Political Theory

Re: Nader

macsnafu — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 02:39:06 GMT

wkmac:
Look, I'm not naive enough to think that Nader will be a Ron Paul or even a Bob Barr if you are so inclined, but given the fact that we all know the other 3 beauty queens still in this thing are pro-empire/pro-war/pro american hegemony and Ralph is not, I'll take Ralph's brand of warts if it means keeping the anti-empire/antiwar coalition together and if you present a well fashioned case, some of these Nader lefty types will at least begin to concede some arguments from us anti-staters as well.

I live in Oklahoma--it's highly unlikely that I'll have ANY presidential choice other than the D & R candidates. And they don't allow write-ins, even. I may have to 'undervote' again, like I did in 2004.

Re: Nader

Mark B. — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:01:07 GMT

As Ron Paul has just won his Congressional seat for another term, he is for all intents and purposes done as far as anything Presidential is concerned.

Re: Nader

shazam — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:20:25 GMT

ViennaSausage:
This November, regardless if Ron Paul is on the ballot or not, my vote will go to him. I will write him in if I have to. I would have never known about Mises if it wasn't for him.

Not to burst your bubble, but your Ron Paul vote will most likely not be counted unless he filed as a write-in candidate.

Re: Nader

wkmac — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:04:34 GMT

I'm not willing at this juncture to totally caste aside Nader although there is wide difference of ideas. Ron Paul did bring together a coalition of folks who otherwise sit on different fences across the political spectrum. Leftists, if you will, on the grounds of stopping the Empire crossed party lines so to speak and to be honest and realistic, that in itself may be the most pressing issue. That said, in order to keep the message and coalition alive, it may require us to walk across the road so to speak. I understand those who can't and in some sense why but as I said, if empire is the most pressing issue facing us, then together with the typical "leftist" we may have to caucus to keep the idea alive before the public. Also I do think Nader is open to the idea that the Federal Reserve is not the nice little gov't agency many like to think it is and I'm not certain that you can't make a case to not only kill the Fed. to Ralph but also how a return to hard backed money is not only anti-inflationary but also the savior to the little guy from run amuck gov't. This 2004' interview http://www.amconmag.com/2004_06_21/cover.html seems to raise questions that Ralph even in his "progressive" bliss may not be dictatorial and autocratic about it and a bit more willing to not have a "my way or highway" outlook. Also I came away thinking that Ralph is not opposed to free open, honest markets but rather opposed to controlled capitialist monopolized markets and I'd venture to say that none if very few here don't agree with that point as well.

Look, I'm not naive enough to think that Nader will be a Ron Paul or even a Bob Barr if you are so inclined, but given the fact that we all know the other 3 beauty queens still in this thing are pro-empire/pro-war/pro american hegemony and Ralph is not, I'll take Ralph's brand of warts if it means keeping the anti-empire/antiwar coalition together and if you present a well fashioned case, some of these Nader lefty types will at least begin to concede some arguments from us anti-staters as well. It's a seedbed worth tending with some fertilizer to see if we can grow something good instead of weeds.

JMO.

Re: Nader

scineram — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 19:40:07 GMT

Stranger:
scineram:
There is more to libertarian than antiwar.

On the contrary, antiwar emblemizes the very essence of the libertarian ideal. No war on Iraq, but also no war on property, no war on business, no war on foreigners, no war on drugs, etc.

I cannot then support a warmonger, like Nader.

Re: Nader

ViennaSausage — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 04:14:43 GMT

This November, regardless if Ron Paul is on the ballot or not, my vote will go to him. I will write him in if I have to. I would have never known about Mises if it wasn't for him.

Re: Nader

BWF89 — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 02:02:04 GMT

Tuneman:
BWF89:
I'd rather vote for someone who might increase the size of the state in some areas such as forcing me to receive government run health care than increase it's size in other areas and force me to join the military and travel to a part of the world where people are going to be shooting at me. That said I'd still be reluctant to vote for someone like Nader. I think I'll wait until it's closer till the election to make up my mind.

which candidate is going to force you to join the military?

McCain, Obama, and Clinton. All three of them stated that "no options are off the table" in regards to Iran while McCain came right out with his "bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-Iran" song. McCain and Clinton both voted to send troops into Iraq. Obama will probably want us to send troops into The Sudan. McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a hundred years while Clinton and Obama both aren't that serious about pulling out. And none of them will try to withdraw America from the UN and NATO. Or get out troops out of the 60+ countries we have bases in or 150+ countries we have troops in.

Re: Nader

ryanpatgray — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:02:46 GMT

BlackSheep:

shazam:
eliminate corporate personhood. A Libertarian (...) would oppose # (...) 12.

Why would she? Don't libertarians believe in equality before the law? Why should people have special laws for corporating?

When people on the non-capitalist-left talk about "ending corporate personhood" they are not talking about ending special laws for incorporated entities. They are speaking about ending some basic rights with regard to free association. If an individual has the right to avoid self-incrimination, right to privacy and free speech why not a group of individuals? It is these basic rights that many of Nader's ilk want to deny certain groups of individuals merely because they are interested in earning a living.

Re: Nader

Tuneman — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:05:23 GMT

BWF89:
I'd rather vote for someone who might increase the size of the state in some areas such as forcing me to receive government run health care than increase it's size in other areas and force me to join the military and travel to a part of the world where people are going to be shooting at me. That said I'd still be reluctant to vote for someone like Nader. I think I'll wait until it's closer till the election to make up my mind.

which candidate is going to force you to join the military?

Re: Nader

BlackSheep — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:43:10 GMT

shazam:
eliminate corporate personhood. A Libertarian (...) would oppose # (...) 12.

Why would she? Don't libertarians believe in equality before the law? Why should people have special laws for corporating?

Re: Nader

Stranger — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:17:50 GMT

scineram:
There is more to libertarian than antiwar.

On the contrary, antiwar emblemizes the very essence of the libertarian ideal. No war on Iraq, but also no war on property, no war on business, no war on foreigners, no war on drugs, etc.

Re: Nader

BWF89 — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 05:34:38 GMT

After a half hour or so of research I made a post here with the Libertarian and Constitution Party candidates that are non-interventionist with links to their 2008 campaign websites. But I guess it had too many links and was labled spam because it said I needed approval for it to be posted. If whoevers in charge of that could approve it that would be great.

shazam:
My theory is that it would be better to simply not vote at all in the event that the LP nominates Root. You would not have to legitimize the voting process by voting for someone lacking libertarian purity.

It doesn't matter whether you, I, or Joe Libertarian thinks the system is legitimate. It's still going to exist and exercise it's monopoly on force whether or not we choose to legitimize it by voting. I'd rather vote for someone who might increase the size of the state in some areas such as forcing me to receive government run health care than increase it's size in other areas and force me to join the military and travel to a part of the world where people are going to be shooting at me. That said I'd still be reluctant to vote for someone like Nader. I think I'll wait until it's closer till the election to make up my mind.

Re: Nader

shazam — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 04:45:41 GMT

So, you're basically saying that since many anti-war liberals abandoned their economic looniness to support Paul, we libertarians should abandon our economic sensibility to support Nader, in the event that there is no better candidate. My theory is that it would be better to simply not vote at all in the event that the LP nominates Root. You would not have to legitimize the voting process by voting for someone lacking libertarian purity. Nader's campaign platform (according to votenader.org), is national health insurance, cut military spending, eliminate nuclear energy, crackdown on corporate welfare, open up the debates, adopt a carbon tax, change U.S. foreign policy, impeach Bush/Cheney, repeal Taft-Hartley, adopt securities speculation tax, make it easier to get on the ballot, and eliminate corporate personhood. A Libertarian would support planks #2, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 11. However, they would oppose #1, 3, 6, 9, 10, and 12.

Re: Nader

JAlanKatz — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 20:32:07 GMT

scineram:
There is more to libertarian than antiwar.

Of course there is, and I'm not denying that. There are also strategic considerations, at any given point in time, as to where to push. There is a large state edifice which does many things. Some of those things, like war, are more horrendous and harmful than others. There's also widespread popular hatred of the war, whereas there is widespread support for other things. In terms of strategy, then, it seems that the war is the most important issue to oppose, and the one where we are most likely to be successful. This is why Rothbard supported Johnson, for instance. I think that my case is justified by the ideas in Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty. I don't just want to sit back and let it come - I think if we do that, we libertarians will be among the most guilty, since we saw the totalitarian state coming and didn't stop it.

The lefties dropped their economic foolishness to gravitate to Paul, didn't they? Didn't we praise them for doing it? Unfortunately, the GOP proved its fascist nature by nominated McCain. Why is it wrong to now gravitate to where the leftist anti-war people are?

Re: Nader

scineram — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 20:03:50 GMT

There is more to libertarian than antiwar.