Hacker Comments on Poor Showing…
A quick statement from campaign manager Allen Hacker has been posted over at Michael Badnarik’s blog:
Well, there you have it… or do you?Maybe it is what it is, and maybe it only looks that way. We’re going to take some time to carefully examine what happened, and then we’ll make a policy statement about the campaign and election. A detailed analysis, if there is to be one that serves the future well, will take considerably longer.
Contrary to the demands of those noisy few who know no other way to be right than to make someone else wrong, we don’t plan to turn on each other or our fellow libertarians with verbal machetes. That’s what has always been done, and that, per the definition of insanity, is what has always kept us where we’ve been. Even now, a few are beginning to do it, but for the most part, we seem to be more grown up this time. I applaud everyone for their more mature response.
Nor do we plan to engage any critics in the interim. The product will be delivered when it is deliverable, and only as appropriate.
I know Joe will be writing a bit about this later, but any initial reactions to the disasterous showing?
Badnarik reported raising $409,618 as of mid-October. At that same time, Tammy Lee had banked only $148,549 and Eric Eidsness has pulled in a mere $26,983. Yet on election night, Lee finished in a virtual tie for second place with 21% of the vote and Eidsness racked up 11% out in Colorado.
How does a campaign with a $400,000+ budget only resonate with 4% of the electorate? In a safe Republican district it’s not like voters particularly expected a close election… so the wasted vote problem wasn’t nearly as strong of a factor as it was in other races, specifically Colorado’s 4th.
I’m pretty sure Badnarik is done as a candidate for the LP… and I would suspect most of his advisors and staff will be looking for new areas to work in. My own hope is that the party avoids taking a stance that “campaigns don’t work no matter how hard you try, and this proves it.”
It’s just about finding the right race and the right candidate and building a machine that can provide support for that candidate. No rocket science here.
Someone such as Badnarik, with no roots and no practical experience, should not be the kind of candidates the LP embraces.
Qualifications, money, and machine. You need at least two of these three elements to win almost any election. Since Libertarians never really have the machine aspect in place, it falls to qualifications and money. You need both. Badnarik had money, but no qualifications. Others have qualifications and no money. Still many other candidates run without any of those three elements.
Honestly, on election night, I didn’t even think of Paul Trujillo down in New Mexico. But if he had 25% of the resources that were directed toward Badnarik… could he have won?
How much support did he receive from the state party, anyway? National?
Could better candidates have been recruited for winnable state house seats if those candidates were promised serious support BEFORE jumping into the race?
Is it better to win a seat on a local zoning board or to get 2% of the vote in 10 Congressional races? I’d take a win in a minor race over a whole bunch of minor showings in major races.
November 9th, 2006 at 1:28 am
I personally think the LP as a whole needs to focus on one or two state-level races such as State House and State Senate. We have too-few resources spread way too thin. We certainly don’t have the money to win a US Rep, US Senate or gubernatorial race, but, combined, we do have the resources to win a couple state legislative races each year. Once we establish a base, then we can focus on larger races.
We need to stop trying to put the cart before the donkey – as I keep saying.
November 9th, 2006 at 2:05 am
I took a quick look at Badnarik’s donations over at the FEC site, they came in from all over the country.
If this is just Libertarians prioritizing one House race in Texas, that’s a bad thing.
If not however, maybe Badnarik in the future can be a fundraiser of sorts for some candidates of like-mindedness. He was able to raise a lot of money, that cannot be disputed. And maybe he can use that gift to help others down the road.
November 9th, 2006 at 2:09 am
If not however, maybe Badnarik in the future can be a fundraiser of sorts for some candidates of like-mindedness. He was able to raise a lot of money, that cannot be disputed. And maybe he can use that gift to help others down the road.
I wouldn’t donate a dime to anything he is associated with in the future.
November 9th, 2006 at 2:50 am
I’m with Mike on this one. I always knew Badnarik was dead in the water candidacy-wise (and appointing Hacker didn’t seem to help. Hacker should work as a political consultant for the major parties – that way the LP might actually have a chance of winning for once.)
You can’t run people for office for no other reason that they are principled. We have to have candidates with both principle and political competency, as well as QUALIFICATION. That’s the problem with the LP and most third parties – they’ve scared away most of the qualified candidates. And Badnarik has no qualifications other than the fact he ran for president on the LP, which was a candidacy he had zero qualification for (the “Big Man on Campus” thing had me both in stitches and shaking my head in disappointment).
We need to have prominent local business owners and civic and political leaders running for state offices and winning. Then we need those winners to run for national office after they have built up enough recognition and stabilized the party’s reputation. This is how we build political qualification. A presidential campaign is good for publicity maybe, but we could have at least done better than Badnarik, who only reinforces all the media and major party stereotypes of the LP which keep us small and irrelevant – and hurt local candidates.
Think about it, though, why would a qualified candidate put his name in the hat of a party where the name alone seems to be enough to kill a candidate? Not to mention the fact that not many qualified candidates with political competency adhere to anarchocapitalism as their guiding political philosophy, or at least advocate it as the immediate solution to the problems of the country.
Nothing against the guy personally – he’s a good libertarian and I respect him a lot, but Badnarik’s failure is merely a prominent representation of why the LP fails politically. It also reinforces my belief that I am wasting my time here.
November 9th, 2006 at 2:59 am
I think one of the key issues any third party has to deal with successfully in order to be successful is the mental trap in the vast majority of people that a vote for someone other than a Republicrat is a wasted vote. So we need to transform this mindset in people one way or another. One way to do this is to identify for people what Republicans and Democrats have in common that is harmful to America and undesirable for the average American, and yet is an issue that the [insert party name] Party opposes. Globalization is a classic example, and also corruption. People generally distrust Republicrats, but can’t snap the aforementioned mindset. If we unite America against the Republicrats, we’ve won.
Some other practical steps:
1) Begin campaigning as early as possible.
2) Create attractive web sites that are easily navigable, and contain well-reasoned points about issues they care about. There must not be any spelling or grammar errors either, as I have seen on some third party websites, so proofread everything that gets put up online.
3) Get bumper stickers made with mind-set changing slogans like:
“If you think your choice is the lesser of two evils, why vote evil?”
“Do you really trust Democrats and Republicans? Vote third party!”
“Democrats and Republicans don’t need your vote. Vote third party!”
“Like the Constitution? Vote third party!”
“Hate globalism? Vote third party!”
“Love America? Vote third party!”
“Don’t believe the News at 6? Vote third party!”
Brainstorm a bunch of ideas, and get these out in circulation ASAP.
4) Also, work with other legitimate third parties. Don’t attack other third parties, but emphasize differences in philosophies and especially how your party is distinguished from the Republicrats and is far better for America and her people.
5) Believe in yourself. Third parties can break through. You can do it. Believe in yourself and think about campaign strategies and how to best sway public opinion of third parties.
6) Turn people to alternative media. That’s the way I really began to think outside the box politically. The mainstream media brainwashes people. Turn people to good independent media sources that tell the real news will get people thinking. Most people hate the news on TV, complaining that it’s so negative, and it’s a lot of spin.
I think these ideas will work, but brainstorm some more in future campaigns, and let’s smash the Republicrat stronghold in 2008!
November 9th, 2006 at 3:17 am
Eric – somewhat correct we have use the cato stratagy, advocate lesser governement in ways that make sense to people’s current mindset
However a third party opposing Globalization outright and calling it a bad thing instead of just opposing globzation issues will just get you labeled as a kook(don’t want to get in an argument about globalization, but like many people I think parts of it are very good, and if you come out ranting about globization right off the bat I’ll turn you off as being a socalist).
Same with Libertarians just coming out and screaming about government being evil, and taxation is slavery will get you labeled as crazy purrple-skined anarchists . This was one problem with Badnarik’s campaign(espically if you read his book, thanks to people’s current views on government that have been built up over many years, his views from a different midset come across as kook)
November 9th, 2006 at 7:44 am
Has there ever been a study done comparing independent candidates to Libertarian candidates to see the effect of the party name on the percentage of vote candidates get? My guess is negative.
Libertarians need to get libertarians to vote for them. They don’t, they vote Republican. Watched MSNBC coverage Tuesday night and the l-word was dropped several times by Chris Matthews describing suburban voters.
November 9th, 2006 at 7:51 am
Austin says: “If Paul Trujillo had 25% of the resources that were directed toward Badnarik… could he have won?”
25%??? $100,000 to win a county commission race as an incumbent? Jesus fucking Christ, I hope so! He could have given every voter $500 in cash and still had tens of thousands left over for OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE, all you can eat, a la the FRAUDNARIK campaign.
What is a proper punishment for the Fraudnarik Gang? Their crimes are among the most disgusting I’ve ever witnessed.
The Fraudnarik “campaign” with its “secret plan” has to be the biggest failure in the history of politics, bar none. More than $400,000 to get fewer than 8,000 votes? That’s more than $50 spent per vote recieved. Hey, all Fraudnarik needs is about $6 billion and he could take the presidency, like the weepy-eyed little bitch prophesized at the LP convention in 2004!
Seriously, I think death is appropriate. The level of disgust I have for this piece of shit goes well beyond anything I feel for Bush. And Hacker? It was clear that the campaign was morally as well as strategically bankrupt when Fraudnarik didn’t fire him MONTHS ago. “Stay the course” we have a “secret plan.” “We’re gonna hire a bunch of misfits to put on Guy Fawlkes masks! It’s guaranteed to win! We’re gonna film or stiff, dorky ass candidate pontificating on liberty in a cheap ass YouTube spot!”
Also, look at Fraudnarik’s fat face and compare it to the picture used in his banner. The crook got fat eating at Outback Steakhouse twice a day with “campaign workers” on the campaign’s dime.
If I ever met Fraudnarik, I swear I would hock the biggest fucking loogy of all time in his face. I think the non-aggression pledge deserves an exemption when it comes to him.
November 9th, 2006 at 10:08 am
O…kay, UA.
What this proves is that the LP needs to focus on local races. Win the municipal and county governments, make REAL changes for liberty there, then once the trust of the people has been gained, move on to the next tier.
November 9th, 2006 at 10:46 am
Local races are indeed the LP’s best shot. Still, as alluded to by others, you need to have credible (qualified) candidates. All too often I’ve seen the LP chose candidates just by random phone calls. Those candidates are often people who have little or no record of service of any kind in their community. Then, they show up on the ballot and expect people to vote for them.
No one knows them and they don’t have any activities they can point to that show they are qualified or even had any prior interest in the issues they’ll be dealing with if elected.
Many of these races seem like a waste of time to me with the candidates we run.
November 9th, 2006 at 10:48 am
Let’s be clear: the failure of the Badnarik campaign had nothing to do with principled vs. practical or pure vs. un-pure. Actually, although horribly written, Badnarik’s key issues where fairly moderate libertarian, and something most Republicans and some Democrats in the district could get behind.
The failure had more to do with (1) very few even knowing who Badnarik was, and (2) a campaign that seemed hell-bent on making sure that continued to be the case.
They sent out a total of maybe 5 press releases (none when it was apparent that Badnarik had out-fundraised the Democrat 10:1, or after their one newspaper endorsement, or at anytime when the campaign did something newsworthy), which is probably a good thing, since when they were released, they were terrible. Long. Arrogant. No point. No news. A write-in candidate in Alabama generated more press with one tenth of the resources. With someone like Gordon or Knapp working the media, the race would have been entirely different.
The campaign was run just like McCaul’s campaign. Only McCaul was the incumbent and had a “R” next to his name.
Hacker’s secret plan:
Ankrum was supposed to drop out, because Ankrum promised Hacker that if he could produce a poll that showed Badnarik ahead of him, he’d drop out. Hacker produced a name recognition poll, which means very little when set side-by-side to Ankrum’s ACTUAL poll showing a result that was pretty close to what actually happened on election day. Then they threw a hissy-fit and called Ankrum a flip-flopper because he didn’t do what they wanted.
Some new political groups were supposed to be formed that would raise millions of dollars for Badnarik. It didn’t happen. They threw a hissy-fit and complained about how others couldn’t get off their ass and it’s not their fault.
They expected Spring 2006 dollars to continue to roll in during Fall 2006. When donors saw those Spring dollars get spent with nothing tangible apparently gained, and with no plan other than “top-secret, I’m smarter than you, so shut up and write checks” that well dried up. They threw a hissy-fit and complained about how Mike Nelson was single-handedly destroying the campaign.
The campaign looked strong in the beginning. It was a cluster-fuck by summer.
I very much appreciate the attempt. I’m pretty confident Badnarik is a good guy with good intentions. Allen Hacker is probably a good guy as well, but he is a political novice with an ego the size of the Sun.
I’m with Nigel. Local races. Maybe we should start a PAC to raise money for this purpose.
November 9th, 2006 at 11:15 am
I live in one of the rural counties in the district (where by the way the two independent candidates for Gov. put together had more votes than either of the two parties candidates did individually) I did not receive any mail, see an ad, tv radio or newspaper, or see any local coverage of the Bad. campaign. His campaign was no different than that of the other 15 or so Libertarians on the ballot that did nothing. Some people made a good living off the campaign for the last year or so.
November 9th, 2006 at 11:19 am
Very Interesting, so at what time excatly did hacker’s plan go astray? I mean I’m sure badnarik spent a ton, a ton of time teaching high schools and such, and don’t fault him for trying his best when he likely thought his advisor was right.
But it seems like with $500,000 you could have opended up on main street of all the major towns in your district a big mike’s freedom library or bazzar all about spreading liberty ideas and loaning out libertarian books/ etc and probably easily obtained more votes/name that way, along with spreading the libertarian ideals.
November 9th, 2006 at 11:21 am
rj,
I highly doubt most libertarians vote Republican. I mean, maybe self identified libertarians who dont know what libertarianism is. Now, I’m not one of those guys that talks about being “pure” libertarians and all that. However, there are very few Rs who are even slightly libertarian. Libertarians I know are pretty concerned with freedom, especially social freedoms. Throwing a bone of high taxes, but “lower than the other guys” does not make hate/war-mongerering social intolerants “libertarian.”
I also think those “right” libertarians pay a little too much attention to false “fiscal conservatism ( which could describe maybe 4-5 Republicans in Congress out of 200+)” and not enough to more important freedoms. I hate taxes as much as the next guy, but ( especially considering most Republicans support “big government” and high taxes anyway) I am more concerned about things like freedom of association, true property rights ( ok, maybe some Repugs get a few points here, but not enough), medical freedoms, not living in a police state, not being murdered by the government, etc.
Many of those “libertarians” simply AREN’T libertarian in the least.
That said, the problem is NOT gettng libertarians to vote for LP candidates, but non-libertarians. I don’t care what study or survey people trot out. The reality is libertarians are a very small minority of the population. Among actual voters, maybe 1%. Those 15-30% or whatever studies are pretty much bunk. That’s the sad reality. I know, I have lived my whole life as the smallest minority on earth and as a member of one of the smallest minority groups….That said, for libertarians to have electoral success, appealing to libertarians doesnt matter so much. It is appealing to independents and non-voters, and even some Rs and Ds on common-ground isues. But the LP has been spreading the word and educating the masses for 30+ years. The people simply arent buying the product because most people arent “extremists.”
But IMO IF there is a specific voter to reach out to, it is certainly not Rs- unless they are truly of the fiscal conservative/social liberal type. Dems arent much better, of course. We already have enough frustrated white guys that really like guns and hate taxes.
The LP has to appeal to a “bigger tent”, but should not attempt to appeal to gay-bashers, religious nuts, whackjobs, racists, imperialists, people who want to kill small time drug users,etc. The GOP, CP,etc can have them.
I would hope MAYBE 30-40% of the population could agree to support BOTH social and economic freedom and find some common-ground. Wouldnt have to be true “libertarians” but at least agree in general that govt should be efficient,taxes low, and adults should be free to do what they want as long as they dont hurt anyone.
If this is not the case, Oh Well. If only 1% ( or 10-20% or whatever) of the population are truly decent people, then F- politics. It is not even worth trying to reach a bunch of intolerant, socialist/fascist idiots. We decent people will just have to keep on doing what we do and live our lives. Hopefully the government wont murder us.
November 9th, 2006 at 11:23 am
Dave – This was obvious when the big major news on the site from when the even happend till election day, was his smile for liberty sign holding campaign, which consisted of him and 4 high school students holding telling people to smile for liberty. Again I like the idea, but what were all the rest of his full-time staffers doing at the time of the drive?
November 9th, 2006 at 11:43 am
..And yeah, the only hope is local politics. In this case there are usually a few issues that are not very complex and it is possible to be a principled libertarian and agree with 50%~ of voters. Local races are often about 1-2 issues with nearly equal support. For example, opposing a property tax increase isn’t going to make you “extreme.” No need to talk about the Fed, gold, 16th Amendment conspiracies, federal abortion laws, immigration,etc. the same with Ballot initiatives. I have seen very libertarian position, even extreme losing ones, get 40%+. Ad-hoc may be the only politics worth doing. Probably 50% of the population may be “libertarian” on one issue. But most people have no principles and are philosophically inconsistent.
One problem is, if you are going to try to “buildup” a party from the local level, you need a LOT of qualified local candidates who are well liked in their community. Often you cant een find enough paper candidates. IF you find 1 “good” candidate and maybe he gets elected to the town council or some other city/county office, its going to be very difficult for him to even keep his seat there..and almost impossible to “moveup.” Its not even worth trying for state house, IMO, if you don’t have several elected candidates in every area of the district in every county, town,etc. Thats how the Ds and Rs do it, and they are the winners when it comes to electoral politics. Now I have lived in both Democrat and republican majority areas. Places where one party held every seat in the town, but the big 2 have enough presence overall.
November 9th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
“If this is not the case, Oh Well. If only 1% ( or 10-20% or whatever) of the population are truly decent people, then F- politics. It is not even worth trying to reach a bunch of intolerant, socialist/fascist idiots. We decent people will just have to keep on doing what we do and live our lives. Hopefully the government wont murder us.”
That sounds like an argument the Socialist Workers Party would make.
Libertarians have been around since 1972. Has anyone in those 34 years of the party been looked at as a winner? The party needs winners! Take a look at the Minnesota Independence Party candidates. They acted like they belonged as a major party, drafted good candidates, took themselves seriously, and campaigned together (the statewide candidates). They’re highest statewide vote getter got 6.4% in a three-way race, and no one looks at them as kooks except people that think everyone should be a Republicrat. Of all the Libertarians I have heard of, there are only two I know of that take themselves and their campaigns seriously – Ron Paul and Thompson when he ran for governor in Wisconsin. He was then drafted in as mayor of a small town the following year. Where are the Thompsons of the rest of the country?
I disagree with you, I think there are a good number of libertarians in the country, but no one is going to waste their time or money on a candidate that runs his campaign like a joke. The vice presidential nominee of the LP in 1980, Ed Koch, has lots and lots of money and spent it on their candidacy that year – the most successful LP national bid ever, and got 10% in Alaska. Did he donate to LP candidates this year? If not, why do you think he did not? It’s not like he has to be thrifty.
Libertarians need to decide if they ever want to actually have an influence on citizens or this country or if they want to become some kind of Jacobin political club that cries about why the rest of the world is so stupid.
November 9th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
Chris Moore: With regard to the PAC idea – exactly what I was thinking! If you have any ideas on how to get one started, email me: ndjmwii at gmail dot com.
November 9th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
Nigel and Chris,
I am actually talking to a few Libertarians about creating a PAC to fund advertising and campaign strategy for state legislature races.
I don’t have much knowledge of how to start a PAC, but I do think I have a few interesting ideas on what a PAC should do and where the Libertarian Party is failing.
For anyone who is interested, please send me an e-mail at jakeporter_88@yahoo.com
November 9th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
in existence for 3 or 4 years now
November 9th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
$400,000+? Really?
That may be how much the Badnarik campaign grossed in terms of fundraising, but what was the net? Much of that money was gathered by flying the candidate around the country to state LP conventions. This costs quite a bit of money. Then, there are the costs of hospitality suites, the emblem on the notebooks at the national convention…
As any good capitalist knows, it’s the net that counts, not the gross.
Furthermore, most of that overhead was spent outside the district. If you hold an expensive fundraiser in your district, you have at least wined and dined local notables in your quest for money. This produces positives beyond the net money raised. Not so for money raised out of district.
The LP is too small and too unpopular to win at the congressional level.
If you don’t have at least one activist per precint on average, you have no business running for office. Get the activists first; then run.
And some of those activists had better be pillars in the community, people with large contact lists so you can get your signs deployed on private lawns. Such signs are significant. They tell the community that you have a support base; that you have credibility. Signs on public right-of-ways do not send this message.
Standard campaign techniques that work for the D’s and R’s do not work for Libertarians. The base is too small. The LP needs to do guerilla style campaigning and/or build up its base.
Or, maybe it is time for yet another third party, one which can attract a much bigger support base…
November 9th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
No one above has mentioned the special problem that Texas and 13 other states have a “straight-ticket device”. So voters can vote for every single partisan race without even looking to see what offices are up and who is running. To their credit, Republican state legislatures have tended to abolish these devilish devices. Texas has the device, but Texas Republicans legislators like it, unfortunately. Without the straight-ticket device, Michael would probably have polled at least 10%. New Mexico’s straight-ticket device also probably prevented our Valencia County Commissioner from being re-elected.
November 9th, 2006 at 5:30 pm
Richard is correct that straight-party voting does hurt us in Texas, but Texans can also vote straight-party Libertarian. 1,908 of them did in Dallas County (out of 409,512 votes cast, 1,197,348 registered voters, and around 2.3 million people), for example.
November 9th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
The LP of New Mexico gave Paul Trujillo $600, the most we’ve ever given a single candidate for local office. I can barely get National to acknowledge him. In retrospect, the one thing I wished it had occured to me to advise him to do, would be a direct mail to Democrats in his district telling them why he left the Democrat party and why they should support him anyway.
Paul thought he had it in the bag. I firmly believe he was clobbered by straight-ticket voting in a Democrat-dominated district.
He did not apply for our “Operation Win One” fund which is a savings account so some future candidate can enter the field with “Overwhelming Resources.”
November 9th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
Rich, I just checked out ILLF. I’m impressed. Looks like a good model. http://www.illf.org/
November 9th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
Here’s how LPNM’s “Operation Win One” is set up. $5K probably doesn’t sound like much but NM is one of the poorest states and this amount, as a match, is significant in our local elections.
“Bylaw #6
Operation Win One, hereafter OWO, is intended to give a viable LPNM candidate overwhelming resources in a winnable partisan election, and is established as a permanent fund to be administered by the Executive Committee. Monies in the OWO account shall be used for no purpose other than described herein. No award shall be made of less than $5,000, and only if the selected candidate has in the campaign treasury an equal amount. No award will be made unless the candidate submits a detailed campaign plan with clear and compelling argument, supported by evidence such as demographic and/or polling data, that the candidate is truly viable and will likely win. Unanimous consent of the Executive Committee is required for an OWO award.”
November 9th, 2006 at 9:51 pm
We are flabbergasted that anyone expected Mike to win, including himself and Hacker. The main purpose for this whole thing was improving and reinforcing the national name recognition. To insure (in their opinion) that Badnarik remains the face of the LP. To set up everything got him to run first for the nomination and then as the nominee for president in 2008. And of course to insure that Hacker gets paid as the campaign manager. Austin as his home?? We predict that within a matter of months, he will move in with someone somewhere, and spend the next 2 years just being a candidate.
November 9th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
While I agree with my friend Richard Winger’s observation that the “straight-ticket device” is a relic and a hindrance to independent and third-party candidates in general, I don’t think that straight-ticket voting really hurt Badnarik’s candidacy, especially since more than a third of the voters in the 10th congressional district of Texas, according to unofficials returns, voted for an independent candidate for governor. Obviously, the tens of thousands of voters in that district who voted for the colorful “Kinky” Friedman or Carol Strayhorn, not to mention the Libertarian Party’s James Werner, didn’t cast a straight Democratic or Republican ticket. It’s rather curious, though, that such a large proportion of the voters in that district who had no difficulty rejecting the major-party nominees in the state’s hotly-contested gubernatorial contest opted not to support Badnarik, for whatever reason.
What’s most alarming, however, is the fact that Badnarik barely polled 4.3% of the vote in a district in which a Libertarian candidate for Congress managed to garner 35,569 votes, or 15.4%, two years ago, albeit in a race without a Democratic candidate on the ballot. Incidentally, the LP candidate in that race spent less than $5,000. What’s even more intriguing, however, is that a little-known University of Texas-Austin mathematics professor—- a candidate with virtually no name recognition prior to entering the race and whose name wasn’t even on the ballot—- also polled 13,961 write-in votes in that same contest in 2004—- or 6,300 votes more than Badnarik received on Tuesday.
On a strictly dollar-per-vote basis, the Badnarik campaign was by far the worst third-party campaign for the U.S. House of Representatives in American history.
November 9th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
All you speculating as to what Michael Badnarik and Allen Hacker’s intentions are, you’re just plain stupid. You have no idea what happened with the campaign or what went on day to day, and you’re just talking out your ass.
The question is, why? Are you disappointed that he didn’t win? Why don’t you say “Awe, shucks, that sucks.” and then get involved and help him win something (if he even wants to anymore at this point!) instead of just talking shit? It’s not constructive.
If you truly hate him for some reason (why?), why are you so concerned with him? Is it because he “took” a lot of money from your LP or because you hate his politics? He is able to get money because he is a damn fine speaker and he gets people fired up.
The REAL problem here is indeed name recognition (LP). People don’t know it exists. So if you’re an Lib, why don’t you get off your ass and try to do something like him, instead of bitching in an interwebnets blog?
Unity people, unity is the only thing that will help us change this country.
November 10th, 2006 at 12:12 am
“The REAL problem here is indeed name recognition (LP). People don’t know it exists. So if you’re an Lib, why don’t you get off your ass and try to do something like him, instead of bitching in an interwebnets blog?”
I think people most definitely know the Libertarian Party exists.
As for the rest of your post, the concern is not that he did not win. I doubt anyone expected that. The concern is money received and how that transferred into votes. Compare to other candidates in the race:
TX-10:
McCaul (Republican): $1,030,710 (as of 10/15) for 97618 votes, 55.32%. That is $10.56 per vote.
Ankrum (Democrat): $55,543 (as of 10/15) for 71232 votes, 40.37%. That is $0.78 per vote.
Badnarik (Libertarian): $409,618 (as of 10/15) for 7603 votes, 4.31%. That is $53.88 per vote.
You can take a look at other Libertarian campaigns for U.S. House in Texas that achieved the same results. If a candidate did not file, that means their fundraising was negligible.
Warren of TX-18: did not file a report with the FEC,3664 votes, 4.26%.
Smither of TX-22: $38,461 (as of 10/15) for 9011 votes, 6.10%. That is $4.27 per vote.
Cunningham of TX-25: did not file a report with the FEC, 6933 votes, 4.24%.
Powell of TX-27: did not file a report with the FEC, 4722 votes, 4.32%.
It’s all about the Benjamins.
November 10th, 2006 at 12:19 am
Jacky wrote –
“The REAL problem here is indeed name recognition (LP). People don’t know it exists.”
Bzzzt. Wrong. The problem is that voters recognize the LP name as a bunch of druggie anarchists, and thus don’t look any closer. Carl M. was correct –
“maybe it is time for yet another third party, one which can attract a much bigger support base…”
November 10th, 2006 at 1:35 am
Jacky, people are doing and saying this stuff because Badnarik and Hacker raised almost $500,000 and had 4% to show for it.
How many votes did Badnarik get in CA when Hacker was the chairman there? Probably not too many.
Not sure the going rate for TV buys in CD-10, but I’m sure $500,000 would have covered it. And why six staffers? Good grief. Six staffers who couldn’t write an effective press release and time spent showing how the Democrat who wasn’t a factor in the race at all “flip-flopped.”
That’s why people are doing and saying these things.
Where’s Gary Nolan. He needs to get involved again.
November 10th, 2006 at 2:20 am
I’ll just say what I know personally about the Badnarik campaign.
I volunteered a handful of times. The main activity- that I observed and did- was stuffing envelopes to mail to donors.
Other than that we went to one campaign appearance organized by the campaign. They were obviously expecting loads of people- they rented 100 chairs and such. About 3 people (voters) showed up. About 8 people from the campaign. I’m sure it was a letdown to them (this was very early in the campaign) and maybe a string of these lead them to give up early.
They bought me dinner from the campaign funds. Thanks!
I dont really call myself a hardcore Libertarian- more a libertarian socialist (there is such a thing). In Texas there arent many (any) other outlets- so I help the Libs when I can.
But I will lend this to those who care- I dont think anything can be constructively taken away from the Bad campaign. I think the poor showing was directly related to the poor campaigning. Yes, undoubtedly there are large hurdles setup here in Texas for anyone who isnt D or R- but that is really no excuse for the poor showing.
The math professor campaign that was mentioned earlier- I helped some with that and the only reason he got votes because he knew how to campaign and had people on his side who knew who too- including me. No paid staff, nothing like that. A donated office space with some donated equipment.
I think with $400k a mailer couldve gone out, block walking couldve been done (a free activity) and definitely more mainstream press couldve been covered. As far as I saw the campaign never even thought to buy a blockwalking list- a very cheap thing avaliable from the county which lists a voters primary and general election history- you know- I bet the Dems wouldve even sold one too him (there’s is alot more extensive) under the table if he wouldve promised to focus on hardcore Rep territory.
My last note: I dont think Badnarik is very charismatic at all and he seemed to do a poor job of picking topics to address to certain audiences. In the waning days of the campaign I saw him speak on campus- a large crowd was gather to hear about the Military Comm. Act- and he went on a ramble about the 2nd amendment. I’m sorry, but that doesnt fly very high in downtown Austin on UT campus. Aint too many gun lovers around there. Share that one from Brenham, but not downtown Austin. Downtown Austin is the privacy, drug law and anti-imperialism speech.
I see this as a terrible job of managing the campaign. Really, most of these problems steam from that I think.
Like I said I’m not a committed L but I think yall are better off without these hacks- Bad and Hack.
Honestly, I think the truth is they learned fairly early on that they couldnt win (or were blind and thought they’d coast to 10%) and they set back and enjoyed yalls cash.
November 10th, 2006 at 9:45 am
I contributed early on to the Badnarik campaign, and was excited when I saw 3 billboards go up very early in the campaign. Then I noticed that as the months went on, the campaign kept raising money but no more billboards and very little reports were coming from the campaign on their activities. That’s when I stopped donating, as any good capitalist, I demand to see return results on my investments.
When Mike Nelson got fired up, I tried to stay neutral and give Badnarik the benefit of the doubt.
When the election results came in, I think it was very clear that the Badnarik campaign was a terrible event for the LP. There are two possible takes on it:
1) A Libertarian campaign that is well funded still cannot succeed. Money is not our problem, we are doomed to fail with our message.
2) The campaign was run poorly and did not spend the money on vote-gaining activities. Corruption is running wild in the LP, and contributing money to candidates is a crap shoot. How can we get behind candidates when you don’t know if the money will be wisely spent?
Neither option is good for the Libertarian Party. This campaign is going to make raising money from our donors even harder in the future.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:09 am
There’s always the Republican Liberty Caucus: www.rlctexas.org
November 10th, 2006 at 10:11 am
Before ya’ll scream corruption, I suggest you read up on the textbook approach to fundraising for a political campaign. The textbook approach is to raise money to raise money to raise money to (last cycle) spend on actual campaigning. Unfortunately, this doesn’t work for Libertarians because the donor pool is so small. Later cycles bring in a much lower return on investment.
Here is the question. You know that your remaining 50K (number pulled off the top of head) is insufficient to win the race. Do you spend it to make a less bad showing? Or do you spend it on fundraising in an attempt to get enough to actually win?
Note that all this is speculation regarding the Badnarik campaign. I did not participate. I have, however, taken a course in campaigning at the Leadership Institute where they taught this approach. I have also witnessed the Badnarik campaign doing some very expensive fundraising. (Travelling to the LP NC convention, for example.)
November 10th, 2006 at 11:19 am
To defend Mr. Hacker on on point, when in 2004 he was the California contact person for the Badnarik Volunteer effort (which I tried to lead), he was very honest with me that he would be the contact point (which he did do as promised) but did not have time to invest in the campaign. I looked vigorously but not very successfully for other Californians to volunteer and do work, and am very grateful for what each of you did.
$400,000 is good for one or more mailings to the district or a ton of cable ads. (and my political friends who are elected DRs emphasize cable is the most cost effective.)
As a historical matter for a long time the Libertarian Party has tried the ‘concentrate all resources on one race’ tack, e.g., Jon Coon (twice), Murray Sabrin, Carla Howell (twice) and now Michael Badnarik, and as a strategic approach it works poorly, especially when people start hiring expensive campaign staff and renting large amounts of office space.
November 10th, 2006 at 11:47 am
The reason the LP’s attempts to concentrate all resources one one race have failed is that the LP is a giant centralcontroller type of organisation and, therefore, it is incompetent at choosing which one race to target. Mike Badnarik was a bad candidate and always has been. The level of support that he has received from LP members reflects negatively on their perceptiveness.
November 10th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
I think it’s more the candidate in this case than any open corruption or a failed message. Though it does look like the money that was raised was badly mismanaged.
If you had given $400,000 to Ed Thompson to run for Congress in Wisconsin… I think it’s at least possible he might have won the race.
Had Tammy Lee or Eric Eidsness had $400,000 in their races, I’d have to think they would have been quite credible and might have even won their races. But in Badnarik’s hands and on this race, it was just wasted. Sad but true.
November 10th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
“As a historical matter for a long time the Libertarian Party has tried the ‘concentrate all resources on one race’ tack”
Umm. I was under the impression that Badnarik, Coon, Sabrin, and Howell received very little party funds. I thought they raised the money they did from lots of individual donors.
The LP as an organization did not target the Badnarik campaign. Hundreds of individual Libertarian donors decided to send them money for various reasons. In hindsight, I think the campaign could have been runn a LOT better. But Badnarik gave it a shot and was successful at convincing individuals to donate.
If you think there is a better candidate, support that candidate by raising $400,000 for him/her.
I have no interest in picking Hacker’s strategic mind, but I sure hope in his post-campaign report that he discusses in detail exactly how they raised their cash. That information would very beneficial to future campaigns.
November 10th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
The Jon Coon campaigns in Michigan were the most successful campaigns ever run in Michigan. Most of the leaders of the michigan party joined through the Jon Coon campaigns. Many of our elected city councilmen joined from the Jon Coon campaigns. If anything, the LP needs to do this is every state. When you run a really active campaign, people get interested and get involved. They are more likely to stay involved the more active the campaign. Most activists will state that they got involved because of either a Presidential race or a well-financed race like Coon’s.
Of course, it’s not enough to simply raise money, the money must be spent on political activity that attracts support. Jon Coon’s campaign featured the largest rally ever in Lansing, and he only raised $200,000.
November 10th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
i was in the hospital election day dat before and day after. sorry to hear it did not go the lp;s way. i think most people were focusing on gettin bush’s crony’s out and putting dems in to stiop irq it would no have mattered much.
also notice i called the election result down to the seat count missing only 1. which was webb in VA. guess there no medal.
November 10th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
The LP has one chance, and one chance only, to be a player. And that is to have a credible, well-known, well-funded candidate for president. Easier said than done, I realize.
Look at Perot. If he had run as a Libertarian (and actually been a libertarian), the LP would be in a very good position today because of the 30+ years of grass roots organizing. The Reform Party didn’t have this, and collapsed like a house of cards.
It’s fine to run local races, but that’s a slow process.
Races like Badnarik will never be successful without a catalyst at the top. The wasted vote syndrome is very real, and the earlier observation about straight-ticket voting is dead on.
If the LP nominates another nobody to run for president, it might as well fold up….....
November 10th, 2006 at 1:39 pm
On local versus “high level” politics, Chris Moore reaches the real issue: Everyone who keeps saying “the LP needs too …” (concentrate on local candidates, run a prominent presidential race, etc.) is fundamentally misunderstanding how the process works.
There’s not some big fund of “Libertarian Party election money” disbursed by the national committee. There are a bunch of donors who give money to the campaigns THEY want to support.
The guy who gave $2,000 to Badnarik would not necessarily have given $500 each to four candidates for state legislature, or $200 each to ten candidates for county commission, if Badnarik hadn’t been running.
The guy who gives $100 to the LP’s presidential candidate might—or might NOT —give that money to a candidate for Missouri state legislature, 71st district, if he’s asked to.
Badnarik had name recognition within the LP as its former presidential nominee. He parlayed that name recognition into contributions—contributions that probably would NOT, for the most part, have gone to other candidates if it hadn’t gone to him.
Dr. Milsted’s observation is also cogent: It costs money to raise money. Tease apart the numbers, and I suspect that you’ll find that of the $400,000+ raised by the Badnarik campaign, at least $300,000+ was spent raising that money directly (i.e. mailings to prospective donors, processing fees for donations, fundraising commissions) or indirectly (i.e. travel to LP events). I haven’t broken that down yet. The only thing I really looked at was the “Outback Steakhouse factor” which, while it stood out like a sore thumb, was exceedingly small in terms of total spending.
My off-the-cuff guesstimate is that after legitimate fundraising expenses and debatable, but not onerously high, “costs of doing business” (i.e. Outback Steakhouse) are deducted, the campaign had somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000 to actually campaign with ... but that money, properly spent at all, should have put Badnarik into double digits.
The sad part is that some of the campaigning that needed to be done, and wasn’t, would have cost little or nothing. The campaign had zero earned media presence. That didn’t have to happen. Infrequent, non-newsworthy and poorly written press releases assured that it would happen. For little or no money, that could have been turned around.
I do hope that we’ll get a fact-based report on what happened in the campaign, and not just a bunch of “Well, there you have it … or do you? Maybe it is what it is, and maybe it only looks that way” platitudes. It would be nice to at least salvage some lessons learned from the end of a good guy’s career as a Libertarian candidate.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
November 10th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
How much money do you think many state organizations spend to help Libertarian candidates to run for state legislature? Many times this answer is not very much or none, because they try to spend all their money and resources on one race, or try to fill up the ballots on federal races.
November 10th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
How do you think the Libertarian Party, the collection self-organized of libertarians around the country, gives money to candidates? There is a single legal path. The candidates are talked up to the Libertarian public. Opinion leaders of various sorts express positive statements about teh candidates. The Libertarian masses break out their checkbooks and send the cash, a bit at a time. It is not even true that the National Party can in every state send money to a local candidate. In Massachusetts, for a non-Federal candidate, such a cash transfer would be totally illegal.
In contrast to Michigan, in Massachusetts we also had several really large state campaigns that raised hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars. The state party organization and activism both imploded. The LPMA has substantialy fewer dues paying members than we did in 1996 when I was executive director.
Having torn apart the numbers on how Badnarik spent his money, as revealed by the FEC, I do not think you will find what is being proposed.
November 10th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Just a few thoughts on Badnarik and electoral politics:
Tom’s remark, “The campaign was run poorly and did not spend the money on vote-gaining activities” is probably the correct assesment. At $53.88 per vote. a much better showing should have been expected, even with straight-ticket voting (which I beleive was more common than usual accross the country this year).
I’ve sent some of you my Activist’s Guide (a PRAGMATIC approach), which has a section on serious electoral politics, that I’ll gladly share with anyone else on request: get my e-mail address from http://mail.libertarian-party-nm.org/pipermail/lpnm-forum_libertarian-party-nm.org/2006q4/000639.html (my PRINCIPLE statement).
November 10th, 2006 at 2:26 pm
“We are flabbergasted that anyone expected Mike to win, including himself and Hacker. The main purpose for this whole thing was improving and reinforcing the national name recognition.”
If this is true, then the campaign really misrepresented itself. I contributed because I was led to believe Badnarik had a chance at winning. Call it naivety, but I’ve only been a libertarian for a few years now, and I don’t know how well LP cadidates usually do in elections. But this misunderstanding isn’t entirely my fault. Here’s an exerpt from a contribution email I received from the Badnarik campaign back in March:
“Very soon, Ron Paul will have a strong ally in Congress, and Libertarians will have a significant, new milestone to celebrate. Victory is within our grasp, and you have a chance to make that dream come true.”
Even I thought this was overly optimistic. I myself would have been satisfied if Badnarik had brought in only 20% of the vote. But 4% is completely unacceptable. Badnarik might be a nice guy and a great Libertarian, but I will never contribute to his candidacy again.
November 10th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Party name could be a killer, as suggested above. Years ago, a little study was done_ three profiles, sans party name, were given to students to “elect” – the professionally qualified person won overwhelmingly. Another class was given same profiles, with party names included.
The professional, the Libertarian, now ended up in single digits.
November 10th, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Tom nails it.
I too, was excited by the prospect of having a nationally known Libertarian using that internal celebrity status in order to get money concentrated into a Congressional campaign. I became less excited when I saw Badnarik travelling around the country personally to get that money. I have seen way too much money wasted on travel as a longtime Libertarian.
I suspect the campaign could have raised $200,000 with a lesser effort and had just as much money to spend on the actual campaign. Diminishing returns is a bitch. Such a lesser fundraising effort would have left Badnarik and staff more time to knock on doors, talk to civic groups etc.
Were I managing such a campaign, I would have spent less on fundraising and more on little things early on such as bumper stickers, yard signs, etc. Yes, the experts consider such things of little consequence, but they do give donors evidence that their money is going somewhere. My strategy might have flopped just as badly, however, so I am not going to do a neener dance here.
Hacker’s biggest problem is that he was used to working with major party campaigns, where his strategy would have worked much better. Third party guerilla politics has some different rules.
November 10th, 2006 at 3:12 pm
^ Sad. But perception is everything.
“The LP has one chance, and one chance only, to be a player. And that is to have a credible, well-known, well-funded candidate for president. Easier said than done, I realize.
Look at Perot. If he had run as a Libertarian (and actually been a libertarian), the LP would be in a very good position today because of the 30+ years of grass roots organizing. The Reform Party didn’t have this, and collapsed like a house of cards.
It’s fine to run local races, but that’s a slow process.
Races like Badnarik will never be successful without a catalyst at the top. The wasted vote syndrome is very real, and the earlier observation about straight-ticket voting is dead on.
If the LP nominates another nobody to run for president, it might as well fold up….....”
What do Libertarians think of Michael Bloomberg? He would be a case of more the Libertarians needing Bloomberg than Bloomberg needing the Libertarians, but I know he has not denied wanting to run for President in 2008, and he has to know that he would never win the Republican nomination.
November 10th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
It is interesting to see people saying now that “local races are the key—build the foundation.” When others have said that in the past, and even pointed to local electoral success, this information has been dismissed: “...but does the LP occupy a SIGNIFICANT office on the state or national scene?”
I personally think that building from local roots is the best long-term strategy, but I understand that this is unsatisfactory to many people who seek bigger and quicker victory.
In this political season, I was encouraged at the number of Libertarian candidates who faced off against major party opponents in “official” televised debates. People such as David Nolan and Barry Hess in AZ, Eric Schansberg in IN, Bruce Guthrie in WA, and several others represented the LP well and were, if underdogs, at least credible and respectable in their debate appearances. I was especially impressed by Schansberg, and hope we see more of him.
I agree that, had an Ed Thompson run for the House had the same campaign budget as Michael Badnarik’s, Ron Paul would be welcoming a Libertarian freshman congressman from Wisconsin in January. In a parallel universe, perhaps.
Seriously, can we get Mr. Ed to run for Congress in 2008?
Rather than Badnarik travelling all around, I would have been much happier to see others travelling to HIM. That is to say, part of the reason that people won’t vote for third parties is that they perceive them as being small in numbers and power, and limited in scope. Sending candidates or other party leaders around to help with other candidates’ campaigns might pay dividends. For instance, I think Badnarik could have gotten a boost from Thompson, Nall, Nolan (David AND Gary!), and several others. The messages that the public would receive: this thing is nationwide; we’re organized, and help each other; we have talented, serious people everywhere; and the problems of liberty are likewise everywhere! I realize that we can’t cross-promote in every case, but judicious use of this tactic in promising or important races might help.
Finally, I read suggestions that we need credible civic leaders to run for office as Libertarians. Bob Smither—a known and respected volunteer organizer and private businessman in his area—did just that in TX-22. What’s more, he had only a Democrat on the ballot against him, no GOP after DeLay quit—the GOP candidate was a write-in. Despite doing very well in candidate appearances, from what I could see, and being the only true fiscal conservative in the race, Smither got just 6% of the vote, while the WRITE-IN Republican got almost 42%! Maybe we need bigger and more well-known civic leaders to run, someone like Thompson in Wisconsin, or Art Olivier in California (running for governor now, but perhaps better suited as state assemblyman or Senator, or congressman). If there was anything like a “perfect storm” for the LP, the CD-22 election at first seemed to be it—yet Smither didn’t do that much better in this race than Badnarik did in his, albeit at a much lower cost per vote in the case of the former. Both candidates were FAR away from being contenders when all the votes were in.
I think we’re going to have to think, long and hard, about the information provided by this year’s election results. Instead of taking out the knives in the biennial exercise in self-recrimination and finger-pointing, let’s see what this cycle taught us, and how we can use the lessons to WIN next time.
November 10th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
The Libertarian Party has had only one real shot at becoming a major-sized political party – and it blew it! That was in the year 1980. There was probably a good chance that Eugene J. McCarthy would have accepted the Libertarian Party’s nomination for president if it had been offered to him. Indeed, Senator McCarthy had given the keynote address at the Libertarian Party national convention in 1977. As usual, the speech was pure, vintage, McCarthy substance. I know that because I was there in person.
Perhaps the Party will have another chance at the big times. If Jesse Ventura wants to run for president in 2008, the Libertarian (or Green) Party would be the best way to go. He should not run as an independent; he needs the base of support that a political party could give him.
November 10th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
Ventura also needs the ballot access the LP provides (unlike a Bloomberg, who could buy all the ballot access he wanted).
Unfortunately, if a Ventura or Barr seeks the nomination, they will probably get passed over for a party insider.
Michael Cloud once said that if you always do what you’ve always done, then you’ll always get what you’ve always gotten. We’ll see if the LP heeds that advice. I wouldn’t bet on it…..
November 10th, 2006 at 5:24 pm
I’m running for office in 2008 at the county level. You must get experience some how. I agree that Badnarik would have been better suited to run for a smaller race. Change begins at the local level.
November 10th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
maybe the voters dont buy what the LP keeps trying to tell them.
November 10th, 2006 at 7:27 pm
Out Michael Bloomberg, Bob Barr, and Jesse Ventura, none of them are libertarians. Ventura might be able to pass as one in a pinch, but the other two would be blatantly out of place at the top of an LP ticket.
November 10th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
btw, cheif wanna dubie out polled Badnarik.
November 10th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
This is probably the wrong place to opine such, but I think that asking the question “how can we best work towards making the LP successful” is a question that can only make sense after addressing the question “how can we best advance libertarianism in the US/world?” A political party is only one avenue for trying to achieve the latter, and after 30-some odd years of not only futility, but a clear change in the system enacted by the two ruling parties to more firmly keep third parties out (Perot having given them a little scare, they have further tightened the screws on, e.g. campaign finance and the televised national debates), it is certainly worth asking the question “has the LP become a sink that is draining what little resources and energy there is for advancing libertarianism?”
I’ve been a member for a long time but I started spending my energies for libertarianism elsewhere… Think tanks that advance “free minds and free markets”, FreeState projects, organizations designed to achieve a libertarian inroad within exisitng parties to influence them gently, etc… I don’t know if any of these are going to work but it’s clear to me that the LP is not… through no fault of anyone, it’s just that the system is rigged and a 3rd party has no more chance in the US as a 2nd party had in the USSR.
November 10th, 2006 at 9:29 pm
Tom Knapp and I have had our differences in the past, but I have to agree with his (and Carl’s) analysis of this race. Most of the money was spent trying to raise more money, but that approach doesn’t work for Libertarians the way it does for Ds and Rs. We need to spend more of our limited pool of money on the actual campaign. (And, as Tom points out, we need to do other things that are effective but cost little or no money.)
I think Michael was a very credible candidate. He probably didn’t have the ties to the local community that would have been built up by running for, and possibly getting elected and serving as, a local officeholder. But, considering how “geographically diverse” and spread out his district is, I don’t think even serving as a county commissioner or state rep would have made much difference to the majority of his constituents. It might have boosted his totals in the part of the district where he lives, but not a lot of effect district-wide. I do think Michael is very presentable and gets his message across well in person, and on TV and radio when he can get on. He is a good, if not perfect, candidate (the perfect candidate would be someone with Ross Perot’s money and Clint Eastwood’s name recognition!)
I lay the blame for the poor showing squarely at Hacker’s feet. The guy was supposed to know what he was doing and he failed to deliver, big time. Even if there was only $50-100K available to actually spend on advertising (and I am convinced that that figure could easily been $200K or more of the over $400K raised, if the campaign was well-managed), there was no excuse for not spending at least half of the available funds on TV and radio advertising. That is what really clicks with the public. Case in point, the Senate campaign here in TN. Bob Corker (who ultimately won) and Harold Ford Jr. spent a combined total of about $25 million.
Based on the very limited amounts of direct mail and newspaper or other advertising I saw in the Chattanooga area, and the constant TV commercials, I know where those guys put most of their money. And they turned out their voters! Their campaign consultants obviously know a lot more about winning than Hacker does. One thing is for sure, while I will donate to Michael if he runs again (preferably for a local or state office), I will never donate a dime to any campaign Hacker is involved with in the future. I feel he wasted my money and let Michael, and all Libertarians, down.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
No progress will be made towards a more Libertarian nation until and unless Libertarians are elected to government in substantial numbers. Q. E. D.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
The Constitution Party comments on Michael Badnarik’s election results. They say (from the Constitution Party web site):
“Ron Avery, the Constitution Party candidate for Congress in Texas’ 28th Congressional District won 13% of the vote. This can be compared to the 4% of the vote received by recent Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik, who was that party’s most recent Presidential nominee, despite his pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into the race in another Texas Congressional District.”
How sad this is. $400,000 raised and spent and all we have to show for it is 4%.
By the way the Constitution Party elected a candidate (Rick Jore) to the state legislature in Montana (Montana’s 12th District). He received 56.2% of the vote.
What Rick Jore’s victory shows is that an alternative party candidate can win. I am sure he unlike Michael Badnarik’s campaign spent his contributions wisely. It is obvious he must have other positives going for him and his campaign (personality, organization, experience, ethics, . . .). He must have done something and had something going for him after all he did receive 56.2% of the vote.
Where were we? How many candidates did we elect to a state legislature in 2006? Zero. How sad this is.
November 11th, 2006 at 1:30 am
What do Libertarians think of Michael Bloomberg? He would be a case of more the Libertarians needing Bloomberg than Bloomberg needing the Libertarians, but I know he has not denied wanting to run for President in 2008, and he has to know that he would never win the Republican nomination.
How about Satan? Is Satan available? True, he’s not 100% libertarian, but he’s got high name recognition and a lot of experience in politics.
November 11th, 2006 at 3:30 am
Another note on fundraising and how there’s no “central pool” of money for Libertarian campaigns. In one sense there IS such a central pool, and Badnarik had access to that pool to a greater degree than other LP candidates.
Badnarik was the LP’s 2004 presidential nominee, That gave him high name recognition within the LP. When he sent out a fundraising letter or showed up at an LP event, people knew who he was—maybe even more so than they knew who their local candidate for county commission, who lived a mile away from them, was. Furthermore, as the LP’s former presidential nominee, Badnarik had a very nice LIST OF DONORS to that presidential campaign to send his fundraising mailings to. Those lists don’t grow on trees.
So, he had certain advantages in terms of being able to appeal to LP donors for support. But still, there was no central party-controlled apparatus for deciding “ah, we’ll funnel money to Michael Badnarik instead of Candidates A, B and C” per se. There was no switch that the party organization could throw which would have caused the money that flowed to Badnarik to flow to Rex Bell in Indiana, or “the Vermont five,” or Art Olivier in California instead.
Beyond all that, I urge you to consider a simple proposition: THERE ARE NO SILVER BULLETS. The LP will not magically become successful when it does some single thing X. It has to do X, Y, Z, A13, BR549, and a bunch of other things, it has to do them better, and it has to do them better consistently.
What really sucks is that we don’t even know what all the Xes and Ys and Zs are, let alone how they all fit together. We can make pretty good guesses at some of them, but we don’t have any kind of hard template, because we don’t have a precedent to follow. The last time a “third party” ascended to “major party” status nationwide and for any length of time was 150 years ago (when the GOP replaced the Whigs), and the situation and the mechanics of electoral politics were very different in many ways then. We’re trying to put together a 5,000-piece jigsaw puzzle … and we’re doing it blindfolded, only allowed to take a peek and see how well we’ve been putting pieces together, every couple of years when the voters cast their ballots.
Politics is a cast-iron bitch, guys. All we can do is keep plugging, try to catch and correct the worst of our mistakes, try to learn lessons and then apply them correctly, and hope for lucky breaks.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
November 11th, 2006 at 9:42 am
Jose C- not to take away from Rick Jore’s victory in any way (he actually won the seat two years ago in a 3 way race but was screwed by a court decision) but he had repesented that district before as a Republican before switching parties. This time around the GOP did not oppose his bid and he easily ousted the Democratic incumbent. In other words, he was a known quantity in the district.
November 11th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
Property taxes and eminent domain are two issues minor parties can win with on the local level! It is clear there is no support to wage a campaign for federal offices, so why not concentrate on winning City Halls, and City Councils?
November 11th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Mr Winger’s comment is not pertinent in the sense that all LP congressional candidates faced the same problem. And Badnarik did not do particularly better than they did and they had far, far less money.
Now FEC records can be accessed on line. Go and look at how the funds were spent. Most was not spent on fund raising as some thought. Most was spent on administration, staff, a $3000 per month office and there were lots of “business meals” paid for by the campign. Lots of them. Most days there was one and often two such “business meals”
If you look at the first 18 days of October (the last period filed) you find they spent $1300 on fundraising, $3054 on rent, $12,675 on management and consulting fees and $753 on business means (just 18 days remember). And unlike the previous reporting period (July to September) they actually spent some money on campaigning for things like bumper stickers and brochures. But only a few thousand in total and no where near what the spent on management and consulting.
They also paid for air flights to attend the Harry Browne memorial—not a campaign expense and if they were fund raising there they lack propriety. In the July to September period they paid $38,000 to “Articulate Management”, $9162 for rent, $3065 for consulting fees, and almost $2500 for 72 different “business meals” Only $7600 is listed as fundraising expenses.
Instead of debating what happened people should read the FEC reports and draw their own conclusions based on the actual spending patterns not on conjecture and assumptions.
November 11th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Tom Knapp says all we have to do is “keep pluging away.” How absurd. The product we are selling is not being bought by the American public. It’s not just Badnarik. I worked for Bob Smither. He got a lot less votes than we had hoped for. I blame myself partly for his poor showing.
It’s very disheartening.
I suggest that we consider a major reform of our entire libertarian movement.
Joe Knight says our “ideals aren’t to blame.” I disagree Joe. They most certainly are.
The ideology is not the whole package. But it’s at least 50% to blame. We need to start pushing incrementalism, and seriously water down libertarianism to make it more appealing to mostly female middle of the road voters. They ain’t buying this “rugged individualism” stuff. They spoke loudly and clearly. The want socialized health care, government funded college tuition, and nanny state education and day care. We libertarians offer nothing to this demographic group.
It’s time we “Oprah Winfrey-ize” the libertarian movement.
But it’s not only our beliefs that needs to change. We need to desperately change our appearance and presentation.
Face it guys, we’re all basically 30s and 40s something white guys, some of us with pot bellies and receding hair lines.
Women just are not attracted to that these days.
We need better looking people involved in the libertarian movement, especially in leadership/candidate roles.
Will you all please take a moment to go to Sarah Palin’s web site at www.palinforgovernor.com
Take a look at the newly elected Alaska Governor and even her running mate Bill Parnell. Both are stunningly attractive. She’s a former beauty queen. He looks like a model.
I’m here in Alaska right now dealing with the public on a daily basis, petitioning for overturn of the smoking ban. I hear all the conversations about the Governor’s race.
November 11th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
(Sorry, hit the trigger too fast).
The ONLY thing people are talking about is how good looking Sarah is. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about her policies.
People want fluff. They want superficial. They want National Enquirer. They want Celebrity.
How can you argue with Arnold’s 68% vote in California, in an otherwise horrible Republican year?
Arnold got 68% of the vote for Governor, his running mater policy wonkish McClintock got 46% and lost for Lt. Governor.
Guys, PLEASE CONSIDER THIS. I know it’s very hard for us to swallow. But if you look at the post election stats, that’s the only thing you can walk away with.
We need to soften our rhetoric, and make our appearance more appealing to mostly female voters.
November 11th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Andy blames the Libertarian Party. Says it just ain’t working after 30 some years.
I blame the entire libertarian movement.
Andy, the Republican Liberty Caucus sufered a bad year too. Not nearly as bad as the LP, but some major longtime RLC guys lost reelection for State House and Congress.
Who do I blame even more than the LP or RLC?
The educational wing of the libertarian movement, Cato, Reason, Advocates for Self-Government et.al.
They failed us. The American public does not like nor accept libertarianism.
It’s not so much our political candidates who are to blame, it’s more those whose job it is to sell libertarianism to the public.
They’ve done a horribly piss poor job at it, and we political libertarians are suffering for it.
Take Cato for instance. Outside of the Beltway does anyone care for or listen to what they are saying?
The Advocates? I heard they’re almost bankrupt.
Reason? Only 60,000 subscribers after nearly 40 years in existence. How often do you see someone from Reason on Fox News or CNN compared to the Weekly Standard or New Republic?
We LPers and RLCers are partly to blame cause we’re not running enough female, attractive, celebrity type candidates. But the educational wing of our movement is far more to blame, cause they just ain’t reaching Middle America.
November 11th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
For decades, Libertarians have taken the wrong course. They have consistently run unqualified candidates for offices they cannot win. I’ve compared the Libertarian strategy to a new college graduate with a degree in accounting walking into Deloitte and Touche, asking for an application, filling in the box marked Position Sought with the title “CEO”, and expecting to get the job.
I’ve asked many people what they know about the Libertarian Party. Those who are not involved in politics often reply with the only perception they have of the Party: “You always lose.” They don’t about the 600 small officeholders around the country. What they do know is that every candidate we’ve ever run for council member in a major city, county commissioner, state representative, state senator, secretary of state, lieutenant governor, governor, U.S. representative, U.S. Senator and U.S. president has lost. How could people not see us as a party that always loses?
This creates a huge image problem for the party. Any rational person would ask how serious we are about politics if we keep using the same failed strategy year after year. Libertarians are fond of mocking the war on drugs by quoting Einstein: “One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” But if we are honest, that is exactly what Libertarians have been doing since the Party was founded. By Einstein’s definition, Libertarians are stark raving mad.
We must embark on a new strategy. We must start winning small local races and gradually move up the political ladder one rung at a time. We must only endorse candidates who are qualified for the position they are seeking. We must discourage Libertarians from running losing campaigns. To this end, the Libertarian Party of Ohio recently created a Candidate Review Committee the goal of which is “...to ensure that only qualified candidates who will advance the cause of liberty, serve the public well, and bring respect and honor to the Party are endorsed by the Libertarian Party of Ohio.”
I’m putting this strategy into practice in Cincinnati. There are 52 neighborhoods in Cincinnati and each has its own community council. Many current and former Cincinnati City Council members got their start in politics at the community council level. I am in my third term as president of the council in Northside and will be running for a fourth term in January. I hope to gain enough political experience to make a serious run for City Council someday.
I know this approach is slow. It’s a shame that the LP didn’t start doing it 35 years ago. But it is the only viable strategy there is for Libertarians to win political office.
Paul Green
Chair
Hamilton County (Ohio) Libertarian Party
November 11th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Eric Dondero, our ideals are why we do it. Changing sides (philosophy wise) isn’t a strategy, it’s surrender. And I have NEVER opposed incrementalism so long as it’s in the right direction. What I’ve said is that the LP should have a bottom-line priciple based-position on every issue and our candidates should run on shorter-scope, marketable, incremental platforms that would move us toward those ideals.
“The want socialized health care, government funded college tuition, and nanny state education and day care. We libertarians offer nothing to this demographic group.”
Is this YOUR concept of incrementalism? To offer gov’t goodies to get votes?
As for attracting more good-looking women, well you got ne there. You bring them in and I’ll welcome them!
November 11th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Eric Dondero says we need to offer good-looking fluff. Well, Art Olivier, running for governor here in CA, and his family are all attractive people. Granted, he was running against the unstoppable Governator this year, and he wasn’t truly “fluffy,” but then, neither was he an obvious policy wonk on the campaign trail. Look at how few votes he earned—in California, where style so often triumphs over substance! Art even campaigned on tightening our borders and denying entitlement benefits to illegal immigrants! That’s a hot-button in Mexican border states such as California if there ever was one, at at time when Schwarzenegger was generally considered to be somewhat soft on the immigration issue (not the least reason for which being that he is obviously an immigrant himself). By comparison, the more average looking Dale Ogden pulled over twice the votes, running for Insurance Commissioner, as Olivier earned in the gubernatorial race.
Maybe Eric is just being cynically facetious—I hope so. Anyway, if you need a counter-example to the proposition that “good looking” equals higher vote count, Olivier’s your man, and I say this with all respect and affection due to a nice guy, with previous electoral experience, who, I believe, ran a very credible race. Then again, perhaps if he had come off as more So Cal Surfer, he might have earned more votes. Who can say, dude?
November 11th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
Thanks to Joseph Knight, for his reply to Eric Dondero. Our ideals are, indeed, why we do it. If all you want to do is hold office as a party-puppet, the Demos and GOP already exist. Go there, young man, and knock yourself out.
Perhaps our biggest handicap is an inability to lie persuasively. Look at the neocons. They took over the GOP despite clear Trotskyite origins and a mercantilist/imperalist worldview, which normally would be at very least uncomfortable to traditional Republicans, if not downright repulsive. How did they do it? Lies, lies, and more lies. They baited with talk of limited government and switched to their true agenda at the first opportunity. Perhaps, if Libertarians could lie as well as neocons or Al Qaeda sleeper agents, they could permeate the parties and, when the time was ripe, reveal their true colors—something like what Supreme Court justices often seem to do, once confirmed to the bench.
What a concept: to lie continually and consistently for two or three decades, just to be able to get in position to the truly momentous “right thing” at the proper time. I hate to admit it, but perhaps the jihadists are on to something.
November 11th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Quoth Eric Dondero:
“Tom Knapp says all we have to do is ‘keep pluging away.’”
Actually, I said mostly the opposite: We have to learn a continuously changing set of lessons about what works, what doesn’t, and why, and then we have to apply those lessons correctly while they’re working and stop applying them when they stop working.
Everyone—including me, but especially you, Eric—wants to look at what happened Tuesday and come up with some magical, wondrous single answer to why things went the way they did. THERE IS NO SUCH WOUNDROUS SINGLE ANSWER.
If it’s all about being good-looking, explain Rick Jore’s victory in Montana. He’s not exactly a Pierce Brosnan double, and he wasn’t promising national health care and an organic latte in every cup.
Jon Tester isn’t going to win any beauty contests either, but he won an election.
Joe Lieberman looks like Janet Reno and that guy from the Rocky Horror Picture Show with the fringy hair had a kid—guess who Connecticut sent back to the Senate?
Different factors play in different ways in different races.
Yeah, being attractive probably helps, unless you’re ugly in some novel and ingratiating way. You’re probably going to get more votes with happy talk than with facts and figures, and you’re probably going to get more votes if you advertise than if you don’t, and you’re probably going to get more votes if people can pronounce your name than if it sounds like someone coughing while swearing in Portugese. There are exceptions, but those are reasonable expectations.
But: It’s very seldom that you can point to just one factor and say “that explains it all.” The LP doesn’t need a bunch of silver bullet bullshit, it needs to get better at EVERYTHING, and that’s a complicated and difficult thing to do.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
November 11th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
Hello Paul Green. I am impressed by your approach and persistence. Let us know when you decide to run for City Council. I would be interested in supporting you.
November 11th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
The LP’s Candidate Tracker may help us better decide on which LP campaigns to contribute to in the future. Unfortunately it was not in operation until late in this campaign season after much of the early fund-raising had been started. I’ll defer to Sean Hough on this point as he knows the most about it, but is there a facton in the Tracker that looks at what amount of the raised funds are going to pay for a campaingn manager versus what is going toward actual outreach to the voters? Is there some factor that covers if the campaign has prioritized getting a basic brochure out to the voters, whether by door hangers, direct mail, etc.?
November 11th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
There ARE silver bullets – but until/unless one comes along, we need to keep plugging away – as TK said, at analysis as well as activity. (People DO win the lottery but it would sure be dumb to quit your job and just wait for your number to come up.)
As for being good looking, well, it DOES help a LOT (as I’ve pointed out in my Electoral Campaigns Section) if people LIKE you.
Knapp is generally pretty perceptive about stuff and he’s correct when he says “THERE IS NO SUCH WOUNDROUS SINGLE ANSWER” and that the LP must “get better at EVERYTHING, and that’s a complicated and difficult thing to do.”
(Hey Tom, do you remember when you recomended to LPNM that they duct-tape my mouth shut?)
November 11th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
First things first. Today the LP represents the views of less than 5% of the population. The additional votes are more of the “none of the above variety”
Second to the vast majority of the American population the LP is made up of gun toting, wild west anarchists. Who’s views include: everyone carries a gun, the income tax is illegal so don’t pay, and the government can’t and shouldn’t tell me anything. Badnarik’s campaign was just $400,000 spent on preaching to the choir. We would bet that not one citizen of District 10 changed their minds on the true values and beliefs of the LP
November 12th, 2006 at 12:04 am
Eric Says:
The ideology is not the whole package. But it’s at least 50% to blame. We need to start pushing incrementalism, and seriously water down libertarianism to make it more appealing to mostly female middle of the road voters. They ain’t buying this “rugged individualism” stuff. They spoke loudly and clearly. The want socialized health care, government funded college tuition, and nanny state education and day care. We libertarians offer nothing to this demographic group.
*****
I disagree with Eric, I don’t believe we have ever truly spoken to women in general. He is right, inthat women DO think differently than men do.
My good friend, Nick Hogan, a Gahanna City Councilman the last twenty years or so says it is easy to reach women: Think of it as 4F&H
To reach women you have to speak to their concerns, which he says can be described as faith, family, friends, future and health.
Socialized healthcare DOES speak to those concerns. But I think a smart libertarian could also do it without selling out or by lying or even with “incrementalism”, which is IMHO, a little of both.
Peace
Steve
November 12th, 2006 at 1:32 am
Joseph,
I seem to recall some years back that you and I might have been on opposite sides of some argument.
I don’t recall recommending that anyone “duct tape your mouth shut,” but what the hell—I was youthful and intemperate until I hit 40 (which happens to have been about 48 hours ago), so I probably did say something like that.
Now, I don’t even remember what the dispute was or why I might have made such a statement. These days, I agree with you at least half the time, don’t generally find what you’re saying unreasonable even when we disagree, and am damn glad to have you out there weighing in when it counts. I guess you’re getting smarter as I get older
And you’re right—yes, there are some silver bullets of a sort … but as you point out, they’re the kind of silver bullets that turn up unexpectedly, that have to be used immediately, and that can’t be reproduced at will (i.e. one opponent dies, the other gets caught having sex with his neighbor’s goat, and the local rag accidentally inserts your name in its endorsements). We should shoot those silver bullets when they magically appear in our pistol’s chamber, but we can’t count on them doing so … so we still need to concentrate on getting a thousand different non-negotiable fundamental mechanics right, repeatedly. And we’re still a long way from doing so.
Read any good “campaign diary” type of book—I suggest Smashmouth by Dana Milbank or Joe Trippi’s The Revolution Will Not Be Televised—and you’ll see how often even the big guys get stuff wrong. These are people who have decades of winning races under their belts, and yet they turn around and blow it with surprising frequency. And we’re handicapped by the “duopoly” paradigm … we don’t just have to be as good as them to beat them, we have to be better.
If you ever see a case of Pepcid AC listed as a campaign disbursement, it’s legit.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
November 12th, 2006 at 2:40 am
Let’s look at the good side, though. At least Badnarik won’t be the LP’s presidential candidate in 2008.
Or will he? Stranger things have happened, and somehow I won’t be surprised at all.
November 12th, 2006 at 9:35 am
It’s about freedom baby!
Freedom. Not consistent application of the axiom of non-initiation of force.
Who puts our youth into uniforms, and bosses them around? Who gives our more do this or else orders?
Hint: it ain’t the military, and it ain’t the police.
It’s corporations.
For people trapped on the lower end of the wage scale (and many who are much farther up), the government is Godzilla: dangerous and destructive, but protecting the city from the more dangerous Freeze Monster or whatnot.
—-
Proprietary communities are typically more repressive than local governments. You have more freedom in the public square than you do in a shopping mall. Getting away from it all in a national forest is a freedom vision for most people.
The Libertarian Party is emotionally inconsistent. Freedom has multiple dimensions, including:
*Freedom from the cop and the bureaucrat
*Freedom from the boss
*Freedom from everyone else
The LP focuses almost entirely on the first freedom.
—-
All this minituae about campaigning overlooks the fundamental point: if you have a message that sells, you can sell it. If you don’t you won’t. Money, sound bite crafting, effective campaign management, focusing of resources, etc. won’t do the job. These things are worthless without a compelling message. With a compelling message, they are useful.
Try this experiment. Next time you do petitioning, tell people what your message is. Be honest. Don’t hold back. Don’t even ask for a signature unless the person likes your message. If you don’t get the signatures of at least a third of those willing to talk to you, you need to change your message.
If you can get on the ballot this way, you deserve to be there; otherwise, you don’t.
I joined the LP as an Oath-following, Rothbard-reading anarcho-capitalist. and remained that way for about a decade. During that time it was a freakish occurence when someone agreed with my message—and those rare occurences were when I encountered someone else who had already been exposed to the LP.
Today, I have a pro-freedom message that sells. I get heads nodding in the vertical direction as a matter of course. The difference in response is well over an order of magnitude. I can work a hard-left audience, talking mainly about economic issues (including major cuts in government), and get hugs afterwards.
With such a message it is possible to build a real base. With such a base, professional campaign management could well be useful for handling the endgame.
November 12th, 2006 at 10:10 am
“the other gets caught having sex with his neighbor’s goat”
Come on. How realistic is it that the LP will be squaring off against the Constitution Party, one-on-one?
Maybe the CP should change its name to the BP; the Borat Party. It might win some votes of people under 55/ non-Amish.
November 12th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
Tom, Libertarian Party reformers have been saying exactly the same thing you have been saying here for decades. After each devastating loss (save 1980, and perhaps 1994), LPers analyze the results and say we need to “keep plugging away,” change some things here and there, but one day we will win.
That day never comes. It’s just defeat, after defeat, after defeat.
I was stupidly predicting that this could possibly be the “best year ever for the Libertarian Party.”
What’s the result? 3 Soil & Water Board members and two County Commissioners in TN.
That’s worse results than a normal LP year.
Tinkering won’t help. Only drastic and dramatic change will.
I’d start with giving the Party over in whole to a Jesse Ventura, or Bob Barr type, and saying “hey, please take our Party; we have excellent ballot access, do with it what you will.”
It’s time to roll the dice.
We’re all getting older, and I know each of us wants to see this libertarian movement succeed before we die.
Stop the tinkering! Advocate drastic change of the LP!
November 12th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Since I have never been a member of the Libertarian Party, my opinion probably does not carry a lot of weight here. With that being said, though, I think that Eric Dondero is pretty much on the mark. Or, to paraphrase John and Yoko, “All we are saying is give victory a chance.”
November 12th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
The Libertarian Party of Indiana won two races in this year’s election. It came tantalizingly close in another, and was in the mix in another. They were all important Township Advisory Board races, which are important offices that set and approve township budgets. They are smaller election districts. It shows Libertarians can be elected to important offices.
On my opinion about the Libertarian desire (fantasy) to win the big one without comparable campaign resources with the R’s and D’s, see the following:
“Quit Trying to Become CEO without First Getting Experience in the Mail Room”
http://lpinscr.blogspot.com/2006/11/quit-trying-to-become-ceo-without.html
November 12th, 2006 at 4:50 pm
Carl, when you say “It’s about freedom baby! Freedom. Not consistent application of the axiom of non-initiation of force” you are being inconsistant: FREEDOM IS THE ABSENCE OF THE INITIATION OF FORCE!
http://mail.libertarian-party-nm.org/pipermail/lpnm-forum_libertarian-party-nm.org/2006q4/000639.html
Freedom from the corporation? Freedom from the boss? We HAVE those freedoms – we can CHOOSE to quit our jobs and/or not do business with corporations. We may not like the consequenses of those decisions, but we have the choice.
Only government and other thugs WHO INITIATE FORCE or threaten to do so can trully take away a freedom.
“You have more freedom in the public square than you do in a shopping mall.” Yes, and that is as it should be. You are not forced to go to the shopping mall, but if you do, remember, it’s THEIR MALL, NOT YOURS. Certainly, if you come into my living room as my guest, there are some things you might do in the public square that you won’t be allowed to do at my house – but you are free to leave anytime, I won’t initate force to keep you there.
You know, I have pretty good luck selling pro-freedom messages too – marketing – and the way I do it depends on the audience, but what I DON’T do is abandon my core principle.
Carl, you are clever, glib, and articulate – surely you can find a way to sell freedom without undermining it. You and Eric should really get together – seems to me you both are willing to settle for victory by simply re-defining victory.
November 12th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
Good ‘ol UA. Amidst all of this Libertarian Party soul searching, he still can’t resist taking a completely gratuitus shot at the Constitution Party and mixing in one of his favorite subjects, sex with animals!
Even though I’m with the Constitution Party, I happen to believe the Libertarian Party has a bright future and a definite roll to play in American politics, but it will be in spite of, not because of the contributions of people like UA.
And I hope nobody minds if I chime in, but fighting the “Two-headed Dragon,” better known as the Dems and GOPs, is simply a very diffiicult task and is a long term proposition. There are ups and downs and times when it hardly seems worth it. The main thing is to keep on keepin’ on. Their corrupt houses are starting to show definte signs of fatigue and wear. More and more people are looking for alternatives. Some come to my party, some come to yours. We must simply continue to be there for them to repair to when the dam really bursts. And it will. We will continue to build and grow and I expect my Libertarian friends to do the same.
November 12th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
Regarding healthcare, I work in that industry and am encouraged by the movement to return to “out-of-pocket healthcare”: the efforts by some practitioners to extricate themselves and their patients from the tangle of insurance restrictions on the one hand and Medicare-inspired state and federal regulation on the other. The idea is for practitioners to provide affordable healthcare, which most people can pay for out-of-pocket, as they used to do in the days before medicare, especially for routine procedures, drugs, and minor surgeries. Catastrophic or chronic care might still be expensive, but those occasional and randomly-needed expenses could be handled by insurance—which was designed to defray occasional or randomly experienced loss, and which functions best in that mode.
Observe that the cost of elective surgeries, drugs, and procedures (ED drugs, plastic surgery, etc.) continues to go down, according to what we would expect from normal supply and demand economics, as new technologies and economies of scale are brought to bear on the problem. In contrast, the overall cost of healthcare (and healthcare insurance premiums) continues to go UP, partly as costs for drugs and procedures go up, but partly because people use a lot more healthcare if it seems “free” or “discounted” to them via the insurance. Paying for most healthcare out-of-pocket would allow the same forces that have pushed down prices for elective drugs and procedures to apply to the healthcare industry in general.
The original impetus of our HMO/Medicare dominated system was, ironically enough, wage-and-price controls instituted by FDR in the WWII era. Healthcare was a tax-free benefit that employers could offer to workers in lieu of compensation adjustments that were forbidded by law. So, at the core of today’s healthcare mess is the need for employers circa WWII to get around government economic intervention. Subsequent waves of accommodation and adaptation to the wartime situation led to the grotesque monster, and to the distorted economic sector, which we have today.
In appealing to women voters on the healthcare issue, we need to expose the ignoble origins of our current healthcare system, and we need to paint an attractive, but realistic picture of how life could be, if all of the wartime, post-wartime, and post-post-wartime distortions could be undone. There is a drumbeat toward “single-payer” healthcare, based on the idea that the government should control the entire healthcare industry, because of the supposed failure of the “free market” to keep healthcare costs in line and quality high. But there hasn’t been a truly “free market” in healthcare since the 1940s, with government intruding a little more every year since then.
It is not necessary for us to fudge our principles and accept or even promote ANY kind of socialized medicine to appeal to women. We need to show, instead, how the increasing socialization of medicine since the 1940s has led to our current predicament, and how a return to the free-market could fix the lion’s share of that problem.
November 12th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Once again (only last time it was in the “Ballot Access News” forum), I wish to offer my hearty encouragement to Gary Odom for his continued optimism. Furhermore, he is correct. More and more people are, indeed, looking for alternatives to the two party duopoly that has driven our country into the ground for the past four decades (plus).
Nevertheless, the fact remains that the only time that the American Independent Party of California was part of a super-serious campaign for the presidency was in 1968 when George Wallace was the nominee. That effort was ended in 1972 when Mr. Wallace was crippled by an assasination attempt (and also by President Nixon’s successful effort to woo a lot of Wallace voters through his “Southern Strategy”). The Libertarian Party has never had a super-serious campaign for the presidency.
The main question then is this: Does the independent reform movement want to stay with losing tactics or does it want to “roll the dice,” as Eric Dondero suggested? I say we should go with the latter!
November 13th, 2006 at 1:50 am
Joseph Knight:
To argue that we have freedom from the corporation ignores the complex corporate welfare and corporate-military complex all of us are forced via taxes to fund. Interesting how small businesses are basically forced to fund governments to bring in competitors which (surprise!) put them out of business.
Targeting state corporatism has been something the LP has unequivocally failed to do effectively, and by aligning ourselves with the Right, everyone assumes incorrectly because we are laissez faire, we also support corporate control. This is a huge misconception, especially among those who have a partial recognition of the LP and its’ policies but not a full one.
Fact: there is no small business party. While the LP may be the closest thing to it, it fails to market itself effectively as such. I am fully aware that many LP members are entrepreneurs and small business owners, but nevertheless, we are not sufficiently addressing the fallacy created by the Left that free markets = corporate monopoly. Only by showing the Left that the free market reduces the corporate oligopoly by helping small businesses compete, that reducing government will reduce the infrastructure for authoritarianism, and that, since government has grown and most of the 1930s Socialist Party platform has been adopted into political reality, corporate power has only solidified and the Right is more abusive than ever, will we be able to correct the Left’s fallacious reasoning and corruption of the word “liberal.” Even the word “progressive” should be claimed by the libertarian wing over the socialism wing, as long-term analyses show that democratic socialism either collapses on itself or reverts to state socialism/authoritarianism or corporate fascism as the political tides shift, and thus progressive ends are not permanently accomplished by centralizing government.
The political elite and economic elite either are or run in the same circles, so it shouldn’t be surprising to anyone that they prop each other up. Why the Left hasn’t realized this already shows how blinded they are by their idealism.
Personally, like so many who have gone before me, I’m giving up on the LP ever being an effective political party. As long as it adheres to an inflexible, solitary ideal which fails to address the complexities of political reality, not to mention as long as the party membership seem to demonstrate more personal acrimony towards each other than to non-libertarians, the LP will never be an effective political party. I’d rather spend my time building a classically liberal, pro-small business and pro-Swiss-style localization party than loiter in a quixotic political dustbin for the rest of my life. How many losing election cycles does it take to break a person’s political spirit?
November 13th, 2006 at 1:52 am
Does the independent reform movement want to stay with losing tactics or does it want to “roll the dice,” as Eric Dondero suggested?
Taking chances is necessary if you want to get anywhere, but taking ‘bet-the-farm’ chances on random outsiders can just result in losing the farm. The middle ground between no risk and wild risk is to take measured risks.
November 13th, 2006 at 10:33 am
Nick Wilson said, “How many losing election cycles does it take to break a person’s political spirit?”
1980 and still going. I knew it was a marathon going in. Also, when you say “losing,” you have to temper that with acknowledgement that the LP does continue to rack up local and regional victories, including the occasional spoiler role. No, we haven’t “won” the game yet, but we’re still in it, which is something.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
Nick, in response to “To argue that we have freedom from the corporation ignores the complex corporate welfare and corporate-military complex all of us are forced via taxes to fund.”
I oppose merchantilism just as I oppose theocracy. But neither the corporation nor the church deprives me of freedom, directly, without the cooperation and complicity of government.
I actually agree with many of your points, though not your conclusions. I wish you the best of luck with your “classically liberal, pro-small business and pro-Swiss-style localization party.” You may even get a few of my votes when there are no Libertarians on the ballot.
Somebody on one of these blogs cited a study or experiment where the same position was given to people, with one attributed to a Libertarian source and the one not tagged Libertarian got a lot more favorable responses – and as I think about it, I really beleive that a mind-set against third parties is the biggest obstacle we have to overcome, not philosophy. That’s problematic for folks like me who can’t cross the emotional barrier to join a “major” party – too much blood under the bridge.
So, I gather up my broken spirits, and choose between long odds and giving up. And I’ve always thought that long odds are better than none.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
James Anderson Merritt, what I’m saying here is that this was a less than successful Libertarian Party year for local election victories. I remember past years when the LP would elect some 20 to 30 to local offices, including County Sheriffs, Supervisors, et.al.
This year, only 5, as I can count, maybe 7? That’s pitiful.
The LP used to be effective at winning local elections, at least. Now, it’s not even good at that.
It’s time for a MAJOR overall for the Libertarian Party. Drastic, dramatic, of historic proportions.
BTW, didn’t you used to be elected to something in Kansas? I seem to remember your name from LP Elected Libertarian lists. Do you still hold office?
November 13th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Still no response over at badnarik.org since the “day after” blog post that is listed above from Hacker.
November 13th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
rj – Hacker is probably sitting on some beach somewhere with the $100+ he made off the camaign… He will respond once he gets back.
November 13th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
It’s true, the currently strategy is hopeless. Here’s what libertarians should do instead. Set up a PAC or PACs to funnel money to winnable races. Donors can check out the PAC’s success rate in order to judge if they are really picking winnable races.
Then, libertarians who want to run for office should do so as independents. I’m certain voters will like the sound of that much better than “libertarian” or some other fringey third-party-name.
It might be necessary to have a party on the books sometimes to reap some sort of ballot access advantage. Still, that only needs to be doine on an ad hoc basis, and abandoned whenever it’s not necessary. As far as I’m aware, being a party rather than an independent doesn’t give any particular advantage in most states, most of the time.
November 13th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
Eric is way wrong!
BTW it’s nice to know that Stan Jones, the guy painted as a nutcase in a recent HoT thread that drew 288 comments, got well above the margin of victory in Montana. If it weren’t for him the NSGOP would still control the US Senate. I think he deserves a medal!
First he turned blue, then he turned the US Senate blue. Who knew?
The vast majority of anti-eminent domain initiatives passed.
Our 3 marijuana statewides failed, but all were in the 40s, including two separate issues that went beyond medical in two separate mid-sized states in the same year.
All ten local pro-marijuana issues passed.
Numerous local pro-peace and pro-Bush impeachment measures passed.
The Republicans were punished for their immigrant-bashing, getting barely over half the percentage of the Hispanic vote they got in 2004.
Even more importantly they were punished even more for their warmongering, wiretapping, torture, etc; the real #1 issue of the election (along with their corruption) on which the vote came down on the small government side.
The Congress is now in the hands of the Democrats, which means more gridlock and hopefully Congressional investigations of the Bush War Crime Family. Two major positive developments for liberty – and thanks to LP candidates!
The Senate would not have gone Democrat if it were not for the LP; which is a great position of leverage.
Some state LPs, such as Georgia and Texas, did well in terms of increasing average vote percentage.
So the news was not bad by a long shot!
first state—Arizona—to reject a gay marriage ban
Yet more good news, contra Eric….
National Review
by Dave Kopel
“The Second Amendment has emerged from the biggest Democratic victory since 1974 with relatively little damage. One reason is that in races all over the country, Democrats returned to their Jefferson-Jackson roots by running candidates who trust the people to bear arms. ... Nevertheless, the class of pro-gun Democrats who will be joining the House and the Senate includes some who will eventually become party leaders, and who will help move the Democratic party back towards its traditional position of respect for the civil liberties of the American people. A very constructive development, in the long run.” (11/08/06)
Yet still more good news….
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ Column…1942896,00.html
Pretty good article, and most of it was dead-on.
As for the “gun-toting” part, as seen in the NR piece above, apparently many of the newly elected Democrats are gun rights supporters, so in that respect – if the Brit journalist means that gun rights supporters suffered a defeat – then he’s wrong.
However, it could also mean the “world policeman” type of gun toting, in which case he is correct, and it is in fact good news.
41% for hardcore libertarian Democrat Frank Gonzalez for US House from Florida.
Libertarian Democrat Joel Winters elected to NH legislature.
positive tidbits from ballot access news:
The United States has had popular elections for U.S. Senate starting in 1914. In the entire history of these elections, there had never been a U.S. Senate election in which the combined Democratic-Republican Party vote for U.S. Senate had fallen below one-third of the vote, until November 7, 2006. In that election, in Vermont, over two-thirds of the voters chose someone who wasn’t a Democrat or a Republican.
Previous to 2006, the record had been in Minnesota in 1928, when 66.3% of the voters had voted for someone other than a Democrat or Republican.
This week, 33 U.S. Senate seats were up for election. Republicans won only 9 of them. This is the smallest number of seats that either major party has won in any election year since 1964, when the Republicans won only 7 seats.
California Voters Reject Anti-Minor Party Ballot Initiative
On November 7, Rhode Island voters voted to let ex-felons who are on probation and parole become registered voters.
As noted some time ago, the Ohio Libertarian Party won a huge victory in the 6th circuit in September 2006; that court struck down the state’s ballot access law for new parties. Ohio had a Republican Attorney General and a Republican Secretary of State at the time. They both indicated they planned to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal. However, Democrats won the Ohio races for Secretary of State and Attorney General on November 7, so perhaps the state will take a fresh look at whether it wishes to ask for U.S. Supreme Court involvement.
IRV & Single Transferrable Vote Win in All 4 Ballot Measures
New Cali and Minnesota SOS favor IRV
Yet more reasons to thank Stan Jones for turning the US Senate blue:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/...how/ 116649.html
From the above article:
The number one issue most voters cited in exit polling Tuesday was terrorism. Half of those voters gave their votes to the Democrats, showing that even in what was thought to be the GOP’s strongest issue, President Bush’s expansionist, civil-liberties-be-damned approach to locking up the evildoers isn’t the sure thing the Republicans thought it was.
From there, Tuesday by most indications was a rejection of big government conservatism, not 1994-style limited government conservatism. The second issue most important to voters, for example, was corruption. The third was Iraq. Voters who cited each voted overwhelmingly for the Democrats. Nowhere in exit polling did voters say they were throwing the bums out because they spent too little, refused to raise the minimum wage, or because voters were clamoring for more regulation of business, or socialized health care.
Corruption is the result of a federal government too flush with money and too fat with influence. When billions of dollars are at stake—either in the form of handouts and corporate welfare, or from the effects of regulation—it only makes sense that corporations and special interests would spend millions to secure a spot at the trough, or to tweak regulations to their liking. The more influence wielded in Washington, the further corrupting forces will go to win a share of it.
[..]
As for spending, the National Taxpayers Union points out that the incumbent Republicans defeated this week were hardly budget hawks. Just two of the 19 Republicans now confirmed to have been ousted Tuesday earned NTU’s “Friend of the Taxpayer” status. The rest compiled an NTU rating well behind that of the overall GOP caucus.
Further, as several pundits have noted this week, DCCC Chairman Rahm Emannuel consciously recruited conservative, “blue dog” Democrats to challenge vulnerable Republicans in winnable districts. And they won. You could make a good argument that voters opted for a more fiscally responsible Congress this week, not less.
Mike Pence (R-IN) and John Shadegg (R-AZ) seem to get it. The two rock-ribbed conservatives wasted no time in laying out a vision for the Republican party in line with 1994’s Contract with America. Republicans “voted to expand the federal government’s role in education by nearly 100% and created the largest new entitlement in 40 years,” Pence wrote in a letter to his GOP colleagues announcing his candidacy for minority leader. “We also pursued domestic spending policies that created record deficits, national debt and earmark spending that has embarrassed us and caused many Americans to question our commitment to fiscal responsibility.”
http://www.reason.com/news/show/...how/ 116399.html
Looks like most Reason staffers, like most libertarians around the country (small l) either voted Democrat or didn’t vote at all this year.
The LP needs to emphasize its peace and civil liberties issues to win (or win back) these voters, and/or give non-voters a reason to vote.
November 13th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
I’m thinking getting a bulk of members elected as one of the major party candidates.
Then, have all principled Libertarians leave en masse when the party they belong to makes a very non-libertarian decision. Like No Child Left Behind if one was a Republican when the President signed and touted it. That way, instead of being marginalized, said person can be surrounded by friends that would make it harder for people to label him or her a gadfly.
Then, we can see how these people do for the Libertarian Party as an incumbent seeking re-election.
November 13th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
Somewhere in the previous post someone wrote something about Badnarik and idealogy, probably Eric Dondero, but a billboard with “Smile if you Love Liberty” ain’t idealogy. It, the billboard, that is, is plain nonsense.
It would have been money better spent to come out strongly against the war, or just about anything. But that kind of non issue stuff is not taken seriously by most voters.
Libertarian candidates need to learn to stay on issue.
M.H.W.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:37 pm
That was a Badnarik billboard?
I thought it was a Wal Mart ad.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:47 pm
rj – Hacker is probably sitting on some beach somewhere with the $100+ he made off the camaign… He will respond once he gets back.
Go to urbandictionary.com and post new definitions for “hacker”.
November 13th, 2006 at 11:50 pm
LOL Paulie!
November 14th, 2006 at 2:07 am
“Somewhere in the previous post someone wrote something about Badnarik and idealogy, probably Eric Dondero, but a billboard with ‘Smile if you Love Liberty’ ain’t idealogy. It, the billboard, that is, is plain nonsense.
It would have been money better spent to come out strongly against the war, or just about anything. But that kind of non issue stuff is not taken seriously by most voters.”
I totally agree. I’m REALLY disappointed by the Badnarik campaign. They had the perfect opportunity to make some real progress for the Libertarian Party and they BLEW IT.
Those billboards SUCKED big time. “Smile if you love liberty” and “Family, Security, Progress” are not provocative or interesting. I’d be willing to bet that these billboards did little or nothing for the campaig. “Smile if you love liberty” is just plain asinine and on the part of that billboard that mentioned Badnarik the print was too small. I bet that most people who drove by it didn’t even notice the part about Badnarik.
“Family, Security, Property” sounds like something a typical Republican or Democart would say.
If I were running the campaign I’d have put up billboards that would made more of an impression on people.
“IMPEACH BUSH! Libertarian Michael Badnarik for Congress”
“LEGALIZE MARIJUANA! Libertarian Michael Badnarik for Congress”
“SICK OF BIG GOVERNMENT RUNNING YOUR LIFE? Libertarian Michael Badnarik for Congress”
“TIRED OF DEMOCRAT AND REPUBLICAN LIES? Libertarian Michael Badnarik for Congress”
“BRING THE TROOPS HOME! Libertarian Michael Badnarik for Congress”
“ABOLISH THE INCOME TAX! Libertarian Michael Badnarik for Congress”
“STOP THE POLICE STATE! Libertarian Michael Badnarik for Congress”
Billboards like the ones I mentioned above would have gotten people’s attention. Sure, not everyone is going to agree with them but those people aren’t going to vote Libertarian anyway.
If those billboards are an indication of the kind of outreach they had such a poor vote total.
November 14th, 2006 at 2:35 am
It sounds to me like the Badnarik campaign was trying too hard to not offend people by not coming off as too controversial. Well, this is what happens when the you water down the message too much.
A guy that I know got interested in the Libertarian Party back in 1988 after he saw a Ron Paul for President sign that mentioned abolishing the income tax. It was the part about abolishing the income tax that got him interested. If he had seen “Smile if you love liberty” or “Family, Security, Prosperity” I don’t think that it would have sparked his interest.
I’ve met Michael Badnarik and my impression of him was that he’s a good guy that’s really committed to the cause. I sent him a $100 donation for his Presidential campaign and I sent him a $200 donation for his run for Congress. My first choice for the Presidential nomination in 2004 was Aaron Russo but I supported Badnarik after he got the nod. I thought that he did a resepcetable job in his Presidential run given the limited resources with which he had to work. His campaign for Congress is obviously a huge disappointment. At one point it looked as though he could have actually pulled off an upset and won this race, or at least made a decent showing. Heck, I would have been satisfied if he had recieved 15% of the vote, but 4%, that is freaking pathetic! They can’t claim that lack of funding was the reason because they had over $400,000. The fact that they did this poorly with that much money tells me that they didn’t know what the fuck they were doing.
I remember hearing back in the spring that they had already raised $250,000. Why didn’t they use some of this money to make a TV commerical (and a commercial with some real substance, not some “Smile if you love liberty” crap)? Even if they only had enough funds to run it once or twice on TV they could have played it at LP conventions and posted it on the internet and this would have gotten them more attention and boosted their donations.
What happened with the DVD they said they were going to produce and distribute to voters?
Why did they waste their time trying to appease people who are never going to vote Libertarian?
Here are 3 things that I would have done had I been in charge of the campaign.
1) Reach out to non-voters and independents.
2) Hit the Democrats with pro-civil liberties stances that the Democrat candidate didn’t have the balls to touch.
3) Point out to Republicans all the ways that McCaul and Bush have betrayed conservative principles.
The watered down “Smile if you love liberty” and “Family, Security, Prosperity” CRAP will NEVER get us anywhere. You’ve got to be more bold than that if you want to make a breakthrough.
November 14th, 2006 at 2:40 am
Does anybody have any background information on this Allen Hacker guy? It sounds to me like he’s a guy who talks big but doesn’t know as much as he thinks he knows. I just don’t buy that this is the best that could be done with $400,000.
November 14th, 2006 at 4:34 am
Gotta give credit to Paulie. He’s unabashed in his brashness, even when he’s wrong.
How’s this for a zinger. He claims the 3 marijuana initiatives as victories, even though all three of them lost. “We got in the 40s” he exclaims. Actually, I believe one of them was in the low 30s, but doesn’t matter. 40s is still losing.
And he cannot cite any Libertarians who have actually been elected this year. Go to the LP web site, and look for yourselves. There’s 3 soil & Water Board members and 2 County Commissioners. That’s it.
That’s about the worst election cycle in a decade for the LP.
The electorate spoke. And they sent us a message loud and clear; the want bigger government and have rejected libertarianism.
Hell, we now have a Socialist as a United States Senator from Vermont. How much friggin’ proof do you all need beyond that?
Now, we can hide our heads in the sand and pretend that’s not true. Or, we can get off our asses and do something about it, like seriously reforming the libertarian political movement.
November 14th, 2006 at 9:57 am
Andy, I tend to agree with you. I think a Libertarian candidate should use our unusual ideas as attention getting. This is not a contradiction with with being reasonable/moderate.
“End the Police State” can be a call to going back just a few years.
“Abolish the Income Tax” can be a reasonable slogan as long as you don’t call for “replacing it with nothing.”
“Legalize Marijuana” appeals to about a third of those who take quiz2D. Just don’t call for legalizing all recreational drugs if you want to win office.
There are many gradations between madman and milquetoast.
November 14th, 2006 at 11:40 am
“’Abolish the Income Tax’ can be a reasonable slogan as long as you don’t call for ‘replacing it with nothing.’”
I don’t want to replace the income tax with anything. The “Fair Tax” is a pile of horseshit. However, I agree that the part about not replacing the income tax with anything does not need to be a part of the campaign slogan.
“’Legalize Marijuana’appeals to about a third of those who take quiz2D. Just don’t call for legalizing all recreational drugs if you want to win office.”
There’s a ton of people who think that marijuana should be legal. I know that all 3 of the statewide marijuana initiatives this year failed to pass but keep in mind that a lot of the people who would have voted for it are not even registered to vote. We need to reach out to as many as those people as possible. Get them registered to vote and inspire them to go to the polls.
Trying to appeal to people who will never vote Libertarian is not going to get us anywhere. We need to reach out to the independent thinkers, the entrepenuers, the artists, the rebels, and people who have been railroaded by the system. This is our natural constituency. Screw the establishment bootlickers!
November 14th, 2006 at 11:50 am
“Fact: there is no small business party. While the LP may be the closest thing to it, it fails to market itself effectively as such. I am fully aware that many LP members are entrepreneurs and small business owners, but nevertheless, we are not sufficiently addressing the fallacy created by the Left that free markets = corporate monopoly. Only by showing the Left that the free market reduces the corporate oligopoly by helping small businesses compete, that reducing government will reduce the infrastructure for authoritarianism, and that, since government has grown”
A few years ago I recieved a fundraising letter from LP National that said that they wanted to start an outreach program to small business owners. I thought that this was a great idea so I sent them a $35 donation. To my knowledge LP National never implemented the program. What happened?
Small business owners and independent contractors SHOULD be a natural constituency for the LP but I’d be willing to bet that most of these people have never even heard of the LP or have some misconception about what the party is about.
I totally agree with your comments about the left not understanding the difference between free market and corporate fascism. If we could get the message to these people that what we have today is big government sponsored corporate fascism and not a real free market a lot of them could become libertarians.
November 14th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
I’d like to take a moment and talk about the Tammy Lee campaign here in Minnesota. I gladly supported Lee with a donation, a yard sign, and most importantly my vote here in MN-5. I also used to live in TX-10 so I have personal experience in both the areas where Badnarik and Lee ran for their seats.
Both Badnarik and Lee were in races where the dice were loaded. TX-10 is traditionally a Republican area while MN-5 is one of the most liberal DFL (Minnesotan for Democrat is DFL, by the way) districts in America. Badnarik had nearly double the money that Lee had, yet managed a measly vote total that paled in comparison to Lee’s. Why was this?
Tammy Lee had a terrific combination working in her favor. One, she was easily the most articulate and intelligent candidate in the race. Her showing in local debates was absolutely phenomenal. Two, she worked VERY hard to both raise money and be around the 5th. Three, she has a terrific personality and really can light up a room. Four, Tammy used her funds very wisely and saved her resources so she had money to buy TV ads (yes, Lee had substantial amounts of local TV advertising buys) in the stretch run of the campaign. She bought on cable quite a bit and I was very happy to see a Tammy Lee ad on the FOOD NETWORK during Emeril Live no less. That’s smart spending…get on during prime time without paying the major networks an arm and a leg while still getting some bang for the buck. Finally, she was running to WIN, not as some sort of third party pipe dream. Tammy seriously believed she had a chance to win despite the odds, and the way the campaign was run reflected this.
Did Badnarik do any of this? It seemed he opened strong and faded VERY quickly. While Lee was all over TV the weekend before Election Day we saw Badnarik fade into oblivion.
Yeah, I’ll also mention that Tammy Lee isn’t a bad looking gal, either. But as noted before that alone doesn’t make a powerful candidate.
Badnarik won’t be carrying the Liberatarian banner in anything big soon if they know what’s good for them. Lee, meanwhile, is someone people in Minnesota can see as the IP bearer in the next governor’s race. And she would likely top the 6.5% Hutchinson got because quite frankly, she’s more likeable personally.
November 14th, 2006 at 1:08 pm
“I totally agree with your comments about the left not understanding the difference between free market and corporate fascism. If we could get the message to these people that what we have today is big government sponsored corporate fascism and not a real free market a lot of them could become libertarians.”
I used to be a Green and, five years ago, after the Cato Institute slapped me in the face with cold hard facts about state corporatism and made reasonable arguments for why the free market is more progressive than socialism, I immediately became a libertarian.
The fact is that true progressives – those who actually care about progressive ends and who aren’t just Democrat/Green partisans or rabid anti-capitalists – are open to different ideas if they beat them at their own game. Case in point:
– Point out to the Left that community-based solutions are more effective at solving social problems than nationalized programs, and you can sell leftists on decentralizing the federal government instead of centralizing it.
– Point out to the Left that there are more progressive and less intrusive alternatives to the income tax, and they will support its replacement. You may hate the FairTax, but every leftist I talk to about it thinks it is the greatest thing since sliced bread, as it out-progressives the current income tax structure and discourages overconsumption. And not just the FairTax – any replacement tax that out-progressives the current structure could be sold to the Left. As much as you’d like to not replace the income tax with anything, banning federal taxes is not going to happen, so it may be a counter-productive political policy.
– Point out to the Left that international corporate and government human rights abuses and environmental degradation are more public than ever and organized response is easier than ever thanks to the globalization of technology and communications networks, via free trade, (not to mention the fact that trade improves development in poor countries – see: East Asia), you pop the anti-trade/anti-globalization Left’s misperceptions of the global economic system and their misguided solution of socialism.
– Point out to the Left that over-regulation and high taxation actually keeps corporations in power by creating barriers to market industry that kill off small business competition, and that a basic understanding of economics will reveal that consumers, not corporations, pay corporate taxes via higher prices, they will become anti-regulation and anti-business taxes.
– Point out the the Left that setting the precedent of violating the Constitution to push through their national programs only enabled the Right to feel justified to follow their precedent and push through their unconstitutional national programs, like initiating the Patriot Act, unconstitutional wars and all the things about the Bush administration they loathe. And the Left’s historic policies of growing government gave Bush the infrastructure and centralized power to do so.
It’s really not a difficult sell at all, but because the LP has permanently aligned itself with the Right, the Left won’t touch us. Not to mention the fact that our small business policies are not well sold, and our environmental policy fails to adequately address the real fact that environmental issues ARE property issues, as everyone’s property is affected negatively by environmental degradation. (A no-nonsense “tough on polluters” stance which makes polluters – including government and its favored corporations – pay the full cost of their damages to the health and property of others, is preferable to presumptive, broad regulations and expensive certifications that hurt small businesses and individuals.)
I just could pull my hair out at the logical disconnect between the values and the policies of the Left. I also could pull my hair out over the fact that LP and the libertarian wing is generally not embracing and trumpeting the progressive values and ends of our classical liberal ancestors and calling for a new Enlightenment.
We have enough historical proof to plunge the stake in the idealist heart of Marxism and re-center the political debate as being between progressive decentralism vs. regressive centralism. But I just think the LP is a hopeless cause to do this, as its adherence to anarcho-capitalism make it to where the Left won’t even listen to us in the first place, regardless of how we try to sell it.
November 14th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
In honor of the last election, a soccer board I read was wondering the political preferences of some posters. A couple replies from people that stated themselves libertarians and their opinion on the LP:
“Libertarian. The party of leave me the F alone.”
“I’m more liberal these days than conservative. I was once a district delegate for the Republicans, but W has pretty much killed any enthusiasm I had for the party.
I’ve voted Libertarian many times, but won’t any more because it’s simply wasting votes.
I am a pro-life, pro-business liberal, so the Democrats may never get me to formally join them, but I am definitely an environmentalist and someone who feels that there are far too many people in this country who simply don’t get heard in today’s political process.
Unlike most people, I can easily appreciate both sides of a political argument. The reason? All politicians have feet of clay, and no party is right 100% of the time. Besides, American-style legislation is all about compromise.”
“Superdave has called me a ‘glibertarian’ in the past so I guess I’m reluctantly one of them, though certainly of the small ‘l’ variety (the LP are about 40% nutjobs which is way too high).”
“Definitely libertarian with a small l. Maybe us libertarians should start calling ourselves liberals again using the true meaning of the word. Democrats have so perverted the meaning of the word ‘liberal’ even they are ashamed to use it.
“As am I. Which makes us liberals, in the original and only really meaningful sense of that term. I was once a card carrying Libertarian (in college, predictably enough), but I’m more or less in agreement with voros on that party, and I’ve also come under the sway of the Pragmatist philosophy over time.”
The problem with “socialism” for the poor is that it is inevitably extended to everyone. Think of the public school system or social security. Bill Gates could in theory recieve social security benefits and send his children to public schools, despite the fact that he cleary doesn’t need the assistance. I am not suggesting abolishing either program, but this is why many are so reactionary against government programs, it is not that we are anarchist.”
November 14th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
“Trying to appeal to people who will never vote Libertarian is not going to get us anywhere. ”
for most of the LP’s existance, it hasnt been about trying to get people to VOTE for libertarians. It has been trying to convert other people into being libertarians, as in pledge taking folk.
November 15th, 2006 at 1:32 am
>
Interesting you should say that. Last Tuesday I was at an election night victory party in Long Beach, California. One of the state wide candidates was there and he was talking with an activist about working to get rid of the Constitution Party in California. They asked me if I would help them. I answered no.
They asked me, “Why not?”
I answered, “We need competition.”
They said we already have competition with the Democrats and Republicans. They then commented there are some Constitution Party candidates with far out views. They then told me about them. I thought those are far out views. I answered we have candidates like that also. Michael Badnarik talked about blowing up the UN building. He also was proud of driving a car without a drivers license. There the conversation ended and they continued talking about how they were going to work to get the Constitution Party to lose their ballot access in California.
I am glad there is a Constitution Party. There are only two political parties from which we can expect to achieve the restoration of freedom in the United States. They are the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party. I am glad and very happy Rick Jore was elected to the State House in Montana. When there is a move to increase tax payer funding of abortions he will be a voice and vote against it. When there is a move to increase welfare to illegal aliens he will be a voice and vote against it. When there is talk of sending the state militia to an illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional war abroad he will be a voice against it.
Rather than worry about the Constitution Party we should worry about the Democratic Party and Republican Party who have the political power and have been the ones to take away our freedoms and liberty. We should work to put them out of business. And any talk of joining the Republican Party whose views and values we do not share and “taking it over” to implement our views and values is fantasy. It will not work. Rick Jore understood this which is why he left the Republican Party and joined a party that shares his views and values.
November 15th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
“Here’s what libertarians should do instead. Set up a PAC or PACs to funnel money to winnable races”
Jake Porter got the ball rolling,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/freedompac/
Jump in anytime!
November 15th, 2006 at 6:49 pm
Jose C: Wherever there is no CP, the racist CP members join and sully the LP. Long live the CP.
November 15th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
I agree with Nick Wilson on 99% of everything he ever says (being a former/current Green myself), but the reason that “leftists” like the FairTax is because they don’t understand economics and they like the idea of increasing the government payroll.
Nick, I would like to encourage you to read Steve Forbes’s Flat Tax Revolution if you can find the time.
November 16th, 2006 at 3:23 am
Actually, I believe one of them was in the low 30s,
Wrong again Eric.
157,956 South Dakota voters—48%—voted for the medical marijuana initiative, Initiated Measure 4, on November 7.
With 85 percent of precincts reporting, over 44 percent of Nevada voters backed Question 7, an MPP-sponsored initiative to tax and regulate marijuana much like alcohol.
Colorado Amendment 44 (safercolorado.org) Yes 557,758 40%
No 819,579 60%
And you ignored the ten (10) local marijuana initiatives, which all passed.
Then there’s the good news for marijuana legalization from the change in control of Congress.
From a letter from MPP:
Dear Paul:
Last week’s midterm congressional elections have provided the most favorable conditions for passing federal medical marijuana legislation since I co-founded the Marijuana Policy Project 12 years ago (which was immediately after the “Republican Revolution” in November 1994).
When current Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) becomes speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives in January, it will mark the first time that a strong medical marijuana supporter has ever led the House. This is an historic event for the marijuana policy reform movement.
Additionally, Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.), another staunch supporter of medical marijuana, is expected to become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and longtime supporter Congressman Dave Obey (D-Wis.) — who called opponents of medical marijuana “Daffy Ducks” on the House floor last summer — is expected to chair the House Appropriations Committee. Both committees play key roles in MPP’s legislative work.
[...]
Of course, while the composition of the House leadership is important for our work, we still need to amass a total of 218 votes on the House floor to pass meaningful protections for medical marijuana patients — and we made colossal gains on this front last week, as well.
Of the 52 House members who are leaving Congress at the end of this year, 38 have consistently voted against medical marijuana legislation on the House floor. Of the newcomers who will be replacing them, MPP has identified almost 20 of them as already likely to support medical marijuana legislation — and that’s before we’ve even started lobbying them.
Of the 14 departing House members who consistently voted in favor of medical marijuana legislation, all but two have been replaced by new House members who are also supportive. Even more encouraging, three House members who are strongly supportive of medical marijuana won election to the U.S. Senate, and another two won their gubernatorial contests.
And Congressman-elect John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), who unseated Congresswoman Anne Northup (R-Ky.) — a consistent opponent of the medical marijuana amendment — has called a Canadian proposal to decriminalize marijuana “entirely sensible.”
The MPP Medical Marijuana PAC donated money to nearly 70 candidates this election cycle. Our Political Action Committee, which is nonpartisan, works to reward members of Congress who vote with us and punish those who do not.
One candidate assisted by MPP’s PAC was Tennessee state Sen. Steve Cohen (D). Last year, Sen. Cohen introduced in the Tennessee Legislature MPP’s model bill to protect medical marijuana patients from arrest and prison. Before Sen. Cohen’s primary election, when his opponent attacked him for his Jewish heritage and with TV ads for his support of medical marijuana legislation, MPP’s PAC rushed to provide him extra support. After Cohen won the primary and then came under fire again in the general election, MPP’s PAC gave him substantial assistance again.
With the congressional outlook better than it has been in well over a decade — or possibly ever — we have a real chance of passing legislation to protect medical marijuana patients after the 2007-2008 Congress takes office in two months.
November 16th, 2006 at 3:33 am
The electorate spoke. And they sent us a message loud and clear; the want bigger government and have rejected libertarianism.
Not true. Most libertarians voted Democrat or didn’t vote.
The top issues in the election were war (iraq mostly), corruption, and the Bush regime’s destruction of civil liberties (habeas corpus, etc) in the name of its phony “war on terrorism”. The public voted for the perceived smaller government (ie libertarian) side of these issues.
From the Reason article cited above:
“The number one issue most voters cited in exit polling Tuesday was terrorism. Half of those voters gave their votes to the Democrats, showing that even in what was thought to be the GOP’s strongest issue, President Bush’s expansionist, civil-liberties-be-damned approach to locking up the evildoers isn’t the sure thing the Republicans thought it was.
From there, Tuesday by most indications was a rejection of big government conservatism, not 1994-style limited government conservatism. The second issue most important to voters, for example, was corruption. The third was Iraq. Voters who cited each voted overwhelmingly for the Democrats. Nowhere in exit polling did voters say they were throwing the bums out because they spent too little, refused to raise the minimum wage, or because voters were clamoring for more regulation of business, or socialized health care.
Corruption is the result of a federal government too flush with money and too fat with influence. When billions of dollars are at stake—either in the form of handouts and corporate welfare, or from the effects of regulation—it only makes sense that corporations and special interests would spend millions to secure a spot at the trough, or to tweak regulations to their liking. The more influence wielded in Washington, the further corrupting forces will go to win a share of it.
[..]
As for spending, the National Taxpayers Union points out that the incumbent Republicans defeated this week were hardly budget hawks. Just two of the 19 Republicans now confirmed to have been ousted Tuesday earned NTU’s “Friend of the Taxpayer” status. The rest compiled an NTU rating well behind that of the overall GOP caucus.
Further, as several pundits have noted this week, DCCC Chairman Rahm Emannuel consciously recruited conservative, “blue dog” Democrats to challenge vulnerable Republicans in winnable districts. And they won. You could make a good argument that voters opted for a more fiscally responsible Congress this week, not less.
Mike Pence (R-IN) and John Shadegg (R-AZ) seem to get it. The two rock-ribbed conservatives wasted no time in laying out a vision for the Republican party in line with 1994’s Contract with America. Republicans “voted to expand the federal government’s role in education by nearly 100% and created the largest new entitlement in 40 years,” Pence wrote in a letter to his GOP colleagues announcing his candidacy for minority leader. “We also pursued domestic spending policies that created record deficits, national debt and earmark spending that has embarrassed us and caused many Americans to question our commitment to fiscal responsibility.”
November 16th, 2006 at 3:42 am
Oh whoops, I posted that part already. I just can’t believe that Eric already saw that and still says the vote was to reject liberty!
Nick, in response to “To argue that we have freedom from the corporation ignores the complex corporate welfare and corporate-military complex all of us are forced via taxes to fund.”
I oppose merchantilism just as I oppose theocracy. But neither the corporation nor the church deprives me of freedom, directly, without the cooperation and complicity of government.
True, but perceptions are important.
People see the destructive effects of mercantilism without realizing that government involvement plays a major or necessary part.
By addressing these concerns directly, pointing out that we want to stop corporate abuse of the environment, workers, etc – and only then going on to explain how this would be accomplished by ending corporate welfare, government-corporate partnership, limited liability and corporate personhood – we can get a lot more people to listen than if we start out by saying it’s all government’s fault.
Unlike churches, which would clearly still exist without government, limited liability corporations would not.
Nick hits the nail on the head here:
To argue that we have freedom from the corporation ignores the complex corporate welfare and corporate-military complex all of us are forced via taxes to fund. Interesting how small businesses are basically forced to fund governments to bring in competitors which (surprise!) put them out of business.
Targeting state corporatism has been something the LP has unequivocally failed to do effectively, and by aligning ourselves with the Right, everyone assumes incorrectly because we are laissez faire, we also support corporate control. This is a huge misconception, especially among those who have a partial recognition of the LP and its’ policies but not a full one.
Fact: there is no small business party. While the LP may be the closest thing to it, it fails to market itself effectively as such. I am fully aware that many LP members are entrepreneurs and small business owners, but nevertheless, we are not sufficiently addressing the fallacy created by the Left that free markets = corporate monopoly. Only by showing the Left that the free market reduces the corporate oligopoly by helping small businesses compete, that reducing government will reduce the infrastructure for authoritarianism, and that, since government has grown and most of the 1930s Socialist Party platform has been adopted into political reality, corporate power has only solidified and the Right is more abusive than ever, will we be able to correct the Left’s fallacious reasoning and corruption of the word “liberal.” Even the word “progressive” should be claimed by the libertarian wing over the socialism wing, as long-term analyses show that democratic socialism either collapses on itself or reverts to state socialism/authoritarianism or corporate fascism as the political tides shift, and thus progress and thus progressive ends are not permanently accomplished by centralizing government.
November 16th, 2006 at 3:43 am
The political elite and economic elite either are or run in the same circles, so it shouldn’t be surprising to anyone that they prop each other up. Why the Left hasn’t realized this already shows how blinded they are by their idealism.
Here is an article which explains this in greater detail:
http://mises.org/story/2099
November 16th, 2006 at 3:44 am
The revised and watered down LP platform of 2006 has a foreign affairs plank which has a non-interventionist preamble – but no specific planks about war – and only one plank, on immigration.
These issues are currently at the forefront of the political debate.
A clear and growing majority of Americans now agree with the traditional antiwar position of the LP. The major parties are both in favor of the war. So why is the LP taking steps away from this position? It seems intent on abandoning the antiwar position to the Greens.
Another issue on which the LP is watering down its stance is immigration. The plank still opposes immigration quotas, which is good news; but the bulk of the plank talks of screening people at the border and imposing various immigration restrictions.
At the same time, the Denver Post reports that 75% of Latinos – now the largest “minority” group in the US and growing fast – are more likely to vote because of the new Know-Nothing politics, and a majority are dissatisfied with both the Democrats and Republicans and looking for a new open border party (which the LP was until this year).
Huge opportunities exist in attracting antiwar and pro-open borders voters who are being rejected by the major parties.
Here’s hoping that the 2008 LP platform, campaign and candidates stress pro-immigrant, pro-peace and pro-civil liberties issues.
Why did the LP national convention in Portland fail to pass antiwar, 911 investigation or shrub impeachment resolutions (even though we were for Clinton impeachment)? No wonder we’re not only not growing, but losing many of our voters to the Democrats.
To win these voters, or win them back, the LP should emphasize issues like these:
http://www.lpalabama.org/node/360
Hold the Democrats’ feet to the fire…it’s time to impeach the terrorists
http://www.lpalabama.org/node/290
November 16th, 2006 at 3:44 am
When talking about taxes mention that a lot of the money goes to fund stuff that liberals/leftists agree is evil.
http://www.lpalabama.org/node/256
Those who continue to blur the rhetorical line between libertarianism and conservatism do more harm than good
http://www.lpalabama.org/node/150
November 16th, 2006 at 3:48 am
And he cannot cite any Libertarians who have actually been elected this year. Go to the LP web site, and look for yourselves. There’s 3 soil & Water Board members and 2 County Commissioners. That’s it.
Wrong yet again Eric. The LP page didn’t list all the candidates.
From LP national:
“This year, well over 700 Libertarians ran for office! We saw victories at the local level in at least Alaska, California, Indiana, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.
In Texas, we witnessed something amazing happen. Due to the very hard work of the Texas LP, 168 of our candidates were on the ballot. These candidates significantly increased vote percentages and of state and federal candidates, 22 of them received over 20% of the vote. The last time a Libertarian candidate broke 20% in Texas was in 1992!
Other successes include maintaining ballot access in many states including California, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Texas, Wisconsin, Wyoming. Those victories will save the LP hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses for 2008!
Over the weekend, our executive director, Shane Cory, told me a story from last week in which a reporter called him for comment on our election results. The reporter stated that in Montana our U.S. Senate Candidate, Stan Jones, beat the margin and it can be said that the Libertarian Party was responsible for the Republicans losing the Senate. Shane was asked if we “felt bad” about that. . .
Now, I’m sure we would all have different responses to that question ranging from sheer laughter to rage.
Shane’s response was simple and somewhat diplomatic. He stated, “No, maybe if the Republicans learned how to govern better, we wouldn’t take so many of their votes.”
But this question being asked proves a point on its own: the Libertarian Party is becoming more effective. Soon, we’ll be seeing more instances of Republicans AND Democrats moving public policy in a libertarian direction in order to capture the Libertarian vote.
That’s why every election cycle, regardless of the depth of our victories, is important to the LP and our nation.”
November 16th, 2006 at 3:52 am
Andy got it right.
So did Nick, except for the anarchist-bashing and his adherence to the dangerous FraudTax.
Carl and Andy are right about the signs.
Smile if you like Wal Mart. Get pissed off and do something about it if you love liberty!
November 16th, 2006 at 4:02 am
BTW, Eric also ignored that a Libertarian (Joel Winters) did get elected, although as a Democrat.
Hell, we now have a Socialist as a United States Senator from Vermont. How much friggin’ proof do you all need beyond that?
Bernie Sanders is good on a lot of peace and civil liberties issues.
From wikipedia:
Sanders voted against the Brady Bill and in favor of a NRA-supported bill to restrict lawsuits against gun manufacturers in 2005.
Sanders voted against both resolutions authorizing the use of force against Iraq in 1991 and 2002 and opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
In relation to the leak investigation involving Valerie Plame, on April 7, 2006, Sanders said, “The revelation that the president authorized the release of classified information in order to discredit an Iraq war critic should tell every member of Congress that the time is now for a serious investigation of how we got into the war in Iraq, and why Congress can no longer act as a rubber stamp for the president.”
An amendment he offered in June 2005 to limit provisions giving the government power to obtain individuals’ library and book-buying records passed the House by a bipartisan majority, but was removed on November 4 of that year by House-Senate negotiators, and never became law.
Sanders has been a longtime friend of free-market economist Walter Block.
(end)
It’s true that Sanders is economically ignorant, but his democratic socialism is not more anti-liberty than Reich wing Rapepubliccon corporate fascism, no mater what Eric thinks.
November 16th, 2006 at 4:25 am
Is it true that the followup to the HBO documentary Hacking Democracywill be focused on the Badnarik campaign Hacking Liberty?
November 16th, 2006 at 7:33 am
Paulie and UA,
I’m not a rigid adherent to the FairTax. I would support any replacement tax structure that is more progressive and less intrusive than the current system, as long as it does not increase overall taxation and require more government to fund.
There’s a lot of hot air about the FairTax, and I know that whatever I say probably won’t change your minds. I just happen to like the FairTax more than the current income tax because it does NOT increase government and is more progressive than the Flat Tax, which also requires the same infrastructure as the current income tax system, only with slightly less bureaucracy. The FairTax can be collected under the sales tax infrastructures most states already have, and the IRS can merely become a rebate check-writing organization. The original idea in the Constitution was that states would fund the Federal government, a model I’d like to return to.
As people will be paying a significant chunk in taxes everytime they make a purchase, it will get people to seriously think about how the government is spending their money every day of the year instead of just one week in April. The hope is that eventually this will lead to people pushing for the tax rate’s reduction and the reduction of government spending. Furthermore, any tax increases will be huge, controversial and public spectacles – which is why it is more libertarian than the current structure.
FairTax opponents often posit these crazy doomsday scenarios about its implementation. There’s not a single FairTax supporter who would support the passage of the FairTax on top of the current income tax structure, so arguing that they will somehow coexist is a rather pointless fallacy. Furthermore, what politician would get re-elected after doing so? Seriously, most Americans would riot. They hate the current structure enough already. Besides outright socialists, who would have the balls to even attempt to pass a 30% (23% net) sales tax on top of a 35% income tax? I just don’t see it happening, and the possibility that it somehow would does not seem like a strong enough argument to make me change my mind about the soundness of the structure itself.
I’d be interested to read real, valid, economics-based criticism of the FairTax, but so far all the criticism I have ever read has been very weak because it revolves around logical fallacies and “what ifs.” I’d also be interested to find a more progressive system. It’s very difficult to find a system more progressive than the FairTax because the poorest, least consumptive and most frugal actually make money off of it. The same can’t be said for obviously progressive tax structures like the Land Tax and the Carbon Tax. That’s why the Leftists like it, not because of any love of as much taxation as possible. And it was developed by economists, and as an economics buff myself I have seen very little cause for concern over its economic “unsound”-ness.
I’ve read the criticisms and I’m not convinced. But I’m open to changing my mind – if you can prove that the FairTax will actually increase overall government, taxation and bureaucracy and/or that there is a more progressive, less intrusive and more economically sound system, I will gladly reject the FairTax and join the better system. And no, “no taxes” is not an option.
And, Paulie, it’s been quite a long time since my anarchist bashing was personally directed – I’ve tried to avoid that after realizing how counter-productive it is. I don’t accept anarchism as the ideal system, nor do I think that advocating it openly as a political goal is a rational approach to accomplishing libertarian policies into reality under the current system and political environment. It keeps the Left, the Right and those in between from listening to us, for one thing. It’s difficult to make any rational argument that the government has gotten any more libertarian since the LP was conceived, and having a base and central principle at the most radical corner of libertarian thought is exactly why the LP will never succeed. In fact, having embedded, ideological bases too far outside of mainstream thought is why none of the major third parties (Green, Lib, Constitution) have ever succeeded other than in ideologically supportive niches. At the same time, third party attempts to only target the moderate American always fail because they are not distinctive at all from the major parties. The Reform Party came close on Perot’s money, but failed because they lacked a distinctive ideology.
If a third party wants to succeed in politics, it has to be both clearly distinguished from the major parties but still realistic and innovative enough to appeal to moderates. There’s a gaping hole in the system. I think the progressive, classically liberal, anti-authoritatian, pro-small business, reformist, anti-socialism/anti-corporatism, decentralist/localist approach is distinctive from the major parties but also easily sold to the average Joe. This fact has been repeatedly proven in my daily interactions with people from all over the political spectrum – it’s so logical, it feels like a refreshing slap in the face. Now I just hope it can be proven in the widespread political field…
November 16th, 2006 at 11:11 am
I’ve spoken to libertarians in New Hampshire. They’ve picked up strong hints that the so-called “libertarian Democrat” Joel Winter favors socialized health care and a state income tax. That’s hardly libertarian.
Funny Paulie points to LPers doing well in Texas as proof that the Libertarian Party is on the rise. Note – not a single Libertarian won any election to anything, not even Mosquito Controller or Public Weigher, in the State of Texas this year.
Again, 35 years and counting. And still the Libertarian Party has never elected a United States Congressman. Hell, the LP has not even elected a State Legislator since the mid-1990s.
While rises in voter percentages are nice to chat about, in the end they don’t matter.
Only clear victories matter.
November 16th, 2006 at 11:22 am
Paulie praises Socialist Bernie Sanders, which can only lead one to conclude that the infamous Paulie, is no libertarian.
How anyone can praise a National Socialist like Sanders and still call oneself a “libertarian” is absolutely insanity.
I once saw a flyer handed out at a Libertarian function for “Green Libertarian National Socialists.” Perhaps that’s the category for the likes of Paulie.
No wonder he’s a patsy for Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.
November 16th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Eric, you started Libertarians for Bush. You have absolutely zero room to talk about how non-libertarian other people are, buddy. Bush has been one of the least libertarian presidents in the past 100 years.
Now that Democrats control Congress, let’s see if he decides to pick back up on the few libertarian strains he claimed to have in the beginning. I’m genuinelly looking forward to Pelosi/Murtha vs. Bush. Because I can’t imagine a government more polarized than that.
November 16th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
“Eric, you started Libertarians for Bush. You have absolutely zero room to talk about how non-libertarian other people are, buddy. Bush has been one of the least libertarian presidents in the past 100 years.”
Don’t forget that Eric also started Libertarians for Lieberman. Joe Lieberman is one of the most anti-libertarian Senators in the history of this country. What’s next, Libertarians for Hitler and Libertarians for Stalin?
November 16th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
If a third party wants to succeed in politics, it has to be both clearly distinguished from the major parties but still realistic and innovative enough to appeal to moderates. There’s a gaping hole in the system. I think the progressive, classically liberal, anti-authoritatian, pro-small business, reformist, anti-socialism/anti-corporatism, decentralist/localist approach is distinctive from the major parties but also easily sold to the average Joe. This fact has been repeatedly proven in my daily interactions with people from all over the political spectrum – it’s so logical, it feels like a refreshing slap in the face. Now I just hope it can be proven in the widespread political field…
the LP can fill this hole. it has to decide if it wants to or not.
November 16th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
Eric praises National Socialists George Bush, Jeb Bush, Joe Lieberman, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Neal Boortz, Rudolf Giuliani, Katherine Harris and Bill O’Reilly, which can only lead one to conclude that the infamous Eric, is no libertarian.
How anyone can praise a National Socialist like George Bush, Jeb Bush, Joe Lieberman, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Neal Boortz, Rudolf Giuliani, Katherine Harris or Bill O’Reilly and still call oneself a “libertarian” is absolutely insanity.
I once saw a flyer handed out at a Libertarian function for “Green Libertarian National Socialists.” Perhaps that’s the category for the likes of Eric, except for the Green Part. Surely he realizes “National Socialist” can’t possibly apply to my beliefs, which score 100/100 on the Nolan quiz 153 here:
http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi
No wonder he’s a patsy for George Bush and Dick Cheney.
November 16th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Don’t forget that Eric also started Libertarians for Lieberman. Joe Lieberman is one of the most anti-libertarian Senators in the history of this country. What’s next, Libertarians for Hitler and Libertarians for Stalin?
Libertarians for Limonov
http://www.lpalabama.org/node/552
November 16th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
I’ve spoken to libertarians in New Hampshire. They’ve picked up strong hints that the so-called “libertarian Democrat” Joel Winter favors socialized health care and a state income tax. That’s hardly libertarian.
You’ll have to do better than “picking up hints” from anonymous sources, Eric.
Even if this were true, which I’m almost sure it isn’t, he would still be a lot more libertarian than a lot of your “libertarian Republicans”.
November 16th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Only clear victories matter.
Which is why Eric completely ignored the part of my post which dealt with that, huh? I even put it in bold for him.
Nick:
I’ve explained my position on the fraudtax in detail at HoT. Unfortunately I can’t access that now and don’t have time to re-write it from scratch right now. Maybe later this evening.
November 16th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Paulie, without limited liability we would have “guilt by assocaition.” LL does NOT mean that corporate officers or employees can limit THEIR liability for wrongdoing, but rather protects the individual shareholders (or members).
Let’s say you are a member of the LP and Bill Redpath, while on LP business, drives into a bus and kills 100 people. The lawyers can go after Bill, and the LP itself, but they can’t go after the rest of us individually.
More,
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north317.html
November 16th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
The Fairtax is an abomination that would double-tax the life savings of baby boomers (that’s me) and the elderly (that’s my 91-year old father who has ALREADY paid federal taxes on every dime). Personally, I ABSOLUTELY will OPPOSE any candidate, regarless of party or position on any other issue, who supports the Fairtax. I ABSOLUTELY will cease affiliation with any political party that becomes a tool for it.
The FAIRTAX: A TROJAN HORSE FOR AMERICA?
By Claire Wolfe & Aaron Zelman
http://www.jpfo.org/fairtax.htm
The Fraudulent Tax
By Laurence M. Vance
http://mises.org/story/2327
10 Reasons I Loathe the “Fair” Tax
by Joseph Knight
http://www.lpnm.org/essays/MemberEssays-jknight2.html
November 16th, 2006 at 11:10 pm
Hey Guys I live In Georgia where Boortz is headquartered. He has done a lot for the libertarian party.There is a reason why Georgia is on of the stronger parties. I do not agree with every thing Boortz says but he does get us members, He help get me to join. Once you get some one to a meeting it is a lot easier to get them on the right path.When I join I was a look more pro war., but other members have shown me the light. But we do not get that chance unless they call or show up to a meeting.
Also Boortz even mention our Lt. Gov Candidate who has wriiten a book against the fair tax.Boortz helps bring members and monet to the party which guys like me and you guys can use to push real libertarian ideas.
November 17th, 2006 at 12:01 am
Some people apparently never learn. I read recently on Badnarik’s campaign web site blog that at least one LP activist from Ohio is already urging Badnarik to seek the party’s presidential nomination in ‘08.
November 17th, 2006 at 3:21 am
Joseph: I did not consider the idea that the FairTax would be double taxation for those living on savings. However, these people recieve prebate checks as well, as they are consumers. As long as your father spends less than the average amount spent below the poverty line, won’t he thus actually be paying less money for his products than he is currently, once the prebate is factored in?
Furthermore, because you “live on $500/month” as you say in your article, won’t you automatically be spending less than the poverty line and thus overall be taking a net amount of money away from the government – making it more difficult for them to fund wars? If you want to avoid taxes, live frugally. This is why I just flat don’t understand why libertarians don’t get point of the FairTax. High consumption taxes will cause people to spend less, and raising taxes will be immensely controversial, yet cutting them will be highly popular.
The Mises article was about Boortz’s misrepresentation of the FairTax. I don’t agree with the blind idealism of many FairTax proponents, regarding many of the points made in that article. I recognize that the readjustment won’t be nearly as clear as Boortz and other FairTaxers pretend it will be. It will be up to consumers and workers to push businesses and employers to drive prices down and pay salaries in full, respectively. If people are educated about how the current system does inflate prices artificially, a point that the Mises Institute people don’t dispute, it would create demand against the corporations to lower prices equal to the gains they make from reduced taxes. And it will be up to employees to monitor their paychecks to see if they are taking a price cut.
The only one valid argument I have heard against the FairTax is that a 23% tax rate will increase black market activity. It might be true, but considering that people will have more take-home income, the motivation for a bigger one might not be very drastic. And those who profit from black markets will be force to pay taxes on legal purchases like anyone else – unlike the current income tax system.
Much of the other stuff in your articles is stuff I’ve heard before and doesn’t convince me.
– The “taxation is theft” argument doesn’t work because taxation is political reality. The 99.5% of the American public who believe that there is any valid function for government recognize this fact.
– Supporting a better tax structure does not preclude the idea that FairTaxers don’t support reducing spending and cutting tax rates – I support this system because it is so public that cutting tax rates would be widely supported and raising taxes would be nearly impossible. There’s a lot of accusations lobbed about in your sources about the intentions of the FairTaxers, but as most of us are progressive libertarians and anti-tax conservatives – thus, I have trouble seeing why our intentions would not be based on reducing government and government intrusion into our wallets and lives.
– States would fund the federal government, as they did under the original Constitutional system, reducing the need for an overarching IRS infrastructure on top of already existing state infrastructures. In most states, businesses would simply use the current sales tax infrastructures that exist in most states, and thus instead of having to pay state sales taxes, state income taxes AND federal income taxes separately, they could just pay one tax – the sales tax – albeit a larger one, but out of sales already made.
– Regarding inflation, as the inflation rate/consumption goes up, the prebate goes up proportionally, as does most people’s personal income – a fact that your source forgot to mention. People living on savings are already killed by inflation. There would be very little difference other than the fact that they would recieve a higher prebate to offset the extra increases.
– The sales tax is not “subject to more manipulation” because of the fact that the FairTax is a non-selective, across-the-board tax. If they differentiated tax rates, they would also be forced to differentiate rebates. Sure, there’s the possibility that someone could add an extra tax on top of the FairTax rate on some specific industry, but that happens anyway. The problem is not the tax system itself, it’s that the politicians and special interests, who can only be limited by a strong and successful reform effort.
– Cash purchases would not be made illegal – all tax systems rely on a level of trust, but sales tax systems are already functioning and funding state governments and cash purchases have not been banned. There would merely be one less system – the income tax, which also relies on people being honest about their income. And, like tiny income earnings (like a teen mowing a lawn) is really under the tax radar, so would small cash purchases. Corporations profits are public, and thus a disconnect between tax paid and correct tax on profit will be rather obvious.
– The “tracking ID card” has nothing to do with the FairTax, and certainly not differentiated tax rates. The poverty level and consumption amounts are easily determinable without massive government invasion of privacy. Even academics can do it without government infrastructure. Naturally, the government would need to confirm that the figures are correct and compile more specific census data, but the same sort of information-gathering would be necessary under any tax system.
These things, like so many other things I’ve mentioned (i.e. “What if there are both FairTax and Income Tax combined on top of each other?!!”), are attempts to discredit the idea in people’s minds by drawing academically dishonest hypothetical allusions and turning the structure as a strawman, instead of interpreting the proposal for what is actually is proposing. That’s as fraudulent than Boortz’s mistaken reasoning and AFT’s misrepresentation of the actual tax rate. There’s obviously reason to be wary of potential negative future changes and corruption in any policy proposal, but to use logic-stretching “what ifs” as direct arguments against the immediate proposal itself makes me feel that, like the status quo, these people would prefer keeping the devil we know (at least until America is somehow converted to anarchocapitalism, right?) over an attempt to create a better structure.
I’m still waiting for convincing arguments to change my mind. I really am open to them, but I haven’t seen them yet. More importantly, nobody has demonstrated a tax structure more progressive than the FairTax. I’m willing to support a better system, and will generally support the most progressive system. I’d consider, among other replacements, a Land Tax (very progressive, but land is not tangibly income producing to cover the costs of tax), a Sales tax with exemptions on the necessities (which requires government infrastructure delineating products’s “necessity value” on top of sales tax infrastructure) or even a bottom-up reduction of the current income tax – maybe the easiest solution for all of us to agree on, although still not the most progressive. I’m really open to debate on the topic, but people framing FairTax in a fallacious light are not changing my mind.
November 17th, 2006 at 3:36 am
Instead of pushing the so called “Fair Tax” how about putting spending limits on the federal government? How about abolising the Federal Reserve and fiat currency?
We don’t need to replace the income tax with anything. Even without getting into the “taxation is theft” arguement (which I agree with) the fact remains that if the federal government stuck to what is in the Constitution there’d be no need for an income tax or the “Fair Tax.”
The “Fair Tax” would be more difficult to avoid and it does nothing to increase liberty.
November 17th, 2006 at 3:50 am
“Hey Guys I live In Georgia where Boortz is headquartered. He has done a lot for the libertarian party.There is a reason why Georgia is on of the stronger parties. I do not agree with every thing Boortz says but he does get us members, He help get me to join. Once you get some one to a meeting it is a lot easier to get them on the right path.When I join I was a look more pro war., but other members have shown me the light.”
Boortz is a phoney that blurs the line between Republican and Libertarian. Sure, he says some good things but a good propagandist knows how to mix truth with deception. If you want people to swallow shit it’s better to coat it with sugar.
I’m glad that you have “seen the light” about the war in Iraq, but I see Boortz bringing in a lot of “Fair Tax,” war monger, police state bootlickers into the LP which is not a good thing.
Below is a link to an article about RepubliCON shill talk radio whores meeting with Bush at the White House. See Neal Boortz sitting there with fellow RepubliCON propgandists such as Sean Hannity and Michael Medved. How could ANY self respecting libertarian sit there with Lord Bush? If I was in the same room with Bush I’d spit in his face.
Talk Radio Whores Recieve Their Orders From Bush
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/171006_b_Orders.htm
November 17th, 2006 at 11:28 am
Andy:
First of all, I tend to agree with your stance on Neal Boortz’s foreign policy. The “liberventionists” are not a wing I am interested in attracting, because I want the LP to reach to the Left instead of the Right. Then again, even I think that complete isolationism is a bit of a pipe dream, considering that the US is one of the only forces on earth with the capital and organization to stop mass holocausts. It’s not our place to be the policemen of the world, but it’s also immoral to stand and watch millions of people be slaughtered by brutal government regimes without taking any action, if we have the means to stop it. However, I would only support any military action in such situations to be taken with a Congressional declarations of war, a solid plan of action and withdrawal, and preferably NATO forces instead of unilateral US action.
The libertarian movement, not just the LP, is in a very conflicted position, because we are polarized between complete isolationists and those who think liberty can/should somehow be “spread by military force.” Trapped in the middle are those like me and many in the LRC who feel that the US needs to practice an immense amount of military restraint, end the military-industrial complex and get our troops out of as many places as possible – while still recognizing the realities of the global power structure and the strong connections that must be drawn between libertarianism and international human rights.
If we want to appeal to the Left, we have to show that our policies are always more moral than socialism and that the international abuse by governments and corporations will not be solved by more government, however benevolent the intentions. Both sides of the foreign policy debate in the libertarian movement need to find some compromise. Interventionism has repeatedly failed to promote freedom, as shown by history (only trade and democratic change from within seems to do that), and makes America into the hated hegemon, a target for terrorism.
But diplomatic isolationism would keep us from nudging countries around the world towards supporting progress and protecting the rights of their citizens, and complete military isolationism will make us silent enablers of genocides. Considering how globalized the world has become and how borders and strong state realism have faded in importance, there seems to be a logical conflict in some isolationists’ heads – either you can have a focus on state sovreignty and isolationism or you can have free trade, open borders, less important state actors – which creates a de facto interconnectedness with people around the world, regardless of which geographical region they live in.
I feel like many of the LP members are so caught on an idealized vision of America 250 years ago that they sometimes ignore the reality of the current global political/economic system. There’s many things that need to be changed, especially the US’s quest for global hegemony, but the fact is that international issues are important, and the US does have the capacity to be a force for good in the world without having to resort to military force as the primary means.
November 17th, 2006 at 11:58 am
“Instead of pushing the so called ‘Fair Tax’ how about putting spending limits on the federal government?”
One can do both. I do.
“How about abolising the Federal Reserve and fiat currency?”
Those are monetary issues, not government taxation ones. Rather irrelevant. (Furthermore, open market operations are a good thing that the Fed does well. And fiat currency doesn’t prevent you from buying gold with your money to save, and then selling gold to get money to spend – a rather stupid strategy in my opinion, as it is not interest-earning – but you can do it if you want to hedge against monetary crashes and thus simulate a gold standard on a small scale.)
“We don’t need to replace the income tax with anything.”
So you’re saying you’d rather perpetuate the income tax structure until you can convince a majority of Americans to accept that thesis instead of trying to find a less intrusive system that motivates people to cut taxes faster?
“Even without getting into the “taxation is theft” arguement (which I agree with) the fact remains that if the federal government stuck to what is in the Constitution there’d be no need for an income tax or the ‘Fair Tax.’”
Oh really? So I guess a Constitutionally functioning government would operate for free? Or maybe people would voluntarily give them money? And by the way, the sales tax IS a valid Consitutional tax system – sales tax collected by states was one of the ways the early government was funded. Also, tariffs as primary government funding seems to violate libertarian free market principles. If they’re all evil, let’s at least figure out which is the least evil and most libertarian.
“The “Fair Tax” would be more difficult to avoid and it does nothing to increase liberty.”
Not true. The FairTax is a means to drain money from the government by making a decision to spend less than the poverty consumption level. No other tax system, to my knowledge, enables you to take money away from the government. Why libertarians oppose a system that lets you drain the beast, make government spending and tax increases more painful for everyone to accept – and help the poor at the same time – is beyond me.
November 17th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
>
“Where there is liberty, there is my country.”
I came across this quote, many years ago. These words were spoken years ago by Benjamin Franklin. What these words mean to me is that wherever I find liberty I am home. Whoever helps me restore liberty and freedom to my country I consider an ally. Those such as Rick Jore (Member State Assembly Montana), Michael Peroutka (Presidential candidate), and Mary Starett (candidate for Governor) who fight for freedom and liberty I consider my ally. I welcome them to my home.
Others who by what they say and do show their contempt for freedom and liberty are no ally of mine. Those who say they fight for freedom and liberty and than by what they do show their contempt for freedom and liberty are no ally of mine. Those such as President Bush, Trent Lott, Kay Baily Hutchinson, Donald Rumsfeld, Lincoln Chafee, Jack Abramoff, Jeb Bush, Joe Lieberman, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Neal Boortz, Rudolf Giuliani, Katherine Harris, Dick Cheney, Ron Saxton, Karl Rove, Mark Foley, Tom Delay, Peter Roskam, Dennis Hastert, Barbara Cubin, John Bolton, Sean Hannity, Bill Frist, George Allen, Arlen Spector, Ted Stevens, Phill Gingrey, John Boehner, and Michael Medved who by their words and actions show their contempt for freedom and liberty are no ally of mine.
Rick Jore gave up the security of Republican Party activism for the uncertinty of Constitution Party activism to fight for freedom and liberty. He ran for State Assembly twice and lost. He ran a third time and won. He realized that a political party who shows by its actions contempt for freedom and liberty must be exposed, it must be discarded, and defeated. A political party based on the proposition that freedom and liberty is the human condition to aspire too is a noble idea. He has done more for the cause of freedom and liberty by his activism in the Constitution Party than if he had stayed in the Republican Party.
Those who fight for freedom and liberty I welcome you. You are welcome in my home. You are an ally.
“Where there is liberty, there is my country.”
Jose C.
“Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform.Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightening. The want the ocean without the mighty roar of its many waters…”
Fredric Douglas
November 17th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
MLB: Of course Badnarik is going to run for the nomination. People forget. Look at this discussion. Started out discussing the failure of his campaign and evolved into something totally different. That is why there has been no posting by any of his gang. Let the LPs rant and rave for a few days about the campaign>>> the subject will change, and then he will come out of the woodwork and give a rational sounding explanation as to why they got only 4% and start to travel around the country, doing thew same old thing. Living on campaign contributions traveling to raise more contributions, to live and travel on. All those travel, auto rental and meals. I would love to see the names of those who were with him.
November 17th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
My previous post should have started out by saying . . .
. . . . Undercover-Anarchist says:
Jose C: Wherever there is no CP, the racist CP members join and sully the LP. Long live the LP. . . . .
“Where there is Liberty, there is my country.”
I came across this quote . . .
November 18th, 2006 at 2:26 am
Georgia:
Sorry for the tangents. Hammer of Truth is down, so I think this thread is where many of us have gravitated to to do the post-election analysis. Naturally that moves beyond Badnarik and to the party as a whole.
Any word on HoT? I think it’s been ridiculously long enough to do the updates. SVD’s reasoning for doing the LibertyMix upgrade post-election was so we could use it to process the election. From the way it’s been going, it seems most of us will have already forgotten about the election by the time its done.
November 18th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Nick, just a few Fairtax points: I would come out about $30 ahead IF I could get the prebate checks AND IF I would accept them. Also, the Fairtax rate is actually 30% if fugured the way all other sales taxes are figured. And as I pointed out, the prebate check would not cover the taxes when my dad buys big-ticket items like his riding lawn mower.
I believe libertarians should focus on reducing taxes to the lowest possible level, but if you MUST dabble in tax reform, at least consider (with a bone for paulie):
Personal income tax violates our natural right to the fruits of our labor. Property tax violates our natural right to private property. Sales tax violates our natural right to the free
exchange of goods and services. The corporate income tax violates NO natural rights since a corporation is not a natural person. Since the corporation is a creation of the state, let it bear the cost of the state. The machinery is already in place. Of course, the taxes are often passed on to consumers as higher prices so this is no substitute for reducing the scope and expense of government. But it could help level the competitive playing field for mom-and-pop proprietorships.
November 19th, 2006 at 1:43 am
We can all be extremely grateful to Third Party Watch for allowing this extended somewhat-off-topic discussion. It is very kind of the host writer.
If you miss Hammer of Truth, you are welcome to try the office-safe alternative http://www.LibertyForAmerica.net (well, I am partial to it, because I did put up the money to launch it). LfUSA is based on Daily Kos, not a traditional blog. Any reader may post a diary (they get rated), thereby launching their own thread, rather than hoping taht the few front page writers will say something they can attach to.
Please all be nice and thank our host here for his generosity, and keep sending him news tips so he has more of his fascinating articles.
November 19th, 2006 at 2:28 am
“I would come out about $30 ahead IF I could get the prebate checks AND IF I would accept them.”
So your principles don’t allow you to take money away from the government, reducing their ability to spend it on unconstitutional programs and violating your rights? If your only fear is being forced to register with the government in order to recieve the prebate, you’re letting your personal paranoia trump a very real tool for shrinking government and for getting the rest of the public on board. If you think it’s unprincipled to accept taxpayer dollars, donate the difference to a charity or an anti-tax advocacy organization.
“Also, the Fairtax rate is actually 30% if fugured the way all other sales taxes are figured.”
I’m aware of that, and I’m all for making AFC come forward about that fact. I agree with the critics that it is deceptive to work the sales tax into the price and then take it out from the overall, which is naturally going to make it sound like a lower percentage. This fact doesn’t dissuade me from believing the FairTax is a better idea than any other system.
“And as I pointed out, the prebate check would not cover the taxes when my dad buys big-ticket items like his riding lawn mower.”
It will cover the taxes on everything you buy up to the amount of spending by the average person below the poverty line. Riding lawnmowers are luxuries, not necessities. I recognize your father may not be able to push an old-fashioned lawnmower. Thus the question becomes: which is more economical – buy the high-price item and stomach the taxes or hire someone to mow the lawn for him the rest of his life? Theoretically hiring someone might be more expensive in the long-term, however, the prebate would break the expense into smaller portions and he can avoid a 30% tax on a high dollar item.
And if he buys a second-hand lawnmower, he won’t have to pay any taxes – something to consider. One of the primary reasons I like the FairTax is because it encourages recycling and reusing – reducing the environmental impacts of mass production and waste.
“Personal income tax violates our natural right to the fruits of our labor. Property tax violates our natural right to private property. Sales tax violates our natural right to the free exchange of goods and services.”
Actually, a land value tax (with exemptions for agriculture and small, low-value plots) is the fairest and most progressive tax, as land is not something we created nor is it the fruit of any labor, and current
“ownership” has been a result of hundred of years of government relocations of redder-skinned people. It’s also a limited resource, and thus those who monopolize it should be most heavily taxed. And there is a valid Constitutional argument for it as well: those who hold the most land also require disproportionate federal government resources to defend that land under Constitutional auspices – from strong court systems to military protection to interstate polution (a interstate commerce issue and a property rights issue.) I recognize that land is not concretely income generating in the short-term, thus the problem of implementation – which is why I still prefer the FairTax. But people occupying more high value land and requiring more resources than they can afford to pay for drives up land prices for everybody else, and thus by encouraging the breakdown of the land monopoly by corporations and the super-wealthy, combined with small exemptions, we make land ownership cheaper and more accessible to the super-poor.
“The corporate income tax violates NO natural rights since a corporation is not a natural person. Since the corporation is a creation of the state, let it bear the cost of the state. The machinery is already in place. Of course, the taxes are often passed on to consumers as higher prices so this is no substitute for reducing the scope and expense of government. But it could help level the competitive playing field for mom-and-pop proprietorships.”
I used to agree with the idealistic outlook and I do agree with the intentions, but the corporate tax is just another regressive, hidden sales tax. Corporations do not pay taxes. The consumers, especially the very poor, who rely (often falsely) on corporations to bring them the lowest priced goods, and/or the workers, who would be forced to take pay cuts to keep consumer prices as low as possible, are the ones who pay for it.
Yes, a corporate income tax might encourage people to shop more at non-corporate mom and pop proprietorships, as the prices there would be lower without the tax. But even mom-and-pop stores often sell products produced by corporations – thus the prices may not be significantly different. It creates a hidden value-added sort of tax where all levels of production might be taxed as under the current system, each level of production could be a different corporation. This only continues to drive up the cost. A sales tax is public and easily seen. The fact that most of these corporations are based overseas and thus would be exempted from a corporate tax is also a factor to consider. Most importantly from a libertarian standpoint, corporate taxes are hidden and don’t get people to think about cutting government because they assume the corporations are the ones paying for it. If you want people to seriously support cutting government, you have to hit them with a tax structure that is painful because it honestly reflects the tax burden they actually pay instead of masking it behind hidden layers, like our current system does or like a purely corporate tax-based system would do.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:23 pm
“So your principles don’t allow you to take money away from the government, reducing their ability to spend it on unconstitutional programs and violating your rights? If your only fear is being forced to register with the government in order to recieve the prebate, you’re letting your personal paranoia trump a very real tool for shrinking government and for getting the rest of the public on board. If you think it’s unprincipled to accept taxpayer dollars, donate the difference to a charity or an anti-tax advocacy organization.”
The government will keep all of the unconstitutional programs alive and continue to expand them. We’ve had a welfare state for decades. The growth of the welfare state has done nothing to shrink government. The government can expand as much as it wants to and can just create more money out of nothing (aka-fiat currency).
November 19th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
“Not true. The FairTax is a means to drain money from the government by making a decision to spend less than the poverty consumption level.”
Who in the hell wants to live below the poverty level? The average American is certainly not going to do this.
If this is passed I can see more black market buying and selling going on, however, it will be easier for the government to go after retailers than it is for them to go after the millions of people who don’t file income tax.
The “Fair Tax” is a complete sham. The REAL problem is not the manner in which the extortion is collected, but rather the fact that it is collected at all. America got by just fine before the income tax. We shouldn ‘t be focusing on replace the income tax with anything. Whenever one talks about reducing or repealing a tax statists will always say something like, “How are we going to replace the revenue?” I don’t want to replace the revenue with anything. I’m more concerned with my own “revenue” and could care less about the government.
November 19th, 2006 at 11:40 pm
“Then again, even I think that complete isolationism is a bit of a pipe dream, considering that the US is one of the only forces on earth with the capital and organization to stop mass holocausts.”
Except of course the the mass holocausts that the US governments committs or aids in the commission.
November 20th, 2006 at 1:12 am
Andy, I agree with you that reducing government down to Constitutional levels to where we wouldn’t need a big tax structure would be the ideal. We’d need SOME tax structure – we always have. But comparing the FairTax to the welfare state as an argument for why the FairTax won’t reduce government is just a bad analogy. The welfare state naturally encourages the government to continue to grow because it creates a mindset of entitlement. The FairTax encourages the government to shrink, or at least grow no more. If people are already paying a 30% sales tax burden, any increase in the sales tax will be completely in the open and completely controversial.
The FairTax – ok, I’ve said this like a hundred times but people don’t get it through their thick skull – was created by progressive libertarians and conservatives who want to shrink government by reminding people with every single purchase they make of the burden they fund government with. Naturally they have to sell the FairTax as revenue-neutral to get moderates to accept it. That does not mean that the intention is not to shrink government.
If you’re going to mope that you can’t play the game that us law-abiding taxpayers follow – not because we like it but because we want to be credible enough to challenge it in the political spectrum and have clean records – go cry me a river. Under the FairTax, by buying used goods and being frugal where you must buy new goods, you can do a little bit to shrink government and help the environment at the same time. And if you don’t want to live frugally but you don’t want to pay taxes, cry me another river. We can’t always have our cake and eat it too. As a progressive, I’m not particularly concerned about your “plight.” The long-term environmental benefits of limited consumption and letting the poor deal with their economic problems without having to deal with taxes is more important to me than keeping tax protestors happy.
Again: I ask the question which goes unanswered – would you rather us keep the current invasive income tax infrastructure until we can convince a majority of Americans to convert to the libertarian ideal, or would you rather work to initiate a less intrusive structure that speeds up support for shrinking government? Maintain the status quo or progress? Show me a better, more progressive system, or show me more convincing arguments and I’ll drop the FairTax thing. I’m still waiting.
Nothing here that FairTax doomsdayists have said has changed my mind at all. It just strikes me as a bunch of people who would rather whine than change the system.
November 20th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
“Nothing here that FairTax doomsdayists have said has changed my mind at all. It just strikes me as a bunch of people who would rather whine than change the system.”
Nick, nothing any FairTaxer has ever said to me has led me to believe that the FairTax would be any better than the income tax.
I’d rather do a lot of things other than working to change a bad tax system into an equally bad (or maybe worse) tax system.
November 20th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
Here you go. It’s basically a summary of everything I already said, but maybe you didn’t want to wade through all that. I don’t even speak of the progressive and environmental benefits, which are what really sell me on the FairTax. I’d like to hear some libertarian defend the current system over the FairTax. That would be worth a laugh.
—
Seven Clear Reasons Why The FairTax is MORE Libertarian than the Income Tax
1.) FairTax gives libertarians the means to take money away from the government. No other tax system allows this. By buying used goods and living frugally, one can intentionally spend less than the amount of money on new goods spent by the average person below the poverty line and gain money from the rebate. I would suggest that those who are not below the poverty line donate the difference to libertarian and anti-tax organizations, so principled people with means aren’t making money off other taxpayers.
2.) FairTax uses the current sales tax collection infrastructures in most states to fund the federal government, and most official businesses are already registered. Thus there would be little “new” infrastructure to create (namely, sales tax collection agencies in the handful of states without them), and the net would easily be in the negatives, considering the IRS would basically become a check-writing organization and the huge network of Federal tax collectors and bureaucratic infrastructure (once again, on top of the state tax infrastructures that exist regardless of whether they are used to fund the Federal Government or not) would end.
3.) It takes all the Federal taxes and places them very visibly at the center of the political dialogue. People are instead reminded every day and every purchase of how much the government actually burdens their wallet. Because of all the hidden taxes and intricate layers, nobody really knows how much they are actually paying in taxes under the current system. If they knew, maybe they’d be more committed to reducing taxes, spending and government size. It’s a means to get people thinking about limited government.
4.) Any increase in the FairTax will provoke an immense amount of public outcry, and can not be able to be done “under the table.”
5.) The original Constitutional idea was that the federal government is funded via the states collecting taxes. This would be a return to that idea.
6.) It’s an immense simplification of the current system. All the taxes that are replaced by are is extra paperwork that will no longer have to be done and separate bureaucracies that are no longer needed to sort out the paperwork/revenue/collection of the separate taxes. It’s very simple: You pay the sales tax on purchases and once in a while fill out a prebate application. Businesses submit the sales tax to state collection agencies like they’ve always done. State agencies send it to the treasury. The treasury decides the correct rebate amount (again, very visibly) and sends you the prebate. It’s incredibly obvious how much simpler it will be than the current system, and why the tax code can be simplified immensely under it.
7.) Government will naturally be limited by people reducing their spending to reduce the impact of the sales tax. The fact missed by people who argue that FairTax is a “right to live” tax is that America is a bloated, wasteful culture and that the FairTax prebate would cover the tax on the amount of your spending actually required for the “living” part. Most Americans CAN cut our spending and live more frugally if we have incentive to do so. This is why it’s more difficult to make a “moral” argument against the FairTax.
November 20th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
Nick, I’ve read all of this before. It is unconvincing to me, just as anti-FairTaxer’s arguments are unconvincing to you. My only point is that disagreeing with whether the FairTax is a better alternative to the income tax does not make someone a whiner. I would rather work to reduce the income tax than replace it.
Point-by-point:
(1) I personally like this aspect of the FairTax, since I generally buy used anyway. But I also understand the arguments against, namely: the economic impact of placing a 30% tax on new items, and the “welfare”-like dependency that receiving a government check every month can create.
(2) 5 states do not have a sales-tax infrastructure. Also, I am not convinced that the new agency would be any less large or intrusive than the IRS.
(3) The FairTax IS hidden. It is hidden in the cost of goods. According to the bill and from how it was explained by the FairTax spokesman on Free Talk Live, your sales receipt will not say $100 + $30 Federal tax + state taxes, it will say $130 + state taxes. The amount I pay in income tax is clearly written on every one of my pay stubs, and I’m reminded of how much I actually pay every April. Most people have no idea what their actual tax burden is, and that will not change with a national sales tax. I just ate lunch at the bar across the street, and I couldn’t tell you how much I just paid in sales tax. I didn’t even think about it.
(4) How is increasing the FairTax a little here and there any different than increasing the income tax a little here and there?
(5) No. The federal government would still be collecting taxes. They’d just be using the states as an agent.
(6) Not obvious to me at all. I only fill out one form every year now. And for businesses, you replace payroll tax paperwork with extra sales tax paperwork. You may think it will be less, but I’m not convinced and see no reason why it would be.
(7) Yeah right. Watch what happens when the government coffers start to run dry. You’ll end up with a higher sales tax, an added income tax, and/or both. I know you wouldn’t advocate such, and that you personally would work to reduce government, but our enemies are strong.
It’s easy to go back and forth. It also leads no where. If you want to support the FairTax and work towards its enactment, then go for it. I will do the opposite (actually, I could care less and would rather spend my time fighting worse proposals.) When it comes time to actually reduce the size of government, then I know you will be an ally.
But—those above are not “whining” when they write about why they dislike the FairTax anymore than you are “whining” when you advocate it.
November 20th, 2006 at 9:24 pm
In 40 years of activism, 20 of them as a Libertarian, I have NEVER advocating imposing a tax on anybody (including corporations, – I put that on the table for consideration but not as an advocate). I simply will not support anybody who advocates imposing one on me.
Nominate a Fairtaxer, I’ll not vote. Enact a Fairtax plank, I’ll quit. I have a few NO-WAY issues and the fascist fraudulent tax is one of them. ‘nuff said.
November 21st, 2006 at 12:12 am
“FairTax gives libertarians the means to take money away from the government. No other tax system allows this.” Yes, if you live like a poor person you pay less in taxes. The income tax has precisely the same feature: Have your pay reduced (meaning you have to live like a poor person) and you pay less in taxes.
You may count on me to oppose the fairtax plank proposal.
November 21st, 2006 at 9:29 am
Chris, thank you for at least addressing my arguments. I’m not accusing all people critical of the FairTax of being whiners, I’m merely pointing out that the only real reason some people here seem to be so fiercely opposed to it is that it would cancel out their ability to be a tax evader. Frankly, that’s the least of my concerns when trying to sell moderates and liberals on a more progressive/more government-limiting tax structure.
The anti-FairTax crowd makes two VERY strong points that make me distance myself from AFT. First, the tax IS 30% and not 23%, a point which they should come forward about. Secondly, the current proposal would indeed hide the taxes in the cost of goods, which automatically cancels the limited government arguments I make (like tax increases being public and controversial, about it making their wallets hurt, etc.). These two points are both an attempt to cover up the limited government intentions from moderates and to hook them in on a falsely lower tax rate with a monthly rebate seemingly for no reason besides higher prices, which I agree is disappointing and even fraudulent.
That doesn’t mean that the IDEA of the FairTax is bad or unlibertarian, though. If the 30% sales tax rate was indeed very public, it would be very difficult to increase it. It WOULD get people to curb excessive spending, and it would get people to start thinking about limited government. I think the FairTax should be coupled with a Constitutional Amendment repealing the 16th amendment that should go for a vote BEFORE the FairTax vote.
“Yes, if you live like a poor person you pay less in taxes.”
No. If you live like a poor person you take net money away from the government. That’s the point. You can’t do so under the current system.
Ok, for argument’s sake and out of deference to our recently deceased favorite economist, what do you all think of Milton Friedman’s Negative Income Tax? Similar concept, similarly progressive (with a rebate), similarly simplified (a flat tax instead of graduated rates and complex deductions) only big difference is that it’s income instead of consumption, and it wouldn’t require any major shakeup of the “devil we know.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
At the very least, which do you prefer?
Look, my only concern is finding the most progressive, least intrusive, pro-government-limiting tax system. Joseph, if you think my quest for a better tax system (instead of expecting the status quo to be easier to phase out )makes me unlibertarian, so be it. Frankly, I’ve always been more comfortable calling myself a classical liberal anyway…
November 21st, 2006 at 10:28 am
Too many libertarians measure government by the number of dollars going through the treasury. This is a major error, leading to such absurdities as the many defenses of the Confederacy over at lewrockwell.com. A small government that legalizes and enforces slavery is vastly more hideous than what we have today. A smallish government that enforces price controls can do more damage to the economy than a full scale Scandinavian style welfare state.
Income taxation requires a great deal of information on every business and household in the country to collect. Using this information, the government has created a plethora of need based programs, distorted the housing market and nearly destroyed the medical market.
A sales tax requires less information. The prebate would eliminate the need for many of the need based welfare programs which have incredibly perverse incentives (marry your boyfriend and lose your government check). The Fair Tax would be a huge step toward more liberty were it enforceable.
I have doubts that it is. I would opt for a combination of excise and property taxes combined with a prebate. It would accomplish what the Fair Taxers are attempting but with many fewer collection points. Also, my system would better approximate fee for service government.
But too many Libertarians would oppose my plan as well, which is why I am working on starting a new whimpertarian party.
November 21st, 2006 at 10:37 am
“If you live like a poor person you take net money away from the government. That’s the point. You can’t do so under the current system.”
Actually, you can via the Earned Income tax credit.
Personally, I do not think advocating the FairTax makes someone un-libertarian. As I’ve said, I think your intentions are good and the intentions of most FairTaxers are as well. But the whole thing is designed to be revenue neutral—meaning government does not shrink at all.
Give me a choice between the current income tax at the current rates or a national sales tax at 10% and I’ll take the sales tax all day. But if the choice is between the income tax or some other tax that is designed to bring in the same revenue then I prefer the devil I know.
November 21st, 2006 at 10:39 am
“A sales tax requires less information.”
No it doesn’t.
November 21st, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Chris, I equally respect your qualms about changing the system and the immense risks that can create, especially considering how every libertarian knows most politicians aren’t trustworthy. To have such a systemic shift in their hands could indeed be disastrous for the well-intentioned advocates of the plan.
“But the whole thing is designed to be revenue neutral—meaning government does not shrink at all.”
Right, as I mentioned this is to sell moderates and liberals on the idea who aren’t ready for huge cuts in government – they don’t want to see a new infrastructure with a huge shortfall of cash and then suddenly all their favorite programs get cut. Probably conservatives are the same – they wouldn’t want military costs to be cut. But once it is implemented (if done so honestly), the only way to go would be down, as you can no longer hide tax increases. Once people see the burdens on their day to day expenditures, they will prefer the tax to go down rather than up.
“A sales tax requires less information.”
>”No it doesn’t.”
Actually it does. It doesn’t require the government recieving and processing records of everybody’s incomes. A sales tax requires information only from businesses. An income tax requires information from both businesses (employers) and individuals, on top of state sales tax infrastructure that does the same thing anyway!
November 21st, 2006 at 2:22 pm
h fair tax isnt going to be adopted. not even close. th army of CPAS nd people ht dpend on he current sytem will kill it dead.
believe it or not, we have to be even MORE RADICAL! either a negative income tax as proposed by freidman or a natural resource direct payment to the people for common resources – oil, gas, water, air ( pollution & carbon.)
we hve to mke the case tht keeping our social programs made for the 1890’s is impossible and make something like this the signature position for 08 ad 012. Or Carl’s new whimpertarian party, which i’ll be a part of if it has such thinking.
I want to actually change he system on the order of level of slavery to non slavery. This is going to be possible in a few years. But I dont think the LP has the ability to overcome itself. Maybe I am wrong.
November 21st, 2006 at 3:32 pm
“Actually it does.”
Prove it.
“It doesn’t require the government recieving and processing records of everybody’s incomes.”
But it does require the government receiving and processing records of everybody’s purchases, which some may argue is MORE intrusive and could require more record keeping.
“A sales tax requires information only from businesses.”
Not if you’re providing a “prebate”. The government will still have to know who you are, your marital status, how many kids you have, etc. You will also have to continue reporting your income to the Social Security Administration.
You have absolutely no idea what a national sales tax will look like. Nobody does. It may end up being a little less of a burden or it could be a little worse. I doubt it would be much different from the current income tax either way.
I’d rather work to increase the standard deduction in the current income tax, which would be an across the board cut that would benefit the poor and working class the most. It would also be a real cut in government revenue.
November 21st, 2006 at 4:15 pm
“Personally, I do not think advocating the FairTax makes someone un-libertarian. As I’ve said, I think your intentions are good and the intentions of most FairTaxers are as well. But the whole thing is designed to be revenue neutral—meaning government does not shrink at all.”
Since it doesn’t shrink government (it merely changes the method of extortion) I’d say that the “Fair Tax” is a waste of time for any libertarian.
November 21st, 2006 at 5:38 pm
I’d rather work to increase the standard deduction in the current income tax, which would be an across the board cut that would benefit the poor and working class the most. It would also be a real cut in government revenue.
I agree.
November 21st, 2006 at 6:52 pm
Chris, you are simply wrong. Income is a measure of both receipts, expenses and depreciation. A sales tax would look only at receipts, and only those receipts at the retail level.
Having paid both sales and income tax on a tiny business, I can state from experience that both were a pain in the butt, but that the income tax was vastly worse.
That said, I have qualms about the enforceability of the Fair Tax. The “voluntary” income tax works because people report on each other. A business reports the income of its workers because such income is an expense for the business. With such a double entry system, the IRS can get away with spot checks and occasional bits of intimidation. With a large sales tax, there will need to be moles, surprise audits and rewards for tax cheats.
This is why I prefer a combination of excise taxes and property taxes on publicly detectable items: fossil fuels, copyrights, FCC licenses, etc.
November 21st, 2006 at 7:01 pm
“Chris, you are simply wrong.”
No, I am not.
November 21st, 2006 at 7:03 pm
“With a large sales tax, there will need to be moles, surprise audits and rewards for tax cheats.”
And a whole hell of a lot more paperwork than you currently get with smallish state sales taxes. Which goes back to why I am NOT wrong out of hand.
November 21st, 2006 at 11:41 pm
“And a whole hell of a lot more paperwork than you currently get with smallish state sales taxes.”
Actually, the burden of proof for this is on you – we’ve seen how sales taxes have been implemented in the past. Your argument that the required infrastructure will be immensely different simply because the rate is higher doesn’t stand on it’s own merit.
“Not if you’re providing a “prebate”. The government will still have to know who you are, your marital status, how many kids you have, etc.”
They already do for the most part, and regardless, filling out a form with this information (in order to get money back, mind you, which something one must do with any sort of tax refund from deductions claimed) is far less intrusive than a form with this information as well as specific income and expense information.
“I’d rather work to increase the standard deduction in the current income tax, which would be an across the board cut that would benefit the poor and working class the most.”
I would certainly go along with you on that. Like I said, there are two points I care about, and equally: progressive ends and shrinking government. This fills both criteria. However, it’s not the MOST progressive structure nor does it seem as likely to initiate massive reductions under the status quo system, which most people seem content enough with. I’m not entirely convinced that the Negative Income tax would do so either, although it’s certainly more progressive than the current system.
I would indeed support land, resource and pollution taxes as a replacement for the current system, and maybe even instead of the FairTax. But FairTax seems more solidly structured and simplified – maybe that’s just because the movement for it has already very publicly mapped out how it would work.
Land taxes with a rebate may indeed be the most progressive and the least intrusive – I don’t know. I’m still working out how land is revenue producing enough in the short term to cover the costs of the tax You’d be completely reliant on what happens around you development-wise as to how high your taxes and land values are, and thus might be forced to move by factors outside your control – sure you’d gain more profit from the appreciated value, but that does not mean you necessarily want to move out if you don’t have to. Furthermore, it might encourage people to intentionally devalue their land and thus it may be questionable that it will be environmentally beneficial in the long run.
But I’d be interested to see a more concerted effort to put it in the political dialogue. I think the Left would indeed buy it as a replacement, as would libertarians who recognize that land is a very limited resource and is connected with most of the valid functions of the federal government and thus is the most justifiable thing to tax (as we must pick a poison, in my opinion, because I see a valid reason for minimal government and that government needs funding.) I still don’t know. The FairTax still strikes me as the best poison on the political radar at this point.
November 22nd, 2006 at 10:15 am
“Actually, the burden of proof for this is on you”
No. It is not. I am not proposing an entirely new tax scheme. You are.
I have NO IDEA whether a national sales tax would be less intrusive and less burdensome or more intrusive and more burdensome than the current income tax. I can merely speculate. Government has a loooong record of becoming more burdensome and more intrusive, whatever the program. I see no reason why it would be different in this case.
My best guess: if the FairTax was implemented tomorrow, then some things would be better, some would be worse, and in general there would be little difference in my overall tax burden and the size of government. Government would still grow and my taxes would still go up.
I’d rather fight the devil I know than build a new, unknown devil to fight down the road.
November 22nd, 2006 at 11:32 am
“I’d rather fight the devil I know than build a new, unknown devil to fight down the road.”
I can respect this reasoning. Naturally, nobody knows what it will actually be until it’s implemented. After all, who would have thought port security requires banning online gambling? I understand your qualms completely – it doesn’t necessarily mean I agree with your preference of keeping the status quo over replacement (actually, I’d work to initiate legislative reforms/limits on bill adjustments and repeal the 16th amendment before I’d bring an alternative replacement structure forward.)
But I think libertarians should be able to rationalize with each other and disagree respectfully instead of calling each other names, questioning their moral integrity and holding long term grudges against each other. That, more than anything else, is why the LP will never succeed – because we always prefer to be right than accepting differences of opinion, and we can’t walk away from any fight until we’ve won some “imaginary moral high ground.” And while we’re duking it out with each other and scaring away new recruits, the government keeps growing and none of us are any better off for it.
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:16 pm
“But I think libertarians should be able to rationalize with each other and disagree respectfully instead of calling each other names, questioning their moral integrity and holding long term grudges against each other.”
You’re wrong and you’re an evil Commie Nazi Statist. I’m right, and by virtue of my declaration of rightness I am superior to you and your ilk.
November 23rd, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Oh yeah?! Well, you’re a wacko kook nutjob with an infant’s understanding of politics and thus deserve the perpetual political squalor and isolation you have always gotten, you pigheaded retard!
Ha ha ha…levity is fun.
December 6th, 2006 at 8:35 am
I welcome!
I have bought Mazda Xedos 9. Was going to insure. Offer was pleasant buy car insurance online KIA. Who recently insured the auto – recommend still something.
February 19th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
old style cubs
Of old style cubs and more
April 16th, 2007 at 12:50 am
E grande io ha trovato il vostro luogo! Le info importanti ottenute! ))
July 26th, 2007 at 12:45 am
Lanw Mower Reviews
Tips on choosing the right lawn mower …
August 2nd, 2007 at 4:26 pm
[...] The case of Michael Badnarik’s “campaign” for U.S. Congress ending last month is a hilarious case in point. He raised over $400,000, claimed he could win, and got … 4 percent of the vote. He’s now begging for another $200k and it turns out his “campaign” “manager” is starting his own Scientology-like religion. [...]
September 10th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Cash Blitz Project
November 15th, 2007 at 6:29 am
Muscle Gain Truth
Muscle Gain Truth
May 15th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Cheap Lawnmower Parts
I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you.
June 21st, 2008 at 8:52 pm
casino gratis com
Sauf streep poker online poker cinco cartas jugar apostar sony ericsson ringtones seven card stud gratis
July 4th, 2008 at 5:44 am
Just follow up your instinct and people will believe you.
September 4th, 2008 at 7:54 am
german greed ugly clean stone global