New Libertarian Platform - Need Your Opinion!!!!
Chasmo
<rickwi...@scramsoftware.vallnet.com> wrote:
>One of the identity problems that the LP currently faces is that it just
>doesn't inspire much enthusiam in people. The basic message of "Let's return
>to the Constitution's roots" is a very good one. But most people either
>assume that it would be a step backward, or assume that if it got corrupted
>once, it will get corrupted again.
Rick;
As someone long frustrated with the typical Demo/GOP choices, but
fairly new to organized Libertarianism, I might offer some insight
into the non-Libert's views into the party.
Many who don't know better indentify Libertarianism with anarchy. In
their minds the removal of key regulations would mark a return to an
every-man-for-himself state in which one constantly has to guard him
or herself and family against all forms of robbery, scams, price
gouging, environmental obliteration, etc.
I DO know better, but I've always had similar concerns about
Libertarianism's ability to keep corporations, trusts, and public
utilities from taking the final steps to completely enslaving us
financially. I don't buy into the idea that if government were
suddenly lifted from the back of big business that companies would
immediately start behaving fairly and ethically in appreciation of
their new freedoms.
In my strange and personal Utopia, I've always viewed the Federal
government as a body that would restrict itself solely to governing
those elements in society that are too large and powerful for local
governments (or even better--individuals) to deal with.
Or even more idealistically, that the act that created corporations in
the first place would be repealed as a failed experiment, putting
responsibility for business actions with individuals rather than a
faceless corporate body.
If our society substantially deregulated business, I'm sure it would
be only a matter of time until citizens began forming action groups to
combat unfair business practices. Sooner or later those action groups
would seek more power and combine into something that would probably
resemble (at least in aim) the elements of the Federal government that
now legislate and execute business regulations.
In short, I would trust individual Americans to rule themselves freely
and fairly, even with only three 8 1/2 x 11 pages worth of law, but I
will never trust a corporate entity. By taking the names and faces out
of business, corporations daily get away with crimes that we as
individuals would be jailed for including fraud, racketeering and
bribery. My concern has always been that reducing government
regulation without addressing big business is risky at best.
Just my thoughts.
Rick Williams
doesn't inspire much enthusiam in people. The basic message of "Let's return
to the Constitution's roots" is a very good one. But most people either
assume that it would be a step backward, or assume that if it got corrupted
adherence to the Constitution - the problem is that this period in human
history, the era of the 'nation-state', is ending and a new system is needed
to replace it. Can the Libertarian Party take the leadership position now
and help ensure that our future is one of freedom?
Have any of you read "The Sovereign Individual : How
to Survive and Thrive During the Collapse of the Welfare State",
by James Dale Davidson and William Rees-Mogg? This book
describes the transition from the fading Industrial Age into the
Information Age, and describes in great detail how and why the
current system of nation-states will ultimately give way to a
new era. One of the most serious problems of the transition is
getting rid of the government as it is today. That is why I propose
that we call a Constitutional Convention and put in place the
legal framework of a system in which individuals are free,
private individuals, able to keep what they earn. It is too bad
that the so-called Reform Party doesn't actually want Reform. At
present, there is no candidate for President in 2000 who
proposes any change at all. We need thinking people in
every state to help organize and gain ballot access. Please have a look
at my complete platform at the Web address listed below, and then contact me
at rickwi...@scramsoftware.vallnet.com.
Thanks,
Rick Williams
http://www.scramsoftware.vallnet.com/rickman/rickforpresident2000.htm
Ronin
Chasmo wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 19:06:11 -0600, "Rick Williams"
> <rickwi...@scramsoftware.vallnet.com> wrote:
>
> >One of the identity problems that the LP currently faces is that it just
> >doesn't inspire much enthusiam in people.
No creed. Confused values. Emphasis on pragmatism. Some utopian concepts. Failed
political strategy. Political strategies similar to the opposition's tactics.
And more.... Surprised the people are uninspired?!
> The basic message of "Let's return
> >to the Constitution's roots" is a very good one.
One prob is the LP insists on supporting the US Constitution. (aka; Big C) The
Big C is the problem .... not the solution.
> But most people either
> >assume that it would be a step backward,
No assumption required: Just a knowledge of US and World History. A knowledge of
basic human nature and then apply some common sense.
> or assume that if it got corrupted
> >once, it will get corrupted again.
No corruption of the Big C has taken place. It was *designed* to establish a
"merchant state." (AKA; Corporate Oligarchy.) It worked. The Big C is the
problem ... not the solution.
Ronin.
> Rick;
>
> As someone long frustrated with the typical Demo/GOP choices, but
> fairly new to organized Libertarianism, I might offer some insight
> into the non-Libert's views into the party.
Always glad to chat with LPers. Unfortunately most (particularly ranking
members) have resorted to initiating insults and/or ignoring my attempts to
question and learn.
> Many who don't know better indentify Libertarianism with anarchy.
Arguable. But another indication of how confusing the LP message is.
> In
> their minds the removal of key regulations would mark a return to an
> every-man-for-himself state in which one constantly has to guard him
> or herself and family against all forms of robbery, scams, price
> gouging, environmental obliteration, etc.
Exactly. The LP assumes private agencies will take the place of govt.
"watchdogs." They cite the AMA as an example. A ridiculous example! The AMA is
responsible for covering up medical malfeasance and misfeasance at every
opportunity. The AMA's prime directives are to limit competition and protect the
membership.
We *must* have some kind of agency empowered to investigate and report on
business practices, product quality and content, as well as false and deceptive
marketing practices.
True libertarians (little "l,") mostly agree that a Public Service agency
designed to provide these services and also perform the same kind of services in
re other Public Servants is desirable.
The few, very few, watchdog groups that exists do not have a uniform creed or
methodology. Their info is generally expensive and not necessarily timely. Among
other probs. We propose a Data Base be created. Much like an internet website.
Accessible to all on a membership basis.
> I DO know better, but I've always had similar concerns about
> Libertarianism's ability to keep corporations, trusts, and public
> utilities from taking the final steps to completely enslaving us
> financially.
The LP refuses to acknowledge the fact that we live in a Corporate Oligarchy.
The LP promotes unencumbered Capitalism. Tantamount to establishing a Supreme
Corporate Oligarchy.
Where now there are some checks on Corporate crime (few and far between, but
better than none) the LP would remove all restrictions. This would NOT be a
major problem if the LP would advocate some kind of oversight.
Notice that the LP is mum on the Corporate Entity Status issue? Hmmmmm.
The LP is suspect and needs radical change.
> I don't buy into the idea that if government were
> suddenly lifted from the back of big business that companies would
> immediately start behaving fairly and ethically in appreciation of
> their new freedoms.
The Capitalist Creed: Maximize Profits By Any Means Necessary. No mention or
morals and ethics.
The Capitalist equivalent of moral and ethical conduct is, simply, to: Maximize
Profits By Any Means Necessary.
> In my strange and personal Utopia,
Utopia is NOT an option.
> I've always viewed the Federal
> government as a body that would restrict itself solely to governing
> those elements in society that are too large and powerful for local
> governments (or even better--individuals) to deal with.
The govt.'s duties are limited to providing services needed to secure our rights
which are best managed collectively and require the use of force. Ie; National
Defense.
> Or even more idealistically,
Utopia is NOT an option.
> that the act that created corporations in
> the first place would be repealed as a failed experiment,
Strikes terror into the hearts of ranking LPers..... <lol>
> putting
> responsibility for business actions with individuals rather than a
> faceless corporate body.
Heretic! The Capitalist Church will see to it that you burn in hell.... <more
lol>
> If our society substantially deregulated business,
It should. The only "regulation" (domestic trade) needed is to enforce
libertarian Law as defined by the libertarian Guiding Principles.
> I'm sure it would
> be only a matter of time until citizens began forming action groups to
> combat unfair business practices.
More of the same. Assumes facts not in evidence.
> Sooner or later those action groups
> would seek more power and combine into something that would probably
> resemble (at least in aim) the elements of the Federal government that
> now legislate and execute business regulations.
You mean like the AMA..... ROTFLMAO! Let the people organize these groups. Like
today's groups. They do some good.
The police and judiciary are bound by Law to prosecute deception (fraud) and
other business related crimes. Establishing a, let's call it ... Ombudsmen's
Office, for this purpose is consistent with libertarian principles and Police
authority.
> In short, I would trust individual Americans to rule themselves freely
> and fairly,
Not a chance.
> even with only three 8 1/2 x 11 pages worth of law,
ONE page: The libertarian Guiding Principles. Bye, bye the Bar, bye to Latin and
other "legalese" meant to deceive the public and aggrandize lawyers. Bye to
frivolous and rampant litigation. Bye ambulance chasers. Etc.
We propose changing the present justice system from an adversarial process to a
cooperative process.
> but I
> will never trust a corporate entity.
Good!
> By taking the names and faces out
> of business, corporations daily get away with crimes that we as
> individuals would be jailed for including fraud, racketeering and
> bribery. My concern has always been that reducing government
> regulation without addressing big business is risky at best.
You are on the right track.
> Just my thoughts.
Thanks for sharing them with us. Stay in touch.
Ronin.
Robert Michael Alexander / T.D.C.
>>On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 19:06:11 -0600, "Rick Williams"
>><rickwi...@scramsoftware.vallnet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>One of the identity problems that the LP currently faces is that it just
>>>doesn't inspire much enthusiam in people. The basic message of "Let's return
>>>to the Constitution's roots" is a very good one. But most people either
>>>assume that it would be a step backward, or assume that if it got corrupted
>>>once, it will get corrupted again.
I think it will turn around when People are educated... they learn
what power they have and how they have been cheated and lied to...
I don't feel that eliminating the government will be effective.. it
will hurt us worse... It simply needs a face lift and those that don't
want to conform to truth and justice or those that have proven they
are anti-Constitutional are kicked-out, and when their replacement
proves they are STARTING to do the same thing, they get kicked-out
>>
>>Rick;
>>
>>As someone long frustrated with the typical Demo/GOP choices, but
>>fairly new to organized Libertarianism, I might offer some insight
>>into the non-Libert's views into the party.
>>
>>Many who don't know better indentify Libertarianism with anarchy. In
>>their minds the removal of key regulations would mark a return to an
>>every-man-for-himself state in which one constantly has to guard him
>>or herself and family against all forms of robbery, scams, price
>>gouging, environmental obliteration, etc.
>>
>>I DO know better, but I've always had similar concerns about
>>Libertarianism's ability to keep corporations, trusts, and public
>>utilities from taking the final steps to completely enslaving us
>>financially. I don't buy into the idea that if government were
>>suddenly lifted from the back of big business that companies would
>>immediately start behaving fairly and ethically in appreciation of
>>their new freedoms.
>>
>>In my strange and personal Utopia, I've always viewed the Federal
>>government as a body that would restrict itself solely to governing
>>those elements in society that are too large and powerful for local
>>governments (or even better--individuals) to deal with.
>>
>>Or even more idealistically, that the act that created corporations in
>>the first place would be repealed as a failed experiment, putting
>>responsibility for business actions with individuals rather than a
>>faceless corporate body.
>>
>>If our society substantially deregulated business, I'm sure it would
>>be only a matter of time until citizens began forming action groups to
>>combat unfair business practices. Sooner or later those action groups
>>would seek more power and combine into something that would probably
>>resemble (at least in aim) the elements of the Federal government that
>>now legislate and execute business regulations.
>>
>>In short, I would trust individual Americans to rule themselves freely
>>and fairly, even with only three 8 1/2 x 11 pages worth of law, but I
>>will never trust a corporate entity. By taking the names and faces out
>>of business, corporations daily get away with crimes that we as
>>individuals would be jailed for including fraud, racketeering and
>>bribery. My concern has always been that reducing government
>>regulation without addressing big business is risky at best.
>>
>>Just my thoughts.
>>