We must take an uncompromising position that the care and nurture of children, elders and the disabled are essential to a healthy, peaceful, and sustainable society. We should recognize that the work of their caregivers is of social and economic value, and reward it accordingly. Ensuring that children and their caregivers have access to an adequate, secure standard of living should form the cornerstone of our economic priorities. Only then can we hope to build our future on a foundation of healthy, educated children who are raised in an atmosphere of love and security. Only then can we be sure that economic justice for all is attainable and attained.
Mike Kole: It was hinted at with the military question. Everything that is paid for by taking money out of the hands of citizens and pooled for the purpose of spending on something else causes that many fewer choices to be made by citizens. Sure, creating a fat military creates more military jobs, but the cost in taxes diverts resources away from individuals would have bought consumer goods, or invested or even- get this- saved. Every governmental program comes with a cost in dollars and in opportunity costs. The more programs you have of any kind, the more of a drag there will be on the economy.
I will take issue with the green position for dealing with poverty. There is a great consistency in saying that since the US is the world's superpower, it should be the world's cop; and, since the US is such an economic power, so it should be the use its power to redistribute wealth. The only way any economic assistance program works is by taking money in the form of taxes and redistributing it. It is one thing if the people having the money taken from agree to this method, but what about those who do not? Should they have this economic cop use police power to take money from citizens against their will? Not is a society that respects all the rights of all its citizens.
Natalie Davis: I have to respond.
Moderator: go ahead
Natalie Davis: The Green philosophy as stated in its official platform is a document drafted by a group of people once every four years; the most recent one was created earlier this year. Part of the platform is a declaration that not all Greens — and certainly not all Green-supporting Independents like myself — subscribe to every position taken. Personally, I believe that we have a moral responsibility to help those who are disadvantaged economically. However, I do not agree with many of the measures the Green platform suggests, such as income caps and such. They are anti-liberty and act as disincentives for people to achieve. At the same time, I believe tax dollars should be spent differently and with an eye toward leveling the economic playing ground.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jim Carruthers
Here's a question for both non-aligned parties: if the Demobulians and Repebulicrats strangle each other to death in an auto-erotic fury, what would either of your parties do to fix the relations of the USA with the rest of the world, where you are perceived as a rogue state on par with North Korea (nuclear armed power, led by the son of a previous leader in thrall to crazed ideology).
And where will Dick Cheney seek refuge from the International Criminal Court in the Hague?
2 - Dawn
Jim, you so craaaazzzyyy!
3 - Mike Kole
Jim- I think Dick Cheney would would be pretty safe in Ottawa.
4 - Jim Carruthers
Mike, I don't think so, since Ottawa has shown it already capitulates to shipping people where they can be most easily tortured.
5 - Jim Carruthers
Dick Cheney might feel at home in Canada since he comes equipped with his own jumper cables apparently. But he would be better off in Russia -- authoritarian kleptocracy, headed by the former head of the secret police, waging a losing war, which they engaged in for no good reason. Hello, they started the war in Afghanistan which got this whole thing going in the first place! Plus, he gets to stand in a nice hat reviewing the troops in a nice parade.
6 - Natalie Davis
In answer to Jim's question, first, apologize profusely for the horrid behavior of those who have gone before and point to the respective corpses of the Demublicans and Republicrats who have gone the way of Michael Hutchence. Join on to the Kyoto Protocol (among other actions) as a show of good faith (and as a smart, necessary thing to do). Rededicate ourself to being part of the partnership of nations and work toward making the UN a true partnership and not some body that salaams before the mighty US. That would be a start.
7 - Natalie Davis
Oops, ourselves.
BTW, the phrase above should be "markedly different," not "marked differently."
8 - Jim Carruthers
Mike has won himself a role on a new reality show. "You're On A Rubber Raft With Donald Trump".
The premise is simple. You're on a raft in the Sunny! Carribean (tm) with Donald Trump. He gets to talk about how successful he is, and capitalism, etc. etc.
You have a screw driver.
What. Do. You. Do?
9 - Natalie Davis
Use it to smooth back that godawful combover?
10 - Jim Carruthers
Gnat, wouldn't the appropriate Green response to be puncture the raft, and let all the contents return to the ocean to be recycled as intended?
11 - Natalie Davis
LOL!
Seriously, though, such a move would endanger Trump's life. I am a pacifist Independent, not a member of the Green Party.
12 - Jim Carruthers
Yah, I've never felt safer than when I was sailing in the Pacifist Ocean. Because it's full of libertarian water which won't drown you if free markets only have their way.
13 - Mac Diva
Great extemporaneous speakers (or typers) here. I would not have been able to keep up.
Natalie's views reflect the views of the Green Party well. But, Mike's opinions are not in keeping with those of the Libertarian Party. For example, the LP is opposed to civil rights protections. Under its rule, the Voting Rights Act and public accommodations laws might be repealed. MIchael Badnarik, its presidential candidate, is also opposed to abortion being available legally. That strikes me as the ultimate intrusion into individual rights. Mike's Libertarian comrade, Al Barger, wants to end taxation and even opposes unemployment benefits for the temporarily jobless, not to mention food stamps. The Libertarian Party is farther to the Right than the GOP on many issues. To summarize, I don't believe Mike is accurately representing his party.
14 - Al Barger
Diva, Mike represented just exactly a down the middle mainstream Libertarian Party viewpoint here.
On the abortion issue, Mike definitely represents the mainstream libertarian viewpoint. We have some pro-lifers, probably about 10 to 15% of the party would be a good approximation. I believe Badnarik makes two out of nine of our presidential candidates in the history of the party who have been pro-life.
If being opposed to government welfare is your gauge of what constitutes being "right wing," by that measure the LP is as far right as you can get. My view there is mainstream to the party, and Mike said nothing here to contradict that.
Libertarians are 100% in favor of civil rights and the Bill of Rights. We might have some disagreements with liberals or conservatives in some instances as to which of who's civil rights are in question, though.
Speaking for myself, and probably Mike and pretty much the whole party, we will be very insistent on equality before the law. Voting rights are critical, and equal access to the courts.
We might tend to differ with some by being skeptical of telling private individuals who they have to associate with by force of law. I'll tend to look at it as the prerogative of anyone not to have to associate with anyone they don't like, to the extent that it is a question of their private property.
This means that there will be some just plain crappy discrimination here and there. It's not nice, but Nirvana is not an option. Tolerating some bad attitudes is part of the price of freedom.
15 - Mike Kole
I'm not accurately representing the Libertarian Party? Good grief, Diva! I know that the LP bills itself as "The Party of Principle", and for this reason, and because many libertarians are desciples of purity litmus tests, you might come to expect dogmatic, 100% lock-step agreement among us, but just like any other political party, the LP has room for disagreements on the application of its philosophy.
Do all of, say, the Dean Democrats support everything that Kerry is saying? Heck no! They are disappointed by what they perceive as Kerry's key omissions (anti-war? health care? Bueller?)... but they will still be voting for Kerry. Likewise, many Republicans have been very disappointed with the growth of government under Bush... but they will still be voting for Bush. I backed Gary Nolan in the Libertarian convention, and disagree sharply with Badnarik on a handful of issues, but I will still be voting for him.
As for my place in the party, I am a candidate for Indiana Secretary of State in 2006. I am trying to win approval in convention in April 2006. Doing so would make me the standard-bearer at the top of the ticket in this state, with the entire ballot access future riding squarely on my shoulders.
You bet I'm mainstream Libertarian! I will be *the* representative of the party in this state.
16 - Hal Pawluk
Mike:
Known Terrorist Attacks Concerning Switzerland:
January 3, 2001: Zurich, Switzerland
February 16, 1999: Zurich, Switzerland
November 13, 1995: Geneva, Switzerland
November 10, 1995: Basel, Switzerland
April 24, 1990: Geneva, Switzerland
September 6, 1982: Bern, Switzerland
February 21, 1970: Zurich, Switzerland
Other sources indicate terrorists use/have used Switzerland as a staging area.
"Neutrality" is part of the problem.
17 - Dawn
I really think Mike and Natalie did an amazing job. Thank you both again.
As far as representing their respective parties, Mike said all there is to be said, no one tows the party line to the letter - it's just not possible.
I think THE SINGLE MOST important thing about this debate was the overall exposure to these alternative platforms.
My head is reeling from the information I absorbed last night and I am finding myself wishing I could cast a vote for either one in an effort to change this country.
Sadly, in today's political climate, I must go with the least evil of the two major options and PRAY TO GOD, that enough Americans will see the light before election day.
God help us if we don't.
Also, editor's note: I apologize for any unfixed typos - it was past ten when this was posted and I just didn't have enough time to really edit it. Mike, Natalie, please feel free to email Eric to have any erroneous information adjusted. Sorry I failed you :)
18 - Mac Diva
I agree both debaters are well-informed persons who expressed their views extremely well.
My concern in regard to Mike not being representative of the Libertarian Party is that it is not as well known as the big two. Therefore, I beleive the party's platform deserves more attention. When I wrote my comment last night, I was watching the news. The anchor had just said that thousands of people will lose their jobs with the Bank of America in a merger. If BOA employee John Doe is considering voting Libertarian, he needs to know that the party would oppose unemployment benefits for him while he is jobless. Listening to unrepresentative 'nice guy' libertarian Mike, he wouldn't learn that. Of course Mike has the right to express himself, but I think he is too atypical to represent his party. I won't go as far as Bob did and say Mike is not a Libertarian, but one does not get the harsh, atavistic aspect of the LP from him. Al Barger is more representative of the party in my opinion.
19 - Eric Olsen
I am having severe connectivity problems and am on balky, crappy dial-up, but I wanted to thanks Natalie, Mike and Dawn for doing such a teriffic job on this discussion -- and that's what it is, rather than some kind of competition -- clear, knowledgable, informative, logical, passionate - an absolute model. Thanks again all!
20 - Michael
That was truly informative. If I ever had any doubts about how clueless one must be to belong to either party, they have been laid to rest. Fortunately, though, the disastrous foreign policy and economic ideas they advocate have no chance for implementation so the rest of us can rest easy.
21 - bhw
I see about a million things in this thread to talk about, but who has that kind of time? So I'll start with this one and see where it goes:
Moderator: so really the motivating factor for all people is a good willed capitalism
Mike Kole: that's redundant
Oy. Capitalism is just about anything but good willed. It's primary concern is profit, and therefore good will toward anyone exists only so far as it generates profit. So in some cases, capitalists treat their customers well, I don't see most companies respecting the average consumer. IBM may respect its corporate clients, but I often feel that consumer companies treat their customers with contempt.
Plus, capitalism destroys as much as if not more than it creates. Unregulated capitalism is what kills our environments and churns out unsafe products, for example. There's a reason we have the Consumer Product Safety Commision, the FDA, and other agencies that look out for our citizens, and it's not because capitalists put safety near the top of their list when left to their own devices.
22 - Mike Kole
Capitalists don't put safety at the top of their list? Tell me- are toasters a safety problem?
No. We don't hear endless reports of toasters burning down homes due to faulty wiring or components. This is
because toaster manufacturers submit their product for review to
Underwriters Labratories. The review is done quickly, the product gets the UL seal, and the toaster hits the market. Toasters are safe, and they are very cheap. Every manufacturer of toasters wants that UL seal, because it is the hallmark of quality, telling consumers 'this product is safe'.
This model is good enough for toasters, but not good enough for prescription drugs. That's a pity, because if the UL model were used, prescription drugs would be significantly cheaper and would hit the market more quickly.
Today, the drug companies create a drug, and in about 10 years, the FDA will be satisfied that the drug is safe enough to hit the market. The result is that there are some 10 years worth of overhead to re-coup by the time the drug hits the market. The price is artificially marked up in order to re-coup, with the consumer not only footing the bill, but having been cheated out of having the drug available over those 10 years.
Give me the UL model any day over the FDA.
Drug companies live and die by their reputation. Remember the Tylenol tampering from several years ago? Tylenol was a perfectly safe product, but a sicko tampered with the packaging and put poison inside. Even though the company did nothing wrong, and was the victim of a crime, its reputation was devestated, and took years to restore. The drug companies have everything to lose and very little to gain in putting unsafe products on the market.
While the profit motive is vilified by those who make a moral judgment against it, in fact, the profit motive when involved with honest trade is a guarantor of quality. Capitalism is good.
23 - bhw
No Mike, it is not inherently good.
24 - Mike Kole
Wow, you really shattered my case with your pin-point analysis there. That's what Mac calls a 'balloon entry', right?
25 - bhw
Oh dear god, lighten up, Mike. I got interrupted by my kids [must find another dark corner of the house to hide in], who had just gotten out of bed. I should have clicked cancel instead of post. I'll be back later to finish.