08 Nov 20
@metal-brain saidI'm not an anarchist, so I'm not sure what they are thinking. I think anarchy ends with warlords and grizzly bears. But they assure us this is their goal - take control and dismantle.
Seriously? You think once they control government they will destroy what they finally run?
Why go through all that trouble to control something just to give it up?
A few of them cheered how Trump seemed to be destroying things - they saw this as a positive sign. But I think Trump was simply a bumbling dictator wannabe - with a CEO mindset, that seemed more likely.
Jo Jorgensen's running mate, Spike Cohen, billed himself as an anarchist. It was a turn-off for me.
08 Nov 20
@no1marauder saidBut the economy is not all they are interested in is it? I would imagine that they are socially libertarian as well or they shouldn’t really be masquerading as libertarian.
Biden would have won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College if all those who voted for the right wing Libertarian Party had voted for Trump.
Their platform is extremely laissez faire and in synch with the far right on economic issues.
Given that they may have been split between both parties enough to cancel out their impact on the POTUS decision.
@kevcvs57 saidLibertarians as a rule don't think the government should be doing anything to the economy.
But the economy is not all they are interested in is it? I would imagine that they are socially libertarian as well or they shouldn’t really be masquerading as libertarian.
Given that they may have been split between both parties enough to cancel out their impact on the POTUS decision.
My list of what government should do includes justice, defense, maintaining public space, and last-resort charity so no one dies of hunger or exposure. These are things the free market does not provide.
Drug wars are unfair, unnecessary and have been manipulated to attack poor people. Endless foreign wars just feed the defense industry. Bailouts reward poor business practices and delay constructive re-purposing. Tax breaks are crony-capitalist.
Both left and right have steadfastly supported all these policies - for their supporters. Libertarians don't want them for anyone.
08 Nov 20
@spruce112358 said"Jo Jorgensen's running mate, Spike Cohen, billed himself as an anarchist."
I'm not an anarchist, so I'm not sure what they are thinking. I think anarchy ends with warlords and grizzly bears. But they assure us this is their goal - take control and dismantle.
A few of them cheered how Trump seemed to be destroying things - they saw this as a positive sign. But I think Trump was simply a bumbling dictator wannabe - with a CEO mindset, that see ...[text shortened]...
Jo Jorgensen's running mate, Spike Cohen, billed himself as an anarchist. It was a turn-off for me.
What is your source of information?
08 Nov 20
@no1marauder saidI hoped for 2 million. pie in the sky, she did very very good.
Jorgensen so far has 1,728,353 votes. https://www.google.com/search?q=2020+presidential+election+results&oq=2020+&aqs=chrome.1.69i59l2j69i57j69i59j0i131i433i457j69i60l3.10757j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (hit the "Show More" tab under Biden's and Trump's national totals)
You can check my math regarding the State votes here: https://results.decisiondeskhq.com/
As I p ...[text shortened]... Howie Hawkins has only 348,000 votes so far, a fraction of Jill Stein's 1,457,218 received in 2016.
@spruce112358 saidActually he billed himself (when not making bad jokes) as an "anarcho-capitalist" which is an extreme right wing philosophy having no resemblance to traditional anarchism (which is hostile to any type of hierarchy and rejects capitalism as an oppressive system). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
I'm not an anarchist, so I'm not sure what they are thinking. I think anarchy ends with warlords and grizzly bears. But they assure us this is their goal - take control and dismantle.
A few of them cheered how Trump seemed to be destroying things - they saw this as a positive sign. But I think Trump was simply a bumbling dictator wannabe - with a CEO mindset, that see ...[text shortened]...
Jo Jorgensen's running mate, Spike Cohen, billed himself as an anarchist. It was a turn-off for me.
" anarchists support personal property (defined in terms of possession and use, i.e. mutualist usufruct)[14][15] and oppose capital concentration, interest, monopoly, private ownership of productive property such as the means of production (capital, land and the means of labor), profit, rent, usury and wage slavery which are viewed as inherent to capitalism.[16][17] Anarchism's emphasis on anti-capitalism, egalitarianism and for the extension of community and individuality sets it apart from anarcho-capitalism and other types of economic libertarianism.[18][19][20][21][22] Anarcho-capitalists are seen by most anarchist schools of thought which reject the notion of capitalism, hierarchies and private property as fraudulent and an oxymoron.[23][24][25][26][27][28] The anti-capitalism of classical anarchism has remained prominent within contemporary anarchism.[29]"
08 Nov 20
@spruce112358 saidYou’d still have a fight on your hands regarding who pays for communal infrastructure and the basic defence requirements, schools etc
Libertarians as a rule don't think the government should be doing anything to the economy.
My list of what government should do includes justice, defense, maintaining public space, and last-resort charity so no one dies of hunger or exposure. These are things the free market does not provide.
Drug wars are unfair, unnecessary and have been manipulated to attack poo ...[text shortened]... fastly supported all these policies - for their supporters. Libertarians don't want them for anyone.
Even if you could figure that out there would be a split between liaise faire enthusiasts and social libertarians, not two of the group thinks that usually meet for a picnic.
08 Nov 20
@Duchess64
Yes,, Nader was a much bigger spoiler to Gore, no doubt. Jorgensen did not affect the outcome here
09 Nov 20
@metal-brain saidSitting through >8 hrs of the online Libertarian convention, mainly. It was pretty brutal. Spike's nomination was seen as throwing a bone to the Mises Caucus and the anarcho-capitalists (anarchists for short).
"Jo Jorgensen's running mate, Spike Cohen, billed himself as an anarchist."
What is your source of information?
@no1marauder saidI know. Anarchists in the 1920's-30's were different (e.g. Emma Goldman).
Actually he billed himself (when not making bad jokes) as an "anarcho-capitalist" which is an extreme right wing philosophy having no resemblance to traditional anarchism (which is hostile to any type of hierarchy and rejects capitalism as an oppressive system). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
" anarchists support personal property (defined in terms of ...[text shortened]... he anti-capitalism of classical anarchism has remained prominent within contemporary anarchism.[29]"
In 1974, 3 years after the Libertarian Party was formed, minarchists and anarcho-capitalists were wasting time over ideological infighting - so the Dallas Accord was born. In brief, it said that for the moment the two groups would stop criticizing each other and work together. Only once the goal of getting from huge government to small government was realized would the debate over "should government be abolished?" recommence.
But lately "our" anarchists (anarcho-capitalists) have become impatient. They want to go straight for the jugular - and their rallying cry is "taxation is theft!" Which pisses off a lot of minarchists like me. Nobody gets that argument unless they are playing Libertarian inside baseball - and anyway I don't agree with it. Taxation is more like a membership fee.
Left-anarchists and right-anarchists I guess agree that there should be no government, but I can't give you a complete analysis of any other differences.
09 Nov 20
@spruce112358
good post, spruce.
I can't imagine "no government" working. Afghanistan, as an example, is run by drug lords
in areas where the government can't reach. No government = mob rule IMO
09 Nov 20
@earl-of-trumps saidAnarchists, more properly defined as "libertarian socialists", don't believe in "no government" but in no hierarchy.
@spruce112358
good post, spruce.
I can't imagine "no government" working. Afghanistan, as an example, is run by drug lords
in areas where the government can't reach. No government = mob rule IMO
Ideally, local communities would make political decisions based on direct democracy with monthly meetings of all adults each having one vote. Has to larger areas:
"Since not all issues are local, the neighbourhood and community assemblies will also elect mandated and recallable delegates to the larger-scale units of self-government in order to address issues affecting larger areas, such as urban districts, the municipality as a whole, the county, the bioregion, and ultimately the entire planet. Thus the assemblies will confederate at several levels in order to develop and coordinate common policies to deal with common problems."
"As in the economic federation of syndicates, the lower levels will control the higher, thus eliminating the current pre-emptive powers of centralised government hierarchies. Delegates to higher-level coordinating councils or conferences will be instructed, at every level of confederation, by the assemblies they represent, on how to deal with any issue. These instructions will be binding, committing delegates to a framework of policies within which they must act and providing for their recall and the nullification of their decisions if they fail to carry out their mandates. Delegates may be selected by election and/or sortition (random selection by lot, as for jury duty).
Most anarchists recognize that there will be a need for "public officials" with delegated "powers" within the social confederation. However, "powers" is not the best word to describe their activities, because their work is essentially administrative in nature -- for example, an individual may be elected to look into alternative power supplies for a community and report back on what he or she discovers. Or one may be elected to overlook the installation of a selected power supply. Because such a person is an elected delegate of the community, he or she is a "public official" in the broadest sense of the word, essentially an agent of the local community who is controlled by, and accountable to, that community.
Therefore, such "officials" are unlike politicians. This is for two reasons. Firstly, they cannot make policy decisions on behalf of those who elected them, and so they do not have governmental power over those who elected them. Taking the example of alternative power supplies, the elected "official" would present findings to the body by which he or she had been mandated. These findings are not a law which the electors are required to follow, but a series of suggestions and information from which they chose what they think is best. By this method the "officials" remain the servants of the public and are not given power to make decisions for people. In addition, these "officials" will be rotated frequently to prevent a professionalization of politics and the problem of politicians being largely on their own once elected."
"Thus the people will have the final word on policy, which is the essence of self-government, and each citizen will have his or her turn to participate in the coordination of public affairs. In other words, the "legislative branch" of self-government will be the people themselves organized in their community assemblies and their confederal coordinating councils, with the "executive branch" (public officials) limited to implementing policy formulated by the legislative branch, that is, by the people."
http://www.spunk.org/library/intro/faq/sp001547/secI5.html#seci51
Obviously, that is not a workable given present day global realities, but that does not mean its broad principles can't be incorporated into our political system.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147485
09 Nov 20
@no1marauder saidTrump has only been in two elections...he won the first, the second hasnt been decided yet.
In the spirit of all the HRC fans who blamed Jill Stein for Hillary's loss because, you know, everybody who voted for the Green Party should have been morally bound to vote for a Democrat instead, what about 2020 and the right wing laissez faire Libertarian Party?
IF the voters who cast their ballots for the economically conservative Jo Jorgensen had instead cast their ...[text shortened]... shudder!) second term.
So Earl the avowed "libertarian" here, did your candidate elect Joe Biden?
09 Nov 20
@mott-the-hoople saidhttps://results.decisiondeskhq.com/
Trump has only been in two elections...he won the first, the second hasnt been decided yet.