There are other Parties

[BotanyBoy]

Another of your idiotic comments in which you so articulately defend your stupidity. Gad, sir, you truly must be deficient between the ears.

If you call reality stupidity you would be right.

Republicans hate free markets just as much as (D)'s.

 

[Aglaopheme]

No, you don't. The Rrepublicrats have things very tightly locked up for themselves. I have voted Libertarian in the past, and Johnson is certainly a serious person. But third parties have to practically knock themselves out to even get the on ballot nationwide. Politicians are all for competition- except when it comes to themselves.

The procedures are exactly the same for all candidates that want their name on the ballot.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

The procedures are exactly the same for all candidates that want their name on the ballot.

Well, not necessarily. Particularly in the primary elections, there is a lot a variety in the requirements, with some states permitting the candidate to pay a small fee, others demanding a very large one combined with either light or nearly impossible petitioning requirements. Oftentimes the candidates that are anointed by the established parties get a pass. And if a candidate wants to run as a non-party-affiliated independent in the general election, that's a whole other kettle of fish.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The procedures are exactly the same for all candidates that want their name on the ballot.

Not really.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

http://www.veteranspartyofamerica.org/

 

[JackLuis]

http://www.veteranspartyofamerica.org/

When did this party originate?
Their platform is pretty good, but I see a few things that could be improved a bit.

I particularly like the Congress being paid by the States and not the Feds. That is a brilliant idea!

I like it. Thanks for the input.

 

[JawnKarTurr]

A friend referred me to them. He plans to vote for their candidate largely out of discussed for the two parties and how they've conducted themselves. I'm not happy with choice A or B at the moment.

 

[srgreene]

Nonsense. The policies of the US and Japan were highly successful precisely because they were the dead opposite of laissez-faire. There was a commitment, particularly under Lincoln and McKinley, to a Hamiltonian promotion of science, industry and infrastructure development, with direct participation by the federal government. ...

What do you mean "direct support"? I will wager if you look at the amount of money that McKinley spent "supporting" businesses, it was trivial, even in relation to the relative size of the economies between now and today. The major exception could have been railroads, but even then, by McKinley's time I think the federal government had bowed out of the railroad business (the transcontinental railroad had been considered a national imperative a generation earlier as part of Manifest Destiny).

McKinley's election- the last presidential election of the 19th century- probably did mark the beginning of the end of laissez-faire as a dominant ideology in Washington (curiously, an ideology Democrats adhered to more than Republicans). Nevertheless, McKinley was more interested in imperialist (e.g. the Spanish American War) and protectionist policies whereby the federal government's coffers would be filled and power and prestige would accrue to the nation. Moreover, it is highly debatable that 19th century tariffs on goods from Europe actually helped American industry thrive. In any case, in contrast to your breezy but completely unsubstantiated declaration that "US and Japan were highly successful precisely because they were the dead opposite of laissez-faire", compared with Obama, McKinley would indeed seem laissez-faire. Today's federal government, spending 20% (?) of GDP and telling banks to whom they should lend money would have been unthinkable back then (other than as a back scratching thing to feather the nests of politicians. McKinley would be a staunch advocate of limited government by today's standards.

Hamilton was a statist counterpart to the more libertarian Jefferson, and, true, for his time, he favored a strong national government. But to compare his day's concept of a national industrial policy with ours requires great caution- a trait you show no inclination for. Is there any evidence that he favored government industrial policy of having government try to select the winners in industry? Anything like Obama's Solyandra, where politically connected businesses raked in money directly from the government? I think not.

To Hamilton, the concept of an industrial policy meant keeping a sound monetary system, protecting property rights (including intellectual property) and the development of a transportation infrastructure (something the private sector proved capable of doing with railroads). I gather he also wanted to "support industry" through tariffs on imported goods, a mercantilist idea rather common in his day. But in the days before the individual or corporate income tax, such a policy is a far cry from the shackles placed on industry since WWII.

Free minds, and free markets work. It has been demonstrated time and time again. In the 20th century Hong-Kong was a model of laissez-faire, and its economy blossomed. In post WWII Germany, the economic miracle didn't start until Adenauer lifted the controls that the Allies had imposed- that was far more important than the Marshall Plan in terms of long term economic value.

But we should cherish free markets for a reason even greater than that "they work" and promote economic prosperity. We should cherish them because they are the only system, for a group larger than a tribe, that fosters human freedom. To the extent that I am compelled to work for you- and that is the essence of collectivism- I am your slave. Well, sir, I do not wish to be your slave, and I will fight you for my liberty.

 

[Sean Renaud]

ANd you'll lose. You are my slave. Get over it.

 

[srgreene]

ANd you'll lose. You are my slave. Get over it.

I have no doubt that is your mentality. Thugs like you have been enslaving freedom loving people for millenia.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

What do you mean "direct support"? I will wager if you look at the amount of money yadda yadda yadda

There are too many misconceptions and falsehoods for me to go down the list, so I'll select out the whoppers. The American System of Hamilton, Lincoln, McKinley and FDR -- as opposed to the British System of "free trade" -- does not involve the government "trying to select the winners in industry." It involves the government setting goals for the development of science and infrastructure, such as the Erie Canal, the Tennessee Valley Authority, or the Apollo Program, and then subcontracting the work to the firms that are best suited to build what the nation needs. The government also generated credit to make these things possible -- no private company can wait 50 years for a project to show a profit, whereas the government can and should. It's the only way big projects get built.

FDR created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to channel federally-created credit into necessary projects. The German translation for Reconstruction Finance Corporation is Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, which was the name of the bank that Adenauer created to channel credit into productive, as opposed to speculative, activities. This was the basis for the "economic miracle" (Wirtschaftswunder).

20th Century Hong Kong, like any other British colony, was a model of drug money laundering and other elements of organized crime.

Americans have become tremendously confused about their own history, which is how we managed to drift so far from the original conceptions that built the nation. For a classical American patriot, "Free Trade" was another word for "treason." It was known to be the official ideology of the British Empire.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I have no doubt that is your mentality. Thugs like you have been enslaving freedom loving people for millenia.

Since the very first time two men worked together on a project "thugs" like me have been around. When we lose society collapses in our wake.

 

[sr71plt]

Might be a good year for alternate parties to get on the ballot. If they want to, though, they'd best start getting qualified to be on the ballots in all of the states and territories--like how the Trump boys should have remembered to register to vote in New York.

 

[srgreene]

There are too many misconceptions and falsehoods for me to go down the list, so I'll select out the whoppers. The American System of Hamilton, Lincoln, McKinley and FDR ... does not involve the government "trying to select the winners in industry." It involves the government setting goals for the development of science and infrastructure, such as the Erie Canal, the Tennessee Valley Authority, or the Apollo Program, and then subcontracting the work to the firms that are best suited to build what the nation needs. The government also generated credit to make these things possible -- no private company can wait 50 years for a project to show a profit, whereas the government can and should. It's the only way big projects get built.

FDR created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation to channel federally-created credit into necessary projects. The German translation for Reconstruction Finance Corporation is Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, which was the name of the bank that Adenauer created to channel credit into productive, as opposed to speculative, activities. This was the basis for the "economic miracle" (Wirtschaftswunder).

20th Century Hong Kong, like any other British colony, was a model of drug money laundering and other elements of organized crime.

Solyndra is exactly trying to pick winners in a new industry. I am sure it was merely coincidental that this exemplar of government industrial policy was lead by large contributors to the Democrat Party. It stinks- a total rip off of the tax payer.

The Erie Canal, for all its romanticism, also was a money loser. The government has no business "setting goals" for science. Talk about a money losing government proposition- Apollo, created just for some misguided sense of national prestige. I say that as a bit of a space enthusiast, but the civilian and military benefits of the space program benefited very little from sending a handful of astronauts to the moon.

TVA- another example of a wasteful government program whose benefits could have been reaped much more economically- when they made economic sense- by the private sector taking risks with its own money.

As for FDR's Reconstruction Finance Corp- that's a hoot. Who do you think pays- in a very inefficient manner- for all these alleged benefits? The tooth fairy?? By what standard were RFC projects "necessary"- you don't bother yourself with such questions. Funny, the nation managed to survive 150 years without these "necessary projects". It is, however, well understood that FDR's grand "industrial policies"- such as supporting milk producers to the detriment of milk consumers and sucking up scarce capital on government makework projects of dubious economic value greatly extended the Depression. The other part of the twin pillar of government direction of the economy that so bedeviled America in the 1930's was the Federal Reserve, a monstrosity that thinks it can control the value of money and credit.

Perhaps, when you make your enormously disparaging claims about the people of Hong Kong, you could site your sources? I suspect drug money- which in its own way, is laissez-faire in action- was a minor part of the Hong Kong economic miracle.

 

[AlwaysHungry]

I detect the familiar stench of the Von Mises/Von Hayek/Mont Pelerin Society miscreants.

 

[srgreene]

I detect the familiar stench of the Von Mises/Von Hayek/Mont Pelerin Society miscreants.

Thank you for making crystal clear the vacuousness of your mindless drivel. Do you really think you have some sort of insight to share when you use such terms as "familiar stench". When you show one hundredth the intellectual horsepower of Von Mises, perhaps I shall listen you. Until then, ciao.