The only thing keeping this popular uprising from reaching critical mass is the libertarians unwillingness to join the rest of liberal progressives on this simple principle:

Money doesn't police itself.

Choose the Form of Your Destructor!, Which State is Most Bearable?
Goodwill vs Monetary Profit Motives., What is the relationship?
Free Market vs Free Love. Which is stupider?
What's the Libertarian position on Cheap Labor Exploitation?
Libertarians Shouldn't Fear Government., It's Money That They Should Fear.

I wish this were the case.

I think there are less appetizing things at work which keep the Obama vs. McCain situation from becomng a landslide.

Unless you are trying to suggest that the libertarians support McCain...

They certainly don't support Obama. They are probably going to vote for Bob Barr or stay home if they haven't given up hope on Ron Paul running as an independent.

But I don't want to make this thread about candidates. If Libertarians were to join Liberal Progressives, a yet to be discovered candidate with better positions than the best of both Obama and McCain combined would probably emerge. Even without a candidate, better positions on issues would emerge, the news media would have no choice but to cover them, and all candidates would have no choice but to adopt them.

So this thread is about creating a third party...and not enabling the Republicans or the Democrats...

I welcome the Barr candidacy and I hope Ron Paul joins as VP candidate...

This will increase the likelihood of a Democratic victory IMHO.

It's not about creating any party at all. It's about movements. Both the Liberal Progressives and Libertarians have their own populist movements. The problem is that they are competing instead of collaborating. It's about Libertarians reluctance to join forces with the liberal progressive movement.

We already have enough political parties. There is a political party for almost every political alignment. But it would take a collapse of one of the two major parties for any 3rd party candidate to get elected president.

I'm not worried about candidates or parties as much as I'm worried about positions on issues. Third party candidates don't win; but third party issues do win.

So you are not talking about this election cycle necessarily...

But aren't liberal progressives more interested in government programs solving more of the problems than libertarian candidates are?

I guess I need to know on what end of the politcal scale liebral progressives are...

For my part, I could see Obama being a liberal progressive...

He is progressive...

He is liberal ---

BUt he is not liberal in the sense of left wing or traditional liberals...

I know this does not help your thread much -- but I am trying to understand how the concepts can be married...

Liberal progressives are both socially and economically liberal. Whereas libertarians are only socially liberal, but economically conservative.

The degrees of "how" liberal are not as important in this case as "whether or not" they are liberal. There's a fine line there that libertarians are obviously to the right of when it comes to economics.

As a matter of fact, libertarians are so economically conservative, that they idolize a fictitious time when the power of money was unregulated by government. So one could say that since a free market has never really existed, that it has never been tried, thus making it liberal. So in a way, the Ayn Rand theory that if you go far enough to the right, you'll end up on the left, is true. But since I don't think a true free market is possible, the result libertarian ideals is always an extreme right-wing policy that benefits neither libertarians or liberal progressives.

It doesn't help the thread. But if it helps you to use Obama as a measuring stick to understand political alignments better, I'd say Obama is a very weak liberal progressive. He campaigned as being more liberal and more progressive before winning the nomination than he is campaigning now. He is proving to be as moderate as it gets, in not in the good way.

Assuming that a left-right axis represents in factorial space, a distribution of scores ranging from the
most conservative and least liberal to the most liberal and least conservative. The traditional centrist political process has tringulated this position to a point on the North- South axis, of the matrix, which represents Authoritarian, moneyed power vs bottoms-up democracy. If progressive liberals and libertarians joined forces, this traditional triangulation could be bent south instead of north. One possible tactic for doing this is to Nationalize the Energy Industries. A less radical way is for more democratic regulations.

What's the current Libertarian energy policy?

Bob Barr on: Energy Policy
Every American who drives an automobile knows that something needs to be done about the cost of energy in the United States. While Republicans are calling for more subsidies to oil companies and Democrats are seeking to micro-manage energy companies with more regulations and laws -- or to punish them by raising taxes on them -- Americans are left to watch helplessly as fuel prices go through the roof.

Government intervention, whether through more regulations or more subsidies (or both), hurts consumers in the end. The free market, driven by consumer choice and reflecting the real cost of resources, should be the foundation of America’s energy policy. The federal government should eliminate restrictions that inhibit energy production, as well as all special privileges for the production of politically-favored fuels, such as ethanol.

In particular, Congress should allow the exploration and production of America’s abundant domestic resources, including oil in the Outer Continental Shelf and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and alternative sources such as shale oil. We should develop our nation’s natural assets, which would lower costs to the consumer and assure more adequate and consistent supplies.

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues/energy-policy/

I actually agree with this approach, though I do believe that some regulation needs to exist over oil companies. These companies have demonstrated that if left to their own devices that they will not act in the public's best interests. However, I think the barriers to energy resource development should be removed to the extent that they do not interfere with environmental concerns.

I also support eliminating subsidies for oil companies, but believe that to get new alternative energy development moving forward at a more deliberate pace, that some benefits should be available from the government to assist them in this effort.

I don't know but I imagine most Libertarians are't very much interested in the government having a policy

I doubt that there is an economic model that would benefit Libertarians as "libertarians," meaning one that would let them keep their identity. It's their conflict of interests that distinguishes them from liberal progressives. If they were to adopt an economic model that were beneficial to them, then they wouldn't be libertarian.

There would be no conflict of interest if money could police itself; but I don't think its possible. It would take a different kind of money altogether to change the dynamic of how money works, making an new economic model possible. For example:

Based on these facts I can see why they might pull their hair out trying to choose a candidate to vote for...

Why would a conservative Libertarian join with progressives?

lilbertarian in the above thread seems to be= someone who wants to be a billionaire, but not give one red cent up to benefit anyone other than oneself (aka to be renamed= the narcassistic party)

pure communism on the other hand is the exact free of any governent, and all people
are equal with no need for any form of payment whatsoever.

The problem with energy is that the government let big oil merge so that competation no longer really exists. Notice how gas prices in one area of the country are all the same? Why is that? If a free market existed that would not happen. Do you guys know it costs EXXON $6.50 a barrel to obtain oil from its own reserves? So why was oil costing $145 a barrel? No Competation.

Because they already agree on social issues.

But it was the anti-trust laws from the government that broke the oil companies up in the first place. So even when government screws up, it takes another act of government to fix it.

From Bob Barr above:



Corporations used to get PR spin as well as write-offs against taxes when they contributed to community or social projects, or sponsored kids in 4-H stuff, or even funded a homeless shelter for a weekend. But now, since they have so many ways to get out of paying taxes and/or their tax liabilities are so low or non-existant, they have no incentive to contribute back into the society that provides their revenues. The winners are the Boards of Directors in payment of huge salaries and the shareholders in payment of huge dividends, which are also almost non-taxable.

For them, it's a win-win. Guess who gets the lose-lose.

Yes, that has worked out so well for the USSR, China and Cuba.

they don't have PURE REAL COMMUNISM, they are dictatorships.

They have a ruling elite and the people

PURE REAL COMMUNISM has no rulers at all. No dictators. Just everyone equal. It's never been done. Just one big commune like atmosphere, all for one and one for all.

And it will never be done...not on this planet anyway. Human beings are too authoritarian and greedy by nature. There will always be those who lead and those who follow...disallowing any chance for a pure equality.

True.

But it's a question of who (or what) do you want to be in charge. Right now money (with all it's flaws) is in charge.

Bill, when you make the statement, "There would be no problem is money could regulate
its self," are you using the concept, "Money" synomous with the concept of, " the Monentary
system of the social system or is, "Money" being used as a sub-set of Monetary system?

Really?...Would you like to expound on what I agree on? It wouldn't be a centralized government. It wouldn't be national healthcare.

And how does the, "Underground economy" fit into all of this?

The most popular monetary system that we use, based exclusively on numbers. Even though it is a subset of the social system, it dominates the social system. The only other subset of the social system powerful enough to challenge it is the internet.

I assume that we are talking about means of communication here and not just means of purchase.

Which underground economy?

There are underground economies based on money earned illegally such as the black market. And then there's the cash system which connect the black market to the legal mainstream money system. There's also several underground economies based on barter and exclusive currency that are almost isolated from one another. There are multiple levels of "underground" as well.

All the civil rights and civil liberties issues.

My point is that government is centralized by the power of money if not by the will of the people. The only way to decentralize it is to challenge the power that centralizes it.

As far as libertarians are concerned, it's not an issue of what the tax dollars are spent on. It's an issue of whether or not we should be paying taxes for anything at all.

Two guarantees in life: death and taxes.

So what should we be paying taxes for if not national health care?

Thanks, Bill. I'm just trying to get a better handle on what you mean when you say, "money."