Libertarians and Liberals (a.k.a. Greens and Socialists): A Proposal

Recently, I found a bit of inspiration from Ron Paul and other libertarian Republicans. What they've done is gotten elected to government as Republicans, while maintaining libertarian/minarchist records and beliefs.

I believe that our current electoral system is deliberately designed to only allow Republicans and Democrats to win national elections and dominate state elections. As such, it is impossible to win as a libertarian or Green/Socialist (economic liberal). The only open socialist in Congress is Senator Bernie Sanders, who gets elected as an Independent who backs Democrats.

So here's my proposal:

Libertarians, swarm the GOP. Run as Republicans. Keep your libertarian beliefs, but sell them as friendly to the GOP establishment. Tickle the establishment if necessary. Once elected, go hardcore libertarian policy. Get the people to trust you and then show them why your libertarian policies will work.

Greens/socialists (economic liberals), swarm the Democratic Party. Your job is a little easier, as Democratic voters are very positive on liberal economics.

Both sides: WORK TOGETHER once elected! As a coalition, we can outnumber the plutocrats and change the laws to allow our alternative parties to win elections.

This strategy is the best way to get libertarian and economic liberal policies to the forefront.

 

I have considered this policy of going in stealth...it seems to be the only way since the Republicans hate small government.

 

But be careful when fighting the monster, as you might turn into itself. Instead, I think that the third parties need to unite together, and instead of supporting the Dems or Reps, support each other. Get together, and make a party that rivals them. Might not be big, but adding 1 a lot of times, comes out to be a big number.

 

And most Democrats hate economic liberalism.

And it wouldn't be forever. We could run as our respective parties once we get the laws changed to give all parties equal voice and chance.

 

This is a good idea, too.

 

Well, I guess we could agree (only) on individual liberties...

 

Well, I guess we could agree (only) on individual liberties...

 

Yeah. I don't think any of the third parties care about winning elections, just getting that magical number of votes so they can recieve federal funding.

 

I dunno I would care about winning because I hate Democrats and Republicans that much.

 

We have dreams of aspiring that high, but it's better to think of it in baby steps. Makes it easier to manage.

 

The only thing that all of us could agree on are individual liberties insofar as the body person, not "things", so I'm not sure how this would work. Libertarians believe fully in the non-aggression principle which is the bedrock to the belief in individual liberties, but that also means economic liberty and freedom which greens do not believe in.

Socialists do not believe in the non-aggression principle, so I doubt this alliance would take...although I do like the numbers.

 

I think the best way for it to work, is just to compromise as much as possible. I have my doubts it will work, but the sight of two politicans, from different ends of the political spectrum compromising, will be a sight for sore eyes, espcially now.

 

Libertarian socialism is voluntary, so I don't see why it would be opposed to the non-agression principle.

 

I disagree that greens and socialists don't believe in the non-aggression principle. The way I see it, pollution is aggression, and aggression is required for vast amounts of private property.

 

How about we simply vote in an amendment to abolish the two party system, and allow unlimited parties, and then threaten to vote out any governor that does not ratify it in the next election. We could start a campaign bashing anyone who is against it as partisan scum who hate democracy.

 

Don't ask impossibles. First gain presence, later demand for winning. Don't ask to win when even there is no representation. That is impossible. And more in a country with no tradition in voting third parties.

Imagine i a country like Spain where is the multipartidism is more present than in USA, is near impossible(for now) to end with the bipartidism, however every year is weaker, is really strong. Imagine how hard is to end with bipartidism in a country with no tradition of multipartidism or third/fourth options, and with a system that benefits the big parties that also have more money and power.

So first, try to obtain representantion, that would be a great advance.

 

The non-aggression principle is an illusion. That does not exist. And Libertarians defend some kind of aggression, the corporation's aggression because they benefit the corporations, they won't attack any corporation, they won't make weaker their power...

The non-aggression principle is a great idea, but impossible when the worker class is being assaulted all the time, with many ways, with all kind of menaces...(there is no needing in use direct violence, the violence can be presented in many ways)

And other users have mentioned other aggressions caused by the system.

And about that socialists/greens not believe in the non-aggression principle is false. They believe on it, they are peaceful, and more as one user said about the Libertarian Socialism or better said Anarchists.

 

Libertarian socialism is voluntary but the type of socialism that the Greens espouse is not voluntary--at least, not from what I've read.

 

I'm not aware of the Greens espousing socialism...social democracy, but not socialism.

 

Well, I'm a Jeffersonian agrarian-borderline primativist so I don't see how any voluntary society based off of nonaggression would mean "vast amounts of private property" or pollution. Each would care for themselves and their own and any sharing or contributions would be voluntary and not arbitrary, forced, or a set amount. Pollution is a by-product of having "things" that you think you need, but in reality you don't.

 

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Green_Party_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm

 

Explain how you would seize control without force.

 

I already explained you, I won't repeat myself when the argumentation is recent. And you considered that argumentation as force, however there was no violence, much less violence than the used by the capitalist system.

PS: And I remember you, that the ones that use the violence normally are the state and the corporations, not the workers. The repression comes from a side: Corporations and state.

 

Huh. Interesting.

 

Because I don't understand it.

Having read both Marx and Lenin, I know that this is intended to be a violent (if necessary) revolution, as well as, one of education. The "education" part will last another 500 years because it is contrary to evolution as it ignores the capacity of humans in the face of perceived scarcity.

No one gives up ownership voluntarily or they would have done it by now, so it must be seized.

If the workers would acquired their own land, their own plants, buy their own equipment, pay for their own energy, create cooperatives, and then boycott those "capitalist" corporations that's one thing, but I've yet to hear "workers" talk of building, caretaking, etc the infrastructure. It's always using words like "seize".

Now, I think big corps are top to bottom evil and helmed by mondo dicks, so I support local as much as possible and those things that are hand-crafted. I don't appreciate hearing that my neighbors who scrimped saved, etc to start their business are included in this with a wide brush. They worked their business and their sweat got them to where they are now (hiring others). Those others they've hired didn't work 16 hour days to build it.

So that's my quandary. I agree that Goldman Sachs are evil, reprehensible people. Their actions show this. My Muslim baker friends...not so much.