorate takes note of what has happened. So does the press. So does the DemReps, Greens, etc. So do the citizens across the country. So do the politicians.

That is putting accountability into the system. A politician may screw up once and get nailed or he may survive through a couple of more screw-ups. But, with an electorate who want accountability, who joined this Party to get accountability and who are trained from the gitgo in how to deliver accountability the wayward politician will not long survive.

Different degrees of accountability, perhaps. I would choose the latter. We should found a 3rd Party with built in accountability, focusing on building a platform for candidates to compete in the electoral process. Once we have gained some political clout we can start wars, do away the CIA, FBI, FAA, FDA or give Hawaii back to the Hawaiin’s I don’t care. First things first.… (I thought I deserved a little jest at the end there)

What of the Meth Lab set up in one’s townhome, sharing a common wall on either side of two neighbors? The Meth Lab owner isn’t forcing the neighbors to do anything. But, the Meth Lab owner is subjecting their neighbors to explosion risks, and their children indirectly to the risks of dangerous drug usage, presuming they are making Meth for sale on the streets to ANY willing buyers.

I’m pretty sure that putting another person in harm’s way is definattely a violation of their right to live their lives as they choose, doesn’t it? Driving impaired, shooting a gun into the air, etc are all behaviors that violate that principle and laws should be made against it. Owning a gun, using meth, etc are not violations. Actions by a person no matter the influences that they are under, if they harm or put in harm’s way another IS a violation. Agree or no?

So, I don’t think your point is very valid, if you understand the philosophy…

There would never have been a Tennessee Valley Authority, an Interstate Highway System, or NASA space program under Libertarian rule of the sort quoted above.

I disagree completely. It would not have been funded through forced funding, but that doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t have existed. You are taking a logical leap without making the intermediate steps. Let’s say the majority of people want NASA. We provide the ability to fund it on the tax forms that people fill out and agree to a monthly reoccuring fee from their checking accounts to pay for it. If the majority really do want it then it will get funded at an over 50% rate, wouldn’t it? AND, those who run into financial hardships for one reason or another can pause payment while they fix their own personal issues instead of having it taken before they see it and having to deal with their personal issues after the fact and much less effectively.

That is what’s wrong with Libertarian philosophy. It absolutely opposes democracy, the will of the majority, and defends the right of one individual to halt efforts shared by the majority.

Exactly wrong. The majority can always do what it wants to do because it is the majority. What you are advocating, and what you think Democracy is, is using force to ensure the will of the majority is enforced upon the minority against their will. I don’t really think Democracy was about that… Perhaps we just disagree on what Democracy is?

It also completely misstates what I stated. When it comes to issues that affect more than one person, then the rule of the majority is in force. One person cannot violate that, it can only invalidate a solution that violates the belief that people should be free to live their lives as long as they are not violating another’s right to the same.

If you can come up with a valid example, let’s talk. Unfortunately you haven’t done so yet, or you just do not understand the philosophy…

For example, the majority says that we are going to fund an international interstate system and fund it by placing a usage tax on all gasoline that is purchased. There is no violation of the philosphy in that regard and anyone who chooses not to use their automobile on those roads are free not to pay for it. No one is being forced… Perfect example of a use of the government to lay infrastructure and have it paid for by those who use it.

Now, the majority coming along and saying that a person can’t listen to 2 Live Crew in the privacy of their own homes is a CLEAR violation of that philosphy. And an invalid use of government.

Roy,

So basically, you want to create third party for the party, devoid of individual thought outside of the party…

I think we have a couple of them already…

Sorry, but you think the Libertarians are a bunch of kooks and then you propose this?

It is too much to expect a society to vote out evil politicians, but they are supposed to be able to accurately internet vote them out of the party. And it isn’t supposed to cause those politicians to become so afraid of doing anything that they can never vote their on conscience OR make the wrong person upset for fear of having a mass-mailing put out with all kinds of lies to ping a red condition and lose his access to the party for good…

I’m sorry, Roy, but if we can’t be expected to use the accountability we already have, how are more involed methods supposed to work again? And how does this solve ANYTHING? What is it supposed to solve again/

Rhinehold, don’t drag me off my barstool. I wanna talk about accountability.

You state:

“As for ACCOUNTABILITY
We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives”

If money wasn’t declared as free speech by the courts we would not have the dysfunctional Government of today. I admit to being barely literate but I can’t find anything in your statement that smacks of accountability. “we
support”, “we call”, “we oppose”. I’ve got to have something more than that to hang my hat on.

You stated:

“What you want is for the government to monitor and regulate itself. It is an invalid construct. Government should be monitoring and regulating businesses and individuals who violate the freedoms of others, not trying to take over those roles and then police themselves because it is a flawed, but highly sought-after, condition, one that for some reason they have been able to get away with for nearly a century””…

I read this one backwards and forwards and fourteen times, but to no avail. Please quote something from my post that implies or infers that I want government to monitor and regulate itself. If we get anymore Government self regulation we will soon become a small serfdom under Nepal. I want a non-government electorate, as in We The People, to hold politicians accountable through a non-government political party. If I could achieve that I really wouldn’t care much what Government did. I could go back to vacationing, wood working, drinking beer, etc. knowing I wouldn’t have to worry about Government because I would know the electorate is out there HOLDING POLITICIANS ACCOUNTABLE. I admit I would have to click on my Party’s website once in a while to see if anybody is up for rejection.

Roy,

We already have this system in place. I don’t know how else to explain it to you…

I am going to have to give up on this one, I don’t see the difference in what you are suggesting over what we already have, other than making it more difficult to effectivly vote someone out and easier to exploit the system for political gain against an opponent (just release a bunch of innuendo and false accusations with a mass-mailing and away your opponent goes).

We have a representative government for a reason, so that we can elect people to go do the people’s work and we review them every so often. This allows them to use their individual brains and judgement on issues and we can decide on how good or bad they did when their review comes up, unless they are way over the line, in which case they can be recalled/impeached.

What you are suggesting is not only chaotic but panders to the immediate gratification and fickleness of the citizenry, effectively creating roaming mobs carrying virtual pitchforks and torches…

Rhinehold replies: “I’m pretty sure that putting another person in harm’s way is definattely a violation of their right to live their lives as they choose, doesn’t it?”

Thank you for that slippery slope reply. And how do you stand on Oil and Coal industries buying up patents on alternative and environmentally safer and healthier energy sources and technologies? By your reply, they should not have that right as preventing safer alternatives poses risks to the entire population without their consent.

Thank you for playing.

Rhinehold said, referring : “I disagree completely. It would not have been funded through forced funding, but that doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t have existed.”

Well, I won’t educate you on the economics of such projects as having been well beyond the reach of any private sector operation. When you make completely and totally unresearched and ignorant comments like this, it suffices to simply let you go on your merry way.

Rhinehold said: “The majority can always do what it wants to do because it is the majority.”

Ahh…, then you argue that Libertarians defend the policies of whichever majority party holds power in the Congress and White House, as these representatives are the manifest will of the majority of voters. Then what place is there for a Libertarian Party save for nudging the agenda at election time?

You favor the majority’s will to retain eminent domain laws, to prevent the sale and distribution of goods and products the majority of the public choose to outlaw, and majority’s prevailing in continuing Social safety nets like Social Security and Medicare. These are all majority decisions, Rhinehold. Yet, you oppose them.

Your comment above stands in DIRECT contradiction to your previous Libertarian arguments AGAINST such majority decisions.

How can you maintain two diametrically opposed opinions and not be a raving hypocrite, Rhinehold? Answer, you can’t.

ok, ok, … . …(fade to dark)

The virtues listed as self actualization are common to many writings through out history. Read I Corinthians 13 or the Proverbs in the Bible for instance. I agree with them except for the possibility of morality being self produced. Morality cannot be produced in a mind but can only be acknowledged when a concept is presented. Even the actualized person’s list begs us and the writer’s peers as authorities to acknowledge that he has hit on the right virtues. Where the standards originated is an area a person with a belief in scientism doesn’t want to address therefore the misplaced emphasis on self. A person who produces morals in his own mind without outside authority would be better defined as a sociopath.
Concerning the election, I think we need media reform. The sound bite should be eliminated by allowing slander charges if the entire paragraph around a pointed sentence isn’t given. It would give equal time without regulating topics. Campaigning should be confined to six months before an election or primary. This would total a year for presidential elections. What candidates are saying right now is irrelevant until the primaries when the party platform is agreed on. They will have to adjust their rhetoric afterward. The amount and areas will be interesting.

Kruser, I agree entirely with your caution regarding morality’s source. Self-actualized persons are by necessity, those whose education is built upon the shoulders of previous learned and respected teachers.

I also respect and agree with the intent of your recommendations for media and election reform. There is an organization called Why Tuesday which is working hard to get elections moved to weekends and deprive politicians of their deliberate attempt to minimize voter participation by conducting elections on the day of the week the maximum number of workers in America show up for work in their workplaces.

David,

I’m not sure why you are being obtuse, but I am going to assume it is because of your lack of understanding of the libertarian principle. You seem to have made up your own mind on what it is and then attempt to project that onto what I say.

Well, I won’t educate you on the economics of such projects as having been well beyond the reach of any private sector operation.

And I won’t educate you on the ignorance of your statement and misunderstanding of the only real difference between public and private sectors.

Thank you for that slippery slope reply.

And thank you for ignoring how your ‘example’ was completely invalid to begin with and demonstrating that you don’t have a clue what is being discussed.

By your reply, they should not have that right as preventing safer alternatives poses risks to the entire population without their consent.

Wrong. Making assumptions and straw men again are we? Seems to be a bad habit…

There is also a difference between direct harm and indirect harm that you don’t seem to be able to grasp. Again, as I stated before, everything else is semantics, as you are displaying now. Those can be quibbled about and discussed, as they should. But they do not lead to wholesale rejection of the philosophies.

“The majority can always do what it wants to do because it is the majority.”

Ahh…, then you argue that Libertarians defend the policies of whichever majority party holds power in the Congress and White House, as these representatives are the manifest will of the majority of voters. Then what place is there for a Libertarian Party save for nudging the agenda at election time?

The Libertarian Party is there to ensure that the decisions of the Majority do not violate the rights of the individual as stated in the opening philosphy. Duh.

Again, is the obtuseness deliberate or a result of misunderstanding?

Rhinehold said: “There is also a difference between direct harm and indirect harm that you don’t seem to be able to grasp.”

When you are the one harmed, is there a difference? I don’t think so.

As for the rest of your retort, you don’t respond to the specifics I offered, so, there is nothing to debate. You reject any criticism I offer of the Libertarian Party and philosophy in a knee jerk reaction, which is itself evidence of a prejudice, rather than a critical and objective assessment of the critique offered.

Your party nor its philosophy is perfect. If that were not true, your Party would be in line for the Majority governing this country. Unless and until your Party members educate themselves as to the flaws and weaknesses in their Party platform and philosophy, they will remain a voice in the wilderness crying foul against the individual’s right to usurp majority run government, which itself is flawed and deserving of critique.

I understand, I used to be a Party groupee, too! Then I got an education worth something in terms of critical analysis and rational deliberation, which finds no value in responding to specific examples of critique with comments, like: “is the obtuseness deliberate or a result of misunderstanding?”

The tried and true fallback of a less than capable debater is to critique the messenger rather than their message. Been taking lessons from Karl Rove? You do it as well as any of his students in the GOP.

You guys continually bitch and moan about how hard it is to get a third party on the balllot.

All it takes is money. The duopoly isn’t stopping you from raising money is it?
So it’s hard to raise money, quit whining and go out there and do it.
If there was a viable candidate from any third party, be it Liberatarian, Green, or Bull Moose, that could raise the money, the media would take notice.
Where is that viable candidate that you guys claim all of the people want, and why aren’t you guys out there raising the money to make sure he gets elected?

You don’t have to be rich like Perot, you just have to have a message that actually resonates with the voters.

Where is that message?

Rocky, Nader’s got the message. But, he has lost faith of the people that he can be elected. Hence, his campaign this year is going to be the least contributed to, and followed of any of his previous bids.

Most folks who previously supported Nader, are putting their bets on Obama this year. Obama will not make many of the changes Nader would, and that is a disappointment. But, then Nader can’t win or compete for the grassroots money. So, previous Nader supporters are settling for the best that is achievable.

It is a reasoned, reality oriented approach. The best approach available given the realities of the situation. Ron Paul was in the same category as Nader in terms of an appealing message, and lack of ability to instill confidence in winning.

Though many independents will vote for Obama and perhaps challenger Democrats for Congress to end the grid lock in the Senate, it would be a monumentally stupid assumption by Democrats to think they have won these voters over.

They haven’t. Democrats just find themselves in the enviable position of being most likely horse to win based on a mood for change and his altering our course in Iraq, and shifting the focus of the current administration on corporate latitude, toward the needs of the people to anticipate a better future than the one created by the GOP.

David,

If Nader had a message that truly resonated, or if he was able to articulate that message, and was able to raise money, he would already have been President. His problems seem to be his communication skills.
That, and he has the charisma of a head of cabbage.

This goes back to my faith, or lack of it, in the American electorate. We apparently aren’t listening. If we were we wouldn’t be in the mess we are in.

Bush has little or no charisma, and is only of moderate intelligence as we have seen in his inability to put 2 sentences together off script, but he has had an uncanny ability to raise money, going all the way back to his failed businesses.

I actually blame Bill Clinton for where we are today. His peccadilloes are the reason that Bush was able to exploit the religious right. I’m not saying Clinton wasn’t a good President, it’s just that the right used him as an example to scare the bejeezus out of their base.

Americans don’t need a President they would feel comfortable sitting down to have a beer with.
We need a President that is capable of communicating with us, our friends, AND our enemies.
We need a President that has a sense of history, AND the brains to recognize when it applies.

In a country that gave us statesmen, we, the people, have been sold out to the highest bidder by our elected officials.
I don’t know if this will be turned around in my lifetime.

I can only hope.

“GET OUT OF MY MIND” Posted by: David R. Remer

A Dune reference from our Reverend Mother?

ohrealy, thanks for picking up on that. I leave those little gems around and almost no one ever picks them up. I know I have a sense of humor; no one else seems to get it, though :-) Or, if they do, they don’t encourage it. :-(

DRRemer, Frank Herbert is fading into the past for me. I gave up on Brian Herbert’s prequels a while ago. O’Daughertie is also a big fan.

Rocky, quite right. Nader has the message. He also has all the speaking style and gravitas of a pair of sleeping pills. The man is a consummate lawyer, and regrettably speaks to the public as if they were opposing attorneys. It just doesn’t work.

Nader’s ego prevents him from seeing where he could be of the greatest value to his cause, behind the scenes as a policy advisor to someone like Gore in 2000 or Obama in 2008. Of course, it is too late now. His presence on the Obama team would constitute a net liability instead of asset. I say this as a supporter of most of Nader’s positions, former Nader contributor, and voter.