The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania - Forum

And not just metaphorically this time.  They have an approval rate of 9%.  That's N-I-N-E.  I can't even think of another institution with such a low rating.  I keep thinking, with all the Messianic themes that Obama supporters have thrown upon him, that F. A. Hayek's The Road to Surfdom actually would have a chance of happening here.  9%, unreal.

If the Republicans were smart, they'd be blasting the Democrats on this.

They aren't.

We need to field a full slate of candidates for Congress. If not this year, then in 2010.

LP national says there are about 125 LP candidates for House and Senate nationally, but some are still being nominated.

Hoo-rah the American people beginning to realize that both parties are one and the same.

The Demo-can party ruining America one session at a time.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/Red_Cap/king-snake.jpg)

Sgtmiller-
That pic reminds me of the Ghostbusters movie-
DON"T CROSS THE STREAMS! haha
I think the time is ripe for more citizen advocacy.  Definitely.

Here's the article: http://www.taxpayer.net/search_by_category.php?action=view&proj_id=1094&category=Wastebasket&type=Project (http://www.taxpayer.net/search_by_category.php?action=view&proj_id=1094&category=Wastebasket&type=Project)

I wish they would spend all year on those kinds of legislative matters.  :P

At least this kind of diversion would keep them from further eroding the rights of the citizens. However, at that point why should we be paying for their time, travel, expenses, health care, or staff?

Mik Robertson

We shouldn't be.  I think that a nice law to be added to the books would be Median Income.  I've given this alot of though.  I think politicians should only earn the median income of the area in which the legislature takes part.  That's it.  Lobbyist dollars, etc, should constiute bribery as should gifts, etc and the charges that would follow. 

In the interests of the public, it is my opinion that a new service should be added to the state and local election regulatory agencies. They ought to require a uniform number of petition signatures for every candidate for office to be listed on the ballot, numbers being based on the office sought and the district. Those candidates receiving the required signatures will have a complete profile, including their voting record, sent to all registered voters throughout the district so that the voters are informed about whom they're voting for. This information should also be available on the internet, on a government website.

Dare I ask, how do you plan to pay for this government program? :)

It doesn't sound very libertarian to me.

I am more a pragmatist than I am a libertarian. We'll have better government if the people know who they're voting for, and this probably wouldn't cost more than a billion or two, if even that much. We spend a combined 1.5 trillion on national security, defense, and war each and every year. I think we can afford to let the people know who is on the ballot and what their profile is.

If anything, the government sharing information and keeping the American people informed about its activities ought to be one of the few duties that it does have. The government has information and the people ought to have access to it.

How libertarian do you want to get? If someone's house is burning down or they're being raped in their bedroom by some home invader, should we expect them to handle it themselves? Should we close the fire house and police departments? Should we get rid of OSHA and leave it up to employers' honor to provide a safe work place? Should we allow corporations to form monopolies over resources such as oil, food, or metals? None of these institutions, laws, and policies are libertarian in nature, but they are all essential to providing a stable economy and serve the public interest. I may be a libertarian, but I will not sacrifice the public interest for ideology.

That is why we consistently lose elections. It is why Mr Ventura is a small-l libertarian, along with so many others. You have your own idea of where the line on libertarianism ought to be drawn and there are millions of others within the party that have their own differing opinion. Too many libertarians are so enthralled in the ideology that they advocate policies that would ruin this nation, and people know it.

Don't you still have to take the non-aggression pledge to join the LP?

Advocating any program which forces people to pay for something is a violation of that pledge.

As a practical matter, it's just as much junk mail and will promptly go into the trash in many, if not most, households.

Practically speaking, you're advocating putting bureaucrats in charge of defining what candidates stand for. Now THAT is a recipe for dictatorship.

The people do have access to a lot of govt information, and we should have more. But are you going to ship the entire national archives to every US citizen? That seems to be the logical conclusion of your argument. And we already spend trillions on everything else, so why not spend trillions more on this? Where does the spending of other people's money end?

Libertarian does not (necessarily) mean anarchy. And it does not mean every man for himself.

I have no doubts that a good libertarian community would have a fire department that people could voluntarily subscribe to to gain assistance when there is a fire. Or maybe it would be priced like exterminators. When there is a problem, you call them, they help you, and then they send you a bill. A fire department can work just like any other business. And maybe if the government wasn't so involved in building codes, and people demanded information on their buildings before buying and renting, we would have more fire-safe buildings.

Many, if not most, libertarians are in favor of a strong police force, I certainly am. They're also for 2nd-amendment rights.

Your examples are more hyperbole, because the gravity of fire and initiation of force are orders of magnitude greater than any perceived need to send lots of paper out to people in the mail.


What is the public interest but the individual self-interest of each individual person, as decided by them?

What gives you the right to decide someone else's self-interest for them and force them to pay for it or abide by it? That's the base problem we face today: politicians thinking they know better than us and thinking they have the right to enforce their high-minded ideas at the barrel of a gun.

Progress towards solutions for today's problems will not be found with more of the same tactics.

There's basic necessities of government, of course local governments should have police, fire, rescue, ambulence, etc.   That is a public good that should be administered by the government and benefits everyone.  Are there many services that can be changed or run privately?  Sure.  I'm all for school vouchers, another public good which can be imporved with private competition, but infrastructure is much different.  Someone who doesn't have the money for fire fighters putting out their house ablaze is certainly not something anyone would ever want to see.  Volunteers for these services are great, but there is nothing wrong with providing these basic services that allow people to survive and have an emergency contact.  I think that is the greater point here.  No one is upset about this.  It is other laws that people have issues with.  Efficiency is of course the most important thing but government does have a roll for these types of services.

Police, without a doubt.

Why must the government be involved in the businesses of putting out fires, rescuing people and ferrying people to hospitals. I see no reason why the government should be allowed to screw up and overprice these very important services, most likely knocking valid private efforts out of business.


Why a half-measure? Why do you trust the government with the job of educating our youth? Are you happy with the job they're doing these days? Do you enjoy paying many more times per pupil than the private sector requires?


"Someone who doesn't have the money to pay their mortgage is not something anyone would ever want to see."

That's the kind of thinking that got us where we are today; where politicians are allowing the Fed to bailout the mortgage and securities industries on our backs. That's the kind of thinking that has us headed towards nationalized healthcare, because you wouldn't want to see anyone without health care, right?

The fact is that when you use the government to solve all your problems, you don't - and you just make more.

Speaking "practically", why should firefighting work any differently than any other similar business? You call them, they come, they send you a bill. You pay when you can, hopefully ASAP but they charge you interest if it's late. Only if you're a serial arsonist _and_ a deadbeat are they going to deny you their services. And if that's the case, why should _anyone_ be forced to pay for it?

And if they're row homes, and this deadbeat is my neighbor, the firemen are going to come out anyway because, being row homes, they KNOW someone will pay to put out the fire. If he's my neighbor I would pay for it in a second so that the fire wouldn't reach my home. The difference in this situation is that it's voluntary - no one forced me to pay for it.


There most certainly is something wrong. They require that government pay for them. This requires that government use force to extort said payment from citizens. The initiation of force is morally wrong and practically impractical. And it's also in violation of the pledge we made when we joined the LP (assuming you are a member).