This week’s Monday message from The Libertarian Party offers solutons to contemporary problems, that maybe the President has not thought of:
“We’re a little over halfway through President Obama’s term, and I wanted to send a reminder of the “top ten disasters” from his first year, plus ten newer problems, and how Libertarians would avoid or solve these problems.”
1. Cash for Clunkers
The government should not try to dictate what vehicles people drive, or what mileage they get. This program paid people to destroy their cars and buy new higher-mileage cars. It wasted both money and natural resources. Libertarians would never have done this.
2. War escalation in Afghanistan
We would withdraw American forces from Afghanistan. President Obama has escalated the war.
3. Giant government health care expansion bill
Libertarians would return health care to the private sector and the free market, instead of repeatedly increasing the amount of government interference.
4. Post office loses money hand over fist
Libertarians would end the post office’s monopoly, and allow competition and the free market to provide the mail services people demand.
5. Stimulus package
The key to a robust economy is shrinking government, not growing it. Libertarians don’t believe in stimulus packages.
6. Expansion of “state secrets” doctrine
The president is not a dictator. Libertarians would not allow presidential actions to avoid judicial scrutiny.
7. Big increase in unemployment
High unemployment is mostly caused by government interference. Libertarians would let the free market work.
8. “Bailout” Geithner as Treasury Secretary
Libertarians would appoint someone who understands economics and the importance of free markets.
9. Skyrocketing federal spending
Libertarians would would make huge cuts, not increases, in government spending.
10. Huge federal deficits
Libertarians would cut government spending so much that deficits would disappear
Full post with ten more problems and ten more Libertarian solutions @ http://www.lp.org/blogs/staff/lp-monday-message-20-obama-problems-20-libertarian-solutions
20 tb, yes, I agree that there’s an “antiprivilege Left,” and they can be reached. I’m not sure they can be reached with global climate change denial, or dismantling of the safety net.
Nor do I find the term “freed market” compelling rhetoric, especially with the antiprivilege left. I am open to a different term, for I see Long’s point about conflationism.
I do think there’s a strong impulse not to be “pushed around” among both historically right and left leaners, physically or rhetorically, ourselves or seeing others push others around. So, I campaign in support of the broadest, biggest tent possible, and I do not support NAP absolutism, which rhetorically pushes out non-vanguard, non-dogmatic folk who prefer to not be pushed around.
@5 & 9 I tried to make some points about libertarian rhetoric, freed markets, etc.
Two days later, Roderick Long has a long piece giving full treatment to reaching the left on libertarian economics and the mistaken reliance on conservative rhetoric that blind libertarians to the statism of the right. It is worth the read, I think.
http://mises.org/daily/5226/How-to-Reach-the-Left
RC @ 17 . Must be pretty cold this a.m. where you are at. Seems your thinking skills froze.
Libertarians might quibble with a detail or two of this plan, such as the negative income tax for the lowest income level, but consider how it would replace all entitlements and our horrific tax code with a single page program. Send me your thoughts, [email protected]
1. All persons residing in the U.S. shall come together in “tax units”. Members need not be related, need not reside together, and a tax unit may consist of as few as one person.
2. Each year congress shall set a “minimum wage” and a “tax rate”.
3. The following shall not be subject to taxation:
• An amount equal to a year’s earnings at the minimum wage, for each adult (age 20-65), decreasing 10% per year to 50% at age 15, and increasing 10% per year to 150% at age 70.
• All payments for necessary health care including medical care, pharmaceuticals prescribed by a health care professional, vision and hearing aids, and fees for health-enhancing entities such as gyms. Health care insurance premiums may be deducted but not health care expense paid for by such insurance.
• All educational expenses including day care for children or legally incompetent persons, the portion of state and local taxes used for education, that portion of parochial school tuition and other expenses going for non-sectarian education, and tuition, fees and educational materials for private school education.
• All income saved into an account for investments; withdrawals from this account for the benefit of any member of the tax unit shall be reported as income.
4. The “tax rate” shall be applied to any income greater than the deductions listed above, regardless of amount.
5. Any municipality having greater than 100,000 inhabitants or any state may impose on their citizens a surtax which shall be applied the same as the Federal tax.
6. Tax units whose deductions exceed income, shall be paid a sum equal to the tax rate multiplied by the shortfall in income.
7. There shall be no federal tax on corporations or other business entities.
8. The Office of Management and Budget shall compute revenues to be expected using the newly set tax rate and minimum wage, applied to the previous year’s reported incomes. No expenses in excess of that amount may be made without approval by 75% of each house of Congress.
15 mhw quotes: “@ 10 TB writes: Libertarians need to develop rhetoric that does not parrot the existing rhetoric of the right or left.”
And comments:
“BINGO! It doesn’t get much clearer than that.”
Me: Really? Not parroting right or left is “clear” to you? Not parroting seems very easy to do. A soapbox lunatic can babble on about all sorts of fringy ideas, not parrot, and meet this standard.
Try again.
11 TB, sorry, I didn’t see the term “freed market” as a serious suggestion. I share your concern for sounding like Rs or somehow implying that markets are free. But the term “freed market” is clunky and difficult to use, IMO.
In the sentence that you critiqued: “Libertarians would let the free market work,” the operative word is “let.” The sentence doesn’t imply that there is a free market currently. Like the eternal Tao, the spontaneous order is always there. Obstacles are placed in the way of allowing markets and individuals to work.
This is the first line of the Health care plank in the LP Platform. We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system.
It is without a doubt one of the most historically ignorant statements I have ever read.
I discussed this with two people on the platform committee and asked that it be changed. I was ignored.
Some people in the LP may have some big degrees, but they sure as hell never got an education.
@ 10 TB writes: Libertarians need to develop rhetoric that does not parrot the existing rhetoric of the right or left.
BINGO! It doesn’t get much clearer than that.
“Cutting $1 trillion from annual federal spending is therefore not just possible; it is crucial because this expenditure harms the economy. And expenditure cuts generate a productivity bonus: they permit lower tax rates, which improve the economic incentives for work, savings, and investment.”
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/04/26/cutting_expenditure_is_a_good_thing_98985.html
If people don’t vote, there is no reason to assume that they will vote if you do provide an alternative.
There is certainly no reason to believe all non-voters will vote if provided with an alternative, but there is reason to believe that some will consider voting if provided with an exciting alternative.
Low voter turnout is a measure of legitimacy to some extent. Many view Republicans and Democrats negatively and they don’t vote. But, if the alternative is clearly not much different than the candidates from the other parties, non-voters will likely remain non-voters.
Get real. Who is going to get excited about a Bob Barr or a Wayne Root? Hell, if people really cared about their country, a lot less of them would vote considering the low-life lying sacks of shit that run for office.
If people don’t vote, there is no reason to assume that they will vote if you do provide an alternative. Maybe they don’t vote because they care more about Charlie Sheen or Amare Stoudemire than the country they live in.
6 tb, you could suggest an alternative way to put it.
I did, Capozzi.
I see some people using the term “freed markets” and maybe this is more descriptive of what libertarians should be advocating.
Is that not a suggestion?
The term “freed” implies that markets may not be free.
Here, I’ll use it in a sentence for you, Capozzi.
In a freed market, health care costs would be more affordable.
or
Individuals would have more opportunities in a freed market.
Consequently, if somebody reads “free market” and thinks “statist corporatism”, there’s not much that can be done about that, other than doing anything possible to redefine the term back to its original roots.
My main point is that the “free market” rhetoric is very similar to GOP rhetoric. Many conservatives think we already have a free market and many liberals believe that free markets mean capitalism and they view that, and not without reason, as corporatism.
Libertarians need to develop rhetoric that does not parrot the existing rhetoric of the right or left. But, I’ve been saying that for years and most libertarians don’t get it. It’s not just about economics – it’s about all issues.
My focus on terminology doesn’t miss the point, it focuses on developing rhetoric which isn’t mistaken for conservative or liberal rhetoric and strives for accuracy and clarity. The goal is to win over people using ideas.
I’m aware this is a lofty goal, but for you libertarians that think it’s all about winning elections by using emotional appeals and convincing voters that libertarians are something they are not, it might be worth trying as the old strategies haven’t been very successful. The point here is that if you win the minds of people, they actually become libertarians and if the LP actually runs libertarians, maybe they’ll vote for them.
I know those are some might big IFs. But, the LP has ignored huge numbers of people that never vote because they have nothing to vote for. Give then something to vote for. They obviously don’t give a shit about the GOP and Dem rhetoric or it would have motivated them to vote for that. Shoveling out rhetoric that sounds like the GOP or Dems doesn’t seem to be doing much for anybody.
Bashing Obama may be entertainment for some, but on election day they will be voting for whoever they think has the best chance of beating the same Obama that is being demonized.
Why not give people something to vote for? Give them something that isn’t available through one of the brand name parties?
I think focusing on the terminology misses the point. Yes, it’s important to communicate clearly the point you’re trying to make, and proper terminology aids that, but there’s no permutation of the English language that will lead to a clear, unambiguous political message to all readers. For better or worse, readers bring their experiences and prejudices to what they read. Consequently, if somebody reads “free market” and thinks “statist corporatism”, there’s not much that can be done about that, other than doing anything possible to redefine the term back to its original roots.
As for this piece by itself, no, it’s not a plan, and yes, it’s the usual Libertarian boilerplate. That’s not a bad thing. New people get exposed to boilerplate all the time and bashing Obama is a remarkably popular way to spread a message since more than a few people want to read it. Besides, planning is for people in a position to actually make strategic decisions; sadly, the LP is not in any position to make any decisions in the federal government at this time.
I don’t think this is Hemingway or Faulkner, but I think it’s a solid piece of LP agitprop. Keep up the good work!
Where are the solutions? All I can see is a Libertarian bitching and stating the obvious about LP policy. That’s not really a solution, which would require a plan or at least an outline of what needs to get done. It’s just a very misleading statement.
6 tb, you could suggest an alternative way to put it.
IMO, there is always a “spontaneous order,” which we might call a “free market.” As government intervention blocks the spontaneous order, we get a mixed economy. At some point, the mixture become a corporatist or socialist economy, depending on how the mixture is structured.
Libertarians would let the free market work
What free market are they talking about? Where is this free market?
These talking points sound too much like GOP talking points and we know that the “free market” that the GOP propagandists talk about is actually fascist corporatism complete with bailouts, subsidies, and regulations that protect behemoth businesses from competition.
I see some people using the term “freed markets” and maybe this is more descriptive of what libertarians should be advocating.
The reality is that many, if not most, people think a free market exists now. Many think the economic problems we are experiencing currently are a result of the “free market” failing because of a lack of government intervention.
At least they didn’t use the word “capitalism”, another euphemism for fascist corporatism.
2 Brian, corporate welfare is touched on in points in several of these points, more explicitly below the fold on point 13. Bailouts are a form of corporate welfare, too.
These are the most recent, noteworthy, in the news points. Personally, I would not have put these in this order, and I might have substituted some of these for others.
Practical Ls do rank order which government ills should be addressed first. In my case, ending the 3 wars would be first, corporate welfare would be second, in the broad strokes. I suspect that most Ls would agree.
LP as right wing think tank seems to be a poor place to be, I’d agree. I don’t quite buy that characterization, although the LP does come off sometimes are more think tank than political party.
Lake, Why not
Obanana Obama !?
The LP nailed #8 ! This bunch looks like the gang who couldn’t shoot straight when it comes to economics !!! To put it mildly, THEY ARE LOST! I mean they (Ds) are just like the Rs they recycle these BUMS from previous administrations. Like there aren’t fresh workable solutions available (Austrian free market). I mean using Paul Volker (globalist lackey) as a chief advisor is INSANE! He was in his heyday in the Carter years. Some of us graying heads remember those days. Almost a trifecta of DOUBLE DIGIT Unemployment, Inflation and Interest rates!
Of coarse there is a reason for the MADNESS –
Explaining the left-right paradigm to a co worker!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Kw7j4lbDB4
“The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.” – Carroll Quigley-(Bill Clinton said Quigley was his mentor during 1993 Inaugural Address), speaking of the (CFR) Globalists’ American political strategy since the early twentieth century.
“One party has totally dominated American politics for at least a century: the Socialist War Party. No matter who wins the elections, America gets endless socialism and endless war.” Doug Newman.
~~~
P.S. Be concerned for yours and your loved ones health!
You won’t hear this on any mainstream news!!! (Nuclear Fallout): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMXvpWoHzeE&feature=player_embedded
11. Barack in office
Solution: Opeach Obama!
No mention of an end to corporate welfare? While the LP may pay lip service to certain “libertarian” ideas, it does not convince anyone that it is serious. The LP essentially remains a right wing think tank.