It doesn't. First, both parties filed the right paperwork. Second, that law *only applies to third parties*, since everyone is all equal in Texas or something.
Because he's the candidate from the white-supremacist party who think the problem with the current economic meltdown in the USA is *too many* restrictions against fraudulent and dangerous investments.
Umm... white supremacist party? Are you confusing him with the Republicans?
Libertarians believe that the government spends far too much time and money trying to control things it has no business (and clearly no ability) to control. It's an oversimplification to say they just think there are "too many restrictions" on investments. There are good restrictions and bad, obviously no good ones have been in place the past few years. Some are more extreme, but every party has its nutcases. (Again, see Republican Party.)
The Libertarian Party are extreme monopolistic capitalists. Their version of "freedom" has nothing to do with the right to be free, and everything to do with the right to be free to oppress others.
"libertarian", as a term, can be used in far, far more situations than "I Got Mine So Fuck You All" Libertarian.
Nope. I'm calling them white supremacist because of their exclusively white membership, their pro-slavery positions, and their anti-civil-rights positions.
Oh, and that the Pres candidate and the VP candidate have sung paeans to the wisdom and career of Jesse Helms and insisted that Obama would never have gotten into Harvard if he wasn't a, and I quote, "nigger", respectively.
It's an oversimplification to say they just think there are "too many restrictions" on investments
And yet, that is the position of the Libertarian Party. Their platform says, outright, that there should be no restrictions of any sort on this kind of commerce, or on monopolies.
It's true that's how their fringe behaves and what it's been like in the past, but Bob Barr doesn't subscribe to that philosophy. He's a former Republican congressman who just became frustrated with the lack of fiscal responsibility (i.e., huge debts, unnecessary wars, growing government, out of control spending while cutting taxes) in the R party. At the Libertarian convention, he was up against several "extreme capitalists" but beat them out because most people in the party would like to see it go in a more centrist direction.
The basic tenets are responsible economics (low taxes, low spending, merit-based funding), and liberal social policies (ending the war on drugs, legalizing prostitution, ending the failed gun policies of the past few decades, etc.) It's not something everyone agrees with, but it's far from the simplistic "extreme monopolistic capitalists" definition.
And you would of course have sources to back this up? They are most certainly not exclusively white or pro-slavery in this country. (Maybe you grow them different up there in Canadia.)
Anti-civil-rights is harder to debunk, because the definition is fuzzy. Since they favor leaving people to their own thoughts and lives, and to remove favoritism and subsidies, naturally this means they also oppose "hate crime" legislation, or anything else that proposes legislating the way people live and think. Also, they oppose things like affirmative action and government programs that target specific minority groups because that is, by definition, inequal treatment. Some call this anti-civil-rights when, if anything, it promotes equal treatment.
And if you've got evidence that Barr and/or Root referred to Obama as a nigger, I'd love to see it. I highly doubt it.
From the LP's website: 2.6 Monopolies and Corporations
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.
It's a bit different from your, again, oversimplification.
He's the candidate from one of the two white supremacist parties. He's simply in the in-rational-denial party, and used to be in the in-emotional-denial party.
We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals ... Industries should be governed by free markets. - as opposed to government regulation.
Their position is that you should be free to enter into a contract, and the contract will be enforceable under civil law, because to them, the government may not regulate civil matters, and so the maxim of caveat emptor reigns supreme; Also that contracts of adhesion - non-negotiable form contracts where the issuing party specifies the terms - ought to be treated the same as negotiated contracts. As it stands now, the issuing party is responsible for ensuring the contract is equitable and if the contract is deemed by a court to be unfair, misleading, or unenforceable - it is voided. The libertarians wish to render such an ability of the government void. Also, they wish to privatise police forces and health care, including ambulance service.
For instance, they feel that a corporation ought to be free to hire Blackwater for their corporate security, and that Blackwater ought to be free to carry any weapons they deem fit, and ought to be able to detain individuals - and that the private individual's recourse would be a civil tort action, and not recourse to criminal charges.
The last time the Libertarian fantasy stood a chance on this continent - a truly free market and people's lives being governed by contracts over-and-above common law - we had seven-year-term indentured servitude, women being treated as their father or husband's property, and slavery.
They're not white supremacist, /per se/. They just happen to mostly be white supremacists, holding on to a fantasy of a governmental and legal model that made them and/or their ancestors supreme because they were white and / or male and /or powerful and / or rich. If they had their way, it wouldn't be a simple case of white supremacy - it would be a simple case of there being two classes in society: The ultra-billionaire aristocracy and the underclass. There would be no social mobility between the two and no governmental recourse for injustices - they would own the country, and/or the world.
Above and beyond that - the libertarian form of government -- even if they explicitly outlaw slavery -- is based on and requires the existence of a class of workers who are indentured servants or slaves. Currently those people are outsourced labour in third-world countries. If their governmental model were to take root here in the United States, there would be enclaves of indentured servants or slaves interspersed amongst the capitalist Green Zones - because food still has to be cooked, grocery stores still must be stocked, someone has to drive and unstop the toilet and haul the garbage. These people would be kept socially and economically immobile, and while in /principle/ are free to seek employment and life elsewhere, are realistically economically unable to break free of economic indenturedness.
Also: fuck debtor's prisons, and fuck the notion of families inheriting the father or parent's debt. That, too, reigned supreme when a libertarian form of government was rampant.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
theweaselking
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-17 11:15 pm (UTC)Damn Bob Barr for making me approve of something he did. And to paraphrase John Constantine, "If Bob Barr's a libertarian, then i'm a toast rack."
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-17 11:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-17 11:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-17 11:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-17 11:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-17 11:33 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-17 11:36 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-17 11:42 pm (UTC)Libertarians believe that the government spends far too much time and money trying to control things it has no business (and clearly no ability) to control. It's an oversimplification to say they just think there are "too many restrictions" on investments. There are good restrictions and bad, obviously no good ones have been in place the past few years. Some are more extreme, but every party has its nutcases. (Again, see Republican Party.)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-17 11:43 pm (UTC)So all libertarians are psychos? Interesting opinion.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-17 11:46 pm (UTC)Long answer: yyyeeeessss, Llliiibbbeeeerrrtttaaaarrriiiiaaannnnsss aaarrreee ffffuuuccckkkiinnggg nnnnuutttttsss....
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-17 11:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-17 11:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-17 11:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-17 11:55 pm (UTC)"libertarian", as a term, can be used in far, far more situations than "I Got Mine So Fuck You All" Libertarian.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-18 12:00 am (UTC)Oh, and that the Pres candidate and the VP candidate have sung paeans to the wisdom and career of Jesse Helms and insisted that Obama would never have gotten into Harvard if he wasn't a, and I quote, "nigger", respectively.
It's an oversimplification to say they just think there are "too many restrictions" on investments
And yet, that is the position of the Libertarian Party. Their platform says, outright, that there should be no restrictions of any sort on this kind of commerce, or on monopolies.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-18 12:08 am (UTC)The basic tenets are responsible economics (low taxes, low spending, merit-based funding), and liberal social policies (ending the war on drugs, legalizing prostitution, ending the failed gun policies of the past few decades, etc.) It's not something everyone agrees with, but it's far from the simplistic "extreme monopolistic capitalists" definition.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-18 12:12 am (UTC)I had to read the
storyURL to figure out who you were referring to. Thanks for narrowing it down, like, not at all.(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-18 12:21 am (UTC)Anti-civil-rights is harder to debunk, because the definition is fuzzy. Since they favor leaving people to their own thoughts and lives, and to remove favoritism and subsidies, naturally this means they also oppose "hate crime" legislation, or anything else that proposes legislating the way people live and think. Also, they oppose things like affirmative action and government programs that target specific minority groups because that is, by definition, inequal treatment. Some call this anti-civil-rights when, if anything, it promotes equal treatment.
And if you've got evidence that Barr and/or Root referred to Obama as a nigger, I'd love to see it. I highly doubt it.
From the LP's website:
2.6 Monopolies and Corporations
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.
It's a bit different from your, again, oversimplification.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-18 01:26 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-18 01:50 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-18 01:55 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-18 02:02 am (UTC)Their position is that you should be free to enter into a contract, and the contract will be enforceable under civil law, because to them, the government may not regulate civil matters, and so the maxim of caveat emptor reigns supreme; Also that contracts of adhesion - non-negotiable form contracts where the issuing party specifies the terms - ought to be treated the same as negotiated contracts. As it stands now, the issuing party is responsible for ensuring the contract is equitable and if the contract is deemed by a court to be unfair, misleading, or unenforceable - it is voided. The libertarians wish to render such an ability of the government void. Also, they wish to privatise police forces and health care, including ambulance service.
For instance, they feel that a corporation ought to be free to hire Blackwater for their corporate security, and that Blackwater ought to be free to carry any weapons they deem fit, and ought to be able to detain individuals - and that the private individual's recourse would be a civil tort action, and not recourse to criminal charges.
The last time the Libertarian fantasy stood a chance on this continent - a truly free market and people's lives being governed by contracts over-and-above common law - we had seven-year-term indentured servitude, women being treated as their father or husband's property, and slavery.
They're not white supremacist, /per se/. They just happen to mostly be white supremacists, holding on to a fantasy of a governmental and legal model that made them and/or their ancestors supreme because they were white and / or male and /or powerful and / or rich. If they had their way, it wouldn't be a simple case of white supremacy - it would be a simple case of there being two classes in society: The ultra-billionaire aristocracy and the underclass. There would be no social mobility between the two and no governmental recourse for injustices - they would own the country, and/or the world.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-18 02:53 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-18 02:55 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-09-18 02:59 am (UTC)