The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania - Forum

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/07/jesse-ventura-speaks-out-on-two-party-system-libertarians-ron-paul-on-al-jazeera-interview/

Jesse Ventura speaks out on two-party system, Libertarians, Ron Paul, on Al Jazeera interview


July 13th, 2008 ·

Potential Minnesota Independence Party candidate for U.S. Senate, Jesse Ventura, was interviewed by Al Jazeera on April 9.

In the interview, he says of the two major parties: “They’ve turned the whole business of elections into panhandling and bribery,” and “These two parties now have America $9 trillion in debt.” Ventura says people who work their entire lives to leave something for their children are actually just leaving an inheritance that will be seized by government to service the national debt.

One remedy Ventura sees for crushing the “two-party dictatorship” is the inclusion of None of the Above as an electoral option at all levels. Ventura says he believes NOTA would win many races across the country. He also said a “wasted vote” is when you don’t vote your heart or vote your conscience. Ventura mentioned a Larry King poll that said 88% of respondents, of which there were more than 15,000, said Jesse Ventura should be running for president.

In describing himself as a “small-l libertarian,” Ventura says this of Libertarian Party members: “I found out that the capital-L Libertarians are anarchists, they don’t believe there’s any role for government at all. And I certainly believe there’s a role for government, I just believe it should be far more limited than what it is. I’m fiscally conservative, but I’m socially liberal.”

The first question from a caller was in reference to Ron Paul. Ventura said: “I’m very familiar with Ron Paul. I think he’s probably the best candidate I could find with either of those two parties that were running,” and “The media didn’t give Ron Paul a fair shake.” Ventura said he admired Ron Paul’s answer to a question about the Benazir Bhutto assassination, when Paul said it was none of the U.S.’s business.

Of the border fence: “When it’s built, I’m going to climb it the opposite way” in protest. “I want pepole to wake up to the fact that a fence today to keep people out, might be a fence to keep people in ten years from now. And I don’t want to live in East Berlin.” Ventura, who spends most of his time in Baja, Mexico, says “the Mexican people — these brown-skinned people we’re so terrified of — I find them remarkable.”

Ventura was also critical of the “chicken hawks” who “duped” us into the Iraq War. He said the Democrats lacked courage to get us out of Iraq, for which they were elected in 2006. “The war is about oil,” Ventura said. “Anyone who tells you anything different is wrong — it’s about oil and oil alone.”

So a prominent "small l-libertarian"  gets more of an opportunity to promote libertarianism, Ron Paul, fiscal conservatism and social liberalism on the biased Al Jazeera network than in our mainstream media. 

Is it just me, or is something wrong with this picture?

Mark

PS -- I think the war is more about keeping the US dollar as the world's reserve currency by insisting oil be paid for in dollars so that we can continue endless deficit spending, debt and inflation.  Sort of a oil-backed dollar instead of a gold-backed dollar.  Iraq was (I think) the first country to propose an outright rejection of paying for oil in dollars -- and we know what happened there.  I thought I heard Iran was seriously voicing the same policy.  Other countries are beginning to talk about a "basket of currencies" to pay for oil, but not an outright rejection.  This is, perhaps, putting too fine a point on Ventura's thought, but I think there is an alternate, but closely related aspect to this.

Didn't Greenspan say something similar about the Iraq War in his book? Perhaps we can convince Mr. Ventura he is incorrect about the LP and bring him on board as well.

Mik Robertson

Ventura is a bit of a nut job and a Truther as well (ala government being involved).  The general consensus is that Minnestoans were completely done with very quickly into his time in office.  He's a firebrand, for sure, but he's more of pundit than a leader.  He can say what he wants, outside of media members looking to "spice up" their on air time, he's not too good for much else.  He talked a good game before the Minnesota gig but was ineffective.  Kudos to the state for going for the third option, but there is much danger in selecting a person based on celebrity status rather than ideas.  He obviously has a problem with border secuirty which is short sighted, he talks about it in terms of racism (which is ridiculously stupid) as opposed to issues of national sovereignty and security and the rule of law in general.  By now you know I strongly disagree with Ventura's views on the war, anyone who would say the war was about oil and nothing else is disconnected from reality in my opinion, there were many, many, variables that led up to the war.  That's simply a talking point for him to throw a bone to those who oppose the war.

No argument here. I sometimes wonder whether I should have children at all.



I just love that I've been using this term for our two-party system for so long and now it was used by someone pretty prominent. I think it is an awesome catch-phrase that injects something vital into any discussion about our government.



Again, no argument. The two-party dictatorship has competition locked out of the ballot box pretty good. We exhaust tons of manpower and resources just winning the right to be on the ballot. Forget actually competing.



I know they're out there, but I have found that most Libertarians that I speak to aren't anarchy-loving types looking to abolish government. I think Ventura ought to take a closer look before using such a broad brush.



Amen!



Feel free to stay on the other side.



Cowardice. If things get that bad in this country then anyone attempting to cross that fence is a coward and ought to be shot on site. If you don't have the guts to stay and defend yourself, your property, your family, and liberty -- if you're just going to keep running away -- then cross over now. Mexico isn't ever going to be the beacon of hope and freedom.


You know why we're afraid of them? Cause we've seen what they do to their own country!



I wouldn't say it is about oil alone, but that sure plays a huge role in it.

Excuse me, people should be shot for going to live or visit outside the US? Care to clarify that comment?

What exactly have Mexicans done to their country that is so terrible, or so worse than what we have done to ours?

I worked shoulder-to-shoulder with immigrants from all over the world for a couple years - including Mexicans - and have a lot of good things to say about them.

On "two-party dictatorship", it sounds like an exaggeration to me, and because of that it's a credibility-killer. I like Republicrat duopoly, myself. :)

Perhaps a vast overstatement. If they are using walls to keep people in like the Soviet Union because our country has become totalitarian, then any fleeing is a coward. Should they be shot? Perhaps not, but they should be remembered for being a coward and never allowed to return.

These kind of people really get my blood boiling. If your country is in shambles, stay and fix it. Don't run away and leave it to rot. That is cowardice, to me. I have no sympathy for cowards nor any regard for their life. Americans don't run. We don't abandon each other.


The very fact that millions of them leave each and every year to come here ought to be evidence enough. The levels of corruption and privilege at the highest levels of their social order are ridiculous. Meanwhile, everyone else lives in dirt. But, do they fight it? Some do. Most don't. But, you're right about one thing. We're heading in that direction.



Mexicans are some of that hardest working people that I've ever seen. Hard workers don't a free country make. The Nazis worked really hard, too. So did the Soviets, and so on.


How is it a "credibility-killer"?

This is no exaggeration to what is going in America. The two main parties have fixed the election process and used taxpayer money to smother potential competition. While it may turn people away from my point of view, it certainly isn't an exaggeration.

Fleeing a totalitarian state is cowardice? So I suppose those Jews who escaped Nazi Germany's gas chambers are cowards? People like Einstein and Hayek?

Fleeing a totalitarian takes a lot of courage and is very much in a person's self-interest, especially if there is no active resistance. Being libertarians here I would be surprised if people valued the nation over the individual.

Your statement about Mexico could be made about the USA as well. The corruption in our political system boggles the mind. At least Mexico hasn't built up a huge debt like we have. At least they're not out there knocking off little countries for no reason and torturing innocents.

Very few people are fighting against the enormous problems we have made for ourselves.

Hard-working people are deserving of respect, not derision. Hard work is the basis of freedom because it means a personal is taking the responsibility to support his own life. Hard work is integrity.

"Two-party dictatorship" is a credibility-killer because this is not a dictatorship. The Republicrats have made it hard for 3rd parties to elect candidates, but they haven't fixed it. They just raised the bar. By "fix" you mean they decide the outcome, but that is an exaggeration. They have written the rules to heavily predispose the outcome in their favor, but they haven't fixed it. Some third-party and independent candidates still win. In fact, there are 2 in the US Senate right now.

We substantially agree. It just bothers me that people feel the need to exaggerate. Your average-joe-couch-potato-TV-addict-republicrat will use any exaggeration to dismiss your thought-requiring statements, so I think it's more productive to hew very very closely to just the facts.

Our nation certainly isn't torturing innocents despite what Keith Olbermann says.  Does alot of thing happen off the radar?  Sure.  Then again, you don't see our military sawing off peoples' heads and broadcasting their murderous rage on You Tube either.  The border must be secure for sovereignty, national security, etc.  What's wrong with checking a criminal background before someone crosses the border into a different nation?  No one is forcing people to leave Mexico or the US.  They doing it of their own free will, and such when you cross a border, you respect the laws of the nation you are entering into.   If you knowingly break a law because you don't agree with it, then you're a criminal.  Can you change laws by becoming active in politics and raising awareness?  Absolutely and laws do change.  However, in order to have a secure nation the border must be protected.  There is no comparing a portion of the Mexican population the victims of the Nazis crimes against humanity.  I'm tired of hearing that comparison, it demeans the Jewish people and downplays the sheer atrocities that the Nazis committed.  I don't see why people are so opposed to the rule of law and protecting our nation's security. 

We most certainly are. I don't have any links handy but there are lots of cases of us offering bounties and third parties picking up anybody or just the wrong person, and we happily ship them off to Guantanmo or an "extraordinary rendition" jail in Poland and torturing them. And even when we found that that it was all a mistake, we still keep them, for a total of 5 years in some cases.


Nothing. I like an open border but a well-protected one, myself.


If you think I did that then you did not read my post.

It's too bad Jesse isn't running for Senate this year. I think he would have done well against Al Franken and the other guy. Maybe next time he can compete for the LP presidential nomination.

I think the whole argument about "enemy combatants" has been badly framed by the administration. It is not a question of applying rights to certain people or within a certain territory, it is a question of what authority the federal government has.

Only congress has the authority to suspend habeas corpus, and only under certain conditions specified in the constitution. I don't believe either of those conditions have been met, so the there is no authority for the federal government to detain people indefinitely, regardless of citizenship or where they are detained.   

On the other issue, torture is as torture does. I find it hard to believe that all of those collected and detained in the "War on Terror" are serious threats to the security of the United States. If those pictures of naked detainees piled up, hooded, attached to wires, and hounded by dogs were of American detainees, there would have been a just outcry that the guards had committed criminal acts.

Mik Robertson

Mik, if you think Bob Barr had a contentious race this year, could you imagine if Jesse the Body was in the run?   I would not vote for him for sure, but darn would i like to see that happen at the next convention.