Anti-Corporatist Party?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by dblack, Dec 22, 2011.

  1. dblack
    Online

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    20,142
    Thanks Received:
    2,011
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,790
    I'd like to discuss the possibility of some kind of coalition party focusing on the common interests of groups currently ignored by the major parties. I'm specifically interested in the overlapping concerns of libertarians (and libertarian leaning conservatives) and OWS progressives. Is there enough common cause between the two groups? Would such a group offer a viable alternatives the status quo parties?

    Here's a list of what I see as areas of common interest, and areas of disagreement. What do you all think? Please add to the list if you see anything else.

    Agreement:

    1. Opposition to corporate/government collusion. (corpoare welfare etc...)
    2. Opposition to the warfare state
    3. Support for individual rights

    Possible points of contention:

    1. Welfare state
    2. Economic freedom

    Obviously, there are more. Any thoughts?
     
  2. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
    not enough in common.

    libertarians solution to too much money in politics is to end all regulations making it so there is no way to end or curtail the money controling our government and everything else.
     
  3. Dragon
    Offline

    Dragon Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    Messages:
    5,481
    Thanks Received:
    578
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +579
    The idea is good, representing a realignment of interests, getting away from the culture war stuff and focusing more on economic and foreign policy issues -- predictable in a Crisis era. And freeing our democracy from corporate dominance is THE defining issue of these times.

    The only problem I have here is with the third party idea. We just don't have a government system that's amenable to that. The new party would have to replace one of the existing ones, and the only way that can happen is for one of the two big ones to collapse. In our past, the Federalists collapsed leaving the Democrats dominant, and the Whigs rose into the vacuum. Then the same thing happened to the Whigs, leaving a vacuum that was filled by the Republicans. Both parties seem to have too much support for that to occur now.

    So the coalition would more likely manifest as a successful insurgency within one of the parties. The question is, which one?
     
  4. dblack
    Online

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    20,142
    Thanks Received:
    2,011
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,790
    What??
     
  5. Dragon
    Offline

    Dragon Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    Messages:
    5,481
    Thanks Received:
    578
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +579
    LOL yeah, that was kind of incoherent. I think what she meant to say was that the libertarian approach is to try to end government involvement in the economy, so that there's no incentive for corporate interests to try to corrupt it. That wouldn't be acceptable to progressives.
     
  6. eflatminor
    Offline

    eflatminor Classical Liberal

    Joined:
    May 24, 2011
    Messages:
    9,263
    Thanks Received:
    1,402
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,081
    Entitlements (what you call 'welfare state') are more than just a possible point of contention. They run against the very core of Libertarianism. I can't tell you how many signs I saw at OWS calling for forgiveness of student loans and "International Socialism", whatever the hell that is. The only "individual rights" the OWS crowd seem to want to champion was the right to smoke pot. Two words that describe the my experience with OWS: collectivists and confused. No, OWS and Libertarians are highly incompatible groups I'd say.
     
  7. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    31,606
    Thanks Received:
    4,856
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,485
    I don't think that's what she said at all. I think she was just trying to come up with some particular reason why libertarians are evil people, like usual.

    Libertarians with a small l, at least, the ones who put the constitution first over any other anti-government opinion, understand that regulations are necessary in some capacity. The constitution clearly authorizes regulation of interstate commerce.

    The libertarian movement, as far as the Paul movement is concerned, is a constitutional movement. No one is saying "end all regulations completely".

    The misrepresentation of libertarianism is a shame, because it's not that difficult to understand.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Wry Catcher
    Online

    Wry Catcher Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    31,804
    Thanks Received:
    4,249
    Trophy Points:
    1,160
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +8,181
    Which one? At the moment the Republican Party is (at best) confused. Social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, Tea Party radicals and neo conservatives, log cabin members and RINO's don't usually play well together.

    For years the Democrats were known as the party which defied unification, for every member seemed to have a fully developed idea of the best way to govern (the herding cats theory). Today the Democrats are more closely united thanks to the movement of the entire coalition of Republicans to the far far right.

    At the moment it appears that Boehner has lost control of the House of Representatives. At best he is the most ineffective Speaker in history and if Boehner cannot fix what he has in effect broke, I imagine Nancy Pelosi will get the gavel in January 2013. If that occurs expect a third party movement to gain traction and the possibility of the R's being the minority party by 2016 is not beyond the possible.
     
  9. Mr.Nick
    Offline

    Mr.Nick VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2011
    Messages:
    9,604
    Thanks Received:
    682
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +682
    Well, great question..

    Every libertarian would be against corporatism, however in a free market I know that could and never would happen..

    I know its happened in the past but with todays technology its highly unlikely to ever occur again.......

    I mean I know of mine owners who set up their own "Sims" town (for lack of a better word) however no one could get away with that nonsense today..

    I believe his name was Frick btw...
     
  10. dblack
    Online

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    20,142
    Thanks Received:
    2,011
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,790
    Makes sense. Even if we could remove the many structural barriers to third parties, plurality, winner-take-all elections will always favor two strong parties. A campaign to change the voting system would be perhaps the best thing we could do for real democracy, but that seems even more unlikely than a strong third party.

    So taking over one of the existing parties seems to be the answer. I think this has been Ron Paul's intent since he became a Republican. Some Democrats seemed to be pushing in that direction, with less success (I still want to know what Obama said to Kucinich during that plane ride). But that approach seems to preclude the kind of coalition I'm talking about. Democrats are usually able to scare progressives away from voting for libertarians (by conflating them with old-school Republicans), and Republicans keep libertarian leaning conservatives on the line with the 'librul' boogey-man.

    I do think there could be a role for such a coalition third-party in finishing off one of the main players. I don't think Ron Paul is the guy to do it, but a libertarian (Gary Johnson, perhaps) who could more effectively reach out to progressives might be able to pull it off. Even more exciting (certainly more novel), would be a progressive who takes up individual liberties and small government (or at least de-centralized government) from a liberal perspective. Haven't heard of anyone like that recently.

    Ultimately, such a coalition will require some careful compromise on the areas of disagreement. Libertarians will need to concede some welfare state concerns and admit that government safety-nets are far less of a threat to freedom than the military industrial complex. Progressives will have to rework their agenda to respect the fact that many people don't want government micro-managing their lives. But I think these adjustments are doable. Ron Paul, for example, has been making the point for years that we could fully fund our safety-nets AND radically cut taxes if we simply give up our lust for worldwide empire.
     

Share This Page