Given how often libertarians are mentioned here, I thought this would be interesting. And maybe there's some people with a lot more insight into what's going on.
A few months back (May 29), the national leadership of the Libertarian Party (the "Big L" political party, not the "small l" belief system) was taken over by a group called the "Mises Caucus". While their platform seems to be a mundane version of a normal platform.
In recent days, there's several state level "rebellions" which seems to indicate that the schism between the old guard and them isn't going away any time soon.
For me, they do seem to tilt at absolutist windmills rather than do stuff they want done - which is a common libertarian flaw. And the implicit emphasis on Mises economics is a huge problem for me. Their stance against vaccination and supporting Trump's allegations of election fraud seem pretty shifty.
OTOH, the previous leadership didn't seem all that interested in libertarianism. Maybe this will shake things up in a useful way?
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2022, @05:25PM
(2 children)
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday September 20 2022, @05:25PM (#1272591)
*yawn*
Just some weird jumble to try and convince people that money isn't really the problem (spoiler, it is) paired with some crap about private business being another check on government. You really love the oligarchy, but most everyone knows that about you by now.
Just some weird jumble to try and convince people that money isn't really the problem
In other words, the above is a weird jumble for you have feelz about money. It annoys me when otherwise intelligent people go full stupid just because they can't come up with a rebuttal. Money didn't make my bureaucrats powerful. The state did.
paired with some crap about private business being another check on government
It's pretty obvious when you think about it rather than just dismiss it. Everyone agrees that businesses are powerful. They aren't governments, have a diverse spread of interests, and can be sued. It's a considerable breaking up of all that power.
You really love the oligarchy, but most everyone knows that about you by now.
I guess you're not most everyone!
As to the barglegab about money, money isn't magic. It's very easy to defeat - take the money away and you just took its power away.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2022, @08:28PM
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday September 21 2022, @08:28PM (#1272865)
As to the barglegab about money, money isn't magic. It's very easy to defeat - take the money away and you just took its power away.
Which is the trick, after all.
Given that those who benefit the most from money in elections (incumbents), are the ones that need to change the process to remove the money, that's easier said than done.
And we've further enabled such shenanigans with stuff like the Citizen's United v. FEC [wikipedia.org] decision.
When money isn't a driving force in successful elections, we can have a broader selection of voices in our government, hopefully one that focuses on the needs of constituencies, not large corporations and the wealthiest among us.
This is a structural issue in our political system that needs reforming.
You say it's easy to do. What specific, actionable suggestions do you have for getting the money out of the political system?
N.B.: I'm not the AC you replied do, so please don't saddle me with the bullshit they're spewing -- it's not me.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20 2022, @05:25PM (2 children)
*yawn*
Just some weird jumble to try and convince people that money isn't really the problem (spoiler, it is) paired with some crap about private business being another check on government. You really love the oligarchy, but most everyone knows that about you by now.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 20 2022, @10:25PM (1 child)
In other words, the above is a weird jumble for you have feelz about money. It annoys me when otherwise intelligent people go full stupid just because they can't come up with a rebuttal. Money didn't make my bureaucrats powerful. The state did.
It's pretty obvious when you think about it rather than just dismiss it. Everyone agrees that businesses are powerful. They aren't governments, have a diverse spread of interests, and can be sued. It's a considerable breaking up of all that power.
I guess you're not most everyone!
As to the barglegab about money, money isn't magic. It's very easy to defeat - take the money away and you just took its power away.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 21 2022, @08:28PM
Which is the trick, after all.
Given that those who benefit the most from money in elections (incumbents), are the ones that need to change the process to remove the money, that's easier said than done.
And we've further enabled such shenanigans with stuff like the Citizen's United v. FEC [wikipedia.org] decision.
When money isn't a driving force in successful elections, we can have a broader selection of voices in our government, hopefully one that focuses on the needs of constituencies, not large corporations and the wealthiest among us.
This is a structural issue in our political system that needs reforming.
You say it's easy to do. What specific, actionable suggestions do you have for getting the money out of the political system?
N.B.: I'm not the AC you replied do, so please don't saddle me with the bullshit they're spewing -- it's not me.