A Third Party Would Rock!

Well, within the framework of the fake democracy, any vote is a wasted voted.

 

But its good to find out sooner rather than later. Sadly though, people have a very short memory.

 

This thread is actually about parties, which are in fact named. Or labeled if you prefer.

 

What would be a corporatist Tea Party position? I'm not sure I'm following.

As far as your link goes, I thought it was telling that it couldn't really define a "left libertarian." I can't either. I'm not sure it exists other as an oxymoron.

 

The neo cons will leave if they get the idea that they won't get their way. They were originally Democrats who started drifting over to the Republicans after the Democrats had their big crack up in 1968 and became anti defense and anti war. If the Rand wing of the GOP begins to dominate, they'll probably go back over to the Democrats.,

 

Less government regulation.
Less taxation to foster business.
"Let Them Die".

The Pauls on the other hand want less influence by the monied interests in government. Anti corporationist.

How's that?

Moi

 

Well notice I said "many" not all of the tea party are corporatist. The embracing of the citizens united without regard for the side effects. As well as Herman Cains tax everything plan would be two examples off the top of my head.

I am not a leftist libertarian so I can define what it is. The philosophy of Karl Marx describes far left libertarianism very well. Libertarianism is more of a social philosophy our economic policies are very much a matter of debate and our weak link IMO. Many social libertarians vote for democrats because they are more in line with their economic views. I can support the social views with no problem. The economic views since we are so far removed from capitalism it will be a long road of baby steps.

 

Oh, you know what would be better? A six party system. You could have a black party, an environmentalist party, a gay rights party, a statist party, and then the Democrats and Republicans.

Most people understand the coalition principle, and that groups do better when aligned together. I hope you're not in the same crowd as akphidelt2007, who just doesn't comprehend it.

 

I would love to see third parties, I don't care what actual side the party happens to be on. We need to get corrupt Democrats and Republicans out. It's no longer a two party system if both sides represent the same issues.

 

A third party would be fine if they were normal. But the third parties we get are either to the right of nut job conservatives or to the left of nut job liberals. There is no third party that represents the middle so it's a battle between two parties who are willing to be as normal as possible.

 

Why would you WANT a third party that 'represents the middle' of two heaps of dung?

 

Still nobody who can tell us what this "moderate, centrist" party's agenda would be and just how it differs from the Democrats.

 

Enough Moderate Centrist.
That is what passes for the RepubloCratic Party, both wings, Democrat and Republican.

We need a Third Party that advocates economic policies beneficial to the 99% and a
no nonsense Progressive Tax code.
We need a Third Party that advocates World Non Intervention while maintaining intelligence of threats to America.
We need a Third Party that would force the ten, "too big to fail" banks into divestiture.
No entity in American may be too big to fail. That is a threat to the nation's security.
We need a Third Party to speak to the lessening or our Constitutional rights to privacy in our affairs.

What we don't need is another Moderate Centrist Party that stands for nothing but corporate greed.
I do believe American voters would respond to a Party that stands for something.


Moi

 

What do you believe are beneficial economic policies? Why do you frame the question of economic policy around an "us vs. them" model? May that not be as misleading as your "Republocrats"? Do you have any evidence for your assumption that the economic interests of the elite and the rest are mutually antagonistic? Or are you parroting a theory at least as old as Marx's writing from the 1840s, enshrined in decades of union agitprop?

How do you reconcile non-intervention with "intelligence of threats to America"? Does not a genuine threat require some sort of intervention?

What specific benefits would follow the divestiture of the ten biggest banks? Do banks require a certain size in order to make loans and investments of a certain size? If it was hard to put together big loans and investments, what would the economic consequences be? Is there a good reason banks grow big?

Are you concerned that the government is now too big too fail? Was it always so? How do ordinary people benefit from big government? Suppose government went back to what it was in 1980, would anything bad happen?

If government controls more and more of our affairs, doesn't it need information to match? Have you considered that loss of privacy might be an inevitable consequence of loss of control? That perhaps shrinking government is the only way to recover privacy?

I agree that voters would respond to a party that stands for something. Perhaps that something is not the timeworn nostrums of Marxism we've heard all our lives and that are now retailed by the mainstream media, including progressive taxation and takeover of finance by the government, but a rediscovery of our national culture of Constitutional democracy, free market capitalism, and personal liberty before these things vanish entirely. For over a century, we've drifted by slow degrees away from what we once were and what made the country great. We're reaping what we've sown. Let a party stand for our founding values and I believe America would wake up.

 

So left libertarians want more government regulation and more taxation? What exactly is it that makes them libertarian then? It sounds like they want an expansive and intrusive State.

I don't know what policy you are referring to by "let them die."

 

Citizens United was a first amendment case. Citizens United wanted to show a Hillary movie on Direct TV within 90 days of the election and the FEC wouldn't allow it. So I take it that left libertarians are anti-freedom of speech?

I guess I'm not seeing the connection with the "9-9-9" plan is.

 

As I said I am not left anything I am a regular old libertarian with more moderate views on how to achieve power. Citizens united effected more than just the case in question.
http://www.sheldensays.com/corporationperson.htm

You do not see lowering corporate taxes while expanding the taxing power of the Feds even more as related? I could see eliminating the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax. Not expanding the power of the Feds even more just for a reduction in income tax for a few.

 

Not at all
Why rephrase other peoples' thoughts with such deviousness. Such a waste. Maybe you enjoy.
I notice that tactic a lot here.


The RepubloCrats have tilted the economic policies to where more wealth flow to those who don't need it but purchase influence.
No economic policy will be absolutely neutral. Taking that as a Given:
It is time to tilt economic policy back to the lowest rung of working folks.
The Pauls effect this by advocating cutting the monied influence in government.
Consider Pelosi and Feinstein, denizens of the Bay Area whose neighbors strongly opposed bombing Syria and how they supported the RepubloCratic position of bombing. Who do they represent? The Rich who Get Richer Off War ! The Pauls opposed the bombing first.


Moi

 

Unifier, who hasn't noticed how he shifts with the wind and puts on a new face.....TOO LATE, we've already seen all that we need to see and we all know that it isn't so easy for a zebra to change its stripes. If they'd ALL simply stick to their guns, God and heritiage that placed them in office, we'd be much better off. Instead, they wet their finger and test the direction of the changing winds and poll what other "possible" voters may want. WE are on their team so they shouldn't care what others who usually cheer against us think or want.

 

If you're a "regular old libertarian," then you are the first one I've met who opposed the Citizen's United decision. All libertarians I've known (I guess until now) are pro freedom of speech.

9-9-9 was the position of one candidate. I don't see that as a Tea Party Plan. Which Tea Party Republicans in Congress who are supporting that?

 

How did I rephrase your thoughts? Here is what you said:

So I responded:

If anything, you ought to be upset that I actually took what you wrote seriously, instead of rephrasing it to sound normal.

 

Or independent. Either one. The two big parties today are nothing but crips and bloods.

 

I am pro freedom of speech even Ron Paul said corporations are not people. I am fairly sure he would count as a libertarian. No reason for them to keep their names secret either.

I honestly do not know that much, except from appearances about the Tea Party. From the outside looking in they have distanced themselves from Ron Paul. I know Rand is a "member" Cruz seems to stand out but still do not know much about him. Rubio and some of the others it hard to tell from regular republicans except on issues like the ACA. I am curious to see what happens.

 

Dr. Paul did say that corporations are not people but he also said that individuals have freedom of speech and they don't lose that freedom when they join a group, or in this case, form a corporation.

 

Well...surprisingly, I understand that thought process perfectly. Seriously, I'll vote against ANY and all Republicans, because they're Republicans. I did vote for Obama twice, and he's disappointed me greatly, but nowhere near how badly a Republican would have disappointed me. Had we had their candidate for President in power now? Carte Blanche' for outsourcing corporate giants to go full steam ahead, for one. Republicans are all about the fat cat....NOBODY else. That's their bottom line, and I'll never accept it. Romney exemplified everything I despise about the GOP and made the choice easier than usual.