By Manila Ryce
Published Friday, March 28th, 2008, 1:46 am
Filed under: Videos: Political, Society/Culture, Videos, US Politics

2 Responses to “Fuck Yeah - Gravel Goes Libertarian”

1. 

   Hm, this move actually surprises me. Don’t get me wrong, I think there are many tenets of Libertarianism that are very good, such as extremely limited government, abolition of the income tax, a non-interventionist war policy, etc. But when I think of the Libertarian Party, several names spring to mind; Buchanon, Ron Paul, and Larry Elder to name a few. Now, it’s not that I completely disagree with everything these folks say and stand for, (but to be fair, I disagree with them a great deal,) it’s just that in the past I would not have seen these views as compatible with the views expressed by Mike Gravel. Sure, both Ron Paul and Mike Gravel agree that the war in Iraq was unnecessary and downright wrong, but what of Buchanon’s stance on the border (that it should be shut down), or Elder’s assertion that any and all government intervention in the economy, such as the bail out programs that are saving people’s houses right this moment, is wrong? As I understand it, the Libertarian Party views seem contradictory to the philosophy of Socialist Libertarianism, in that while it argues for more direct democracy, it simultaneously argues for the rule of the Free Market. Historically, these two have never really gotten along. I mean, theoretically, they should be the same thing, but in actuality, the Free Market is driven just as much by the corporations as it is by any law supply and demand. There was a time when such an economy existed, and that was in feudal Britain. In other words, in my opinion the Libertarian Party philosophy greatly favors stiff Plutocracy over any real notion of rule of people. Not that we don’t have, have always had, or will always have, Plutocracy now, but I thought the idea of Progressiveness was to move away from this. And if corporations, currently, have such far reaching power and authority despite government regulation, what would happen if they were left without any sort of regulation whatsoever? (Excuse me while I shudder.)

   So Gravel’s move to the Libertarian Party, in short, is a little puzzling to me. Have I missed something? Perhaps someone could provide a better apolog- er… Explanation.

   PapaFigue
   03/29/08 at 4:12 pm
   
2. 

   @PapaFigue
   Agreed. Gravel doesn’t fit in with the Libertarian Party, so I’m sure the move was done out of desperation to remain in the race rather than having a similar ideology. Mike needs a large base to call attention to his National Initiative and the Libertarians have the largest one. The funny thing is that free-market capitalists constantly argue that “democracy is mob rule”. That means the National Initiative, which is the sole purpose of Mikes campaign, is their worst nightmare. I wonder if the Libertarians knew anything about Mike before they accepted him as their nominee.

   One thing I will say is that when you have a candidate like Mike, you know he’s not going to take orders from anyone. If you vote Democrat or Republican, you’re voting for a party because the candidates are just puppets. Third party votes are another matter entirely because there is actually diversity within the party. Candidates have differing platforms so you’re voting for an individual rather than some constant corporate presence which demands uniformity from everyone in the party.

   Manila Ryce
   03/29/08 at 4:26 pm
   

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Tired of filing this information out everytime you leave a comment at the Largest Minority? Why not register as a user? You also get full access to our forum!

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>