Presidential Candidates Arrested at Debates 1071
h8macs writes "Third party Presidential candidates Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) and David Cobb (Green) were arrested while attempting to enter the presidential debate at Washington University in St. Louis."
You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you... the land of the free. ;-)
Is this viewed as progress? (Score:5, Insightful)
I realize this is going to get them attention, but is it going to help their cause?
Mike
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:4, Insightful)
A Sad Day in America (Score:5, Insightful)
I can think of no sadder statement of our times than that. I now have absolutely no hope for our democratic system.
Well, they weren't invited, and the tried to enter (Score:5, Insightful)
What is sad though is that the status quo is a two party (and they are pretty much as bad as each other when it comes down to it) system in the US, and the complete lack of will to even consider that there are other parties.
A two party democratic system where both parties have corporate needs and their own interests at heart really isn't democracy is it? I mean, even the Russian Communist era had elections, you could choose Communist A or B
Yes (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Is this viewed as progress? (Score:5, Insightful)
How can you even ask that question? Badnarik and Cobb are two candidates with real platforms and real goals, and they deserve to be heard in the same way that President Bush and Senator Kerry are being heard.
And you're a supporter! How can you possibly say that you support these candidates when you understand that they have no real chance of winning unless they are treated in the same way as our "real party" candidates. Something must be done!
This is no different than people standing up for their rights during the civil rights movement, and frankly, I believe that they have done something to make a point. If I was there to stand with them, I would've. Something is terribly wrong with our system and they're the Martin Luther King Jrs. of this movement for change.
So don't tell me you're dissapointed the average american with the IQ of a chimp can't see that there's a reason for this. They're not going to win this time around, so they MUST make changes to the system so they have a real chance of winning the next time around.
To Badnarik and Cobb, I truly offer you the salute that you, damn well, deserve. Keep up the good work.
Re:Aussie election today (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Libertarians are supposed to be against coercion, and that is all that the CPD exists for. I am glad that Badnarik did what he did.
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Gee, I wonder why they can't get 1% of the vote. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that they are never invited to the debates!
Re:Is this viewed as progress? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes. What are the headlines today? "Predidential Candidate Arrested Trying To Enter Debates"
Who's the kook here? Why are Presidential candidates being arrested for trying to enter a Presidential debate? This should be a wake up call, people.
Re:If they want to be involved... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Uhhh that's pretty obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Because somewhere around (i.e. pulled from my ass) 97% of Americans have never heard of the Libertarian Party and 99.9% of Americans have never heard of Michael Badnarik.
He now gets prominent headlines and a nice association with freedom of speech. He's making himself impossible to ignore. The right thing to do, IMHO.
It should shake the debate up a bit.
I have a number of issues with the Libertarian platform, but at least Badnarik (and Cobb) are doing the right thing to get the boat moving.
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't want every crackpot in the country involved, but there are several parties (Reform, Libertarian, Green, and others) that outght to be able to have a chance to participate.
I disagree. We do want every crackpot involved. Otherwise, it becomes very esy to exclude new parties.
Of course they got arrested. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you would read the article, it clearly states that they pushed their way through a police barricade. Presidential candidates are still US citizens just like everyone else, and as such, they are subject to the laws of the land.
What do you expect will happen if you push through a barricade? The police are going to welcome you in with open arms? This isn't a videogame where one gets an award for navigating a bunch of obstacles.
They knew exactly what they were doing and fully expected to get in trouble.
Re:Is this viewed as progress? (Score:3, Insightful)
When was the last time a third party team won?
Wasn't Lincoln a third party?
How is the USA a democracy when.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is this viewed as progress? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:3, Insightful)
Issues like the racist, tax-&-spend drugwar are kept out of the debates despite the fact that we have an immense percentage of the US population -- especially blacks -- in jail due to this failed war. Instead, the "debates" (really bi-partisan news-conferences) are busy on the other failing war, which both "Skull" & "Bones" supported at the time. Propagandists like "Scooter" Libby were easily able to get minds off of Osama and onto Saddam, in part because Saddam made it so easy for them by bribing a large percentage of the UN in a criminal scheme which exceeded even Enron (which nobody remembers because there's Democrat-dirt there, too!) in size and scope.
I'll admit, Bush has been incredibly-lucky in many ways after drinking the kool aid of empire -- Libya's WMDs come to mind -- but in the end it's all about oil/money, as we'll be seeing at our local gas pumps for quite some time, I fear.
JMR
Definitely speaking ONLY for myself this time!
Re:'ere, what's this then? (Score:5, Insightful)
A republic implies only that decisions are made by a group of representatives, regardless of how they are chosen.
In our country, the representatives are elected by the general public. That makes our system a democratic republic, and therefore it can be considered to be a democracy.
Restricting the definition of democracy to only mean a pure system like ancient Greece would be pretty useless, since almost no country in history since then has actually used that system. Common usage of the term includes democratic republics. Every president that I can remember has gone on and on about the benefits of "freedom and democracy". Surely they're not talking just about a system of government that is not used currently by any country.
Neither have ever held political office before (Score:1, Insightful)
Consider the two major party candidates:
I contend that we cannot consider ANY third party candidate to be truly serious about running for President until they have run for AND WON a race wherein the votes cast were made from a statewide race (i.e. senator, governor, state attorney general, etc.). From a standpoint of viability, how can any candidate expect to win multiple states if he or she cannot win even one state first?
And really, the only way for these third parties to be considered serious is for those same third parties to have a base of representatives who have succeeded 1) on the local level, 2) on the statewide level (i.e. state legislature), and 3) on the national level (i.e. Congress). Neither of these parties have done that.
This is the recipe for success for any third party or third party candidate. These are very specific goals that can be attained. By working for these goals, a party or candidate can truly show that they are serious about political office.
Re:Is this viewed as progress? (Score:3, Insightful)
All Cobb and Badnarik did was to further convince the average American that they are nuts. They need to start convincing the average American that they are legitimate candidates with legitimate platforms. The problem is that both the candidates and people like you don't realize that this was not helpful. You're all too extreme for the average American, and you keep proving it over and over again. You'll never get credibility or votes if you keep it up.
Yes, they should have been in the debates, but that is not relevant to whether or not they should have pulled this stunt. These guys need to learn how to play with the pros. So far, the pros are smoking them. Third parties can get into the debates - Ross Perot did it.
Re:How is the USA a democracy when.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:2, Insightful)
One ticket, please.
Re:Uhhh that's pretty obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
Because somewhere around (i.e. pulled from my ass) 97% of Americans have never heard of the Libertarian Party and 99.9% of Americans have never heard of Michael Badnarik.
And now an additional 2% have heard of him, and will recognize his name (for the next few weeks) as that whacko from the Liber-whatever party that got arrested.
He now gets prominent headlines and a nice association with freedom of speech. He's making himself impossible to ignore. The right thing to do, IMHO.
Sacrificing your prinicples in order to get votes... yup, he sounds like a natural politician to me.
No Arrest, No Publicity -- They're Happy Now (Score:3, Insightful)
These turkeys got exactly what they wanted.
And, since when is a candidate's partisan website a legitimate news source?
But, then, since when does
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Insightful)
They may be a private entity, but they're using public property, namely airwaves and university grounds. So, the assertion that they should be free to regulate who takes part in the debates as they please is fallacious. Public resources equals public responsibility.
Also, in the wider picture, though technically the legality might be on the side of the CPD, what is the moral thing here? Is it right that third party candidates can not debate the major candidates in ANY venue? Is it right that badnarik and cobb have to get ARRESTED before someone will hear anything about them from the mainstream media? How many americans even know who badnarik and cobb are? This isn't democracy, it's plutocracy, and it's immoral, if not illegal.
Re:Neither have ever held political office before (Score:1, Insightful)
Human Rights Violation or cheap publicity stunt? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Neither have ever held political office before (Score:5, Insightful)
Read some history books. Elected officials were -designed- to be from all walks of life (lawyers, carpenters, teachers, business owners, sailors, soldiers, librarians, philosophers, historians, musicians, explorer, etc). The idea was that you run for office, serve your term(s), and then go back to your job. That is what power to the people was all about.
In my opinion, a big part of the problem with our current setup is that people actually respect career and long-term politicians. I have a different theory: The more likely that a person has been in public office, the more likely they are to become corrupt.
A few questions... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Who wrote the rules?
2) How is one supposed to rise from zero to 15% if one cannot be heard?
3) Is the two-party system really the best system? Wouldn't more competition improve the political system?
Re:Is this viewed as progress? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, if he can demonstrate beforehand that he and his platform will sway a significant number of voters to at least make him a viable candidate (like Ross Perot did).
Look, these debates didn't just pop out of thin air. The LP and the GP have had four years to build support for their platforms just for this election, and who knows how long just to build general support (the LP goes back to the 70's doesn't it? Don't know about the GP).
Given that, if they are already unsuccessful at building a groundswell of support, why should they be wasting everyone's time in the debates and taking valuable time away from the viable candidates?
League of Women's Voters (Score:4, Insightful)
LWV has hosted these for years. They dropped it this year due to the total facade that this is. If they were smart, they would hold 2 of them with Nadar, the Libertarians, and the Greens as well as leave it open to both Republicans and Democrats. IOW, rather than just the top 2, it should be open to the top 5. If the other 2 decide not to show up, well, just leave 2 open podiums there.
Right now, we have parties controlling who just showed that they are in total control. Worse, there really is little difference between them. Kerry has done as much as possible to say that he is for the iraqi war, but that he is different than bush. Likewise, he is for the patriot acts, but did not like how they were applied. hummm. Yeah, that is different.
Re:In Related News... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Uhhh that's pretty obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, for fuck's sake. You guys have a political system that makes it essential impossible for anyone without multi-millions in backing to get anything like enough coverage to let voters know that they have choices outside the dualistic monopoly of the Democrats and Republicans, and you still think it's a bad idea for him to bring some attention to that fact?
Ok, lets get realistic a minute... (Score:4, Insightful)
However, the fact they were arrested isn't an indicator of a fascist government conspiracy. The area was restricted for security, and they crossed a police barricade.
There have been many frightening things done to people in this country post 9/11 in the name of security, but this wasn't one of them.
Re:Is this viewed as progress? (Score:2, Insightful)
And how should he do that? Through votes? Do you see the absurdity of the system?
In these days, I'm really proud to be a European, with democratic systems that still work.
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is this viewed as progress? (Score:4, Insightful)
"No publicity is bad publicity" ~~ P.T. Barnum
Re:Neither have ever held political office before (Score:1, Insightful)
You lack of logic is stunning.
I suggest you review the biographies of:
Woodrow Wilson
Herbert Hoover
Theodore Roosevelt
Abraham Lincoln
George Washington
Ulysses S. Grant
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Please stop the stupid thinking and try
please, just try, to think clearly!
Re:'ere, what's this then? (Score:3, Insightful)
If a country can be deemed a democracy when not everyone ruled over and taxed is allowed to vote, not all the votes count for anything, and some candidates and parties are barred from the debates, then yeah, the US might still count as a democracy. And so might China.
Re:Chose between those who really matter. (Score:1, Insightful)
Considering Florida 2000 and the Diebold scandals -- not even mentioning the long, sordid history of "vote fixing" that's plagued US elections since the advent of political machines [wikipedia.org] -- that's hardly certain.
You were definitely part of the selection ritual, at least...
Why is it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially since we seem to be able to handle six Democrats in a primary debate...
Re:Neither have ever held political office before (Score:3, Insightful)
But if they don't believe in what either party stands for, they would have a big problem in local and state elections as well. Sure, occasionally, a third party or independent candidate slips in, but it's rare, and even then, they are rarely truly "independent".
Re:CNN doesn't seem to know Michael Badnarik exist (Score:5, Insightful)
A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll taken right after the town hall meeting-style debate found respondents giving a slight, statistically insignificant edge to Kerry over Bush: 47 percent of them went for Kerry and 45 percent for Bush.
The net is not a good sample of voters, and AFAIK there's no fraud protection on the CNN online poll, so it's really not worth talking about.
Re:Of course they got arrested. (Score:5, Insightful)
And your point is what? The people who got killed by police in Tiananmen, or East Germany, or the Soviet Union also violated the laws of their lands. They also knew what was might happen to them. Should they have just blindly accepted what their governments did and how they were exluded from the political process? What about African-Americans--should they just have continued to be quiet?
Re:And there are better ways go about things.... (Score:3, Insightful)
But I don't think there's essentially anything wrong with what they did, even if the cries of "police state" are over the top.
Their antics effectively drive home a very simple and important message: Presidental candidates that are on the ballot in most states get arrested when they try to enter the building that's hosting a presidential debate. Ignoring all the details of went went on, that is pretty fucked up. FUD?
Yeah, it's FUD. But I genuinely fear that the vast majority of Americans won't get to hear a meaningfully different point of view on many important issues. I am uncertain that most voters know that Cobb, Badnarik (and Pertouka) exist, let alone know their stance on the issues. I doubt that these sanitized, lame excuses for debates will be adequate to really help an undecided voter make up their mind, or more importantly, help illustrate to non-voters why it is important for them to participate in the election.
It was an act of civil disobedience, one that I don't think anybody should be ashamed of (except the Commission on Presidential Debates and anybody else who tries to exclude 3rd party candidates from the process.)
Re:Is this viewed as progress? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I don't see the absurdity.
He's got a mouth, doesn't he? Feet? Hands? A car? A phone? An organized party backing him? Well, get out there and talk yourself up as best you can. Shake hands, kiss babies, hold rallies, etc.
My point is that the Libertarian party platform is not resonating with most voters. So why waste our time?
Remember the events leading to the '92 election? There was a sense that the two parties had become so combative that there was gridlock in Washington. There was an air of anti-incumbency (for all elected offices) and "Throw the rascals out!" became the popular slogan. It was on this sentiment that Ross Perot built the Reform Party and seized on the populist message. Yes, he had money, but money doesn't buy you votes as a third-party candidate. Belief in the message does.
THAT is the kind of groundswell support that Badnarik needs to capture if he's going to be taken seriously. And if he can prove that people are lining up behind him in droves in response to his campaigning, then absolutely put him in the debates.
But you don't think that there should be a viability test, so let's take the other side of the coin. Anyone who is a presidential contender should be allowed in the debate. But, isn't there usually between 200-300 candidates in any given presidential election? And if you start opening up the debates to all comers and giving them airtime on national TV, couldn't you reasonable expect the number of hopefuls to ballon to 1,000 or more? For proof, just look at the three-ring circus that was the California governor's race; did a porn star really have a shot at becoming governor, or was she just capitalizing on all the free publicity to sell more videos? Anyhoo... with 1,000 candidates, the presidential debate would only have time for one question, and it would take four hours to get an answer from everybody.
After all, what makes Badnarik any more qualified to be on stage than the communist party candidate? Ot the LaRouche candidate? Or the KKK candidate? Sure, you and I might say that they're a bunch of nutjobs, but if you are going to open up the debate and let Badnarik in simply because he is a candidate and without any kind of viability test, then you have to open it up to everyone out of fairness.
So how does that really benefit the system? It doesn't.
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:2, Insightful)
I would argue that there are no third party candidates. None of them are allowed to participate in debates, the entire system is biased against them. They are at best tokens to make it appear that we have a functioning participatory government when really we just have a little contest between factions within the ruling class.
So You can vote for the republican team, or you can vote for the democratic team. However, then that management team that wins gets to run things for 4 years until the next contest.
Now if you vote for one of the tokens, then thats it. You expressed your preference, and it didn't win. Now you don't get to express any opinion electorally on whether you prefer the D or the R, which is what the real question is.
Its kind of like ordering a hamburger at Friendlies
"How do you want it cooked?"
"Medium rare"
"Oh we only do medium well or well"
(yes I was actually given that "choice" once)
-Steve
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:1, Insightful)
No. (/me thinks of polite way to put this.) You must be thinking about regulated markets or something.
Requiring food manufacturers to be clear on the label about what goes into food helps people make smarter decisions about what they buy, and actually helps keep the free market.
No. Alledegly labelling regulations help consumers ("smarter decisions", above), but it is not a free market if the supplier has no legal choice about how they label their products. Free markets operate with the principle of "caveat emptor", or let the buyer beware. If you don't like unlabeled goods, don't buy from them. If you don't trust the label, get a third party opinion, like from a consumer magazine. All this kind of regulation does is put the scrupulous at a disadvatage, as consumers tend to trust all labels, but the unscrupulous still adjust things to their advantage. In an unregulated market, scrupulous suppliers gain a reputation advantage, as labels in general are less likely to be automatically trusted, so they can gain from being trusted more than their rivals.
This is an exampe of the law of unintended consequences, where bad thing follow from freedom-reducing actions, and good things follow from freedom increasing actions, no matter what the original intention was of either. In this case, consumers have gone from a situation where the good brands had a very strong financial incentive to keep their reputation, to a regulated environment where every brand has an incentive to be slightly dishonest, and to keep within only within the letter of the regulation, to the extent that they might get caught. And the worst brands put anything they like on the label, confusing consumers even more, as they think the label has the force of law behind it.
Re:Uhhh that's pretty obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Not me. I followed the link to their page, then clicked on "What exactly are Libertarians?", or however they phrased it.
Then I went, "Oh. That sounds like my feelings. I agree with that."
This Is Not An Insightful Comment (Score:5, Insightful)
I live in Brooklyn, and have been deeply involved with politics since the primary campaign. I helped form an all-volunteer, grassroots organization of 15,000 people. As we citizen activists have learned more about our system of government, it has become clear that the legacy of the Tammany Hall patronage system is still very much with us.
For example, in each district there are these positions called district leaders. District leaders are elected, but largely selected by those who politically control the district. Voter turnout to elect district leaders is extremely low, and quite easily controlled by democratic clubs run by a mere handful of people.
Now, district leaders decide who works the polls on election day. Why is that important? Because the voting machines for the parts of the district that you know don't support you can suddenly stop working. Or the poll workers can tell you that you have to have five forms of picture ID in order to vote. Or they will go into the booth and "help" you vote. Any number of things.
On Sept. 14th, I was a poll watcher for a primary for the NY state senate in the 17th state senate district in North Brooklyn. There was a candidate backed by the local machine, run by the local boss Vito Lopez. Then there was a community activist challenging him. The local boss is the chair of the state housing committee and controls all the housing projects in the district. If he finds out that you didn't vote the way he wants, you may suddenly find yourself thrown out of your apartment.
Now, the local boss didn't need to cheat, but he did. He cheated as facilely as you and I breathe. Every sort of irregularity you can imagine. The two candidates for the state senate seat were members of the same party, but the challenger still got blanked by the political machine. Do you really think that a third party candidate would have a snowball's chance in hell in that kind of environment? Not bloody likely.
"Why don't third party candidates simply organize and run a concerted effort?" you say. Well, that is far harder than you think. Institutions made up of many people do not invent themselves overnight, and even without outside interference it is difficult to get even a like-minded bunch of people working together coherently. Whoever likened such a thing to herding cats was a wise, wise man.
Plus, there are all sorts of structural barriers to becoming a third party. In New York alone, there are very onerous requirements for getting on the ballot. There is this complex formula that is used to determine how many signatures you have to get, but basically you have to get approx. 1500 good signatures in one district to appear on the ballot in that one district.
You have to do the same to get on the ballot in every other district in the state, of which there are very, very many. The rule of thumb is to get at least three times as many signatures as you need, because your opponent might challenge your petitions and get names thrown out. That means 4500 signatures per district. On a good day, it takes one person 4 hours to get 50 signatures.
Do the math. That means 90 people committing one day in each district in order to gather the signatures. Now, multiply that number by the 31 districts in New York State, and suddenly you have 2790 people that you need across the state to commit 11,190 man-hours to getting you those signatures. That's a lot. If you can't inspire that many volunteers to gather signatures, then you have to pay someone to do it. The going rate is $10/hr. That means it could cos
Further, they're gatekeeper to "public" airwaves. (Score:3, Insightful)
for one thing, although it is done by a private corporation, it is funded by the government.
And a tax-exempt "non-partisan" one at that - yet they're performing a partisan politicical action by denying media access to particular political views.
= = = =
But IMHO the big issue is that they're acting as gatekeeper to political speech on the airwaves - which (according to current legal theory) are "Public" and "Held in trust" for their owners - the general population - which includes Libertarians and Greens.
Meanwhile, the media operates them under license from the government (a privilege which may be denied, not a right which can be defended) and the government engages in content control and limits even licensure to a small number of players. No new TV or radio broadcasters need apply - and one of the rules is that even if you DO buy up stations to create a new private network with a different political slant, you are prevented from buying enough to reach even a majority of the population.
If (as the Libertarians want) the airwaves were parceled an sold off (or homesteaded) to become private property, the situation would be different. THEN a broadcaster who OWNED a particular chunk of them would not be subject to losing a "license" if his CONTENT was politically incorrect. And a new player could buy or start small stations (of which there are plenty even now available cheaply) getting out any message he wished or renting time to anyone he wished. At THAT point "private property" arguments would apply.
Alternatively, broadcasting could be treated like speech and the airwaves as a commons (just as the real air and the real sonic "air waves" are now). Something like WiFi is treated - don't shout down anybody else and you can say what you want, with commonly-accepted protocols for who gets to talk next that exclude nobody and give all fair access. Then the commons / public space arguments would apply (and again Libertarians could take coercive actions - starting with an appeal to legal process - if someone systematically shouted them down in violation of accepted norms).
As long as broadcast radio and TV are using a resource under government-whim-modulated rules the fact that the broadcasters and their cartel management are private corporations gives them no "private property rights" to use to impress a Libertarian. Instead they're in the possition of a government crony receiving a handout in return for misusing it in support of the government's own insiders.
I see no hypocracy here at all. Any appearance of it simply shows how badly the Libertarians' private property arguments have been miscostrued in the public eye.
Which, of course, is a result of their lack of media access. B-)
Re:Neither have ever held political office before (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:3, Insightful)
And if you define "public responsibility" as "what I personally want" I can see how this would work out for you. It's an awfully strange way to define the best public interest as what ~4% of the population wants. That's not how democracy works.
Also, in the wider picture, though technically the legality might be on the side of the CPD, what is the moral thing here? Is it right that third party candidates can not debate the major candidates in ANY venue?
If there were sufficient public demand to make it look bad for them if they didn't, then they would debate them.
If either of the two major party candidates thought they would be better off by not debating even each other, then you can bet they wouldn't do it. W tried this in 2000: he wanted only 1 debate on broadcast TV, and the other 2 on cable shows that he knew would have a much smaller audience. It started to make him look bad, so he changed his mind and did it the old fashioned way.
I know what you're going to say: It's a catch-22! How are you supposed to be popular without being allowed into the debate? Well, the premise here is that you can't be popular unless you appear in 3 90 minute debates, which seems a bit shaky to me. Only a very small portion of the voting public changes their minds because of the debates; and Ross Perot was able to get enough popularity to get in without him or his party ever having debated before. So I don't buy it.
I just wish we could talk about these things without blaming the people involved for doing what everyone has done in the same situation. The candidates may, in fact, be corrupt plutocrat fatheads, but that's not why they choose not debate the green and Libertarian parties. It's because they don't think it's in their best interest. And even if they are insane, spineless witchdoctors they would do it if they thought it was in their best interest. If they were faced with the choice of risking losing more votes by not debating than they stood to gain or lose by debating, they would take that choice every time.
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:3, Insightful)
So if a local university broadcasts a class, I have the right to appear in that telecast? After all, my tax money paid for the venue and they're using my airwaves, right?
Oh. Well, then, surely I should be allowed to take my guitar on stage at a charity concert held in a park, right? Public land, public airwaves, correct?
No. The property may have been public, but the event was decidedly private.
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Insightful)
I can appreciate the free market in the abstract, but when looked at practically, the power is too concentrated in the hands of corporations, and consumers end up getting screwed.
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:1, Insightful)
No. (/me thinks of polite way to put this.)
Yes. Any amount of libetarian hype and Walt-Disney type-propaganda "everything will be marvellous and work wonderfully" is to throw away as utter shit, along with Communist propaganda and utopia.
Free markets operate with the principle of "caveat emptor", or let the buyer beware. If you don't like unlabeled goods, don't buy from them.
Yes, and then this has a cost.
All this kind of regulation does is put the scrupulous at a disadvatage, as consumers tend to trust all labels, but the unscrupulous still adjust things to their advantage.
Yes, and it is only worse with free market alone. Every cheating you can do with a regulation, you can do ten times more in a unregulated free market, because, simply, it is legal. More, you SHOULD do that to the maximum extent you can get away with, if you are acting in your shareholders interests. You should pay journalists of consumer magazines, or just deceive them: you may say hey, let's just read magazines which hire honnest journalists, but in a unregulated free market, everything has a price, everyone is to sell: if you pay more than the total price of the magazine, you are guaranted to buy it, no matter how honnest the magazine was. Because this is a unregulated market: money is the only variable. The rich can buy themselves power.
In this case, consumers have gone from a situation where the good brands had a very strong financial incentive to keep their reputation, to a regulated environment where every brand has an incentive to be slightly dishonest, and to keep within only within the letter of the regulation
Again more illogical bullshit: it doesn't change anything that the governement demand minimum requirements. The good brands still can make additional private labels. They are actually already doing so, with various "green" labels, the real question is why didn't they do this more already?
And the worst brands put anything they like on the label, confusing consumers even more, as they think the label has the force of law behind it.
No they can't: because this is not a unregulated free market, this is legally a fraud. Hence the judge can (and will) stop production, withdraw stocks, a trial can be set for reparation, and if the fraud is of criminal nature, the executives responsible for it can be thrown in jail.
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:3, Insightful)
A true free market wouldn't be gentle or kind. However, it would be maximally efficent and effective.
Remember... (Score:2, Insightful)
The fix is in, we live in a low key but increasingly dictatorial police state junta run by two cooperating for-profit private criminal cartels who have hijacked legitimate government and run it as a jobs program and as a way to be in a position to accept bribes for favors. Obvious as all get out.
I'm not at all surprised ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administered; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other. ~ Benjamin Franklin
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Insightful)
The comission on presidential debates is a private entity. This is your free market at work, aren't you happy with it? What, you think that there should be some sort of "regulation" stating perhaps that any canidate that gets on a few ballots should be allowed to speak over the (privately operated) tv stations, in the (privately run) presidential debate? What are you, some sort of communist?
This is the problem with libertarians. It's all about free market, until the free market doesn't work, and then they blame regulations. Just accept life for what it is, some times free markets don't work. For instance, medicine. If your choice is to pay up or die, what sort of position does that put you in to execute your bargaining rights as a consumer? How would a free market fire department do? They'd arrive as your house was burning down and demand you sign over everything you own in order for them to fetch your daughter out of the burning house. This helps people how?
Re:They intended to get arrested (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe it is the libertarians themselves who often point out the important distinction between the right to speak and the right to be heard. The government may be prohibited from silencing me if I try to speak my mind, but they are not required to give me airtime on national TV. Nor are they required to force a private organization to let me in to their debates. If Mr. Bigshot Libertarian wants America to hear his great message of unregulated markets, let him buy his own damn airtime.
The US just shakes its head at serfs' antics. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's strange. Last time I looked, the US was using precision laser-guided munitions wherever possible. The improvement in war technology is minimizing "collateral damage" among the UNinvolved civilian population.
But you do have a point. You might say Sadam was a civilian - the "civilian" head of a government. The terrorist organizations are composed mainly of "civilians" - people with no rank in the military forces of a recognized government.
As for "getting democracy right", don't forget that, when we tried a republic, virtually all of the rest of the world (with such notable exceptions as the Swiss and certain American Indian tribes) was being run by dictators, mostly hereditary, and the republic of Rome and democracy of Greece were used as examples of why it couldn't work and dictators were necessary.
We modeled ours largely on the Iriquois Confederacy. We haven't had an internal major genocide or civil war in well over a century. The rest of the world was inspired by the US but keeps trying other variants - and still seem to have major tribal warfare and genocides every couple decades or so. A substantial fraction of US war casualties come from bailing them out.
The US' experiment with representative government has been going on a LOT longer than those in most of the rest of the world, including Europe (which I presume you are from, since it's Europeans who bleat the most about the US not getting democracy right). When Europeans have a better track record on issues we consider important (such as wars (when to avoid, how to prosecute) and "ethnic clensing") their opinions on what constitutes "Real Democracy (TM)" may receive a more sympathetic hearing.
Meanwhile we've let a lot of oppressed masses in on our side of the pond, and some of them haven't yet figured out what it means to be free and equal - to the point that there's a major culture conflict going on over here. You're seeing one aspect of it in this presidential race. We DO tweak our Constitution from time to time - and are always replacing the judges who interpret it. The ideology that pushed for freedom may yet lose out, and the US may become another European model "gotten-it-right democracy". If so, heaven help the human race.
your president is a bumbling idiot
As compared, say, to his major opponent? The well-spoken con man who sometimes can't hold a consistent poltical position from one end of a sentence to the other? (Especially if both sides are popular in different contexts.) Who has no CLUE how to keep war at a distance? Who "has a plan" but "it's on my web site". Have you READ that "plan"? Is THAT what you want the US to become?
(Maybe it is. You aren't a US citizen, are you?)
at least 50% of your population are stupid, ill-informed idiots.
About half of ANY population is "below average". B-) As to ill-informed, given the state of the US broadcast media and US public and "higher" education (run by members of the the party opposed to the "bumbling idiot") it's hardly their fault, is it?
Fortunately we have always had a free press (even if we don't have a free broadcast medium). And now we have The Web, which isn't yet TOTALLY buried in polically-correct one-sided mouthings. SOME of the population has been able to get hold of enough information and exchange analysis of it to bcome informed and think clearly.
the majority of u.s. citizend actually think they're fighting al qaeda in iraq right now.
Gosh, AC. If they're not Al Qaeda, just who ARE those non-Iraquis that are blowing stuff up in Iraq?
But the last time I looked they thought the US was also fighting some remanents of Sadam's regime and a lot of non-Iraqui insurgents affiliated with other organizations tha Al Qaeda plus a mix of unaffiliated fanatics.
Terrorists flew aircraft into buildings
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Insightful)
"and justice for all" though.
-nB
What's up with the media. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sometimes efficiency isn't the best measure of an economy's health.
If efficiency is all that matters, which of these two is better for the country:
1. I stay at home with my family. We eat a home-cooked meal, play board games, and talk to each other all evening. (total spent: $15, maybe. It was a fancy meal.)
2. I ditch my family and get dinner at McDonald's. ($6) Afterwad, I go to a strip club. I get hammered (spending $20 in the process) and buy a couple lap dances, stic a couple dollars in some panties, etc. ($30) Then I try to drive home, drunk. I hit another car, totaling both and putting three people in the hospital. ($30,000 will be spent on replacing the cars with one used and one new car, and let's say $100,000 in hospital bills) Total cost: $130,056.
It's an extreme example,yes, but the more time people spend doing stuff like option 2, the more money is being spent, the higher the veolicty of cash in the economy, and the more "efficient and effective" the economy is. And experience has shown me that, overall, the things that enrich my life the most aren't the things that stimulate the economy the most.
And I think that with this in mind it makes sense to consider that maybe the government policies that result in the biggest and most powerful whirlwind of cash aren't necessarily the government policies that are going to lead to everyone having the best quality of life.
Unless, of course, you've fallen into the trap of thinking that more money equals more happy. Yes, it does matter if you don't have enough money to make yourself comfortable, but of course the people who generally argue for high-GDP economic policies are also arguing agast government policies aimed at stamping out poverty. =D
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:3, Insightful)
And you just hit on the point that separates the Libertarian from the anarchist. Libertarians tend to be quite brutal towards violent criminals. They want freedoms, but there's a quote that goes "your freedom to swing your fist stops at my nose".
Another difference is that Libertarians believe that enforcement of contracts is a legitimate function of government.
When one makes a purchase, there is an implied warranty that what they buy is what it says it is. In the case of food, this means the lable actually says what's in it. There is a nebulous area of law in the area of customary meaning. It is reasonable to presume that a can of peas contains peas. Customarily, there is also water, perhaps lightly salted. Sodium benzoate (SP?) is NOT something most people customarily consider to be food, but it's likely in there.
The labling laws stem from a simple desire to not have a zillion court battles over how reasonable is the expectation that a can of peas contains peas, water, and a bit of salt, no sodium benzoate, linseed oil, or potassium cayinide.
It also stems from the simple practicality that nobody has the time and money to get everything they buy chemically analyzed. Consumer research is great, but can only go so far, especially when there are so many great ways to obscure product data.
Personally, I believe that companies tend to get too much rather than too little lattitude in advertisement and labling.
Consumer protection laws really have very little to do with Soviet (or Chinese) style command economies where supply is dictated by a central authority. Laws requiring sellers to clearly state what they are selling is much more lake a natural consequence of contract law than of a state capitalism (in communist clothing).
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:1, Insightful)
And explain to me why it is that in our nice regulated beef industry, it is illegal for meatpackers to get their beef certified and labelled as free from Mad Cow.
Concentrate power in government, and corporations will turn that power to their own advantage. You don't see GE lobbying UL to loosen their safety standards, because UL knows that if they loosen their standards, a competitor will step in. But the major beef producers do lobby the USDA, and the USDA prohibits labelling that they're afraid of. Many of the small producers do want the labelling, and private labs want to provide the service. They can't.
Also, bear in mind that corporations are a creation of government in the first place.
Re:The papers had expired (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:In two words: Soviet Union (Score:2, Insightful)
Okay, so communism didn't work, but that does NOT mean that unregulated capitalism does work.
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:3, Insightful)
Because lord knows everyone wants to spend 2 hours researching which brand of peanut butter they should be buying, and making sure their current preferred brand hasn't suddenly started adding addictive chemicals without bothering to change their labels.
Once you're done with that, it's time to spend another hour checking the currently available jam brands...
A true free market wouldn't be gentle or kind. However, it would be maximally efficent and effective.
It would be maximally efficient presuming that consumers did due diligence and researched via a decently wide range of independent sources for every product they purchase, rather than just believing the very widely propagated advertising. I suspect that's a rather unrealistic demand.
Jedidiah.
Re:In two words: Soviet Union (Score:3, Insightful)
The reality is that "free markets" don't exist in the real world - they're more of a theoretical concept. The only way they exist is in some nihilist view (e.g. whatever happens is the consequence of a free market because it happens and is therefore the best outcome because it happens - this boils down to whatever happens, happens). Outside of the lab, the concept of free market is useful but not the end all and be all of understanding how the world works or how the interests of the public are best met (whatever that means).
I don't know what listing examples of dictatorships proves, other than some exist in the world, and they haven't failed yet. Are there some dictatorships that haven't abolished markets? Are there any truly free markets in non dictatorship run nations?
Re:Ok, lets get realistic a minute... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the source posting is just another sheep that needs to wake up. Sadly, Mr. sheep is one of many. This reminds me of a despair.com poster-
Meetings- None of us is as dumb as all of us.
Re:Not at all!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's look at a simple correlation: it was shortly after the creation of Libertarian Party that the AIDS epidemic started.
Recite after me: correlation does not equal causation. Frankly, the "labelling of food products" is a very arbitrary starting point; it arguably started before the "fat clubs" in the East, where it was cool to be fat, before the labelling of food and it arguably started after the 1950's, where the weight/height data we use to judge normallacy was collected, long after the labelling of food.
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really an option because of Powell's "Pottery Barn" doctrine: you break it, you own it. The war was a catastrophic mistake, but to say "well, we fucked up, sorry, we're heading home now- you guys straighten stuff out" isn't the right move. Things are pretty bad there, but a unilateral withdrawal without anything to back stuff up would be even worse. Imagine the various Shiite militias at each others necks, and then the Shiites fighting against the Sunnis, remnants of the Baathist regime, and the Kurdish North breaking away from everybody, maybe prompting an invasion by Turkey... we're talking Yugoslavia, on a much larger scale.
Re:Of course they got arrested. (Score:2, Insightful)
And your point is what? The people who got killed by police in Tiananmen, or East Germany, or the Soviet Union also violated the laws of their lands.
Your point really isn't valid here. Protesters in those countries were killed because of their actions, essentially making their relatively minor crimes into death-penalty offenses. In the US, however, pushing through a police barricade gets you arrested--a perfectly appropriate action, given that authorities decided to preserve the security of the event. They broke the law, they acted in a manner which compromised clear security boundaries, and so they were taken into custody.
Now, you can of course argue that a police barricade was not necessary or appropriate to a presidential debate, and I'd probably agree with you. But you can't compare two men, however prominent, being arrested when they crossed clear barricades, to the disproportionate use of force in massacres such as Tiananmen Square.
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:1, Insightful)
American Citizens .vs CPD (Score:2, Insightful)
In essence they are purporting to the American People that they are presenting a "fair and balanced" view of the presidential candidates to the citizens of this country and they are not.
That, to me, is fraud. If it's not a federal crime to unfairly influence election results, it should be and it seems the folks who run the CPD are decidedly guilty.
If a lawsuit against the CPD is unreasonable, then what do you all think it will really take to overhaul the way our election process is run.
I for one feel that the current process has outlived it's usefulness and should be completely overhauled.
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just idiocy. Then why don't people set up independent fire departments? Nothing's stopping them. if they can do a better job than the beurocracy and make money on the side then why not, right? But unfortunately this doesn't happen. Could it actually be that fire departments work well as a public service? What happens if you buy fire coverage, but the guy next to you doesn't? Then if his house burns down it has a good shot of burning down your house too, doesn't that suck.
Also, sidewalks shouldn't be privatized. We could put a toll booth at every driveway, and every sidewalk (run out of money on your sidewalk card and I guess you just have to sleep in the gutter until someone finds you and "tows" you home), but why bother? That would cost way more than building the actual service in the first place. Basically, when it costs more to charge for a service than it does to provide the service, or when the optiimal strategy is to not get the service, even though this screws everyone else, the private sector doesn't do a very good job. Just accept it rather than resorting to extremely contrived allegories. Look at the real world once in awhile, you might like it.
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:3, Insightful)
So I just have to
(1) Research the reputations of all cereal companies I am considering buying from - of course that'll have to be a wide range of independent sources because the comapnies will be advertising like mad that they're perfect regardless of what their practices actually are.
(2) Based on research (that is not giving me a full picture, but hey... it's the best I can do) divine a probability of getting food poisoning, or other illness.
(3) Do a quick calculation based on the various prices of the various cereals, and the risk probabilities, when I get to the local supermarket to see what they're selling for this week.
(4) Profit!
Glad that was easy, only took several hours. Now, what brand of milk should I put on my cereal...
Jedidiah.
Re:In two words: Soviet Union (Score:3, Insightful)
the Nazi regime's implementation of Socialism, i.e., Fascism
Not even wrong. The Nazis used socialism, for practical reasons, but it was irrelevant to their fascism. Fascism is not an economic policy. It doesn't even have an economic aspect to it's ideology. At least not any economic policy we'd recognize as one.
they explicitly proclaim that the Soviet Union became to capitalistic and too 'state capitalistic', or as they say, Fascist.
Not really. You're misunderstanding them. They blame the fall of Sovietism on fascism, in the sense of the political structure. The ideology, forcing communism to happen by force, rather than just letting it evolve from socialist policies, is good, supposedly, but the policial situation in the Soviet Union had too many fascist traits, like the purges and the way popular sentiment had the Ukraine and the other member republics as somehow less fit than Moscow.
Fascism is not an ideology, at least not on the two dimensional map libertarians like to talk about. It goes off in a completely different direction. It deals in things like cultural conflict and war philosophy and pseudo-scientific definitions of "fitness" and other things Americans usually treat as means rather than ends. Fascism has a lot of substance under the water, the totalitarianism and everything is just the tip of the iceberg that fits on our conventional political maps.
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly, another issue is the efficiency of this approach. If you saw gangs of new york you have some concept of the problems inherent in this approach. The real problem is game theory based. If the fire department shows up to find an "unprotected" house burning, then they either have to put out the fire, or accept that it will spread to nearby buildings. In order to really protect their customers, they should put it out anyway, but if they do that then there is no reason to buy insurance as the company will have to put out the fire whether you buy insurance or not because a fire in one home is a threat to all homes. This is exactly the sort of thing for which libertarian ideas don't work. The optimal strategy in this case is for you to not buy fire coverage, and for everyone else to buy fire coverage, as that gives you the same protection as if you bought coverage too. In the opposite case, if you buy coverage and nobody else does, then your coverage gives you almost no protection, so this isn't good either. The nash equilibrium of this system is for nobody to buy coverage, but this is not optimal for the system. The optimal plan is for everyone to get coverage, but this is not the nash equilibrium, and therefore the free market is unable to reach the optimal scenario. This is where the free market fails.
In general, if the optimal scenario (everyone being covered) very different from the nash equilibrium (nobody being covered), then a free market will fail to provide a significantly useful service in this field.
The even better example is police. If police were private then you'd have a scenario much like Columbia does today, where the police literally are the organized crime. It's in their interests to ensure that the environment is as unsafe as possible, especially for people who don't pay enough protection money, and yet they are the law, so who would stop them?
As you pointed out, private fire companies have been tried, and they failed. For instance, london burned to the ground in 1666, and new york and chicago both had several devastating fires themselves. Obviously building codes (and judicious use of concrete) have helped, but no doubt having a fire department that attempts to put out small fires (even in the slums) before they become ragin infernos is very helpful as well.
Libertarianism is a vector, not a point (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I consider Libertarianism to be more of a direction than a stance. A force more than position.
Privatized sidewalks would, indeed, be an abomination. Privately contracted fire departments might work out pretty well, but they should still be universal. Etc.
But that's not really the point. The point is that heading in that direction is vastly preferable to heading in the direction we're heading now. There's an old saying that if you keep on going the way you are, you'll get to where you're headed.
This country is headed towards the doom of democracy: the realization by the majority that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.
Libertarianism is a force trying to oppose that direction.
People may claim that third parties have no function in American democracy, but in fact their purpose is to do things exactly like what is reported here. Their point is to embarrass the major parties. Their point is to have their positions coopted by the major parties. Their point is to present a point.
Of course the major parties don't like this, but that's not the point :-).
To see the kind of effect 3rd parties actually have, compare the Socialist Party platform of the 20s and 30s to the modern day Democratic Party platform.