Alternatives to Dems & GOP

[rumborak]

Today I looked at the Wikipedia page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2012

to see what else is out there, and frankly I was appalled at the collection of crap parties on that list. The only parties that even sounded remotely moderate were the Green Party, and the Reform Party. Outside of that it mostly seemed a collection of "I found this chapter in the history book, I'm gonna try to get the US to revert to that". So, you got the Trotskyist Party, the Prohibition Party, the Libertarians, the Objectivist Party (Ayn Rand fanbois) etc.

What do you guys consider alternatives in this landscape?

rumborak

[jsem]

LOL, Objectivist Party?

Anyway, Rocky Anderson's party - Justice Party - should be the go-to party for any actual progressive.

Meanwhile... Libertarian party will get around 1% again, fail to break into the mainstream because they get carried away in minarchism which will NEVER appeal to the general public. People want their "free" services.

[antigoon]

As someone not voting D or R this fall (for President, at least), I don't feel like there are any serious alternatives. I would be shocked if Americans Elect doesn't end up nominating some Bloomberg-esque billionaire. 

Might end up voting for Gary Johnson...I guess.

[rumborak]

Actually, I just looked into the Justice Party and yeah, they sound pretty solid.

rumborak

[ReaPsTA]

I've made the mistake of reading the Green Party platform before.

Society would collapse if we actually tried implementing their policies.

Same with the Libertarian Party though, unfortunately.

[rumborak]

I totally agree btw. That's why I am all for coalition building, where the Green Party (as an example) would form a coalition with the Dems. You end up with the specific influence of the Green Party, but still with the balancing factor of the Big Party that has real-world stances on things.

rumborak

[kirksnosehair]

I totally agree btw. That's why I am all for coalition building, where the Green Party (as an example) would form a coalition with the Dems. You end up with the specific influence of the Green Party, but still with the balancing factor of the Big Party that has real-world stances on things.

rumborak

I've never been a big fan of the whole "we need a third party" mantra, frankly.  I have found my views to be mostly consistent with the Democratic party platform and I have a preference that my vote is given to someone who actually has a chance of winning.  With that said, I'd be very open to a coalition model if it would bring a more diverse group with more diverse views to the table while balancing some of the kookiness that can accompany some of those fringe parties.

[MondayMorningLunatic]

You guys should read what George Washington had to say about to say about two party systems:

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."

He's absolutely right. America's trapped in this false left-right paradigm where both parties are corrupt and the public won't even acknowledge that there are possibilities outside of "Democrat" and "Republican." Why the hate for libertarians? It's a sad day when freedom, individualism, and voluntarism are considered to be extremist.

[jsem]

Libertarians have always failed to hit big time and libertarianism will be considered extremist for a very long time to come I presume. Trying to persuade a regular voter or person to minarchism let alone anarchism/voluntarism isn't exactly the easiest thing around. It's like people haven't even heard the arguments presented to them, so they dismiss it right away. Arguing ethically you'll always run into consequentialism and arguing with history/economics you'll always get differing opinions on how to interpret data/results and you get conflicting views.

Plus, people are not often keen to change what is familiar - the functions of the state.

[Scheavo]

It's like people haven't even heard the arguments presented to them, so they dismiss it right away.

Or... many of us have heard the argument arguments for anarchism, and quickly notice that it has a naive, ultra-optimistic view of humanity. Humans are neither the individuals you want, nor are they as rational as you'd want. If all the libertarians and anarchists colonized Mars, I'm sure that colony would do pretty damn well, at least for the first generation.

[jsem]

Of course there are people who have had it presented to them and dismissed it, I'm not saying everyone is ignorant. Sections where people, especially US citizens, discuss politics - you will run into people where people have heard the arguments. But I'm talking about regular folks, especially here in Sweden (UGH).

But yeah, I don't even think anarchism would work instantly. The society has to be changed from the bottom up first by more people living the NAP in their personal lives. I mean, I would even question if most professed libertarians actually live the NAP in their personal lives.

[Scheavo]

Of course there are people who have had it presented to them and dismissed it, I'm not saying everyone is ignorant. Sections where people, especially US citizens, discuss politics - you will run into people where people have heard the arguments. But I'm talking about regular folks, especially here in Sweden (UGH).

But yeah, I don't even think anarchism would work instantly. The society has to be changed from the bottom up first by more people living the NAP in their personal lives. I mean, I would even question if most professed libertarians actually live the NAP in their personal lives.

If the normal Swedish/American is too ignorant (proper use of that word) to even know what libertarianism is, then they're going to be incapable of living the life deemed moral by libertarianism. It's just human nature. Libertarianism is based upon the idea that humans are rational, intelligent agents. I mean, all three of those three axioms are not true. We are sorta rational, but we are much more irrational. We are intelligent collectively, but individually we are specialized morons. Agents? Eh, so much of what we do is driven by our subconscious, and we are easily manipulable (ties in a lot with rationality).

But I don't want to imply I'm casting too wide of a net. There are definitely area's where I think libertarianism makes the best points and arguments, but it's not a position that can be held universally. Honestly, as an American, life in Sweden seems pretty damn fucking good. Pretty sure you guys are a lot happier. I'd say we suffer from too much liberty in the wrong places, and not enough in the right places, in America.

[MondayMorningLunatic]

This is precisely why I hate statism. The government acts like this superior mind that's going to rise up and save us from ourselves. If all humans are irrational, what makes you think that humans in government won't be irrational? Simply saying "we are intelligent collectively" doesn't make it true. Libertarianism is also a distinct philosophy from anarchism.

[jammindude]

I actually believe the OPPOSITE is true.   Like K's quote from Men in Black..."A PERSON is smart...PEOPLE are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it." 

I believe that quote to be absolutely true.    A person can reason...groups of people, well...don't.  Not very well, anyway.

[Scheavo]

I actually believe the OPPOSITE is true.   Like K's quote from Men in Black..."A PERSON is smart...PEOPLE are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it." 

I believe that quote to be absolutely true.    A person can reason...groups of people, well...don't.  Not very well, anyway.

Together, we got to the moon. No single human being could ever devise and make a program that could get them to the moon. That's more of what I was meaning, that through the scientific process and mass filtering, we're much more intelligent than we are simply as one person.

Oddly enough, I don't necessarily disagree with the last part of that quote. I would somewhat disagree with the idea that a person is smart, maybe some people are smart, but even then, it's really only smart in a certain way, for a certain thing.

[jsem]

If the normal Swedish/American is too ignorant (proper use of that word) to even know what libertarianism is, then they're going to be incapable of living the life deemed moral by libertarianism. It's just human nature. Libertarianism is based upon the idea that humans are rational, intelligent agents. I mean, all three of those three axioms are not true. We are sorta rational, but we are much more irrational. We are intelligent collectively, but individually we are specialized morons. Agents? Eh, so much of what we do is driven by our subconscious, and we are easily manipulable (ties in a lot with rationality).

I've always hated the "human nature" argument. I think there's some element of truth to it - but look at the way people might have approached democracy before it took hold. I could imagine the argument being that when the winner of the election is declared the loser would just go shoot the winner and all hell would break loose (almost a la Ivory Coast). But somehow, this doesn't usually happen. We manage to keep ourselves civilized and refrain from using direct violence. It's remarkable how much progress has been made in human society without having to use much force, so I could see that over time the state becoming obsolete - not that it will be easy.

But I don't want to imply I'm casting too wide of a net. There are definitely area's where I think libertarianism makes the best points and arguments, but it's not a position that can be held universally. Honestly, as an American, life in Sweden seems pretty damn fucking good. Pretty sure you guys are a lot happier. I'd say we suffer from too much liberty in the wrong places, and not enough in the right places, in America.

We're probably happier, yes. In most areas, Sweden's a better place to live. Somehow there has been relatively responsible fiscal policy and RELATIVELY stable monetary policy so things are pretty good. To speak symbolically a bit, the nanny in the US is extremely stupid and puts you in situations where you can only do bad - but in Sweden the nanny does a pretty good job of replacing the role that individuals themselves should take.

[Scheavo]

I've always hated the "human nature" argument. I think there's some element of truth to it - but look at the way people might have approached democracy before it took hold. I could imagine the argument being that when the winner of the election is declared the loser would just go shoot the winner and all hell would break loose (almost a la Ivory Coast). But somehow, this doesn't usually happen. We manage to keep ourselves civilized and refrain from using direct violence. It's remarkable how much progress has been made in human society without having to use much force, so I could see that over time the state becoming obsolete - not that it will be easy.

I think you're confusing several things. There's the non aggression principle, which can work great in real life and leads to a fairly harmonious society. Then there's the rationality needed to make the market place regulate itself, i.e. informed consumers making rational decisions. Making people more civil and less aggressive is certainly possible, and not against human nature - making humans more intelligent, aware and pay attention to shit they don't care about.. well that's a different beast.

To speak symbolically a bit, the nanny in the US is extremely stupid and puts you in situations where you can only do bad - but in Sweden the nanny does a pretty good job of replacing the role that individuals themselves should take.

And I'd say the biggest reason for that being you don't demonize government.

[Super Dude]

How about just declaring war on -isms?

[The Dark Master]

Today I looked at the Wikipedia page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third_party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2012

to see what else is out there, and frankly I was appalled at the collection of crap parties on that list. The only parties that even sounded remotely moderate were the Green Party, and the Reform Party. Outside of that it mostly seemed a collection of "I found this chapter in the history book, I'm gonna try to get the US to revert to that". So, you got the Trotskyist Party, the Prohibition Party, the Libertarians, the Objectivist Party (Ayn Rand fanbois) etc.

What do you guys consider alternatives in this landscape?

rumborak

I think that list pretty much explains why the two party system had dominated for so long.  Many of the ideals and agendas of those smaller parties are already represented in the big two; case in point, the Republicans pretty much cover the Prohibition Party, the Objectivist Party and, to a limited degree, the Libertarians.  In fact, in a bizarre and perverse way, the US already has a coalition system of large political blocks representing smaller, and otherwise unrelated interests.  The problem is, because those blocks are actual parties with an organized infrastructure, rather then looser coalitions, they have an inherent tendency to solidify and stagnate into bullheaded dogmatism, rather then actually progress and evolve through a succession of compromises.  Granted, every once in a while the two parties go through a series of paradigm shifts on certain views (take a look at the 60's), but for the most part, any real change within the parties themselves is slow and grudging and, especially in the case of the Repubs of today, moves away from progress and closer to uncompromising extremism.  This is the corrupt beauty of the two party system:  you give the public two extremes to choose from.  They choose one; if they like it, it sticks for a little while, if they don't like it, they go to the other extreme, and the pendulum swings back and forth, never really going anywhere, simply remaining stationary, despite the appearance of movement.

[jsem]

I think you're confusing several things. There's the non aggression principle, which can work great in real life and leads to a fairly harmonious society. Then there's the rationality needed to make the market place regulate itself, i.e. informed consumers making rational decisions. Making people more civil and less aggressive is certainly possible, and not against human nature - making humans more intelligent, aware and pay attention to shit they don't care about.. well that's a different beast.

But external regulations on a marketplace by government usually involves some kind of aggression, or threat thereof. So, by your standards the NAP works great in personal lives, but in the public sphere it's a no-no? You might say there's no stopping a private firm coming and competing with the government when it comes to health inspections etc, but I guess people expect the government to take care of it.

Even though I myself rely on the government for food inspections, it shouldn't be an excuse for being an irresponsible consumer. But I don't know, we seem to have different points of view here.

To speak symbolically a bit, the nanny in the US is extremely stupid and puts you in situations where you can only do bad - but in Sweden the nanny does a pretty good job of replacing the role that individuals themselves should take.

And I'd say the biggest reason for that being you don't demonize government.

I'm not sure. The difference in culture is that for whatever reason people who actually work within lower levels of government have some dignity and want to help people. Plus, the levels of bureaucracy in the US is just immense compared to Sweden. Sweden is a much smaller country and it's easier to have "effective" government. Even though a lot of libertarians preach localization, a lot of times what ends up happening is just another stepping stone and another layer of bureaucracy.

[rumborak]

But external regulations on a marketplace by government usually involves some kind of aggression, or threat thereof.

I don't think you serve your own purpose particularly well with this hyperbole. Rules != Aggression.
Unless you really view any kind of rule as a type of aggression, which would be a sad state of viewpoint, IMHO.

rumborak

[jsem]

Depends what you mean by a rule. What punishment is there for disobeying the rule? It's not aggression in the first place, but it's the threat thereof. And by aggression I mean the use of force being applied to any one person or her property.

[kirksnosehair]

See, I don't think the Democrats are really the problem.   Am I biased?  You bet.  But am I also right?  You be the judge:   This OP-ED explains the problem (and I agree with it wholeheartedly) much better than I could.

[rumborak]

@jsem:
So, the rule that you can't jump into a swimming pool from the side (for the purpose of protecting the kids already in the pool) is an aggression?
That might make "sense" from a reductionist point of view ("everything that isn't free is an aggression!"), but you probably shouldn't be surprised if that stance isn't gathering many followers. Because it is reductionist and betrays the complexity of the issue.

rumborak

[jsem]

Well, depends who would make that rule. If you are a landowner and you have a pool there where kids can pay a fee to swim and they fail to follow the rules it's a violation of 'contract' and you are within your rights (imo) to apply force to make the person leave your property.

But if the state for instance were to implement that as a rule that every swimming place would have to follow, then that is a threat of aggression. Because if they don't follow this rule... there will be a fine or whatever. And if you don't pay the fine, you will probably be summoned to court, but if you don't show up they might instead show up at your door 'invading' your property.

There is no real complexity yet though. The real complexity comes if one were to assume that the state is the property owner and we are mere renters.

[rumborak]

I am rather flummoxed by how you make this totally arbitrary distinction between a one-on-one contract and a one-on-many contract and treat it as a differentiator between a "threat" or a mere contract breach.

rumborak

[jsem]

See, I don't think the Democrats are really the problem.   Am I biased?  You bet.  But am I also right?  You be the judge:   This OP-ED explains the problem (and I agree with it wholeheartedly) much better than I could.

The republicans are worse than the Dems for the most part. But really, no big difference between them except rhetoric and social issues.

[kirksnosehair]

Uh, did you read that op-ed?  I'd say the differences in how they govern, particularly in the last decade or so are, in fact, rather massive.

[Scheavo]

Even though I myself rely on the government for food inspections, it shouldn't be an excuse for being an irresponsible consumer. But I don't know, we seem to have different points of view here.

Honestly, I have never once though, when buying food, "oh, this is fine, becuase there's an FDA." The reality of life means you're buying food, cause you have to eat three times a day, and you're going to assume that when you buy food from someplace, that it's safe. Obviously there will be some counter examples, but those are in the minority. And that's why we have an FDA. Not only becuase the market won't address it, but consumers won't pay close enough attention in their market actions for your theory to work. I mean, why did the FDA come into existence? Why would people demand such an organization, if the market is so responsive, it would've responded to this demand.

Besides, for-profit food inspection would be inherently faulty. Many companies do in house inspecting, and on more than one occasion, owners of factories have knowingly and intentionally sent out contaminated food. Bribes happen in any system, but when you're out to make money, it makes a bribe in line with your direct interests.

The difference in culture is that for whatever reason people who actually work within lower levels of government have some dignity and want to help people.

...

Because you don't demonize the government. If you're the same kind of person in America, you don't go into the government.

There is no real complexity yet though. The real complexity comes if one were to assume that the state is the property owner and we are mere renters.

....

No, the complexity comes when a large amount of people get together. There was a recent study which showed that human society has more in common with ant society, than it does primates, because of our size. Libertarianism would work well when the market place is your city, involves a couple of thousand of people, and you know them. It doesn't work too well in a global market.

[rumborak]

Because you don't demonize the government. If you're the same kind of person in America, you don't go into the government.

This is an important point I find. In Europe, working for the government has a certain amount of respect to it, because you decided to do public work for not-so-hot salary. In the US, because of the demonization of the government, there aren't a lot of good people working there.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

And so the solution is obvious but not something that can possibly be implemented in anything but on the order of generations.

[jsem]

Honestly, I have never once though, when buying food, "oh, this is fine, becuase there's an FDA." The reality of life means you're buying food, cause you have to eat three times a day, and you're going to assume that when you buy food from someplace, that it's safe. Obviously there will be some counter examples, but those are in the minority. And that's why we have an FDA. Not only becuase the market won't address it, but consumers won't pay close enough attention in their market actions for your theory to work. I mean, why did the FDA come into existence? Why would people demand such an organization, if the market is so responsive, it would've responded to this demand.

Besides, for-profit food inspection would be inherently faulty. Many companies do in house inspecting, and on more than one occasion, owners of factories have knowingly and intentionally sent out contaminated food. Bribes happen in any system, but when you're out to make money, it makes a bribe in line with your direct interests.

I have actually thought that a couple of times. Looking at a bunch of sausages and thinking, I wonder what's in this crap - because it sure isn't meat (the meat content being at like 30% in that nasty crap). But then I think, but the Swe FDA equivalent has probably got that under reasonable control.

We obviously disagree though on whose responsibility it is to keep ourselves safe. Nanny state or not.

But hypothetically for-profit foot inspections wouldn't be worse than government inspections. At least when a for-profit company would get busted for fraud it's more likely that they would go out of business than the government services. Plus, tort laws are VERY significant here too. I mean, if you get sick from eating a hot dog at a restaurant, you should be able to sue the crap out of them.

Because you don't demonize the government. If you're the same kind of person in America, you don't go into the government.

I don't know. I haven't gotten that perception. People in Sweden go where there are jobs, and public sector work is as good as private sector when it comes to getting your paycheck. I mean, I don't know the US that well, but is it shameful to work for the government over there or something?

There is no real complexity yet though. The real complexity comes if one were to assume that the state is the property owner and we are mere renters.

No, the complexity comes when a large amount of people get together. There was a recent study which showed that human society has more in common with ant society, than it does primates, because of our size. Libertarianism would work well when the market place is your city, involves a couple of thousand of people, and you know them. It doesn't work too well in a global market.

You don't seem to understand exactly what I mean, I wasn't being 100% literal.

By saying no real complexity yet I mean we haven't really dealt with the most difficult hypothetical situations for ancaps, which is that the state would be the property owner of all its land (I have no real solution to this question either). I mean, it's easy to from an ethical standpoint tackle all the other questions - but this one would throw me for a loop. 

[Scheavo]

We obviously disagree though on whose responsibility it is to keep ourselves safe. Nanny state or not.

I'm not sure we disagree on whose responsibility it should be, we disagree on who has the ability to actually keep it safe.

At least when a for-profit company would get busted for fraud it's more likely that they would go out of business than the government services. Plus, tort laws are VERY significant here too. I mean, if you get sick from eating a hot dog at a restaurant, you should be able to sue the crap out of them.

I might agree with you that this is true in America, but does it work in Sweden? If you're out to help the public good and are truly concered about food safety, someone offering you money isn't going to entice you, it's going to infuriate you.

As for property, I think the problem lies with the concept of property in the first place. You can never own a piece of property like you own your own body, mind and thoughts.

[TL]

The problem is that third parties have been so marginalized in the American mindset that few balanced individuals are going to be disenfranchised enough to actually form a new party and put the effort into building it. As a result, most third parties in the US are to one extreme or another.

It's one of many, many reasons that the parliamentary system is better.