Libertarian Party

[cybercoma]

Why is the Libertarian Party such a farce in Canada?

[shoop]

Take a look at YankAbroad's postings, because he is the most outspoken *Libertarian* on this board.

Incoherent, disorganized and illogical.

A well-thought out Libertarian platform is possible, simply haven't seen it.

Why is the Libertarian Party such a farce in Canada?

[YankAbroad]

It's interesting that a usual defender of neoconservatism would accuse someone else of being "disorganized and illogical."

After all, this is the same ideology that proudly proclaimed the need to bring democracy to Iraq, but also explained to the Supreme Court in "Bush vs. Gore" that there's no right for a majority of Americans to choose the presidency.

Now, to answer the original question:

The reason why libertarianism hasn't won in political party form in either the USA or Canada is because socialism in both countries hasn't run its natural course yet. Right now, the political war between the "left" and the "right" is a war over who can dole out the most government goodies, what those goodies will be (welfare payments or military spending, etc.), and who will get them.

Of course, socialism doesn't work -- it inevitably leads to unsustainable levels of taxation and disrupts the smooth operation of the economy. The libertarian option becomes viable when people tire of the nanny state in all of its forms -- economic overregulation, state interference in personal and spiritual life, regulation of speech, etc.

Unfortunately, the electorate in both Canada and the US are addicted to their big, failing government entitlements like Medicare, Social Security, etc. and won't vote for someone who will free them of those obligations until it becomes clear that they're paying money into a rat hole. Of course, that moment is arriving -- in 2017 for the US Social Security system, and considerably sooner for Canada's insolvent health care system.

[YankAbroad]

PS -- if you want evidence of what I'm talking about, look at "conservatives" like Shoop scrambling to defend the existence of public broadcasting, or the CPC's income redistribution policies like tax-n-spend handouts of $1,200 vouchers for "child care."

Remember, "conservatives" position themselves as they of the tax cut and smaller government. Well, they'll cut taxes and borrow instead -- a net tax increase -- to fund socialist programmes just like those of the opposition Liberal Party which they claim to oppose.

When the largesse is criticized by those of us who want to see smaller government and greater personal freedoms, the "opposition" parties inevitably unite against libertarians in both Canada and the USA -- because both parties's power comes from their socialist redistributionist policies and the influence which such decisions provides their leadership. Right-sizing the government to an appropriately small size and freeing individuals to make their own decisions takes away their ability to be kingmakers -- which is what most politicians ultimately view themselves as (if not kings themselves).

[geoffrey]

PS -- if you want evidence of what I'm talking about, look at "conservatives" like Shoop scrambling to defend the existence of public broadcasting, or the CPC's income redistribution policies like tax-n-spend handouts of $1,200 vouchers for "child care."

Remember, "conservatives" position themselves as they of the tax cut and smaller government. Well, they'll cut taxes and borrow instead -- a net tax increase -- to fund socialist programmes just like those of the opposition Liberal Party which they claim to oppose.

When the largesse is criticized by those of us who want to see smaller government and greater personal freedoms, the "opposition" parties inevitably unite against libertarians in both Canada and the USA -- because both parties's power comes from their socialist redistributionist policies and the influence which such decisions provides their leadership. Right-sizing the government to an appropriately small size and freeing individuals to make their own decisions takes away their ability to be kingmakers -- which is what most politicians ultimately view themselves as (if not kings themselves).

I'm with ya Yank, ridiculous social programs like child care will be our downfall. Once Canadians wake up to the fact that the ghost of Tommy Douglas won't haunt us if we realise our health care system is a completely and utter failure, then maybe Libertarian minded folks will have a bigger say in things.

[YankAbroad]

It's only a matter of time. The neoconservative and social conservative wings of the Republican Party in the USA have gone savage when it comes to small-l and big-L libertarians alike in the last few months, which tells me they can see their downfall arriving.

Ultimately, about a quarter of the US populace, and roughly 10 to 20% of the Canadian populace, falls within a libertarian ethos in terms of their politics. Just look at all the people who say "I am a social liberal and fiscal conservative" -- i.e. hate big government in "morals" and "tax/spend" alike. They're libertarians, they just don't know it (or are afraid to admit it, because propogandists like Shoop are all over them explaining the hidden liberal agenda of libertarianism and left-socialists "explain" that libertarians are "heartless and selfish.")

[geoffrey]

It's only a matter of time. The neoconservative and social conservative wings of the Republican Party in the USA have gone savage when it comes to small-l and big-L libertarians alike in the last few months, which tells me they can see their downfall arriving.

Ultimately, about a quarter of the US populace, and roughly 10 to 20% of the Canadian populace, falls within a libertarian ethos in terms of their politics. Just look at all the people who say "I am a social liberal and fiscal conservative" -- i.e. hate big government in "morals" and "tax/spend" alike. They're libertarians, they just don't know it (or are afraid to admit it, because propogandists like Shoop are all over them explaining the hidden liberal agenda of libertarianism and left-socialists "explain" that libertarians are "heartless and selfish.")

Well alot of libertarians in my view tend to take things too far when you get into the rugged induvidualism type concept. The let them starve to death mentality, and thats not something I'm ok with.

Small government, less handouts, less welfare, real programs that don't keep Canadians unemployed... this is the only way to save the welfare state. Tax and spend, tax and spend, it's not sustainable. I figure the government budget could be cut in more than half and our standards of living would probably actually improve.

[YankAbroad]

The let them starve to death mentality, and thats not something I'm ok with.

Libertarianism isn't about starvation nor a "let them starve" mentality.

Big government is. Mass starvation, especially in modern times, is the result of government policies -- including economic wars -- which block individuals getting food and medicine. A libertarian society would be an inherently more compassionate society than a socialist one, since people help each other because they WANT to -- rather than because they HAVE to -- and most of the money raised to help the less fortunate would go to helping them, rather than paying the bureaucrats in the system whose primary agenda is to perpetuate themselves and expand their power.

Small government, less handouts, less welfare, real programs that don't keep Canadians unemployed... this is the only way to save the welfare state. Tax and spend, tax and spend, it's not sustainable.

You cannot have a welfare state without "tax and spend." The problem is that there will always be a paradox:

1) If you're at the margins of taxation, where welfare is more attractive than work, you'll eventually opt for welfare -- it's the logical choice!

2) As the population on welfare or other government handouts grow, so do expenditures. But the working population shrinks (or at least declines in growth). Thus, taxes must go up.

3) As taxes go up, disposable income decreases, and more people begin to think "should I just stop working?" Go back to Step 1, rinse, and repeat until the government goes bankrupt.

I figure the government budget could be cut in more than half and our standards of living would probably actually improve.

No doubt! And many levels of government (such as "metropolitan councils") could be closed altogether and not missed one iota.

[geoffrey]

You cannot have a welfare state without "tax and spend." The problem is that there will always be a paradox:

1) If you're at the margins of taxation, where welfare is more attractive than work, you'll eventually opt for welfare -- it's the logical choice!

2) As the population on welfare or other government handouts grow, so do expenditures. But the working population shrinks (or at least declines in growth). Thus, taxes must go up.

3) As taxes go up, disposable income decreases, and more people begin to think "should I just stop working?" Go back to Step 1, rinse, and repeat until the government goes bankrupt.

So why is unemployment at an all time low in Canada and taxes on the downturn?

The facts disagree with your point of view.

How do you also describe the idea that the general population knows better than an expert... the whole populist voting systems inherent of libertarianism? I can tell you most people out there have no idea how to construct an effective tax system for example, so why should they get a say in it?

[cybercoma]

Well alot of libertarians in my view tend to take things too far when you get into the rugged induvidualism type concept. The let them starve to death mentality, and thats not something I'm ok with.

Small government, less handouts, less welfare, real programs that don't keep Canadians unemployed... this is the only way to save the welfare state. Tax and spend, tax and spend, it's not sustainable. I figure the government budget could be cut in more than half and our standards of living would probably actually improve.

Charitable organizations should deal with those who are "starving to death". If we weren't taxed so highly and got bigger "tax breaks" for making donations to those organizations, they'd be more viable.

The only people who would be ok with others suffering are sociopaths.

Libertarianism is more about freedom. Particularly the financial freedom to do as you wish with your money, instead of having the government take it from you (before you even have it) and decide for you what to do with it.

[shoop]

Like I said, incoherent, illogical ranting.

Look throughout the CBC thread. I *never* defend the CBC. But thanks for coming out....

PS -- if you want evidence of what I'm talking about, look at "conservatives" like Shoop scrambling to defend the existence of public broadcasting,

[Minimus Maximus]

The let them starve to death mentality, and thats not something I'm ok with.

Libertarianism isn't about starvation nor a "let them starve" mentality.

Big government is. Mass starvation, especially in modern times, is the result of government policies -- including economic wars -- which block individuals getting food and medicine. A libertarian society would be an inherently more compassionate society than a socialist one, since people help each other because they WANT to -- rather than because they HAVE to -- and most of the money raised to help the less fortunate would go to helping them, rather than paying the bureaucrats in the system whose primary agenda is to perpetuate themselves and expand their power.

Small government, less handouts, less welfare, real programs that don't keep Canadians unemployed... this is the only way to save the welfare state. Tax and spend, tax and spend, it's not sustainable.

You cannot have a welfare state without "tax and spend." The problem is that there will always be a paradox:

1) If you're at the margins of taxation, where welfare is more attractive than work, you'll eventually opt for welfare -- it's the logical choice!

2) As the population on welfare or other government handouts grow, so do expenditures. But the working population shrinks (or at least declines in growth). Thus, taxes must go up.

3) As taxes go up, disposable income decreases, and more people begin to think "should I just stop working?" Go back to Step 1, rinse, and repeat until the government goes bankrupt.

I figure the government budget could be cut in more than half and our standards of living would probably actually improve.

No doubt! And many levels of government (such as "metropolitan councils") could be closed altogether and not missed one iota.

Well you two have really piqued my interest. Yank, could you expand on your comment about people helping each other because they want to and not because they have to? I like the concept but have doubt this would happen if social programs were removed all together.

I agree that there is too much government in our lives and would like to see that change, but not at the expense of the people who depend on government for support.

[YankAbroad]

why is unemployment at an all time low in Canada and taxes on the downturn

Canada is a functioning bankrupt society (as is the United States).

Unemployment remains higher than natural levels and taxes are not on a downturn when you consider the increase in long-term indebtedness which continues even with a "budget surplus."

Reduction of tax rates in and of itself is not a tax decrease when government borrows, or especially when government encourages inflation by increasing the money supply. Look at the havoc this has wreaked with the Canadian dollar relative to the US one. Not that long ago, the Canadian dollar was worth more than the US one. Of course, it helps now that the US dollar is similarly inflating -- the Fed plans to increase money supply in the USA by 30% this year, yet insists inflation isn't occurring (i.e. you're imaging soaring housing, commodity, food and energy prices).

Look throughout the CBC thread. I *never* defend the CBC

Sure you did. But I'm not going to rise to your childish tactic, which apparently consists of one-liners and personal attacks. Come back to the grownups's table when you're ready to talk policy.

Yank, could you expand on your comment about people helping each other because they want to and not because they have to? I like the concept but have doubt this would happen if social programs were removed all together.

I have extensive experience with social programs and private charity.

I grew up relatively poor in a not-so-nice section of Philadelphia. Our neighbours would disappear for a little while and you'd find out it was because they were shot in a mugging or gang crossfire.

Public schools spent massive sums per student -- over $10,000 in the public school in our neighbourhood -- and turned out graduates who couldn't read and write. Teachers went on strike all the time whenever quality standards or private school competition threatened their positions.

Our local Catholic school, where I went, was full of lay people who were there because they wanted to make a difference, not because they wanted to make a fortune. I got a great education for about $3,000 a year -- a lot of money for my parents, but less than they were paying in property taxes to keep the failing public school running. Most kids in the neighbourhood ended up going to the Catholic school, which charged only based on ability to pay. Many could have paid -- or even supported a non-religious school -- had they not had their meagre incomes taxed to pay for a failing public system.

The local welfare and housing bureaucracy was always bragging about "restoring" abandoned neighbourhoods by knocking down housing. But the real housing that people wanted was what they could own and restore -- particularly with the help of groups like habitat for humanity. However, when the city planning commission found out that we were interested in restoring the grand old brownstones in North Philadelphia rather than knocking them down and replacing them with "urban planned" disgusting high rises, they stepped in to stop the zoning of restored housing. The result? A huge housing shortage -- despite the fact that Habitat wanted to help -- and people got crowded into dangerous and filthy high rise housing rather than owning their own brownstone.

Just two quick examples from my childhood. I can also remember the long queues of people who waited for food and money from the local welfare office, and their biggest request being transportation to where work was -- but not getting it.

Government completely nuked my neighbourhood. We had what was supposed to be a "socialist paradise" -- government funded health care, public housing, "free" education, etc. -- and the neighbourhood just died. Nobody lives there anymore -- it is an abandoned row of crack houses doomed to be bulldozed. It could have been so much more -- if not for social programs.

[geoffrey]

why is unemployment at an all time low in Canada and taxes on the downturn

Canada is a functioning bankrupt society (as is the United States).

Unemployment remains higher than natural levels and taxes are not on a downturn when you consider the increase in long-term indebtedness which continues even with a "budget surplus."

Reduction of tax rates in and of itself is not a tax decrease when government borrows, or especially when government encourages inflation by increasing the money supply. Look at the havoc this has wreaked with the Canadian dollar relative to the US one. Not that long ago, the Canadian dollar was worth more than the US one. Of course, it helps now that the US dollar is similarly inflating -- the Fed plans to increase money supply in the USA by 30% this year, yet insists inflation isn't occurring (i.e. you're imaging soaring housing, commodity, food and energy prices).

Thats just completely false. Canada continously has some of the lowest inflation in the world. Why would you wish to encourage economic slowdown and further job loss by restricting the money supply further?

The government in Canada is no longer restricting the loans market by borrowing the huge amounts like they did in 80's. So this part of your statement is false too. Most of Canada's initial debt was foreign held, which was the issue. Now that any short-term borrowing is done in Canada, the investment income stays within the country (most of the time) and doesn't harm the economy in such a way that your saying.

Your anti-inflation never increase the money supply ideas are flawed. A consistant inflation below 3% will not harm most people, if you go lower than that, your employment levels will suffer.

[YankAbroad]

Canada continously has some of the lowest inflation in the world

The USA claims the same thing. And it's phoney.

Look at soaring housing prices, soaring commodities prices (particularly energy), and stagnant wages, and explain to me how real inflation isn't occurring?

Your eyes aren't lying to you, my friend.

Why would you wish to encourage economic slowdown and further job loss by restricting the money supply further?

There's a difference between "not growing the money supply" -- a position I don't take -- and not growing the money supply by 20% to 40% per year.

Canadians aren't getting ahead. Real income after taxes and real inflation adjusted value has stagnated and slightly declined in both countries for 20 years now.

The government in Canada is no longer restricting the loans market by borrowing the huge amounts like they did in 80's. So this part of your statement is false too.

Canada's government continues to increase its indebtedness (albeit at a slower rate) and continues to have a massive debt load which translates into high marginal tax rates for decades (perhaps even centuries) to come. That's a fact. Canada's tax rate could be 1/3 lower if not for that indebtedness.

A consistant inflation below 3% will not harm most people

Real inflation is significantly higher than 3% per year in Canada and the USA alike. The government dilutes the figures by mixing in voluntary consumables from China (which have reduced prices in that sector significantly) with necessities like energy in order to show "low inflation."

The reality is that cheap plastic crap at WalMart is indeed much much cheaper (thanks, free trade!) but the value of your dollars continues to decline at an astonishing rate -- especially relative to housing, rents, and energy. Meanwhile, tax rate growth and real inflation continue to outpace income growth by a significant margin. Everyone is poorer as a result.

[August1991]

Canada continously has some of the lowest inflation in the world

The USA claims the same thing. And it's phoney.

Look at soaring housing prices, soaring commodities prices (particularly energy), and stagnant wages, and explain to me how real inflation isn't occurring?

Your eyes aren't lying to you, my friend.

Are saying that Statistics Canada is lying?

Also, the kind of inflation you describe "soaring house prices" is inconsistent with "stagnant wages".

[shoop]

Yank is just a mouthpiece who doesn't support any of what he is saying.

According to this story wages in January 2006 were up 3.4% over January 2005 while inflation was only 2.2%. Hmmm, that would be growth in wages not stagnation.

Canada continously has some of the lowest inflation in the world

The USA claims the same thing. And it's phoney.

Look at soaring housing prices, soaring commodities prices (particularly energy), and stagnant wages, and explain to me how real inflation isn't occurring?

Your eyes aren't lying to you, my friend.

Are saying that Statistics Canada is lying?

Also, the kind of inflation you describe "soaring house prices" is inconsistent with "stagnant wages".

[geoffrey]

Yank is just a mouthpiece who doesn't support any of what he is saying.

According to this story wages in January 2006 were up 3.4% over January 2005 while inflation was only 2.2%. Hmmm, that would be growth in wages not stagnation.

Gas prices are at an all time low, at least since the 1960's. Same with the price of bread and basic living expenses.

At least when you correct for my inflation numbers. Under your inflation numbers, all this stuff must be super cheap compared to what it was before.

Do the math yourself and calcuate the inflation rate if you don't believe StatsCan. You'll end up with the same numbers by some crazy co-incidence.

EDIT: That was directed at Yank.

[Michael Hardner]

Yank, the Philadelpha example you give does illustrate the problems that happen with social services.

The counter example you gave of your own school, though, reflects an institution developed through strong community ties over many years.

Do you propose dismantling the existing social services structure entirely ? If so, how do you think the dependent community would respond ? If not, what is the plan ?

I understand why people can look at the social infrastructure and brand it a failure, but it arose to serve a need and that need won't go away.

[Conservative1]

From www.libertarian.ca

We oppose any government involvement in the monetary and banking system. We propose elimination of the Bank of Canada and the termination of government power to issue or regulate currency or credit.

I went out last night with this woman who was well versed in Libertarianism, and another friend of mine is interested in it as well. Particularly this conversation last night spiked my interest in the group, so i did some research and examined their ideologies and policies through their website...and in conclusion there is no wonder why this party didn't even recieve 1% of the vote...

Knowing previously that Libertarians promote minimal taxation, and very small gov't size and expenditure, addmitedly put them in a positive light with me previously...sounds like the conservative utopia right? Ya...NO!

SO MANY RADICAL POLICIES...WHICH IF THEY WERE TO BE PUT INTO PRACTICE WOULD EFFECTIVELY RESULT IN ANARCHISM!

I doubt a realistic viable political party could ever come out of this, unless there were some dramatic changes!

One idea/policy that seems to scream of idiocy is to dismantle the Bank of Canada! Ever hear of the saying 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'.... cause the B of C has served it's purpose quite well over the years low inflation has largely been achieved, who otherwise would dispense money/control money supply! Plus the idea that you should let markets determine the value of currency...is by in large already in effect.

On the left the liberals got the NDP which in my mind are socalist radicals not fit for office...on the right if conservatives aren't careful we could get the Libertarians who are effectively anarchist zealots, definitely not fit for office! I for one hope their time never comes to pass....unless in a severly diluted form!

[cybercoma]

The Libertarian Party needs fixing, for the reasons that Conservative1 has illustrated. We need a party that's fiscally Conservative and socially Liberal. There needs to be a party that's not going to waste our money on bottomless pit social programs, but not meddle in the private affairs of people (such as SSM).

[geoffrey]

From www.libertarian.ca

We oppose any government involvement in the monetary and banking system. We propose elimination of the Bank of Canada and the termination of government power to issue or regulate currency or credit.

I went out last night with this woman who was well versed in Libertarianism, and another friend of mine is interested in it as well. Particularly this conversation last night spiked my interest in the group, so i did some research and examined their ideologies and policies through their website...and in conclusion there is no wonder why this party didn't even recieve 1% of the vote...

Knowing previously that Libertarians promote minimal taxation, and very small gov't size and expenditure, addmitedly put them in a positive light with me previously...sounds like the conservative utopia right? Ya...NO!

SO MANY RADICAL POLICIES...WHICH IF THEY WERE TO BE PUT INTO PRACTICE WOULD EFFECTIVELY RESULT IN ANARCHISM!

I doubt a realistic viable political party could ever come out of this, unless there were some dramatic changes!

One idea/policy that seems to scream of idiocy is to dismantle the Bank of Canada! Ever hear of the saying 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'.... cause the B of C has served it's purpose quite well over the years low inflation has largely been achieved, who otherwise would dispense money/control money supply! Plus the idea that you should let markets determine the value of currency...is by in large already in effect.

On the left the liberals got the NDP which in my mind are socalist radicals not fit for office...on the right if conservatives aren't careful we could get the Libertarians who are effectively anarchist zealots, definitely not fit for office! I for one hope their time never comes to pass....unless in a severly diluted form!

No Bank of Canada? Bring on the reccessions!!! Who needs economic controls??

[Spike22]

Libertarian Party - I once dated a librarian too.

She was quiet all the time, found out recently she married a chap called Dewey Decimal.